0
0

Capitalism is dying...


 invite response                
2018 Jul 13, 10:32am   14,976 views  64 comments

by Heraclitusstudent   ➕follow (8)   💰tip   ignore  

Capitalism creates such a level of efficiency as to make a large part of humanity useless.
Half the US population couldn't come up with $400 to face an emergency.

The incentive of capitalism are clear: workers are a cost to be eliminated. And companies have become extremely good at this game. Unfortunately, having customers is also a requirement for capitalism. And customers normally get their cash from wages. This means the system is not stable. It's gravitating more and more around the top 10% of the population. The goals that we are optimizing against are simply not good for society and humanity. The goal can't be a winner take all system. You need to invest in people.

So you see the hollowing of the economy, you see the shrinking opportunities and social mobility, the rise of economic frailties and poverty, the rise of debts to compensate the dearth of incomes. All these are not the results of social programs, or socialism. Instead they are the natural results of capitalism gone wild at a global level.

And it won't stop there:

https://www.zdnet.com/article/global-sales-of-industrial-robots-log-staggering-rise/
"New data confirms anecdotal reports of the blistering hot global automation industry."
"The biggest growth came from China, where sales rose 58 percent."

Ironically the only way capitalism could endure is precisely through more social programs, and a better safety net.
A heavy dose of socialism is the only way to entrench capitalism. Without that, capitalism as a whole is probably doomed.
Suck it up right wingers.

Comments 1 - 40 of 64       Last »     Search these comments

1   Tenpoundbass   2018 Jul 13, 10:38am  

Um looks like Socialism is dying. I'll explain it to you for a $1.00
2   FortWayne   2018 Jul 13, 10:52am  

i simply don't believe that people don't have "400". it seems far fetched. Homeless yes, but everyone else who actually lives here (not some dude who ran border last week, working without papers) is way better off.

If this country was as poor as you say, you wouldn't see all this selfish extravagance, or all this homosexual horseshit in the media.
3   Shaman   2018 Jul 13, 10:56am  

Socialism is fine and well, and as our society has grown more prosperous (through capitalism), more and more of our daily necessities have been socialized. We have roads, schools, water, energy, public works, food security (SNAP) and are working towards things like medicine and housing.

Once a commodity is common enough, in other words cheap enough to produce, we can socialize it and everyone can have it. But there will always be the rare item, the uncommon thing that everyone wants. Who decides who gets those items? We must continue to have elements of capitalism to match society contributions to first rights of obtainment.

After all, it’s in human nature to want what you don’t have. Socialize food? Everyone has enough to eat? Well then people want to eat more delicious, delicate, and rare things! Who decides who gets to do that? The only fair way is the market.

When all basic needs are socialized, which may happen sooner than later, then people will work for luxuries and status! And probably work harder at that. Don’t fear the robot or the AI. They will merely automate work that we don’t actually want to do. This will hasten our ability to socialize basic needs.
People will still be needed for their creative power, to make something new and desirable from nothing.
4   Heraclitusstudent   2018 Jul 13, 11:11am  

Quigley says
Socialism is fine and well, and as our society has grown more prosperous (through capitalism), more and more of our daily necessities have been socialized. We have roads, schools, water, energy, public works, food security (SNAP) and are working towards things like medicine and housing.


You are barking at the wrong tree.
In the past decades the US has seen wave after wave of deregulation. Unions are in decline. Corporate lobbyists are buying laws. Trade, immigration were designed for corporations. Earnings are at records. Corporate taxes are being cut. Medicine is private businesses. Insurances are private. Companies no longer give pensions. etc, etc...

Did that result in a wave of prosperity? Yes, for the top 10%. But the lower 60% majority in the US got screwed badly.
Maybe some poorer countries got better off, but we see automation in China. There is no guaranty the rest of the world can follow the US.
5   Heraclitusstudent   2018 Jul 13, 11:13am  

FortWayne says
i simply don't believe that people don't have "400". it seems far fetched.


People hide their poverty.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/05/25/the-shocking-number-of-americans-who-cant-cover-a-400-expense/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.96023bdee34c

"The Federal Reserve surveyed more than 5,000 people to determine whether their personal situations were improving along with the economy. The results, released Wednesday afternoon, found that though households showed “mild improvement” overall, their perspective depended on their income, race and education.

