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.

"capitalism" isn't really an -ism the same way all of the other -isms are because capitalism was not designed by intellectuals, it is simply the natural order of how humans interact and barter with one another in terms of trade, commerce, and employment

whereas communism and other -isms were thought of by autsits and meticulously planned out(which is why they're all shit), like I said, capitalism is simply the natural order of how people interact with one another in terms of commerce. you can't design the ideology because, like mathematics, it already "exists" and defining capitalism is simply making natural observations

saying that "capitalism" is going to "collapse" because of automation is like going back to 10,000 BC and saying that lightning shaman industry going to collapse because unga bunga caveman learn how to make fire with some rocks

You're right and wrong.

Mises would say you're wrong because you don't understand institions change and develop in different ways. The exchange system fundamentally doesn't, that property will be there, but the properties of the exchange itself and how it is organized change the chemistry and makeup of the overall economic system.

Keynes would say you're wrong because government has, and will, direct investment. And this could create industries, not to mention entirely new branches of thought and knowledge.

This doesn't answer the OP whatsoever.

Stop being a pleb and actually read the question. Defining Capitalism does not answer the question. It is a definition in the guise of an answer.

>saying that "capitalism" is going to "collapse" because of automation is like going back to 10,000 BC and saying that lightning shaman industry going to collapse because unga bunga caveman learn how to make fire with some rocks

Also, if you actually read the OP. You would know that the OP does not ask will it collapse because of automation but exactly the opposite.

Depends on your school of thought. Schumpeter believed that it was inevitable, but since he wrote CSD progress has advanced even more rapidly

>You're right and wrong.
>*tips fedora*

"Capitalism"
Duh, it's not like the economy exists on its own. People just think like that because they think food comes from the supermarket. Fucking delusional.
t. Ecologist

A post scarcity economy where most value is produced by machines, most people don't work and instead live off a universal basic income is possible. Is that a different system from capitalism?

It's not possible. Good luck

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

And what makes you think such a limit on technology and progress exists?

Aside from other things like information silos being isolated from other technological and informational databases, Keynesian 'bottlenecks' do exist.

Could you possibly expand on this, and perhaps simplify the language a bit. I'm still not entirely sure what exactly you are talking about.

Read a fucking book

It's interesting to see more people talking about accelerationism. In reality there will be still be an elite high payed services industry for a least a generations (no one wants a robot therapist). The transition, like most things, will occur gradually.

And you will be sucking moldbugs dick for nourishment.

we are already putting up with it, i don't see that changing much anytime soon

you're going to argue that or is this you introducing downvoting to Veeky Forums

he has no idea himself

The instability of marker forces means socialism is inevitable, but it won't be called socialism

>The instability of marker forces means socialism is inevitable
Everyone knows market forces can be stabilized. Stop this retardation and read a book.

Capitalism is collapsing because people invest in short term concepts based on narcissistic delusions and a demand for instantaneous return.

This also promotes predatory and neglectful capitalism, which has the same pitfalls.

But this is true of every "ism".

A system must take into effect the following:

1. Humility when reaching conclusions
2. The ability to change depending upon data
3. Placing long term investments and short term investments in their correct order when applicable
4. A system of checks and balances where no one individual or group has control to abuse a system

It's just that simple.
It's the "no it's all complicated so let's just act presumptuously and selfishly!" is the difficult part to circumnavigate.
Proles are panic driven.

>Proles are panic driven.
Indeed but it is these very same speculative motives which increase the interest rate relative to the normal proportion it has to the quantity of money.

Civilization has been defined by technological growth for over two centuries. I also fear that humanity will have a hard time coping with mere equilibrium rather than ceaseless growth. The only way to maintain the growth is to establish a permanent industrial foothold in space.

Sorry to butt in
has anyone here thought about the fact that Black Africa and India are both going to have 2 billion people in their respective regions by like 2040?

Like, that will probably be close to half the earths population will be living in complete squalor. What's stopping them from running away from where they live to greener pastures, and taking wealth by force? Aside from rooftop Koreans, how could wealthy countries fend them off?

The Mediterranean for one.

That and really, third world poor people can't exactly travel. That requires economic surplus, and they're barely getting together enough stuff to stay alive.

This being said, any industrialized country that doesn't close its borders is likely to cease to exist as a nation by the end of the 21st century.

Look man, this is just a stupid question.

by strict immigration policy and building culture of intolerance
make it unbearable for them to live wherever they wanted to come to, make sure they will always be second class citizen, never to be fully accepted, and make sure they understand their place
they resist? feeling victimised? deport them

asians will survive, because they're all natural born rooftop koreans
europe will probably be south american tier in 50 years

>People acting like there is a future to mankind and not just it speeding towards it's own destruction.

its not stupid at all, if anything one of reason Veeky Forums is good in the first place is it enables discussion of taboo topic such as this without virtue signalling or pretentiousness, or fear of risk being ostracised by sjw