NASA headed towards giant golden asteroid that could make everyone on Earth a billionaire

submitted by EthnocratArcheofuturist from (self.debatealtright)

They'll obviously never do this because it will collapse the economy. This is why the price system is madness. A system that rewards scarcity - real or artificial - is one that needs to be dismantled. I don't care what neoclassical economists have to say about it. Abundance should be a good thing.

Article:

https://www.google.be/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/science/nasa-headed-towards-giant-golden-asteroid-that-could-make-everyone-on-earth-a-billionaire.amp

all 64 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (27 children)

No it would just mean gold had no value anymore. If everyone has it then there's no value to it and the price would massively decrease. It has no value itself outside of limited industrial applications so essentially if that much gold was introduced into the market then it would take on the value of any other metal that is hyper-abundant.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (26 children)

If everyone has it then there's no value to it and the price would massively decrease.

That's why the price system is so stupid. Why reward scarcity?

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Because I don't want something from you that I already posses. What do you want to happen that could possibly change that?

Truffles cost more because they're extremely difficult to grow, they taste great and there's a limited supply. If they grew everywhere and were as easy to produce as finished pasta then I'm sorry they'd cost cents on the pound because everyone would have them and everyone would be offering them at lower prices. That's a good thing it isn't 'rewarding scarcity'.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Because I don't want something from you that I already posses.

A lot of what you "want" is influenced by advertising.

Anyway, if they could make air scarce business would do it.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

A lot of what you "want" is influenced by advertising.

Naturally.

Anyway, if they could make air scarce business would do it.

They can't though can they because it's everywhere and everyone has unlimited access to it right now.

You're just flailing now. Stop.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I said if they could.

And it's already happening with water: https://futurehuman.medium.com/water-is-being-traded-on-the-stock-market-for-the-first-time-55c02bb616ed

[–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

https://www.businessinsider.com/theres-a-company-selling-jars-of-english-air-for-80-each-2016-2

Fresh air is scarce in some places.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, and business loves it. This is the future neoliberals want.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That's a boutique product marketed to fucking retards. It's one deep breaths worth and has nothing to do with scarcity. No one is thinking 'I can't breathe therefore I should buy a jar full of Cornwall air for 80 quid.' It also started according to the owner as an actual joke product.

Nothing to do with air being scarce.

[–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If fresh air wasn't scarce in some places, no one would even look twice at a jar of it for sale.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

Why would I pay big bucks for something I could pick from across the street? Air is vital but can u sell it to someone?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

We already do in the form of O2 tanks. Not exactly air (N2 is the major component of the mix anyway), but you get my drift.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

You pay for those tanks because of the labour and engineering involved in creating them not for the gas itself.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

To an extent even for the gas because it requires a complex industrial process of liquefaction and distillation to separate N2 from O2. But that's the catch. You don't have pure O2 in nature. You have to process it through labor and its scarce.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Air is vital but can u sell it to someone?

No, because it's abundant. That's a good thing. It's just bad for business. That's my entire point.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Price is a function of scarcity and utility. Whale feces is scarce but has no use. So no value.

Air is extremely useful but is too common, so little value as well.

Uranium is very rare and very useful, so its very expensive. Its just organic and rational

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Yeah, artificial scarcity and planned obsolescence are just so organic and rational. Jesus fucking Christ, the business enterprise has really done a number on you.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

artificial scarcity and planned obsolescence

That's not about pricing. That's an industrial policy. They'd charge far more for a smartphone if they made it to last for decades. If the current smartphone is 1000$, it would have to be 5000$. Because they wouldn't be selling you another phone for 7-8 years. They would have to make the money in one leap.

The people who run businesses have to put food on the table as well. Yes, in theory, the price of a long-lasting smartphone could be much lower than it is today. In theory, the price could be equal to what it costs to build a smartphone in the first place: materials, electricity, labor, R&D....but then the company would not be able to make any profit.

