The only reason resouces have to be "allocated" to begin with is because of scarcity. There's not enough for everybody. That's what economies are: a system to decide who gets access to scarce resources. Were it not for scarcity, there would be no need to economize.

I oppose fundamentally dystopian stuff like artificial scarcity. Completely made up stuff like intellectual property doesn't belong in the 21st century. However, the same logic cannot be applied to the physical world where everything is finite and therefore truly scarce. That will continue to be true until someone invents Star Trek replicators.

Nor does completely made up stuff like economics.

The real economy is function of ecosystem, raw materials, energy availability, and collective intelligence.

That's the economy we live in.

But the economy we're told we live in is a fiction designed exclusively for the perpetual growth of hierarchy and privilege.

I don't think anyone knows what would be possible in a reality-based economy.

But it's hard to belive that much broader access to health and education, better social protections, tamed monopolies, plural distributed media, and support for original invention and research, would be less stable and successful than the suicidally short-sighted manic depressive business cycles we have now.

I agree, the economy we live in is a made up one. It's basically fake. It's not based on any of the things you mentioned though. It's based on credit. I've argued against credit here on HN a few times but in hindsight it should have been obvious to me such views would not be accepted in a startup friendly forum. After all, startups are a low interest rate phenomenon.

Still, the concept of an economy is not made up at all. Economies arise naturally wherever there is scarcity and people gotta figure out who gets the limited amount of resources available. Some metric is going to be used to decide that.

For example, the catholic church in italy owns 14% of the buildings on the free market.

Do they actually need that? They don't… most are empty and unused.

So you can oppose all you want, doesn't make it any less true.

So what? Are you proposing people rob the church of their property? Ridiculous. Why stop at the church? Why stop at you?

This stuff isn't based on "need". That's a socialist idea. Do I need to explain the consequences of socialist nonsense?

> So what? Are you proposing people rob the church of their property?

"rob", lol :D

> Why stop at you?

I do think that ownership taxes should go up exponentially… so almost nothing for your home, but if you have 6-5 it should be considerable. The church doesn't even pay any ownership taxes, so in fact it is them who are robbing me.

> Do I need to explain the consequences of socialist nonsense?

Right to education? Right to healthcare? Right to have a home? Which of these is exactly making you so angry?

That's a lotta rights you got there. I wonder who pays for them.

Me? And I'd have more with exponential taxation of buildings :)

I believe you may be using a vernacular definition where others are using a technical definition from economics.

In this context "scarcity" does not mean "There is not enough stuff", though that can be implied. It means there is a fundamentally limited amount of stuff and the aggregate demand is greater than the aggregate supply.

Given that the demand for resources is functionally infinite, I think this is basically accurate. Your objection to the existence of rich people is an objection to part of the aggregate demand, rather than to the description of resources as scarce.

But in that sense, post-scarcity can't exist… so it can't be in that sense.

I suspect this is why "post-scarcity" is generally used to describe a state of affairs that does not currently exist, such as the idyllic Federation in Star Trek. In this context it was used to describe a society fundamentally different in significant ways from any past or present human one.

I don't know if I agree that post-scarcity cannot exist. I know that imagining a way to get there is very challenging. Knowing that scarcity is real certainly informs my politics, though.