38
39

textIs capitalism the right economic system to advance the world to Civilization 2.0? (self.Futurology)

kulmthestatusquo が 投稿

I am having doubts about that.

Capitalism advocates what sells. However, as seen in many incidents, what sells the most may not be what is the best.

A popular example is the Qwerty, which had its uses a long time ago but as tech improved its importance died. However, existing typewriter companies, and typists who lacked the vision to see beyond their old machines, defeated the Dvorak, which was superior. It still lingers on today although voice recognition tech will probably send it to the way of slide rules.

What the public likes the most may not be the best tech, and business owners care more about the bottom line than tech advances.

Today's tech advance is advocated since it gives fun things to do on its way, but historically that was not always the case. History is full of advances defeated by vested interests who wanted to keep things as they are so they could keep their influences.

I think that tech is advancing too fast for capitalism to handle.

All these Austrian and Chicago style of economists, while better than the gaggle of hucksters like Paul Krugman, are still caught in the smokestack paradigm which has died.

I don't think basic income, etc is good either since it is just postponing the inevitable and just consume additional resources for nothing.

Capitalism is good sometimes, but it does give a lot of advantages to the rentiers, who add nothing to the advances but just collect tolls and increase overhead.

In fact rentiers are probably going to be the biggest opponent of Civilization 2.0. They don't want to see a system where they will not be able to collect rent, and want to keep it in a way so they can continue to benefit.

I don't think any of today's economists, all of them influenced by Smith, Marx and Keynes, have a good solution for the tech-induced economy, and the outdated economic systems might prove to be the greatest opponent for advancing humanity to the next level.

全 80 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]whocaresguy 11ポイント12ポイント  (1子コメント)

Decentralize on the blockchain

[–]kulmthestatusquo[S] 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes, that's probably the first step. A lot of stuff are being limited by inefficiencies.

[–]MarcusDrakus 7ポイント8ポイント  (4子コメント)

One of the newest and fastest growing ideas is crowdfunding, which enables people with great ideas to bypass the old system, while at the same time using the capitalist system. But more and more these days, you see things given away for free as well. All the music streaming companies give away their content for free and rely on ads and a much smaller base of paying customers to succeed. There are many free to play games available that people enjoy without cost. Coupon and rebate apps, which cost nothing, give customers money back on purchases they make, saving money for them and making money for the app makers at the same time.

In time, classic capitalism will change into a hybrid system where some profit from innovations while the masses reap the rewards at little to no cost to them.

[–]IUnse3n 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

I agree. I'd take it a step further though and say that at some point in the not too distant future money will become practically irrelevant. 3D printers will make trade of physical goods near obsolete and virtually everything will be available nearly free (cost of materials and electricity). This includes food, clothing, shelter, electronics, basically anything made of atoms. Electricity will be abundant and free through nano-technology. Every surface will generate free electric energy through heat differentials, piezoelectric, and radiation capture. Information will continue to be largely free on the internet. So if you have a house 100 years from now with all these technologies built in when are you ever going to go buy anything?

Its like that episode of Star Trek where they thaw the 1000 year old banker from cryo-freeze. He asks where his money is and they just look at him confused and explain they don't use money. If you want something you just go print it in a replicator (molecular 3d printer). They then say we don't have people going out and working for money. Since everything is very easy and cheap to produce its simply free so everyone goes and does whatever they want with their life.

[–]MarcusDrakus 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm usually one to go straight to the Star Trek references myself. I agree that this is a possible scenario we may actually see for ourselves someday. Maybe when I'm 138 (can't wait for life extension treatments!), but still.

[–]IUnse3n 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I just said 100 years just to be absolutely sure of what I'm saying as to when we will have this for sure. But, most likely we'll have molecular scale 3D printing withing 15-20 years according to experts.

So we'll both probably see this tech and the radical changes to society they create before we realize what hit us.

[–]JamesThunder 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I have a feeling it will be like watch this short advertisement and then your product will print kind future.

[–]Uptight_Kraut 8ポイント9ポイント  (8子コメント)

You point out that sometime an inferior product wins in the free market for whatever reason while a superior product is overlooked. However, 9 times out of ten the best product wins in a competitive free market or at the very least one of the best.

