The future of capitalism

FA_Q2

Gold Member
Dec 12, 2009
25,421
6,778
290
Washington State
Something has been bothering me lately and has challenged my base political beliefs is capitalism's ability to deal with the long term future as a valid economic system for us to follow. For those of you that do not know me I am an avid advocate for both free market capitalism in as pure a sense as we can reasonably attain and libertarian ideals. I do not believe government interference leads to desirable outcomes in most situations. There is a very long term problem that I face with this belief structure though.

The reality that we face today is that more and more sectors are being automated. Workers in these fields are becoming more and more productive as a result. This is, at its base, a very good thing as we are getting more out of our work we will have to do less of it. Hundreds of years ago work would have consumed virtually 100 percent of peoples time. Better tools, automation and increased productivity have allowed us a great deal of freedom in our lives where we are able to work far less and even have almost 40% of our population not working at all. This is a good thing.

The actual value of labor becomes a problem when you have so much productivity though. Increased productivity does not necessarily increase the value of labor even though that labor produces more goods. The increased productivity might do so IF you are not increasing the labor pool. As labor is a commodity like any other, steeply decreasing the number of jobs will devalue even skilled labor as everyone is pushed into those few remaining jobs. I think this is somewhat reflected in today's society as we see so many young people with degrees making very little - literally everyone needs a degree these day simply because there are so many people looking for those few jobs.


I think that we are coming to a tipping point though where labor is going to become so rare that a capitalist system can no longer be reasonably sustained. Automation has been occurring for a long time and it really has not been that big of an issue because there were always other areas that people could move into - more high tech jobs or entirely new industries created from such automation. That was all fine and well as long as the automated machines were simple and narrow. If you go to an assembly line where cars are manufactured you will see many machines that replaced many workers. Those machines, however, are a FAR cry from actual human labor. They are repetitive and can only do a single task though they do it well. There is no intelligence there.

Today, the automation is completely different. Machines are no longer simple minded or extremely narrow. Cars are already capable of being completely controlled by computers - the entire transportation industry essentially no longer needs people to move product. As soon as society catches up, you are going to see thousands of jobs gone from the transportation industry. Such vehicles do not sleep, require medical care breaks or 401K's and (most importantly) do not get in accidents. They are FAR cheaper and they are poised to replace the largest employment sector in the nation right now. Even pilots are essentially passengers on automated aircraft these days. Aircraft take off, fly to their destination and land without a single command from the pilot. And as a side bonus, they never crash into the side of a mountain when they get depressed.


So far these machines have been fairly narrow machines but the truth is that machines are even getting into skilled professional jobs like writing or doctors or even creative endeavors like composing music. They are expanding into those specialized sectors as well eliminating need for highly skilled labors as well. In the video below it talks about WATSON - a diagnosis machines that is superior to a doctor for basic diagnosis.

I think that it is a given that machines are going to take a huge chunk out of modern employment. The question that we face is how to deal with a population that is largely unemployed simply because there is little to no need for those jobs to exist. This is a given - we see it happening all around us. Can capitalism cope with the future or are we going to need to come up with something different?

The right seems married to capitalism to the point that there can be no other solution or economic method to follow. I think that it is folly to assume that such must be the case forever - eventually change will occur as it must. The left seems stuck in 'solutions' that do nothing but perpetuate a broken system. Infrastructure cannot employ the nation and raising minimum wage does nothing to address the fact that jobs will disappear. Even safety nets are rather misguided as the value of money adjusts to the number of pieces of paper that you force into everyone's pockets. Personally I think there might very well be a new economic system that is unlike anything that we have used thus far to replace the current system when that time comes.


I may have not articulated myself well here (and a lot of posters are going to trash this without even reading it) but I would like to hear some of your thoughts on what the future might hold and what you think it might take to get there.



I am particularly interested in
dblack Foxfyre
opinions here. Am I completely off base?
 
That was a loooooong OP FA and forgive me for just scanning it instead of reading it carefully. It would have helped if you had concluded with a summary and a specific question you wished addressed. But you took a lot of time and obviously put a lot of thought into that, and it deserves an answer.

In my opinion, in order to have the free market sustain the needs of the people, all we have to do is to mostly back big government out of the equation and let the people live their lives.

Throughout history people didn't have to be told to build Conestoga wagons for the expansion west---people just figured out there was a need and adapted to it. People didn't have to be told to build railroads. People didn't have to be told to start building all the things necessary to have railroads--they saw the need and filled it.

People didn't have to be told to start closing down the buggy whip and carriage factories and retooling to build auto parts and other components necessary for the rapidly developing automobile industry. They saw that this was happening and they did it.

People didn't have to be told to change their ways of doing things to accommodate the almost instant electronics revolution. They just did it.

For all of human history people have recognized opportunity as new inventions and possibilities and technologies, saw the needs (i.e. market possibilities) and filled it.

And in almost every single case, the most prosperous and productive new innovations and resulting jobs and prosperity occurred in a free market without any government interference of any kind.

There is no reason to think that a free people will not continue to see developing opportunities and step up to fill the new needs (i.e. new markets) that result. It is only when government over regulates and tries to micro manage emerging industries that they get bogged down and all the possibilities aren't realized.
 
The blessing of capitalism is that it works, it's based on greed and selfishness, and the curse of capitalism is that it eventually destroys itself, it's based on greed and selfishness. All you have to do is figure out at what stage of all hell breaking loose you are.
 
That was a loooooong OP FA and forgive me for just scanning it instead of reading it carefully. It would have helped if you had concluded with a summary and a specific question you wished addressed. But you took a lot of time and obviously put a lot of thought into that, and it deserves an answer.

In my opinion, in order to have the free market sustain the needs of the people, all we have to do is to mostly back big government out of the equation and let the people live their lives.

Throughout history people didn't have to be told to build Conestoga wagons for the expansion west---people just figured out there was a need and adapted to it. People didn't have to be told to build railroads. People didn't have to be told to start building all the things necessary to have railroads--they saw the need and filled it.

