Will Capitalism collapse when technological expansion/progression can no longer be made?

Will Capitalism collapse when technological expansion/progression can no longer be made?

Surely at that point, the increased complexity will not be able to sustain itself under less computer power?

"Capitalism" just means that the capital is in private hands.

This is the most productive economic arrangement for humans, regardless of whether growth continues or not.

If you mean "industrial society" or "the global financial system" then the answer is maybe.

>"Capitalism" just means that the capital is in private hands.

That is a rudimentary definition, it also means the ability to garner profit.

>This is the most productive economic arrangement for humans, regardless of whether growth continues or not.

This is an arbitrary point.

>If you mean "industrial society" or "the global financial system" then the answer is maybe.

Expand.

>when technological expansion/progression can no longer be made?
What does that have to do with anything?
There will always be a need for industry.

>This is an arbitrary point

You're going to need to explain this to me.

The way I see it

>humans respond to incentives
>having humans succeed or fail at economic tasks based on external market conditions creates a strong incentive to engage in productive labor

Even if we end up as an agrarian society again, as long as human beings remain the same species, it will be hard to come up with a system that does a better job of processing economic information or orchestrating an economy.

>Expand

Well, it's certainly possible that there will be a collapse of the current political and economic institutions, caused by economic or political pressures.

Suppose the third world just keeps on breeding, the industrialized world keeps on not breeding, and the entire third world experiences state failure at a time when the industrialized world doesn't have the resources to deal with the fallout. Suppose a global pandemic wipes out the major urban centers. Suppose there's a nuclear exchange.

But capitalism is a way of doing things. It's like asking "will marriage be able to sustain itself."

Technological innovation increases the marginal efficiencies of capital for SPECIFIC industries. This effects the overall elasticity of money in a low proportion, not a high proportion.

But even if this did affect the elasticity of money in a high proportion, all it would do is mean that the change in money in terms of prices changes at a much faster rate than the rate of price changes in terms of money. Which is essentially just the elasticity of price, meaning the overall elasticity, which is just an aggregate of the proportional weights for different industries, is just this factor times the elasticity for demand, which we all know increases at a rate irrespective of most other inputs. The elasticity of price is what we are here concerned with, what you're saying is that technological expansion/progression could not be made. IF the specific resources were not interchangeable you would be dealing with

a. A Keynesian industrial 'bottle-neck'
b. maximized investment, or full investment which some economists state has never happened
or
c. you're in the event of a crisis, where in the initial stage investment in the capital is in the form of stocks only, and complete disinvestment in the working capital is taking place

None of these are permanent. It is very unlikely that the concentration of productive energy into one industry will collapse the economy even if full investment was hypothetically reached in that industry...

On the other point, yes I think relying on technology may be a technical risk, but as long as safeguards are in place we should be insured against anything short of an EMP.

Capitalism (in the true sense, not crony corporatism) is the economic model best accounting for the universal reality of supply and demand
It will probably be around forever until post-scarcity nanobot replicators materialize resources out of nowhere

Increased complexity through population growth, demand of health services and food will mean more need for computing to decrease costs and time usage.

Without this increase in computing power, future complexities and problems will be unaccounted for and unsolved as there will be no energy to sustain such complexity resulting in a collapse of some sort.

Financial crisis 2008 would be an example.

Limited housing supply and land but increased complexity of mortgage bonds which were unaccounted for led to collapse and lower living standards

>Capitalism (in the true sense, not crony corporatism) is the economic model best accounting for the universal reality of supply and demand

I think what you mean to say is 'bargaining'

Your point is an arbitrary one which doesn't address future collapse.

As technology expands I'd say it will reform. Most likely into something akin to a neo-feudalism.

When all wealth is held and distributed by those who own capital then those outside of the owner group must find ways to ingratiate themselves to the owners, outside of traditional manufacturing jobs, to receive that wealth. It's like gravity but with wealth. The smaller bodies get trapped into orbit around the bigger bodies. Creating a local system centered around the biggest body.

In other words, the new jobs of late capitalism will be services centered around the super wealthy. Young women can always sell their body to the wealthy capital owners. That's never going out of style. Butlers becomes popular again. Humans make better ads to other humans than sign boards, so physical or viral there's use in that. Rome used to have gladiators. That went out of style and can't exists right now due to laws but if life became cheap enough... And there's always a demand for human organs. Anything that could even vaguely amusing or useful to the super-rich.

It's basically manorialism. All economic life will be coordinated and distributed around central gravity centers of super wealth.

Weather people will put up with this or revolt I don't know.