Just judging by the way most folks talk on these forums, I expect I am a bit better off than most here on Earth. I am not wealthy in that I still need to worry about paying my bills, but I worry a lot less than I used to, even 10 years ago.

Banking is a system whereby ordinary people stimulate the economy, similar to the job that venture capital firms perform. People (normal citizens) put money into a bank, which then loans money out to people, businesses, and other institutions that the bank has determined are able to pay back those loans, thereby making a profit which it can then use to make more loans and pay 'dividends' (a.k.a. interest) to its shareholders (a.k.a. people with savings accounts).

If Asgardia is supposed to be an 'income-free zone', where people don't have actual money and things are just considered paid for if there is a need, then the normal banking system won't work. 'Banks' will need to be more in charge of regulating the flow of limited resources that we will have to ensure that no one hoards or takes more than they require, more of a rationing system than banking system.

Building a station that would hold 1000 people comfortably will cost in the high billions, perhaps trillions of USDollars and take years to build in a hostile environment (thankfully, the first one completed will make the others a little easier, but only for labor 'costs'). If Asgardia's population grows faster than our ability to build stations, then it is mathematically absolute that not every Asgardian will get to space.

After giving economic matters a great deal of thought, I should point out that we are going to have two different economic systems for a very long time. One for those here on Earth, who are tied into the Earth's economies. These individuals are still going to have incomes, taxes, and bills because that's what we do here on Earth. On board the station, there may be no money, income, taxes, or bills, but that will come at the cost of literally having to make everything we would need, as if we are some sort of space pioneers, similar to what we had in the American old west.

NPE

По всей видимости, сама постановка вопроса ошибочна. Если есть масса и есть энергия это нерешаемо. Если масса и энергия - это проявление одного вещества, одной субстанции. И все зависит от методов измерения, тогда все дело в субъекте. То есть под вопрос ставится обьективность физической материи. А китайцы говорят: ни один и не два.

The questioning seems to be wrong. If there's a mass and there's energy, it's not solvable. If mass and energy are the manifestation of one substance, one substance. And all depends on the measurement methods, then it's the unsub. That is, the 25 of physical matter is put into question. And the Chinese say no one or two.

*Note* This translation was made by Google Translate . Please make sure when using the forums to copy/paste the English translation below your comment in your native language. This ensures that members interested in reading your post are able to understand it. Thank you for understanding. (mod edit) Shane Watt 06/12/17

Thermal death is basically the loss of work energy by matter. Having mass or not is actually irrelevant to Time. Allow me to present an analogy.

A hot ember may be useful to heat your stove. However, as Time passes by, the ember radiates its energy in the form of heat. This energy it radiates, it basically loses. The atoms become less and less energised. After a while, the atoms of the ember achieve thermal equilibrium with its immediate environment - it becomes room temperature. It thus loses its energy and cannot be used for useful work anymore. This is Entropy.

Remember that nothing is actually "destroyed" ever, only transformed.