Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I don't have any real answers at this point. I've mentioned a couple of ideas, but I'm not wholly happy with either of them. One would be to nationalize all publicly-traded corporations and pay everyone an ownership share as an entitlement of citizenship. Another would be to somehow make it that everyone works part-time but receives full-time wages.
The one thing I'm sure of is that our future economy will have to separate the idea of income from the idea of paid work.
Thanks to ifitme for those data. Against that background I need to say that the technological advances I'm talking about (the ability to automate service jobs) only began in the 1980s in embryo. That's when the personal computer was invented and put on the market. The development of computer networks, and finally the internet, accelerated the process through the 1990s and into the 21st century. At this point, the main advances relevant to what's going on are in software.
As ifitzme's data shows, expansion of the work force (on the supply side of the equation) can be absorbed; despite the increase in percentage of the population in the work force, full employment was maintained. Contraction on the demand side is another matter. That's what we're facing today, but we've only faced it on any significant scale in the last decade or two.
EDIT: The reason why expansion of the work force can be absorbed is because every worker is also a potential consumer, expanding the demand for goods and services; as long as the need for work to produce goods and services persists, the supply of paid labor creates its own demand -- which is the only situation in which Say's law actually holds true.
Since the Constitution, America has probably never been a totally capitalist nation. The problem has been keeping capitalism, capitalism. When Americans became aware of its possible loss they begin to try and strengthen it, even modify it to save it. We had the progressive period when the competition part of capitalism was almost eradicated, and kept it going. FDR kept it alive when it probably was in most danger and since then we have added more socialism to the mix for equality. Another way to look at the need for less labor, is less working hours, we went from a sixty hour work week to a forty maybe it's time to let machines do even more? Think of what America could do if politicians were more interested in the people than campaign coffers filled with corporate money.
That applies to everybody. And it's a sound principle.
It's no more sound than expecting everyone to be a millionaire. I can do as you suggest (and am doing so). Many people can't. That's exactly the problem.
I don't nitpick. You need to express yourself more clearly.When has pure capitalism ever been tried in long term and large scale?Actually, history shows that a mixed-model economy with socialist programs and regulations applied to a privately-owned base perform much better than either a pure capitalist or pure socialist model. But we seem to be entering into uncharted territory now, so that history cannot be taken as a straightforward guide.
Are you going to nitpick over the word "pure" now? Will you agree that American capitalism before the Great Depression was at least closer to being "pure" than after World War II? Will you agree that it was also closer to being "pure" than any advanced nation practices today, particularly the mixed-model economies of western Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia, etc.?
The opposite of what, that a mixed model economy does better than pure capitalism or socialism, or that we are entering into uncharted territory now?
If the first, I disagree, and this is why all of the advanced world today has exactly such a mixed economy. If the second, there is no way that history can ever show that we are entering uncharted territory, or that we are not. That's why they call it "uncharted."
You offered no proof. But as a general rule, compromising principles by incorporating antithetical values is a bad idea.
On the contrary, I did offer proof -- from history, which is the subject under discussion. The U.S. economy, after World War II, incorporated socialist aspects of social programs and regulation on a base of private ownership; it was a mixed economy, and FAR outperformed the U.S.e economy before the Depression. If you look at the richest, most advanced countries in the world today, all of them without exception are mixed economies. That includes western Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia and New Zealand, as well as the U.S. On the other hand, if you look at the poorest countries, almost all of them are either much closer to pure capitalism or much closer to pure socialism. We can also compare the dismal performance of the Soviet Union to show that pure socialism is a bust.
As for your theoretical consideration stated above, I suggest that it's not a case of incorporating antithetical values so much as striking a middle ground between extremes.
I guess I'm left wondering how "free" trade is that doesn't allow people to decide for themselves how they trade their goods and services with others, or that dictates how wealth is distributed via a coercive authority.
You're jumping to conclusions about the hows. Wealth was quite widely distributed in the 1960s. While there were policies that shaped how this happened, to say that it was dictated by a coercive authority is a severe overstatement. Nor would we necessarily have to have that happen now, or in the near future.
I can't say I've studied the situation re: the sixties in any depth, but all government "policies" are coercive - it's the nature of the beast.
Nevertheless, it's pointless to stick our heads in the sand. If wealth becomes too unequally distributed, and especially if most people see no way to better their circumstances, we will have a revolution. You've studied history enough to know that. If we can't get back to full employment, then there is no way that wages paid for work can rise enough to prevent that, even if we go back to full support for labor unions and a labor-friendly government.
