Capitalism MUST Die ... Eventually

[Aramike]

Yeah, this will piss a lot of you off, but here it is ...

... capitalism is doomed to failure, at least in its current sense. Ultimately, I believe that the only hope for economics is a gradual but imminent shift towards a balance between capitalism and socialism, and I have reasons to support this.

First, let's understand what makes capitalism works. That is the inherent neccessity of one individual relying on several others to produce things that he/she needs. That individual produces things that can be traded for a credit (such as a fiat currency) universally accepted for the things he/she requires. The surpluses of that system are known as luxaries, and whole industries are known to be built to accommodate those ideas.

The problem lies in the fact that people are beginning to overcome their own usefulness. Technology is progressing to the point where society is able to support itself with less and less participation of the populace. For instance, 70 years ago it took 10 times the people to cultivate the food needed for a community. Now we are able to create food for far more people with far less resources, creating great wealth for farmers while employing less of their customers ultimately meaning less money to be spent on the food.

Similar events are occurring throughout almost every industry. Technology is outstripping the useful nature of humans while at the same time there are more and more humans available to perform unneeded work.

So, what happens? Returning to the farmer, his riches are only stable while he's using less people to grow food for a higher demand. Now, if you simply let people who haven't found a marketable usefulness suffer, demand is lowered, creating a supply problem. Again, this applies to any industry.

Society needs to understand that, at some point, technology is going to make supply far outweigh demand. The more people who are born (remember, thriving populations expand exponentially) and the greater the technology, the lower percentage of people will be required to be employed in order to support the burgeoning population. At some point, we will achieve a critical mass, as it were, and have to being heavily transistioning society to a more "free socialist" standpoint, like it or not.

Any thoughts?

[PeriscopeDepth]

Critical mass? More like perpetual ongoing layoffs of those with less than a BS/BA/real skill set for the foreseeable future. At least in this country. I would consider it insane for my kid to have anything less than an applied BS/BA that generates a real skill set.

You can get the type of jobs that don't require the above. You just need to move to a third world country or be content with picking fruit here/handing out burgers.

PD

[Aramike]

Critical mass? More like perpetual ongoing layoffs of those with less than a BS/BA/real skill set for the foreseeable future. At least in this country. I would consider it insane for my kid to have anything less than an applied BS/BA that generates a real skill set.

You can get the type of jobs that don't require the above. You just need to move to a third world country or be content with picking fruit here/handing out burgers.

PDThat is part of the "critical mass", as it were. At some point, the production of technology and population is going to exceed labor needs required to sustain a population, if it hasn't already. When that level reaches a certain point, capitalism will become antiquated.

Don't get me wrong - I'm an ARDENT supporter of capitalism, as I believe it is the most fair system of economic distribution known. However, I believe that technology has been so successful is removing "human" from "labor", that the means of supporting one's neighbor will become not only altruistic, but completely necessary and inherent.

[Letum]

If the people of 1890 saw the manufacturing techniques of today, they
would not believe anyone worked more than one day a week. Our
out-put being so high and our use of labour so efficient.

They would, of course, be wrong. Labor abhors a vacuum. Jobs always
expand to make use of the labor force available because there is no limit
to the desire most people have for goods and services.

If machines manage all manufacturing and 80% of people become
unemployed over night, all that happens is a sudden decrease in
wadges, which allows the now rich 20% to hire a few house servants
each or buy labor intensive specialty goods.

In short:
The demand for labor will always expand to fit the supply of labor
because as the supply of labor increases, the price of labor decreases
and as the price of labor decreases, demand for labor increases.

[Skybird]

There is no such thing as unlimited supply. Sooner or later it has come to the limits of what natural ressources can provide and replace, and then it goes down again. Classic market theory assumes that natural ressources never are an issue, are an abstract quality that is available in unlimited quantities, and only are a question of money invested, and best methods to win them. Of course that is Quatsch, sooner or later you reach the limits of that model, always. First you reach the barrier of when the growing costs for winning a ressource start to outweighs the profit gains from doing so, and next you reach the barrier when the ressource in demand is no longer in nature's supply, the limited range and scope of our biosphere sets limits - and they decide our biological survival - no matter the economic theory.

