economy

[Script]

@Mattias,

[...] I disagree with that characterization [...]

I most certainly hoped that you and anybody else would . Don't start to see antagonists where there are none

In this case I think phrasing it the way you do only ends up misleading people into viewing the current state of affairs incorrectly.

I'm afraid I don't understand all of your reasoning (wrt entire post). Toothpaste? Say what? Therefore, I can't even say whether we could agree. I'd like to though, cos I feel that you have a lot to say. However, to me, your reasoning often reads like dry-dock manoeuvering, extensive footnoting, and digression-for-lecturing's sake. Could you try to be more concise?

Also, I think that forum posts consisting of several quoted sentences (add: taken out of context) and interrupting them by lengthy off-topic lectures are extremely tiresome to read. I hereby request such replies be avoided (guilty myself ).

What strikes me most, however, is that I had presented a problem and an attempt at a solution (capital gains taxes & income threshold on deductions). Yet in your entire reply you don't pick up on it once -- you quote it thoug, peculiar! In your entire reply, where does reality come in? I think it simply doesn*t suffice to strike up an idealist's tent and fill it with an overwhelming amount of difficult-to-follow discourse. I miss the practical application outside of it?

 

[Script]

[...] viewing the current state of affairs incorrectly.

Was just trying to nudge the discussion more into a here and now direction after having revisited the basics of left economics and history. Here's a reality test.

Scene at a restaurant
A single guest has finished his dish and is waiting to pay.
WAITER:  Here you are, sir! I hope you enjoyed your food.
GUEST:    Keep the rest.
Waiter takes the money and is about to turn around and leave.
GUEST:    Oh, by the way, have you ever pondered about the taste of your toothpaste?
                      Or the money you pay for it, what it is really used for?
Waiter looks up.
GUEST:    And did you know that there is merit in desiring to do labor just by virtue of being human?
WAITER:  Sir, is that your tip or a condition?

 

[JohnRoberts]

I can barely change my behavior, so trying to change the behavior of others on the WWW is a black hole for time.

It is possible to ignore posts you don't agree with. I do it all the time...  8)

JR

 

[mattiasNYC]

Capitalism is flawed and far from perfect, but it's still better than EVERY other economic system.

No it isn't.

 

[mattiasNYC]

[...] viewing the current state of affairs incorrectly.

Was just trying to nudge the discussion more into a here and now direction after having revisited the basics of left economics and history. Here's a reality test.

Scene at a restaurant
A single guest has finished his dish and is waiting to pay.
WAITER:  Here you are, sir! I hope you enjoyed your food.
GUEST:    Keep the rest.
Waiter takes the money and is about to turn around and leave.
GUEST:    Oh, by the way, have you ever pondered about the taste of your toothpaste?
                      Or the money you pay for it, what it is really used for?
Waiter looks up.
GUEST:    And did you know that there is merit in desiring to do labor just by virtue of being human?
WAITER:  Sir, is that your tip or a condition?

You want to talk about stuff or just be coy? It isn't as cute as you think it is.

 

[mattiasNYC]

It seems I'm finding this to be the main difference between socialism and capitalism:

In socialism, prices of products and labor are considered static - you work this many hours, you get paid that much, the product sells for this price, and that's all she wrote. You get paid "the value" of your work.

That's definitely not the main difference in my opinion. The main difference is the lack of profit as a motive along with the means of production (and natural resources, arguably) being owned/controlled by the people. Whether or not the ownership/control is direct or indirect, and how and to what degree remuneration is "fixed" is what differentiates various systems that all fall under the Socialist "umbrella".

 

[JohnRoberts]

Capitalism is flawed and far from perfect, but it's still better than EVERY other economic system.

No it isn't.

Describe a better, more successful system...? 

This is not a new intellectual pursuit. Smarter people than you and I have tried to come up with something better for a long time.

JR

PS: Opinions vary, always will. 

 

[Gustav]

Describe a better, more successful system...? 

When I  responded to your fist post, it was mostly because it always saddens me when these issues are boiled down to these types of comments, both in places like this and in the media.

I mentioned the "free info/regulation" dichotomy that seems to exist, which is a function of the neoclassical system. (Screw the poor or eat the rich?)

If the discourse is nuanced, it should also make sense to ask wether  worries about GDP is also a function of the neoclassical system. There are plenty of alternatives to this way of thinking about the economy, but this is only the way which we think about how the economy works as pure money-mechanics, and can apply to different types of production structures.