People didn't have to be told to start closing down the buggy whip and carriage factories and retooling to build auto parts and other components necessary for the rapidly developing automobile industry. They saw that this was happening and they did it.

People didn't have to be told to change their ways of doing things to accommodate the almost instant electronics revolution. They just did it.

For all of human history people have recognized opportunity as new inventions and possibilities and technologies, saw the needs (i.e. market possibilities) and filled it.

And in almost every single case, the most prosperous and productive new innovations and resulting jobs and prosperity occurred in a free market without any government interference of any kind.

There is no reason to think that a free people will not continue to see developing opportunities and step up to fill the new needs (i.e. new markets) that result. It is only when government over regulates and tries to micro manage emerging industries that they get bogged down and all the possibilities aren't realized.
Thank you for your response. I think you missed the overall point here though – none of this claims that the government needs to tell people where to become productive or introduce new products. People will always be productive and create new markets as long as the reward is there to do so. The problem is that new markets used to require large employment to create and maintain.

New markets will still occur BUT they will no longer require large employment to do so. It is that reality that is going to come to a head.
 
Last edited:
Machines will always need maintenance and parts replaced. The human factor will remain.
It is a cold hard fact that maintaining and building machines requires an very small portion of the workers that they replace. Otherwise they would not be efficient at all. The old adage that you will simply get a job fixing those machines is nonsensical at the very best.
 
That was a loooooong OP FA and forgive me for just scanning it instead of reading it carefully. It would have helped if you had concluded with a summary and a specific question you wished addressed. But you took a lot of time and obviously put a lot of thought into that, and it deserves an answer.

In my opinion, in order to have the free market sustain the needs of the people, all we have to do is to mostly back big government out of the equation and let the people live their lives.

Throughout history people didn't have to be told to build Conestoga wagons for the expansion west---people just figured out there was a need and adapted to it. People didn't have to be told to build railroads. People didn't have to be told to start building all the things necessary to have railroads--they saw the need and filled it.

People didn't have to be told to start closing down the buggy whip and carriage factories and retooling to build auto parts and other components necessary for the rapidly developing automobile industry. They saw that this was happening and they did it.

People didn't have to be told to change their ways of doing things to accommodate the almost instant electronics revolution. They just did it.

For all of human history people have recognized opportunity as new inventions and possibilities and technologies, saw the needs (i.e. market possibilities) and filled it.

And in almost every single case, the most prosperous and productive new innovations and resulting jobs and prosperity occurred in a free market without any government interference of any kind.

There is no reason to think that a free people will not continue to see developing opportunities and step up to fill the new needs (i.e. new markets) that result. It is only when government over regulates and tries to micro manage emerging industries that they get bogged down and all the possibilities aren't realized.
That was a loooooong OP FA and forgive me for just scanning it instead of reading it carefully. It would have helped if you had concluded with a summary and a specific question you wished addressed. But you took a lot of time and obviously put a lot of thought into that, and it deserves an answer.

In my opinion, in order to have the free market sustain the needs of the people, all we have to do is to mostly back big government out of the equation and let the people live their lives.

Throughout history people didn't have to be told to build Conestoga wagons for the expansion west---people just figured out there was a need and adapted to it. People didn't have to be told to build railroads. People didn't have to be told to start building all the things necessary to have railroads--they saw the need and filled it.

People didn't have to be told to start closing down the buggy whip and carriage factories and retooling to build auto parts and other components necessary for the rapidly developing automobile industry. They saw that this was happening and they did it.

People didn't have to be told to change their ways of doing things to accommodate the almost instant electronics revolution. They just did it.

For all of human history people have recognized opportunity as new inventions and possibilities and technologies, saw the needs (i.e. market possibilities) and filled it.

And in almost every single case, the most prosperous and productive new innovations and resulting jobs and prosperity occurred in a free market without any government interference of any kind.

There is no reason to think that a free people will not continue to see developing opportunities and step up to fill the new needs (i.e. new markets) that result. It is only when government over regulates and tries to micro manage emerging industries that they get bogged down and all the possibilities aren't realized.
Thank you for your response. I think you missed the overall point here though – none of this claims that the government needs to tell people where to become productive or introduce new products. People will always be productive and create new markets as long as the reward is there to do so. The problem is that new markets used to require large employment to create and maintain.

New markets will still occur BUT they will no longer require large employment to do so. It is that reality that is going to come to a head.

Well I didn't address that specifically, but I still put faith in the human spirit to work it out. It is true that mechanization took millions off the farms and funneled them into the towns and cities, but they still managed to find jobs and feed their families. As people have more leisure, the more the ways to spend their money on leisure activities becomes big business. Perhaps we will have another cultural shift in which a one wage-earner marriage becomes fashionable again, and one parent will expect to stay home and take care of the kids and day to day operations of running a home which gives everybody more leisure to enjoy.

Unless you have an oppressive government that diminishes the entreprenourial spirit, people seem to figure it out as we go along.
 
That was a loooooong OP FA and forgive me for just scanning it instead of reading it carefully. It would have helped if you had concluded with a summary and a specific question you wished addressed. But you took a lot of time and obviously put a lot of thought into that, and it deserves an answer.

In my opinion, in order to have the free market sustain the needs of the people, all we have to do is to mostly back big government out of the equation and let the people live their lives.

Throughout history people didn't have to be told to build Conestoga wagons for the expansion west---people just figured out there was a need and adapted to it. People didn't have to be told to build railroads. People didn't have to be told to start building all the things necessary to have railroads--they saw the need and filled it.

People didn't have to be told to start closing down the buggy whip and carriage factories and retooling to build auto parts and other components necessary for the rapidly developing automobile industry. They saw that this was happening and they did it.

People didn't have to be told to change their ways of doing things to accommodate the almost instant electronics revolution. They just did it.

For all of human history people have recognized opportunity as new inventions and possibilities and technologies, saw the needs (i.e. market possibilities) and filled it.

