This is actually one of your papers, and conclusions, I have a serious issue with. In short, though, to come to the conclusion you propose one would have to assume that all knowledge is priceless, or that all knowledge is worth the same. That's patently false, as the knowledge for how to to brain surgery is vastly more difficult to obtain (even with free information available on the internet) than the knowledge of how to, say, fix a computer, and thus necessarily would demand more reward for applying it. So, I'm fairly confident that someone with low level knowledge skills would still like to convert his knowledge into capital and save it over time, to be able to afford the knowledge skills of someone else who may have more, or even just different, knowledge from them.


The TL;DR of the first paper seems to take established economic hoistorical progression:

Hunter/Gatherer Economy > Individualized Skill Labor Economy (think blacksmiths and farmers) > Industreal/Assembly Line Economy > Service/Knowledge Economy

and replaces the last one with the idea that knowledge-based will not be able to fit into the standard capitalist model for whatever reason. Maybe I missed something, but it seems to either somehow ignore that knowledge can still be traded for capital, and capital be used to hire knowledge, and the empirical evidence that many first-world nations, and especially tiny nations without natural resources, have long switched to this knowledge economy without any such collapse, OR that maybe AnonyMint is proposing that there is a historical step beyond the Service/Knowledge economy.