The future of capitalism

[Uncensored2008]

Machines will always need maintenance and parts replaced. The human factor will remain.

True, but only a few humans at needed in many cases.

 

[Foxfyre]

The 'big picture' is ALL the factors that must be considered to evaluate the situation. I can look at statistics that show I have collected more $1 bills than ever before as evidence of a growing net worth, but if I look at a separate statistic that shows I spent more $1 bills than I took in, then I have to admit that my net worth could have declined.

Yeah, but you're not considering 'all factors'. You're ignoring anything, and I mean *anything* that doesn't conform to your existing beliefs. You've literally ignored total employment, the unemployment rate, the stablized LPR, the rising manufacturing sector, the US having the highest manufacturing output of any nation, and a growing economy.......

.......because it didn't match your beliefs.

You're offering us nothing but confirmation bias. If you ignore any positive economic indicator, of course you're only going to see decline. But why would a rational person do this if they're genuinely interested in what's actually happening?

There is no reason.

No dear. I didn't ignore it.

You certainly seemed to right here, sport:

As it has been said, there are statistics and there are damn statistics and there are lies. Anybody can find a statistic or a chart or a graph somebody has developed for the internet to prove just about anything they want to prove. And there are many people who just gobble those up because they so desperately want those statistics or those charts and graphs to be the truth.

But sometimes they in effect promote a great lie between a raw statistic and the truth of what actually is.

Looks to me that you're dismissing any stat that doesn't conform to your beliefs as 'lies'. That's confirmation bias. A useless fallacy of logic.

All I am saying that positive economic indicators are only one aspect of the big picture. You can't point to one set of statistics and ignore all the others and say see? This is proof that the economy is doing just great. That simply is not the way it is.

I haven't said that the 'economy is doing great'. I've said that you've grossly overstated your case regarding the economy being crushed. That the economy is growing, manufacturing is climbing, total employment is ascending, unempolyment is down, the LPR is stable.

What you want me to have said and what I have actually said don't always mesh though do they. Unless you can point to a place in which I actually said it, how you choose to interpret what I said is about as likely to be incorrect as using a single statistic or two as evidence that the economy is doing well.

That you're letting hyperbole run a little wild and you've overstated your case. That the evidence doesn't support your claim that the economy is 'crushed'. But instead, that the economy is slowly recovering.

It doesn't have to be Armageddon or glitter covered utopia. There's definitely room in between. And right now, we're recovering.

Perhaps, but we are recovering at the slowest pace since the Great Depression. A slow recovery does not equal a great economy. And as of last quarter, most economist agreed that the economy had effectively stalled and was not recovering at all at that time.

People are hurting Skylar. A low unemployment rate when 1/3rd of the labor force is not able to work is not a great thing. A low unemployment rate coupled with near full employment is what we should be shooting for. If we started paying off the national debt at $10 million dollars a day beginning now, if we didn't spend a single dime above and beyond what we now owe, it would take us between 5 and 6,000 years to pay off the existing debt. But we are increasing that debt by hundreds of millions a day. That is not a good thing.

We have more than 3 trillion dollars in capital assets that are parked off shore because people won't incur the excessively high taxes or risk that money in the current crappy economy. There is probably almost that much sidelined here in the states with business owners unwilling to risk what they have to expand or grow their businesses. That is not evidence of a great economy.

I have been studying economics for most of my life. I am able to seek out and see the reports of what is marginally better and what is worse. I am absolutely certain that this is the worst economy for the longest period this country has ever sustained since the Great Depression. And no matter how much the pro-government people want to sugar coat that, it still looks just as bad.

 

[Foxfyre]

Apologies to FA for hijacking the thread topic and I will now cease and desist doing that.

It is a great topic and worthy of discussion.

 

[francoHFW]

The economy is doing just fine, despite total, mindless, party-first GOP obstruction after THEY wrecked the WORLD economy, hater dupes.

OP- Pretty much what Bernie and the Dems want, what the rest of the modern world has, Social Democracy, or socialism- recognized everywhere but here as ALWAYS democratic, and of course NOT COMMUNISM DUH. We actually already have socialism here, but it panders far too much here toward the greedy idiot rich GOP. see sig.

 

[FA_Q2]

As far as the original point goes, no one has really addressed the core issue at hand. I hear a lot of 'things have automated before and jobs still exist' but no one is dealing with the WHY. Those jobs were moved to thinking positions over 'doing' positions.

They're being automated because its efficient. And efficiency is what capitalism does. Fundamentally, that's all it does. Rewarding innovation and working without centralization are merely cogs within the efficiency machine.

