The future of Capitalism...

[Syphor]

Let's say over the course of the next few hundred years nanotechnology takes off in a big way; material goods can be constructed and reproduced much in the same way digital data can be today. Robotics and artificial intelligence systems also play a huge role in a near, completely automated society.

If this is going to be the case won't there be a hell of a lot of people out of work? Where do they get their income? How do they live? They'll find other jobs...what exactly? The robots build the buildings, the nanobots make the clothes, the ai systems plan this and that based on efficient algorithms or some such...doesn't seem like a whole lot left for us to do. Certainly not much to exploit people over.

So what happens to capitalism? How is it sustainable? How is it the 'end of history'? In the circumstances I've outlined isn't a push toward a more socialist oriented political-economic structure inevitable? Will technology ultimately see us rid of capitalism?

[Ishmael]

Capitalism has no future. At this point it seems to be axiomatic to me.

[Nitrousoxide]

Capitalism MIGHT and I emphasize *might* be phased out when every person's wants and desires can be met without them working at all. This includes all increases in demand that will accompany the freedom to get stuff for free.

This keeps in mind man's desire for new stuff, so new products and services must be continuously developed without ANY human intervention.

And that is only true if it is a fact of human nature that we don't need have any sort of control over other people, and that people don't have a need to lead.

But, of course, if robots and AI's are capable of improving themselves without any input on our part, there are dangers involved. Think of any movie which features a man vs. machine plot.

[Nice Squirrel]

I thought all the machines were going to free up the labor force. With the blacksmiths and wheelwrights gone, who is going to need to work?

[Syphor]

I'm sure with another forty years of software engineering development, the telesales industry will be completely replaced by chatty computers. "Sir, a raygun for $19.95"? /Hawking computer voice

With human telesales reps gone there's an unemployment spike of about 45% right there :)

[psikeyhackr]

So why can't our capitalist economists talk about how much we lose on depreciation of automobiles today?

Did capitalism exist in the US in 1900?

There were only 8,000 cars then, how much could the depreciation have amounted to as a percentage of GDP? Oh, they didn't do GDP in 1900 either. That didn't start until the 1930's. There were 230,000,000 cars in 2003 but the economists didn't calculate or tell us the depreciation.

I have talked to a number of economists. They are techno-morons. I don't care what they think the result of nano-technology will be.

http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?t=28529

psik

[cognac]

Dangers involved ... Well, as we know from Battlestar Galactica, the machines will take over and attempt to exterminate the human (naturally biological) population.

[psikeyhackr]

Dangers involved ... Well, as we know from Battlestar Galactica, the machines will take over and attempt to exterminate the human (naturally biological) population.

Shouldn't intelligent machines with interstellar travel be able to inhabit solar systems which could not support human life? Shouldn't they be able to outmanufacture/reproduce humans by a large margin in a few decades? Why not just wait until they had overwhelming numerical superiority before attacking?

psik

[cognac]

Dangers involved ... Well, as we know from Battlestar Galactica, the machines will take over and attempt to exterminate the human (naturally biological) population.

Shouldn't intelligent machines with interstellar travel be able to inhabit solar systems which could not support human life? Shouldn't they be able to outmanufacture/reproduce humans by a large margin in a few decades? Why not just wait until they had overwhelming numerical superiority before attacking?

psik

Well, in BG that's what happened. (I should say the new BG series currently on SciFi.) The machines went off to find their own worlds and developed, and then they returned and wiped out 12 planets worth of humans. The BG crew and a handful of other ships managed to jump away, but that was only like 50,000 people out of billions.

[Gamera]

Open source will make capitalism obsolete in several decades, although they wealthy may put up a fight to keep their power.

Look at Wikipedia, a valuable service used by millions and created FOR FREE, by volunteers, without any contributors being paid, resulting in a service that rivals the expensive Encyclopedia Brittanica. People want to contribute to others, and will, if given the structure.

Open source provides that structure in an online environment in the production and dissemination of information. If that can be translated to the production of products, capitalism will wither away.

[psikeyhackr]

Open source will make capitalism obsolete in several decades, although they wealthy may put up a fight to keep their power.

Yeah people will be able to live and sleep and grow food in Open Source VIRTUAL REALITY. :D :D

Tell that to your landlord or mortgage company.

Oh yeah, the electric company will want real money for the electricity to run your computers.

psik

[Gamera]

Open source will make capitalism obsolete in several decades, although they wealthy may put up a fight to keep their power.