Take this one telling statistic: About 46 percent of Americans said they did not have enough money to cover a $400 emergency expense. Instead, they would have to put it on a credit card and pay it off over time, borrow from friends or family, or simply not cover it at all."
6   HeadSet   2018 Jul 13, 11:13am  

Capitalism creates such a level of efficiency as to make a large part of humanity useless.
Half the US population couldn't come up with $400 to face an emergency.


Before capitalism, people could not come up with food on hand. Every day was hunt and gather or starve.

But I do see your point how automation may make having a large mass of unskilled humanity too burdensome.
7   CBOEtrader   2018 Jul 13, 11:14am  

Heraclitusstudent says
In the past decades the US has seen wave after wave of deregulation.
Heraclitusstudent says
Corporate lobbyists are buying laws.


These are contradictory statements. We have more regulation now than ever. Or do you think the govt hasnt expanded in size/scope/power every year?
8   Heraclitusstudent   2018 Jul 13, 11:15am  

HeadSet says
Before capitalism, people could not come up with food on hand. Every day was hunt and gather or starve.


Yes, I like capitalism. Capitalism created enormous wealth. I'm not forgetting that.
I just see that the objective function is getting rogue and away from humanity.
9   curious2   2018 Jul 13, 12:00pm  

Thread topic: capitalism

FortWayne says
homosexual....


Thread topic: names

FortWayne says
lgbt....


Not saying anything about another user, just quoting.
10   MrMagic   2018 Jul 13, 12:29pm  

FortWayne says
i simply don't believe that people don't have "400".


..."A couple of months ago, CareerBuilder released a report claiming as many as 78 percent of American full time workers are living from paycheck-to-paycheck — three percent more of us than last year. What’s more, 71 percent of us are in debt — again, three percent more of us than last year.

Depending on where they live, even people who earn $100k per year say they’re living paycheck-to-paycheck, and 59 percent of people making that kind of money admitted to carrying debt. Of those 59 percent, 56 percent say they’re heavily in debt.

According to this survey, 56 percent of us can barely save $100 per month. All things considered, when you break it all down, most of us are just one misfortune away from financial oblivion.


https://www.nbcnews.com/better/health/most-us-live-paycheck-paycheck-what-it-does-your-health-ncna816411

Just remember, that's the fault of Capitalism (NOT).
11   Y   2018 Jul 13, 12:37pm  

social nets are ok to catch the jobless, but the able must work for it.
plenty of infrastructure to clean up and update...
The proven lame can get freebies.
12   MrMagic   2018 Jul 13, 1:17pm  

Heraclitusstudent says
This means the system is not stable. It's gravitating more and more around the top 10% of the population. The goals that we are optimizing against are simply not good for society and humanity.


There's a reason it gravitates to the top 10%:

..."The Pareto principle (also known as the 80/20 rule, the law of the vital few, or the principle of factor sparsity)[1][2] states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes."

..."The Pareto principle also applies to taxation. In the US, the top 20% of earners have paid roughly 80% of Federal income taxes in 2000 and 2006,[11] and again in 2018.[12]"


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

The top people are the ones actually getting stuff done, that's why they reap all the benefits. The bottom 80% sit on their asses and complain that "they didn't get theirs".
14   PeopleUnited   2018 Jul 13, 1:35pm  

jazz_music says
PeopleUnited says
Wealth can also be stolen

... by moving it offshore until American inequality moves towards a society of gulags and resorts with not much in between.

You see this in a lot of Latin American countries already.


How would you propose we motivate the wealthy to share their abundance with the masses? They clearly don't seem interested in doing so and are quite content to go on accumulating wealth using the labor of others.
15   HeadSet   2018 Jul 13, 1:48pm  

Why can't Capitalism thrive under a system of slavery and tyranny?

Capitalism does not work well under slavery. Free people who are allowed to keep most of the fruits of their labor will always outproduce a gaggle of slaves. Without freedom, slaves produce wealth for those in power (like Castro, Bresnev, Kim), and these slaves produce as little as they can and still avoid the lash.
16   PeopleUnited   2018 Jul 13, 1:51pm  

jazz_music says
Shareholders can be the sole beneficiaries of a fascist tyranny while the rest toil at gunpoint. No?


There are three classes of people in the world.

1. The elites who own or at least have access to the vast majority of all wealth and resources. (if you are reading this you do not fall into that category)

2. The people who are "fortunate" enough to have access to a small amount of wealth or resources. These are people who have jobs, maybe even "own" a business, they may "own" a house, they use their labor and/or resources to generate their own relatively comfortable lifestyle. But even these people are one catastrophe away from bankruptcy and entry into the next category.