And in almost every single case, the most prosperous and productive new innovations and resulting jobs and prosperity occurred in a free market without any government interference of any kind.

There is no reason to think that a free people will not continue to see developing opportunities and step up to fill the new needs (i.e. new markets) that result. It is only when government over regulates and tries to micro manage emerging industries that they get bogged down and all the possibilities aren't realized.
That was a loooooong OP FA and forgive me for just scanning it instead of reading it carefully. It would have helped if you had concluded with a summary and a specific question you wished addressed. But you took a lot of time and obviously put a lot of thought into that, and it deserves an answer.

In my opinion, in order to have the free market sustain the needs of the people, all we have to do is to mostly back big government out of the equation and let the people live their lives.

Throughout history people didn't have to be told to build Conestoga wagons for the expansion west---people just figured out there was a need and adapted to it. People didn't have to be told to build railroads. People didn't have to be told to start building all the things necessary to have railroads--they saw the need and filled it.

People didn't have to be told to start closing down the buggy whip and carriage factories and retooling to build auto parts and other components necessary for the rapidly developing automobile industry. They saw that this was happening and they did it.

People didn't have to be told to change their ways of doing things to accommodate the almost instant electronics revolution. They just did it.

For all of human history people have recognized opportunity as new inventions and possibilities and technologies, saw the needs (i.e. market possibilities) and filled it.

And in almost every single case, the most prosperous and productive new innovations and resulting jobs and prosperity occurred in a free market without any government interference of any kind.

There is no reason to think that a free people will not continue to see developing opportunities and step up to fill the new needs (i.e. new markets) that result. It is only when government over regulates and tries to micro manage emerging industries that they get bogged down and all the possibilities aren't realized.
Thank you for your response. I think you missed the overall point here though – none of this claims that the government needs to tell people where to become productive or introduce new products. People will always be productive and create new markets as long as the reward is there to do so. The problem is that new markets used to require large employment to create and maintain.

New markets will still occur BUT they will no longer require large employment to do so. It is that reality that is going to come to a head.

Well I didn't address that specifically, but I still put faith in the human spirit to work it out. It is true that mechanization took millions off the farms and funneled them into the towns and cities, but they still managed to find jobs and feed their families. As people have more leisure, the more the ways to spend their money on leisure activities becomes big business. Perhaps we will have another cultural shift in which a one wage-earner marriage becomes fashionable again, and one parent will expect to stay home and take care of the kids and day to day operations of running a home which gives everybody more leisure to enjoy.

Unless you have an oppressive government that diminishes the entreprenourial spirit, people seem to figure it out as we go along.
Oh no, don’t get me wrong. I agree with this. What I am interested is what you think that might actually be or if you still think a capitalist type system is going to be the best we have. I don’t think it will be system that looks like capitalism tbh. I don’t see how capitalism in general can deal with an economy that does not employ most people. Further, I think it is going to be a hell of a turbulent time and cost many lives – exactly like it happened last time when the industrial revolution changed economies all over the planet.
 
Something has been bothering me lately and has challenged my base political beliefs is capitalism's ability to deal with the long term future as a valid economic system for us to follow. For those of you that do not know me I am an avid advocate for both free market capitalism in as pure a sense as we can reasonably attain and libertarian ideals. I do not believe government interference leads to desirable outcomes in most situations. There is a very long term problem that I face with this belief structure though.

The reality that we face today is that more and more sectors are being automated. Workers in these fields are becoming more and more productive as a result. This is, at its base, a very good thing as we are getting more out of our work we will have to do less of it. Hundreds of years ago work would have consumed virtually 100 percent of peoples time. Better tools, automation and increased productivity have allowed us a great deal of freedom in our lives where we are able to work far less and even have almost 40% of our population not working at all. This is a good thing.

The actual value of labor becomes a problem when you have so much productivity though. Increased productivity does not necessarily increase the value of labor even though that labor produces more goods. The increased productivity might do so IF you are not increasing the labor pool. As labor is a commodity like any other, steeply decreasing the number of jobs will devalue even skilled labor as everyone is pushed into those few remaining jobs. I think this is somewhat reflected in today's society as we see so many young people with degrees making very little - literally everyone needs a degree these day simply because there are so many people looking for those few jobs.


I think that we are coming to a tipping point though where labor is going to become so rare that a capitalist system can no longer be reasonably sustained. Automation has been occurring for a long time and it really has not been that big of an issue because there were always other areas that people could move into - more high tech jobs or entirely new industries created from such automation. That was all fine and well as long as the automated machines were simple and narrow. If you go to an assembly line where cars are manufactured you will see many machines that replaced many workers. Those machines, however, are a FAR cry from actual human labor. They are repetitive and can only do a single task though they do it well. There is no intelligence there.

Today, the automation is completely different. Machines are no longer simple minded or extremely narrow. Cars are already capable of being completely controlled by computers - the entire transportation industry essentially no longer needs people to move product. As soon as society catches up, you are going to see thousands of jobs gone from the transportation industry. Such vehicles do not sleep, require medical care breaks or 401K's and (most importantly) do not get in accidents. They are FAR cheaper and they are poised to replace the largest employment sector in the nation right now. Even pilots are essentially passengers on automated aircraft these days. Aircraft take off, fly to their destination and land without a single command from the pilot. And as a side bonus, they never crash into the side of a mountain when they get depressed.


So far these machines have been fairly narrow machines but the truth is that machines are even getting into skilled professional jobs like writing or doctors or even creative endeavors like composing music. They are expanding into those specialized sectors as well eliminating need for highly skilled labors as well. In the video below it talks about WATSON - a diagnosis machines that is superior to a doctor for basic diagnosis.

I think that it is a given that machines are going to take a huge chunk out of modern employment. The question that we face is how to deal with a population that is largely unemployed simply because there is little to no need for those jobs to exist. This is a given - we see it happening all around us. Can capitalism cope with the future or are we going to need to come up with something different?

