As I've come to understand, capitalism requires a few key things to work properly. These things are as follows:
1. Scarcity of resources, but not too much scarcity. The idea being that if a resource is too scarce, it may very well be a luxury resource but its share in the larger market will be limited by its scarcity. On the other hand if a resource is too abundant, like air, one can't possibly trade for it at any price.
2: Growth. A capitalist system requires some sort of growth. The focus on profits assumes growth in a market, without that there are no profits to free the system. I give you x for y, and from the difference I make z. Without x or y, there is no z.
3: Semiscarcity of labor. For capitalism to work for almost everyone except for the most elite, there must be a bit, but not too much, of a scarcity. Barring artificial measures like a minimum wage, a scarcity of labor is what keeps wages high enough that the average worker can live off of it. When there is an abundance of labor the average worker is forced into a race to the bottom when it comes to wages.
I feel like if any of these three pillars fall, then the viability of capitalism is done. Consequently, with the rise of technology I feel like all three pillars are weakened, if not outright broken and merely propped up by the state. In one way or another technology has sawed away at very least scarcity and labor. It's an undeniable fact that technology is taking jobs. How long is it until only about 20% of the population is doing 100% of the actual labor? What do we do to the 80% who aren't actually doing labor? How should a postjob, postcapitalism society work?
I have no idea what will happen with capitalism. Prognosticators say self-driving vehicles will do away with taxis, Ubers and trucking in thirty years. I have read when AI becomes "live", which experts describe as when, not if, it will eliminate a lot of jobs in finance, law, medicine, research, education, etc. Some have suggested a basic wage provided by the government or some other institution but it seems very theoretical. There are also concerns about the psychological value of work. I would like to learn more about what the future might hold in terms of economics if anyone has recommended articles.
With 20% working, 80% will have Hunger Games ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfmrPu43DF8
This particularly works with the high unemployment of young adults in the EU ...
Capitalism for most of us is individual freedom in the context of consumerism and hire/fire at will ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLJBzhcSWTk
Loss of control of territory, particularly loss of control of colonies like GB, the EU, Japan etc ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiKjd6QgZQo
Loss of value of British Pound ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjOaGkoFjX4
Overstretch of the US ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Mg0oZHwW6c
History of US dollar ... and decline in the modern era ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU4fBySL29c
Remember, if you worship the State, it will eat you alive
OMG OMG OMG (exclamation point) We're all gonna die! Say your prayers pardners! The good news is that we all indeed get to die eventually and for myself and many others here we're closer to dying of old age or some odd diseases than we are from the collapse of capitalism. It really does feel like we're being rushed head on into a scenario similar to that of the grapes of wrath (the movie and book) where millions will flee their homes to seek out jobs that no longer exist.
Just a day or so ago El Trumpo had a nice little chat with the new president of Taiwan which really pisses off mainland China which may or may not set off an invasion of the island nation/province of China and of course the trumpists will play it all off as some stance for 'freedom' much the same as the old tripe we were feed about Iraq followed by an unprecedented trade war so electronics will likely quadtriple in price and we'll be told it's to bring back all those manufacturing jobs from China. But someone isn't thinking this through very well. If indeed all the jobs come here they won't pay enough to put food on the table because to be able to manufacturer all the products we currently take for granted as cheap will have to cost much more simply because either the wages currently being paid in China will have to go WAY up here or people will have to be so utterly desperate for any type of work they'll work for quite literally pennies on the dollar, but won't be able to afford any of the products.
How many of you would be willing or even able to buy a $200 cell phone that will suddenly cost $2000? Those jobs, if they ever come back (they wont) would be the greatest thing to happen for the labor movement since the Triangle garment factory fire of 1911 because folks aren't going to be willing to work for starvation wages under the trumpist economic miracle..
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on December 02, 2016, 09:53:38 PM
I feel like if any of these three pillars fall, then the viability of capitalism is done. Consequently, with the rise of technology I feel like all three pillars are weakened, if not outright broken and merely propped up by the state. In one way or another technology has sawed away at very least scarcity and labor. It's an undeniable fact that technology is taking jobs. How long is it until only about 20% of the population is doing 100% of the actual labor? What do we do to the 80% who aren't actually doing labor? How should a postjob, postcapitalism society work?
I think it was Isaac Asimov who addressed this issue in his books where the bulk of the labor force was provided by robots. Humanity was free to pursue other things.
I suspect this could, in a more positive light, be akin to a second Renaissance.
Quote from: Aletheia on December 03, 2016, 02:04:09 AM
I think it was Isaac Asimov who addressed this issue in his books where the bulk of the labor force was provided by robots. Humanity was free to pursue other things.
I suspect this could, in a more positive light, be akin to a second Renaissance.
But his robots had AI ... which is a fantasy. Ultimately his robots evolved past humans, and simply left the galaxy for elsewhere, to let the carbon units get on with their lives, because they were incompatible. In the distant future you had the Foundation Trilogy ... which is a bit like Star Wars ... Trantor, the galactic capital, Coruscant, the capital in Star Wars. Humans forget their home planet. In the fourth book of the trilogy ;-) ... humans get back to Sol and Terra, and find out what happened millennia before, including about the superior robots.
I wish it was true that AI was possible, but it is a grant seeking fraud, including fully autonomous cars and trucks. Semi-autonomous cars and trucks can only work if they are a sophisticated tram network, with outside guidance, not with AI. A computer could control that right now. But a world of mostly trams won't be compatible with private cars and trucks, they will have to be banned (for global warming as an excuse).
What was the original Renaissance? Local Italian mafiosi city states (Medici, Sforza), free of the Pope and the German Emperor. The contest between the Pope and the German Emperor, made city states temporarily possible, the first time since ancient Greece. But the Renaissance ended when N Italy was conquered by France & Austria and the Papacy was able to reassert control in the Papal States during the counter-revolution.
