Related: exclusion, finite, profit, rival
Artificial scarcity increases usury by hoarding sources to increase dependence.
A GNU economy outperforms this locking some resources open so any qualified artisan may compete, and any consumer may be an artisan (within the limits of physical and mental capacity).
Response to co-worker about dangers of Freedom:
The laborer is typically paid for time spent laboring - whether it is a musician in a recording studio, an actor on stage, a book author at the typewriter, or a coder at a terminal. The laborer's wage has little or no connection to the artificial scarcity revenue collected years after the work is completed.
If you were employed by a gaming company (and didn't have stock options etc.) you would be paid during those 2 years, so wouldn't need to care about the success of the game. Whether the game sells 100 copies or 100 million copies, you are paid the same. This is important for most people since they are tied to debt and must have a 'steady income'.
Even today your and my wages are disconnected from the artificial scarcity our employer imposes. That's not to say our employer can do away with artificial scarcity without impacting you. If our employer doesn't change as artificial scarcity becomes less important, we will make less and less money until they cannot employ you. But that only shows artificial scarcity failing - it doesn't prove there is no alternative. This is great news since difficulty in moving away from this addictive model will surely be the downfall of many future businesses - hopefully not our employer. The only thing left now is to find out *how* to get paid.
This is yet another problem hinging on property ownership.
Most laborers throughout the world don't own the product they deal with. This is also true for artificial scarcity based professions. For instance: neither of us owns any of our employer's Intellectual Property. It is vital the laborer own the product when moving away from artificial scarcity. If that can be assumed (it sounded that way for the game development above), the artist will be able to make the following kind of decisions:
see: software, wealth
Consumers are willing to pay for software if you can connect with them *before* doing the work.
The seemingly unrelated question of sustainability was the real question being asked. In other words, you want to know how to survive in a world where artificial scarcity has been nullified by gifts.
Most everyone I know believes they must 'depend' upon others in society. You get your bread from the bread store, you get your toothpaste from WalMart (everything is cheaper when you employ slave labor) and you shut your mouth. If you don't "support" these business ... well they go 'out of business' - so it is also UnAmerican to not shop. In fact it is probably a terrorist activity to damage the economy in this way. Dependence is good for the host since that means you support them.
When I present my ideas about personal sovereignty some think I am trying to destroy these dependencies to become an isolationist. This is incorrect. I most want to make rich, prosperous, kind, giving, interactive communities. But to do such a thing requires sovereignty, and sovereignty cannot be attained while under the power of another. Reliance upon these dependencies is extremely dangerous. There is a cascade of failure when one relies upon something that fails. That is what makes the economy so volatile.
How does capitalism deal with success? What happens to business when problems are solved? Can we devise an economic model that allows for success?
Yes we can. The solution I propose is Cooporatism.