The right seems married to capitalism to the point that there can be no other solution or economic method to follow. I think that it is folly to assume that such must be the case forever - eventually change will occur as it must. The left seems stuck in 'solutions' that do nothing but perpetuate a broken system. Infrastructure cannot employ the nation and raising minimum wage does nothing to address the fact that jobs will disappear. Even safety nets are rather misguided as the value of money adjusts to the number of pieces of paper that you force into everyone's pockets. Personally I think there might very well be a new economic system that is unlike anything that we have used thus far to replace the current system when that time comes.


I may have not articulated myself well here (and a lot of posters are going to trash this without even reading it) but I would like to hear some of your thoughts on what the future might hold and what you think it might take to get there.



I am particularly interested in
dblack Foxfyre
opinions here. Am I completely off base?


You're spot on. Pure capitalism is simply the best system for spawning efficiency. Humans are the definition of inefficiency with their bathroom breaks and sick days.

The solution seems to indicate that there will be a break with the capitalism we know today and movement toward a money-less society.
 
That was a loooooong OP FA and forgive me for just scanning it instead of reading it carefully. It would have helped if you had concluded with a summary and a specific question you wished addressed. But you took a lot of time and obviously put a lot of thought into that, and it deserves an answer.

In my opinion, in order to have the free market sustain the needs of the people, all we have to do is to mostly back big government out of the equation and let the people live their lives.

Throughout history people didn't have to be told to build Conestoga wagons for the expansion west---people just figured out there was a need and adapted to it. People didn't have to be told to build railroads. People didn't have to be told to start building all the things necessary to have railroads--they saw the need and filled it.

People didn't have to be told to start closing down the buggy whip and carriage factories and retooling to build auto parts and other components necessary for the rapidly developing automobile industry. They saw that this was happening and they did it.

People didn't have to be told to change their ways of doing things to accommodate the almost instant electronics revolution. They just did it.

For all of human history people have recognized opportunity as new inventions and possibilities and technologies, saw the needs (i.e. market possibilities) and filled it.

And in almost every single case, the most prosperous and productive new innovations and resulting jobs and prosperity occurred in a free market without any government interference of any kind.

There is no reason to think that a free people will not continue to see developing opportunities and step up to fill the new needs (i.e. new markets) that result. It is only when government over regulates and tries to micro manage emerging industries that they get bogged down and all the possibilities aren't realized.
That was a loooooong OP FA and forgive me for just scanning it instead of reading it carefully. It would have helped if you had concluded with a summary and a specific question you wished addressed. But you took a lot of time and obviously put a lot of thought into that, and it deserves an answer.

In my opinion, in order to have the free market sustain the needs of the people, all we have to do is to mostly back big government out of the equation and let the people live their lives.

Throughout history people didn't have to be told to build Conestoga wagons for the expansion west---people just figured out there was a need and adapted to it. People didn't have to be told to build railroads. People didn't have to be told to start building all the things necessary to have railroads--they saw the need and filled it.

People didn't have to be told to start closing down the buggy whip and carriage factories and retooling to build auto parts and other components necessary for the rapidly developing automobile industry. They saw that this was happening and they did it.

People didn't have to be told to change their ways of doing things to accommodate the almost instant electronics revolution. They just did it.

For all of human history people have recognized opportunity as new inventions and possibilities and technologies, saw the needs (i.e. market possibilities) and filled it.

And in almost every single case, the most prosperous and productive new innovations and resulting jobs and prosperity occurred in a free market without any government interference of any kind.

There is no reason to think that a free people will not continue to see developing opportunities and step up to fill the new needs (i.e. new markets) that result. It is only when government over regulates and tries to micro manage emerging industries that they get bogged down and all the possibilities aren't realized.
Thank you for your response. I think you missed the overall point here though – none of this claims that the government needs to tell people where to become productive or introduce new products. People will always be productive and create new markets as long as the reward is there to do so. The problem is that new markets used to require large employment to create and maintain.

New markets will still occur BUT they will no longer require large employment to do so. It is that reality that is going to come to a head.

Well I didn't address that specifically, but I still put faith in the human spirit to work it out. It is true that mechanization took millions off the farms and funneled them into the towns and cities, but they still managed to find jobs and feed their families. As people have more leisure, the more the ways to spend their money on leisure activities becomes big business. Perhaps we will have another cultural shift in which a one wage-earner marriage becomes fashionable again, and one parent will expect to stay home and take care of the kids and day to day operations of running a home which gives everybody more leisure to enjoy.

Unless you have an oppressive government that diminishes the entreprenourial spirit, people seem to figure it out as we go along.
Oh no, don’t get me wrong. I agree with this. What I am interested is what you think that might actually be or if you still think a capitalist type system is going to be the best we have. I don’t think it will be system that looks like capitalism tbh. I don’t see how capitalism in general can deal with an economy that does not employ most people. Further, I think it is going to be a hell of a turbulent time and cost many lives – exactly like it happened last time when the industrial revolution changed economies all over the planet.

Capitalism is an absolutely imperfect, unpredictable, inconsistent, and sorry way to run any economy. But it is far better than ANYTHING else out there. I think it is our best shot to avoid the worst of turbulent times as we adapt to new ways to work, live, and engage in recreation and other pursuits.
 
That was a loooooong OP FA and forgive me for just scanning it instead of reading it carefully. It would have helped if you had concluded with a summary and a specific question you wished addressed. But you took a lot of time and obviously put a lot of thought into that, and it deserves an answer.

In my opinion, in order to have the free market sustain the needs of the people, all we have to do is to mostly back big government out of the equation and let the people live their lives.

Throughout history people didn't have to be told to build Conestoga wagons for the expansion west---people just figured out there was a need and adapted to it. People didn't have to be told to build railroads. People didn't have to be told to start building all the things necessary to have railroads--they saw the need and filled it.

People didn't have to be told to start closing down the buggy whip and carriage factories and retooling to build auto parts and other components necessary for the rapidly developing automobile industry. They saw that this was happening and they did it.

