Page 1 of 2
#1
This hypothetical shows why capitalism is not a good system for humanity:

Imagine a capitalist society with 100% employment, and all jobs involve providing goods and services that are reasonably necessary, not plastic novelty crap that breaks right after you buy it, or other junk that you have to sell people on with aggressive marketing because no one really wants or needs it. Now, imagine this society produces 100% of what the population needs, with slight surplus.

Now, imagine a technological advance happens that, overnight, doubles the productivity of every worker in every industry.

There are pretty much two reactions people can have to this.

First, some people might think, "That is awesome! If everyone is twice as productive, and you were already producing everything you needed, than now everyone can just work half as hard... You can go to 20 hour work weeks, or 3 day work weeks, or everyone can have 26 weeks vacation each year, or everyone can retire at 40... What a paradise!!" Yes, this technological advance could, theoretically, lead to this kind of society-wide change and benefit, if the powers that governed were inclined to manage and steer the resulting societal changes in that direction.

But, let's look at the second reaction people might have: "Oh, shit!!! Suddenly half the people will be out of work!! 50% unemployment, resulting economic collapse, depression, out of work people cut back on spending, now there is even less demand for goods, so the businesses have to lay off even more people, unemployment rises to 60% or higher... Jobs are so scarce that employers can suddenly get very demanding, insisting workers take pay cuts, give up benefits, work 80 hour work weeks, etc. The quality of life for workers -- even those with jobs -- declines. Misery abounds.

And, for the insightful pessimists, the fall out does not stop there. The 50+% unemployed are not going to just sit idly by with no income till they starve. They will look for ways to insert themselves into the economy, to generate some form of income. Traditionally, people in these circumstances do a few things; Invent make-work jobs, or boondoggles. Afraid of being fired? Convince your boss there needs to be an additional layer of middle managment or red tape or quality control, maybe that company only lays off 30% of its workers. Popular vote may drive government to set up more bureaucracy to employ more people. Government agencies grow big, more red tape and needless paperwork and checks and balances up the wazoo rather than relying on common sense and decency, maybe a few more people find work that way.

But that's not all, the unemployed can earn incomes by inventing new jobs, perhaps whole new industries, selling goods and services people don't need, relying on aggressive or misleading advertising. Look at the door to door salesmen in the depression? The aluminum siding salesmen? Snake oil salesmen? Telemarketers? A lot of the unemployed may find work, but it'll be worked doing stuff no one really needs or wants. Why is that bad?

Well, just to the extent these people start making plastic crappy doodads and trinkets and novelty items and junk no one really needs, where do they get the resources for those things? From the planet. Even crappy plastic stuff takes petroleum, makes waste products, kills trees for packaging, burns fossil fuels to ship stuff from one place to another.

If you and 10 other people lived on a desert island with 20 trees and two fresh water lakes, what you would say if one of those people said, I'm going to cut down half these trees to build wooden nutcrackers that look like Pokémon, and I'll have to pollute one of the lakes with waste from the manufacturing... You -- and the rest of the people on that island -- would say, "WTF???!! Like hell you are!! Are you insane? We have scarce resources!! We should not be wasting our scarce resources on useless crap that will just be garbage in a few months!"

See, going back to the original analogy, capitalism does not lead to any kind of "share the benefit of technology" approach. It's not designed for it. Technological advances profit the owners of capital, and the workers suffer as a result. In the early 1900's there was a lot of implied promises that the growth of new technologies would make life easier for everyone, we'd all become men of leisure as machines did more and more necessary labor. But that did not happen. Why? Because when a worker becomes a man of leisure, he becomes unemployed and unpaid and desperate to find another source of income. That's not a good result.

The problem with capitalism is that there is no recognition when is "enough enough", as in, "We're producing enough stuff to give everyone food, clothing, and other important stuff to live on...we do not NEED everyone to be working to satisfy the demands of society, and if you FORCE people to work for income, you will get people doing jobs that only have an ILLUSORY BENEFIT, and that are really just make-work. But in a planet of scarce resources, the last think you want are millions of people looking for make-work that uses up scarce resources in order to create plastic crap nobody wants, or other useless products.

