Yes, but not one that benefits from investment, which is how rich people get paid for being rich. Rich people want very, very, very much to be paid for being rich. Since a dollar is a vote, this concern completely dominates our political and cultural thought processes.

The tricky part is that retirement funds use exactly the same mechanism, so those of us with retirement accounts have incentives to keep quiet. The wheels won't come off the cart to Ponzi town until a minority of people are net asset holders, but that's well on its way to happening. Exciting times!

riches or wealth, is merely stored up work that could be expended, instead of consumed.

They aren't being paid just for being rich - they are making decisions on how to expend that stored up work to produce _even more_ stored up work for the future. By making that decision wisely, they earn the rewards of the stored up work!

Ok, suppose a new frontier has opened up. Maybe it's geographic, maybe a gold rush, maybe a technological revolution -- but in any case, there are lots of opportunities to forego consumption today in order to create greater value tomorrow. Stuff has to be built! Investment has value. We should want to encourage it and reward it, because everybody wins. Great! So what's the problem?

Well, what happens at the top of the growth sigmoid? The stuff has been built. Foregoing consumption today... just doesn't help in the way that it used to. Investment just doesn't have much value (gasp). Returns drop. In fact, they plummet, because now instead of having a lot of growth service a little capital you have a little growth service a lot of capital. Double whammy. Ok, markets contract, so what's the problem? There isn't one, if you let it happen -- but if you are a rich person, this is an existential threat. You can't get paid for being rich anymore. Unless... wealth is power, and power can be used to change the rules. So you change the rules. You invent other ways of getting payed for being rich. Because that's what you really care about.

That's the fundamental reason why our economic narrative pretends that everything is exponential, not sigmoid: the dirty deeds happen at the top of the sigmoid.

so what's this other way that's been implied, but never actually explicitly explained?

Lots of investors accept low returns now - that's _why_ prices are expensive. Unless you're talking about the corruption in countries like russia, where resources and power are usurped, rather than created.

Answer this question : How many common things around your house do you use weekly, monthly or maybe a few times per year? How many other houses on the block have the same things? How much waste went into allowing you the comfort of using that when you want.

Would it be much less comfortable to have to "check it out" from a neighborhood tool-shed? What about instead of owning a 3d printer, the neighborhood tool-shed was a warehouse with bikes, tools, a maker space, cleaning supplies, perhaps even ATVs, and riding lawnmowers, etc.

Sure you'd have to logically create 'centers' around town close enough to walk, or have a neighbor maybe deliver if you're elderly or something, but there's convenience in having more options if you don't have a specific tool and only need it once.

You might need an HOA-type fee to pay people to take care of the equipment, etc.

Now that you don't need your own tools, lawn mower, 3d printer, printer, atv, weed whacker, you find you could've done without even having a garage, maybe we can start building smaller homes that are cheaper to heat or cool and with less environmental impact.

Nice to haves:

- Some sort of share/rental thing maybe for the atv's, and boat/rv storage.

- Commercial kitchens and space for community get together's, I grew up in the 80s and we knew our neighbors back then. I haven't known a neighbor since the 90s, unless it was from work, school, or a roommate back in college. It might be nice to have potlucks, or cooks from the neighborhood could show off their talents maybe with a tip-hat.

Perhaps some people don't cook much at all, and just prepare quick dinners in the commercial kitchen space for their family, and decide they don't even need much in terms of appliances in their kitchen.

My point is we've been conditioned to think we all need to own so much shit, when really we don't and there was a time when you needed something you'd borrow or trade with a neighbor.

"Sure you'd have to logically create 'centers' around town close enough to walk, or have a neighbor maybe deliver if you're elderly or something, but there's convenience in having more options if you don't have a specific tool and only need it once." or just have a garage or a shed for tools.

"Now that you don't need your own tools, lawn mower, 3d printer, printer, atv, weed whacker, you find you could've done without even having a garage, maybe we can start building smaller homes that are cheaper to heat or cool and with less environmental impact." ah yes, the number one reason people get large homes: forget having family or simply enjoying spacious living conditions, i'm storing all of my tools around my house.

"Some sort of share/rental thing maybe for the atv's, and boat/rv storage." Good luck proving that the ding on the ATVs fender was done by your neighbour and not you.

"Commercial kitchens and space for community get together's, I grew up in the 80s and we knew our neighbors back then." Why can't you just invite your neighbours to your house?

"... been conditioned to think we all need to own so much shit, when really we don't..." or perhaps some of us are conditioned to think that we don't need anything, that everything should be rented/lended by a neighbour and basically make your house into a shed because all you do is store tools anyways.

A lot of new neighbors are nice folks. Invite them over for a bbq, and they probably will let you borrow their belt sander or angle grinder. It's a nice way to build community.

I do a fair bit of DIY work, and am a big user of my local public library's tool lending center, where I can borrow everything from a giant table clamp to a wet table saw. It's amazing. Public tool lending libraries have a history going back to the 1940s, and the first was thought to have started in Grosse Pointe, MI [1]

For more expensive stuff (i.e generators, bobcats), there are local tool rental shops.

I still own everyday tools (drills, circular saws, hand tools), but I don't need to maintain/store anything too large.

Or have all your own tools - that has big advantages too, especially if you are constantly using them as part of a hobby or job.

1. https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=14...

I think fundamentally the problem is that we have been operating for a long time in an economic environment where "stuff" is relatively cheap, but land and labour close to population centres are relatively expensive.

Very often the cost of the "co-ordination labour" required for sharing exceeds the "use value" of the item to the user. Ensuring the equipment is checked in and out, isn't stolen, people aren't lasering PVC in shared space, doing inventory, answering questions etc all take time.

If you have situations where people are interacting with each other (e.g. forums or same physical space) you will also have community maintenance to deal with (codes of conduct, dealing with problem behaviour and interpersonal conflict etc).

There are also issues around transfer of liability, you need an organisation that is responsible for testing and tagging, ensuring the equipment is in a safe operating condition, that users understand safety procedures - plus the policy/governance to make sure this stuff is happening and the audit tracking to prove it.

These sorts of things all sound like "paper cuts" but together they can easily kill what seems like an obviously good idea.

I am involved in 2 co-operatives (a school and a neighbourhood community centre) and there is a LOT of effort required to stand up and maintain shared capabilities. The legal / admin / compliance burden also only keeps growing.

It's not that it can't be done, but the details matter and it's a lot gnarlier than it looks.

If it is a contribution model, where each member pays (an equal amount, let's say), then each member is incentivized to over-utilize the equipment to maximize their initial investment. This basically leads to the tragedy of the commons.

Private ownership of capital and equipment aligns the owner and the use of that equipment in a way that community ownership doesn't.

So no, growth is not inevitable, especially if you turn the livable atmosphere unlivable.