People didn't have to be told to change their ways of doing things to accommodate the almost instant electronics revolution. They just did it.

For all of human history people have recognized opportunity as new inventions and possibilities and technologies, saw the needs (i.e. market possibilities) and filled it.

And in almost every single case, the most prosperous and productive new innovations and resulting jobs and prosperity occurred in a free market without any government interference of any kind.

There is no reason to think that a free people will not continue to see developing opportunities and step up to fill the new needs (i.e. new markets) that result. It is only when government over regulates and tries to micro manage emerging industries that they get bogged down and all the possibilities aren't realized.
That was a loooooong OP FA and forgive me for just scanning it instead of reading it carefully. It would have helped if you had concluded with a summary and a specific question you wished addressed. But you took a lot of time and obviously put a lot of thought into that, and it deserves an answer.

In my opinion, in order to have the free market sustain the needs of the people, all we have to do is to mostly back big government out of the equation and let the people live their lives.

Throughout history people didn't have to be told to build Conestoga wagons for the expansion west---people just figured out there was a need and adapted to it. People didn't have to be told to build railroads. People didn't have to be told to start building all the things necessary to have railroads--they saw the need and filled it.

People didn't have to be told to start closing down the buggy whip and carriage factories and retooling to build auto parts and other components necessary for the rapidly developing automobile industry. They saw that this was happening and they did it.

People didn't have to be told to change their ways of doing things to accommodate the almost instant electronics revolution. They just did it.

For all of human history people have recognized opportunity as new inventions and possibilities and technologies, saw the needs (i.e. market possibilities) and filled it.

And in almost every single case, the most prosperous and productive new innovations and resulting jobs and prosperity occurred in a free market without any government interference of any kind.

There is no reason to think that a free people will not continue to see developing opportunities and step up to fill the new needs (i.e. new markets) that result. It is only when government over regulates and tries to micro manage emerging industries that they get bogged down and all the possibilities aren't realized.
Thank you for your response. I think you missed the overall point here though – none of this claims that the government needs to tell people where to become productive or introduce new products. People will always be productive and create new markets as long as the reward is there to do so. The problem is that new markets used to require large employment to create and maintain.

New markets will still occur BUT they will no longer require large employment to do so. It is that reality that is going to come to a head.

Well I didn't address that specifically, but I still put faith in the human spirit to work it out. It is true that mechanization took millions off the farms and funneled them into the towns and cities, but they still managed to find jobs and feed their families. As people have more leisure, the more the ways to spend their money on leisure activities becomes big business. Perhaps we will have another cultural shift in which a one wage-earner marriage becomes fashionable again, and one parent will expect to stay home and take care of the kids and day to day operations of running a home which gives everybody more leisure to enjoy.

Unless you have an oppressive government that diminishes the entreprenourial spirit, people seem to figure it out as we go along.
Oh no, don’t get me wrong. I agree with this. What I am interested is what you think that might actually be or if you still think a capitalist type system is going to be the best we have. I don’t think it will be system that looks like capitalism tbh. I don’t see how capitalism in general can deal with an economy that does not employ most people. Further, I think it is going to be a hell of a turbulent time and cost many lives – exactly like it happened last time when the industrial revolution changed economies all over the planet.

Capitalism is an absolutely imperfect, unpredictable, inconsistent, and sorry way to run any economy. But it is far better than ANYTHING else out there. I think it is our best shot to avoid the worst of turbulent times as we adapt to new ways to work, live, and engage in recreation and other pursuits.
That is why I said I think that what we end up in will be something new. Capitalism might be the best we have BUT it is not sufficient unless there is a thriving middle class. The death of that middles class is, IMHO, evident at this stage.

Without that then it really becomes just as bad as communism.
 
Something has been bothering me lately and has challenged my base political beliefs is capitalism's ability to deal with the long term future as a valid economic system for us to follow. For those of you that do not know me I am an avid advocate for both free market capitalism in as pure a sense as we can reasonably attain and libertarian ideals. I do not believe government interference leads to desirable outcomes in most situations. There is a very long term problem that I face with this belief structure though.

The reality that we face today is that more and more sectors are being automated. Workers in these fields are becoming more and more productive as a result. This is, at its base, a very good thing as we are getting more out of our work we will have to do less of it. Hundreds of years ago work would have consumed virtually 100 percent of peoples time. Better tools, automation and increased productivity have allowed us a great deal of freedom in our lives where we are able to work far less and even have almost 40% of our population not working at all. This is a good thing.

The actual value of labor becomes a problem when you have so much productivity though. Increased productivity does not necessarily increase the value of labor even though that labor produces more goods. The increased productivity might do so IF you are not increasing the labor pool. As labor is a commodity like any other, steeply decreasing the number of jobs will devalue even skilled labor as everyone is pushed into those few remaining jobs. I think this is somewhat reflected in today's society as we see so many young people with degrees making very little - literally everyone needs a degree these day simply because there are so many people looking for those few jobs.


I think that we are coming to a tipping point though where labor is going to become so rare that a capitalist system can no longer be reasonably sustained. Automation has been occurring for a long time and it really has not been that big of an issue because there were always other areas that people could move into - more high tech jobs or entirely new industries created from such automation. That was all fine and well as long as the automated machines were simple and narrow. If you go to an assembly line where cars are manufactured you will see many machines that replaced many workers. Those machines, however, are a FAR cry from actual human labor. They are repetitive and can only do a single task though they do it well. There is no intelligence there.

Today, the automation is completely different. Machines are no longer simple minded or extremely narrow. Cars are already capable of being completely controlled by computers - the entire transportation industry essentially no longer needs people to move product. As soon as society catches up, you are going to see thousands of jobs gone from the transportation industry. Such vehicles do not sleep, require medical care breaks or 401K's and (most importantly) do not get in accidents. They are FAR cheaper and they are poised to replace the largest employment sector in the nation right now. Even pilots are essentially passengers on automated aircraft these days. Aircraft take off, fly to their destination and land without a single command from the pilot. And as a side bonus, they never crash into the side of a mountain when they get depressed.


