Why Capitalism is Doomed

[itfitzme]

But what we do know is that progress been the result of an interplay between government, private industry, individuals, and universities, each motivated to fill some need they recognized.

that of course is vague and meaningless. While it is inevitable that war is part of history and so will drive some innovation, the innovation comes from the private sector and is merely purchased by libturds. There is no evidence that, overall, it is money well spent to advance our standard of living. 99% of patents never earn a penny and 99.999 % of libturd guessing about where to invest money will be utterly fruitless, so it is better to rely on the private sector for tech. advancement. People guess better with their own money!!

U.S military global positioning system satellites are used by private companies like OnStar and Trimble Navigation Ltd. They are dependent upon the theoretical work of Albert Einstein and his 1905 seminal academic paper "On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies", popularly knows as the Special Theory Of Relativity. Charlie Trimble and two others from Hewlett-Packard, middle class engineers founded Trimble in 1978 above the old Los Altos theatre in Silicon Valley.

That is the government military, an academic theoretical physicist, and a team of middle class engineers, all combining to achieve a private industry success.

And you are still a paranoid delusional moron that has absolutely no education or knowledge, and nothing useful to say.

 

[diocoses]

If capitalism is doomed solely because of the falling number of job opportunities available to the general public, it stands to reason that the other two of the big 3, Communism and Socialism, must fail as well since they too depend on sufficient jobs for the people. In fact every system in History, from traditional markets to Feudalism has always operated on the basis that there would be ample work for everyone to indulge in, no matter the kind of work being indulged.

Seeing this, it seems like our time would be better spent devising and opining the merits of a wholly new economic system, one that is specially suited to our unique time in History and adequately equiped to deal with all the problems that could potentially arise out of this newfound automated future, instead of debating obscure historical facts and statistics. Let us too transcend those petty political lines and together plot a solid course through these yet uncharted waters, for only then will we have accomplished anything worth a damn.

 

[logical4u]

Better yet, without middle income, or modest income, capitalism we wouldn't have those things.

When did the "middle class" increase, exponentially in this country?

And, what are you talking about? Why are you asking when the "middle class" increased exponentially? And what does it have to do with the price of imported tea from China?

At the mall near where I live, there is a machine that cuts keys. It is an automated key cutting machine. The customer inserts their key into the slot, they choose the pretty color they like, pay their money, press the button, and the machine does the rest.

I was talking to the tech who was installing a new cell phone antenna, that connects the machine to the network. The machine was created by a couple of middle income guys, one a business man, another an engineer.

They began the business, like so many have, in their garage. They were "middle income", not even "upper middle income" earners that saw an opportunity, put up their capital as investment, worked out of their garage (the main capital of the middle income earners), and filled an untapped demand.

I just wanted to point out that "middle income earners" started when Henry Ford decided to market a product that medium income earners could buy. He "chose" to pay his workers accordingly (so they could but the product and be driving advertisements...like the pun). "Middle income earnings" were a calculated risks by the wealthy to increase their "profits". Please demonstrate where the gov't ever manufactured a product efficiently, that helped, not just those purchasing (by choice, not force) the product, but those that were producing the product.

Henry Ford started a trend that still continues. People that want to sell a reliable, desired product are willing to pay "reasonable salaries" (some times way over the top salaries to those of us not working 80+ hours a week with no home life and no social life away from the "office") in exchange for hard work, loyalty, enthusiasm, and discrete operations in business.

When people start making demands about pay, I find it striking that the only thing they are willing to bring to the table is a breathing body willing to show up approximately at starting time. Why do you think that is?

 

[logical4u]

hhhhmmmm? If labor is actually not as needed now as it was before (which I do believe is happening), perhaps nobody needs jobs anymore, as robots will do everything in the future anyways, and we can all just get a middle class paycheck from the government instead. And those people that want to be rich? They can regulate the robots and run government, for those are really the only two positions that the robots couldn't fill, and it wouldn't need too many people to do, perserving the rich minority status that we all hold dear.

Labor will always be needed. Our priorities have changed, instead of having 80% of the population as farmers we now have about 3% of the population as farmers (thanks big oil!). Instead of having hundreds work in and out of dangerous machinery in a single plant, we now have tens (thanks coal-fired plants!). The people that were required to use their backs are now being asked to use their heads (some jobs still require actual labor, but no where near how "it used to be").

Our money is managed online; how many of us know how computer code works? Our lifestyle depends on electricity; how many know where electricity originates, or what it takes to provide it? Many of us want "green energy"; how many of us are working on projects to make improvements (even small ones) to current systems or do entirely new systems that will cut costs? We have become a technology based society. There are demands for labor in technology, they systems required by technology (electricity, infrustructure, communications), as there are demands in basic skilled labor: carpentry, plumbing, bricklaying/concrete work, electrical, security, sprinkler systems, etc. When I was looking for work that was going to be a career, I chose a field that would be there (one of the above). It didn't 'fit' me, so I made myself 'fit' to make money for my family and keep it interesting because I knew I would be doin it a long time. There are days...., but mostly, I enjoy doing my job, and want to keep doing it, for the money and the challenges that I have made for myself. I am not one of the wealthy, but I "chose" to have about 40 hours a week. I know people that are aspiring to be wealthy. I have watched them sacrifice their bodies, their families, their lives to be "successful". I have no right to demand that they pay me or my family because I chose to accomplish less. I do not believe anyone else has the right to demand anything of them for the same reason.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"Middle income earnings" were a calculated risks by the wealthy to increase their "profits".

there was no risk. Ford had nothing to do with the formation of the middle class. Any owner in any age can pay his workers anything he wants to maximize his profits, and all are always smart enough to experiment with high wages and low wages.