Go to Walmart. Go to Sears. Go to Target. Look around with open eyes. You'll see just how much crap is out there that no one really needs, or would want if not for the power of marketing. And we all pay a price, because it speeds up our destruction of the planet.

Going back to the initial example, the technological advances actually were implemented in a way that led to everyone having more free time, but still getting their standard wages, it could have been a utopia. But, in a capitalistic society, it would become a nightmare. And where does it stop?

Does anyone, if asked, "What would the ideal future look like in 500 years? In 5000 years?" Would anyone say, "Well, it would look a lot like today. Poor people & rich people, most people working 50 hours a week, getting maybe a week and a half of vacation per week, most living lives of quiet desperation hoping, despite enormous odds, they might break into a higher income level...that's a great way to live, and I hope it never changes." No, what kind of moron would want that, forever, as some kind of utopian ideal? And if you agree that is NOT the ideal we should be striving for, then you are admitting we need to re-think capitalism, because capitalism will NEVER lead to any future where the general populace has it easy, works less, has more leisure and an overall sweet life.

Ken
#5
fkin obama
Quote by DonGlover

You look like a young Eugene Levy, but with a moustache.

Quote by slapsymcdougal
Quote by Dreadnought
Kicking a man when he's down, I'm proud of you

When they're down is the safest time.

Soundcloud
Sharks Stanley Cup 15-16
Sharks Stanley Cup 16-17,,,,?
#9
Quote by Malchius
Do we need 3 threads in two days about the fucking economy?

Yeah! We should have more threads about most overrated bands and gun control!
#10
Quote by Weaponized
Yeah! We should have more threads about most overrated bands and gun control!


I haven't seen a gun control thread for while, over rated bands go in there own sub forum.
#13
Quote by 5_Years_Dead
There's no way I'm reading all that.

Can someone just sum up what it says for me?

As our technology improves and our ability to manufacture enough to meet demands, we can go one of two ways- reduce the amount of time worked, living in a land of abundance due to the new technology, or the workforce is downsized to **** and very few people are employed, but working just as hard as they were before.
#14
Quote by 5_Years_Dead
There's no way I'm reading all that.

Can someone just sum up what it says for me?


"The Death of Capitalism"
#15
God dammit Obama
Gear
Highway One Tele (w/Custom Shop 51 Nocaster pickups)
Standard Tele (modded to Nashville specs)
Reverend Roundhouse

Orange Rockerverb 50 MKI
Vox AC4c1
Jet City JCA20H

And pedals!



"Shiva opens her arms now..
...to make sure I don't get too far"
#17
3.14edgy6*10^27me
Roses are red
Violets are blue
Omae wa mou
Shindeiru



Quote by Axelfox
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
#21
TL DR TS is a luddite moron.
Quote by SlinkyBlue


The solution is simple and obvious.

We revolt against ourselves. Mass suicide. The ultimate revolution.
#22
Quote by modus operandi
As our technology improves and our ability to manufacture enough to meet demands, we can go one of two ways- reduce the amount of time worked, living in a land of abundance due to the new technology, or the workforce is downsized to **** and very few people are employed, but working just as hard as they were before.

Can someone sum this summary up for me?

On second thought i don't care.
#23
Quote by sage76
TL DR TS is a luddite moron.

When did TS demonstrate any opposition to technology, in and of itself? His criticism was restrained to the political systems in which that technology is developed, not the technology itself.
#24
Quote by modus operandi
As our technology improves and our ability to manufacture enough to meet demands, we can go one of two ways- reduce the amount of time worked, living in a land of abundance due to the new technology, or the workforce is downsized to **** and very few people are employed, but working just as hard as they were before.

Marx touched upon the same this same assumption and his text is so much more pleasing on the eyes

It's all inane mental masturbation
| (• ◡•)| (❍ᴥ❍ʋ
Last edited by Cianyx at Nov 21, 2013,
#28
Quote by modus operandi
From the jokers who want to preserve the "right" to deny black people the right to vote.
No, they don't. But I guess every claim made by them is now pure fantasy? I suppose you've already made up your mind so facts won't matter to you.
#29
I suggest for starters OP, is that you disconnect your computer, cancel your internet, and then you can talk all you want. Live in the middle of nowhere, no transactions involved that feeds the machine. Practice what you preach bro.
#30
Quote by seanlang01
No, they don't. But I guess every claim made by them is now pure fantasy? I suppose you've already made up your mind so facts won't matter to you.