3. People who do not have the desire and/or ability and/or access to resources that would allow them to generate wealth. These are the people who live in true poverty. In the United States and other countries that have social safety nets these are the people who are dependent on charity, and government handouts.

Unfortunately category 2, is shrinking (the middle class) and the disparity between the elites and the middle class is growing at a rapid rate. Also unfortunately there is very little class mobility and if people do move from one class to another it is usually to move down to a lower class.

At the end of the day though weather you are middle class or live in poverty you are a servant to the elites. Does that bother you?
17   PeopleUnited   2018 Jul 13, 1:57pm  

HeadSet says
Why can't Capitalism thrive under a system of slavery and tyranny?

Capitalism does not work well under slavery. Free people who are allowed to keep most of the fruits of their labor will always outproduce a gaggle of slaves. Without freedom, slaves produce wealth for those in power (like Castro, Bresnev, Kim), and these slaves produce as little as they can and still avoid the lash.


So a wealthy man, who give his servants a semblance of freedom can expect them to work harder for him than they would if he treated them like slaves. Either way there are wealthy owners and servants/slaves. The haves and the have nots (or have littles). This is what offends people like Jazz Music. Some people will only be happy if we have "equality" (which means everyone suffers the same).
18   Shaman   2018 Jul 13, 2:27pm  

You can think of it as working for the elites, or you can take a wider more expansive view, you can consider the progress that the amalgamation of human work and ingenuity has produced, the cities, the infrastructure, the amenities, the entertainment, the easy access to necessities and also luxuries, the medicine that gives us long lifespans, and the ever escalating technological progress that keeps moving the bar forward. You can consider the absolutely INCREDIBLE advances humanity as a WHOLE has experienced, how an average worker in middle class America has more choices for luxury and medicine than Louis XIV, and you can conclude that human work has moved HUMANITY forward! Sure, the elites maintain an edge over the average man, and they still call the shots for the most part. But the improvements our combined work has wrought upon the land are enjoyed by all of us!

You’re not working for the boss, in furtherance of his bottom line. You’re working for the human race, in furtherance of the human spirit.
19   Heraclitusstudent   2018 Jul 13, 2:47pm  

jazz_music says
Why can't Capitalism thrive under a system of slavery and tyranny? Does anyone see Capitalism weakening in any way at all?

There already seems to be clear delineators that separate shareholders from suffering the fates of those dependent on wages, many of whom are living like refugees.


Clearly because:
1 - people need to eat, otherwise they are going to rebel. If they become useless, they will require welfare. There is no way around it.
2 - the current trend, with AI, threaten people who so far were profiting. When we start automating financial and management functions, the end of capitalism will follow quickly.
20   Heraclitusstudent   2018 Jul 13, 2:49pm  

PeopleUnited says
I want to agree with you but capitalism doesn't create wealth.
PeopleUnited says
They can be motivated to work by various mean such as the profit motive in the United States or the threat of violence/starvation as in North Korea but in either circumstance both systems are generating wealth.


Except clearly people are better motivated by positive incentives, which is the strong point of capitalism. Which is why North Korea is poor and starving and the US is relatively rich.
21   Heraclitusstudent   2018 Jul 13, 2:55pm  

Quigley says
You can consider the absolutely INCREDIBLE advances humanity as a WHOLE has experienced, how an average worker in middle class America has more choices for luxury and medicine than Louis XIV, and you can conclude that human work has moved HUMANITY forward! Sure, the elites maintain an edge over the average man, and they still call the shots for the most part. But the improvements our combined work has wrought upon the land are enjoyed by all of us!


Except the trend is that more and more people become useless and are consequently cast in utter poverty.

It's not like these people couldn't work and produce wealth. It is that mere humans can't do it efficiently enough to be competitive with robots.

And it's not like an automatized economy couldn't produce luxury goods for all people based on the resources and energy available. It is that capitalism itself doesn't give any incentives to do so, considering these people have nothing to offer in exchange. This is where the incentives of capitalism break down.
22   Heraclitusstudent   2018 Jul 13, 2:58pm  

HEYYOU says
Capitalism is built on debt & fiat currency.
Global debt $233 trillion, better start printing.


And this debt explosion is necessary just so we can maintain the status quo.
Without monetary management, capitalism would already be dead.
23   Reality   2018 Jul 13, 3:14pm  

Heraclitusstudent says

Capitalism creates such a level of efficiency as to make a large part of humanity useless.
Half the US population couldn't come up with $400 to face an emergency.