Another nuance to all this is, that market mechanics is separate from political, cooperative ideology.  While some ideologies will want to do away with the market altogether, its not the only alternative to capitalism. The bundling of terms like Communism, Socialism and liberalism often makes it hard to see these nuances. I do not know anything about the causes of the bundling, but I am 100% sure its not because its too difficult for laymen to understand.

A description of the alternative to capitalism is not the same as a description of alternatives to liberalism or conservatism in terms of values. Its simply a different way of thinking about economical mechanics, and in that sense, it is true that Communism stands at the opposite side of Capitalism, if you only think inside the neoclassical framework.

Alternatives have been left out, some sort of consensus existed that the mechanics were set up in a way which drove progress for society as a whole, but since we have a hit a wall, and we just seem to be stepping on the gas going into the wall again and again (like my 2 year old would), it is starting to make a lot more sense to consider other variables to explain the "good times" than market mechanics (technological advancements, for example). As a result, like I mentioned earlier, alternatives are coming back into play, even in US academia, and they are being taken very seriously given the problems we are seeing with capitalist mechanics and the premises I mentioned earlier.

Capitalism in its pure form does not care about anything but profit, communism in its pure form does not believe in profits incentives, and in the real world, we are always somewhere in between. In this thread, Scripts suggestions are a moderation towards an end of the spectrum that could very realistically implemented (not pure ideology).  Wether we do so or not is still a question of ideological leaning - but even leaning towards the communist model is an act within the neoclassical framework.  The system I live under would best be described as market socialism (if you are looking for alternatives to pure capitalism, there are plenty of empirical examples), again, within the neoclassical framework.

So how do we think about real alternatives to capitalism without staying within the neoclassical framework (like Marx, waiting for the robots, wagging his finger at profit) ?

Since capitalism is pure, profit mechanics based on the idea of the perfect consumer in a world of basic goods scarcity, one could propose an opposing axis, where the  mechanics are needs driven, and based on the study of human behaviour in a world of basic good abundancy..

Within this type of system, you can still work with competition incentives, surplus value and a lot of other concepts that also exist in the capitalist system. This is the type of thinking thats now being taught. The stigmata of ideological bundling and lack of nuance makes it hard to discuss these types of alternatives in real-politics, though. 

Gustav

 

[JohnRoberts]

Again thank you for thoughtful discussion, my less than thoughtful responses were not to nuanced comments.

Describe a better, more successful system...? 

When I  responded to your fist post, it was mostly because it always saddens me when these issues are boiled down to these types of comments, both in places like this and in the media.

I mentioned the "free info/regulation" dichotomy that seems to exist, which is a function of the neoclassical system. (Screw the poor or eat the rich?)

If the discourse is nuanced, it should also make sense to ask wether  worries about GDP is also a function of the neoclassical system. There are plenty of alternatives to this way of thinking about the economy, but this is only the way which we think about how the economy works as pure money-mechanics, and can apply to different types of production structures.

Another nuance to all this is, that market mechanics is separate from political, cooperative ideology.  While some ideologies will want to do away with the market altogether, its not the only alternative to capitalism. The bundling of terms like Communism, Socialism and liberalism often makes it hard to see these nuances. I do not know anything about the causes of the bundling, but I am 100% sure its not because its too difficult for laymen to understand.

In fact it seems very difficult for citizens (voters) to grasp complex topics involving weighing competing ideas. This is why politics is driven by simple sound bites and photo-ops. While perhaps individuals could understand if they invested the effort, we humans are programmed to go through life barely paying attention to daily decision making, to free up our attention span to look out for saber toothed tigers. In fact this mental affectation leads us to think we understand things we may not, to free up the mental engine for survival activity.

Writing about concepts forces us to realize how much we do or do not understand.

A description of the alternative to capitalism is not the same as a description of alternatives to liberalism or conservatism in terms of values. Its simply a different way of thinking about economical mechanics, and in that sense, it is true that Communism stands at the opposite side of Capitalism, if you only think inside the neoclassical framework.

Alternatives have been left out, some sort of consensus existed that the mechanics were set up in a way which drove progress for society as a whole, but since we have a hit a wall, and we just seem to be stepping on the gas going into the wall again and again (like my 2 year old would), it is starting to make a lot more sense to consider other variables to explain the "good times" than market mechanics (technological advancements, for example). As a result, like I mentioned earlier, alternatives are coming back into play, even in US academia, and they are being taken very seriously given the problems we are seeing with capitalist mechanics and the premises I mentioned earlier.