I don't necessarily agree with this assumption, but if it is your conviction that government must act to redistributed wealth let's at least be honest - that's not 'free trade'. Free trade is about people distributing their wealth as they see fit.
I don't have any real answers at this point. I've mentioned a couple of ideas, but I'm not wholly happy with either of them. One would be to nationalize all publicly-traded corporations and pay everyone an ownership share as an entitlement of citizenship. Another would be to somehow make it that everyone works part-time but receives full-time wages.
The one thing I'm sure of is that our future economy will have to separate the idea of income from the idea of paid work.
There's an oversupply of government spending, regulation and central planning. Fix that and the economy will grow and unemployment will plummet
I don't have any real answers at this point. I've mentioned a couple of ideas, but I'm not wholly happy with either of them. One would be to nationalize all publicly-traded corporations and pay everyone an ownership share as an entitlement of citizenship. Another would be to somehow make it that everyone works part-time but receives full-time wages.
The one thing I'm sure of is that our future economy will have to separate the idea of income from the idea of paid work.
I don't have any real answers at this point. I've mentioned a couple of ideas, but I'm not wholly happy with either of them. One would be to nationalize all publicly-traded corporations and pay everyone an ownership share as an entitlement of citizenship. Another would be to somehow make it that everyone works part-time but receives full-time wages.
The one thing I'm sure of is that our future economy will have to separate the idea of income from the idea of paid work.
Cannot imagine that would/could/ or should happen. Some people are just more creative, industrious, or downright determined to succeed more than others. You can't compensate them the same as those who are less so. Some people are more risk aversive than others, why shouldn't the person who risks it all be rewarded for it?
You pay a person today according to his/her market value; what'll it cost to replace that person AND bring him/her up to speed as far as productivity goes. To be sure, there are other factors, but you're not going to pay somebody $20 bucks an hour when you can replace him/her for another person who's willing to work for $10. You gotta be worth the extra money, and the day you take that away is the day we become a socialist country. And that will not be a good day IMHO.
I don't have any real answers at this point. I've mentioned a couple of ideas, but I'm not wholly happy with either of them. One would be to nationalize all publicly-traded corporations and pay everyone an ownership share as an entitlement of citizenship. Another would be to somehow make it that everyone works part-time but receives full-time wages.
The one thing I'm sure of is that our future economy will have to separate the idea of income from the idea of paid work.
Cannot imagine that would/could/ or should happen. Some people are just more creative, industrious, or downright determined to succeed more than others. You can't compensate them the same as those who are less so. Some people are more risk aversive than others, why shouldn't the person who risks it all be rewarded for it?
You pay a person today according to his/her market value; what'll it cost to replace that person AND bring him/her up to speed as far as productivity goes. To be sure, there are other factors, but you're not going to pay somebody $20 bucks an hour when you can replace him/her for another person who's willing to work for $10. You gotta be worth the extra money, and the day you take that away is the day we become a socialist country. And that will not be a good day IMHO.
I don't have any real answers at this point. I've mentioned a couple of ideas, but I'm not wholly happy with either of them. One would be to nationalize all publicly-traded corporations and pay everyone an ownership share as an entitlement of citizenship. Another would be to somehow make it that everyone works part-time but receives full-time wages.
The one thing I'm sure of is that our future economy will have to separate the idea of income from the idea of paid work.
Cannot imagine that would/could/ or should happen. Some people are just more creative, industrious, or downright determined to succeed more than others. You can't compensate them the same as those who are less so. Some people are more risk aversive than others, why shouldn't the person who risks it all be rewarded for it?
You pay a person today according to his/her market value; what'll it cost to replace that person AND bring him/her up to speed as far as productivity goes. To be sure, there are other factors, but you're not going to pay somebody $20 bucks an hour when you can replace him/her for another person who's willing to work for $10. You gotta be worth the extra money, and the day you take that away is the day we become a socialist country. And that will not be a good day IMHO.
And yet you worked for the most largest, socialist, organization in the history of mankind. The US military has pay grades, identical to the pay scales of unions. The rules that manage the workers, enlisted and otherwise, are identical in structure and purpose and any union rules regarding workers. The US is, for the greater part, a planned economic system. And it gets it's funding through taxes on the populace.
Capitalism is dead
Capitalism is dead
I wonder why then the Chinese just switched to it and it saved 30 million or so from en masse liberal starvation?
Capitalism is dead
I wonder why then the Chinese just switched to it and it saved 30 million or so from en masse liberal starvation?