They do, actually.
http://projects.nytimes.com/live-dashboard/2013-06-25-supreme-court#sha=93cbbf3d5

No, it doesn't invalidate what they say, but I don't think I want to hear about human progression from regressive nutjobs.
#31
Quote by modus operandi
They do, actually.
http://projects.nytimes.com/live-dashboard/2013-06-25-supreme-court#sha=93cbbf3d5

No, it doesn't invalidate what they say, but I don't think I want to hear about human progression from regressive nutjobs.
You don't understand the voting rights act if that's what you think. That supreme court ruling in no way made it a "right" to deny the vote to any group. It is still illegal for states to deny the vote to any group. You clearly make your decisions before considering the facts. So, like I said earlier, no they don't. But, whatever helps you turn a blind eye to the facts; your worldview seems to depend on it.
#32
Quote by Genrecore
I suggest for starters OP, is that you disconnect your computer, cancel your internet, and then you can talk all you want. Live in the middle of nowhere, no transactions involved that feeds the machine. Practice what you preach bro.

For once, I actually agree with Genrecore.

TS should move to Siberia.
#33
This thread is a result of communism.
Most of the important things


in the world have been accomplished


by people who have kept on


trying when there seemed to be no hope at all
#34
THE FORUM UPDATE KILLED THE GRADIENT STAR

Baltimore Orioles: 2014 AL Eastern Division Champions, 2017: 75-87
Baltimore Ravens: 2012 World Champions, 2017: 4-5
2017 NFL Pick 'Em: 92-54
#36
Quote by Philip_pepper
Dey terk er jerbs


DEY TRCK EER JEERRBSSS!!!
Quote by progdude93
my fetish is dudes with dicks small enough to pee on their own sacks.
#37
Quote by krm27
This hypothetical shows why capitalism is not a good system for humanity:

Imagine a capitalist society with 100% employment, and all jobs involve providing goods and services that are reasonably necessary, not plastic novelty crap that breaks right after you buy it, or other junk that you have to sell people on with aggressive marketing because no one really wants or needs it. Now, imagine this society produces 100% of what the population needs, with slight surplus.

Now, imagine a technological advance happens that, overnight, doubles the productivity of every worker in every industry.

There are pretty much two reactions people can have to this.

First, some people might think, "That is awesome! If everyone is twice as productive, and you were already producing everything you needed, than now everyone can just work half as hard... You can go to 20 hour work weeks, or 3 day work weeks, or everyone can have 26 weeks vacation each year, or everyone can retire at 40... What a paradise!!" Yes, this technological advance could, theoretically, lead to this kind of society-wide change and benefit, if the powers that governed were inclined to manage and steer the resulting societal changes in that direction.

But, let's look at the second reaction people might have: "Oh, shit!!! Suddenly half the people will be out of work!! 50% unemployment, resulting economic collapse, depression, out of work people cut back on spending, now there is even less demand for goods, so the businesses have to lay off even more people, unemployment rises to 60% or higher... Jobs are so scarce that employers can suddenly get very demanding, insisting workers take pay cuts, give up benefits, work 80 hour work weeks, etc. The quality of life for workers -- even those with jobs -- declines. Misery abounds.

And, for the insightful pessimists, the fall out does not stop there. The 50+% unemployed are not going to just sit idly by with no income till they starve. They will look for ways to insert themselves into the economy, to generate some form of income. Traditionally, people in these circumstances do a few things; Invent make-work jobs, or boondoggles. Afraid of being fired? Convince your boss there needs to be an additional layer of middle managment or red tape or quality control, maybe that company only lays off 30% of its workers. Popular vote may drive government to set up more bureaucracy to employ more people. Government agencies grow big, more red tape and needless paperwork and checks and balances up the wazoo rather than relying on common sense and decency, maybe a few more people find work that way.