Now history shows us that planned economies (which is what you get in one form or another when you actively prevent free market capitalism) are far, far worse. Without competition mediocre or shitty products are the norm and the planners even fail to allocate basic resources well causing shortages of even basic necessities.

Capitalism isn't perfect but it's the best thing we know of. If you think of something better that would work let us know but all suggestions so far have been either not implementable at all or failed miserably.

Better to go with something like UBI which doesn't replace capitalism but works alongside it to help those who fall through the cracks.

[–]xplkqlkcassia☭☭ Too late, you are now a communist ☭☭ 6ポイント7ポイント  (6子コメント)

I couldn't disagree more. The natural tendency of capitalism, regulated or deregulated, is towards the formation of monopolies. Right now, we have huge corporate mega-conglomerates like Comcast and Time Warner, and these aren't corporations which are competing in a free market to provide the best goods and services to customers.

No - on the contrary, they collude. They carve out niches. They strangle innovation. They destroy smaller businesses. They actively limit competition by whatever means possible. It's fact. The current economic and political reality is that we can't turn back the clock. Many of these businesses would simply be unprofitable without their vast economies of scale. Our textbooks like to contrast our economy with Soviet top-down economic planning, but the harsh reality is that this kind of top-down economic planning is already happening, and it's already here.

Of course, these corporations work within a so-called market economy. But only the most naive of people who've never seen the guts of a large corporation will insist that the free market is still there, that there is no economic planning going on. All large organisations plan. We have huge amounts of planning infrastructure built up through decades and decades of corporate mergers, no longer reacting to prices, but planning prices - no longer meeting demand, but creating demand.

This corporate planning infrastructure works remarkably well, and remarkably efficiently, but the fact still remains that this corporate planning infrastructure is planning for profit. And anyone who has lived anywhere else apart from the Macroeconomics 101 fairyland knows that profits and people don't get along most of the time.

So right now, we're left with this huge corporate planning infrastructure, heaps of telecommunications infrastructure, but we're also left with a system which pathologically destroys people's lives, ruins the environment, strangles innovation, and ultimately limits the potential of human civilisation. The solution is pretty obvious - take this planning infrastructure, and use it to plan for people, not profits.

An economy is just a system. It's not some mythical beast which works best when we let market signals coordinate production decisions, it's not an untouchable god. Systems can be planned. Economies can be planned. In history, we've seen plenty of awful planning systems. It's difficult to create an efficient, responsive planning system while most of your country lacks phone lines, and computers haven't been invented yet. But right now, in the modern age, there's nothing stopping us from abandoning a late-stage capitalism, a system which spells self-destruction, and trying to find a better way to organise the economy of the world.

Can you imagine human civilisation spanning throughout the galaxy and still experiencing regular financial crashes? Can you imagine building cities on Mars while still the majority of the world still lives in poverty? If we want to plan for a brighter future, we need a plan for a brighter future.

[–]pixl_graphix 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Comcast and Time Warner, and these aren't corporations which are competing in a free market to provide the best goods and services to customers. No - on the contrary, they collude.

Those are government enabled monopolies. Not sure if that's the best example. In fact, most monopolies are just that because of government enforced IP law.

[–]xplkqlkcassia☭☭ Too late, you are now a communist ☭☭ 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Fair enough. Those are just the ones which immediately came to mind.

[–]pixl_graphix 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

My belief is that in general, that many failures of capitalism is the governments failure to keep the market free. This is a problem with wanting to legislate everything without understanding the ramification of the legislations. It is also the hubris that will damn most planned economies to failure. When you set a long term plan, bureaucracy will tend to follow that plan no matter if the situation changes, information gets suppressed, dissenters get killed. This is really common in our current capitalistic system. You'll see a company do very well for years and grow large. After it becomes very large it becomes difficult for the company as a whole to change direction if people's views change, or technology changes. When the company realizes it is in danger it has choices to make. It can ignore the truth and keep going the way they were to bankruptcy (Kodak). It can attempt to subvert capitalism by lobbying and supplying massive amounts of money to politicians to change the law to its benefits (Comcast). It is very rare to find a company that successfully reinvents themselves in changing conditions and increasing competition, IBM could be one of the few examples there.