You realize that much of the thrust of the post and the videos is that machines are THINKING better than people now. Tell me - where are those jobs going to og when computers both think and do better than we do?

Machines 'think' better than we do within very specific and extremely limited parameters. The what if you're describing is one hell of a hypothetical.

No its not - not anymore. Did you watch the videos in the OP?

 

[FA_Q2]

Apologies to FA for hijacking the thread topic and I will now cease and desist doing that.

It is a great topic and worthy of discussion.

No, fox. Go on. I have no problem with the thread evolving naturally. Ill just bring in a thing or 2 when I want to reiterate a point . I think all the discussion thus far has been very good - not a single troll so far and good points from a lot of posters.

 

[FA_Q2]

Oh

apparently I spoke too soon LOL.

 

[Foxfyre]

Apologies to FA for hijacking the thread topic and I will now cease and desist doing that.

It is a great topic and worthy of discussion.

No, fox. Go on. I have no problem with the thread evolving naturally. Ill just bring in a thing or 2 when I want to reiterate a point . I think all the discussion thus far has been very good - not a single troll so far and good points from a lot of posters.

Yes there is that. But I did love the original concept of your thread which, to engage in a bit of hyperbole, I translated to "Will machines eventually replace us people?"

It is a provocative question and worthy of discussion.

 

[Little-Acorn]

As far as the original point goes, no one has really addressed the core issue at hand.

True. And the core issue was: The future of capitalism


Capitalism is simply people doing business, making deals with each other, doing what they need to to attract customers and makes sales, without government intruding or inhibiting them.

In a word, capitalism is economic freedom.

The only role government plays in capitalism, is in enforcing contracts, prosecuting and punishing fraud and coercion, and arbitrating disputes.

So when you discuss "The future of capitalism", you are really discussing the future of freedom.

With more and more countries sliding into welfare-state socialism that restrict and burden business (that is, people's ability to make a living) more and more, the future of freedoms such as capitalism indeed in doubt.

 

[Foxfyre]

As far as the original point goes, no one has really addressed the core issue at hand.

True. And the core issue was: The future of capitalism


Capitalism is simply people doing business, making deals with each other, doing what they need to to attract customers and makes sales, without government intruding or inhibiting them.

In a word, capitalism is economic freedom.

The only role government plays in capitalism, is in enforcing contracts, prosecuting and punishing fraud and coercion, and arbitrating disputes.

So when you discuss "The future of capitalism", you are really discussing the future of freedom.

With more and more countries sliding into welfare-state socialism that restrict and burden business (that is, people's ability to make a living) more and more, the future of freedoms such as capitalism indeed in doubt.

For sure the more people are dependent on government to put dinner on the table, the less opportunity there will be for the capitalists to prosper. And the less the capitalists prosper, the more difficult it becomes for anybody to prosper except for those in government with power to take whatever they want.

To me, that is a far greater danger for human life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness than anything technology is likely to ever throw at them.

 

[Skylar]

Yeah, but you're not considering 'all factors'. You're ignoring anything, and I mean *anything* that doesn't conform to your existing beliefs. You've literally ignored total employment, the unemployment rate, the stablized LPR, the rising manufacturing sector, the US having the highest manufacturing output of any nation, and a growing economy.......

.......because it didn't match your beliefs.

You're offering us nothing but confirmation bias. If you ignore any positive economic indicator, of course you're only going to see decline. But why would a rational person do this if they're genuinely interested in what's actually happening?

There is no reason.

No dear. I didn't ignore it.

You certainly seemed to right here, sport:

As it has been said, there are statistics and there are damn statistics and there are lies. Anybody can find a statistic or a chart or a graph somebody has developed for the internet to prove just about anything they want to prove. And there are many people who just gobble those up because they so desperately want those statistics or those charts and graphs to be the truth.

But sometimes they in effect promote a great lie between a raw statistic and the truth of what actually is.

Looks to me that you're dismissing any stat that doesn't conform to your beliefs as 'lies'. That's confirmation bias. A useless fallacy of logic.

All I am saying that positive economic indicators are only one aspect of the big picture. You can't point to one set of statistics and ignore all the others and say see? This is proof that the economy is doing just great. That simply is not the way it is.

I haven't said that the 'economy is doing great'. I've said that you've grossly overstated your case regarding the economy being crushed. That the economy is growing, manufacturing is climbing, total employment is ascending, unempolyment is down, the LPR is stable.

What you want me to have said and what I have actually said don't always mesh though do they. Unless you can point to a place in which I actually said it, how you choose to interpret what I said is about as likely to be incorrect as using a single statistic or two as evidence that the economy is doing well.