Oil for example will have stopped to be won long before the planet's ressources of oil are in fact zero. The economic market will have spiked the costs for oil decades before that could ever be the (theoretic) case. This is what arguments to stay fossil time and again ignore. adding to that exploding financial costs for producing oil, are the growing environmental costs and their longterm consequences from trying to win it. Just look at Canada where they turn whole landscapes into a moon landscape in an effort to win oil from their sands - under enormous investements in energy, btw, and doing biblical damage to the land. Whenever I hear or read that that should be the future, I can only think in terms of insanity. Or look at Australia, a continent whose face has been massively influenced and detoriated due to excessive erosion caused by man influencing the ecosphere there for his own purposes. That Australia today is one of the most radical actors with regard to improving performance regarding energy, climate and environment bilances, has a simple reason: for them it already is a must. For us it is about to become a must. In fact it already is, but it still is not obvious enough for most people to see that. First the pain must become much more hurting.

---

Another problem is a sociological-cultural one. Our societies depend on the idea that the individual must work in a job to provide itself with the needed income to pay for it'S very existence. It gets payed, for it does no longer live directly from the fruits of his hand's labour, like for example farmers and hunters originally did. No longer do you sow what you want to reap for dinner, and no longer do you hunt the prey you intend to eat, but you do something in order to get an abstraction in return: money, that you need in this crazy world nowadays. If you have no job, you're screwed. But when technology kills more and more jobs in classical job areas (heavy industry, for example), they get replaced with jobs in new fields that turn more from the physical workfield to the mind workfield. For that you need to readjust your educational system, and raise the general education standard of your society, else the individual cannot take benefit from the new jobs to create it's income. And this is where we fail. Also, there are limits for that, too. Not everybody can be a genius, not every poerson is well-suitied to think in abstract mathematical or technical qualities. There must be differences in talents! The answer in many countries and especially Germany, and even more the US, was to send more and more people into low wage jobs. A whole new business branche of services has emerged - that can only exist by abusing work forces by paying them low wages so that even when the people work full time, they do not earn enough to secure their existence - not to mention the future when they have become old. that is an unhealthy system, of which only some at the very top directly take benefit and profit from. Often they take so much of the cream that the very future itself gets damaged and cannot provide in security anymore what they promise it would.

Lots of social-cultural explosives being created there.

If the world will eventually tumble and - due to economic crisis, desaster, war or climate changes - will fall, this must not necessarily mean our biological extinction. but what will die first - and already does! - is the idea of justice, social justice, and next the decline of law and legal fundaments of our nations. Then our values and morals will decline, too, and get replaced by different survival qualities, that put responsibility (not meaning that in a positive context) back into the hands of the individual, the family, the tribe at best. The law of the strongest determines who lives and succeed, and who not. Just that then it will be meant for real - not just deciding some business project'S outcome. It's like a flock of rats in a small box. The less food there is, the more aggressive and desperate they become. Whole human cultures have died in the past, in surprising short ammounts of time, due to collaps caused by overstressing their economic ressources, and not looking into the future. They grew like crazy just because there was a time of wealth - and ignored that there is a fluctuation of good and bad times, naturally. All reserves were eaten up to boost growth, and then the times became bad again - and the ressources left could no longer maintain the pushed size, the boosted number of the populace. so people started to die. That simple.

Nobody should be to sure that our current world order could not fall victim to such a sudden fall, too. The West may be highly developed, in certain apsects. But that means it also is highly vulnerable and depending. a push that would not irritate a smaller, more primitive culture, could build up to a major blow that simply blows our fragile, complex western world construction away. And eventually you can imagine scenarios where that happens within just a handful of years. great and complex, intelligent and self-aware organisms - still can get toppled by small virusses and one-cellular bacterias.

The idea of constant, unlimited economic and civilisational growth, and not ooking into the future - these two are the two greatest sins, the biggest mistakes in our cultural and sociologic design.

