Do you think an advanced alien civilization would have a market economy?

Feudalism wasn't really a market economy, was it?

Possibly, but not in the form we'd know of. We can't assume such an economy - or any economy similar to ours is the standard for alien civilisations. You would assume not, as it appears extremely inefficient, wasteful and destructive. Which would mean they never attain the status of "advanced alien civilisation".

Like their biology, I doubt they will resemble us at all.

>Well, organisms have been competing for resources since the dawn of life.
We have once instance of this, we don't know what is common the universe if anything.

...

It will be a very advanced form of Communism as well as society that is highly pacifistic.

There is no other way to really achieve the whole "advanced civilization" thing.

Conservation of energy and thermodynamics makes scarcity an inevitability

Assuming they are smart enough to have figured out that a market-based economy is the most efficient economy, you would imagine so.

You would think a civilization built to support and spend resources on the genetically weakest, most inefficient, and sickest individuals wouldn't make it real far

Yes. Markets are the only thing aliens are guaranteed to have. They developed independently in every Earth culture.

It was a subsistence economy, which is what you get when population growth meets or exceeds economic growth. A market economy is what happens when economic growth exceeds population growth and is rare throughout history, occurring mostly in the last few hundred years as a result of the industrial revolution.

I tend to think if digital life is possible, a subsistence economy will return since copying digital persons will be cheap. Even if digital life isn't possible, humanity will hit a growth wall at some point due to fundamental growth limits (speed of light, etc.), so a subsistence future is still quite possible. A market economy is a sort of historic miracle, much as people hate markets. Any aliens we meet will be lucky to have retained something as comfortable as a market economy.

A lot of people in this thread seem to believe communism is likely, but again, coordination is hard. At the world scale, we can barely coordinate on ethical no-brainers like nuclear weapons or climate change. Doing so for interplanetary resource distribution seems difficult beyond belief, especially when attempts to do so within countries on our planet have ended in disaster. I will concede that anything is possible, though. Maybe there will be changes to the nature of intelligent beings so fundamental as to make them unrecognizable to us, and so any attempts to predict their future are for naught.

Capitalism is made to control a population? Capitalism wasn't invented, it is merely a label we tacked onto what happened naturally as a consequence of trading (be it with goods or currency). It is not made to control some population since it wasn't made at all. Even if capitalism would have some corresponding Marx then it would still not have been made to control some population for the very foundation of laissez-faire capitalism is that the population should remain free (=not controlled). You should know this.

>muh food

do you think advanced civilizations will do nothing but eat all day

there will never be an infinite amount of all products, advanced civilization will ensure that basics and simple items are accessible for everyone but beyond that it may very well be market economy

I don't think we would have a market economy in the future.

Market economies have their own shortcomings so it stands to reason that we will figure out something better, eventually.

You gonna have a hard time finding a system without shortcomings. The interesting question is what system works best with respect to some arbitrarily chosen criteria.

Veeky Forums's lack of understanding about basic economics is depressing.

Yes, they would have markets. Markets are an outgrowth of deep, ineradicable principles of scarcity and desire. There will ALWAYS be limited resources, even if that resource is status and prestige. ALWAYS.

Incorrect

There is no evidence of other advanced civilizations because they have all blown themselves up. It's fools errand thinking you can manage the whole civilization and avoid all the pitfalls that lead to destruction of the whole ecology. People who are science minded are the most prone to thinking you can manage all risk by somehow smartly planning everything in advance.

Yes we do, as long as this is the only phenomenon we can see, this is the only phenomenon that is common.

...

Compelling arguments you make, oh wait there are none and your post is to be disregarded by all. Fuck off.

Capitalism is great but too risky and unstable for a safeguarding, advanced civilization. You can't really afford 2008 or whatever the fuck is going on with uni in burgerland happening in one of your space colonies. The powers that be would have a lot of control over the economy to ensure stability, for better or for worse.

Tl;dr: Space commies

ITT: SJW commies astroturfing.