But that's not all, the unemployed can earn incomes by inventing new jobs, perhaps whole new industries, selling goods and services people don't need, relying on aggressive or misleading advertising. Look at the door to door salesmen in the depression? The aluminum siding salesmen? Snake oil salesmen? Telemarketers? A lot of the unemployed may find work, but it'll be worked doing stuff no one really needs or wants. Why is that bad?

Well, just to the extent these people start making plastic crappy doodads and trinkets and novelty items and junk no one really needs, where do they get the resources for those things? From the planet. Even crappy plastic stuff takes petroleum, makes waste products, kills trees for packaging, burns fossil fuels to ship stuff from one place to another.

If you and 10 other people lived on a desert island with 20 trees and two fresh water lakes, what you would say if one of those people said, I'm going to cut down half these trees to build wooden nutcrackers that look like Pokémon, and I'll have to pollute one of the lakes with waste from the manufacturing... You -- and the rest of the people on that island -- would say, "WTF???!! Like hell you are!! Are you insane? We have scarce resources!! We should not be wasting our scarce resources on useless crap that will just be garbage in a few months!"

See, going back to the original analogy, capitalism does not lead to any kind of "share the benefit of technology" approach. It's not designed for it. Technological advances profit the owners of capital, and the workers suffer as a result. In the early 1900's there was a lot of implied promises that the growth of new technologies would make life easier for everyone, we'd all become men of leisure as machines did more and more necessary labor. But that did not happen. Why? Because when a worker becomes a man of leisure, he becomes unemployed and unpaid and desperate to find another source of income. That's not a good result.

The problem with capitalism is that there is no recognition when is "enough enough", as in, "We're producing enough stuff to give everyone food, clothing, and other important stuff to live on...we do not NEED everyone to be working to satisfy the demands of society, and if you FORCE people to work for income, you will get people doing jobs that only have an ILLUSORY BENEFIT, and that are really just make-work. But in a planet of scarce resources, the last think you want are millions of people looking for make-work that uses up scarce resources in order to create plastic crap nobody wants, or other useless products.

Go to Walmart. Go to Sears. Go to Target. Look around with open eyes. You'll see just how much crap is out there that no one really needs, or would want if not for the power of marketing. And we all pay a price, because it speeds up our destruction of the planet.

Going back to the initial example, the technological advances actually were implemented in a way that led to everyone having more free time, but still getting their standard wages, it could have been a utopia. But, in a capitalistic society, it would become a nightmare. And where does it stop?

Does anyone, if asked, "What would the ideal future look like in 500 years? In 5000 years?" Would anyone say, "Well, it would look a lot like today. Poor people & rich people, most people working 50 hours a week, getting maybe a week and a half of vacation per week, most living lives of quiet desperation hoping, despite enormous odds, they might break into a higher income level...that's a great way to live, and I hope it never changes." No, what kind of moron would want that, forever, as some kind of utopian ideal? And if you agree that is NOT the ideal we should be striving for, then you are admitting we need to re-think capitalism, because capitalism will NEVER lead to any future where the general populace has it easy, works less, has more leisure and an overall sweet life.

Ken


Move to North Korea and shut the **** up then. If Capitalism "collapses", then it will collapse. You making this long ass post that I did not read won't change anything. So if it will collapse, it will collapse. Though it probably won't. So if you're so positive that Capitalism will "die", then move to a country that isn't Capitalist, and shut up. You have literally contributed ZERO to your cause, so why you even posted this is beyond me.
Quote by progdude93
my fetish is dudes with dicks small enough to pee on their own sacks.
#39
You do realize that in the last 30 years europeans have used their productivity increases to have more leisure and work less right?
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#40
Why so much hate to the guy? He wanted to make a post about economics, leave him alone. Doesn't interest you the post, don't post here go to watch gif's at the gif's thread.

On topic, I learned that for this society and the way it works it's impossible to leave capitalism in a bink of the eye. And then, where do you? There's almost no "theoretical system" that you can use 100%, all end up changing in the practice.
Capitalism works because it works for the people that are on top.
And the guy's that thinks that North Korea is Communism or wha'ever, they're not, not even the USSR was communism because they don't apply to be communism in a 100%.
Page 1 of 2