There is no economy outside of politics. Our politics limits what we can do as a society .. not our technology. Techno-utopianism ... is utopian, it will never happen. The present isn't a techno-utopia is it? The idea of Eloi sitting around while mechanical Morlochs slave away ... would be unstable if the robots were sentient. The original "robot" was the Czech word for "worker" ... in the play RUR in the 1920s. In that play, a metaphor for current radical politics, the robots rise up and kill the humans. Won't happen though, the human workers almost never rise up ... too many quislings.
There is no free lunch, and no escape from mortality, even mortality of civilizations ... there is always a price to pay, such as plutonium breeder reactors.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on December 03, 2016, 01:25:22 AM
OMG OMG OMG (exclamation point) We're all gonna die! Say your prayers pardners! The good news is that we all indeed get to die eventually and for myself and many others here we're closer to dying of old age or some odd diseases than we are from the collapse of capitalism. It really does feel like we're being rushed head on into a scenario similar to that of the grapes of wrath (the movie and book) where millions will flee their homes to seek out jobs that no longer exist.
Just a day or so ago El Trumpo had a nice little chat with the new president of Taiwan which really pisses off mainland China which may or may not set off an invasion of the island nation/province of China and of course the trumpists will play it all off as some stance for 'freedom' much the same as the old tripe we were feed about Iraq followed by an unprecedented trade war so electronics will likely quadtriple in price and we'll be told it's to bring back all those manufacturing jobs from China. But someone isn't thinking this through very well. If indeed all the jobs come here they won't pay enough to put food on the table because to be able to manufacturer all the products we currently take for granted as cheap will have to cost much more simply because either the wages currently being paid in China will have to go WAY up here or people will have to be so utterly desperate for any type of work they'll work for quite literally pennies on the dollar, but won't be able to afford any of the products.
How many of you would be willing or even able to buy a $200 cell phone that will suddenly cost $2000? Those jobs, if they ever come back (they wont) would be the greatest thing to happen for the labor movement since the Triangle garment factory fire of 1911 because folks aren't going to be willing to work for starvation wages under the trumpist economic miracle..
We brought it on ourselves. Shopping at WalMart means supporting the Chinese economy. We want cheap goods but we want to make them here and we want high wages. Obviously that cannot work. Yeah, Mr. President-elect wants to play hardball with China but has half of his (and Ivanka's) business items made in China and Singapore.
I order items from China all the time because anything you choose, it's a fraction of the price of a comparable locally made item. So I am as guilty as the next guy but in order to be competitive, I have no choice. Trump just 'saved' a 1,000 jobs at Carrier, perfect window dressing. The company got a 7 million dollar tax incentive from the State per year plus federal tax breaks, that is costing the tax payer U$ 7,000 per employee every year, minimum. Now it's only a matter of time until other companies threaten to move operations abroad and receive similar tax concessions. Trump opened a can of worms that won't be easy to close again.
Capitalism is not going to die because it's main ingredient is greed. And that's not going away anytime soon. Shareholder happiness above all...
What Trump did isn't new .. local and State governments have been giving sweetheart deals to businesses for a generation now. The job I worked in 20 years ago, was a result of a city deal with a local business.
But the Feds are different ... they can print money, most states, and all local governments ... have to live on a budget. States that can go deeply into debt (see Calif) are a fool's paradise. How do the Feds get away with it? They are more creditworthy than any of the 50 states, and they can sell massive debt into the carry trade (liquidity in foreign markets and bonds). When the dollar dies, that won't be possible. If the US tries to kill the dollar, like Modi is trying to kill the rupee ... then this will collapse spectacularly, not gradually.
Quick example of Dutch Capitalism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPIhMJGWiM8
The Dutch were early competitors with GB ... and they fought trade and hot wars over it. The people in London and Amsterdam were real enemies. Besides the VOC of Holland, we had the BEIC and BWIC of Britain. The US is partly based on the BWIC. The US has been under corporate occupation since, Alexander Hamilton.
Quote from: reasonist on December 03, 2016, 11:35:37 AM
We brought it on ourselves. Shopping at WalMart means supporting the Chinese economy. We want cheap goods but we want to make them here and we want high wages. Obviously that cannot work. Yeah, Mr. President-elect wants to play hardball with China but has half of his (and Ivanka's) business items made in China and Singapore.
I order items from China all the time because anything you choose, it's a fraction of the price of a comparable locally made item. So I am as guilty as the next guy but in order to be competitive, I have no choice. Trump just 'saved' a 1,000 jobs at Carrier, perfect window dressing. The company got a 7 million dollar tax incentive from the State per year plus federal tax breaks, that is costing the tax payer U$ 7,000 per employee every year, minimum. Now it's only a matter of time until other companies threaten to move operations abroad and receive similar tax concessions. Trump opened a can of worms that won't be easy to close again.
Capitalism is not going to die because it's main ingredient is greed. And that's not going away anytime soon. Shareholder happiness above all...
I had a now dead friend who abhorred Walmart because it "exclusively sold cheap stuff from China." In searching for an outdoor patio table and chairs, he convinced me to by bypass Walmart in favor of Lowes, where I purchased a set. When I got it home, I discovered and showed him the label that said, "Made in China." He just grunted, but did not comment. At this point, I don't know how we could survive without China. The only television I know of made in the USA is Vizio, which I owned for one year until it conked out. I gave the TV to him, and he used it for video games until he sold it to an unsuspecting buyer at a garage sale.