Our civilisation will crush in reverse order in which it's hierarchic levels have grown. First the supra-national organisation. then local international organisation. Then the inner structure of given nations. Then regional communities beyond a certain size. Then these communities themselves. This is what doomsday for mankind due to collapse of the biosphere will be like. But the preparatory stages of that fall will already be seen inside nations while the decline of supernational organsiation has just set in. And the death of those values and legal princicples we hail so much today will set in much earlier, too, and in an effort to fight for national survival will be replaced with growing totalitarian control, with religious radicalisation growing left and right of that path.

In fact, we already see that trend right now, right today, in all the bworld, and the Western states as well. It has been called ecocide - cultural suicide and genocide motivated by fighting worstening ecologic variables - that one has affected for the worse oneself.

P.S. It may appear as if I were hopping around in various different themes: social issues, economy, envrionment, but if only you look close enough you will see that this is not by random, but a simple consequence from all being connected to all, and many different perspectives and variables unavoidably interacting with each other and influencing each other. It is stupid to look at just one predefined theme and ignore the dynamic, interactive context in which it is embedded.

[August]

If machines manage all manufacturing and 80% of people become unemployed over night, all that happens is a sudden decrease in wadges, which allows the now rich 20% to hire a few house servants
each or buy labor intensive specialty goods.

That's a rather large assumption Letum.

First off no way would each rich person hire 4 more house servants if there is no need for them, rich people aren't in the habit of giving their money away. That's why they're rich. Nor would those low paying jobs be an acceptable financial replacement for their previous jobs.

[Letum]

I think it would be easier to address you in reverse order...

Nor would those low paying jobs be an acceptable financial replacement for their previous jobs.

If it is that, or long term unemployment due to lack of non-service/skill
jobs they will have no choice.

First off no way would each rich person hire 4 more house servants if there is no need for them

At various points in history there has been an abundance of cheap labor
and it certainly was used by the affluent middle classes.
That said, cheep labor isn't just useful in the home once manufacturing
is almost totally automated (I don't think it ever will be). There are any
number of things cheep human labour can do that machines can not.

[August]

If it is that, or long term unemployment due to lack of non-service/skill jobs they will have no choice.

There is a third choice, welfare, which as you know can be a way of life for some folks. After all why work for peanuts when you can make more sitting on your butt? But that still doesn't address the 20%s continued desire to have all those workers. I think that's not a given anymore.

At various points in history there has been an abundance of cheap labor and it certainly was used by the affluent middle classes.
That said, cheep labor isn't just useful in the home once manufacturing
is almost totally automated (I don't think it ever will be). There are any
number of things cheep human labour can do that machines can not.You're assuming there will be an affluent middle class large enough to accommodate all that cheap labor. We're loosing jobs in those classes as well as technology replaces skill and talent with automation.

But I think your theory will work right up until it doesn't. That's when Madam Guillotine will make her appearance and everything goes to pot...

[FIREWALL]

Your on the right track about Critical Mass. Nuclear War will thin the hungry masses and slow down the mechanised workforce.

On the upside, Gravediggers will be in high demand. :03:

[SUBMAN1]

Capitalism MUST Die ... Eventually :haha::haha::haha:

Let me quote Mr. Churchill here:

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings;

the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.

-- Churchill
Take your pick

-S

[SteamWake]

Personally Im very excited about this "paperless office" they keep talking about.

[SUBMAN1]

Personally Im very excited about this "paperless office" they keep talking about.

:haha::haha: :rotfl:

Not gonna happen, just like the above ideas.

-S

[FIREWALL]

The bathroom is the office I do my most important "business" in.

Thankfully it isn't ... Paperless. :haha:

[SUBMAN1]

The bathroom is the office I do my most important "business" in.

Thankfully it isn't ... Paperless. :haha:

Hahhahahahaha! :D:D

A leftist dream. I wonder if the left thinks this model can happen to the US? It can't. This country isn't cut out for it since it is the last free nation on this planet. A lot of leftist policies have been put in place, but they are near a breaking point since people will not continue to march down that road.