That you're letting hyperbole run a little wild and you've overstated your case. That the evidence doesn't support your claim that the economy is 'crushed'. But instead, that the economy is slowly recovering.

It doesn't have to be Armageddon or glitter covered utopia. There's definitely room in between. And right now, we're recovering.

Perhaps, but we are recovering at the slowest pace since the Great Depression. A slow recovery does not equal a great economy. And as of last quarter, most economist agreed that the economy had effectively stalled and was not recovering at all at that time.

Most economists are quite optimistic about Q2 estimates as the factors that draged on the US economy in Q1 were temporary: an insanely harsh winter in the north east and a huge port strike in the west, accompanied by a strong dollar.

Yet despite 3.9% in Q3, and a 2.2% growth in Q4, with most economists bullish for Q2.....you're ready drape both yourself and the nation is sack cloth and ashes. This despite optimistic estimates for Q2. And strong estimates for the rest of the year.

You don't sound very 'big picture' oriented. Instead, focusing on one quarter and ignoring both estimates for the next and performance in the 2 quarters before that. Once again strongly suggesting that your beliefs come before the evidence. Or your 'big picture'.

People are hurting Skylar. A low unemployment rate when 1/3rd of the labor force is not able to work is not a great thing.

But who says that 1/3 of the labor force is not able to work? The LPR doesn't measure how many people CAN work. It measures what portion of people ARE working. If your assumptions were true, then our economy was hurting far far more in the late 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s than it is now. As the LPR was lower from 48 to 78.

Your reasoning doesn't work. Your assumptions are invalid. And its these assumptions upon which you're basing a lot of beliefs that simply don't hold up.

As for people 'hurting', US consumer confidence is at roughly the same level as it was in January of 2007. And higher than it was for most of the Bush years. Yet you're offering us rather melodramatic descriptions of comparative doom. The American people don't share your sentiment.

We have more than 3 trillion dollars in capital assets that are parked off shore because people won't incur the excessively high taxes or risk that money in the current crappy economy.

What's an 'excessively high taxes'? Our tax rates are near a historic low. ANY tax rate is too high for the super wealthy sheltering assets overseas.

 

[Foxfyre]

No dear. I didn't ignore it.

You certainly seemed to right here, sport:

As it has been said, there are statistics and there are damn statistics and there are lies. Anybody can find a statistic or a chart or a graph somebody has developed for the internet to prove just about anything they want to prove. And there are many people who just gobble those up because they so desperately want those statistics or those charts and graphs to be the truth.

But sometimes they in effect promote a great lie between a raw statistic and the truth of what actually is.

Looks to me that you're dismissing any stat that doesn't conform to your beliefs as 'lies'. That's confirmation bias. A useless fallacy of logic.

All I am saying that positive economic indicators are only one aspect of the big picture. You can't point to one set of statistics and ignore all the others and say see? This is proof that the economy is doing just great. That simply is not the way it is.

I haven't said that the 'economy is doing great'. I've said that you've grossly overstated your case regarding the economy being crushed. That the economy is growing, manufacturing is climbing, total employment is ascending, unempolyment is down, the LPR is stable.

What you want me to have said and what I have actually said don't always mesh though do they. Unless you can point to a place in which I actually said it, how you choose to interpret what I said is about as likely to be incorrect as using a single statistic or two as evidence that the economy is doing well.

That you're letting hyperbole run a little wild and you've overstated your case. That the evidence doesn't support your claim that the economy is 'crushed'. But instead, that the economy is slowly recovering.

It doesn't have to be Armageddon or glitter covered utopia. There's definitely room in between. And right now, we're recovering.

Perhaps, but we are recovering at the slowest pace since the Great Depression. A slow recovery does not equal a great economy. And as of last quarter, most economist agreed that the economy had effectively stalled and was not recovering at all at that time.

Most economists are quite optimistic about Q2 estimates as the factors that draged on the US economy in Q1 were temporary: an insanely harsh winter in the north east and a huge port strike in the west, accompanied by a strong dollar.

Yet despite 3.9% in Q3, and a 2.2% growth in Q4, with most economists bullish for Q2.....you're ready drape both yourself and the nation is sack cloth and ashes. This despite optimistic estimates for Q2. And strong estimates for the rest of the year.

You don't sound very 'big picture' oriented. Instead, focusing on one quarter and ignoring both estimates for the next and performance in the 2 quarters before that. Once again strongly suggesting that your beliefs come before the evidence. Or your 'big picture'.

People are hurting Skylar. A low unemployment rate when 1/3rd of the labor force is not able to work is not a great thing.

But who says that 1/3 of the labor force is not able to work? The LPR doesn't measure how many people CAN work. It measures what portion of people ARE working. If your assumptions were true, then our economy was hurting far far more in the late 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s than it is now. As the LPR was lower from 48 to 78.