I hate the outsourcing of jobs, while giving tax breaks to corporations that do it, but that won't change, and as a consumer, I like to buy quality things at the lowest price. We all contribute to this problem, including my friend who had a thing about China, who also owned an LG TV, which he didn't realize was made in China at the time.
Once the horse is out of the barn, it won't come back. We could have kept it in the barn 20 years ago, but we chose to leave the barn door open.
Nobody can save the US ... it is done. Best to get onto the next big thing (if you live long enough).
But I would accept a slower decline, rather than the Thelma & Louise routine of the D&R party.
Quote from: reasonist on December 03, 2016, 11:35:37 AM
We brought it on ourselves. Shopping at WalMart means supporting the Chinese economy. We want cheap goods but we want to make them here and we want high wages. Obviously that cannot work. Yeah, Mr. President-elect wants to play hardball with China but has half of his (and Ivanka's) business items made in China and Singapore.
This is an analysis of how much it would cost consumers if the iPhone was manufactured in the US. It could be a complicated venture given that components are made all over the world. It is very interesting how these phones are made.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601491/the-all-american-iphone/
(https://d267cvn3rvuq91.cloudfront.net/i/images/iphonecharts1x1108.png?sw=1080&cx=14&cy=0&cw=1153&ch=734)
(https://d267cvn3rvuq91.cloudfront.net/i/images/iphonecharts4x1108.png?sw=600&cx=16&cy=27&cw=1161&ch=474)
(https://d267cvn3rvuq91.cloudfront.net/i/images/iphonecharts3x1108.png?sw=600&cx=21&cy=12&cw=1145&ch=772)
(https://d267cvn3rvuq91.cloudfront.net/i/images/scenario.12v5.chartx746.png?sw=373&cx=0&cy=233&cw=746&ch=1358)
... To fully grasp the importance of trade in the high-tech economy, imagine a scenario even beyond what the candidates suggest: what if Apple tried to make an iPhone out of “American atoms,†so that the U.S. would not be at all reliant on foreign governments for access to the necessary materials?
According to King at the Ames Lab, an iPhone has about 75 elements in itâ€"two-thirds of the periodic table. Even just the outside of an iPhone relies heavily on materials that aren’t commercially available in the U.S. Aluminum comes from bauxite, and there are no major bauxite mines in the U.S. (Recycled aluminum would have to be the domestic source.)
An iPhone contains most of the elements in the periodic table, including ones not mined in the United States. The elements known as rare earths (which aren’t that rare but are tough to mine) would need to come primarily from China, which produces 85 percent of the world’s supply. Neodymium is needed for its magnets, like the one in the motor that makes the phone vibrate and the ones in the microphones and speakers. Lanthanum, another rare earth, goes into the camera lens. Hafnium, a metal that is not a rare earth and is rarer than most of them, is essential for the iPhone’s transistors.
In other words, “no tech product from mine to assembly can ever be made in one country,†says David Abraham, author of The Elements of Power, a new book about rare earth metals. The iPhone is a symbol of American ingenuity, but it’s also a testament to the inescapable realities of the global economy.
If we have a global economy, then we need a one world State with totalitarian power. No more Apple hiding billions in taxes owed the US ... in foreign locations. Your accounting is wrong, because it hides both short term and long term expenses ... like the cost of global warming caused by Chinese factories.
On the other hand, the economy wouldn't collapse if y'all had to use a flip phone like I do. 4G connectivity, cloud data management, Seri, apps etc ... we never needed that before ... why do we need it now?
In the future, you either have clothes, food and shelter or you don't. That is the real economy, not creative accounting like negative interest rates. If you don't work, you don't eat. None of that requires high tech. Horses and sailing ships are solar powered transportation.
Quote from: Baruch on December 03, 2016, 02:54:25 PM
On the other hand, the economy wouldn't collapse if y'all had to use a flip phone like I do. 4G connectivity, cloud data management, Seri, apps etc ... we never needed that before ... why do we need it now?
We don't really need it. We are told all day that we do. That's why companies spend so much on advertising. Their job is to create a need where there isn't any.
Quote from: reasonist on December 03, 2016, 03:39:41 PM
We don't really need it. We are told all day that we do. That's why companies spend so much on advertising. Their job is to create a need where there isn't any.
Being content with what you have is un-American.
(http://www.guerrillamarketer.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Consumerism-Guerrillamarketer.com_.png)
The price of an iPhone is what buyers are willing to pay. I doubt that the cost of manufacturing one is more than $200 in the US or China. I'm sure that Apple can make it cheaper in China, and good for them. But made in China or the US, the price to consumers will be whatever Apple can convince consumers to pay (this is the cornerstone of capitalism). I've watched places like LLBean as they gradually changed over to selling things like foreign made shirts. While this certainly increases profit, I do not ever recall a noticeable dip in prices for consumers. But I have noticed the prices keep going up.
Quote from: reasonist on December 03, 2016, 03:39:41 PM
We don't really need it. We are told all day that we do. That's why companies spend so much on advertising. Their job is to create a need where there isn't any.
Sometimes it actually is a useful and inexpensive invention ... like buttons on clothes for folks living north of the Med ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on December 03, 2016, 08:45:02 PM
Sometimes it actually is a useful and inexpensive invention ... like buttons on clothes for folks living north of the Med ;-)
But most of the time it's not. Having the newest model of some thing or the faster, bigger, stronger version of an 'older' model that's barely a year old and working perfectly, that's what I am talking about. The gadgets we all love and think we can't be without anymore, the stuff that lasts for a few uses and then be discarded because it costs more to repair than to replace, that is what keeps the economy going and shareholders happy. I am old enough to remember when items were made to last and pride was taken in their making, but those days have long gone. Mass production has replaced craftsmanship to a large degree because we want cheap goods. And we got what we asked for.
