Capitalism

It's a more egalitarian way of economizing scarce resources, at least compared to earlier forms of economy like mercantilism or feudalism.

However, it does create a lot of inequalities, which might not be desirable.

How do you know more jobs won't be lost than made? If a robot does all the labour, you just need a a couple dozen people to manage the entire factory. Don't forget, not every country's economy revolves around service jobs. Some countries depend on cheap labour, and without that a lot of people could suffer.

youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

Daily reminder.

How do you know more jobs will be lost more than made? This isn't future prediction. As evidenced by history, new technology that can replace humans just means that they will have to find another job. An oxen replaces many men plowing the field, but then you need people to keep, create, and maintain livestock.

>new technology that can replace humans just means that they will have to find another job.

Until every job has a robot doing it.

The combination of science and capitalism has made life on earth 1000x better than before it. It's not flawless and there's a lot of ways to exploit it, but it's better than anything before it.

That never happens.

Did you know how much horses went to the slaughterhouse because of the car

Yeah, let's kill factory workers if they're replaced.

>That never happens.

How do you know? You just have to grant the assumption that technology will never stop developing.

You're the one making the extraordinary claim that robots will take over all jobs on earth. You give me your reasoning and evidence.

My reasoning is that I assume that technology will never stop developing, which means that there will be a time and place where every job can be done by robots.

It might take a long time before we get there, but I don't see how it's impossible. You're the one who said never.

It works, but modern capitalism is corrupted by corporatism. There are too many "too big to fail" companies and they keep growing (Bayer just bought Monsanto for 70 billion making them the largest chemical company in the world). If you look at something like Nestle / Kraft / Unilever and see how many products they control in global market it is bit scary.

We have also adapted this very harmful and weird way to understand the term "to bring profit to share holders". Originally when Smith brought this idea he had the idea of share holders being the actual initial investors, not the after market share holding of today.
Everything runs in quarters now. If company does badly on Q2 everyone goes fucking mental and this has lead to companies making very bad long term decisions in exchange for short term stock price increase (damaging to societies, environment).

Explain to me how robots can replace the president, congress, robot maintenance, robot design or controlled scientific research.

It's vulgar and dehumanizing. Fighting wars with sticks and stones is a step up from this Barbary.

This is wrong approach for several reasons. The obvious one is is that if the automation would create more jobs than it gets rid off - nobody would go for it.

The "early" automatic inventions dating back to industrial revolution were largely used to put part of manpower to work somewhere else.

So when you've mechanised agriculture you've had more factory workers who, when replaced with machines get "shifted" to other industries where there's still need for uneducated workforce etc.

However this time has ended several decades ago.

First of all:
Factory workers are mostly educated electrics, mechanics, etc. Even the ones who don't have technical education went to shittons of courses. The industrial worker is in fact, very valuable person on the market... as long as we're talking about the industry he works in. Automate the process he does already and he's out of job and has to be re-educated which sometimes simply isn't possible
Secondly:
There's little industrial growth nowadays. The large amount of free(unemployed) manpower doesn't warrant building new factories. New industries don't "spring out" like they've used before because we've moved away from scarcity economy
Thirdly:
The "underclass" field of employment nowadays isn't industry, it's service

So the result is that without reforming the society in some way, we'll go further into the world where there's part of population that is there to entertain - actors, prostitutes, waiters - you name them - the second part which is the one keeping the world running(engineers, technicians, relatively few of them), the third part composed of investors, bankers and people who were rich for the last n-generations and the fourth part, the morlocks. Who weren't pretty/entertaining enough to become the entertainers, weren't smart enough to be the techies and were too shit with handling money to become the owners. This will be very large and unstable part of the society which won't be used productively anywhere

Is corporatism inevitable? Can it be stopped from happening?

Perhaps not the president or the congress in any foreseeable future, but robot maintenance, robot design and scientific research? The only thing you have to assume is that robots eventually become intelligent enough to make recursive improvements to itself, sort of like what human software developers do now by patching a game or software in general.

Given sufficiently intelligent machines, there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to do those things.

This, we first need to abolish the necessity of returning profits to shareholders (who are majority obscenely wealthy anyway). The stock market is basically a rigged game to benefit people with a pathological desire to see their numbers go up.

There will always be people in charge everywhere. I can't prove it but I don't think humans will feel satisfied if a robot makes judgements and decisions.

We won't have to kill them, they'll just live miserable, impoverished lives while the rich point and laugh and say it's because they didn't choose the right major.

In a few generations reproducing will be untenable for them.

>but I don't think humans will feel satisfied if a robot makes judgements and decisions.

But computers do all sorts of judgements and decisions right now, because they are better than humans at it.

Remember, a computer doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to be better than a human.