I have talked about fractional reserve banking (to the limits of my understanding), and likewise central banking.

I have been very critical of the pushing on a string, and exhausting any possibility of future interest rate manipulations by going negative. We probably should have taken our medicine and raised inter bank rates years ago, but that horse has left the barn, and now there are Trillions of negative interest rate sovereign debt, in the world banking system..

We are in the middle of a grand economic experiment, with no classic text books or history to guide us.

Capitalism in its pure form does not care about anything but profit, communism in its pure form does not believe in profits incentives, and in the real world, we are always somewhere in between. In this thread, Scripts suggestions are a moderation towards an end of the spectrum that could very realistically implemented (not pure ideology).  Wether we do so or not is still a question of ideological leaning - but even leaning towards the communist model is an act within the neoclassical framework.  The system I live under would best be described as market socialism (if you are looking for alternatives to pure capitalism, there are plenty of empirical examples), again, within the neoclassical framework.

IMO capitalism is not just about profit, but rule of law that supports ownership, When individuals are allowed to accumulate property they are inclined to work harder for a better future for them and their family. Systems that don't protect personal property ownership lose this powerful motivation. 

So how do we think about real alternatives to capitalism without staying within the neoclassical framework (like Marx, waiting for the robots, wagging his finger at profit) ?

Since capitalism is pure, profit mechanics based on the idea of the perfect consumer in a world of basic goods scarcity, one could propose an opposing axis, where the  mechanics are needs driven, and based on the study of human behaviour in a world of basic good abundancy..

Within this type of system, you can still work with competition incentives, surplus value and a lot of other concepts that also exist in the capitalist system. This is the type of thinking thats now being taught. The stigmata of ideological bundling and lack of nuance makes it hard to discuss these types of alternatives in real-politics, though. 

Gustav

Not to disagree, you are the only educated economist in this discussion, but I see rule of law and property ownership as powerful characteristics of capitalism. In countries like Russia or China, property can be taken from individuals by whim of the government. (There are even some issues still in the US about government taking by over-active regulators, but here it is the exception not the rule).

  Of course maybe I'm wrong...

JR

 

[bluebird]

The problem with capitalism is one of morality. I agree with having law and owning property but the suffering of the poor and extravagance of the rich is immoral.  It is an extreme divide. If your a somewhat moral person, you have to admit it is failing. Capitalism has a finite life span. The experiment is coming to an end. If there were ever provisions for change in the system they haven't been realized.
If the majority is in poverty or close to it, then ingenuity has no value to the whole. Being smart has no value to the whole. We might as well go back to running around naked in the woods. At least there, physical strength is an equal contender with brains.

Humans function better when they work together and rely on each other in a personal way. That's why soldiers form deep bonds with each other quickly in battle. Bonds that last a lifetime. PTSD sets in when they come back to a civilian life and it seems totally alien in the way it behaves. Everyone is so compartmentalized and private. In order for society to function in a healthy way, people have to trust each other.

Seems the capitalist system doesn't take into account much of human sociology. Self preservation is the engine that starts the wheel turning, but it eventually turns into greed and things spin out of control.  And as mentioned earlier, through advertising it strengthens the greed aspect of humanity with a fearful message. The message of advertising is "you need this or you are less than" That message has surrounded me since I was a baby and has made me neurotic. Society had become comparative when it needs to be cooperative.

 

[JohnRoberts]

The problem with capitalism is one of morality. I agree with having law and owning property but the suffering of the poor and extravagance of the rich is immoral.  It is an extreme divide. If your a somewhat moral person, you have to admit it is failing.

I consider myself a moral person but do not accept that capitalism causes poverty.

Capitalism has a finite life span. The experiment is coming to an end. If there were ever provisions for change in the system they haven't been realized.

Capitalism has driven the largest expansion of wealth in the world to date.

If the majority is in poverty or close to it, then ingenuity has no value to the whole. Being smart has no value to the whole. We might as well go back to running around naked in the woods. At least there, physical strength is an equal contender with brains.

It is curious that the poverty level in the US ($33k for 4 person household) is considered so wealthy elsewhere in the world that millions come here illegally to get them some of this poverty.  The world bank defines international poverty level around $2 per person a day (so less than 1/10th the US  poverty level).