If robots become sufficiently agile, we will inhabit the robots.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 09, 2016, 06:00:58 AM
If robots become sufficiently agile, we will inhabit the robots.
They inhabit us ... micro-minaturization is something they can do and we cannot.
Capitalism will last until the rich bastards are holding all the money in the world in their hands. It seems to be beyond their comprehension that the whole system shuts down if no other people besides themselves have any money in their hands. ... probably 50 years tops before Wall St completely destroys the U.S.
Quote from: reasonist on December 06, 2016, 08:55:29 AM
But most of the time it's not. Having the newest model of some thing or the faster, bigger, stronger version of an 'older' model that's barely a year old and working perfectly, that's what I am talking about. The gadgets we all love and think we can't be without anymore, the stuff that lasts for a few uses and then be discarded because it costs more to repair than to replace, that is what keeps the economy going and shareholders happy. I am old enough to remember when items were made to last and pride was taken in their making, but those days have long gone. Mass production has replaced craftsmanship to a large degree because we want cheap goods. And we got what we asked for.
Then flip phones weren't the best example, since you are comparing a minimally useful piece of hardware, good for only transferring information between two parties, with something that has access to all the information humankind has ever gathered.
QuoteI am old enough to remember when items were made to last and pride was taken in their making, but those days have long gone.
Same, though I am only 26. You just have to look outside your convenience store. Buy local and fair trade.
Buying local ... is communist, it helps Putin take over the world (point to anything The Man doesn't like ... they can blame Putin). You absolutely need to buy everything you drink, eat and use .. from China and Mexico. The plutocrats who own you, demand you do.
... pay double the price. That's exactly the dilemma we were discussing.
Quote from: reasonist on December 18, 2016, 10:03:45 AM
... pay double the price. That's exactly the dilemma we were discussing.
White collar crime ... sell half good products/services for double the price. Look at Sears vs Bain Capital ... the tax code works with capitalist self-destruction ... for the profit of crooked CEOs and financiers.
Quote from: fencerider on December 18, 2016, 01:00:45 AM
Capitalism will last until the rich bastards are holding all the money in the world in their hands. It seems to be beyond their comprehension that the whole system shuts down if no other people besides themselves have any money in their hands. ... probably 50 years tops before Wall St completely destroys the U.S.
It's like an episode of hoarders except it's playing out on a global scale.
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on December 02, 2016, 09:53:38 PM
What do we do to the 80% who aren't actually doing labor? How should a postjob, postcapitalism society work?
Isn't that what wars are for?
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on December 20, 2016, 03:30:49 PM
It's like an episode of hoarders except it's playing out on a global scale.
Better, if everything is monetized, and all money digitized, their hoard takes up no space, produces no clutter.
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 20, 2016, 04:52:07 PM
Isn't that what wars are for?
When we get to the super duper big ones, yes. Right now we have small wars, which are nothing more than a sick game of cards between world powers. Eventually someone is gonna flip the table.
Maybe I'll get lucky and die first...
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 20, 2016, 06:28:07 PM
Maybe I'll get lucky and die first...
You need to ask the admin to fix your avatar.
Wow, just saw that. I'll see what I can do...
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 20, 2016, 06:36:19 PM
Wow, just saw that. I'll see what I can do...
You are a day late and a dollar short ... but I like the new avatar. If I were to follow suit ... I would put up Uncle Fester ;-)
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on December 02, 2016, 09:53:38 PM
As I've come to understand, capitalism requires a few key things to work properly. These things are as follows:
1. Scarcity of resources, but not too much scarcity. The idea being that if a resource is too scarce, it may very well be a luxury resource but its share in the larger market will be limited by its scarcity. On the other hand if a resource is too abundant, like air, one can't possibly trade for it at any price.
2: Growth. A capitalist system requires some sort of growth. The focus on profits assumes growth in a market, without that there are no profits to free the system. I give you x for y, and from the difference I make z. Without x or y, there is no z.
3: Semiscarcity of labor. For capitalism to work for almost everyone except for the most elite, there must be a bit, but not too much, of a scarcity. Barring artificial measures like a minimum wage, a scarcity of labor is what keeps wages high enough that the average worker can live off of it. When there is an abundance of labor the average worker is forced into a race to the bottom when it comes to wages.
I feel like if any of these three pillars fall, then the viability of capitalism is done. Consequently, with the rise of technology I feel like all three pillars are weakened, if not outright broken and merely propped up by the state. In one way or another technology has sawed away at very least scarcity and labor. It's an undeniable fact that technology is taking jobs. How long is it until only about 20% of the population is doing 100% of the actual labor? What do we do to the 80% who aren't actually doing labor? How should a postjob, postcapitalism society work?
1. All resources are considered scarce, in that their supply is finite. Only an infinite resource isn't scarce.
2. Capitalist theory (from the inside) doesn't demand constant growth.
3. Labor is a resource, so it is by definition scarce because all resources are scarce.
Do you have more to add to this definition of Capitalism?
Infinite growth is required by usury. As long as you don't finance capitalism, particularly the rolling over of huge public loans from generation to generation .... capitalism is finite math. But humans never understand the exponential function. They also fail to understand what negative interest rate would mean (as being currently attempted by our genius leaders).
Basically 2% per annum doesn't sound like much, but if you actually never pay back the loan, but continually refinance, the net growth of this, in paper money would actually require a ball of paper money bigger than the solar system, whose radius would be expanding faster than light ... of course before we reached that point, the paper money would implode into a black hole.
Quote from: Baruch on December 21, 2016, 08:00:50 PM
You are a day late and a dollar short ... but I like the new avatar. If I were to follow suit ... I would put up Uncle Fester ;-)
I like cousin It, as well, but he's not nearly as pretty as Morticia.
