Will global Capitalism survive till 2100?

[Shadow Wolf]

If people are allowed the freedom of small scale bartering, before you know it, some
budding capitalist running dog (call her Jill) will start a repair service for games x & y.
Jill will set prices, forcing customers to pay up or go elsewhere.

If people are bartering and deciding for themselves what their stuff and work is worth without money telling them how much it's worth, how can she set prices?

 

[Revoltingest]

If people are bartering and deciding for themselves what their stuff and work is worth without money telling them how much it's worth, how can she set prices?

If money isn't available, then it would be......
- Two dozen eggs just to examine the game, & assess the problem.
- One flitch of bacon for a house call.
- One sheep for a replacing a motherboard.

Bartering will never become big again.
Money is so convenient that it's here to stay in one form or another.
People like to imagine some bucolic anarchistic lifestyle....sort of non-theistic Amish,
But do we see people actually returning to this?
No...other than a few Luddites, preppers & hermits. Normal people are drawn & addicted to technology based lifestyles.
People will do what people do....not what idealists think they could or should do.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If money isn't available, then it would be......
- Two dozen eggs just to examine the game, & assess the problem.
- One flitch of bacon for a house call.
- One sheep for a replacing a motherboard.

Or I could fix her car - realistic 21st century service example for another realistic 21st century service example.

No...other than a few Luddites, preppers & hermits. Normal people are drawn & addicted to technology based lifestyles.

Except technology is advancing ahead of our money and economy. As our technology continues to advance, more and more jobs are going to be replaced by machines. As more resources become depleted, we're going to face major disruptions in distribution of essential needs. We also have the fact that we've had one economic set back after another, and it's always the poor and middle class who have to shoulder these setbacks while the wealthy get to coast them out and sometimes even get vacation money out of the tax payers. Unless Capitalism yields, we are going to end up in a very nasty situation because very few people have food, water, and shelter because very few people have jobs that pay anything decent because so many jobs will have been replaced by robots, leaving many jobless, and if they have work they won't have guaranteed wages or benefits as the "shared economy" becomes more the norm and people don't work like normal but work as free-lancers and independent contractors for their money. Mean while, those at the top keeping getting richer and richer, sucking up every last cent they can. People won't sit back and take it forever.
There is also the issue that we do live in a world of finite and limited resources, yet Capitalism, especially American Capitalism, has squandered so much of the world's resources in such a short period of time that we'll be forced into an economic authoritarian society because there is no such "crisis of the commons" because that was sustainable but we are facing a pending "crisis of private property" because rather than sharing a few people are putting price tags on everything and buying it all up.

 

[Revoltingest]

Or I could fix her car - realistic 21st century service example for another realistic 21st century service example.

Except technology is advancing ahead of our money and economy. As our technology continues to advance, more and more jobs are going to be replaced by machines. As more resources become depleted, we're going to face major disruptions in distribution of essential needs. We also have the fact that we've had one economic set back after another, and it's always the poor and middle class who have to shoulder these setbacks while the wealthy get to coast them out and sometimes even get vacation money out of the tax payers. Unless Capitalism yields, we are going to end up in a very nasty situation because very few people have food, water, and shelter because very few people have jobs that pay anything decent because so many jobs will have been replaced by robots, leaving many jobless, and if they have work they won't have guaranteed wages or benefits as the "shared economy" becomes more the norm and people don't work like normal but work as free-lancers and independent contractors for their money. Mean while, those at the top keeping getting richer and richer, sucking up every last cent they can. People won't sit back and take it forever.
There is also the issue that we do live in a world of finite and limited resources, yet Capitalism, especially American Capitalism, has squandered so much of the world's resources in such a short period of time that we'll be forced into an economic authoritarian society because there is no such "crisis of the commons" because that was sustainable but we are facing a pending "crisis of private property" because rather than sharing a few people are putting price tags on everything and buying it all up.

There's no reason that Capitalism must squander resources any more than should socialism, communism, feudalism, etc.
As for job loss due to automation, I've long argued this.
But the solution isn't to abandon capitalism.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There's no reason that Capitalism must squander resources any more than should socialism, communism, feudalism, etc.

It is though. Even just walking through the grocery store is a symphony of destruction of various additives that basically mean many acres of a rain forests were destroyed to bring you these few ounces of chemical "food" that is bad for your health. But it makes money, which is the goal of Capitalism. Either it will have to be very heavily regulated in regards to natural resources, or be replaced by something else.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is though.

I don't claim otherwise.
But squandering is not a fundamental component of capitalism.
Chinese commies squandered resources too, but this doesn't mean that communism was the problem.
Squandering was.

