Thats awesome! You telling other people what to do sure is being productive just remember to get paied 5 times as much as your workers for sitting on your ass all day collecting goverment money for your employes.
As opposed to getting paid nothing (because everything is "free,") sitting around waiting for orders from the local commissar on what to do to run the place because you're just a cog in the machine and some expert with his slide rule who has no experience but uses 'science' knows better than you what to do.
And yes, a managerial position is productive, or businesses wouldn't have them. They'd be a waste of money otherwise. Collecting government money, roflmao.
you're a cog in the machine right now now. your life consists of serving capitalist owners. at least in this system, all mundane labor would be automated. life took millions of years to evolve to get to this point, and we waste it on meaningless work?
Thats awesome! You telling other people what to do sure is being productive just remember to get paied 5 times as much as your workers for sitting on your ass all day collecting goverment money for your employes.
As opposed to getting paid nothing (because everything is "free,") sitting around waiting for orders from the local commissar on what to do to run the place because you're just a cog in the machine and some expert with his slide rule who has no experience but uses 'science' knows better than you what to do.
And yes, a managerial position is productive, or businesses wouldn't have them. They'd be a waste of money otherwise. Collecting government money, roflmao.
you're a cog in the machine right now now. your life consists of serving capitalist owners. at least in this system, all mundane labor would be automated. life took millions of years to evolve to get to this point, and we waste it on meaningless work?
I love how half of the critics complain that capitalists keep automating people out of jobs and the other half complain that not enough jobs have been automated.
you're a cog in the machine right now now. your life consists of serving capitalist owners. at least in this system, all mundane labor would be automated. life took millions of years to evolve to get to this point, and we waste it on meaningless work?
No one is forcing me to do anything; some machine. Some ownership.
Wave a magic wand and make all mundane labor automated. The magic wand of science!
Science is not magic, sorry. Science cannot make all "mundane labor" automated, just because you want it to. Science cannot manage human consumption to some perceived perfect efficiency, just because you want it to. Human beings are not ants, just because The "Resource-Based Economic Movement" wants them to be.
Thats awesome! You telling other people what to do sure is being productive just remember to get paied 5 times as much as your workers for sitting on your ass all day collecting goverment money for your employes.
As opposed to getting paid nothing (because everything is "free,") sitting around waiting for orders from the local commissar on what to do to run the place because you're just a cog in the machine and some expert with his slide rule who has no experience but uses 'science' knows better than you what to do.
And yes, a managerial position is productive, or businesses wouldn't have them. They'd be a waste of money otherwise. Collecting government money, roflmao.
you're a cog in the machine right now now. your life consists of serving capitalist owners. at least in this system, all mundane labor would be automated. life took millions of years to evolve to get to this point, and we waste it on meaningless work?
I love how half of the critics complain that capitalists keep automating people out of jobs and the other half complain that not enough jobs have been automated.
Go figure...
That's cos it's 2 entirely different schools of thought. Those who want more automation want progress, and for each person to be able to achieve achieve more with every unit of time/effort. Those who want less automation arn't really critics of capitalism, they are only critical of the aspects that limit their ability to obtain capital.
you're a cog in the machine right now now. your life consists of serving capitalist owners. at least in this system, all mundane labor would be automated. life took millions of years to evolve to get to this point, and we waste it on meaningless work?
No one is forcing me to do anything; some machine. Some ownership.
Wave a magic wand and make all mundane labor automated. The magic wand of science!
Science is not magic, sorry. Science cannot make all "mundane labor" automated, just because you want it to. Science cannot manage human consumption to some perceived perfect efficiency, just because you want it to. Human beings are not ants, just because The "Resource-Based Economic Movement" wants them to be.
science can automate most physical jobs today, name me some you have doubts about. I never said perfect efficiency, just more efficient than the current system. whether you like it or not, the world is heading into a direction of sustainable energy sources and automation. now, guided by the profit system, it will mean more struggle for the majority of the population who have inferior purchasing power.
On May 08 2012 11:40 xeo1 wrote: I love how much faith you guys put in current politics and economics, the only thing they are interested in is profit. Anyway, could you guys briefly summarize what your ideal socioeconomic system would be?