So far these machines have been fairly narrow machines but the truth is that machines are even getting into skilled professional jobs like writing or doctors or even creative endeavors like composing music. They are expanding into those specialized sectors as well eliminating need for highly skilled labors as well. In the video below it talks about WATSON - a diagnosis machines that is superior to a doctor for basic diagnosis.

I think that it is a given that machines are going to take a huge chunk out of modern employment. The question that we face is how to deal with a population that is largely unemployed simply because there is little to no need for those jobs to exist. This is a given - we see it happening all around us. Can capitalism cope with the future or are we going to need to come up with something different?

The right seems married to capitalism to the point that there can be no other solution or economic method to follow. I think that it is folly to assume that such must be the case forever - eventually change will occur as it must. The left seems stuck in 'solutions' that do nothing but perpetuate a broken system. Infrastructure cannot employ the nation and raising minimum wage does nothing to address the fact that jobs will disappear. Even safety nets are rather misguided as the value of money adjusts to the number of pieces of paper that you force into everyone's pockets. Personally I think there might very well be a new economic system that is unlike anything that we have used thus far to replace the current system when that time comes.


I may have not articulated myself well here (and a lot of posters are going to trash this without even reading it) but I would like to hear some of your thoughts on what the future might hold and what you think it might take to get there.



I am particularly interested in
dblack Foxfyre
opinions here. Am I completely off base?


You're spot on. Pure capitalism is simply the best system for spawning efficiency. Humans are the definition of inefficiency with their bathroom breaks and sick days.

The solution seems to indicate that there will be a break with the capitalism we know today and movement toward a money-less society.

Why money-less?

Money is simply a method of transference – a better way to barter. What advantages does a money free system have? IMHO – there really is no reason to remove money at all – it is not the source of the problem and also has potential to be part of the solution.
 
I should also note that there is no such thing as ‘pure’ anything be it capitalism, socialism or communism. Systems are never pure. A capitalist based system, even as we have it now, is as you say concerned with and good at producing efficiency. That has always been one of its strengths.

Eventually people will be outdated with things that are more efficient.
 
Something has been bothering me lately and has challenged my base political beliefs is capitalism's ability to deal with the long term future as a valid economic system for us to follow. For those of you that do not know me I am an avid advocate for both free market capitalism in as pure a sense as we can reasonably attain and libertarian ideals. I do not believe government interference leads to desirable outcomes in most situations. There is a very long term problem that I face with this belief structure though.

The reality that we face today is that more and more sectors are being automated. Workers in these fields are becoming more and more productive as a result. This is, at its base, a very good thing as we are getting more out of our work we will have to do less of it. Hundreds of years ago work would have consumed virtually 100 percent of peoples time. Better tools, automation and increased productivity have allowed us a great deal of freedom in our lives where we are able to work far less and even have almost 40% of our population not working at all. This is a good thing.

The actual value of labor becomes a problem when you have so much productivity though. Increased productivity does not necessarily increase the value of labor even though that labor produces more goods. The increased productivity might do so IF you are not increasing the labor pool. As labor is a commodity like any other, steeply decreasing the number of jobs will devalue even skilled labor as everyone is pushed into those few remaining jobs. I think this is somewhat reflected in today's society as we see so many young people with degrees making very little - literally everyone needs a degree these day simply because there are so many people looking for those few jobs.


I think that we are coming to a tipping point though where labor is going to become so rare that a capitalist system can no longer be reasonably sustained. Automation has been occurring for a long time and it really has not been that big of an issue because there were always other areas that people could move into - more high tech jobs or entirely new industries created from such automation. That was all fine and well as long as the automated machines were simple and narrow. If you go to an assembly line where cars are manufactured you will see many machines that replaced many workers. Those machines, however, are a FAR cry from actual human labor. They are repetitive and can only do a single task though they do it well. There is no intelligence there.

Today, the automation is completely different. Machines are no longer simple minded or extremely narrow. Cars are already capable of being completely controlled by computers - the entire transportation industry essentially no longer needs people to move product. As soon as society catches up, you are going to see thousands of jobs gone from the transportation industry. Such vehicles do not sleep, require medical care breaks or 401K's and (most importantly) do not get in accidents. They are FAR cheaper and they are poised to replace the largest employment sector in the nation right now. Even pilots are essentially passengers on automated aircraft these days. Aircraft take off, fly to their destination and land without a single command from the pilot. And as a side bonus, they never crash into the side of a mountain when they get depressed.


So far these machines have been fairly narrow machines but the truth is that machines are even getting into skilled professional jobs like writing or doctors or even creative endeavors like composing music. They are expanding into those specialized sectors as well eliminating need for highly skilled labors as well. In the video below it talks about WATSON - a diagnosis machines that is superior to a doctor for basic diagnosis.

I think that it is a given that machines are going to take a huge chunk out of modern employment. The question that we face is how to deal with a population that is largely unemployed simply because there is little to no need for those jobs to exist. This is a given - we see it happening all around us. Can capitalism cope with the future or are we going to need to come up with something different?

The right seems married to capitalism to the point that there can be no other solution or economic method to follow. I think that it is folly to assume that such must be the case forever - eventually change will occur as it must. The left seems stuck in 'solutions' that do nothing but perpetuate a broken system. Infrastructure cannot employ the nation and raising minimum wage does nothing to address the fact that jobs will disappear. Even safety nets are rather misguided as the value of money adjusts to the number of pieces of paper that you force into everyone's pockets. Personally I think there might very well be a new economic system that is unlike anything that we have used thus far to replace the current system when that time comes.


I may have not articulated myself well here (and a lot of posters are going to trash this without even reading it) but I would like to hear some of your thoughts on what the future might hold and what you think it might take to get there.



I am particularly interested in
dblack Foxfyre
opinions here. Am I completely off base?