 

[suncowiam]

Or I could fix her car - realistic 21st century service example for another realistic 21st century service example.

Except technology is advancing ahead of our money and economy. As our technology continues to advance, more and more jobs are going to be replaced by machines. As more resources become depleted, we're going to face major disruptions in distribution of essential needs. We also have the fact that we've had one economic set back after another, and it's always the poor and middle class who have to shoulder these setbacks while the wealthy get to coast them out and sometimes even get vacation money out of the tax payers. Unless Capitalism yields, we are going to end up in a very nasty situation because very few people have food, water, and shelter because very few people have jobs that pay anything decent because so many jobs will have been replaced by robots, leaving many jobless, and if they have work they won't have guaranteed wages or benefits as the "shared economy" becomes more the norm and people don't work like normal but work as free-lancers and independent contractors for their money. Mean while, those at the top keeping getting richer and richer, sucking up every last cent they can. People won't sit back and take it forever.
There is also the issue that we do live in a world of finite and limited resources, yet Capitalism, especially American Capitalism, has squandered so much of the world's resources in such a short period of time that we'll be forced into an economic authoritarian society because there is no such "crisis of the commons" because that was sustainable but we are facing a pending "crisis of private property" because rather than sharing a few people are putting price tags on everything and buying it all up.

I just read theory here.

You also have never lived in socialistic country. Name all the successful non capitalistic countries. What is their gnp/gdp versus population? What is the average income?

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/gnp.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_wage
http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-capitalism.html

All the top entries are capitalistic countries. What more reality needs to be pointed out here?

Ever read how China became communistic or how Vietnam became communistic or how north Korea became what ever it is now? Yeah, it started with people "not wanting to take it anymore."

Be careful what you ask for because its ironic that reality is staring you right in the face and yet you don't even recognize it.

 

[metis]

I just read theory here.

You also have never lived in socialistic country. Name all the successful non capitalistic countries. What is their gnp/gdp versus population? What is the average income?

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/gnp.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_wage
http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-capitalism.html

All the top entries are capitalistic countries. What more reality needs to be pointed out here?

Ever read how China became communistic or how Vietnam became communistic or how north Korea became what ever it is now? Yeah, it started with people "not wanting to take it anymore."

Be careful what you ask for because its ironic that reality is staring you right in the face and yet you don't even recognize it.

The trouble with that is that it just includes income, which can be deceptive. My relatives in Sweden have far less out-of-pocket expenses for health care, dental care, day-care centers, and a need for savings in general than we have to concern ourselves with here in the States. An estimated 70-80% of all personal bankruptcies here in the States typically involve medical expenses, whereas that isn't an issue in Sweden or even in Canada.

 

[suncowiam]

The trouble with that is that it just includes income, which can be deceptive. My relatives in Sweden have far less out-of-pocket expenses for health care, dental care, day-care centers, and a need for savings in general than we have to concern ourselves with here in the States. An estimated 70-80% of all personal bankruptcies here in the States typically involve medical expenses, whereas that isn't an issue in Sweden or even in Canada.

The poor of socialistic countries are in worst conditions than the poor of capitalistic countries. Go to cuba where there is a higher degree of trading for skills. See where that gets you.

 

[metis]

The poor of socialistic countries are in worst conditions than the poor of capitalistic countries. Go to cuba where there is a higher degree of trading for skills. See where that gets you.

You are using an extreme example, plus I am not talking about countries that have based their system on a bastardization of Marxist teachings. I used Sweden as an example, which is a far cry difference than with Cuba.

There are various forms of socialism, and even the Wikipedia article on it is actually quite good, so let me link you to it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You also have never lived in socialistic country. Name all the successful non capitalistic countries. What is their gnp/gdp versus population? What is the average income?

To many, money isn't the goal, race, or desire in life. If you ask me, this emphasis on production is terrible not only for humans, but the planet as a whole because it puts an unsustainable burden on the Earth.

Ever read how China became communistic or how Vietnam became communistic or how north Korea became what ever it is now? Yeah, it started with people "not wanting to take it anymore."

Ever read how Lenin did, in many ways, improve conditions for Russia (even allowing small businesses to remain running under a capitalist model), or that communists such as Leon Trotsky and Rosa Lexemburg denounced Marxist-Leninist Communism (which was put together by Stalin) as not being an ideal or suitable model for Marxism or Communism? (China and Vietnam, BTW, follow Stalin's approach of Marxist-Leninist).
AND, you also ignored to issue of technology and how Capitalism is not well suited for a society that is information based and seeing more-and-more jobs replaced by machines. The "shared economy" isn't a theory but rather something that is going on, right now, because so many people are loosing jobs and having to do whatever the can to make money, and for many this means taking whatever jobs they can get as independent contractors, short term/temporary workers, renting out their bed room to a stranger, and for less pay, no benefits, and no stability/security. What are we going to do when production becomes so automated that the only people still working at a factory is the maintenance crew?