And since you asked a few posts back I graduate Friday with my masters in business so I like to think that I have a fair understanding of economics and how businesses run, operate and make investment decisions
Hahaha no wonder :D ofc ofc ofc ofc ofc ofc :D Oh man that cracked me up. Like they say shit in shit out :D no wonder you were so clueless about real economics :D
Hrm? Do you also tell doctors they know nothing about medicine?
No ^^ because they actually use it practical they dont manipulate numbers But dont let me spoil it for you its gonna be an adventure for you see,
I don't manipulate numbers either.
What experience do you have, in real life, organizing capital and labor to accomplish anything?
Wait you dont actually belive that your economics degree is useful for anything real do you ? oh thats cutee you think you will actually do anything productive :D
I get it tho once you heard micro macro you were sold i get that you thought it was a starcraft class, When do we start Micro macro training? Working your way up from silver.
User was warned for this post
Since you are now resorting to ridiculous personal attacks, let me do the same since JonnyBNoHo is above this (kudos to him)
I have never seen someone so utterly clueless about a subject his obviously passionate about. Its a given that a degree in the relevant field (economics, business, sociology, psychology, etc in this case) would give credibility to what one says about the subject. Lacking said education doesn't mean you cannot argue about the subject, but then you would have to do extensive reading on the matter. That alone doesnt cut it though. You need a clarity of thought and the ability to theorize how things would play out once a certain change is made. You need to be able to filter out baseless bullshit. You need to ask questions before accepting things at face value.
You lack all of these and still argue til you are blue in the face. You link articles that you didn't even read (they refute your position lol). You constantly dodge each and every question regarding how this thing will actually play out because frankly, you have no idea. You are extremely dense and scatterbrained. You make terrible arguements using the same old rhetoric. You keep spouting nonsense that change is happening NOW, but fail to provide a realistic outline of how this change is happening and the timeline associated with the relevant changes that lead to the endgame.
Now. Let me ask you like so many others have already done so. Can you lay out an outline of how we go from our current model of economics, politics, and social structure to this utopian paradise you are advocating? What exactly is your vision of the endgame? What is the timeline associated with it? How do we overcome the obvious termoil that will result if change is forced upon the world instead of comming about at its own natural pace?
On May 08 2012 11:40 xeo1 wrote: I love how much faith you guys put in current politics and economics, the only thing they are interested in is profit. Anyway, could you guys briefly summarize what your ideal socioeconomic system would be?
I'll quote Deng Xiaoping as he was leading China to embrace market reforms:
"No matter if it is a white cat or a black cat; as long as it can catch mice, it is a good cat."
Whatever works the best I'm all for. Even though it has warts that means market capitalism and democracy.
And since you asked a few posts back I graduate Friday with my masters in business so I like to think that I have a fair understanding of economics and how businesses run, operate and make investment decisions
what a surprise.. of course you won't go against something you spent years on studying. but can't you see past your bias? I bet most other people opposing this have a similar position, or a fat bank account
I'm a webdesigner and developer. I make systems and build user experiences. I'm against this idea because it is stupid, not because I will go through live with a median wage doing what I love. I'd love to hear about how this transition will happen economically and socially, but all I have gotten from you AND that vp guy was more rhetoric about 'wouldn't it be nice if we could all be freeeee'.
The two of you who are arguing for this idea right now are RAPIDLY resorting to laughing and pointing at the 'evil capitalists' rather than defending your idea. This is not how you wage arguments and frankly I'm surprised this thread is still open considering the kind of dialog that has been going back and forth for 30 pages now.
Thats awesome! You telling other people what to do sure is being productive just remember to get paied 5 times as much as your workers for sitting on your ass all day collecting goverment money for your employes.
As opposed to getting paid nothing (because everything is "free,") sitting around waiting for orders from the local commissar on what to do to run the place because you're just a cog in the machine and some expert with his slide rule who has no experience but uses 'science' knows better than you what to do.
And yes, a managerial position is productive, or businesses wouldn't have them. They'd be a waste of money otherwise. Collecting government money, roflmao.
you're a cog in the machine right now now. your life consists of serving capitalist owners. at least in this system, all mundane labor would be automated. life took millions of years to evolve to get to this point, and we waste it on meaningless work?
You seem both have a good idea of this one. But can someone make a good detailed description of a functional society without money.