Humans function better when they work together and rely on each other in a personal way. That's why soldiers form deep bonds with each other quickly in battle. Bonds that last a lifetime. PTSD sets in when they come back to a civilian life and it seems totally alien in the way it behaves. Everyone is so compartmentalized and private. In order for society to function in a healthy way, people have to trust each other.

I try to depend on as few people as possible. I am less disappointed that way.

I don't even remember the majority of soldiers I served with, but we didn't come under live fire in Kansas, or Germany (in the '70s). The only PTSD I need worry about is drinking the crap 3.2% beer in KS. German beer was better at the time.

Seems the capitalist system doesn't take into account much of human sociology. Self preservation is the engine that starts the wheel turning, but it eventually turns into greed and things spin out of control.  And as mentioned earlier, through advertising it strengthens the greed aspect of humanity with a fearful message. The message of advertising is "you need this or you are less than" That message has surrounded me since I was a baby and has made me neurotic. Society had become comparative when it needs to be cooperative.

Yes a little less comparing (lusting after) other people's wealth, and more figuring out how to train and educate workers so they can do better in the increasingly technology based economy. I have all but given up on expecting the government to educate workers (common core and free college ain't gonna do it). Business needs to get more directly involved in training workers with skills for the actual jobs that are out there, and some businesses already are. 

Government should be making it easier for small businesses not reward the big (crony) businesses with more regulation that doesn't bother them (actually gives them a competitive advantage vs small businesses). The elites and crony capitalists have held  too much power and control for too long. The problem is the elites, not the economic system. We just need to undo several decades of rot, not throw out the baby with the (dirty) bathwater. 

JR

 

[bluebird]

I consider myself a moral person but do not accept that capitalism causes poverty.

What causes a majority of smart hard working people not have any savings or barely pay the rent every month? You cant blame laziness or lack of motivation.

Capitalism has driven the largest expansion of wealth in the world to date.

And that expansion is becoming a compression. A smaller and smaller group of people are accumulating more and more of the wealth. That why I think its run its course and needs to change in some way.

It is curious that the poverty level in the US ($33k for 4 person household) is considered so wealthy elsewhere in the world that millions come here illegally to get them some of this poverty.  The world bank defines international poverty level around $2 per person a day (so less than 1/10th the US  poverty level).

You are right and I am thankful I live in the country I do. That doesn't mean the poverty is less painful here than other places. Lots of children here only eat at school, homelessness is a huge problem... You know.

I try to depend on as few people as possible. I am less disappointed that way.

I feel the same way most of the time and I think it is because we are fearful of other people and don't trust each other on account of making sure whats mine is mine and whats yours is yours.

The only PTSD I need worry about is drinking the crap 3.2% beer in KS. German beer was better at the time.

That sounds awful. Three beers and you might feel something if you drank them fast enough.

Yes a little less comparing (lusting after) other people's wealth, and more figuring out how to train and educate workers so they can do better in the increasingly technology based economy. I have all but given up on expecting the government to educate workers (common core and free college ain't gonna do it). Business needs to get more directly involved in training workers with skills for the actual jobs that are out there, and some businesses already are. 

Government should be making it easier for small businesses not reward the big (crony) businesses with more regulation that doesn't bother them (actually gives them a competitive advantage vs small businesses). The elites and crony capitalists have held  too much power and control for too long. The problem is the elites, not the economic system. We just need to undo several decades of rot, not throw out the baby with the (dirty) bathwater. 

I agree. I am starting a small business now. I just got a Tax ID number, yay. We all know how the system is suppose to work but it hasn't been going in a positive direction, for MOST of the people. I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water either but in its current state this system has no stop gap for the elites and crony capitalists, other that people rioting in the streets. Which might not be to far off in the future.

 

[mattiasNYC]

Describe a better, more successful system...? 

This is not a new intellectual pursuit. Smarter people than you and I have tried to come up with something better for a long time.

And they did.

IMO capitalism is not just about profit, but rule of law that supports ownership, When individuals are allowed to accumulate property they are inclined to work harder for a better future for them and their family. Systems that don't protect personal property ownership lose this powerful motivation. 

But most people who propose alternative systems today do propose systems that allow for the ownership of personal property, only not the means of production and natural resources in the case of some Socialist systems.