Yeah people will be able to live and sleep and grow food in Open Source VIRTUAL REALITY. :D :D

Tell that to your landlord or mortgage company.

Oh yeah, the electric company will want real money for the electricity to run your computers.

psik


Information is the basis of modern production, not hardware. The hardware component is increasingly less relevant. And as the open source movement shows, people will volunteer information of the highest quality, if given the forum to do it.

[coloradoatheist]

The biggest short term worry for capitalism is govt and it's decision to solve all problems. The long term problem of capitalism is it being too successful.


Mike

[psikeyhackr]

Information is the basis of modern production, not hardware. The hardware component is increasingly less relevant. And as the open source movement shows, people will volunteer information of the highest quality, if given the forum to do it.

:D :D :D :D

I only worked for IBM for 4 years and built my 1st computer in 1978 and I don't believe that crap.

Are you calling FOOD a hardware component? :devil1:

psikey

[Nitrousoxide]

:D :D :D :D

I only worked for IBM for 4 years and built my 1st computer in 1978 and I don't believe that crap.

Are you calling FOOD a hardware component? :devil1:

psikey

Don't worry, a bunch of us will get together a write a cookbook wiki.

Everyone will be fed then.

[psikeyhackr]

Don't worry, a bunch of us will get together a write a cookbook wiki.

Everyone will be fed then.

Belief in Artificial Intelligence has fried people's brains.

I will have to develop the gastronomic tastes of Hannibal Lecter. :rolling:

psik

[RVonse]

The OP of this thread is sort of answered in Star Trek NG series, I get the idea the writers of that show predict an optomistic view of the future where capitalism becomes obsolete. Nearly everyone in Star Trek can fulfill all levels of maslows hiearchy of needs.

None of us here will live long enough to see that day though.

[Gamera]

Information is the basis of modern production, not hardware. The hardware component is increasingly less relevant. And as the open source movement shows, people will volunteer information of the highest quality, if given the forum to do it.

:D :D :D :D

I only worked for IBM for 4 years and built my 1st computer in 1978 and I don't believe that crap.

Are you calling FOOD a hardware component? :devil1:

psikey


Assuming a scenario where biotechnology (i.e., information) is larger and larger compenent in successful raising of crops, the open source movement could result in lower and lower prices for food, and the "voluntary" production of food.

If you could raise all the vegetable crops you needed in a couple square feet in your backyard for virtually no cost due to engineered plants, whose seeds were produced vitualy for free because the process was software info driven, would you bother to go to the market?

I'm not saying that will happen tomorrow, but it's the tendency.

[premjan]

In a world which has abolished the specter of scarcity either by human planning or through technology, there is no need for capitalism (or socialism really).

[bleubird]

To paraphrase an unknown source:He who believes in infinite growth with finite resources is ether a fool or an economist.
Pure capitalism will use labor or resources until it can't.
Since no ideology is ever realized,it takes some time for the fecal matter to hit the rotating ventilation device.



bleu

[Bonniedundee]

The biggest short term worry for capitalism is govt In other words the biggest short term worry for capitalism is capitalism.

[Arch]

The OP of this thread is sort of answered in Star Trek NG series, I get the idea the writers of that show predict an optomistic view of the future where capitalism becomes obsolete. Nearly everyone in Star Trek can fulfill all levels of maslows hiearchy of needs.

None of us here will live long enough to see that day though.

Yeah, instead of fulfilling maslow's hiearchy of needs, we're fulfilling "the man's" heiarchy of needs.

The rich have an incredibly strong position in the U.S. All I see is them making it stronger at every turn,(why do you think Gonzales still holds office?) I think we're in a guilded age now, but it's probably going to get a lot worse before/if it ever gets better.

Where's my flying car dammit!?

[psikeyhackr]

To paraphrase an unknown source:He who believes in infinite growth with finite resources is ether a fool or an economist.
Pure capitalism will use labor or resources until it can't.
Since no ideology is ever realized,it takes some time for the fecal matter to hit the rotating ventilation device.

Their growth is based on a LIE OF OMISSION.

Go to an automobile junk yard. Look at all o the piled up cars. Those cars got added to GDP when they were purchased. Did they get subtracted from anywhere when they were delivered to the junk yard?

http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?t=28529

psik

[Nitrousoxide]

Psikey, you interject that little link in whatever thread you think you can, even when it doesn't actually relate to the subject at hand.