Exactly, we're getting to the point where Trumps are unnecessary and we can run the world without economic masters.

Marxists pls go and stay go.

Maybe, but at what price? Large corporations have one advantage why they can't really be brought down. Economies of scale, Coca-Cola has better supply chain to poor countries than any food aid nations provide. Large companies are able to provide stuff across the globe in such a manner that it could be called art. So they are efficient, I give them that. But the "tragedy of the commons" seems to be the down side, it is not necessary in best interest of a company to make sure resource they extract are profitable in the long run if the short run brings bigger cash checks to CEOs and larger dividends to share holders.
That's a problem, people rather take 10 million today, than 500k every year.

Capitalism in general doesn't have answer for that crisis, socialism in the western sense doesn't have answers either since it basically creates bunch of artificial jobs and gives other people money for free, socialism in Warsaw Pact sense fails to address market realities which leads to what was supposed to be controlled post-scarcity economy to turn into scarcity economy... nobody has answer for this problem, everybody bets their ass that we'll be able to send said morlocks on another planets before it happens therefore giving them purpose and a reason to lead productive life(in meantime drastically reducing the amount of "entertainers").

Can anyone point to evidence of automation causing unemployment in history? I honestly don't see it.

It has increased human welfare 10 fold.

Not 100% of jobs will disappear. Just close to it.

And the few jobs that will be left will have so many people competing over it, and this will drive wages down. They'll pay some people peanuts to be bench warmers in case the starters get cardiac arrest. This is how it is in China with factory jobs right now.

Also people will point to the few jobs that are left and say "See, you lazy slugs, you should have picked this as your major."

And he legions of lazy slugs will be competing viciously over the chance to contribute to their economy in an oversaturated job market.

Unless we implement systems of welfare that don't penalize people for unemployment. But this is so counterintuitive to the fiscal conservatives pushing for meritocracy, that they think when I say this I'm ***really*** saying "Give Jamal the crackhead $800 a week."

It's vile.

If it didn't cause unemployment nobody would go for it.

Unless you're trying to tell me that somehow employing some number of skilled technicians and engineers to maintain highly automated industry is cheaper than employing the same amount(if it created enough workplaces that it wouldn't cause unemployment...) of uneducated workers, but we all know it's bullshit.

Trump isn't even a *good* capitalist. He's runs on brand power, barely produces goods and services, has gone bankrupt many times, and is utterly uninterested in growing his nation's GDP.

He uses his father's name to get backers for his wild ideas. He plays Capitalism like a politician, and he's about to be playing Government like a Capitalist.

He recently said Bill Gates, an actual ambitious capitalist with a good record for producing useful things for the world, was his "number 2."

That's how arrogant that shitsack is. He actually thinks he's better than the Bill Gates and Henry Fords of America even those he's more of a financial puppeteer than an entrepreneur.

It has to be cheaper. You can get maintenance done by contracting with other companies. One doesn't even have to hire another person. Even then I would hazard to guess that cutting down the number of employees is categorically a profitable move, as there no way an engineer could demand a salary that was three or four times the salary of a factory line worker.

My general point is that for automating to be economically viable it must reduce the running costs of the industry. You can't cut down your bills or taxes, you have to make the cumulative wages lower.

Automating means that you can forget about hiring relatively many uneducated workers and replacing them with few engineers, contractors etc. and it should be generally profitable as in - post-automating expenses should be lower than pre-automating expenses so the initial cost of the systems you've used to automate the thing in the first place would pay off in a relatively short amount of time.

Which means that assuming that you didn't magically summoned additional consumers for the goods/services you provided, you're not expanding your business and keeping the workforce you've had, but downsizing the workforce while maintaining the output.

He also inherited his money. His business exploits seem impressive because of inflation. If he had just put the money his Dad gave him into the funds on the stock market and chilled by a pool all these years he would be richer than he is now.

This "Trump is a business genius" meme is a joke.

>thinking anyone knows the stock market
reeeeeeeeeeee

I'm talking about index linked stocks and just letting them sit there in managed funds, not successfully pulling off some sort of brilliant coup in terms of picking the right stocks or buying and selling at the right time.

It doesn't. In a world where capital amasses wealth, the best and the most common way to become wealthy is to be wealthy. Capital is the greatest enemy of meritocracy.

>You will never go back in time and invest in microsoft and apple simultaneously

REEEE

I COULD HAVE BEEN THE UBER BOURGEOIS BY NOW REEE

On the contrary - capitalism is the primary route to become wealthy for those who aren't born that way. Not as an investor, but as one invested in. Without capitalism, how can I start a business if I'm not already rich?

>ywn have the power to look into the future and make money by committing the insider trading

It can be both, depending on many factors. Communism is not the answer on a bad working capitalism.