Capitalism has a finite life span. The experiment is coming to an end. If there were ever provisions for change in the system they haven't been realized.

Capitalism has driven the largest expansion of wealth in the world to date.

No it hasn't. It was driven by technological and scientific advances. And now we're heading rapidly towards the point where we can use technology to produce what we need at extremely low cost making labor unnecessary, thereby creating a very big problem we have to deal with. Capitalism doesn't work if stuff is free. And a society of a ("downwards") dimnishing middle class and an ever wealthier elite with increased control won't work. Capitalism won't solve that problem, only exacerbate it.

Not to disagree, you are the only educated economist in this discussion

And he and I are, for the record, making largely the same points as far as the criticism of Capitalism is concerned.

 

[benb]

IMO capitalism is not just about profit, but rule of law that supports ownership, When individuals are allowed to accumulate property they are inclined to work harder for a better future for them and their family. Systems that don't protect personal property ownership lose this powerful motivation. 

But most people who propose alternative systems today do propose systems that allow for the ownership of personal property, only not the means of production and natural resources in the case of some Socialist systems. [/quote]
I have to wonder how people not owning the means of production would work, starting with the printing press. Would Gutenberg have been allowed to keep his press? ISTR it was made from a grape press, which was also a means of production of wine, so he wouldn't have owned that and likely wouldn't have thought of using one to print text.

What about computer printers? Are they means of production? Is a 3d printer a means of production? For a lot of this technoligy it appears the cat is out of the bag.

Capitalism has a finite life span. The experiment is coming to an end. If there were ever provisions for change in the system they haven't been realized.

Capitalism has driven the largest expansion of wealth in the world to date.

No it hasn't. It was driven by technological and scientific advances. [/quote]
I think it was a combination of these. The bipolar transistor was invented at Bell Labs, the R&D subsidiary of the government-approved monopoly AT&T, but it wasn't made into products by Western Electric (the manufacturing subsidiary of AT&T and the entity that made telephones and switching equipment). One of the inventors went off to start his own business, Shockley Semiconductor. People (including recognizable names) left there to work for a new subisidiary of Fairchild Camera, and then many of them started other semiconductor businesses, ,many we know today. Things went much faster in the commercial world than at AT&T and its divisions, before as well as after the breakup of the Bell System. The wonder about AT&T is that it still exists at all.

And now we're heading rapidly towards the point where we can use technology to produce what we need at extremely low cost making labor unnecessary, thereby creating a very big problem we have to deal with. Capitalism doesn't work if stuff is free. And a society of a ("downwards") dimnishing middle class and an ever wealthier elite with increased control won't work. Capitalism won't solve that problem, only exacerbate it.

Another poster mentioned crony capitalism (which might be a misnomer - cronyism turns capitalists into monopolists and politicians into opportunists. What's the practical difference with socialism? The monopolists don't claim to be capitalists), and that's arguably the bigger cause of the dying middle class, not capitalism itself.

 

[benb]

The main difference is the lack of profit as a motive ...

So is there any motive in socialism? I don't see one.

 

[mattiasNYC]

I have to wonder how people not owning the means of production would work, starting with the printing press.

What all these systems are about is allocation of resources. That's it. It's 2016. You can sit in a container in Arizona and kill people in Pakistan with a drone. You can pick up keywords off of every electronic communication and create an algorithm to sort out what's interesting to you. Your data can one day be "safely stored" in an NSA building and "the next" be available to news agencies and hundreds of millions of people world wide. You can tell a computer to help you design a computer. You can talk to a computer and have it order pizza for you and get it delivered to the right address.

Things are a bit different from the days we had the printing press. If you aren't seeing better alternatives to the capitalist market determining the allocation of resources then perhaps you just need to read more books and adapt what they say to the current milleium. The principles remain the same.

Capitalism has a finite life span. The experiment is coming to an end. If there were ever provisions for change in the system they haven't been realized.

Capitalism has driven the largest expansion of wealth in the world to date.

No it hasn't. It was driven by technological and scientific advances.

I think it was a combination of these.

I actually made two separate points when I wrote that.

- My first point was maybe not so clear. It was the second time I wrote a simple, concise statement of fact. The first time was when I wrote "No it isn't." in response to John's statement that capitalism is "better than EVERY other economic system". The point was that writing simple, consise statements of proposed facts is easy. Anyone can do it. Actually investigating why something is true is a different matter.