You do like to toot your own horn don't'cha?

[psikeyhackr]

Psikey, you interject that little link in whatever thread you think you can, even when it doesn't actually relate to the subject at hand.

You do like to toot your own horn don't'cha?

The nice thing about links is that they are easy to ignore.

I have heard statistics claiming that the automobile accounted for 25% of the American economy, though it's been a while since I have heard that.

But how often have YOU heard economists tooting their horns about the depreciation lost on those cars? I have only found one that pointed out that depreciation of durable goods wasn't tracked and that was back in 1952.

Are you saying you think my ego is more important than mathematics and physics?

Oh, I forgot, manufacturing cars doesn't have anything to do with CAPITALISM.

And how cars work and wear out doesn't have anything to do with physics.

psikey

[unrealist42]

Capitalism is based on the concentration of wealth. Logically, at some point in the future, one person will own everything on the planet.

Then it will no longer be capitalism.

Capitalism will capitalize itself out of existence.

[coloradoatheist]

Capitalism is based on the concentration of wealth. Logically, at some point in the future, one person will own everything on the planet.

Then it will no longer be capitalism.

Capitalism will capitalize itself out of existence.


No, it may concentrate paper wealth but it doesn't concentrate wealth enough that other people don't benefit.

Mike

[Syphor]

No, it may concentrate paper wealth but it doesn't concentrate wealth enough that other people don't benefit.

So one person owning everything (it is a logical conclusion) would see no detrimental effects relative to the ways things are currently?

You might want to think that one through.

[coloradoatheist]

No, it may concentrate paper wealth but it doesn't concentrate wealth enough that other people don't benefit.

So one person owning everything (it is a logical conclusion) would see no detrimental effects relative to the ways things are currently?

You might want to think that one through.


Several hundred years ago when a King controlled everything then yes it was a problem, not capitalism. Even Bill Gates only owns like at most 20% of the wealth in one company and that's not all the other companies. Also the wealth in the US includes everything, not just stocks.

Mike

[Loren Pechtel]

Capitalism is based on the concentration of wealth. Logically, at some point in the future, one person will own everything on the planet.

Then it will no longer be capitalism.

Capitalism will capitalize itself out of existence.

No. The big companies generally fall by the wayside at some point. Little ones spring up and take their place.

Look at the top 100 companies from 100 years ago. Compare that list to now. There's not too many names on both.

[untermensche]

The planet will not survive a few hundred years more of capitalism.

[Loren Pechtel]

The planet will not survive a few hundred years more of capitalism.

More of a chance with capitalism than anything else.

[psikeyhackr]

The planet will not survive a few hundred years more of capitalism.

The planet will survive even if the human race doesn't.

I just wonder what the population will be in 2100.

psik

[unrealist42]

Capitalism is based on the concentration of wealth. Logically, at some point in the future, one person will own everything on the planet.

Then it will no longer be capitalism.

Capitalism will capitalize itself out of existence.

No. The big companies generally fall by the wayside at some point. Little ones spring up and take their place.

Look at the top 100 companies from 100 years ago. Compare that list to now. There's not too many names on both.

That's because capitalism has been compromised by socialism.

[untermensche]

The planet will not survive a few hundred years more of capitalism.

More of a chance with capitalism than anything else.
That is a religious belief with no evidence to support it.

The leading capitalist nations are not slowing down the destruction of the environment. They are escalating it yearly.

Insanity.

[premjan]

We just need clear thinking and not merely big doses of ideology.

[Gamera]

We just need clear thinking and not merely big doses of ideology.

It's pretty hard to think clearly when the basic motive of our economy is driven by greed. Greed has a way of not clarifying the facts, but distorting them, for one's self-interest.

So to let the CEO of Exxon make our energy policy (which is essentially what has happened under conservative market fundi rule) is the exact opposite of clear thinking.

[unrealist42]

It is pretty clear to me what they are thinking.

[Pastor's Nightmare]

Capitalism can be defined as an efficient system for managing limited resources and unlimited human desires. In reality, human desires are not unlimited. It is an approximation. And, as our ability to meet all human desires increases, it will become possible to phase out the current form of capitalism and replace it with a gentler, kindler system, but such a system is a long ways off... at least another 60-70 years. Much sooner in developed countries. However, it would be a huge mistake to replace the current system prematurely.