We need a new governmental agency for people with thoughts like this that helps them find an alternate country they would enjoy living in and gives them a free one way ticket anywhere in the world they want to go the moment they forfeit their citizenship. They are obviously not happy here. There are plenty of other Socialist countries they would be much happier in. That is until they go bankrupt. All Socialist societies go bankrupt eventually after they get overwhelmed with unaffordable welfare programs.

This will even happen to the US because we have some uncompatible socialist welfare programs in a Capitalist society, and that never works. Now they are trying the healthcare thing. That will break something guaranteed. And you wonder why more guns were sold than ever before, more than any army could use in the entire world since the beginning of this year. Things are breaking.

-S

[FIREWALL]

Capitalism will always be alive and wel in the USA.

Reason being ...

We like to buy CRAP.

We go into debt, to buy CRAP.

We go into bankrupcy so we can again, run out and buy CRAP.

Socalism don't stand a chance around here.

No matter which BOOB is running this country.

CAPITALISM IS HERE TO STAY. :woot:

[SUBMAN1]

Capitalism will always be alive and wel in the USA.

Reason being ...

We like to buy CRAP.

We go into debt, to buy CRAP.

We go into bankrupcy so we can again, run out and buy CRAP.

Socalism don't stand a chance around here.

No matter which BOOB is running this country.

CAPITALISM IS HERE TO STAY.

Can't argue that.

-S

[SteamWake]

Capitalism will always be alive and wel in the USA.

Reason being ...

We like to buy CRAP.

We go into debt, to buy CRAP.

We go into bankrupcy so we can again, run out and buy CRAP.

Socalism don't stand a chance around here.

No matter which BOOB is running this country.

CAPITALISM IS HERE TO STAY. :woot:


Dont be so sure of that.

Even now grand efforts are in motion to put an end to capitolisim in the US and it has nothing to do with critical mass.

BTW whats with the big fonts?

[FIREWALL]

My eyes don't focus that well in the early morning.

Need it big to see what I'm typeing.

[Tchocky]

Put an end to capitalism...........lol.

[GoldenRivet]

without regards to your opinions Aramike.

i whole heartedly refuse to be taxed out the ass so that the crack addict single mother of 9 can continue to support her "lifestyle".

that doesnt work for me.

i vote no on socialism

[Aramike]

Capitalism will always be alive and wel in the USA.

Reason being ...

We like to buy CRAP.

We go into debt, to buy CRAP.

We go into bankrupcy so we can again, run out and buy CRAP.

Socalism don't stand a chance around here.

No matter which BOOB is running this country.

CAPITALISM IS HERE TO STAY. :woot:My point is that, at some point, the crap will be so easily produced technologically that in order to excuse the heavy production of crap despite the waning buying power due to said technology, there will be an inevitable move towards socialism.

[Aramike]

without regards to your opinions Aramike.

i whole heartedly refuse to be taxed out the ass so that the crack addict single mother of 9 can continue to support her "lifestyle".

that doesnt work for me.

i vote no on socialismYou get me wrong, GR ... I'm not at all saying that I support socialism. Actually, I'm against it. But, I also fancy myself a free-thinker and no matter how I do the math, socialism ends up heavily in the equation. You can already see signs of it now, really...

[Aramike]

There is a third choice, welfare, which as you know can be a way of life for some folks. After all why work for peanuts when you can make more sitting on your butt? But that still doesn't address the 20%s continued desire to have all those workers. I think that's not a given anymore.

You're assuming there will be an affluent middle class large enough to accommodate all that cheap labor. We're loosing jobs in those classes as well as technology replaces skill and talent with automation.

But I think your theory will work right up until it doesn't. That's when Madam Guillotine will make her appearance and everything goes to pot...August, you understand perfectly what I was trying to say! :salute:

[August]

August, you understand perfectly what I was trying to say! :salute:

Great minds think alike and so do we! :DL

[FIREWALL]

Americans like to buy CRAP.

