I'd say value, in the way the author defines it, is more a function of scarcity. If you are someone who can get stuff done but you are easily replaced, you are useful - not valuable. If you can get things done that nobody else can, or will, then you are valued.
Didn't know other economic systems beat the fundamental nature of physics and reality where infinite isn't simply a concept. Are you sure you're considering a "charade" in the right direction?
That’s strange, because capitalism is the one that thinks infinity is real. Also it’s trying to break nature, quite literally given the state of our climate.
There are other ways to cooperate that don’t depend on sociopathy and infighting.
> That’s strange, because capitalism is the one that thinks infinity is real.
Your rhetoric doesn't pass. You contradict yourself in a single turn. Can't cite "scarcity" and "infinity" powers this fictional economic system you thought of as "capitalism".
You miss the point. It’s not I don’t believe in scarcity or the second law of thermodynamics, it’s that I critique capitalism’s handing of it that is by its very nature exploitative, short-sighted and unsustainable. It needs various and extensive guardrails to be functional at all otherwise it would have destroyed us already.
It’s the classic “capitalism is built on scarcity but behaves as if infinite growth is possible”-critique. There are interesting responses to that but “it’s contradictory” ain’t one of them.