Furthermore, all human desires will never be met. Many of the things we buy today rely on human inputs. For example, a piano lesson requires a teacher. Certain forms of healthcare will still require a doctor even if the medicines are mass produced and rely on nanotechnology. Such goods are called Services and hence the phrase "Service Economy".

Furthermore, those goods that are easily produced through automation will become extremely cheap like water and air. Telephones(landlines) are starting to become virtually free. This will happen with many, many, many different types of goods.

Society will shift to a society that does far more research(death will always be with us), arts and entertainment.

[untermensche]

"Service Economy" is a term which was invented to justify the sending of American manufacturing jobs overseas.

Manufacturing has not been replaced with service.

Manufacturing is just taking place somewhere else.

[MRM]

What I am wondering about is, what will happen after peak oil. So far, modern capitalism was an economic system of growth. Can it survive a prolonged economic decline ? Or will other systems emerge ?

[Stinger]

What I am wondering about is, what will happen after peak oil. So far, modern capitalism was an economic system of growth. Can it survive a prolonged economic decline ? Or will other systems emerge ? Oh, I think that using alternate forms of energy will be a huge boom for countries. We have alternate forms of energy in place; it's just that they aren’t cost effective yet. As the technology gets better and the price of oil goes higher, the cost effectiveness gets better.

But think how many more people will be employed in developing and manufacturing the alternate energy plants. I'm mostly talking about fusion plants, hydrology, solar, tidal and etc. The people working at these plants will be paid very good salaries.

[unrealist42]

In China and India.

[unrealist42]

Capitalism can be defined as an efficient system for managing limited resources and unlimited human desires. In reality, human desires are not unlimited. It is an approximation. And, as our ability to meet all human desires increases, it will become possible to phase out the current form of capitalism and replace it with a gentler, kindler system, but such a system is a long ways off... at least another 60-70 years. Much sooner in developed countries. However, it would be a huge mistake to replace the current system prematurely.

Furthermore, all human desires will never be met. Many of the things we buy today rely on human inputs. For example, a piano lesson requires a teacher. Certain forms of healthcare will still require a doctor even if the medicines are mass produced and rely on nanotechnology. Such goods are called Services and hence the phrase "Service Economy".

Furthermore, those goods that are easily produced through automation will become extremely cheap like water and air. Telephones(landlines) are starting to become virtually free. This will happen with many, many, many different types of goods.

Society will shift to a society that does far more research(death will always be with us), arts and entertainment.

This is some pretty good logical reasoning.

The only problem I see with it is that you do not recognize that most human desires beyond basic needs are artificially manufactured by the marketing industry preying on your emotions and subconcious.

Now, if we could redirect that, things could be turned around fairly quickly and painlessly.

[premjan]

I think that is a great point - there are human needs and then there are human whims and then there are the cards that are forced on you. The latter are definitely not needed but a result of capitalist ideology.

[coloradoatheist]

I think that is a great point - there are human needs and then there are human whims and then there are the cards that are forced on you. The latter are definitely not needed but a result of capitalist ideology.



Are they created or were they always there but we never had them?


Mike

[premjan]

I think that is a great point - there are human needs and then there are human whims and then there are the cards that are forced on you. The latter are definitely not needed but a result of capitalist ideology.Are they created or were they always there but we never had them?
MikeI'm talking about e.g. telemarketing and force-selling of insurance with my bank account or credit card account etc. Making it inconvenient for me to refuse certain types of consumer spending. That I can definitely do without. If it is whims, then I think it is reasonable to look at the environmental impact of our whims - after all in a capitlist society that ends up as the unaccounted invisible man as the long-term picture being relatively unknown, rapid exploitation of resources becomes the norm. When it comes to things people will generally consume to actualize their lifes to the fullest then I have absolutely no problem with a capitalist arrangement.

[coloradoatheist]

Are they created or were they always there but we never had them?
MikeI'm talking about e.g. telemarketing and force-selling of insurance with my bank account or credit card account etc. Making it inconvenient for me to refuse certain types of consumer spending. That I can definitely do without. If it is whims, then I think it is reasonable to look at the environmental impact of our whims - after all in a capitlist society that ends up as the unaccounted invisible man as the long-term picture being relatively unknown, rapid exploitation of resources becomes the norm. When it comes to things people will generally consume to actualize their lifes to the fullest then I have absolutely no problem with a capitalist arrangement.


I'm not sure about the insurance that you are talking about that you must buy, you can refuse their services and shop around. I actually think whims are a human flaw that it's part of the evolution to think of now instead of the future.