They don't want free CRAP.

We Americans were raised by the wisdom.

You appreciate CRAP more if, you worked hard for it.

Also, The best CRAP in life isn't free and so on. :DL

[AVGWarhawk]

Oh crap:o

Who is this capitalism and why must he die:06:

[Respenus]

Aramike, just a word of advice or better yet, a more detail explanation of what you wanted to say in your first post. What you spoke of was not socialism, far from it. What you spoke of was the idea of the welfare state, first put into affect by Keynes after the second world war. While his policies were in affect, even Friedman called himself a Keynesian and as we all know, he became the son of Smith with his idea of Monetarism. The problem is, the Keynesian demand-side economics have a tendency of becoming very expensive in the long run, as it was seen in the 60's and 70's with the Classical school of economics gaining in strength due to increasing public debt. Yet even the USA used Keynes policies.

Socialism, which has started its development in the late 18th century and became a part of mainstream thinking and afterwards, politics in the 19th, has a different premise, both economically and on the social and political level. Since even Europe cannot agree what Socialism means, I cannot tell what it means, yet true Socialism if far from a capitalist state, even if it is a welfare one, based on Keynesian politics.

I have to congratulate you though, you seem to be the first American (as far as I know), who has even began to start thinking about possible alternatives to the laissez-faire Capitalist system which the USA supports full heartedly.

So one more time to my American mates on these fine forums:

Bolshevism =/ Communism =/ Socialism =/ Social Democracy =/ Welfare state

[TheBrauerHour]

i whole heartedly refuse to be taxed out the ass so that the crack addict single mother of 9 can continue to support her "lifestyle".


+1

The thought of it ticks me off to no end.

[SUBMAN1]

That is worth more than +1. It is worth +5! :D

-S

[Kptlt Thomsen]

Capitalism will always be alive and wel in the USA.

Reason being ...

We like to buy CRAP.

We go into debt, to buy CRAP.

We go into bankrupcy so we can again, run out and buy CRAP.

Socalism don't stand a chance around here.

No matter which BOOB is running this country.

CAPITALISM IS HERE TO STAY. :woot:

I like your spirit :yeah:

[CaptainHaplo]

I take a few days off to get some sun, and I come back wondering where this board is going - and why we are all in this handbasket????

Seriously - capitalism isn't dead.

Know why? Because those in power rely on it to maintain power. Look at who is getting bailouts. Banks, corporations - the POWERS behind capitalism. Sure the government thinks they can "run" them better - aka healthcare - and you are already seeing the movement by many PRIVATE insurers to lower costs to the consumer to push against it. The fact is - those in power got there because of the 20% - and the 20% is the 20% BECAUSE of capitalism.

Sure this doesn't apply to em all - but lets look at an example. Know why Ford told the government "thanks but no thanks" on the bailout? They know that with the government running the show, their ability to capitalize on their market is hampered. Instead - by telling the government NO - sales of Ford products JUMPED - where GM continued to fall. Think thats coincidence? The smartest of the 20% know that they rely on capitalism to keep them where they are.

The biggest issue with socialism/communism is that its "fo-fairness" - its fake. Those in power always are above the masses they "lead". Corruption in socialist east germany was beyond rampant. Same with communist Russia. Sure its still there in some places - but the capitalist system (even as implimented) created a force that now is irreversable in many of the former Russian satellite states. Many times such things are cyclic, just as economies are - people want more for doing less - and initially they are given it - then they must be given less and less - for doing more and more. When that balance point tips - then the people again recognize the need for a system where their effort is rewarded.

This is why you see the liberal bent of many politicians - promise the masses all you can so they put you in power. But what happens when you must PAY for those promises? You must take from those who put you there. Many middle class people voted left this last election - and they are now slowly beginning to see what the cost of that is. This is the way of society. There is no "middle of the road" - its a pendulum one way or the other - swinging back and forth as the pitfalls of BOTH sides are exposed.

