Goofy/Not so goofy thinking about economics...

[Aglifter]

Say, we finally get an intelligent energy policy, and energy becomes very cheap - fusion as a, very, outside, chance, but a thorium reactor or other 4th gen nuclear fission design are just a matter of engineering - and so power becomes trivial.

Pair that with more meaningful work into structural materials produced w. biochem, etc - and you'd end up w. an economy where actual physical materials have very little inherent value. (We're, really, not too far off from that now.)

What becomes valuable? What becomes the basis of economy? Knowledge and Labor, of course - they have always been the real core of any form of economy.

What happens to the, overwhelming, percentage of the population which have little real value, in such a society, except being domestics?

Essentially, how does civilization avoid degrading into India?

[Erik]

What happens to the, overwhelming, percentage of the population which have little real value, in such a society, except being domestics?

Essentially, how does civilization avoid degrading into India?

It's called progress. Some markets disappear, and new markets take their place. When labor is no longer needed in one market, it opens up for other markets to use that labor. Not too long ago a majority of the people in this country were farmers. Then times changed and those jobs were no longer there, but new jobs were created instead, in other markets. Mainly industrial jobs. Then the industry became less labor intensive, and jobs opened up in new markets.

There's lots of markets that can use less skilled labor. Tourism, entertainment, fast food, etc...

To answer the question, a civilization avoids it by securing that individuals have the rights to pursuit of Happiness. That way, there will be thousands of people constantly looking for a new markets and opportunities, and trying to find a way to employ any labor that may become available.

[Yogimus]

This is incredibly important to understand: Production costs of energy are trivial with regards to distribution, maintenance, and infrastructure.

[Aglifter]

I understand that, but distributed power production - those new reactor designs are small, safe, and relatively cheap - solves a bit of that problem - and the infrastructure is pretty well at the end of its design life as it is.

A super-conducting pipeline would make sense, but I don't think it is cost effective, unless someone figures out how to build one out of graphene.

[Aglifter]

My point was that we have the science for cheap energy now - Oakridgevran a thorium reactor for many years - might be some engineering hurdles left, but nothing really that daunting.

TMK, no one knows how to build a long run of a super-conducting cable - but you are quite right - had the Jackass spent ~500 billion on high efficiency electrical transmission - or, better yet, offered 10B as a prize for it - we'd probably have it.

[Yogimus]

I don't think people in washington understand how that works. The whole "lower the cost of providing a service" vs "Throw money at it"

[HTRN]

The general thinking is, you need to be able to manipulate matter in a way that allows you to generate whatever you need. This is not happening in the near future. This is probably not happening in the farther future either. You probably need working nanotech to do this(being able to rearange atoms to turn "worthless matter" into "valuable matter" - post modern alchemy in a sense).

LFTR, Pebble bed or other safe reactors will make energy cheaper, but it won't make it free, or near free. Like Yogi said, there's all sorts of transmission costs involved, and then there's plant construction and operation costs - If it costs a billion dollars to build a 500Mw reactor, and a full operations crew costs 10 million a year, SOMEBODY is going to have to pay for it. Then there's taxes and profits to consider.

We'd honestly become like Iceland, with ultralow electric rates(which is enticing to various manufacturing processes, like Bauxite smelting to make Aluminum).

[Aglifter]

I realize it wouldn't become truly free - but, it would represent a dramatic shift in cost.

The only, realistic, means of nano tech, at least in the near future, would be based on biochem - again, nothing new needed - and cheap energy would change the viability, considerably.

We are, already, in the beginnings of the problem. Something like 59% of the workforce is working, and, w.o. the government getting in the way, the economy would be growing - there is a staggering chunk of the population in SC is not "work ready," in the terms of the state government. ..

[Termite]

This is incredibly important to understand: Production costs of energy are trivial with regards to distribution, maintenance, and infrastructure.

Well, yes and no.
If talking about electrical production, then yes, that is correct.

But petroleum is not cheap to find, drill, and produce. And even with very cheap electricity, there are certain things that simply must come from petroleum.

[Yogimus]

Outstanding point, termite, I should have specified.