The problem with making the government 'a company' is the government can't fail (at least without terrible civil ramifications'. Too big to fail is a very bad thing. Before you can ever succeed moving to a post capitalist word you have to find a selection method for bad ideas and bad plans. Survival of the fittest is how nature does this. Bankruptcy/Going out of business is how Capitalism does this.

[–]Uptight_Kraut -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

Comcast and Time Warner

Every single time you guys pick monopolies fostered by the government when you try to argue that the free market causes monopolies.

Economies of scale are a good thing. This is a feature of large companies, not a bug. There are bad actors and there is bad behavior but that does not outweigh the benefits. And when they do actively hurt small competitors, do you know how they do it? They do it by getting the government to make laws and regulations that make it harder for small companies to compete. That's not a free market problem, that's a government problem. We need to hold our elected officials accountable that they don't do this kind of thing.

You're making the same starry-eyed mistakes that countless people before you have made thinking they could plan an economy, they just have to get it right this time.

We've seen it lead to disaster and human suffering too many times to be foolish enough to try it again.

Do I see us colonizing the solar system and beyond and living in slums and squalor? No. Capitalism over the past few centuries has lifted the quality of life for billions of people by a huge amount and it will continue to do so. The percentage of the world population that suffers extreme poverty and starvation is shrinking. Violence is on the decline. If you took someone from 200 years ago and showed them the average family living in any first world country, it would look like a utopia to this person. Likewise 100 years from now will look like a utopia to us. Capitalism creates more wealth and innovation than anything else has.

[–]xplkqlkcassia☭☭ Too late, you are now a communist ☭☭ 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Every single time you guys pick monopolies fostered by the government when you try to argue that the free market causes monopolies.

This is the real world. In the real world, governments co-exist with markets. There are no governments without markets, nor markets without governments. You're entirely missing the point of my response. It's possible to at least temporarily make a society without corruption, lobbying, and monopoly-fostering.

The question is: can we do that right now, in the current political climate? No. Nobody is interested in the abstracted theoretical models of ivory-tower free-market economists. People are interested in what's happening right now, and what's going to happen in the future.

The future is this: wealth is going to be funneled into fewer hands, and bigger and bigger corporations are going to form. Will governments be involved in that? Of course. The real world is going to cause monopolies, and the real world is where we need to focus our analysis.

Economies of scale are a good thing. This is a feature of large companies, not a bug.

Yes. Now can you stop bringing up points that nobody asked for?

There are bad actors and there is bad behavior but that does not outweigh the benefits. And when they do actively hurt small competitors, do you know how they do it? They do it by getting the government to make laws and regulations that make it harder for small companies to compete. That's not a free market problem, that's a government problem. We need to hold our elected officials accountable that they don't do this kind of thing.

And do you think that's likely to happen?

Do I see us colonizing the solar system and beyond and living in slums and squalor? No. Capitalism over the past few centuries has lifted the quality of life for billions of people by a huge amount and it will continue to do so.

When you throw a ball up into the air, you might expect the ball to keep going up if you didn't know about gravity. Nobody is disputing the fact that the capitalism has allowed for an explosion of wealth in the past. Feudalism was an improvement over slavery, horses were an improvement over walking.

People living under an absolute monarchy poo-pooed liberal democratic governance. Everyone, everywhere, everywhen, thought to themselves "this is it, this is the end of history, this is the apex of human development". The existence of history itself has proved them wrong. These people simply didn't have the historical perspective necessary to see beyond their present society. We needn't make the same mistake.

The percentage of the world population that suffers extreme poverty and starvation is shrinking.

Then instead of simply extrapolating it out, we need to look at the reasons why this trend has held up in the past, and whether those reasons are still valid for the future. The same for your other points.