Because of the inability of proponents of change in this thread to competently outline their arguments I feel the need to play devil’s advocate. I will attempt to outline some basis for free market failure in economic theory, and discuss some possible arguments for a changed system of resource distribution. My understanding of the concept of a resource-based economy as proposed by the Free World Charter and Zeitgeist movements is limited at best, mainly because I have not been able to find a coherent description of such a system. Therefore, I will attempt to fill in the blanks as well as I can. Please note that my understanding of Economics is imperfect and there are probably errors in my discussion.
First I will briefly discuss the concept of market power as outcomes of Cournot and Bertrand models of imperfect markets, and how they may be relevant to the idea at hand. Cournot models assume that firms are quantity setters, they accept price as given and will set their quantity so such that their Marginal Revenue is equal to their Marginal cost. This is the point where no additional profits may be earned. This is the same as in models of Monopoly markets, the difference being that it allows for multiple firms. Each firm has a reaction curve, expressing its own optimal output as a function of the output of all other firms; it is derived from the market demand function and its own cost function. The result of the interaction between these firms is that total outputs are greater, prices are lower and total profits are smaller than they would be in monopoly. Total welfare is greater.
We may break some assumptions of the model, such as the assumption hat the game is played only once, and that firms may not speculate about their competitor’s outputs. Now we can find room for collusion, where firms intentionally and collectively restrict their outputs so they now each get a fraction of the profits otherwise reserved for monopolists. The agreements may not be explicit, but simply the result of each firm being confident that it is in all firms interest to maintain this output. Note that all firms in the market can increase its short term profits by defecting from the ‘cartel’, but because all other firms will respond such a decision, resulting in smaller long term profits, it may have a negative Net Present Value. Such a collusion mechanism results in larger profits for producers but also in disproportional loss in consumer surplus so that there is a loss of total welfare we commonly call a Deadweight Loss. This is just one example of free markets failing to produce an optimal result.
Similar situations occur when we introduce sunk costs into the cost functions, so that entry into a market is no longer free. In this case a monopolist may prevent entry of other firms by artificially setting its output or price so that is not a good investment for other firms to enter the market. Other examples include natural monopolists bundling other products with their monopoly product so that other firms can no longer compete in the same way, see EU vs Microsoft. In Bertrand models, firms are price setters and compete for profits based on heterogeneity of products (varieties). In this setting firms may intentionally obscure consumers’ ability to evaluate the relative quality of products and may intentionally increase a consumer’s search costs.
So, now that we have established that free markets may fail to produce optimal total welfare we can recognise a need for government to intervene in these markets. Luckily, policy makers have a large amount of tools at their disposal to attempt to break this kind of market manipulation. This is where advancing technology and increasing capital intensity in modern business comes in. When knowledge of technology becomes a condition for policy makers to evaluate the state of market, it makes it much harder for them to determine which markets require intervention. Technology intensive production tends to be more capital intensive, so that entry into markets may require much larger sunk costs compared to the past, making it easier for monopolists to prevent entry from competitors, making market distortions increasingly common.
Increasing capital intensity of production has the added effect that it makes the factors of production less mobile. It is much easier and less costly to reallocate labour than it is to reallocate capital. This leads to more distortions in short run equilibriums. Financial institutions become increasingly vital for the functioning of society. Additionally, as technical expertise increasingly becomes a requirement for evaluating the inner workings of an industry, risk factors become increasingly opaque for financial institutions. So they become more important, but also less competent. This increases the importance of the role of information asymmetry and general governance problems in the functioning of society. Risk taking may become more common, and the system more unstable.
Each worker in the future will have a larger amount of capital at its disposal, increasing its marginal productivity and drastically increasing the wages of those employed. But increasing requirements on the skills of labourers leave a growing portion of the labour force without relevant skills. Most of this unemployment will be frictional, it is simply a temporary phase where obsolete workers acquire new skills, and eventually find new jobs. However the increased amount of friction due to skills becoming obsolete more rapidly does lead to an increase in long-term unemployment. But in addition, there will be an increasing number of people that do not posses the intellectual capabilities to acquire useful skills. So, structural unemployment will increase too.