- The second point was that technology allows us to further technology much more so than any given political or socio-economic system. We haven't always had the same systems in humanity's history, yet we've always invented new tools. There's no reason to think this would ever have ceased to happen just because we switched from Capitalism to Libertarianism to Socialism to Anacrhism to whateverism, because as a species we love to investigate, create and improve on things. So while I then agree with you that of course advances occurred within a Capitalist system, I'm saying that they have and would have in other systems as well, and that the advances themselves are far more important to driving future advances than the system chosen.

The exception to this being obvious nations such as I suppose Saddam's Iraq or North Korea maybe.

Another poster mentioned crony capitalism (which might be a misnomer - cronyism turns capitalists into monopolists and politicians into opportunists. What's the practical difference with socialism? The monopolists don't claim to be capitalists), and that's arguably the bigger cause of the dying middle class, not capitalism itself.

First of all, if you're going to make a difference betwen "capitalism" and "crony capitalism" then you should be fair and not avoid distinguishing between Socialist systems. It's fine to do either, but it's only fair to be consistent.

Secondly, what I meant with my comment was that it will in the future be a problem when we need far less labor because we can create an abundance of goods for extremely low cost. The lower class already suffers and is in addition already used to working hard for little money, but the middle class will be the one slipping because of this lower amount of labor available for a decent wage. This is all aside from whether or not "crony capitalism" and quasi-monopolies exist. I see it as a function of the fundamentals of Capitalism where we've made labor into a commodity to be traded on a market just like a pair of diapers.

The main difference is the lack of profit as a motive ...

So is there any motive in socialism? I don't see one.

"Yes", and "So read a book or look harder...", respectively.

 

[bluebird]

So is there any motive in socialism? I don't see one.

If humans were like sharks or alligators there would be no motive. But I would hope that a society could move beyond pure self preservation and and take into account the well being of the whole. We already do this with our family's. Buying my kid a car and paying for insurance doesn't get me anything material in return.

The competition capitalism fosters has gone too far. Yes it is good for industry, advanced in engineering science, etc. But that competition became so embedded into our culture, we judge each other as if we were products. This creates a class system, distrust, isolation. People are less interested in helping each other and more interested in beating each other, getting ahead, winning.

But just switching to a new system of government probably wouldn't work in the same way installing democracy in the middle east didn't work. Its hard to change the behavior of a society in a short amount of time. Even if everyone thinks they want change, it never comes quick. How many revolutions led to a happier population? America was a special situation in where the people were so completely removed from the previous class system, they were able to form new relations on an even socioeconomic playing field with each other.

 

[Phrazemaster]

Now, some will say that this is all as it should be because the wealthy person took a bigger risk, but that's not true. He risked more money but didn't himself take a bigger risk [...] Suppose you want to buy robots with your 100,000. The wealthy can simply outbid the not wealthy. You're willing to pay 100,000 for a robot? Fine, I'll pay 150,000 for the same one. Game over.

Same applies to natural resources.

Robots / machines will keep making labor unnecessary and I don't think we'll see new labor make up for it. We need a new system and the sooner we try new things and figure this out the better.

Lower costs mean nothing if you're unemployed.

Have to say great points.

There's something completely unnatural about hording things. I read a quote one time that if a person filled his house up with tons and tons of things that he'd never use, they'd call him a "horder" and hopefully get him some counseling.

But it's somehow not the same to horde ridiculous amounts of money that one could never use in a lifetime? This is not a mental/psychological disorder of the same (or worse) magnitude?

This is really complex issue, and while I would not advocate the Robin Hood approach - I believe if you work hard for your money you deserve to keep it - yet there has to be some kind of sanity built into the system, and there isn't.

The goal of our whole economical lives, we are told (programmed), is simply "more."

MORE MORE MORE

Unending growth would be like only breathing in - forever. Craziness. No, really, that's crazy! There's a great movie on StoryOfStuff.org illustrating this idea (love those vids). We can't continue to run a linear model of consumption forever. Without adequate feedback and return, the model itself guarantees we will simply forever consume and ultimately destroy every area we use. As "Mr. Smith" says in The Matrix, we humans act like a virus on this planet, like locusts, instead of using our intelligence to work with our planetary Mother and our fellow humans and animals.