[–]Uptight_Kraut [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The government causes monopolies. Directly or indirectly. When the government is causing the monopolies, the solution is not to try and "fix" or replace capitalism. You fix what is causing the problem. Would that be easy? Likely to happen? No. But neither is doing away with capitalism so if we're going to do something hard, we might want to at least work on the actual problem. If you're concerned with monopolies and corporations getting too big and powerful, look closely at what the government is doing. Look for regulatory capture.

stop bringing up points that nobody asked for

You brought up economies of scale and acted like they're a bad thing. Don't act indignant now.

whether those reasons are still valid for the future.

Yes, before we start trying to "fix" something that is working extremely well, it would indeed be wise to make sure a fix is actually necessary. So far I've seen nothing but speculation.

[–]wm83 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Capitalism is great BUT regulations that protect larger businesses and create barriers to market entry are really slowing down progress. In fact, capitalism is so good we could theoretically end the discussion of basic income if it were done right. Imagine if labor, energy and materials are driven down to 0. This would mean products could be created that cost nothing. Anyone could just walk in a store and take what they like.

I think we should work on getting to this point alongside a basic income.

[–]IUnse3n 3ポイント4ポイント  (7子コメント)

The problem with economics and politics is that the policies and ideologies are not based in testing and evaluating results like science and technology are. Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, and the use of money itself are just ideology they aren't empirical in any way shape or form. Thats why arguing with people who advocate a specific ideology (ie Free Market Capitalism, or Democratic Socialism) can often be like debating someone who is deeply religous. If we want to advance our social structures the same way we advance in technical fields we have to begin scrutinzing the very basis of our social structures and submit them along with other ideas to rigorous testing. Then we must compare the results of the impact on public health and environmental sustainability. Once we determine which social ideas actually work (with data to prove it) then we can scale it up and implement it. This will be a constant process in the future. Namely the scientific method applied to social concerns.

Thats why I almost pity people who cling to economic or political ideology. What they are essentially saying is that society can only work one way and that we will never achieve any social arrangement that is better. If we applied that same thinking to technology we would still be in caves.

I recommend watching the Zeitgeist Addendum to anyone who is interested in a sustainable technological approach to society that is emergent and evolving based on scientific research. Not a fixed social arrangement that is slow to change and based on old ideas by the elites of hundreds of years past.

[–]arcticfunky 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

I think the resource based economy described in that is basically communism. Not that there's anything wrong with that

[–]IUnse3n 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

There are some similarities between the two but there are also very large differences. For example in an RBE there is really no "government". From what I understand it uses AI to allocate resources and supplements with a direct democracy open source approach lead by recognized experts. So for example in the next few decades we will have fresh water shortages across the globe. In an RBE this could be addressed as follows;

  • An open source plan is put forth by someone or a group of people.
  • That plan is tested on a small scale
  • The technology is improved upon and refined with repeated testing.
  • All the results would be open to the public
  • AI would help to improve the plan or at least help determine the resource impact if applied en mass (AI is not needed but extremely helpful in making decisions as it is unbiased and can process more information.)
  • Everyone would be able to volunteer to make global fresh water abundance a reality
  • Everyone would be able to vote for or against this approach, hopefully with an emphasis on understanding the studies and data before voting
  • The desalinization technology would be implemented.
  • This could happen on a local or even global scale. Local makes the most sense to me so that it can undergo more testing and improvement.

Really the whole idea of an RBE, from what I understand is that it advocates using technology to solve our social problems rather than politics. Politics (passing laws) are seen as putting band aids on wounds not as real long term solutions. So the idea is to instead have a society with a very small government that makes everything open source so that as many people as possible collaborate to solve humanities problems and improve everyone's lives. Also they don't use money but instead keep track of resource usage and overrun on the simplest level similar to how a grocery store is run to on the most cutting edge level using AI like Google's Deep Mind to Optimize resource allocation.

[–]arcticfunky 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

I think that sounds like what communism/anarchism aims for though. Not a state controlling everything but humanity finding a way where everyone has access to resources so that people are free to explore their passions and better society.

[–]IUnse3n 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Yeah they are similar in some ways. The main values of communism can be found in an RBE, but they aren't ideological in an RBE they are arrived at from a technical efficiency approach. It just so happens that an economy of access abundance is more efficient than ownership, equality measurably increases public health, etc.

[–]arcticfunky 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

How do think we might go about reaching an rbe?