So, there will be a lot more unemployment in the future. Luckily, because society has become much more productive due to technological change, taking care of the unemployed has become much easier. Increased concern with the amount of people on welfare, leads to more and larger institutions that concern themselves with the redistribution of wealth. Eventually, so many people are on welfare that working people no longer outnumber the unemployed. The rewards to capital become an increasingly large portion of national income, and those that posses these factors of production become obscenely rich and powerful. Concerns over this development rise, and the call to nationalise all capital becomes more powerful.
Eventually, central planning becomes the new norm and wealth is distributed evenly over everyone. Society becomes a centrally planned meritocratic technocracy. Because resources are still not infinite, incentives for trading remain. Skilful traders are still able to acquire more wealth than others. The government sees the ethical problems in disallowing people to engage in trading, but does consider it undesirable behaviour. To decrease the incentives for trade, official currency is abolished. People are no longer handed out tradable currency but are given credits bound to each individual. The only way to trade is now through physical goods, to prevent any of these goods from becoming a new currency the government periodically intervenes by flooding the market with these goods.
So yeah, there is my essay. Notice the parallels with Marxism and the fact that I had to stop bothering to justify my claims as I went on. I also had to ignore the possibility of changes in society, like those that occurred as society became more industrialized, much like Marx. This turned out to be quite long, my apologies.
science can automate most physical jobs today, name me some you have doubts about. I never said perfect efficiency, just more efficient than the current system. whether you like it or not, the world is heading into a direction of sustainable energy sources and automation. now, guided by the profit system, it will mean more struggle for the majority of the population who have inferior purchasing power.
Any job in agriculture is one robots or other machines are not sophisticated enough today to do, and won't be for decades.
The same with any job that requires a physically intricate and potentially different response to every decision that comes up.
The majority of the population does not have inferior purchasing power, unless you live in a country that isn't capitalist. There is no capitalist country where the majority has inferior purchasing power.
It has nothing to do with whether I like it or not, you talk about sustainable energy sources and automation as if they're going to be here next year and, for energy sources, as if what we have now isn't sustainable. What we have now for energy sources is sustainable until our grandchildren die, and that's just for the least sustainable one, oil. We don't need to jack around with things in an abrupt and stupid manner the way you want us to just because you've found some half-assed system that promises all the answers, and what's more, easy answers! Very appealing to someone who doesn't know anything about the real world, which you obviously don't.
We may break some assumptions of the model, such as the assumption hat the game is played only once, and that firms may not speculate about their competitor’s outputs. Now we can find room for collusion, where firms intentionally and collectively restrict their outputs so they now each get a fraction of the profits otherwise reserved for monopolists. The agreements may not be explicit, but simply the result of each firm being confident that it is in all firms interest to maintain this output. Note that all firms in the market can increase its short term profits by defecting from the ‘cartel’, but because all other firms will respond such a decision, resulting in smaller long term profits, it may have a negative Net Present Value. Such a collusion mechanism results in larger profits for producers but also in disproportional loss in consumer surplus so that there is a loss of total welfare we commonly call a Deadweight Loss. This is just one example of free markets failing to produce an optimal result.
An anachronistic example. Well, outside of state-owned OPEC oil production, it's anachronistic. It's easier and more assured to make profits by breaking pools than joining them.
On May 08 2012 11:40 xeo1 wrote: I love how much faith you guys put in current politics and economics, the only thing they are interested in is profit. Anyway, could you guys briefly summarize what your ideal socioeconomic system would be?
And since you asked a few posts back I graduate Friday with my masters in business so I like to think that I have a fair understanding of economics and how businesses run, operate and make investment decisions
Hahaha no wonder :D ofc ofc ofc ofc ofc ofc :D Oh man that cracked me up. Like they say shit in shit out :D no wonder you were so clueless about real economics :D
Hrm? Do you also tell doctors they know nothing about medicine?
No ^^ because they actually use it practical they dont manipulate numbers But dont let me spoil it for you its gonna be an adventure for you see,
I don't manipulate numbers either.
What experience do you have, in real life, organizing capital and labor to accomplish anything?
Wait you dont actually belive that your economics degree is useful for anything real do you ? oh thats cutee you think you will actually do anything productive :D
I get it tho once you heard micro macro you were sold i get that you thought it was a starcraft class, When do we start Micro macro training? Working your way up from silver.
