Why Capitalism is Doomed

[itfitzme]

Without capitalism you wouldn't have that computer or the internet or cable TV OR A CAR OR PLANE. No one would have had the incentive's to create what we have now.

Better yet, without middle income, or modest income, capitalism we wouldn't have those things.

When did the "middle class" increase, exponentially in this country?

And, what are you talking about? Why are you asking when the "middle class" increased exponentially? And what does it have to do with the price of imported tea from China?

At the mall near where I live, there is a machine that cuts keys. It is an automated key cutting machine. The customer inserts their key into the slot, they choose the pretty color they like, pay their money, press the button, and the machine does the rest.

I was talking to the tech who was installing a new cell phone antenna, that connects the machine to the network. The machine was created by a couple of middle income guys, one a business man, another an engineer.

They began the business, like so many have, in their garage. They were "middle income", not even "upper middle income" earners that saw an opportunity, put up their capital as investment, worked out of their garage (the main capital of the middle income earners), and filled an untapped demand.

 

[Widdekind]

Airline costs fell more when they were regulated then after regulation; that is desptie higher oil costs during the 70's

over time, technologies "mature", and improvements become increasingly marginal. By the 1980s, the airline industry was (plausibly) mature, and few gains were possible. But a few gains were still made -- did deregulation increase costs for customers ? And if not, then what is there to complain about -- "airlines were deregulated, costs fell... we're angry, that we didn't all become millionaires for free to boot ?"

Utilities are less regulated in some states, and those states have 30% more costs. Banks are less regulated which is why we had a banking crisis

please cite some sources ?

 

[itfitzme]

Airline costs fell more when they were regulated then after regulation; that is desptie higher oil costs during the 70's

over time, technologies "mature", and improvements become increasingly marginal. By the 1980s, the airline industry was (plausibly) mature, and few gains were possible. But a few gains were still made -- did deregulation increase costs for customers ? And if not, then what is there to complain about -- "airlines were deregulated, costs fell... we're angry, that we didn't all become millionaires for free to boot ?"

Utilities are less regulated in some states, and those states have 30% more costs. Banks are less regulated which is why we had a banking crisis

please cite some sources ?

It is fairly clear that the banking system, lacking any regulation to assure long term stability, has and will get into processes that have systematic risk sufficient to cause a banking collapse. The rate of bank failures was astonishing. The entire financial system, including the failures of the SEC, has traded short term gains for long term suitabilities. Even Greenspan testified that he was fundamentally mistaken in believing in the rationality of the actors in the financial system.

 

[ShackledNation]

Without capitalism you wouldn't have that computer or the internet or cable TV OR A CAR OR PLANE. No one would have had the incentive's to create what we have now.

Odd because it was govtment who first built computers and used itnernets

That is a big half-truth due to its implications. Yes, the department of defense through DARPA funded ARPAnet, the first internet. Yet the world wide web, the browser, and every single use of the internet that many people just call the internet was created in the free market. Not to mention other forms of connecting computers were being developed, DARPA simply had monopolistic control due to government funding, so ARPAnet became the norm.

What kind of global computer network would the market have selected? We can only guess. Maybe it would be more like the commercial online networks such as Comcast or MSN, or the private bulletin boards of the 1980s. Most likely, it would use some kind of pricing schedule, where different charges would be assessed for different types of transmissions.

The issue deserves far more attention than simply "government created the internet." This article contains useful information.

 

[Staidhup]

Is the capitalist and free market system doomed? shit no, as long as the sweat runs down the crack of someones ass they will demand the right to retain the fruits of their labor and freedom to spend it as they so choose. Freedom to consume at will dictates winners and loser's, fuels innovation, enhances the standard of living. The government is incapable of managing itself not less the market place, well, that has been proven, hasn't it? Government interference in the market provides the fertile environment for abuse to thrive.

 

[itfitzme]

Without capitalism you wouldn't have that computer or the internet or cable TV OR A CAR OR PLANE. No one would have had the incentive's to create what we have now.

Odd because it was govtment who first built computers and used itnernets

That is a big half-truth due to its implications. Yes, the department of defense through DARPA funded ARPAnet, the first internet. Yet the world wide web, the browser, and every single use of the internet that many people just call the internet was created in the free market. Not to mention other forms of connecting computers were being developed, DARPA simply had monopolistic control due to government funding, so ARPAnet became the norm.

What kind of global computer network would the market have selected? We can only guess. Maybe it would be more like the commercial online networks such as Comcast or MSN, or the private bulletin boards of the 1980s. Most likely, it would use some kind of pricing schedule, where different charges would be assessed for different types of transmissions.

The issue deserves far more attention than simply "government created the internet." This article contains useful information.

Compared to what, the first half truth? He's got it right. What implications are you reading into it that bother you so much?

 

[diocoses]

hhhhmmmm? If labor is actually not as needed now as it was before (which I do believe is happening), perhaps nobody needs jobs anymore, as robots will do everything in the future anyways, and we can all just get a middle class paycheck from the government instead. And those people that want to be rich? They can regulate the robots and run government, for those are really the only two positions that the robots couldn't fill, and it wouldn't need too many people to do, perserving the rich minority status that we all hold dear.

 

[itfitzme]

hhhhmmmm? If labor is actually not as needed now as it was before (which I do believe is happening), perhaps nobody needs jobs anymore, as robots will do everything in the future anyways, and we can all just get a middle class paycheck from the government instead. And those people that want to be rich? They can regulate the robots and run government, for those are really the only two positions that the robots couldn't fill, and it wouldn't need too many people to do, perserving the rich minority status that we all hold dear.

Kind and kinda not. You need a little more detail. Let me add some detail.

Manufacturing, in particular the automotive industry, is highly automated. Now, rather then assemble automobiles, many on those employed in the automobile industry maintain the robots that do the assembly. So, the workers are more efficient in producing automobiles.

Now, as to "we can all just get a middle class paycheck from the government", I'm not sure exactly what you mean. (Actually, I do but just for the fun of it, let me say I don't.) I can interpret this a couple of ways. If you mean that everyone can collect something like SSI or SSDI, at the level of the middle class, it makes no sense because the numbers don't add up.

In order for the govenment to pay benefits (ignoring the socalist republic of Alaska with the oil benefits) the government must collect taxes. Taxes are a percentage of income. OASDI taxes are 12.4%. That means, if everyone made a middle class income, it would take at least 8 people paying OASDI to support one person.

Now that's possible, but, your statment is "we can all". So, one must ask, who's gonna pay for it?

Now, I don't think that's what you mean. Rather, I suppose the idea is that we tax the robot owners, like 75%, then everyone not working gets credits to purchase those robot supplied goods. Still, someone has to maintain and run the robots. And the same concept above, regarding the taxes, still applies. We can work from that 75% number and we get 1.3 people working for every one person on the Robot Product Credit Program.

Currently, we need 1% of the population to feed everyone. So, it takes one person to feed 100 people, and that isn't too bad. (Is still haven't found out if that included the workers at John Deere).

I guess it all depends on how efficient we get. Right now, we aren't that efficient, not 1.3 per every one person on benefits.

At peak labor utilization, 48.6% of the population was employed. Now, it's 45.0%. That mean that, now, the employed are supporting, on one way or another, 55% of the population. That includes the military, elderly, disabled, institutionalized, children, and homeless (yes, they manage to eat). In fact, only about 1% of the population is feeding everyone.

I suspect, though, that we will return to employing that currently unemployed 3.6% that would otherwise be working. (It is hard to believe, when we consider it this way, that the entire misery has been dumped on the shoulders of 3.6% of the population.) I suspect that what we will see, in the next ten years, is an explosion of the medical service industry.

When we do return to full employment, we will continue to keep everyone enjoying the ups and downs of recessions, increasing our standard of living and efficiency, all along the way.

If you think about it, compared to the living standard of Elizabethan England, even those living on their paltry SSI benefits are "millionaires" by comparison.

If we were to eliminate much of that labor now, dropping down to 35% labor utilization, our standard of living would just tank. I think I know what your saying, but it's along ways off.

 

[diocoses]

No one would be taxed. The system would, like you said, be run on credits instead of money, with the government redistributing all the robot made goods: cars, food, electronics, clothes etc.. to the public at about the same rate that the middle class buys these items anyway, with the consumer choosing what they want through the aforementioned credit system. And yes, it would require an incredibly efficient government to make this run smoothly, certainly more efficient than we have now, but it could be possible.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We can easily automate robots to take the place of Progressives who only produce nonsense and spew.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Socialism has failed. Now capitalism is bankrupt. So what comes next?

Eric Hobsbawm: Socialism has failed. Now capitalism is bankrupt. So what comes next? | Comment is free | The Guardian

 

[editec]

Capitalism is a highly adapable system.

I don't think its going to be replaced, I think its going to adapt to worldwide changing geopolitical and economic conditions.

It's going to look more like a FEUDALIST society than what we've come to expect.

It already does, really.

 

[itfitzme]

No one would be taxed. The system would, like you said, be run on credits instead of money, with the government redistributing all the robot made goods: cars, food, electronics, clothes etc.. to the public at about the same rate that the middle class buys these items anyway, with the consumer choosing what they want through the aforementioned credit system. And yes, it would require an incredibly efficient government to make this run smoothly, certainly more efficient than we have now, but it could be possible.

"Money, also referred to as the money supply, is defined as anything that is generally
accepted in payment for goods or services or in the repayment of debts. "

Just a small but extremely significant point, whether it is called "credits" or "dollars" it is all still money. Money is simply a system of accounting for the activities of production and consumption. "Taxes" are simply a subset of this system of accounting that allows for the "redistributing".

Currently, we have all sorts of tax and credit systems including SSI, SSDI, OASDI, Medicare, Medic-aid, state and federal prisons, SNAP (food stamps), the US military, etc. These are run "incredibly efficiently", compared to decades past. And that efficiency continues to increase.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Currently, we have all sorts of tax and credit systems including SSI, SSDI, OASDI, Medicare, Medic-aid, state and federal prisons, SNAP (food stamps), the US military, etc. These are run "incredibly efficiently", compared to decades past. And that efficiency continues to increase.

medicaid and medicare are efficient when the fraud alone is 30%???

Federal prisons spend more than colleges per person!! Thats efficient to a liberal??

military is efficient when f-22 is not needed?? Is this how liberals think??? Of course it is!!

 

[itfitzme]

Currently, we have all sorts of tax and credit systems including SSI, SSDI, OASDI, Medicare, Medic-aid, state and federal prisons, SNAP (food stamps), the US military, etc. These are run "incredibly efficiently", compared to decades past. And that efficiency continues to increase.

medicaid and medicare are efficient when the fraud alone is 30%???

Federal prisons spend more than colleges per person!! Thats efficient to a liberal??

military is efficient when f-22 is not needed?? Is this how liberals think??? Of course it is!!

1) If knowing that you are a moron makes me a "liberal" then I suppose I am. If knowing that Bernanke and Freidman did not say that the Great Depression was caused by "not following the rules of the gold standard" as you claim makes me a "liberal" they I suppose I am.

That is, if "liberal" = "EdwardBiaimonte is an idiot", then okay.

If actually reading and applying the fundamentals makes me a "liberal", they I suppose so.

2) I said, more efficient then it was. As everything is more efficient now, then it was decades ago. Saying so is not much of a commitment to anything. Efficiency is higher in everything, especially services, simply because of automation and computerization of information. Even fraud is more efficient.

3) By all means, show that Medicare fraud is 30%.

I know it is high. Why would medicare fraud be high? Same reason that the Microsoft IE gets more hacking attacks or more spam originates from Comcast networks. Because they are all so big.

What typically happens with even non-profits like the Red Cross, is that they get less efficient as more money pours in. And they get more fraud. When Hurricane Katrina hit and the Red Cross was awash with funds, a lot of fraud.

It's an interesting quandary. Is it less efficient if it has more fraud or is it very efficient fraud? Depends on what you mean by "more efficient".

I'm just saying that fewer people are required for more output. The military can kill more people with fewer labor hours. Social services can process more claims with fewer people. Of course it's all more efficient.

I see articles claiming Medicare fraud was 20% in 2009, but that's from FOX news, and they are not a credible source. They still claim that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Another says "10 percent of Medicare expenditures are squandered on fraudulent..."

Another says, "Nearly 10 percent of all Medicare payments are fraudulent or otherwise improper, and the government isn't doing enough to stop them."

Here seems to be a more realistic source, Fraud statistics

" 1. Medicare and Medicaid made an estimated $23.7 billion in improper payments in 2007. These included $10.8 billion for Medicare and $12.9 billion for Medicaid. Medicare’s fee-for-service reduced its error rate from 4.4 percent to 3.9 percent. (U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 2008)

1. Every $1 the U.S. government invests in combating Medicare and Medicaid fraud saves $1.55. (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2009)

1. Medicare paid dead physicians 478,500 claims totaling up to $92 million from 2000 to 2007. These claims included 16,548 to 18,240 deceased physicians. (U.S. Senate Permanent Committee on Investigations, 2008)

1. Nearly one of three claims (29 percent) Medicare paid for durable medical equipment was erroneous in FY 2006. (Inspector General report, Department of Health and Human Services, 2008)

1. Medicare and private health insurers pay up to $16 billion a year for needless imaging tests ordered by doctors. (American College of Radiology, 2004)

Other Medicare Stats

Medicare paid more than $1 billion in questionable claims for 18 categories of medical supplies that patients don’t appear to need. The study covered claims between January 2001 and December 2006. The claims included walkers for patients with purported sinus congestion, paraplegia or shoulder injuries. Hundreds of thousands of claims were made for diabetes-related glucose test strips for patients with purported breathing problems, bubonic plague, leprosy or sexual impotence. (U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, 2008)"

Clearly, Biaimonte is efficient at being an idiot. He outputs more stupid comments then anyone else on the internet. After all, not even FOX news agrees with 30%. So, in terms of just raw stupid information, it's an efficiency of 95%. If we are measuring Biaimonte's information efficiency in terms of actual good information, then it's more like 1%.

 

[Widdekind]

"Money, also referred to as the money supply, is defined as anything that is generally accepted in payment for goods or services or in the repayment of debts."

i offer the terms "cash" (for hard base Money [MB]), and "credits" (for soft broad Money [M2]). with those terms, the (so-called) "Demand for Money" translates to "Demand for cash". i find, that saying "Demand for cash" makes all further discussions, of the impacts of inflation & interest rates upon the "Demand for cash", much more sensible

 

[ShackledNation]

Odd because it was govtment who first built computers and used itnernets

That is a big half-truth due to its implications. Yes, the department of defense through DARPA funded ARPAnet, the first internet. Yet the world wide web, the browser, and every single use of the internet that many people just call the internet was created in the free market. Not to mention other forms of connecting computers were being developed, DARPA simply had monopolistic control due to government funding, so ARPAnet became the norm.

What kind of global computer network would the market have selected? We can only guess. Maybe it would be more like the commercial online networks such as Comcast or MSN, or the private bulletin boards of the 1980s. Most likely, it would use some kind of pricing schedule, where different charges would be assessed for different types of transmissions.

The issue deserves far more attention than simply "government created the internet." This article contains useful information.

Compared to what, the first half truth? He's got it right. What implications are you reading into it that bother you so much?

Whether or not the previous argument was a half truth has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the argument I responded to is one.

Computers and the internet as we know them today are virtually nothing like those used by the government. All the innovations, applications, and advances in technology that we associate with them now have been created through a free market framework. Many people also often conflate the internet with the world wide web and the browser. The world wide web and the browser, both created in the private sector, are what make the internet great. You can add search engines and modern operating systems that list as well.

My point is not that government can never produce something of use. My point is that saying "government created computers and the internet" is ambiguous and likely causes people to think of technology the government did not in fact create.

 

[itfitzme]

Well, isn't that odd, how the original comment that the second was referring to, seems to have just disappeared. Why is that? Does the system limit the depth of quotes?

Without capitalism you wouldn't have that computer or the internet or cable TV OR A CAR OR PLANE. No one would have had the incentive's to create what we have now.

Odd because it was govtment who first built computers and used itnernets

That is a big half-truth due to its implications. Yes, the department of defense through DARPA funded ARPAnet, the first internet. Yet the world wide web, the browser, and every single use of the internet that many people just call the internet was created in the free market. Not to mention other forms of connecting computers were being developed, DARPA simply had monopolistic control due to government funding, so ARPAnet became the norm.

What kind of global computer network would the market have selected? We can only guess. Maybe it would be more like the commercial online networks such as Comcast or MSN, or the private bulletin boards of the 1980s. Most likely, it would use some kind of pricing schedule, where different charges would be assessed for different types of transmissions.

The issue deserves far more attention than simply "government created the internet." This article contains useful information.

Compared to what, the first half truth? He's got it right. What implications are you reading into it that bother you so much?

Whether or not the previous argument was a half truth has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the argument I responded to is one.

Computers and the internet as we know them today are virtually nothing like those used by the government. All the innovations, applications, and advances in technology that we associate with them now have been created through a free market framework. Many people also often conflate the internet with the world wide web and the browser. The world wide web and the browser, both created in the private sector, are what make the internet great. You can add search engines and modern operating systems that list as well.

My point is not that government can never produce something of use. My point is that saying "government created computers and the internet" is ambiguous and likely causes people to think of technology the government did not in fact create.

Curioulsy, you didn't pipe up on the first comment and say, "that's a big half truth." Nope, seems you got your panties all in a bunch when the additional information was added, that first came the government.

What is it that you wanted of him, to restate the first comment and add his? Like he's suppose to say "The government build the first computers and internets then private companies followed up with the PC and internet that we know today." Why would he do that?

Would that have made you feel better?

My point is that, by your definition, "Without capitalism you wouldn't have that computer or the internet" is as ambiguous.

Oh, and seeing that the second comment is taken in the context of the first. So the second is less ambiguous.

My point is that the second comment wasn't implying anything. It was stating that the government invention came first.

My point is that, if your gonna say it deserves more attention then simply "it was govtment who first built computers and used itnernets" then you can equally say it deserves more attention then "Without capitalism you wouldn't have that computer or the internet or cable".

My point is that progress has been a combination of private industry, private citizens, government, and university research.
The government creates things that the government needs. It's not their job to invent an I-pod for you.

The entire technology of communication, using electromagtetic energy (radio waves), was invented by Marconi then first picked up the Navy for ship to shore communications. Later, as the technology developed, it became 1) affordable for private industry 2) applicable for private industry. Even later, it became FM radio, which allowed sterio to be tranmitted, became popular with the younger generation and pushed back on government censorship as clever song writers "said things between the lines".

I get the impression you just looking for some way to interpret things so you can create an argument that doesn't exist. It's an implied strawman.

And oddly, in your favor, the quote seemed to drop the original comment, implying that the second comment was made without any previous context.

BTW: The first computer was built by the navy, to replace the "army" of workers using calculating machines to do ballistic calculations. It used relays and was headed up by Grace Murry Hopper. The Navy named a battle ship after her.

The fits "bug" was literally a bug, a moth that had got stuck between contacts in a relay.

What I get you implying is that computers as we know then would have been created anyways, without the original work of Grace Hopper and the Navy.

Had it not been for Grace Hopper and the Navy creating the first computer, what would we have today? Nothing? Something different? It's impossible to know. We cannot know what didn't happen.

But what we do know is that progress been the result of an interplay between government, private industry, individuals, and universities, each motivated to fill some need they recognized.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

But what we do know is that progress been the result of an interplay between government, private industry, individuals, and universities, each motivated to fill some need they recognized.

that of course is vague and meaningless. While it is inevitable that war is part of history and so will drive some innovation, the innovation comes from the private sector and is merely purchased by libturds. There is no evidence that, overall, it is money well spent to advance our standard of living. 99% of patents never earn a penny and 99.999 % of libturd guessing about where to invest money will be utterly fruitless, so it is better to rely on the private sector for tech. advancement. People guess better with their own money!!

 

[itfitzme]

But what we do know is that progress been the result of an interplay between government, private industry, individuals, and universities, each motivated to fill some need they recognized.

that of course is vague and meaningless. While it is inevitable that war is part of history and so will drive some innovation, the innovation comes from the private sector and is merely purchased by libturds. There is no evidence that, overall, it is money well spent to advance our standard of living. 99% of patents never earn a penny and 99.999 % of libturd guessing about where to invest money will be utterly fruitless, so it is better to rely on the private sector for tech. advancement. People guess better with their own money!!

Well, once again you have demonstrated that 99.9999% of your comments are meaningless drivel with no details or attachment to reality beyond your paranoid delusional amygdala driven fantasies.

Care to try again to say something intelligent? Like demonstrate the Bernanke and Friedman said that the Great Depression was caused by a failure to follow the gold standard?

Nope, thought not, because you actually have nothing specific to present.