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 21, 2016, 08:16:08 PM
I like cousin It, as well, but he's not nearly as pretty as Morticia.
Are you prejudiced toward the follicle challenged?
Uncle Fester once lit a light bulb in his mouth, with no other connection. Had to have been an electrical engineer ;-)
Oh, Fester's fine, I just laugh more at It. I also liked Uncle Arthur, but that's another story...
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 21, 2016, 08:26:58 PM
Oh, Fester's fine, I just laugh more at It. I also liked Uncle Arthur, but that's another story...
Paul Lynde on the original Bewitched? Paul had the most interesting way to speak sarcastically.
1. How scarce? Would you like to buy some air from me? Nothing is infinite, but some things are so abundant that it's useless to try and sell them. I can sell you an air compressor, or compressed air, but if I tried to sell you just air you'd rightfully tell me to fuck off.
At the same time some things are so rare that they are horrendously expensive, but not really useful in the slightest. Not talking the usual expensive luxury item here, but The type of things there are only one of. People do buy these things, but on the whole it doesn't affect society that much.
For commodities that consistently affect the economy as a whole, they have to be not so abundant that it's useless to sell them, but not so rare that only the .01% can buy them.
2. So stagnation in the market would be a good thing?
3. This is the most important one to me really. What I meant to say is a shortage of jobs rather than labor. In particular what I meant are the actually productive jobs and the logistical jobs that support those. I feel that, with current research in robotics, that such jobs will ultimately be eliminated. Hell, most have. Then you have your office jobs that can be replaced by an algorithm. Unskilled service jobs? Humanoid robotics.
The mechanization I'm talking about is being researched now.
In general though, my question once again was this: how can a capitalist system work when only a small, the number I said was 20% but it can be any minority, percentage of the population can even work due to a technologically caused shortage of jobs? Do we just let the majority starve even if we have the means to provide for them?
Capitalism is a means, not an end. The point is power, power to be the Raja and make you pull big stones using early technology.
Economy isn't separate from politics, nor does it even require money. Money helps liquidity, but in early societies, liquidity wasn't an issue. Right now, India is going on a forced liquidity diet ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx74SEinnp4
Farm laborers are being paid in grain, but they are unable to trade grain for other goods.
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on December 21, 2016, 08:42:14 PM
1. How scarce? Would you like to buy some air from me? Nothing is infinite, but some things are so abundant that it's useless to try and sell them. I can sell you an air compressor, or compressed air, but if I tried to sell you just air you'd rightfully tell me to fuck off.
At the same time some things are so rare that they are horrendously expensive, but not really useful in the slightest. Not talking the usual expensive luxury item here, but The type of things there are only one of. People do buy these things, but on the whole it doesn't affect society that much.
For commodities that consistently affect the economy as a whole, they have to be not so abundant that it's useless to sell them, but not so rare that only the .01% can buy them.
2. So stagnation in the market would be a good thing?
3. This is the most important one to me really. What I meant to say is a shortage of jobs rather than labor. In particular what I meant are the actually productive jobs and the logistical jobs that support those. I feel that, with current research in robotics, that such jobs will ultimately be eliminated. Hell, most have. Then you have your office jobs that can be replaced by an algorithm. Unskilled service jobs? Humanoid robotics.
The mechanization I'm talking about is being researched now.
In general though, my question once again was this: how can a capitalist system work when only a small, the number I said was 20% but it can be any minority, percentage of the population can even work due to a technologically caused shortage of jobs? Do we just let the majority starve even if we have the means to provide for them?
1. Okay, air is basically the exception that tests the rule. But people do buy and sell even air. I bought a can for the purpose of cleaning my keyboard.
2. I'm arguing neither for stagnation nor growth, but that Capitalism isn't built on stagnation or growth but on something else.
3. I'm not talking about mechanization when I say that labor is a commodity too. I'm talking about how, even with mechanization, there is still a finite amount of labor to go around. For some tasks, the finite amount of labor is smaller than others, which is why some jobs pay more than others.
Start with a different premise. Start with "people have different wants, people have different skill sets, therefore people can optimize their productivity through exchange" and you are on the path towards discussing capitalism.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jlc04H3L0MQ/VdNA5d-cvRI/AAAAAAAAJ1U/EP0uiBiI5dQ/s1600/pop%2Bcontrol.png)
That sounds about right to me.
Noam Chomsky & Cornel West tag team ... from the same generation, not part of the Matrix.
I often listen to Professor R.D. Wolff (http://www.rdwolff.com/). He's very informative, and doesn't seem to care much for capitalism.
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 22, 2016, 07:55:53 PM
I often listen to Professor R.D. Wolff (http://www.rdwolff.com/). He's very informative, and doesn't seem to care much for capitalism.
Do you mean R. P. Wolff?
http://robertpaulwolff.blogspot.com/2016/12/an-academic-exercise.html
i guess not. They seem to be different guys ... but separated at birth ideologically (meaning very similar).
I read Leiter Reports every day (Dr Leiter is a Neitzchean as I am) ... but he frequently cross references to a Dr Wolff.
If I am right, you might also enjoy ...
https://www.jacobinmag.com
But only if you enjoy rejecting Aristotle's false dichotomy ... one can refuse to swallow either pill, or swallow both ;-)
I have offered to discuss Marxism with Jannabear ... without result.
As far as the first article that comes up under R. D. Wolff ... yes, the recession never ended. It has been hid under a tsunami of dollar liquidity, that has damaged nations outside the US so far. This is why inflation mostly happened in nations outside the US (yes, we have inflation too, but refuse to measure it correctly). This inflation closer to 2008, is what created the unrest for the Arab Spring revolutions. It is possible that was a deliberate side-effect (the work of Soros and the CIA). We have a color revolution happening in the US right now ... but it won't metastasize unless the inflation genie is let out in the US/GB/Can.