 

[metis]

AND, you also ignored to issue of technology and how Capitalism is not well suited for a society that is information based and seeing more-and-more jobs replaced by machines. The "shared economy" isn't a theory but rather something that is going on, right now, because so many people are loosing jobs and having to do whatever the can to make money, and for many this means taking whatever jobs they can get as independent contractors, short term/temporary workers, renting out their bed room to a stranger, and for less pay, no benefits, and no stability/security. What are we going to do when production becomes so automated that the only people still working at a factory is the maintenance crew?

And the above, which was well said, imo, is where some of the absurdity in the right stands. Investors invest to make money, so how it affects workers, the community, and the country is subservient to the almighty dollar.

On top of that, they insist on much more deregulation. Well, let me draw a parallel and see how that plays out.

Let's have a baseball game with no regulation (rules) and see what happens. Or, let's just get rid of a bunch of regulations so we can say we be more "efficient", such as not having any set number of innings or how many strikes I get versus you.

Now, that certainly doesn't mean that all regulations are good or necessary, but all too many on the right don't see it that way-- unless it negatively affects their "bottom line", and we darn well know what that is. So many on the right slip all too often into utter hypocrisy, such as the Tea Party's insistence on massive cuts in the federal budget-- but "Don't touch my Social Security!" and "Don't cut my Medicare!" and"Don't make cuts to the military budget!".

There's more I could rant on, but I think you'll likely agree with the above, so I'll just stop here.

 

[suncowiam]

You are using an extreme example, plus I am not talking about countries that have based their system on a bastardization of Marxist teachings. I used Sweden as an example, which is a far cry difference than with Cuba.

There are various forms of socialism, and even the Wikipedia article on it is actually quite good, so let me link you to it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

To many, money isn't the goal, race, or desire in life. If you ask me, this emphasis on production is terrible not only for humans, but the planet as a whole because it puts an unsustainable burden on the Earth.

Ever read how Lenin did, in many ways, improve conditions for Russia (even allowing small businesses to remain running under a capitalist model), or that communists such as Leon Trotsky and Rosa Lexemburg denounced Marxist-Leninist Communism (which was put together by Stalin) as not being an ideal or suitable model for Marxism or Communism? (China and Vietnam, BTW, follow Stalin's approach of Marxist-Leninist).
AND, you also ignored to issue of technology and how Capitalism is not well suited for a society that is information based and seeing more-and-more jobs replaced by machines. The "shared economy" isn't a theory but rather something that is going on, right now, because so many people are loosing jobs and having to do whatever the can to make money, and for many this means taking whatever jobs they can get as independent contractors, short term/temporary workers, renting out their bed room to a stranger, and for less pay, no benefits, and no stability/security. What are we going to do when production becomes so automated that the only people still working at a factory is the maintenance crew?

Suggesting an extreme case of socialism is saying the same thing as a pure form of socialism. What more do you need to prove that it doesn't work?

All "successful socialism" have a predominant backbone of capitalism to support it and drive it. History has proven that socialism doesn't work on its own. Show me otherwise.

Shadow, you bring up Russia but you really mean the Soviet Union. So, what happened again to the Soviet Union? How did it again become successful?

I have all of history to back my claims.

Your claims to technology and Capitalism being incompatible are incorrect. Technology has been replacing jobs in capitalist societies for some time, and yet, capitalist societies are still thriving. This is not new. We have been in the information and technology age for quite some time. The internet has been around for a long time. You're still basing your assertions on theories with no real life basis.

[Edited]
To be fair to you, your theory does make sense if we extrapolate the idea automation in replacing all of humanity. But that's still a theory. If this becomes the case in 50-100 years, then we can come back to test it. But it's pretty unfair to base a conclusion now on it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The internet has been around for a long time. You're still basing your assertions on theories with no real life basis.

Unless you are referring to the ARPANET and TCP/IP access, the internet wasn't around until the late 80s/early 90s, and the internet didn't gain any significant cultural importance until about '95, and even then it would still be a few more years before society would become very dependent upon the internet. The World Wide Web didn't even exist until '89, with the first web browser appearing in '90. And it's hard to say we are prospering when so many jobs are being lost.

 

[suncowiam]

Unless you are referring to the ARPANET and TCP/IP access, the internet wasn't around until the late 80s/early 90s, and the internet didn't gain any significant cultural importance until about '95, and even then it would still be a few more years before society would become very dependent upon the internet. The World Wide Web didn't even exist until '89, with the first web browser appearing in '90. And it's hard to say we are prospering when so many jobs are being lost.

