[turkishrevenge]

From http://www.etsy.com/about.php:

> "Our mission is to enable people to make a living making things, and to reconnect makers with buyers.

Our vision is to build a new economy and present a better choice:

Buy, Sell, and Live Handmade."

(emphasis mine).

First, to think that we will all move back--and that's what it is, backward movement--toward a day where everyone will be some sort of subsistence producing, small-scale artisan is historically, socially, and technologically ridiculous. It's almost as if society would be moving toward the point where capitalism emerged from feudalism once again, where society would be stratified into a class of techno-elites, and everybody else.

Second, what makes you think that everyone is some sort of artist? What about the mechanic, scientist, or garbage man without "artistic" talent? What happens to them?

Third, $32 million is an incredibly small number compared to the billions even one company makes. What makes you think something like etsy.com would scale? Even if it were to scale out it's operations to the point where it could generate billions, do you really think etsy.com or its brokered artisans would produce item in a one-at-a-time, handmade fashion. Most likely, a new form cottage industry would emerge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottage_industry#Cottage_indust...). But that couldn't even work, as historically speaking, cottage production was destroyed by socialized production, e.g. factory work.

[csmeder]

Im going to try one more time and then I'm giving up on trying to explain this. I am not saying that everyone will make hand made goods. I am not saying we will have less machine made goods. I am simply saying that machine made goods are complementary goods of hand made goods. When the complementary product of hand made goods' price becomes cheap/commodity the hand made goods demand grows. This is the same reason Open Source software is good for business in the long run. Check out this article. Joel explains complementary goods http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html

[turkishrevenge]

Great, you cite Joel Spolsky. Good for you.

But you didn't address a single point that I brought up beforehand.

The original point, if I recall, was that mechanical labor will, at some point in the future be capable of performing the labor done by humans right now. The fact that machines have replaced human labor alone is not a new and certainly not revolutionary in its own right. The revolutionizing aspect of said robotic labor, is the fact that it will widely replace current human labor due to its innate level of sophistication. Think of it: robotic plumbers, teachers, mechanics, doctors, etc. The list goes on and on.

You said that it would make everyone wealthier. I rebutted, stating (quite historically I might add) only those that own the machines will benefit, at least for a time, as they are in fact, private property. Everyone made redundant by mechanized labor (of which there will be many) will need to find new employment. This is fine if a labor market exists to absorb the masses of the newly unemployed, as was the case in the mass exodus and subsequent conversion of the peasant farmer to the city factory worker. But one doesn't exist--at least, not yet.

You propose, as a solution and social necessity, that people will become artisans or instructors--people that produce their own goods or services for sale though some sort of market place. I pointed out how it is historically regressive and naive to think that such an arrangement can operate on the mass scale of manufacture that we currently have. People in this scenario are essentially relegated producing to "complementary" frivolities for society, rather than producing essential goods and services. Never mind that with such widespread mechanical labor, extremely cheap and abundant high-quality goods can be made in a factory.

> I am simply saying that machine made goods are complementary goods of hand made goods. When the complementary product of hand made goods' price becomes cheap/commodity the hand made goods demand grows

I am familiar the concept of complementary goods in neoclassical macroeconomics. Ice cream cones are a complementary good in relation to ice cream. The sale of ice cream and cones have a strong positive correlation. I understand that.

What we are talking about though are not complementary goods. Complementary good are just that--they complement other goods, to produce an amalgamated good that fulfills some need better than it's component parts.

> "machine made goods are complementary goods of hand made goods"

This is wrong. How does a hand-crafted spoon complement a factory manufactured bowl better (which is a subjective term anyway) than a factory manufactured spoon? The answer: it doesn't. I think what you are actually referring (vaguely) to is consumer preference. Only when mass manufactured goods are available cheaply and abundantly in the first place, do consumers begin to seek out the "quaintness" of handmade goods. This is how merchants of such goods differentiate their stock from that which came from a factory. As they may put it, the former was "made with care", while the latter, "rolled off of the assembly line", so to speak. Etsy and other markets like it are niche purveyors, merchants of that which is quaint. That is why they will continue to remain niche.