I am not a Marxist or an Anarchist or a Socialist ... but I am not closed minded either. I recognize the faults of capitalism, and of political and economic idealism.
Reform in any subject, has to come from revolutionaries who are also grounded in their subject, not fantasists. The Status Quo, held on too long, prevents necessary reform, and that kills societies eventually, even ultra-conservative ones like ancient Egypt and ancient China. Specifically, the West has succeeded, because by accident, it has managed to make the necessary reform for modernity. However, I don't believe in the Aristotelian bug-bear of progress.
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 22, 2016, 06:43:39 PM
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jlc04H3L0MQ/VdNA5d-cvRI/AAAAAAAAJ1U/EP0uiBiI5dQ/s1600/pop%2Bcontrol.png)
That sounds about right to me.
He needs to define which central institutions he is talking about and what he thinks me means by control. He's also badly mixing his terms. Capitalism is an economic system, Democracy is a political system.
It is hard to imagine a person of his intellect, made that mistake ignorantly ;-)
Capitalistic Democracy is the worst system except for all the others. It just needs some regulation to control the outrageous elements. Not too much, but not too little either.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 25, 2016, 11:50:05 PM
Capitalistic Democracy is the worst system except for all the others. It just needs some regulation to control the outrageous elements. Not too much, but not too little either.
With the outrageous elements in charge, all regulation is gutted. And you forgot to give Churchill credit for that quote. Have you oppressed India lately?
Do capitalists really care about the welfare of populations?
Capitalists don't.
Here's just one example:
Pebble Mine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_Mine)
Crushing Alaska’s Pebble Mine (https://www.nrdc.org/stories/crushing-alaskas-pebble-mine)
Capitalists care only about maximizing profits - at any cost.
"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite."
John Kenneth Galbraith
(http://dingo.care2.com/pictures/c2c/share/28/287/785/2878525_370.jpg)
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 27, 2016, 04:44:09 PM
Do capitalists really care about the welfare of populations?
Capitalists don't.
Here's just one example:
Pebble Mine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_Mine)
Crushing Alaska’s Pebble Mine (https://www.nrdc.org/stories/crushing-alaskas-pebble-mine)
Capitalists care only about maximizing profits - at any cost.
Have you defined what capitalism is yet?
I'd give it about 2-6 decades
economic crisis every few years or less
major economic crisis every 5-8 years
3rd world is developing too fast to exploit efficiently
rate of profit is dropping significantly in first world countries
industries in alot of countries are being nationalized
Corporations will always find something upon which to capitalize.
I don't see human nature radically shifting within the next few generations... given that roughly 7500 generations of humans have passed through time with extremely little variation in behaviour patterns.
The best case scenario is that the base level of poverty continues to rise until "poverty" is living like a middle class person today. But people are always going to want shit and no amount of technology we can come up with in the foreseeable future is going to change the basic laws of "Supply and Demand". Work loads might decrease and standards of living might increase... but for premium goods that people will want to stand out will always require a capitalistic model.
Quote from: Shiranu on December 28, 2016, 03:27:11 AM
I don't see human nature radically shifting within the next few generations... given that roughly 7500 generations of humans have passed through time with extremely little variation in behaviour patterns.
The best case scenario is that the base level of poverty continues to rise until "poverty" is living like a middle class person today. But people are always going to want shit and no amount of technology we can come up with in the foreseeable future is going to change the basic laws of "Supply and Demand". Work loads might decrease and standards of living might increase... but for premium goods that people will want to stand out will always require a capitalistic model.
"muh human nature"
this meme needs to die.
capitalism has existed for around 250 years in its modern form
claiming its natural to humans makes no sense
Quote from: Jannabear on December 28, 2016, 04:01:36 AM
"muh human nature"
this meme needs to die.
capitalism has existed for around 250 years in its modern form
claiming its natural to humans makes no sense
And what economic system existed before "modern capitalism"?
Actually let's take it back a step; if you are going to snark off... at least be correct. Modern capitalism is relatively the same as "pre-modern" capitalism as was practiced in the mercantile city states (particularly in the German speaking regions and Northern Italy) as far back as the late 1400's. This was due to the mass death of peasant workers during the Black Death... less workers meant the demand for them increased and thus they could charge more for their services. This created the first group resembling the middle class and started this mass demand for capital to use for purchasing luxuries.
(And I realise that was an EXTREMELY brief reason and doesn't cover a whole other slew of factors that went into the establishment of mercantile states coming out of the HRE... but I am not here to write a 10 page college paper for you.)
That is of course taking a very Euro-centric view that ignores Mesopotamian and Asian economic systems as well as pretending the Romans and Greeks never happened... but we will let that one slide.
Let's put that aside though and just address the basic message of what you said; with the system before capitalism (Merchantalism... feudalism... etc)... if not capitalism of money... was roughly the same; you built power (capital) to acquire limited resources. The only difference was that your capital was how strong your sword and prestige was rather than how large your wallet and bank account was.
There are very few human societies that have ever operated on an egalitarian style and they all have one common characteristic; they are extremely close-knit tribal communities. Even modern communes that try to replicate that on an extremely small scale have been historically unsuccessful.