[–]IUnse3n 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Honestly I think its just a matter of time. Technology is moving so fast that trade and money will become largely irrelevant within this century due to 3D printers and nanotechnology.

With that being said things like a Basic Income are steps in the right direction. I also think that we might need a movement with the main message being that the policies we implement have to be based on testing and evidence not just some leaders opinion. Also, practically anything that provides more service to people and takes money out of circulation is moving in the right direction. So for example time banks, Ridesharing like Uber (less cars more access), free open source products/software, free online education, policies like free health care, housing, food, college, etc. Basically we need to move in the direction of the public's needs being human rights while also simultaneously implementing more sustainable practices.

[–]boytjie [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Who is 'we', 'our', 'they', etc. A condescending approach is going to piss people off (and I don't blame them).

[–]MayorMcCheese59 2ポイント3ポイント  (7子コメント)

Well if you talk to a marxist, capitalism is but a step in society. Marxism is what follows, although Marx did not account for the post-modern era/ the decline of the traditional working class.

[–]AirSandFire 8ポイント9ポイント  (2子コメント)

It's strange to say "Marxism", Marxism is a political ideology or a theory - the system that Marx envisioned comes after Capitalism is called Communism. The way Marx envisioned Communist society is far from what took place in the Soviet Union. More like a Star Trek society - and we need the replicator for that first. If you remember that Star Trek episode where a frozen man is brought back to life, and the first thing he wants to know is how much his stock options have increased in price - and the crew asks him: what stocks? what bank? There's nothing like that anymore, there's no money, either. A post-scarcity society when production reaches such levels that capitalism (and "capitalist exploitation" by extension) is not possible anymore. Marx' mistake was, as you rightly point out, that he grossly overestimated the means of production of his era - but what he anticipated might actually come true in in the next few decades.

[–]MayorMcCheese59 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I meant marxism as the social theory not as the political ideology. Although Marxism can be called a political ideology, as the communism that is known by society today is no where near what Marx's interpretation was. Source- studying sociology

[–]IUnse3n 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Apparently replicators (molecular 3d printers are about 15 years away). So it is very likely that in the next few decades we will see radical changes to our socio-economic system.

[–]Faliceer 6ポイント7ポイント  (3子コメント)

Marx would love the modern era. Possibilities exist he could only have imagined now that everyone has the potential to be their own firm.

[–]arcticfunky 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

what do you mean

[–]Faliceer 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

The Internet opens up possibilities he would be ecstatic about.

[–]arcticfunky 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

oh yeah definitely. I think he would see his predictions of increased automation and globalization were proven right as well

[–]aminok 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

A popular example is the Qwerty, which had its uses a long time ago but as tech improved its importance died. However, existing typewriter companies, and typists who lacked the vision to see beyond their old machines, defeated the Dvorak, which was superior. It still lingers on today although voice recognition tech will probably send it to the way of slide rules.

I'm not seeing the problem here. The profit motivated investment that occurs in a free-market spontaneously is making problems of the past irrelevant. This is exactly what you can expect with so-called capitalism. It is of course not perfect but then any other economic system would have these kinds of inefficiencies as well, and much worse ones, because central economic planning utilizes less knowledge than the spontaneous order of free market coordination.

I mean could you just imagine how inefficient and stagnant the internet would be if companies were regulated and controlled by the giant monopoly known as the government? Regulations would be created to stamp out all competition to the largest lobbyists in the industry. You wouldn't have people starting companies in garages because there would be thousands of regulations that they would have to comply with.

Right now in New York you face huge fines and possible jail time if you dare to create/operate certain kinds of Bitcoin companies. This is thanks to the Bitlicense. Only two companies have received a license in the state since the new regulations were created. These regulations are undoubtedly created and lobbied for by the large players in the financial industry. They're always sold as cures to the problems of the free market ('capitalism').

The free market is messy, it has thousands of failures every single day, and it doesn't get to the ultimate solution in a straight line, but it is what innovation requires. It requires trial and error. It requires people being free. The process of discovery is a process of trial and error. And the chaotic free market with its very simple incentives of profit and loss is the best way to encourage this kind of exploration and experimentation of/with new technologies and business processes.