Mike

[premjan]

Duping the customer is generally par for the course, though possibly there is a way to sue against that, it is generally not worth the hassle.

[coloradoatheist]

Duping the customer is generally par for the course, though possibly there is a way to sue against that, it is generally not worth the hassle.

But that gets plugged into the system, and it will be better in the future. If you get duped what do you do, you tell people about it. Just telling your friends about your experience will be produce a lot of negative feedback that will eventually do the company if they do it to enough people.


Mike

[premjan]

Depends how far up or down the economic pecking order you are. If you are near the bottom you won't have much opportunity to get your own back.

[Gamera]

"Service Economy" is a term which was invented to justify the sending of American manufacturing jobs overseas.

Manufacturing has not been replaced with service.

Manufacturing is just taking place somewhere else.

Good point. It is typical of cheap labor conservatism to try to mystify their policies. The goal of outsourcing is to produce lower wages and hence increase profits for the wealthy. The rhetoric that swirls around this simple plan is intended to obsfucate and divert.

[coloradoatheist]

"Service Economy" is a term which was invented to justify the sending of American manufacturing jobs overseas.

Manufacturing has not been replaced with service.

Manufacturing is just taking place somewhere else.

Good point. It is typical of cheap labor conservatism to try to mystify their policies. The goal of outsourcing is to produce lower wages and hence increase profits for the wealthy. The rhetoric that swirls around this simple plan is intended to obsfucate and divert.

The goal of outsourcing is severalfold: stay competitive, offer cheaper prices to customers, expand profits which can be then used on other projects. Wal-Mart's outsourcing allows them to offer cheaper goods to the public and increases everyone's buying power.

Mike

[untermensche]

The goal of outsourcing is severalfold: stay competitive, offer cheaper prices to customers, expand profits which can be then used on other projects. Wal-Mart's outsourcing allows them to offer cheaper goods to the public and increases everyone's buying power.

Mike
The result of moving American manufacturing jobs overseas is cheaper and more dangeous goods now come from China and other totalitarian nations.

But this does not mean that the US economy is now some "service economy".

It still is an economy based on manufacturing.

It's just that Americans are not doing the manufacturing.

And these service jobs, most at lower wages than manufacturing jobs, do not exist because manufacturing has moved overseas. They would exist anyway. But people would be paid more in them because the competition for employees would be greater.

[coloradoatheist]

The goal of outsourcing is severalfold: stay competitive, offer cheaper prices to customers, expand profits which can be then used on other projects. Wal-Mart's outsourcing allows them to offer cheaper goods to the public and increases everyone's buying power.

Mike
The result of moving American manufacturing jobs overseas is cheaper and more dangeous goods now come from China and other totalitarian nations.

But this does not mean that the US economy is now some "service economy".

It still is an economy based on manufacturing.

It's just that Americans are not doing the manufacturing.

And these service jobs, most at lower wages than manufacturing jobs, do not exist because manufacturing has moved overseas. They would exist anyway. But people would be paid more in them because the competition for employees would be greater.


And Axulus can show you sources where service jobs average out higher than manufacturing jobs. Remember service jobs include things like paralegals, doctor's assistants, operators, telemarketers, etc instead of just flipping hamburgers. And if people get paid more for doing them, guess what happens, that cost has to get to the customers or they go out business so you have higher prices. Wal-Marts low costs saves Americans billions of dollars a year, the effect is making people's salaries higher.

Mike

[untermensche]

And Axulus can show you sources where service jobs average out higher than manufacturing jobs. Remember service jobs include things like paralegals, doctor's assistants, operators, telemarketers, etc instead of just flipping hamburgers. And if people get paid more for doing them, guess what happens, that cost has to get to the customers or they go out business so you have higher prices. Wal-Marts low costs saves Americans billions of dollars a year, the effect is making people's salaries higher.

Mike
And which of these jobs would not exist if there were also manufacturing jobs?

And which of these jobs would pay less if there were more overall jobs and therefore more competition for workers?

The effect of moving manufacturing jobs overseas is that people make less at most jobs that remain.

[coloradoatheist]

And Axulus can show you sources where service jobs average out higher than manufacturing jobs. Remember service jobs include things like paralegals, doctor's assistants, operators, telemarketers, etc instead of just flipping hamburgers. And if people get paid more for doing them, guess what happens, that cost has to get to the customers or they go out business so you have higher prices. Wal-Marts low costs saves Americans billions of dollars a year, the effect is making people's salaries higher.