It's gravitating more and more around the top 10% of the population. The goals that we are optimizing against are simply not good for society and humanity. The goal can't be a winner take all system. You need to invest in people.


The general prosperity brought on by Capitalism is the reason why the bottom half of the society is alive instead of having died! Resources, not just material resources but also reproductive resources (i.e. women!) gravitate towards the upper half (more like upper 20%, then upper 4%, then upper 1%, according to Pareto Ratio at each step) due to evolutionary forces. Homo Sapiens would not have emerged if not for the earlier and more primitive life forms and species having died off all along the direct path leading to humanity!

The idea that socialism would take better care of the "weaker" and more retarded is proven false everywhere it's been tried. Instead, the killing-off/die-off takes place much faster, forcing the captive population to evolve faster! Just look at today's Venezuela, the socialist-induced poverty and hunger is killing off the older, weaker, dumber and uglier, whereas the smarter portion of the population is surviving through emigration, exploiting coercion and for the prettier women sleeping their way to food!

There perhaps is a reason behind why prosperity brought on by Capitalistic free market always eventually give way to socialism: too many dumb offspring are kept alive by the prosperity and their parents sending them to useless/counter-productive schools full of unrealistic expectations; the conflict of expectations inevitably lead to real forceful conflict as various socialist schemes are inevitably incompatible with each other under the resource limit. So evolution through die-off's has to return.
24   RWSGFY   2018 Jul 13, 3:17pm  

jazz_music says
Capitalism can go on thriving right? Why not? What would stop it from becoming more powerful?



Don't do crime - serve no time. Easy-peasy.
25   MrMagic   2018 Jul 13, 3:19pm  

Heraclitusstudent says
It's not like these people couldn't work and produce wealth. It is that mere humans can't do it efficiently enough to be competitive with robots.


Who built the robots??? Themselves?
26   Heraclitusstudent   2018 Jul 13, 3:20pm  

Reality says
The idea that socialism would take better care of the "weaker" and more retarded is proven false everywhere it's been tried.


I'm not saying socialism is better. I don't think it is. You are completely missing the point. I'm saying capitalism is dying.

Reality says
Homo Sapiens would not have emerged if not for the earlier and more primitive life forms and species having died off all along the direct path leading to humanity!


Evolution works, but a society is not a Darwinian experiment. Poor people do not die. If starving they eventually rise up and kill rich people.
27   Reality   2018 Jul 13, 3:20pm  

jazz_music says
Why can't Capitalism thrive under a system of slavery and tyranny? Shareholders can be the sole beneficiaries of a fascist tyranny while the rest toil at gunpoint. No?


The bulk of the population toiling at gun point is exactly what every socialist state eventually becomes. Please reference Frederick Hayek's book "Road to Serfdom."

Capitalistic free market place is about giving every individual the right to choose, by using his/her own money. "Free medicine" / "Free housing" / "Free education" literally translates to the consumer not having a choice as he/she is not spending his/her own money. The ante-bellum southern slave plantation also had free housing, free medicine and free education for the slaves! at the discretion of the slave owners.
28   Heraclitusstudent   2018 Jul 13, 3:26pm  

Reality says
Capitalistic free market place is about giving every individual the right to choose, by using his/her own money.

That worked when most people could play a useful role in a society. This doesn't work when poor people have no useful skills to offer, don't have land to produce food, don't have land to build a shelter, and basically are left out with time stamps, and pooping between cars on the street.
29   Reality   2018 Jul 13, 3:29pm  

Heraclitusstudent says
I'm not saying socialism is better. I don't think it is. You are completely missing the point. I'm saying capitalism is dying.


Every episode of capitalism in human history (e.g. Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece, Hrappans) eventually died because the children growing up under prosperity went to school and learned socialism/communism (e.g. Plato) and tried to become "social engineers" and worshipers of authority (as students being appraised by professors) instead of staying in the habit of a free market place and appreciate the difference between individuals and the invisible hand that bring forth both prosperity and innovation.

Heraclitusstudent says
Evolution works, but a society is not a Darwinian experiment. Poor people do not die. If starving they eventually rise up and kill rich people.


Society is of course Darwinian. Evolution is always taking place for not only the genetic human organism but also human ideas ("memic evolution"). Poor people die in droves during social upheaval. Some rich people unwilling to wait on the sidelines for too long will use the poor as canon fodders in order to wrestle power from the segment of rich people who are already in power . . . just like Louise XVI's rich uncle orchestrated the overthrow of Louise XVI in hopes of getting the throne but ending up losing his own head as well. None of the revolutionaries, from Robespirre to Lenin to Stalin to Mao to Pol Pot, were actually poor uneducated/dumb people.
30   Shaman   2018 Jul 13, 3:58pm  

Exactly, Reality! Awesome first post!!