I'm sorry, I didn't quite follow the argument where you showed that a small number of individuals governing a nation proved to be a more stable system than that of capitalism. Care to restate your argument?

Lold IRL during capitalist vacation in cheap country of Slovenia at cozy town of Piran

What about the phenomenon we can't see? We can only observe on Earth. That's a pretty small sample size.

Pretty much this. As a civilization begins to expand other to other planets and star systems, goods that are imported from there will likely be expensive to the layperson who may not even have the means to get off their planet.

They would definitely incorporate elements of a market economy into their system but it is unlikely there would be any real autonomy.

For example in the Soviet Union they could harness the entire country's resources to go to space and build nuclear weapons and fighter jets that put the west to shame, however they often swang from inefficient overproduction to massive shortages, with the central state doctrinally opposed to allowing managers leg room to make any necessary changes.

An advanced civilization may have solved this problem. Figuring out how to emulate a market economy when it comes to innovation and efficiency, maybe by creating a system that makes economic calculations the way a market economy does, perhaps also setting the goals of the civilization.

If they are anything like us, then yes. Believing there is a limit to human desire and therefore the possibility of "post-scarcity" is foolish. There's no such thing as infinite energy and even if we multiply our current production by a thousand we'll simply find ways to increase our demand for it just as much, by inventing new, more energy-consuming products and services, interplanetary tourism, crossing the planet in 6 hours in your nuclear helicopter, whatever bullshit you can think of that people would want.

Wow how fucking easy is it for a famous rich actor to say something stupid like that

>Wow how fucking easy is it for a famous rich actor to say something stupid like that

dude, its a quote from one of the episodes. The quote is attributed to the captain not Patrick Stewart

I think a civilization of colonies would have very seperate economies unless they could figure ftl communication out

They could have strict population control, thus allowing the resources to become practically unlimited.

Oh nvm then

Assuming they have any individuality at all, that they are merely "not-humans", perhaps.

I do strongly suspect that one of the Fermi paradox's great filters, however, is abandonment of life's primary modus operandi of infinite growth, including the way it has manifested in our economics.

Biological immortality, or at least extreme longevity, likely comes before interstellar colonization, if our own example is to be taken as any indicator. That forces a population cap in and of itself, which in turn caps all other industrial needs, which in either case, become increasingly efficient, barring something like the self-destructive modern political backlash that seeks to undo that general trend for the sake of marginally increased profits.

Should a civilization fail to make that accounting, and continue that biological tendency at growth at all costs, it will likely exhaust its own resources before it takes on the considerably resource intensive task of spreading beyond its biosphere.

If it succeeds in that fundamental change, it's galactic footprint will be minimal. There would be no motivation for such a civilization to colonize more worlds of sufficient spread than would cement its collective survival against any potential cosmic disaster. Similarly, there would be no need for megastructures to provide power for an ever-growing and ever-more-hungry population. So each would only spawn three or four such pockets of self sustaining populations in the galaxy, each with an industrial footprint practically invisible from any real distance.

Or, alternatively, tyranids.

Round 1. Fight.

>You can't really afford 2008 or whatever the fuck is going on with uni in burgerland happening in one of your space colonies.
True

>The powers that be would have a lot of control over the economy to ensure stability, for better or for worse.
It doesn't matter who the 'powers that be' is, a corporation, elected official, or someone who has all the right college courses and diplomas at the head of FED. Central planning makes all institutions fragile.
Stability is an illusion. The one who survives is not the one that can ensure the highest level of stability but the one that can live through highest levels on instability and survive.

>happened
Happened naturally on purpose based around what works well enough, and what is possible through vertical control structures.

Applied crowd psychology coupled with divide and conquer is our oldest and most time honored method of governance. It built capitalism. It built your everyday.

"They" would be probably be a single megaintelligence a lá the Borg. The entire notion of an economy would be meaningless to the entity.

i think they would have a barter system it works

>Happened naturally on purpose
On purpose by whom?
>It built capitalism
What built capitalism? Applied crowd psychology in conjunction with divide and conqueror? What does that even mean?