Mike
And which of these jobs would not exist if there were also manufacturing jobs?

And which of these jobs would pay less if there were more overall jobs and therefore more competition for workers?

The effect of moving manufacturing jobs overseas is that people make less at most jobs that remain.


And all jobs require people to have food so the same argument applies to farming, why then don't we all go back to farming? The answer is that other people can do it cheaper and more efficient than everyone doing it. So as things become cheaper that means we have a lot more income to spend on other things then just the basics. I guess you need to start the neo-luddite party.

Mike

[untermensche]

And all jobs require people to have food so the same argument applies to farming, why then don't we all go back to farming? The answer is that other people can do it cheaper and more efficient than everyone doing it. So as things become cheaper that means we have a lot more income to spend on other things then just the basics. I guess you need to start the neo-luddite party.

Mike
Have we gotten rid of farming?

Or have we put small farmers out of business with corporate farming which grows food elsewhere?

Food only has to remain cheap because wages have been stagnant for 40 years, while top executive salaries and benefits have skyrocketed.

Capitalism is all about the need to find cheaper and cheaper labor. It is not a system designed to just meet human needs. Which is the primary reason for an economy.

It would be scrapped if humans behaved sanely.

[coloradoatheist]

Have we gotten rid of farming?

Or have we put small farmers out of business with corporate farming which grows food elsewhere?

Food only has to remain cheap because wages have been stagnant for 40 years, while top executive salaries and benefits have skyrocketed.

Capitalism is all about the need to find cheaper and cheaper labor. It is not a system designed to just meet human needs. Which is the primary reason for an economy.

It would be scrapped if humans behaved sanely.

We haven't gotten rid of farming, just made a very miniscule part of the work force, and the same thing will happen with manufacturing. If we have to we could go back to more farming and more manufacturing but as both of those costs come down, we spend our money on other things.

Capitalism is the best system to meet human needs. What human need isn't being met right now? The only one you could some case might be pollution but we'll find ways in the future to curb it's effects. In the last 40 years infant mortality has plummeted, life span has increased significantly, we live in more comfort, work in more confortable environments, have more leisure time, etc. Wages haven't stagnant in the last 40 years for several reasons. One that it only produces a static picture and not a dynamic picture and to nobody agrees that that inflation was correctly measured over that time.

Mike

[untermensche]

We haven't gotten rid of farming, just made a very miniscule part of the work force, and the same thing will happen with manufacturing. If we have to we could go back to more farming and more manufacturing but as both of those costs come down, we spend our money on other things.

Capitalism is the best system to meet human needs. What human need isn't being met right now? The only one you could some case might be pollution but we'll find ways in the future to curb it's effects. In the last 40 years infant mortality has plummeted, life span has increased significantly, we live in more comfort, work in more confortable environments, have more leisure time, etc. Wages haven't stagnant in the last 40 years for several reasons. One that it only produces a static picture and not a dynamic picture and to nobody agrees that that inflation was correctly measured over that time.

Mike
We haven't lessened our need for farmers by putting small American farms out of business and replacing them with near-slave farmers working for corporations in the Carribean and Central and South America.

[coloradoatheist]

So Guatemala would be a much better place without selling their agriculture to the US?


Mike

[Gamera]

So Guatemala would be a much better place without selling their agriculture to the US?


Mike

Yes, since they wouldn't be an exploited export economy were it not for the intervention (time and time again) of the US on behalf of corporations, who have destroyed their indigenous economies to benefit the wealthly in both countries.

In short your view is ahistorical and acts as if the world started yesterday and Guatamalas only choices are poverty or agricultural exports. If left to their own devices, Gauatmala presumably would have done what we did (because we weren't constantly invaded by a power rich northern neighbor who interfered with our economy and poliitics) and they would have built up an industrial base and a more sophisticated economy that benefits all their people, not just a few.

Unless you're arguing that only us White Americans want prosperous industrial economies, so we built one but those little brown folk aren't up to. If that's your position, provide evidence.

[Gamera]

[Capitalism is the best system to meet human needs. What human need isn't being met right now?

44 million Americans, including about 9 million poor kids, without health insurance.

A major US city, New Orleans, abandoned to floods and snakes for a week.

Several million Americans homeless on the street.

Malnurished poor in every major American city.