I’d agree that the surplus wealth created by capitalism often combines with Liberal thinking and socialism to keep the weak, the sick, and the inferior alive. Interesting that communism creates a throwback to Darwinian times where those genetically inferior will die off and leave a more robust population.

I’d guess that Jazzmusic isn’t interested in natural selection taking place, but wants to create some kind of utopia, which will implode like all the rest which have ever been tried.

Heraclitusstudent doesn’t seem to understand that there is always a place for human effort, and automation won’t eliminate that anytime soon. If it did, perhaps more things could be socialized to the point where nobody would need to work to provide basic necessities. But, those who DID choose to work would be rewarded with the first pick of every luxury and status symbol. I’d guess that’s our end point.
31   Heraclitusstudent   2018 Jul 13, 4:10pm  

Reality says
Society is of course Darwinian. Evolution is always taking place for not only the genetic human organism but also human ideas ("memic evolution").

Evolution of human ideas has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution. Poor people now reproduce at a much faster rate than rich people.
Thus society is by definition not Darwinian evolution.

And when upheaval happens, more poor people may die but not in the same proportion as rich people. The French or Russian revolution decimated the aristocracy. To say that Robespierre or Lenin were not poor is missing the point. Of course they were smart enough to elevate themselves, but they were not aristocrats, nor rich.
32   Heraclitusstudent   2018 Jul 13, 4:12pm  

Reality says
Every episode of capitalism in human history (e.g. Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece, Hrappans) eventually died because the children growing up under prosperity went to school and learned socialism/communism (e.g. Plato) and tried to become "social engineers" and worshipers of authority (as students being appraised by professors) instead of staying in the habit of a free market place and appreciate the difference between individuals and the invisible hand that bring forth both prosperity and innovation.


Ok, let's not try to engineer anything. Let us let capitalism die and collapse from its own weight in the process I described.
Like I care.
33   Reality   2018 Jul 13, 4:37pm  

Heraclitusstudent says
Reality says
Capitalistic free market place is about giving every individual the right to choose, by using his/her own money.

That worked when most people could play a useful role in a society. This doesn't work when poor people have no useful skills to offer, don't have land to produce food, don't have land to build a shelter, and basically are left out with time stamps, and pooping between cars on the street.


I'm sure you have some household chore that you'd like someone else to do for you if the price is low enough, and how much skill is required for something as simple as mowing your lawn? There is no such thing as "no useful skills to offer" if the price is low enough. What's preventing low-skill people from becoming employed are two factors: minimum-wage laws banning them from working pays that their low productivity can warrant, and welfare rules removing incentive to work. Both the non-working population (unless supported by family or private charity) and over-priced bureaucrats distributing welfare are results by taxes and government-bonds.
34   Reality   2018 Jul 13, 4:42pm  

Quigley says
there is always a place for human effort, and automation won’t eliminate that anytime soon. If it did, perhaps more things could be socialized to the point where nobody would need to work to provide basic necessities. But, those who DID choose to work would be rewarded with the first pick of every luxury and status symbol. I’d guess that’s our end point.


Exactly! Even the poorest recipients on welfare today usually have color TVs, internet, cellphones and in many cases personal automobiles that can take them hundreds of miles away from home in a day, all of which were unheard of for Kings and Queens as recently as Queen Victoria.
35   Reality   2018 Jul 13, 4:53pm  

Heraclitusstudent says
Reality says
Society is of course Darwinian. Evolution is always taking place for not only the genetic human organism but also human ideas ("memic evolution").

Evolution of human ideas has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution. Poor people now reproduce at a much faster rate than rich people.
Thus society is by definition not Darwinian evolution.


Of course it is still Darwinian evolution. Neanderthals had bigger brain and were probably more intelligent than our ancestors; however our ancestors had better trade networks to bring in sharper weapons, and even food in times of famine. Hypatia (the first female president on record of the world's largest university, in late Roman Empire) was most certainly more educated than the early Christian mobs that killed her, but the replacement of demographically collapsing Romans (whose women refused to reproduce thanks to an earlier version of feminism) by early Christians and invading "barbarians" was very much a Darwinian event: the religions and social ideas of early Christians and "barbarians" were simply far more successful at reproducing than those of the late Romans.