Your reasoning doesn't work. Your assumptions are invalid. And its these assumptions upon which you're basing a lot of beliefs that simply don't hold up.

As for people 'hurting', US consumer confidence is at roughly the same level as it was in January of 2007. And higher than it was for most of the Bush years. Yet you're offering us rather melodramatic descriptions of comparative doom. The American people don't share your sentiment.

We have more than 3 trillion dollars in capital assets that are parked off shore because people won't incur the excessively high taxes or risk that money in the current crappy economy.

What's an 'excessively high taxes'? Our tax rates are near a historic low. ANY tax rate is too high for the super wealthy sheltering assets overseas.

Well we will just have to agree to disagree. I'm siding with the people who are hurting. You seem to be arguing that nobody needs to be hurting at all. And we are not likely to agree on that.

 

[Skylar]

You certainly seemed to right here, sport:

Looks to me that you're dismissing any stat that doesn't conform to your beliefs as 'lies'. That's confirmation bias. A useless fallacy of logic.

I haven't said that the 'economy is doing great'. I've said that you've grossly overstated your case regarding the economy being crushed. That the economy is growing, manufacturing is climbing, total employment is ascending, unempolyment is down, the LPR is stable.

What you want me to have said and what I have actually said don't always mesh though do they. Unless you can point to a place in which I actually said it, how you choose to interpret what I said is about as likely to be incorrect as using a single statistic or two as evidence that the economy is doing well.

That you're letting hyperbole run a little wild and you've overstated your case. That the evidence doesn't support your claim that the economy is 'crushed'. But instead, that the economy is slowly recovering.

It doesn't have to be Armageddon or glitter covered utopia. There's definitely room in between. And right now, we're recovering.

Perhaps, but we are recovering at the slowest pace since the Great Depression. A slow recovery does not equal a great economy. And as of last quarter, most economist agreed that the economy had effectively stalled and was not recovering at all at that time.

Most economists are quite optimistic about Q2 estimates as the factors that draged on the US economy in Q1 were temporary: an insanely harsh winter in the north east and a huge port strike in the west, accompanied by a strong dollar.

Yet despite 3.9% in Q3, and a 2.2% growth in Q4, with most economists bullish for Q2.....you're ready drape both yourself and the nation is sack cloth and ashes. This despite optimistic estimates for Q2. And strong estimates for the rest of the year.

You don't sound very 'big picture' oriented. Instead, focusing on one quarter and ignoring both estimates for the next and performance in the 2 quarters before that. Once again strongly suggesting that your beliefs come before the evidence. Or your 'big picture'.

People are hurting Skylar. A low unemployment rate when 1/3rd of the labor force is not able to work is not a great thing.

But who says that 1/3 of the labor force is not able to work? The LPR doesn't measure how many people CAN work. It measures what portion of people ARE working. If your assumptions were true, then our economy was hurting far far more in the late 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s than it is now. As the LPR was lower from 48 to 78.

Your reasoning doesn't work. Your assumptions are invalid. And its these assumptions upon which you're basing a lot of beliefs that simply don't hold up.

As for people 'hurting', US consumer confidence is at roughly the same level as it was in January of 2007. And higher than it was for most of the Bush years. Yet you're offering us rather melodramatic descriptions of comparative doom. The American people don't share your sentiment.

We have more than 3 trillion dollars in capital assets that are parked off shore because people won't incur the excessively high taxes or risk that money in the current crappy economy.

What's an 'excessively high taxes'? Our tax rates are near a historic low. ANY tax rate is too high for the super wealthy sheltering assets overseas.

Well we will just have to agree to disagree. I'm siding with the people who are hurting. You seem to be arguing that nobody needs to be hurting at all. And we are not likely to agree on that.

I'm arguing that you've overstated your case and that the evidence contradicts your claims that the economy is 'crushed'. And instead, that the economy is recovering.

A view held by most of the same economists you claimed to cite in your last post.

 

[Foxfyre]

What you want me to have said and what I have actually said don't always mesh though do they. Unless you can point to a place in which I actually said it, how you choose to interpret what I said is about as likely to be incorrect as using a single statistic or two as evidence that the economy is doing well.

That you're letting hyperbole run a little wild and you've overstated your case. That the evidence doesn't support your claim that the economy is 'crushed'. But instead, that the economy is slowly recovering.

It doesn't have to be Armageddon or glitter covered utopia. There's definitely room in between. And right now, we're recovering.

Perhaps, but we are recovering at the slowest pace since the Great Depression. A slow recovery does not equal a great economy. And as of last quarter, most economist agreed that the economy had effectively stalled and was not recovering at all at that time.

Most economists are quite optimistic about Q2 estimates as the factors that draged on the US economy in Q1 were temporary: an insanely harsh winter in the north east and a huge port strike in the west, accompanied by a strong dollar.

Yet despite 3.9% in Q3, and a 2.2% growth in Q4, with most economists bullish for Q2.....you're ready drape both yourself and the nation is sack cloth and ashes. This despite optimistic estimates for Q2. And strong estimates for the rest of the year.

You don't sound very 'big picture' oriented. Instead, focusing on one quarter and ignoring both estimates for the next and performance in the 2 quarters before that. Once again strongly suggesting that your beliefs come before the evidence. Or your 'big picture'.

People are hurting Skylar. A low unemployment rate when 1/3rd of the labor force is not able to work is not a great thing.

But who says that 1/3 of the labor force is not able to work? The LPR doesn't measure how many people CAN work. It measures what portion of people ARE working. If your assumptions were true, then our economy was hurting far far more in the late 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s than it is now. As the LPR was lower from 48 to 78.

Your reasoning doesn't work. Your assumptions are invalid. And its these assumptions upon which you're basing a lot of beliefs that simply don't hold up.

As for people 'hurting', US consumer confidence is at roughly the same level as it was in January of 2007. And higher than it was for most of the Bush years. Yet you're offering us rather melodramatic descriptions of comparative doom. The American people don't share your sentiment.

We have more than 3 trillion dollars in capital assets that are parked off shore because people won't incur the excessively high taxes or risk that money in the current crappy economy.

What's an 'excessively high taxes'? Our tax rates are near a historic low. ANY tax rate is too high for the super wealthy sheltering assets overseas.

Well we will just have to agree to disagree. I'm siding with the people who are hurting. You seem to be arguing that nobody needs to be hurting at all. And we are not likely to agree on that.

I'm arguing that you've overstated your case and that the evidence contradicts your claims that the economy is 'crushed'. And instead, that the economy is recovering.

A view held by most of the same economists you claimed to cite in your last post.

Except that I haven't said the economy is 'crushed'. Speaking of hyperbole.

 

[Skylar]

You have said we are "crushing private enterprise under a mountain of rules, regulations and paperwork that nobody can realistically expect to understand or comply with it all".

And I've argued that private enterprise is far from crushed.

 

[Skylar]

You have said we are "crushing private enterprise under a mountain of rules, regulations and paperwork that nobody can realistically expect to understand or comply with it all".

And I've argued that private enterprise is far from crushed.

 

[Skylar]

Poor baby.....have to bring George Bush back into it, don't you?

The era to era comparisons were made by your own sources. Comparing 2005 to 2008 with 2009 to 2012. I'll even bold it for you:

From 2009 through last year, there were more than 13,000 final rules published in the Federal Register, while fewer than 12,400 were finalized from 2005-2008, the report found. That’s an increase of nearly five percent.

Government report finds regulations have spiked under Obama TheHill

Does that look at all familiar?

Unless you're arguing that Bush wasn't president from 2005 to 2008, then you're complaining about your own source's comparison. Not mine.

What the hell will you people do when Bush dies? Who the hell will you blame then? Granted, Bush was an idiot of the highest magnitude - but he was nowhere near the threat to this country that Obama is.

I'll probably still be able to tell the difference between 13,000 and 200,000. Or even 20,000.

 

[Foxfyre]

You have said we are "crushing private enterprise under a mountain of rules, regulations and paperwork that nobody can realistically expect to understand or comply with it all".

And I've argued that private enterprise is far from crushed.

Private enterprise and the economy are two separate things. And I was pretty explicit about what I mean by crushing private enterprise.

 

[Little-Acorn]

For sure the more people are dependent on government to put dinner on the table, the less opportunity there will be for the capitalists to prosper. And the less the capitalists prosper, the more difficult it becomes for anybody to prosper except for those in government with power to take whatever they want.

And the more difficult it becomes to put dinner on the table.

This is something the anti-capitalist (aka anti-freedom) leftists carefully avoid addressing.

 

[Skylar]

You have said we are "crushing private enterprise under a mountain of rules, regulations and paperwork that nobody can realistically expect to understand or comply with it all".

And I've argued that private enterprise is far from crushed.

Private enterprise and the economy are two separate things. And I was pretty explicit about what I mean by crushing private enterprise.

You were. You cited manufacturing. And yet manufacturing is growing. You cited a declining LPR. The LPR has stablized. You cited employment. Employment is growing.

The reports of the death of free enterprise have been greatly exaggerated.