User was warned for this post
Since you are now resorting to ridiculous personal attacks, let me do the same since JonnyBNoHo is above this (kudos to him)
I was just trolling, Hopefuly he makes something good of whatever position he ends up in. And i find it funny that i got a warning when people are calling me stupid and retarded with ease and their not joking when i obviously was.
You gotta enjoy yourself still waiting on a question.
science can automate most physical jobs today, name me some you have doubts about. I never said perfect efficiency, just more efficient than the current system. whether you like it or not, the world is heading into a direction of sustainable energy sources and automation. now, guided by the profit system, it will mean more struggle for the majority of the population who have inferior purchasing power.
Any job in agriculture is one robots or other machines are not sophisticated enough today to do, and won't be for decades.
The same with any job that requires a physically intricate and potentially different response to every decision that comes up.
The majority of the population does not have inferior purchasing power, unless you live in a country that isn't capitalist. There is no capitalist country where the majority has inferior purchasing power.
It has nothing to do with whether I like it or not, you talk about sustainable energy sources and automation as if they're going to be here next year and, for energy sources, as if what we have now isn't sustainable. What we have now for energy sources is sustainable until our grandchildren die, and that's just for the least sustainable one, oil. We don't need to jack around with things in an abrupt and stupid manner the way you want us to just because you've found some half-assed system that promises all the answers, and what's more, easy answers! Very appealing to someone who doesn't know anything about the real world, which you obviously don't.
We may break some assumptions of the model, such as the assumption hat the game is played only once, and that firms may not speculate about their competitor’s outputs. Now we can find room for collusion, where firms intentionally and collectively restrict their outputs so they now each get a fraction of the profits otherwise reserved for monopolists. The agreements may not be explicit, but simply the result of each firm being confident that it is in all firms interest to maintain this output. Note that all firms in the market can increase its short term profits by defecting from the ‘cartel’, but because all other firms will respond such a decision, resulting in smaller long term profits, it may have a negative Net Present Value. Such a collusion mechanism results in larger profits for producers but also in disproportional loss in consumer surplus so that there is a loss of total welfare we commonly call a Deadweight Loss. This is just one example of free markets failing to produce an optimal result.
An anachronistic example. Well, outside of state-owned OPEC oil production, it's anachronistic. It's easier and more assured to make profits by breaking pools than joining them.
The European Commision does occasionally fine companies that are found guilty of collusion, Dutch beer brewers is a recent example I can recall. It isn't common, but it is just an example that leads us to conclude that intervention is sometimes a good idea.
Maybe sometime in the future humans will have become intelligent enough to work out a system that can make capitalism history. The flaws of capitalism is many, but as of right now it is the best system. There is much I would like to say on the topic, but I will summarize it:
- The differences in the world are perverted. - Our workcapital is spent wrong. - The need of the many should trumph the greed of the few. - People working together towards a common goal and a common increase in quality of life have an incredible work ethics. - No such change will ever occur until the humanrace have evolved past greed and power (Not likely that it will happend).
you're a cog in the machine right now now. your life consists of serving capitalist owners. at least in this system, all mundane labor would be automated. life took millions of years to evolve to get to this point, and we waste it on meaningless work?
No one is forcing me to do anything; some machine. Some ownership.
Wave a magic wand and make all mundane labor automated. The magic wand of science!
Science is not magic, sorry. Science cannot make all "mundane labor" automated, just because you want it to. Science cannot manage human consumption to some perceived perfect efficiency, just because you want it to. Human beings are not ants, just because The "Resource-Based Economic Movement" wants them to be.
science can automate most physical jobs today, name me some you have doubts about. I never said perfect efficiency, just more efficient than the current system. whether you like it or not, the world is heading into a direction of sustainable energy sources and automation. now, guided by the profit system, it will mean more struggle for the majority of the population who have inferior purchasing power.
So um...
How are we going to get the resources to create the millions, if not BILLIONS of robots or machines to automate hard labour? Who's going to maintain them? Pay for them? Pay for their maintenance.
Show me a robot who will break down; then repair itself and continue on with the job. O wait... you can't.