Without profit, they could not keep paying their employees in a competitive world with rising prices and demands. They also would not be able to make any new smartphones anymore as they would have no surplus income to invest in.

That world you think of could only come about if the whole economy was run top to bottom by a machine overlord with zero human labor. It would simply build stuff and give it to humans who do nothing.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You're basically describing intrinsic obsolescence. It's why the price system will never be truly efficient. And running the economy like a machine is possible now.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

And running the economy like a machine is possible now.

Nowhere close. Machines can't do the job of an engineer, doctor, financial analyst, or lawyer. Even if those roles are somewhat filled by advances in algorithms, the role of a researcher, scientist, and creative artist can never be filled by machines. They are simply not capable of that.

What I'm talking about is something more total.

Imagine a country where mining, agriculture, metal refining, machine building, industrial production, quality control, supply chains, power, R&D, distribution....everything is done by machines under the control of a central AI. Humans essentially do nothing except politics, defense, or arts.

In that economy, you'd have a truly perfect pricing system as you wouldn't have to pay anyone wages or seek any profit at all. That's certainly not possible today and I doubt it ever will be. Heck, they couldn't automate plumbers and electricians, forget engineers and doctors!

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I said running the economy. Not automating literally everything.

[–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

https://aethaer.com/shop/yorkshire

Would you like to buy some air bottled in Yorkshire? Just $124.95 There are inferior airs bottled in Dorset, Somerset, Wales, and Wiltshire, but here's why Yorkshire air is superior:

The county of Yorkshire, or The Garden of England, as it is otherwise known, is located to the North East of England. This extensive area of land is packed full of estuaries, rivers, vales, moors, and dales. Yorkshire's geography is diverse, and the county is shouldered by the Pennines Mountain range to the West, and the North Sea to the East. The wind blows from all directions throughout the course of the year, making collections of AETHAER preferable in a variety of areas as dictated by season, but predominantly in parts containing Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, National Parks, and on the county's Heritage Coast. AETHAER from Yorkshire is always clean and pure, but packed full of surprise and splendour.

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It's not rewarding scarcity. Gold isn't just scarce. It's a traditional means of portable wealth transfer. It's valuable because it's universally accepted as valuable. It would be good if we had more gold. It does have some uses and would probably be used more if it weren't the agreed upon medium of exchange. Once we had a lot more of it some other genuinely scarce and uniquely portable and fungible medium of exchange would become the universal. Industrial societies are moving beyond precious metals as mediums of exchange anyway. Crypto or a fiat created by a more stable and less corrupt government will probably become the new medium regardless of an influx of gold.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If the price system doesn't reward scarcity then why does artificial scarcity exist?

And we need to move beyond a medium of exchange.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Crypto or a fiat created by a more stable and less corrupt government will probably become the new medium regardless of an influx of gold.

The issue with banking isn't gold or fiat. Most libertarians don't get this. The issue is fractional reserve banking. It allows private bankers to control the money supply and effectively drown the country in debt. It creates inflation and it's mathematically impossible to pay back the debt because when considering interest, you will always owe more to the banks than the entire existing stock of money.

It also gives bankers undue profit as they are the first to get access to freshly printed money before the effects of inflation kick in.

That's how the banking class became the dominant faction in Western capital rather than the oil or steel owners.

[–]insta 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Because there's only two ways to get things done, incentives and force.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Ok?

[–]insta 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So you either have to incentive people to do rare things or you have to force them, that's it. Which would you prefer?

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

If we all become billionaires, there will be that one guy who hoards more and becomes a trillionaire.

In other words, nothing actually changes.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

The current wealth gap is probably the biggest in history.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Eh, I have to disagree. It's definitely noticeable, but luxuries like smartphones or even cars are far more accessible today than in the past.

For example, I believe in the Soviet Union, it took 10 years for a family to order a Car. And you only had the option of one, so good luck if it breaks down!

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

but luxuries like smartphones or even cars are far more accessible today than in the past.

This is such neoliberal bullshit. A billionaire can buy a million smartphones while an average person can only buy a few.