Now, government is doing something about that (over the objection of market fundies and cheap labor conservatives), but capitalism has utterly failed in these and others areas (remember the rivers that 'caught fire' before the EPA came into existence and regulated pollution -- if fiery rivers and poison is a human need, then capitalism sure provided that in spades).

[coloradoatheist]

million Americans, including about 9 million poor kids, without health insurance.



Health care is a half socialized system and not a free market one. Get govt govt out of health care and it will improve.


A major US city, New Orleans, abandoned to floods and snakes for a week.


Again heavy govt involvement. Whn it struck it was companies that were out there quickly however they were denied by the govt to help.


Several million Americans homeless on the street.


Most homelessness is due to drugs and alcohol.


Malnurished poor in every major American city.


And food has become very cheap that it now takes up much less of the budget than it ever did before. And you can find food around if you want to.


Mike



Now, government is doing something about that (over the objection of market fundies and cheap labor conservatives), but capitalism has utterly failed in these and others areas (remember the rivers that 'caught fire' before the EPA came into existence and regulated pollution -- if fiery rivers and poison is a human need, then capitalism sure provided that in spades).

The tragedy of the commons occurs because certain lands aren't allowed to be owned when they should be.

Mike

[Gamera]

Health care is a half socialized system and not a free market one. Get govt govt out of health care and it will improve.

It was worse before the "half-socialized system". Then almost no Americans had health insurance and most couldn't afford a doctor.

These market fundies, they keep blaming traffic on traffic lights.

Again heavy govt involvement. Whn it struck it was companies that were out there quickly however they were denied by the govt to help.

That's right: things were better before government regulation. We had less pollultion and more educated people. It's amazing we didn't realize the paradise we had. Hey, who came up with the stupid idea of interfering with the paradise we had in 1890, when kids worked in mines and people died on the street without a worry.

Most homelessness is due to drugs and alcohol.

Most drugs and alcohol is due to capitalism. See I can play that game too.

But I'm glad you admit some isn't and capitalism has failed them.

And food has become very cheap that it now takes up much less of the budget than it ever did before. And you can find food around if you want to.

There's plenty in dumpsters, as many poor people know.

The tragedy of the commons occurs because certain lands aren't allowed to be owned when they should be.

Of course. If we only had no regulation, things we be perfect. And anything bad in the past -- like child labor or 7 day work weeks or pollution, is really the result of gummit interference.

It's like taking candy from a baby arguing with market fundies.

[untermensche]

So Guatemala would be a much better place without selling their agriculture to the US?


Mike
The people of Guatemala would be far better off without the US around. Yes.

[coloradoatheist]

So Guatemala would be a much better place without selling their agriculture to the US?


Mike
The people of Guatemala would be far better off without the US around. Yes.

They don't have to sell their goods to the US.

Mike

[untermensche]

They don't have to sell their goods to the US.

Mike
Do you even know the history of Guatemala?

They once had a democracy and voted in somebody that was going to help the people of Guatemala.

The US didn't like their choice and removed him.

[premjan]

The US has indeed treated South and Central America as their backyard to meddle with. The fact that Brazil plans military strategy based on a fear of US takeover of the Amazon may be an indication.

[Gamera]

The people of Guatemala would be far better off without the US around. Yes.

They don't have to sell their goods to the US.

Mike


Apparently they do, since everytime they try to establish their own indigenous economy that benefits their citizens, the US intervenes on behalf of multinational corporations to suppress those movements.

[coloradoatheist]

They don't have to sell their goods to the US.

Mike


Apparently they do, since everytime they try to establish their own indigenous economy that benefits their citizens, the US intervenes on behalf of multinational corporations to suppress those movements.

Every time, or just the one coup in the 50s? However it was wrong for the US to do what they did in the 50s.


Mike

[Gamera]

Apparently they do, since everytime they try to establish their own indigenous economy that benefits their citizens, the US intervenes on behalf of multinational corporations to suppress those movements.

Every time, or just the one coup in the 50s? However it was wrong for the US to do what they did in the 50s.


Mike


You never heard of the Gautemalan death squads and Reagan's support for their terrorist attacks on peasants, nuns, and leftist politicians?