On May 08 2012 23:14 Tunkeg wrote: Maybe sometime in the future humans will have become intelligent enough to work out a system that can make capitalism history. The flaws of capitalism is many, but as of right now it is the best system. There is much I would like to say on the topic, but I will summarize it:
- The differences in the world are perverted. - Our workcapital is spent wrong. - The need of the many should trumph the greed of the few. - People working together towards a common goal and a common increase in quality of life have an incredible work ethics. - No such change will ever occur until the humanrace have evolved past greed and power (Not likely that it will happend).
- The differences in the world are perverted. - Our workcapital is spent in a way you don't like - The need of the many should trumph the greed of the few. How many for how few? How much is one person's need worth versus one person's greed? - People working together towards a common goal and a common increase in quality of life have an incredible work ethics. Yeah they do, as long as they feel they will benefit in proportion to the work they give. - No such change will ever occur until the humanrace have evolved past greed and power (Not likely that it will happend). Not everyone considers losing the need for motivation an evolution.
Something you need to realize is that capitalism already answers these questions.
Something else to realize? Everyone in the world can't have a refridgerator, and a gaming computer, and a cell phone, and microwaves, and cars, and tablets, and 2 TVs, big monitors, a stereo system, surround sound.
You know, all these things everyone around here takes for granted? You've gotta give those up if you want the entire world to have a "reasonable" existence.
On May 08 2012 23:14 Tunkeg wrote: Maybe sometime in the future humans will have become intelligent enough to work out a system that can make capitalism history. The flaws of capitalism is many, but as of right now it is the best system. There is much I would like to say on the topic, but I will summarize it:
- The differences in the world are perverted. - Our workcapital is spent wrong. - The need of the many should trumph the greed of the few. - People working together towards a common goal and a common increase in quality of life have an incredible work ethics. - No such change will ever occur until the humanrace have evolved past greed and power (Not likely that it will happend).
- The differences in the world are perverted. - Our workcapital is spent in a way you don't like - The need of the many should trumph the greed of the few. How many for how few? How much is one person's need worth versus one person's greed? - People working together towards a common goal and a common increase in quality of life have an incredible work ethics. Yeah they do, as long as they feel they will benefit in proportion to the work they give. - No such change will ever occur until the humanrace have evolved past greed and power (Not likely that it will happend). Not everyone considers losing the need for motivation an evolution.
Something you need to realize is that capitalism already answers these questions.
Something else to realize? Everyone in the world can't have a refridgerator, and a gaming computer, and a cell phone, and microwaves, and cars, and tablets, and 2 TVs, big monitors, a stereo system, surround sound.
You know, all these things everyone around here takes for granted? You've gotta give those up if you want the entire world to have a "reasonable" existence.
If you rewrite Our workcapital is spent in a way you don't like to Our workcapital is spent in a way you think is wrong we agree. I neither like or dislike it. For me personal I don't care if people spend their lifes as hairdressers and make up artists, it doesn't affect me at all. But I think that is wrong use of workcapital.
Need is more worth than greed period.
You think the only motivation we have is greed and power then? If it is we certantly need to evolve.
Capitalism is not perfect, and never will be (and certantly don't have the answer for all questions). It is however better than all other systems we have had thus far...
Sadly not all can have all of that, as we are fairly overpopulated. Another reason why a better system would be preferable.
I don't have to give up anything as there won't be any changes in my lifetime. I would not work towards such changes either, I picked the golden ticket in the lottery and was born in a country where I can have all those things no matter what I do. I am as greedy and as selfish as the rest (maybe even more), but I do realize that what is best for me, not nessarily is best for the world as a whole.
science can automate most physical jobs today, name me some you have doubts about. I never said perfect efficiency, just more efficient than the current system. whether you like it or not, the world is heading into a direction of sustainable energy sources and automation. now, guided by the profit system, it will mean more struggle for the majority of the population who have inferior purchasing power.
Any job in agriculture is one robots or other machines are not sophisticated enough today to do, and won't be for decades. .
You see how you made that statement without any knowledge of what were capable of? without any insight into hydroponics ,automation or cyclicol eco systems.
The statement you made were completly false will you try and twist and turn it now or admit that you were wrong?
You see how you made that statement without any knowledge of what were capable of? without any insight into hydroponics ,automation or cyclicol eco systems.
The statement you made were completly false will you try and twist and turn it now or admit that you were wrong?
