Capitalism MUST Die ... Eventually - Page 2

Aramike · 07-31-09, 03:12 AM

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?

07-31-09, 03:12 AM	#1
Aramike Ocean Warrior Best of SUBSIM Chairman Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 3,207 Downloads: 59 Uploads: 0	Capitalism MUST Die ... Eventually 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?