For whatever reason, that fact that something is hand-made seems to be synonymous with quality in your mind. Hand manufacture works for bowls and knit sweaters, but hardly scales for other, more complex goods. How, pray tell will the same system work for the manufacture of goods like cars, microprocessors, vaccines, etc? Will those kind of goods be sold through etsy.com? No. Never. There was a reason that interchangeable parts came into being--they could be manufactured on a mass scale with the kind of precision only a machine could produce.

The only way what you are describing above will work is if private property is abolished, e.g. the manufacturing segment of society--the factories--is owned and directed by the whole of society, not by the hands of a few capitalists. Those factories would, by definition, have to produce the essential goods necessary for society to function as a precondition. With such a basis then, the economy you describe would could function, as it only deals in secondary goods. As it stands now, the televisions, cars, furniture, etc, we all consume are produced not for human need, but rather for sale as commodities on the open market. The anarchy of production would have to be subjugated. But with such a scenario, why even have the secondary "handmade" market in the first place?

[csmeder]

Okay I like what you have said above. I can tell your not just arguing with me to argue. The only point I think we disagree on is whether or not technology only benefits the rich or if the benefits trickle down to the poor/simpleton public.

>I rebutted, stating (quite historically I might add) only those that own the machines will benefit, at least for a time, as they are in fact, private property.

This isn't true. For example a man with an IQ of 90, lets name him Joe has never owned a machine that makes cpu's or computer monitors. However, in the last 50 years the cost of a computer has collapsed. Joe can buy a calculator for 99 cents. This calculator would have cost over a million dollars 50 years ago.

This happens because of competition between "the people that own the machines". If it wasn't for competition, yes Joe would be screwed. He would not be able to afford a 24" monitor or a 3ghz cpu. However a 24" monitor costs $250!!! This is because of competition. Because of competition all of the things that machines make will become commodities.

This means in the future stuff will be cheap. The worlds Wealth (manufactured goods, knowledge) will be Immense.

If the population levels out at some point (which is another problem) all this wealth has to go some where. Rich people will throw away stuff, give it to the good will. If robots are really creating everything that is mass produced, there will be so much extra tvs, computer, clothes, food etc... Not all of this will be thrown in a dumpster.

Lets say we have X people on earth right now and Y amount of wealth. Each person on earth has some % of Y wealth. lets say the really poor have 1 trillionth a percent of Y wealth.

Now lets go forward 500 years the world has maybe 2X people and has 100,000,000Y wealth. If the poor even have a hundredth Trillionth of the new Y value, they have much more wealth than you or I will ever have.

What will they do to earn money? The reason I say Art is because it is the one thing that still has value, its the only thing that isn't a commodity. I guess human interaction will also have value. But it doesn't matter the fact is with so much wealth the rich have too much money and not enough places to spend it. The poor simpletons wont be able to walk 2 feet with out being hit by away to given money. The world will be bursting at the seams with wealth. And people will realize wealth != happiness.

Take a look at this article from yesterday; "A MILLIONAIRE is giving up his £3 million ($7 million) fortune because he said they never made him happy."

  He added: "For a long time, I believed that more wealth
  and luxury automatically meant more happiness."

  But over time, a conflicting feeling nagged at him.

  He said: "More and more I heard the words: "Stop what
  you  are doing now - all this luxury and consumerism -
  and start your real life." I had the feeling I was 
  working as a slave for things that I did not wish for or
  need."

  But it took him several years before he acted on it as he 
  admitted he was not "brave" enough to give up all the 
  trappings of his comfortable existence instantly.

  The turning point came during a three-week holiday in 
  Hawaii with his former wife.

  He said: "It was the biggest shock in my life, when I 
  realised how horrible, soulless and without feeling the 
  five-star lifestyle is.

  "In those three weeks, we spent all the money you could 
  possibly spend. But in all that time, we had the feeling 
  we hadn't met a single real person - that we were all 
  just actors. The staff played the role of being friendly 
  and the guests played the role of being important and   
  nobody was real."

http://business.asiaone.com/Business/News/My%2BMoney/Story/A...

Wealth will not be an issue for simpletons or smart people, being happy will be the issue, just as it is today. So the real concern is not how will the less intelligent get by in the future but rather how do we help people now and in the future live happy lives (the answer isn't money or wealth or for that matter in the future, it was discovered by Buddha about 2500 years ago...)