I wasn't wrong. Who harvests the lettuce? Humans. Who runs the machines? Humans. You think those machines are doing that all on their own? That the human just hits a button on the computer and leaves them be? The human operator still has to oversee it, the only difference is that he doesn't have to directly control the machine. You think that a highly controlled environment is analogous to a field? Is the whole world going to be fed by massive greenhouses? No.
What you're showing is physical labor saving machines. Not time labor saving machines. They don't free humans from spending their time creating the product. They save humans from time spent on physical labor. You can't put these machines into operation and then go spend all day playing SC2 and have it work. That would be automation of the kind you say will free us to do what we wish in a labor-free utopia.
On May 08 2012 23:14 Tunkeg wrote: Maybe sometime in the future humans will have become intelligent enough to work out a system that can make capitalism history. The flaws of capitalism is many, but as of right now it is the best system. There is much I would like to say on the topic, but I will summarize it:
- The differences in the world are perverted. - Our workcapital is spent wrong. - The need of the many should trumph the greed of the few. - People working together towards a common goal and a common increase in quality of life have an incredible work ethics. - No such change will ever occur until the humanrace have evolved past greed and power (Not likely that it will happend).
- The differences in the world are perverted. - Our workcapital is spent in a way you don't like - The need of the many should trumph the greed of the few. How many for how few? How much is one person's need worth versus one person's greed? - People working together towards a common goal and a common increase in quality of life have an incredible work ethics. Yeah they do, as long as they feel they will benefit in proportion to the work they give. - No such change will ever occur until the humanrace have evolved past greed and power (Not likely that it will happend). Not everyone considers losing the need for motivation an evolution.
Something you need to realize is that capitalism already answers these questions.
Something else to realize? Everyone in the world can't have a refridgerator, and a gaming computer, and a cell phone, and microwaves, and cars, and tablets, and 2 TVs, big monitors, a stereo system, surround sound.
You know, all these things everyone around here takes for granted? You've gotta give those up if you want the entire world to have a "reasonable" existence.
If you rewrite Our workcapital is spent in a way you don't like to Our workcapital is spent in a way you think is wrong we agree. I neither like or dislike it. For me personal I don't care if people spend their lifes as hairdressers and make up artists, it doesn't affect me at all. But I think that is wrong use of workcapital.
Need is more worth than greed period.
You think the only motivation we have is greed and power then? If it is we certantly need to evolve.
Capitalism is not perfect, and never will be (and certantly don't have the answer for all questions). It is however better than all other systems we have had thus far...
Sadly not all can have all of that, as we are fairly overpopulated. Another reason why a better system would be preferable.
I don't have to give up anything as there won't be any changes in my lifetime. I would not work towards such changes either, I picked the golden ticket in the lottery and was born in a country where I can have all those things no matter what I do. I am as greedy and as selfish as the rest (maybe even more), but I do realize that what is best for me, not nessarily is best for the world as a whole.
Not overpopulated, and this entire speech is simply about nothing being perfect. Spoiler, nothing is. Every single thing in this world has its flaws, there is absolutely not one thing that can be named that is "perfect"
Saying capitalism isn't perfect is akin to saying Capitalism is "a thing." So what? Where do you go from there? Capitalism has given what we enjoy today, if you like it or not. Where capitalism is not allowed to thrive, people suffer in far greater numbers. If Capitalism isn't perfect, every other idea is even less perfect...and this OP? It isn't even "Good"
You see how you made that statement without any knowledge of what were capable of? without any insight into hydroponics ,automation or cyclicol eco systems.
The statement you made were completly false will you try and twist and turn it now or admit that you were wrong?
I wasn't wrong. Who harvests the lettuce? Humans. Who runs the machines? Humans. You think those machines are doing that all on their own? That the human just hits a button on the computer and leaves them be? The human operator still has to oversee it, the only difference is that he doesn't have to directly control the machine. You think that a highly controlled environment is analogous to a field? Is the whole world going to be fed by massive greenhouses? No.
What you're showing is physical labor saving machines. Not time labor saving machines. They don't free humans from spending their time creating the product. They save humans from time spent on physical labor. You can't put these machines into operation and then go spend all day playing SC2 and have it work. That would be automation of the kind you say will free us to do what we wish in a labor-free utopia.
EPT