This may help you, if you're interested in learning the facts (and something tells me you don't)

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ronald_Reagan/Reagan_Guatemala.html

The report added that the "government of the United States, through various agencies including the CIA, provided direct and indirect support for some [of these] state operations." 'The report concluded that the U.S. government also gave money and training to a Guatemalan military that committed "acts of genocide" against the Mayans.
"Believing that the ends justified everything, the military and the state security forces blindly pursued the anticommunist struggle, without respect for any legal principles or the most elemental ethical and religious values, and in this way, completely lost any semblance of human morals," said the commission chairman, Christian Tomuschat, a German jurist.
"Within the framework of the counterinsurgency operations carried out between 1981 and 1983, in certain regions of the country agents of the Guatemalan state committed acts of genocide against groups of the Mayan people," he added. [NYT, Feb. 26, 1999]
The report did not single out culpable individuals either in Guatemala or the United States. But the American official most directly responsible for renewing U.S. military aid to Guatemala and encouraging its government during the 1980s was President Reagan.

[Nitrousoxide]

Apparently they do, since everytime they try to establish their own indigenous economy that benefits their citizens, the US intervenes on behalf of multinational corporations to suppress those movements.

By "indigenous economy that benefits their citizens" you mean communist revolution with the forced redistribution of land?

Yeah, America isn't too fond of new communist nations springing up on it's doorstep. We tend to do what we can to stamp those out if at all possible.

[Gamera]

Apparently they do, since everytime they try to establish their own indigenous economy that benefits their citizens, the US intervenes on behalf of multinational corporations to suppress those movements.

By "indigenous economy that benefits their citizens" you mean communist revolution with the forced redistribution of land?

Yeah, America isn't too fond of new communist nations springing up on it's doorstep. We tend to do what we can to stamp those out if at all possible.

I mean having a modern industrial economy like ours instead of serf-export economy that you and the multinationals want to impost upon them. Are you saying only the US wants a modern economy, not those silly brown people in Central America? Is that your position?

How they get there is there business. Just like it was ours when we used slaves in the south to built our infrastructure for a couple hundred years. Guatemala didn't invade us to stop that vast crime.

So, are you saying that you have a right to intervene in how the Guatemalan people want to modernize their economy? Who exactly gave you that right?

[Nitrousoxide]

I mean having a modern industrial economy like ours instead of serf-export economy that you and the multinationals want to impost upon them. Are you saying only the US wants a modern economy, not those silly brown people in Central America? Is that your position?

And, Gamera, what exactly were they doing to achieve this "modern industrial economy like ours?"

Mayhaps nationalizing those company owned lands?

[Gamera]

I mean having a modern industrial economy like ours instead of serf-export economy that you and the multinationals want to impost upon them. Are you saying only the US wants a modern economy, not those silly brown people in Central America? Is that your position?

And, Gamera, what exactly were they doing to achieve this "modern industrial economy like ours?"

Mayhaps nationalizing those company owned lands?

A good first step. What's your point? It's their country, their business on how they want to proceed, and the deals made with multinationals weren't made by democratic governments but US puppets to benefit only the rich.

Are you claiming otherwise?

[Nitrousoxide]

And what, Gamera, would you expect a country to do when it's major corporations are having their assets seized by communist revolutions?

Mightn't this fall under protecting said nation's interests around the world?

[Chuck Rightmire]

What is the future of capitalism? Okay, let's start with questions:

Will AI really beat out the linkage of human brains directly to computers and create a machine civilization? Can such a linkage operate against the machines and win? Will linkage prove easier in the short run and, maybe, the long run than AI?

Is capitalism a long-term solution? Since true free markets and capitalism seem to lead to less free markets and market oligarchism, is government needed to control those events? Is it necessary to do so?

The Tofflers indicated a few years back that it may be possible for people to have in their own homes computerized machines that will enable them to get clothing, food, news, etc., without stepping out of their homes. Will this enable capitalism or curtail it. Will people in the future have to buy many of the products they now have since it is evident that there is enough food in the world today to feed us all if multinationals and political structures enabled us to do it? Will food itself be created out of various molecules by machines, a la Star Trek?

What are capitalism's major faults that will work against them in a much more fluid future culture? What are capitalism's major strengths that will work for it in a future world where ownership isn't enough to control everything and may even become outmoded as a way of measuring success?

What will global warming and the inevitable collapse of our world population under changing global systems do to our capitalistic economy? is "economy" the real bottom line of living? Is smog, as people are arguing today, more valuable than human life so that it is not worth curtailing the amount issues by capitalistic economic machines because it will cost too much to do so?

[unrealist42]

The planet would be far better off with a few million people living in places where meeting their needs requires little effort.