Capitalism won't die, because if it did, there would be no ability for the government to pay for its promises, and thus it would lose its power. To take a smaller picture as a example - smoking is unhealthy - drinking alcohol is unhealthy - does the government stop these things? No - it makes MONEY from them instead via taxation. If you think the government is out to look after your health with all its anti-smoking rhetoric (and make no mistake - that is what it is) - then ask yourself this - if it were not a cash cow for the government - would they even hesitate to ban it? You don't kill a golden goose - no matter how much you scare the public about avian flu....

[FIREWALL]

I take a few days off to get some sun, and I come back wondering where this board is going - and why we are all in this handbasket????

Seriously - capitalism isn't dead.

Know why? Because those in power rely on it to maintain power. Look at who is getting bailouts. Banks, corporations - the POWERS behind capitalism. Sure the government thinks they can "run" them better - aka healthcare - and you are already seeing the movement by many PRIVATE insurers to lower costs to the consumer to push against it. The fact is - those in power got there because of the 20% - and the 20% is the 20% BECAUSE of capitalism.

Sure this doesn't apply to em all - but lets look at an example. Know why Ford told the government "thanks but no thanks" on the bailout? They know that with the government running the show, their ability to capitalize on their market is hampered. Instead - by telling the government NO - sales of Ford products JUMPED - where GM continued to fall. Think thats coincidence? The smartest of the 20% know that they rely on capitalism to keep them where they are.

The biggest issue with socialism/communism is that its "fo-fairness" - its fake. Those in power always are above the masses they "lead". Corruption in socialist east germany was beyond rampant. Same with communist Russia. Sure its still there in some places - but the capitalist system (even as implimented) created a force that now is irreversable in many of the former Russian satellite states. Many times such things are cyclic, just as economies are - people want more for doing less - and initially they are given it - then they must be given less and less - for doing more and more. When that balance point tips - then the people again recognize the need for a system where their effort is rewarded.

This is why you see the liberal bent of many politicians - promise the masses all you can so they put you in power. But what happens when you must PAY for those promises? You must take from those who put you there. Many middle class people voted left this last election - and they are now slowly beginning to see what the cost of that is. This is the way of society. There is no "middle of the road" - its a pendulum one way or the other - swinging back and forth as the pitfalls of BOTH sides are exposed.

Capitalism won't die, because if it did, there would be no ability for the government to pay for its promises, and thus it would lose its power. To take a smaller picture as a example - smoking is unhealthy - drinking alcohol is unhealthy - does the government stop these things? No - it makes MONEY from them instead via taxation. If you think the government is out to look after your health with all its anti-smoking rhetoric (and make no mistake - that is what it is) - then ask yourself this - if it were not a cash cow for the government - would they even hesitate to ban it? You don't kill a golden goose - no matter how much you scare the public about avian flu....

Excellent Post :up::up::up:

[Max2147]

Yeah, this will piss a lot of you off, but here it is ...

... capitalism is doomed to failure, at least in its current sense. Ultimately, I believe that the only hope for economics is a gradual but imminent shift towards a balance between capitalism and socialism, and I have reasons to support this.

First, let's understand what makes capitalism works. That is the inherent neccessity of one individual relying on several others to produce things that he/she needs. That individual produces things that can be traded for a credit (such as a fiat currency) universally accepted for the things he/she requires. The surpluses of that system are known as luxaries, and whole industries are known to be built to accommodate those ideas.

The problem lies in the fact that people are beginning to overcome their own usefulness. Technology is progressing to the point where society is able to support itself with less and less participation of the populace. For instance, 70 years ago it took 10 times the people to cultivate the food needed for a community. Now we are able to create food for far more people with far less resources, creating great wealth for farmers while employing less of their customers ultimately meaning less money to be spent on the food.

Similar events are occurring throughout almost every industry. Technology is outstripping the useful nature of humans while at the same time there are more and more humans available to perform unneeded work.

So, what happens? Returning to the farmer, his riches are only stable while he's using less people to grow food for a higher demand. Now, if you simply let people who haven't found a marketable usefulness suffer, demand is lowered, creating a supply problem. Again, this applies to any industry.