I believe in the Soviet Union, it took 10 years for a family to order a Car. And you only had the option of one, so good luck if it breaks down!

Ah yes, the false dichotomy between capitalism and communism. Try harder boomer.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

This is such neoliberal bullshit. A billionaire can buy a million smartphones while an average person can only buy a few.

Am I missing something? Why would the average person ever own a million smartphones? Ever?

From an environmental point of view, I would actually oppose such wasteful hoarding.

Ah yes, the false dichotomy between capitalism and communism. Try harder boomer.

It's possible to criticize both dude. Just because the current situation is bad, doesn't mean we are living in the worst one.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Am I missing something? Why would the average person ever own a million smartphones? Ever?

Are you really that dense? It's about the gap between the billionaire and the average person.

It's possible to criticize both dude.

Are you even reading my comments?

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Are you really that dense? It's about the gap between the billionaire and the average person.

And I would argue it just ends up becoming diminishing returns. Owning a million cellphones doesn't make you god. It's possible to get by in life owning just 1 or 2 phones. If someone owns a million, they better find a way to make a return on their investment, or they just own a stockpile of junk.

[–]Node 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Why would the average person ever own a million smartphones?

To run a lucrative click-farm. A 'million' phones would be excessively hard to manage, but a few thousand is doable. Click on ads, or sell likes, upvotes (or downvotes!), and pretty much any action you can perform on a site. Ads probably make more money though.

https://ppcprotect.com/blog/ad-fraud/what-is-a-click-farm/

Or do an image search for click farm.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Your own link mentions that possessing a large array of cellphones is actually cheap

Another reason why people often opt to use click farms is that they are incredibly cheap. Many businesses will run online social media marketing campaigns on Facebook and Twitter in the hopes of increasing their followers. However, sometimes they aren’t always as successful as they would like which raises the question: should the money be spent elsewhere?With fake likes and followers only costing a few dollars for hundreds, many businesses are giving up running campaigns and are just buying the likes directly. In the long run, this is considerably cheaper and most people won’t even notice the difference in the likes.

Regardless, the goal seems to be about artificially increasing exposure in websites, but that's not something exclusive to the rich. For example, videos go viral all the time, for something as simple like a cat yawning or something. If you have to pay millions of dollars to recreate the same success model, I would argue that's inefficiency, rather than a wealth disparity.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No. Gold would then be worth just as much as iron. It wouldn't make u a billionaire. Gold has no real value. Its just a medium of exchanging wealth.

Wealth is goods and services. Money is a promise of getting those goods and services A trillion dollars by themselves can't feed, clothe or house u. They have value insofar they can buy u those commodities.

[–]Tarrock 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That's the big thing about the sci-fi genre. Once you leave your planet, there's entire asteroids made out of a solid metal, meaning that once you know how to asteroid mine, that value of a resource is only worth as much as the time and effort to mine it. In a space centric economy, energy is what is valuable since it is always needed and is depleted upon use.

[–]Ponderer 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I was recently reading about a sci-fi game that suggested space-based societies would use cryptocurrency.

At first I thought it was just pandering to its audience, but in retrospect it makes sense. If every physical resource is common, then mathematical scarcity might be the only thing rare enough to trade.

This also makes me think that people who spent thousands stocking up on precious metals will be screwed in a few decades if asteroid mining becomes commonplace.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

To your point about abundance I agree it should be a good thing but not for metals that have no real intrinsic value to anyone. You can't eat gold, you can't make clothes out of gold and outside of limited industrial applications it is basically worthless to mankind outside of a store of value which has historically relied on it outside of the various gold rush periods having a relatively stable supply. Why do you and why WOULD anyone pay you more than 5 or 10 cents for an aluminum can? If gold were as abundant as aluminum why would anyone pay you more than that for a gold can?

