[chii]

1) I dont believe being a "consumer" can by itself have any value

2) The real question is, whether the left over capacity could be put to better use, instead of keeping alive those not pulling their weight (when they could've). Would science and tech be that much more advanced because there'd be money to put into research and development? Would infrastructure be better because money isn't "wasted" on people who otherwise make no contributions? Sure, morally, you gotta help those in need. But a line ought to be drawn - people who could otherwise have worked, shouldn't be given free handouts just because the enocomy of the country _could support them_.

[kijin]

Fair point, especially #1.

As for #2, the thing with social policies that they have long-term effects on a much larger scale. For example, one could plausibly argue that a robust "safety net" encourages people to take adventures, making it easier for kids from poor families to innovate even if they know that 90% of startups fail. This allows the society as a whole to benefit from the small number of startups that actually do succeed. Handouts, in that case, would be a sort of investment.

Also, this thread is about a hypothetical future society where there is a surplus of human labor due to automation. If you're going to pay people to carry out meaningless tasks that are not necessary in the first place, what's the difference between that and just giving them a handout?

Or so goes the argument. It's harder to prove that in reality. Also, if you care deeply about fairness between individuals, as in your other comment, I can understand why you might object to certain types of handouts.

[intended]

I'd have to say the answer to number 2 is no.

Also I would have to say that number 2 bakes in a position which imposes a morality and value system onto others, and singularly undervalues the complexity and edge cases(sets/groups/communities) present in the human condition.

Also its worth keeping in mind that social safety nets (i assume thats what you are referring to) may keep some people who don't pull their weight, but also keep alive people who would never had a chance to do so.

[sliverstorm]

This, of course, is where the buck always stops. You find yourself at the divide between people who believe all humans deserve to be fed and sheltered by right of existing, and those who believe they need to feed themselves.

[hythloday]

1) I dont believe being a "consumer" can by itself have any value

How can you have a capitalist economy without consumers to signal prices? I think I just don't understand your point here. Consumers obviously create value to my mind, because the knowledge of what they're willing to consume is itself valuable. How do you understand differently?

[steamer25]

Speaking in purely economic terms (i.e., inherent human value aside), a consumer is only valuable for what they have to offer in trade. If you're a producer but I don't have anything you could want (you already have it or the tech to create it effortlessly), the price signal I'm sending as a consumer is $0.00 for anything you'd sell.

[hythloday]

effortlessly

Science fiction aside, even if you can produce everything 10-100x more efficiently than me, it is still worth us trading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_Advantage

[steamer25]

Interesting read. My point was that a 'pure' consumer, who consumes at least as much as they produce, is at best worthless in economic terms. Nevertheless, I agree there is prosperity in the application of even humble means.

[onemoreact]

1) Broadcast TV and Gmail muddle the issue, if you have resources to trade your attention has value. At the most basic level Voting has value so in a democratic society people do have inherent value.