Human nature may annoy you all you let it... but it will not change or die just because you don't like it. The simple reality is that once a society passes the most small scale of hunter-gathering survival... the laws of supply and demand over luxuries takes hold. And even in small scale communes... when the supply of food decreases it is the one with the most social or strength capital who comes out on top.
tl;dr - It's easier to say "capitalism" as a catch-all phrase rather than "An economic system practiced since mankind left it's strictly hunter-gather roots behind that is based on the accusation of power (but not always capital) used to exert control over other parties also seeking to acquire power (but not always capital) and to obtain possessions otherwise not obtainable without said power (not always of the capital time) that have values based on their quantitative supply or difficulty to manufacture and the relative demand of said product within a society."
Just not as catchy I suppose.
Quote from: Shiranu on December 28, 2016, 04:17:53 AM
And what economic system existed before "modern capitalism"?
Actually let's take it back a step; if you are going to snark off... at least be correct. Modern capitalism is relatively the same as "pre-modern" capitalism as was practiced in the mercantile city states (particularly in the German speaking regions and Northern Italy) as far back as the late 1400's. This was due to the mass death of peasant workers during the Black Death... less workers meant the demand for them increased and thus they could charge more for their services. This created the first group resembling the middle class and started this mass demand for capital to use for purchasing luxuries.
(And I realise that was an EXTREMELY brief reason and doesn't cover a whole other slew of factors that went into the establishment of mercantile states coming out of the HRE... but I am not here to write a 10 page college paper for you.)
That is of course taking a very Euro-centric view that ignores Mesopotamian and Asian economic systems as well as pretending the Romans and Greeks never happened... but we will let that one slide.
Let's put that aside though and just address the basic message of what you said; with the system before capitalism (Merchantalism... feudalism... etc)... if not capitalism of money... was roughly the same; you built power (capital) to acquire limited resources. The only difference was that your capital was how strong your sword and prestige was rather than how large your wallet and bank account was.
There are very few human societies that have ever operated on an egalitarian style and they all have one common characteristic; they are extremely close-knit tribal communities. Even modern communes that try to replicate that on an extremely small scale have been historically unsuccessful.
Human nature may annoy you all you let it... but it will not change or die just because you don't like it. The simple reality is that once a society passes the most small scale of hunter-gathering survival... the laws of supply and demand over luxuries takes hold. And even in small scale communes... when the supply of food decreases it is the one with the most social or strength capital who comes out on top.
tl;dr - It's easier to say "capitalism" as a catch-all phrase rather than "An economic system practiced since mankind left it's strictly hunter-gather roots behind that is based on the accusation of power (but not always capital) used to exert control over other parties also seeking to acquire power (but not always capital) and to obtain possessions otherwise not obtainable without said power (not always of the capital time) that have values based on their quantitative supply or difficulty to manufacture and the relative demand of said product within a society."
Just not as catchy I suppose.
all because capitalism is the path humanity took and what was sustainable during that time and the past few hundred years does not make it human nature
we aren't purely instinct based.
Quoteall because capitalism is the path humanity took and what was sustainable during that time and the past few hundred years does not make it human nature
we aren't purely instinct based.
And again... let's assume that before complex civilization everyone lived in perfect egalitarian societies (which is wrong but whatever). Instead of 7500 generations... that brings it down to about 4500+ generations of humans have all lived more-or-less exactly the same; whoever has the most "capital" (power and prestige -> money and land) can get the nicest things and therefor you want more "capital" to get nicer things.
That is not a "few hundred years"... this has been going on since at the very least 4000 B.C. ... about 3800 years more than "a few hundred".
And this has nothing to do with instinct but rather logistics; there is only so much of any given resource that the society with power make sure their interests are secure (often at the cost of conflict with other societies). When it comes to crafted objects this becomes even more pronounced because you can only make so much of x due to time and talent restrains and thus the capital of power or money becomes important at an even smaller scale.
Sustainability has not changed. If anything sustainability is decreasing as our environment is destroyed by global climate change and deforestation/pollution. More than likely conflict will escalate rather than deescalate over the next hundred or two years simply because resources will decrease and as nice as singing kumbiaya sounds... that's not what happens when you are trying to put food on your people's plate.
I'm sorry... but this is not something you can just dismiss with one or two sentences. If you want to write a paper proving hundreds of years of political science... sociology... anthropology... psychology... history... (etc. etc.) wrong then by all means go for it. But you are the one making the outlandish claim that it is not part of human history nor does it have anything to do with resources (supply and demand) so you have to back that up.
Quote from: Shiranu on December 28, 2016, 07:02:39 AM
And again... let's assume that before complex civilization everyone lived in perfect egalitarian societies (which is wrong but whatever). Instead of 7500 generations... that brings it down to about 4500+ generations of humans have all lived more-or-less exactly the same; whoever has the most "capital" (power and prestige -> money and land) can get the nicest things and therefor you want more "capital" to get nicer things.
That is not a "few hundred years"... this has been going on since at the very least 4000 B.C. ... about 3800 years more than "a few hundred".
And this has nothing to do with instinct but rather logistics; there is only so much of any given resource that the society with power make sure their interests are secure (often at the cost of conflict with other societies). When it comes to crafted objects this becomes even more pronounced because you can only make so much of x due to time and talent restrains and thus the capital of power or money becomes important at an even smaller scale.
Sustainability has not changed. If anything sustainability is decreasing as our environment is destroyed by global climate change and deforestation/pollution. More than likely conflict will escalate rather than deescalate over the next hundred or two years simply because resources will decrease and as nice as singing kumbiaya sounds... that's not what happens when you are trying to put food on your people's plate.
I'm sorry... but this is not something you can just dismiss with one or two sentences. If you want to write a paper proving hundreds of years of political science... sociology... anthropology... psychology... history... (etc. etc.) wrong then by all means go for it. But you are the one making the outlandish claim that it is not part of human history nor does it have anything to do with resources (supply and demand) so you have to back that up.
I'm a marxist, I'm arguing that capitalism is becoming unsustainable.