Its pure idiotic lunacy to suggest or imagine we could solve our shrinking middle class problem if only owners would pay middle class wages, so the newly middle class workers could by middle class goods and services and make the owners even richer.

Obviously they would being doing that if it worked!!!!!!

 

[bripat9643]

"Middle income earnings" were a calculated risks by the wealthy to increase their "profits".

there was no risk. Ford had nothing to do with the formation of the middle class. Any owner in any age can pay his workers anything he wants to maximize his profits, and all are always smart enough to experiment with high wages and low wages.

You just proved you're an utter economic ignoramus. Owners cannot pay workers anything they want to pay. Furthermore, the middle class existed long before Henry Ford appeared on the scene. Americans have always been wealthier that people in other countries. However, Henry Ford invented the assembly line and thereby vastly improved the productivity of labor. This allowed for a sharp increase in the income of labor.

Its pure idiotic lunacy to suggest or imagine we could solve our shrinking middle class problem if only owners would pay middle class wages, so the newly middle class workers could by middle class goods and services and make the owners even richer.

Obviously they would being doing that if it worked!!!!!!

It's not clear if you're pro-union or anti-union based on the above.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You just proved you're an utter economic ignoramus. Owners cannot pay workers anything they want to pay.

who can stop an owner from paying what he wants to his employees?? He's the owner?? do the Girl Scouts have veto power??How exactly did I prove I was an utter economic ignoramous???? You clean forgot to say!!!

Furthermore, the middle class existed long before Henry Ford appeared on the scene.

If i disagreed I'll pay you 10,000. Bet??

Americans have always been wealthier that people in other countries. However, Henry Ford invented the assembly line and thereby vastly improved the productivity of labor. This allowed for a sharp increase in the income of labor.

did someone disagree??????????????????????????????????


Its pure idiotic lunacy to suggest or imagine we could solve our shrinking middle class problem if only owners would pay middle class wages, so the newly middle class workers could by middle class goods and services and make the owners even richer.

Obviously they would being doing that if it worked!!!!!!

It's not clear if you're pro-union or anti-union based on the above.

who's talking about unions?????????????????????

you have to figure out what the subject is before you can write clearly about it. Sorry

 

[logical4u]

"Middle income earnings" were a calculated risks by the wealthy to increase their "profits".

there was no risk. Ford had nothing to do with the formation of the middle class. Any owner in any age can pay his workers anything he wants to maximize his profits, and all are always smart enough to experiment with high wages and low wages.

Its pure idiotic lunacy to suggest or imagine we could solve our shrinking middle class problem if only owners would pay middle class wages, so the newly middle class workers could by middle class goods and services and make the owners even richer.

Obviously they would being doing that if it worked!!!!!!

Please comprehend the idea, instead of focusing on phrases.

I asked:
When did the "middle class" increase, exponentially in this country?
your blah, blah, blah distraction story.
I continued:
I just wanted to point out that "middle income earners" started when Henry Ford decided to market a product that medium income earners could buy. He "chose" to pay his workers accordingly (so they could but the product and be driving advertisements...like the pun). "Middle income earnings" were a calculated risks by the wealthy to increase their "profits". Please demonstrate where the gov't ever manufactured a product efficiently, that helped, not just those purchasing (by choice, not force) the product, but those that were producing the product.

Henry Ford started a trend that still continues. People that want to sell a reliable, desired product are willing to pay "reasonable salaries" (some times way over the top salaries to those of us not working 80+ hours a week with no home life and no social life away from the "office") in exchange for hard work, loyalty, enthusiasm, and discrete operations in business.

When people start making demands about pay, I find it striking that the only thing they are willing to bring to the table is a breathing body willing to show up approximately at starting time. Why do you think that is?


There were middle class before that. But at that point when the production line increased productivity, the price of the product was reduced. Henry Ford wanted to enable his workers to purchase what they made (this was not a common concept in Europe or other parts of the world). This was when the middle class BOOMED. Because of that, America BOOMED. People had enough money to try their own businesses and ideas.
The wealthy, hire. The poor, fire.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Henry Ford wanted to enable his workers to purchase what they made .(this was not a common concept in Europe or other parts of the world).

OMG how perfectly idiotic and liberal ! Every manufacturer, not just Ford, has always wanted everyone to buy his products. There is obviously more profit in selling a few million VW's to the middle and lower class than a few thousand Rolls Royces to the rich!! Its actually too complex for a liberal to grasp!!!