[–]ChispyCinematic Virtuality 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think it's the best we have for now. Post-capitalism will naturally emerge from it.

[–]SamsTestingAlt 1ポイント2ポイント  (12子コメント)

China doesn't even use Marxism anymore, so what makes you think that it's going to be useful in the future? It's become less common with technological progress, not more common.

[–]that1communist 3ポイント4ポイント  (11子コメント)

What makes you believe China ever did?

[–]SamsTestingAlt -2ポイント-1ポイント  (10子コメント)

Their economic policies until 1980.

[–]that1communist 2ポイント3ポイント  (9子コメント)

What about them gave the means of production to the people? Do you think Marx was just like "and the government will own everything and it'll be great"

[–]SamsTestingAlt -5ポイント-4ポイント  (8子コメント)

Maoism is a subset of Marxism, and there were communes in Mao's China that did control the means of production. Other things were controlled by the communist party, which is consistent with having a dictatorship of the proletariat like Marx said. There were no private means of production in Mao's China.

Please fuck off with your no true Communist fallacy. We have all heard it so many times. Feel free to go to /r/Communism and tell them that Maoism isn't a form of Marxism.

[–]that1communist 4ポイント5ポイント  (4子コメント)

That isn't the same as it actually being implemented, governmental means of production is state capitalism, and having communes does not make you a communist nation, you can call it fallacy or you can just see it like it is

[–]SamsTestingAlt -2ポイント-1ポイント  (3子コメント)

False. Actual, real, moneyless communes where the means of production were worker controlled existed in China. That's full communism.

You're also straw manning my original posts. I said that Marxism isn't used anymore and that China was Marxist, not that China was 100% communist. There is absolutely no doubt that China was run according to Maoist-Marxist doctrine until 1980.

[–]arcticfunky 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

it really isn't communism. Communism is a stateless classless society. I don't think even Maoists would claim that was present in China. A society where the common people, not the elite, share resources and engage in mutual aid for the betterment of society is not one to be feared.

[–]SamsTestingAlt 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

/u/arcticfunky has 0 reading comprehension.

[–]arcticfunky 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Anyone can pin their own ideas to someone else's and call it an evolution of ideology. I haven't even studied the specifics of Mao and China. I don't think talking about a peasants revolution a century ago is conducive to a conversation on how capitalism might not be the best way forward for humanity. We have more advanced technology, as well as various failed or flawed economic and political systems to learn from so we can create a more egalitarian communal society.

[–]arcticfunky -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

We're on /r/futurology, no need to freak out when people suggest an alternate way of living in the future. An elite authoritarian "communist" party running the show does not equal the general population having democratic control over the means of production/ society.

We are heading towards a future where we could potentially abolish almost all menial labor. Where most tasks can be automated. One where we can extract resources from space to use on our planet. One where 3d printing could decentralize and make for easier distribution of goods.

Why should we not strive to reach a world like we see on Star Trek? Why let the quest for money and power halt the advancement of mankind? A future where all humans are educated and healthy and free from a lifetime of stressful unrewarding and often pointless labor seems like the one that will bring the most progress.

[–]SamsTestingAlt 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

"communist"

You're not worth talking to if you're not intellectually honest enough to admit that Mao and his minions were communist.

[–]arcticfunky 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Then don't talk to me. I don't believe in authoritarianism no matter what they decide to do with the means of production. I believe the future will be one of people coming together on their own accord to build society to new heights and strive for the abolition of work as we currently know it, so that humanity can truly appreciate life and the world around us.

[–]CatastropheOperator 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

No. Capitalism makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. It obviously works well for the very few that benefit from it, but the rest of us just get raped by it.

[–]imfineny 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Dovark is not superior to qwerty. You can type just as fast on either with proper training.

[–]arcticfunky 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think capitalism helped get us where we are today, but of course human labor is what is really to thank. I believe eventually we will reach a breaking point where wealth disparity is too huge to ignore and class tensions will increase to a point of great change.

