|
|
|
|
|
|
by barbazoo
1807 days ago
|
|
|
> This is just FIRE without the money. I love how you framed this as a bad thing. As if FIRE was something one has to earn after years and years of wage slavery. > Kids will make zero plans to use school to make themselves useful. > So you'll have a population that is incapable of doing anything useful, demanding a middle class lifestyle, for free. That assumption has been disproved time and again. |
|
|
> I love how you framed this as a bad thing.
No, not at all. I'm a Star Trek fan.
But for the 21st century it's a complete fantasy to think it's realistic.
You need money to do this. To just skip that step is disconnected from reality.
Or to put another way: You can't just take. In Star Trek you can, because food replicators, and extreme abundance.
In Star Trek people would give away a house because they can just get a new one.
We're hundreds of years away from that.
FIRE is about really intensifying your production (your "giving"), in order to then get back your fair share as others give back to you.
If you create a world where nobody has to "give", but everyone is allowed to "take", what exactly do you think will happen?
> That assumption has been disproved time and again.
Oh? How, where? I don't think we're talking about the same thing.
Yes, some wealthy people in history have used their time to make great things. But the vast VAST majority, like 99.9999%, have not.
Just look at royalty. The only productive thing they do is through their wealth and power. Who actually contributed, as opposed to have their wealth contribute?