|
|
|
|
|
by toomuchtodo
3726 days ago
|
|
Do we have enough food for everyone? Yes. Is there enough clean, renewable energy available? Yes. Can we provide everyone free mobility yet? Not quite, but lots of folks are working on electric, self driving cars. What does that leave? Housing, health care, and education? Well, there you have it. The places we need to rapidly drive the marginal cost down. |
|
Example: UK housing. There are hundreds of thousands of empty houses in the UK, roughly 10 for each homeless person or family - and yet there is a "housing shortage". The economics of supply and demand tell us that this shouldn't really happen, but it does. Investigating further, one finds that many of the empty houses are owned by people who cannot afford to renovate them to a standard where they can legally rent or sell them; like with the minimum wage, our so-called "standard of living" so impacts the liquidity of the market that many are forced to do without entirely. That doesn't mean that standard should be lowered, only that liquidity needs to be restored somehow - if those landlords were only lent the money they need to renovate the houses, they'd soon make the money back in rent. Therefore we do in fact have the resources to house everyone, just like we have the resources to feed everyone. But, through the pretend numbers, we've convinced ourselves we can't.
All economic resource problems can be categorised into "not enough resources" (increasingly rare nowadays, and soluble by technological development) and "not enough liquidity" ( e.g. "we have enough to go around but the pretend numbers say we don't").
A cute liquidity parable: http://economyblog.ncpa.org/the-tale-of-the-100-bill/