You're spot on. Pure capitalism is simply the best system for spawning efficiency. Humans are the definition of inefficiency with their bathroom breaks and sick days.

The solution seems to indicate that there will be a break with the capitalism we know today and movement toward a money-less society.

Why money-less?

Money is simply a method of transference – a better way to barter. What advantages does a money free system have? IMHO – there really is no reason to remove money at all – it is not the source of the problem and also has potential to be part of the solution.


Barter will be gone too.

It's a bleak (but accurate)picture you painted for today's middle income wage earners. It won't break down so much between the rich and the poor in the future but it will be the content creators, the content providers, the content consumers.

Currently the consumers and providers (to a much lesser extent) barter their labor for money; right? If the content providers can simply throw a switch and me, as a consumer downloads it be it a book, a song, a news story or whatever, there is no need to pay a trucker to deliver the product to Target. So the transportation worker is removed, the retail worker is removed and there is a direct relationship between me and the provider. The supply chain just got shorter and there are thousands of jobs at stake with every link that was removed.

So what has to stay on the truck and what has to stay in the store?

Check out last month's Fast Company magazine. There is a story about a place that churns out 4,000 cases of veggies a month. Nothing remarkable about it until you read that the place is 45 minutes from Chicago and it's a warehouse using LED lighting. There is no reason that within 10-20 years, there will be tomatoes growing on your counter top. Low/no overhead co-ops can bring eggs and dairy.

Your question was why money-less. Its pretty much the only way it can go when you have a growing population, jobs being eliminated, and frankly demand for labor being reduced.

---

I would love to hear another scenario but It escapes me.
 
That was a loooooong OP FA and forgive me for just scanning it instead of reading it carefully. It would have helped if you had concluded with a summary and a specific question you wished addressed. But you took a lot of time and obviously put a lot of thought into that, and it deserves an answer.

In my opinion, in order to have the free market sustain the needs of the people, all we have to do is to mostly back big government out of the equation and let the people live their lives.

Throughout history people didn't have to be told to build Conestoga wagons for the expansion west---people just figured out there was a need and adapted to it. People didn't have to be told to build railroads. People didn't have to be told to start building all the things necessary to have railroads--they saw the need and filled it.

People didn't have to be told to start closing down the buggy whip and carriage factories and retooling to build auto parts and other components necessary for the rapidly developing automobile industry. They saw that this was happening and they did it.

People didn't have to be told to change their ways of doing things to accommodate the almost instant electronics revolution. They just did it.

For all of human history people have recognized opportunity as new inventions and possibilities and technologies, saw the needs (i.e. market possibilities) and filled it.

And in almost every single case, the most prosperous and productive new innovations and resulting jobs and prosperity occurred in a free market without any government interference of any kind.

There is no reason to think that a free people will not continue to see developing opportunities and step up to fill the new needs (i.e. new markets) that result. It is only when government over regulates and tries to micro manage emerging industries that they get bogged down and all the possibilities aren't realized.
That was a loooooong OP FA and forgive me for just scanning it instead of reading it carefully. It would have helped if you had concluded with a summary and a specific question you wished addressed. But you took a lot of time and obviously put a lot of thought into that, and it deserves an answer.

In my opinion, in order to have the free market sustain the needs of the people, all we have to do is to mostly back big government out of the equation and let the people live their lives.

Throughout history people didn't have to be told to build Conestoga wagons for the expansion west---people just figured out there was a need and adapted to it. People didn't have to be told to build railroads. People didn't have to be told to start building all the things necessary to have railroads--they saw the need and filled it.

People didn't have to be told to start closing down the buggy whip and carriage factories and retooling to build auto parts and other components necessary for the rapidly developing automobile industry. They saw that this was happening and they did it.

People didn't have to be told to change their ways of doing things to accommodate the almost instant electronics revolution. They just did it.

For all of human history people have recognized opportunity as new inventions and possibilities and technologies, saw the needs (i.e. market possibilities) and filled it.

And in almost every single case, the most prosperous and productive new innovations and resulting jobs and prosperity occurred in a free market without any government interference of any kind.

There is no reason to think that a free people will not continue to see developing opportunities and step up to fill the new needs (i.e. new markets) that result. It is only when government over regulates and tries to micro manage emerging industries that they get bogged down and all the possibilities aren't realized.
Thank you for your response. I think you missed the overall point here though – none of this claims that the government needs to tell people where to become productive or introduce new products. People will always be productive and create new markets as long as the reward is there to do so. The problem is that new markets used to require large employment to create and maintain.

New markets will still occur BUT they will no longer require large employment to do so. It is that reality that is going to come to a head.

Well I didn't address that specifically, but I still put faith in the human spirit to work it out. It is true that mechanization took millions off the farms and funneled them into the towns and cities, but they still managed to find jobs and feed their families. As people have more leisure, the more the ways to spend their money on leisure activities becomes big business. Perhaps we will have another cultural shift in which a one wage-earner marriage becomes fashionable again, and one parent will expect to stay home and take care of the kids and day to day operations of running a home which gives everybody more leisure to enjoy.

Unless you have an oppressive government that diminishes the entreprenourial spirit, people seem to figure it out as we go along.
Oh no, don’t get me wrong. I agree with this. What I am interested is what you think that might actually be or if you still think a capitalist type system is going to be the best we have. I don’t think it will be system that looks like capitalism tbh. I don’t see how capitalism in general can deal with an economy that does not employ most people. Further, I think it is going to be a hell of a turbulent time and cost many lives – exactly like it happened last time when the industrial revolution changed economies all over the planet.

Capitalism is an absolutely imperfect, unpredictable, inconsistent, and sorry way to run any economy. But it is far better than ANYTHING else out there. I think it is our best shot to avoid the worst of turbulent times as we adapt to new ways to work, live, and engage in recreation and other pursuits.
That is why I said I think that what we end up in will be something new. Capitalism might be the best we have BUT it is not sufficient unless there is a thriving middle class. The death of that middles class is, IMHO, evident at this stage.