And when upheaval happens, more poor people may die but not in the same proportion as rich people. The French or Russian revolution decimated the aristocracy. To say that Robespierre or Lenin were not poor is missing the point. Of course they were smart enough to elevate themselves, but they were not aristocrats, nor rich.


Robespierre was a law student at the world's largest university (Paris) and was a student representative (if not president of the student body) welcoming Louise XVI when the King visited the university a few years before the French Revolution. Massive revolutions are usually the result of cadet/apprentice bureaucrats (i.e. "students") unwilling to wait for their turn to run the bureaucratic monopoly, so they have to come up with a scheme to kill off the incumbent bureaucrats. In Darwinian terms, it's the prosperity having multiplied too many organisms in the environmental niche for bureaucrats (the younger cadet/apprentice bureaucrats realize their paths to advancement are blocked by incumbents), so a brutal round of mutual kill-off have to take place among those with bureaucratic aspirations.
36   Reality   2018 Jul 13, 4:57pm  

Heraclitusstudent says
Reality says
Every episode of capitalism in human history (e.g. Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece, Hrappans) eventually died because the children growing up under prosperity went to school and learned socialism/communism (e.g. Plato) and tried to become "social engineers" and worshipers of authority (as students being appraised by professors) instead of staying in the habit of a free market place and appreciate the difference between individuals and the invisible hand that bring forth both prosperity and innovation.


Ok, let's not try to engineer anything. Let us let capitalism die and collapse from its own weight in the process I described.
Like I care.


If / when you get caught up in that process, chances are very high that you will die in that baptism of fire. The population of Ancient Rome collapsed by 90% in a few decades. Hrappa (a metropolis with municipal-wide indoor plumbing, the likes of which wasn't seen in the modern world until nearly 20th century) was wiped off the map and erased from human memory for over 3000 years until re-discovery in the 20th century.
37   Heraclitusstudent   2018 Jul 13, 5:18pm  

Reality says
If / when you get caught up in that process, chances are very high that you will die in that baptism of fire. The population of Ancient Rome collapsed by 90% in a few decades.


So either we let capitalism die by itself and civilization collapses, or we manage it and socialism destroys civilization.
Sounds like we're fucked either way.

Don't worry, the power-that-be will put everyone on welfare, and keep for themselves the opulent fruits technocracy.
But of course Reality will still be preaching capitalism long after capitalists around the world have fled it and it has ceased to exist.
38   Reality   2018 Jul 13, 5:30pm  

Heraclitusstudent says
Reality says
If / when you get caught up in that process, chances are very high that you will die in that baptism of fire. The population of Ancient Rome collapsed by 90% in a few decades.


So either we let capitalism die by itself and civilization collapses, or we manage it and socialism destroys civilization.
Sounds like we're fucked either way.


Being alive is the leading cause of death; the correlation is 100%! In fact, every single one of us will die. However, its inevitability is not a reason to accelerate the arrival of death. Likewise, the prosperity and relative freedom/liberty that we enjoy will eventually come to an end, but that eventuality is not a reason why we want a relatively free market place to end sooner.




Don't worry, the power-that-be will put everyone on welfare, and keep for themselves the opulent fruits technocracy.



Welfare is fundamentally little different from plantation slavery: free housing, free medicine, free education, and even free food+clothing! all at the discretion of the slave owner.


But of course Reality will still be preaching capitalism long after capitalists around the world have fled it and it has ceased to exist.


My hope is that the relatively free capitalistic market place will out-live my own individual biological life. Death is inevitable to any organism / system, but it's not a good reason for welcoming its early arrival. Socialism/Communism is in fact a death-cult: the idea that "from each his ability and to each his want" is indeed achieved in death! In death, each person's ability is "nothing," and each person's want is also "nothing." The promise was "real" (in the Faustian Bargain sense) but the followers of Marxism don't seem to understand what was being promised.
39   FortWayne   2018 Jul 13, 5:35pm  

Under Trump capitalism is roaring back!!!
40   CBOEtrader   2018 Jul 14, 4:24am  

Heraclitusstudent says

So either we let capitalism die by itself and civilization collapses, or we manage it and socialism destroys civilization.
Sounds like we're fucked either way.


Jordan Peterson talks about the 85 IQ lower limit for US army employment. Something like 12% to 15% of the population is lower than that, and therefore not intelligent enough to wash trucks.

Comments 1 - 40 of 64       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions