your point is irrelevant to the initial post, you're dancing around the point by arguing how much resources we have left . Capitalism or socialism, collapse or not. And yes, you need a source to prove resources are in jeopardy. Food is not in jeopardy, salt water can be made to fresh water IINM, there are alternatives to oil, etc.
worth no help from the government. I would Ratner be homeless than eat government cheese. The government has nothing I want and I will never put my hand out.
the question is would it violate your principals if your fellow working class citizens were all laid off due to automation to make the rich richer, and the welfare was no longer created by taxing your fellow man, but instead taxing the rich who automated your jobs. To say that's immoral to take that welfare is illogical in my opinion.
in the current capitalist system I agree. However to survive an economic collapse, government would have to adapt.
resources are far more abundant than panic media would have you believe. Because panic sells. Just like the national debt is supposedly a crisis
im not sure if you know this yuri but evidence and logic is required to debate. Edit: Too bad the phone app sucks or idk how to use it or I wouldn't have had to post 20 times in a row.
Anyways to keep the post on track, how other than socialism would soceity survive an economic collapse of the magnitude that could be caused by automation?
You are are the one making claims that need sources dude The claim "limited resources can only support a limited population" does not require a source. However your claim that there are abundant resources does, and not only that, the abundance is irrelevent. No matter what, unless resources are infinite, the population will grow to utilize as much as possible. When you hit the peak of sustainable resources, you will have to enforce population control or let people starve. I don't see how I need a source for this common sense claim.... -yuri I'd like.to see a source that automation will cause a collapse -yuri
Alright I'm sorry but this is just not a fair response given the nature of the current socieconomic framework of our society. The problem is that survival of the fittest is not what you see in our current market or really any free market because corruption and greed leads to mass inefficiencies. The deck is always going to be stacked against people who are born into poverty verse those who are born to wealthy dynasty like families, which is why the government should play a role in certain important programs to level the playing field to a degree but shouldn't take over everything. Pure socialism is inefficient and so is pure capitalism. You have to find a healthy balance of these two and that requires taxation. Call me an ideologue but I don't think 15 million kids should suffer for the mistakes of their parents. I strongly believe that the wealthiest people in this country will never willingly share the wealth. Companies in America used to realize that investing in the citizenry was good for business, but they seemed to have lost that motto in favor of whatever helps our bottom line. They have proven this time and time again by raising the salaries of CEO and executives well the hourly workers wages stayed flat. I don't believe that it's fair to say that all CEOs are greedy assholes or that they don't work hard or deserve to get paid well. I do however think it's fair to say that no CEO works 300-400 times harder than their base employees do. Especially when you consider that a large percent of people who start/run major companies started out with major capital to begin with. It's a simple fact that if you have a lot of capital it's much easier to run a business. One survey found that out of the Forbes 500, somewhere about 60 percent of the top CEOs inherited pretty much all of their wealth and business from a family member. Also about 75 percent or 3/4 had inherited a significant portion of their capital.
again tho. This idea that kids shouldn't be born into poverty requires that all kids needs are met right? Eventually that will require population control -yuri Or to put this another way. Should poor people be banned from having kids? -yuri
The problem is you view it as something that's a mandate and not a goal that we should strive to. I obviously realize that some kids are going to be poor and will always face certain disadvantages, this is an inevitability of society with scarce resources. What I'm saying is that there are certain services which the government reasonably could provide that would make these kids lives much better and give them a much greater chance at competing and moving up even if the playing field isn't completely level. I guess what I'm saying is we shouldn't aim to equalize everyone like socialism, but we shouldn't let such rampant inequality go on when we can reasonably counteract it with things like free healthcare for kids/ college especially when it would most likely have net benefits for society in the long run. You can't ban people from having children because that is a biological right we all have to a certain extent that I think we all generally agree shouldn't be limited. The simple fact is that there are policies which can help with these issues. The question is it worth raising taxes and potential economic pitfalls to institute these plans and I think that's a debate that is definitely worth having.
Sadly I'm at work so can't read through everything. Not sure if this was argued already but back in the days b4 the civil war ppl would argue "the cotton industry would collapse without slaves to pick it". Humanity found a way.
Thats fine that your trying to find a reason why I dont agree with you but its surely not ignorance of technologies capabilities. Im fully aware of robots delivering food to tables in china or developing self driving cars, yet your ignoring that throughout history, machines do not replace humans but rather extend their reach and productivity. We are still the masters of machines. We have agency. They don't. The world population is growing because ever more productive technology supports that growth. The reality is more and more people making more and more money. The steam engine made humans incredibly productive and created jobs. Like I said, new jobs are created as times go on. Machines replace one kind of human capability, as they did in the transitions from hunter/gatherer, from serf, from freehold farmer, from factory worker, from clerical worker, from knowledge worker on to whatever comes next, in each case, new human experiences and capabilities emerged. Another flaw in your reasoning is the fact that a computer can do something better than a human being doesn't mean that the computer will replace the human being. The market will determine whether it is economical to do so, given the costs and perceived benefits. Second flaw in your reasoning is the assumption that computers with miraculous performance capabilities can be developed, built, marketed, sold, operated and replicated at practically zero cost and that they will have zero secondary employment effects. In reality, huge teams of people are often necessary to perform these tasks at considerable cost. Third flaw in your reasoning assumes that superior performance on one dimension will cause the market to rapidly embrace the computer and abandon the human worker entirely. Actual experience shows that this is never the case with new entrants into a marketplace. The new entrant may appeal to some customers but will not appeal to others. In a free market, prices will determine the eventual proportion of the market shared held by each. I bet 20 years ago you would be complaining about how a smart phone would drive us into socialism because we no longer needed calendars, cameras, stopwatches, paper weights, note pads, dictionaries, or encyclopedias, to name a few.
this right here^ humanity will always find a way to overcome obstacles. as long as nobody panics things will work out
An ideal system is a hybrid system with none of the weaknesses of its parts (to the extent possible). No one system has all the answers, that's why we need to take what works and scrap what doesn't. A fusion of socialist ideals such as Healthcare as a right, higher education as a right, a liveable wage, employees having bargaining rights etc. With the principles of capitalism (such as working to better your life). And to anyone saying socialism would never work in America, we already have it. It's just for the rich, and it works swimmingly for them.
It's funny how a mix of socialism and capitalism works in Europe but not in the richest country : P Sent from my phone