The thing is, beyond a certain point, money itself is essentially irrelevant to person's life. Maybe it's 1M/year; maybe another number, but beyond that amount, all of a person's basic (and not-so-basic) needs are taken care of, and rational/essential wants as well. Why should they continue to accumulate money beyond that point? How as a society can we make this "game" of money better? Maybe after $1M/year, money goes back to others?

Oh, yeah, let's not lie - it IS a game! So as a society we need to come together and make up better rules for our economic game. As Gustav elegantly pointed out earlier in his Marxist treatise, our economy sees "workers" and not people anymore. So true. I read once that the success of an economic system is how well it provides for individuals' needs. Yet how often do we hear of "the good of the many." Rarely has the "good of the many" as general policy ever worked well for the lowly individual. Mostly because the laws treat us as if we are all the same, which obviously we are not. We are not all created =.

In a nutshell, "he who has the gold makes the rules" and those on top are making the rules to favor themselves. Fat and happy don't need to worry about mundane issues that plague most of the proletariats. IE the ones making the rules are not the ones who live by them (they make our laws but exempt themselves).

I've often said the US would transform overnight if suddenly congress had to abide by the laws they make for the rest of us (no exemptions - they have to live under their own laws).

And this whole idea of a robot revolution is very real. What's coming isn't pretty, no matter which way you spin it. Because short of revolution those at the top will continue to make the rules that keep them there. And it's very real that most if not all jobs can be done by robots. Even writing music. I guess maybe it will be the arts that will always be separate - maybe. But even robots can draw.

And when AI develops to the point that it is "self aware" somehow - and that is a slipper slope as the definition is impossible to define (what is "self aware" What is "life"? are we not just biological robots? Or are we? What of... the soul?...) - when that happens, will not robots demand rights too?

The great promise of technology has been broken. Technology was supposed to make our lives easier by labor-saving, so we could be freer to simply live. Instead it simply does things faster for us, freeing our time to do more expected work.

I don't know what the answer is, but I do know if we don't' start acting like human beings and with kindness and compassion towards one another, and create a holistic vision of harmony that includes EVERYONE's needs, we will continue to head off the cliff. Somehow those who "have" think they are superior (studies done show this). But they put on their pants one leg at a time.

Er...now they're spraying their pants on - new nanopolymer that provides biofeedback mechanisms, blood pressure control, and changes colors via wifi connection to the wearer's brain...

PS maybe part of the solution is to charge people based on % of earned income. That way, Mattias, the rich guy would have to pay 1M for the robot in question, and we can pay 10,000. Because your point that the risk is not equal is exactly right. Investors bandy about the word "risk" as if it is a defineable quantity based on a known norm. Well baselining risk against a dollar figure is not the same from person to person - see above discussions. If we base prices on % of earned income,  the megalomaniacs who need to accumulate more more more money can continue to do so to satisfy their greed/perversion, yet the rest of us won't have to suffer under their lunacy. Is this a completely ridiculous concept? Or an idea whose time has come...

I'm thinking of selling Bill Gates some chocolate muffins from my bakery. I'll only charge him $1M each - a bargain!

 

[dmp]

Interesting article on wealth & spending in the US.

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/16/7545509/inequality-waste

What people don't seem to realize about capitalism is that without considerable checks on imbalance, the rich get more powerful, which makes them able to become more rich, and then more and more powerful - on and on.  Capitalism is not a system with a steady state, it proceeds to an extreme.

 

[benb]

There's something completely unnatural about hording things. I read a quote one time that if a person filled his house up with tons and tons of things that he'd never use, they'd call him a "horder" and hopefully get him some counseling.

But it's somehow not the same to horde ridiculous amounts of money that one could never use in a lifetime? This is not a mental/psychological disorder of the same (or worse) magnitude?

If it's literally stacks and stacks of $100 and other denomination bills stuffed in mattresses and closets, that's without a doubt hoarding. But only a few paranoids who don't trust banks and such do that, and they tend not to end up with many millions of dollars.

Rich people's money is in banks or brokerage accounts or stocks or bonds where others are borrowing it to buy houses, build buildings, start or expand businesses, etc. But of course, then the argument becomes whether an individual should have control of that much money, regardless of the "hoarding" argument.

I think the argument that "the rich are too rich" is just a projection - the real problem is there's a growing number of poor and lower middle class, and the question is how to help them live better lives.  Would there be so much focus on how much the richest are worth if the poorest didn't have to worry about basics such as food and shelter?