This has nothing to do with 'neoclassical' economics either it just is a basic fact of life that having something that everyone already else has which is essentially worthless in any practical sense means no one is going to give you any money for it.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Gold is just an example. You can use pretty much anything as an example. The point is, the price system rewards scarcity - real or artificial.

[–]TheWorldToCome 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

its about allocating scarce resources, dude you are so ignorant about economics it's scary

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Spare me your neoclassical nonsense. The price system doesn't exist to allocate scarce resources. It exists to make the business enterprise richer. Period.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

No people pay more for things that are rare -- whether the scarcity is artificially controlled like with diamonds or not. No system needs to be in place to make this true.

What exactly is your proposal though? That if enough gold exists on the planet to make 7 billion people individual billionaires at the current price of gold people are still forced to pay the same rate for something as abundant as dirt?

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Funny you mention diamonds because it required a massive advertising campaign to brainwash people into "wanting" them.

And no, gold is just an example. We should get rid of money itself.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Funny you mention diamonds because it required a massive advertising campaign to brainwash people into "wanting" them.

That's why I mentioned them. The demand is largely created by decades of Jewish social engineering and the scarcity is maintained because of a near total Jewish monopoly on the industry.

And no, gold is just an example. We should get rid of money itself.

Great so I have no medium of exchange and tender anymore but I have a shit ton of this gold from an asteroid that everyone else has that no one wants anymore. Lucky me!

Please just stop.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Please just stop.

You're the one who keeps going on about the gold here, not me.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Sorry I keep mentioning the topic under discussion and the central issue in the article you posted.

My bad.

You keep making a fool of yourself. I'll say no more to you on this topic.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Lol!

[–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Another way to look at it is the price system rewards difficult production that's successful. From this perspective, it's the successful effort that's being rewarded.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You have to be joking. Ever heard of planned obsolescence?

[–]neomarxist_bullshit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

It's used in electronics etc so it definitely has an objective value. It's a rare metal and when we run out of it these sorts of asteroids will be handy

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I said limited industrial uses didn't I?

[–]neomarxist_bullshit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

well considering electronics is in everything today and everyone uses it I wouldn't try to downplay its importance

[–]Node 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If we do catch a Carrington Event strength CME in the next few years (more likely than ever before), electronics and maybe even electricity itself will be toast.

How often do Carrington events occur? Roughly every 150 years

Let's see, what's 1859 + 150?

[–]neomarxist_bullshit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

hmm interesting observation

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Many metals are used in electronics. Aluminum is used in electronics but it costs a fraction of the price gold does because it's so abundant. So too would gold be as cheap if you extracted every Kg of gold from the asteroid in question. It would not make everyone a billionaire. You've totally missed the point.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You can't eat gold

Boy have I got some bad news for you. Google '$10,000 gold burger' and other similar keywords to this. People really do be eating gold plated food for some reason, I've had this kinda shit suggested to me on youtube because I watch Fuck That's Delicious (Action Bronson is an honorary aryan by the way)

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah I've seen that shit too. Seems like the type of thing that the sons of newly rich Russian and Saudi oligarchs might like to feed to their Eastern European sex slaves to impress them but you get my essential point. (Also good to know there's another Nazi who's into food stuff. Got to admit I do indulge in one too many food travel videos myself.)

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah your point is right

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Spain discovered massive gold and silver mines in Peru and Mexico during their conquest. They brought massive amounts of it to Europe as well. It didn't make them fabulously rich, it just created inflation. The Spanish peasants and elites didn't grow richer. In fact, in terms of economic affluence, they languished far behind their English, Dutch, and French counterparts.

Those countries had no such gold reserve but they produced more wealth i.e goods and services. They had more economic activity and produced more food, finished products, luxury goods, and raw materials. Thus they were wealthiers.

[–]Blackbrownfreestuff 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

There was a guy named Adam Smith who wrote a book about this. It's called "The Wealth of Nations". It turns out gold does not create wealth, but rather skilled labor and industrial capacity.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yup. Having real stuff is wealth. If gold was what mattered then the incas were richer than China.