When we think about economic problems, we must keep in mind that material wealth contains less dynamic order, and material wealth is only the foundation of higher-level dynamic order, not the ultimate goal. Therefore, the goal of economic development should shift from material wealth to the dynamic order of the whole society.
In the future, with the increase of productivity, the productivity of most material products will be abundant, or even surplus. Machines have made the physical ability of workers no longer a scarce resource, and in the future technologies such as AI and human intelligence enhancement can make intelligence no longer a scarce resource. The economy of human society will gradually shift from scarce economy to abundant economy.
It should be noted that even in the abundant economy, social competition is still valuable, so we still need the market.
In the era of abundant economy, we need to be careful not to fall into the trap of consumerism. The increase in the commodity consumption does not always accompany the increase in the overall dynamic order of society.
Excessive consumption of material goods will lead to waste of resources, environmental destruction, abuse or killing of animals and other issues, and it will threaten the sustainable development of human society. Excessive consumption of information products is also not necessarily good, in the era of information overload, only high-quality information is valuable, and low-value information is not good for improving people's intelligence.
In short, the generation of dynamic order should be natural, and it is not advisable to stimulate economic development by encouraging consumption. If producers and service providers can provide better products and services, people will naturally generate more demand, and this is the right way for development.
All social resources should be effectively incorporated into the dynamic order of the whole society, so that people can use these resources reasonably and efficiently, and then efficiently generate dynamic order. Therefore, all social resources should have clear ownership.
Should the ownership of social resources be private ownership or public ownership? Next, we will discuss the reasonable property rights system by discussing the defects of private ownership and public ownership.
In the future, economic activities will become increasingly intelligent, and the government's ability to manage the economy will be strengthened. Moreover, in the era of abundant economy, social efficiency becomes less important, and social equity will become more important. Should we replace private ownership with public ownership?
In the real world, only by satisfying some preconditions can public ownership work properly.
First of all, the people must be able to effectively supervise the government and balance its power. Otherwise, the benefits of public social resources may be controlled by the government or a few officials, and cannot be distributed to the general public. In the long run, the majority of human officials should be replaced by selfless AI, in order to solve this problem thoroughly.
In addition, public ownership also has a deep-seated problem involving freedom. For example, if a religious community is preparing to rent a piece of public land for a long period of time, and establish its own church or temple, but most other residents in the area believe in another religion, what if others disagree and vote against it? This is just a fictional example, however, we must take into account that public ownership may bring about the "majority tyranny", and lead to the freedom of minority groups to be interfered.
The reason behind this problem is that most social behaviors involve social resources, and the freedom of behavior actually includes the freedom to use social resources. If social resources are public-owned, then the government or others may interfere with the use of social resources by individuals or groups, and the freedom of people to use social resources may be destroyed. Therefore, people need to steadily get the social resources they need, clarify their rights to resources, and avoid interference from the government or others.
Can AI solve this problem? They can't. It is impossible for human beings to fully delegate the power of managing social resources to AI, this way human beings will lose control of the whole society. Therefore, human beings will still participate in the management of social resources, so we must consider the influence of humanity.
So in a democratic society, only when most of the people adhere to the principles of freedom and tolerance, can it widely apply public ownership.
Can we privatize all social resources?
The answer is negative, too. For example, the Human Public Domain and its resources should be publicly owned by all human beings.
What will be the impact of complete privatization of social resources on human society? Imagine, if we sell all solar energy resources to private individuals (for example, measured in solid angle or steradian of the sun), and allow private individuals to directly collect solar energy in space, what may happen? It is conceivable that if all solar energy resources are monopolized by a small number of people, the entire solar system may be controlled by them. Therefore, privatizing key social resources may harm the overall interests of human beings.
In short, the best model of ownership is to strike a balance between public ownership and private ownership. We must abandon extreme ideas about ownership system.