Society needs to understand that, at some point, technology is going to make supply far outweigh demand. The more people who are born (remember, thriving populations expand exponentially) and the greater the technology, the lower percentage of people will be required to be employed in order to support the burgeoning population. At some point, we will achieve a critical mass, as it were, and have to being heavily transistioning society to a more "free socialist" standpoint, like it or not.

Any thoughts?
I think I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure it will lead to socialism.

We've already seen a lot of what you're describing in the US. Manufacturing jobs have dropped off in a huge way, replaced either by technology or by outsourcing. The result hasn't been socialism, it's been a service-based economy.

It used to be that American companies had their blue collar and white collar jobs in the US. Today a lot of the blue collar jobs have gone overseas or been replaced by technology, but the white collar jobs are still in the US, and there are more white collar jobs than before. In the future the blue collar jobs will continue to disappear - that's inevitable. Our hope will be to replace those jobs with more white collar jobs. The key will be education, which will give people the qualifications needed for the white collar jobs.

It's a major oversimplification, but I think that's where the future is going. Most people in advanced nations will have cushy white collar jobs, while robots at home and workers abroad replace the blue collar jobs.

I'm not saying this is all a good thing, but I think it's the way things are going.

[August]

It used to be that American companies had their blue collar and white collar jobs in the US. Today a lot of the blue collar jobs have gone overseas or been replaced by technology, but the white collar jobs are still in the US, and there are more white collar jobs than before. In the future the blue collar jobs will continue to disappear - that's inevitable. Our hope will be to replace those jobs with more white collar jobs. The key will be education, which will give people the qualifications needed for the white collar jobs.

It's a major oversimplification, but I think that's where the future is going. Most people in advanced nations will have cushy white collar jobs, while robots at home and workers abroad replace the blue collar jobs.

I'm not saying this is all a good thing, but I think it's the way things are going.

The whole problem with it is that while there are indeed more white collar jobs than there were before there still aren't nearly enough of them to replace the lost blue collar jobs,... and the population continues to grow,... and now we're starting to see white collar jobs being replaced by technology too. At what point does it become unsustainable?

[FIREWALL]

UFO's will land for a visit in D.C. before capitilism ends in USA. :woot:

[Aramike]

I think I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure it will lead to socialism.

We've already seen a lot of what you're describing in the US. Manufacturing jobs have dropped off in a huge way, replaced either by technology or by outsourcing. The result hasn't been socialism, it's been a service-based economy.

It used to be that American companies had their blue collar and white collar jobs in the US. Today a lot of the blue collar jobs have gone overseas or been replaced by technology, but the white collar jobs are still in the US, and there are more white collar jobs than before. In the future the blue collar jobs will continue to disappear - that's inevitable. Our hope will be to replace those jobs with more white collar jobs. The key will be education, which will give people the qualifications needed for the white collar jobs.

It's a major oversimplification, but I think that's where the future is going. Most people in advanced nations will have cushy white collar jobs, while robots at home and workers abroad replace the blue collar jobs.

I'm not saying this is all a good thing, but I think it's the way things are going.August got it exactly right, yet again. Essentially, the point is that the service-based capitalist economy will only go so far as the services are needed. As a result of non-tangible production, you're going to see what is needed provided in greater and greater quantities by technology.

What happens when technology can feed 500 million people, but only 300 million people can afford the food, due to that same technology reducing the need for individuals to be gainfully employed? Are we going to abandon those people, or will social programs step in?

@ Haplo:Seriously - capitalism isn't dead.You must've skimmed my original post because that is not at all what I'm saying. I'm talking about the long-term sustainability of capitalism. In fact, I agree that capitalism is a superior system to any other, but I do not believe that it can continue in its current form indefinitely, due to technological advancement.

Certain politically-inclined individuals should make a point to understand that this isn't a thread about ideology. It is meant to be analytical in nature.

[Aramike]

UFO's will land for a visit in D.C. before capitilism ends in USA. :woot:Heh, have you read the papers recently? (Tongue-in-cheek comment, but still...)