Not at all. People need much more that wheat and widgets.

> "Post-scarcity is not so much a matter of material wealth or natural bounty, but an organizational option for society".

No doubt. Also, a lot of consumption and therefore scarcity is induced by culture.

Infinitely more, according to orthodox economics, which is why post-scarcity is not a coherent concept within the framework of orthodox economics. The idea that there is a point of finite abundance where the basic relations of economics break down is, at best, highly speculative and completely undemonstrated.

The replicator would transform most physical goods into IP so perhaps a better economy would be structured around efficient and equitable IP creation and distribution, with the few remaining scarce goods hacked into the economy similar to how copyright hacks non-scarce goods into ours.

But there's a flaw in that previous sentence. The replicator uses energy to operate, and that's still a scarce good, even in the 24th. In the 22nd, an iPhone is >95% IP, yet its price is primarily set by the value of the scarce components in an iPhone.

No, it's not.

The economy is the system of distribution of scarce resources. Anything that is actually post-scarcity isn't part of it.

> Software, movies, tv, books, video games are all non-scarce goods forced to fit into a scarce framework through IP law.

No, they aren't. They are goods based around something with a high initial fixed cost and a low marginal cost. IP law exists to incentivize people paying the fixed costs. That's not post-scarcity.

> The replicator would transform most physical goods into IP

It might change most novel physical goods to having more of their costs as fixed costs, but high initial fixed costs are already a significant thing for novel physical goods and already addressed by IP law.

> In the 22nd, an iPhone is >95% IP

The 22nd is as much speculative future (or fiction) as the 24th.

If intellectual goods aren't post-scarcity in the 21st century, then nothing in the 24th century is either.

Both parts of that are true, but the second isn't because of the first (which is a terminological issue), but that “post-scarcity”, more than just being mutually exclusive with “economy”, appears to be fundamentally incompatible with human nature; there will always be something scarce, competition for it, and disutility driven by relative deprivation with respect to it.

OK, let's expand. People need food, water, clothes, shelter, health care, education, entertainment and widgets. I see 4 economic categories.

- food, water, clothes, widgets: these are cheap and abundant in both the developed part of the 22nd century world, and in the 24th. That anybody is short of any of these is completely a political choice. They are abundant, but still limited. In both the 22nd and 24th century their abundance is constrained by the cost of energy.

- health care, education: constrained by Baumol's cost "disease", these will be more expensive in the 24th than they are now.

- shelter: we have more shelter in the US than we need, but it's in the wrong places, so it's incredibly expensive. It could be abundant -- a widget factory could cheaply build prefab homes to place in the middle of nowhere, so the extreme scarcity is almost entirely social & political. I hope that the 24th has solved this problem, but the basic conditions for our problem will be unchanged in the 24th.

- entertainment: in so far as this is mostly TV, movies, books, video games and holodeck programs that can be copied at will, these are truly unlimited non-scarce goods.