That's 27 years of existence according to you. That seems like a long time for capitalism to be still thriving in conjunction with information technology. Not to mention that most capitalist countries are pro free speech. How much more time do you suggest is needed for your theory to catch on?

Now that I'm addressing your question, how about you address why history has shown over and over that socialism fails when it becomes the prime policy?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's 27 years of existence according to you. That seems like a long time for capitalism to be still thriving in conjunction with information technology. Not to mention that most capitalist countries are pro free speech. How much more time do you suggest is needed for your theory to catch on?

27 years isn't a "long time ago." I'm older than the internet, and people still sometimes refer to me as "young." We had the dotcom boom, and then soon after the dotcom bust, and then not too long after the the housing bust and recession.

Now that I'm addressing your question, how about you address why history has shown over and over that socialism fails when it becomes the prime policy?

In many contemporary examples we'll never know because they either we authortarian (and those types aren't good and often don't last anyways) or the CIA had them overthrown.

 

[suncowiam]

27 years isn't a "long time ago." I'm older than the internet, and people still sometimes refer to me as "young." We had the dotcom boom, and then soon after the dotcom bust, and then not too long after the the housing bust and recession.

In many contemporary examples we'll never know because they either we authortarian (and those types aren't good and often don't last anyways) or the CIA had them overthrown.

Those recessions occurred and yet, we're still thriving in these capitalistic societies. In fact, I made enough transactions to be even more secure through those recessions. Those were the times to buy when prices were low. I was very conservative with spending when prices were inflated.

I don't know what else to say. The writing is on the wall and sometimes maybe one is just denying the facts as they are.

You're proposing to experiment with millions to billions of lives on the line on theory that, IMO, have already been proven to not work in real life.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You're proposing to experiment with millions to billions of lives on the line on theory that, IMO, have already been proven to not work in real life.

And an approach that is pumping food full of poisons and destroying the planet is working? A system where the bulk of the money rests at the top, and most of the gains since the recession have went? A system that has had corporations petitioning the government to overthrow democratically elected governments is working? If it hadn't been for the United Fruit Company (known today as Chiquita) we wouldn't even know who Che Guevara was, and he wouldn't have been prompted to pick up arms and fight.

 

[suncowiam]

And an approach that is pumping food full of poisons and destroying the planet is working? A system where the bulk of the money rests at the top, and most of the gains since the recession have went? A system that has had corporations petitioning the government to overthrow democratically elected governments is working? If it hadn't been for the United Fruit Company (known today as Chiquita) we wouldn't even know who Che Guevara was, and he wouldn't have been prompted to pick up arms and fight.

You cant prove that this wouldn't happen in socialistic policies. There will always be corruption in any government. Corruption can lead to the same things.

I know first hand the corruption in Vietnam leading to many of the things you've mentioned.

You've been assuming the grass is greener on the other side on all matters but you really don't know if that is true. It's a guess and a poor guess based on past events.

Idealistic theories are the easiest to be enamored with but we have yet to see it come to fruition.

Like I mentioned to you before. I would love to see a Star Trek utopian society, but it's fiction.

 

[metis]

Suggesting an extreme case of socialism is saying the same thing as a pure form of socialism. What more do you need to prove that it doesn't work?

All "successful socialism" have a predominant backbone of capitalism to support it and drive it. History has proven that socialism doesn't work on its own. Show me otherwise.

Shadow, you bring up Russia but you really mean the Soviet Union. So, what happened again to the Soviet Union? How did it again become successful?

I have all of history to back my claims.

Your claims to technology and Capitalism being incompatible are incorrect. Technology has been replacing jobs in capitalist societies for some time, and yet, capitalist societies are still thriving. This is not new. We have been in the information and technology age for quite some time. The internet has been around for a long time. You're still basing your assertions on theories with no real life basis.

[Edited]
To be fair to you, your theory does make sense if we extrapolate the idea automation in replacing all of humanity. But that's still a theory. If this becomes the case in 50-100 years, then we can come back to test it. But it's pretty unfair to base a conclusion now on it.

It's obvious that you haven't done your homework of reading the link I provided you because you keep on referring to "socialism as if it is monolithic, which anyone who has done any studying on the matter knows that it is not.

Secondly, you have fallen into the trap of dualistic thinking on this matter. There are not entirely "capitalistic" or "socialistic" economies, and all countries in today's world have what is called "mixed economies"-- iow, a mixture of both capitalistic and socialistic programs.

And finally, you keep on referring to Marxist models and not models like the Scandinavians have, which I've mentioned in my previous posts, but which you have totally ignored.