Jannabear ... agree to disagree. Marxism (not the straw man invented by Allen Dulles) is a theory that ties social/political/economic relations with the means of production/survival. We had one kind of arrangement when we were hunter/gatherer. We had another arrangement when we domesticated plants and animals. We have had yet another arrangement once we had industrialization with excess carbon fuels (not wood or dung). Marx didn't live to see the Internet, so his analysis only goes to the mid 19th century (even if you agree with the analysis).
My view is that human beings have no nature, we are a universal animal/machine. We have very little built in programming, we develop thru a long childhood in the context of a complicated culture that has a life of its own (language for example). Sure there is a little programming (distinguishing up/down from sideways ... to avoid falling). For simpler creatures, there is a short childhood with little parenting, you are born with a pattern that you slavishly follow.
Of course the point of this is that the Elite in every society is trying to objectify/tame/monetize free-range humans. We are cattle to them. By setting up a totalitarianism, they are creating an artificial/cultural Matrix ... so that our thinking and behavior follow simplified and controllable lines (there are only two parties possible, D or R). But you choose to be a slave or not ... it is in your power to say no ... but it isn't in your power to avoid the negative consequences of anti-social behavior (as defined by the Elites).
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on December 27, 2016, 09:35:30 PM
Have you defined what capitalism is yet?
I didn't know that was up to me...
Quote from: Jannabear on December 28, 2016, 09:42:57 AM
I'm a marxist, I'm arguing that capitalism is becoming unsustainable.
You are not arguing anything, you are just saying, "nuh uh!" anytime someone disagrees with you.
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 28, 2016, 04:25:05 PM
I didn't know that was up to me...
Well, you are making a claim about it...
Quote from: Shiranu on December 28, 2016, 04:57:13 PM
You are not arguing anything, you are just saying, "nuh uh!" anytime someone disagrees with you.
If you think profit rates are sustainable with the massive misuse of resources necessary for high profits I dont know what to say to you.
Quote from: Jannabear on December 28, 2016, 10:51:08 PM
If you think profit rates are sustainable with the massive misuse of resources necessary for high profits I dont know what to say to you.
Profit mostly means finance, not manufacturing. Profit at the grocery is 1%. Profit mostly comes thru usury. And usury isn't sustainable, it is inherently unstable. So finance driven economies go up, down, up, down as finance booms and busts. But starting in 2008, the US and the West decided to throw the rule book out ... the Elite can bet all they want, and never lose any sleep or any money. The taxpayer will pay for all of their errors of judgement. How can this be, since I haven't seen the cops come and take all my shit and lucre? They have the warrant for all your assets and all your income (to pay for 2008/2009) ... they just haven't served it yet. Need the cover of WW III to fake the necessity of it. There will be no recovery from this Depression .. smoke and mirrors, and corpses, just like the 1930s.
Quote from: Baruch on December 26, 2016, 07:25:57 AM
With the outrageous elements in charge, all regulation is gutted. And you forgot to give Churchill credit for that quote. Have you oppressed India lately?
Churchill and I are related. So I considered his statement rather as public property. Having up the rights, so to speak.
All I take from India is tea I purchase. Can't recall oppressing any Indians here or there best I can tell. Did you have anyone in mind?
Quote from: Cavebear on January 01, 2017, 06:54:01 AM
Churchill and I are related. So I considered his statement rather as public property. Having up the rights, so to speak.
All I take from India is tea I purchase. Can't recall oppressing any Indians here or there best I can tell. Did you have anyone in mind?
Meaning do I accept "White guilt"? No I do not, I am not a supporter of collective guilt of any kind ... that kind of thing fuels anti-Semitism. But I think Shiranu accepts "White guilt".
And of course, since you weren't party to the Raj yourself, you can hardly be blamed. I am distantly related to Jack Kennedy ... but I don't feel responsible for the Bay of Pigs fiasco.
Quote from: Jannabear on December 28, 2016, 10:51:08 PM
If you think profit rates are sustainable with the massive misuse of resources necessary for high profits I dont know what to say to you.
You say that as if a marxist state would do any better. What was the soviets' track record on environmentalism and resource use again?
When people are involved, expect fuckups.
Quote from: Jannabear on December 28, 2016, 10:51:08 PM
If you think profit rates are sustainable with the massive misuse of resources necessary for high profits I dont know what to say to you.
That's completely irrelevant to anything I have said... nor even accurate to what I believe.
We have entered the US age of the Merchantile Princes. You have to pay to play, donate to say, and cheat all the way.
Those who reach the financial top are guaranteed a place at the table (er, Cabinet).
Economics starts with recognizing two points: people have different wants, people have different abilities.
Everything else comes from that.
Capitalism is the economic system of private property and free trade. Private property not only means having a title to some piece of property (not necessary for smaller items but the sentiment is there) but first and sole use of disposition of that property. When you tell people what they can do with their property you are deviating from capitalism. Free trade means that if two people agree to a deal, a third party has no right to intervene. Based on those two points, there is nothing about how capitalism needs some sort of continual expansion or growth. Nor is there anything about how it needs to contract either.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 04, 2017, 11:55:08 PM
We have entered the US age of the Merchantile Princes. You have to pay to play, donate to say, and cheat all the way.
Those who reach the financial top are guaranteed a place at the table (er, Cabinet).
China is also Mercantile, see price of Yuan. Basically in an age of emerging powers, we are back to the early modern period, when Spain, France and Britain did what they could thru economic warfare, and conflict over colonies (see 3rd world dictatorships). Today we have the natives colonize themselves, and thence we take our cut back to the home country. International business isn't new .... see British East Indies Company and British West Indies Company (the basis, thru Hamilton, of American capitalism).