Without that then it really becomes just as bad as communism.

But I don't agree that there won't be a middle class. I still believe new technologies don't take away jobs but simply inspire new ways to make money and that require people to make it. A single computer can now do the work that it once took dozens of people to do. But that computer didn't throw those dozens of people out of work, it just changed the way they work and the kinds of jobs there are to do.
 
One example. When I first started training in a particular industry that, among other things, required auditing certain financial records, we did it all by hand except for using a calculator for simple arithmetic tasks. Then the personal computer began making its way into homes and industry and eventually we were doing our auditing and write ups on computers instead of by hand. Sophisticated software was developed for us to do it--somebody had to do that along with numerous revisions and changes as different aspects of the procedures changed.

We figured there would be a lot fewer auditors needed with the new technologies, but it didn't turn out that way. Because we had the capability to do it, our clients wanted much more information than we were providing before. So most of the audits took longer to do, the write ups were far more intricate and provided mountains of information we didn't once provide, and we were making twice the money per audit. And there was need for more auditors. The information they were buying was far more useful to the clients so they were willing to pay more.

Plus computer manufacturers, salespersons, repair shops, etc. etc. etc. were getting a lot more business because we needed so many more computers.

Win win for everybody. :)
 
Something has been bothering me lately and has challenged my base political beliefs is capitalism's ability to deal with the long term future as a valid economic system for us to follow. For those of you that do not know me I am an avid advocate for both free market capitalism in as pure a sense as we can reasonably attain and libertarian ideals. I do not believe government interference leads to desirable outcomes in most situations. There is a very long term problem that I face with this belief structure though.

The reality that we face today is that more and more sectors are being automated. Workers in these fields are becoming more and more productive as a result. This is, at its base, a very good thing as we are getting more out of our work we will have to do less of it. Hundreds of years ago work would have consumed virtually 100 percent of peoples time. Better tools, automation and increased productivity have allowed us a great deal of freedom in our lives where we are able to work far less and even have almost 40% of our population not working at all. This is a good thing.

The actual value of labor becomes a problem when you have so much productivity though. Increased productivity does not necessarily increase the value of labor even though that labor produces more goods. The increased productivity might do so IF you are not increasing the labor pool. As labor is a commodity like any other, steeply decreasing the number of jobs will devalue even skilled labor as everyone is pushed into those few remaining jobs. I think this is somewhat reflected in today's society as we see so many young people with degrees making very little - literally everyone needs a degree these day simply because there are so many people looking for those few jobs.


I think that we are coming to a tipping point though where labor is going to become so rare that a capitalist system can no longer be reasonably sustained. Automation has been occurring for a long time and it really has not been that big of an issue because there were always other areas that people could move into - more high tech jobs or entirely new industries created from such automation. That was all fine and well as long as the automated machines were simple and narrow. If you go to an assembly line where cars are manufactured you will see many machines that replaced many workers. Those machines, however, are a FAR cry from actual human labor. They are repetitive and can only do a single task though they do it well. There is no intelligence there.

Today, the automation is completely different. Machines are no longer simple minded or extremely narrow. Cars are already capable of being completely controlled by computers - the entire transportation industry essentially no longer needs people to move product. As soon as society catches up, you are going to see thousands of jobs gone from the transportation industry. Such vehicles do not sleep, require medical care breaks or 401K's and (most importantly) do not get in accidents. They are FAR cheaper and they are poised to replace the largest employment sector in the nation right now. Even pilots are essentially passengers on automated aircraft these days. Aircraft take off, fly to their destination and land without a single command from the pilot. And as a side bonus, they never crash into the side of a mountain when they get depressed.


So far these machines have been fairly narrow machines but the truth is that machines are even getting into skilled professional jobs like writing or doctors or even creative endeavors like composing music. They are expanding into those specialized sectors as well eliminating need for highly skilled labors as well. In the video below it talks about WATSON - a diagnosis machines that is superior to a doctor for basic diagnosis.

I think that it is a given that machines are going to take a huge chunk out of modern employment. The question that we face is how to deal with a population that is largely unemployed simply because there is little to no need for those jobs to exist. This is a given - we see it happening all around us. Can capitalism cope with the future or are we going to need to come up with something different?

The right seems married to capitalism to the point that there can be no other solution or economic method to follow. I think that it is folly to assume that such must be the case forever - eventually change will occur as it must. The left seems stuck in 'solutions' that do nothing but perpetuate a broken system. Infrastructure cannot employ the nation and raising minimum wage does nothing to address the fact that jobs will disappear. Even safety nets are rather misguided as the value of money adjusts to the number of pieces of paper that you force into everyone's pockets. Personally I think there might very well be a new economic system that is unlike anything that we have used thus far to replace the current system when that time comes.


I may have not articulated myself well here (and a lot of posters are going to trash this without even reading it) but I would like to hear some of your thoughts on what the future might hold and what you think it might take to get there.



I am particularly interested in
dblack Foxfyre
opinions here. Am I completely off base?

i think you have articulated yourself extremely well. this makes me think of ayn rand and atlas shrugged.
 
The blessing of capitalism is that it works, it's based on greed and selfishness, and the curse of capitalism is that it eventually destroys itself, it's based on greed and selfishness. All you have to do is figure out at what stage of all hell breaking loose you are.
greed and selfishness being the new hard work.
 
One of the basic flaws of capitalism is that steady growth must be maintained or an enterprise is considered a failure. Even if growth occurs at a rate equal to population growth it is still unsatisfactory. There must be a point where meaningful growth is impossible by any means. What will happen on that day when capitalism fails?
 
I should also note that there is no such thing as ‘pure’ anything be it capitalism, socialism or communism. Systems are never pure. A capitalist based system, even as we have it now, is as you say concerned with and good at producing efficiency. That has always been one of its strengths.

Eventually people will be outdated with things that are more efficient.
an amalgam of ideologies. technology.
 

Forum List

Back
Top