To reach a new kind of civilization, our current civilization needs to make creating one goal. So instead of producing and innovating to increase profit margins we need to start producing and innovating to build society up. Spending resources on making the environment and everyone in all regions of the world healthy and educated will lead to all regions of the world having up to date infrastructure and being as self sufficient and green as possible.

If we want to live in a future that is closer to Star Trek than a cyberpunk dystopia I think we need to realize the needs and wants of the masses and the environment are more important than those of the elite.

[–]MakeTotalDestr0i 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

"What the public likes the most may not be the best tech, and business owners care more about the bottom line than tech advances."

according to your prior posts this is becoming irrelevant since all the classes are being shifted towards being nonconsumers living in poverty with the exceptions of the elites. so in the future wealth wont seek bottom line via fulfilling consumer desires but instead by fulfilling the dreams of the elites

[–]ArkhamStorage 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Our legal system could be rewritten to remove the existing favors to specific, large corporations. That would at worst be an experiment we could later undo after analysis. When will we have the first data scientist president?

[–]gc3 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Capitalism makes good use of network effects compared to the previous models of governance, but I suspect that when people realize society is similar to a game they will demand a game that is more fun to play and not so full of exploits.

[–]budabup [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Universal income + public service (it's like military drafting, but for all public jobs) + free housing after public service + incentives for work, instead of punishments for not working. It's the future. I invented it in my garage.

[–]JanusJames 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

Socialism is like the dark side of the force - it promises you everything you want. It feeds on division, jealously, fear and hatred. It is extremely attractive to young people when they are uncertain about their future.

Capitalism is just a word to describe the natural system of economics that arises when people are free to buy, sell and own property.

Modern governments have progressively added more and more regulations, taxes and programs which warp the natural economy. We've been seeing the results of these policies for decades as they progressively sicken the economy more and more.

Every year they blame their failures on "capitalism," every year we become less capitalistic and every year things get worse.

The same people promising the solutions to our economic problems have created the problems in the first place.

[–]Tszemix 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Modern governments have progressively added more and more regulations, taxes and programs which warp the natural economy. We've been seeing the results of these policies for decades as they progressively sicken the economy more and more.

Do you expect the market to solve all societal problems? The government is needed in order to maintain infra structure and law. also to prevent market abuse such as cartells and monopolies.

[–]arcticfunky -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is so wrong. Capitalism is not the "natural system of economics". Humans working together is what has built civilization. Almost always it has been through coercive or exploitative means, but that is not to say we should not attempt one based on mutual aid.

[–]SchiferlED -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes, I'm sure the government stepping in to abolish slavery "sickened" the economy. /s

Unregulated free markets have problems that don't solve themselves in real life.

every year things get worse.

Source? Pretty sure the data points to things getting better over the past few hundred years by almost every metric.

[–]Yuli-BanRobosexual 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I've been taking up a belief that sociocapitalism is the best option, and always has been.

The biggest problem with socialism isn't that it always fails— it's that one variant of it has always failed, and that variant happens to be the form of socialism everyone attributes to socialism in general. That is: "Let the State own the means of production." Nationalize everything, centralize power, and hope for the best.

See if this makes any sense: a 20-something futurist laments about the death of privacy, the powerful corporations living only to make a quick buck, and the inevitability of the rich becoming a transhuman elite while the rest of us squabble over what little resources we're left.

Their solution? Use the State to smash the rich and establish a "resource-based economy."

At no point do they ever consider the possibility that, A) all they're doing is handing centralized power from one authority to another, or B) the same rich people who run the corporations they hate also run the government they hope will change things.

Same thing with basic income. You honestly think giving the bourgeoisie more power to tax themselves in order to stop themselves from giving more power to themselves at the expense of everyone else is a good idea? There are so many flaws in this thinking, it's unbelievable. UBI would just bring us back to feudalism. To National Corporatism, even: you sign away yourself to a specific megacorporation in return for money to live, as long as you remain loyal to that corporation. It's not like there will be any difference between the government and megacorporations in the future.

I can see where this idea is coming from, of course. The only problem is that it's too attached to the archaic, pro-Bolshie idea that only the State can save us, even though it's the State that's screwing us (in a different form, of course). It's akin to a medieval peasant cursing at the Church for exploiting him and pleading for God to help him.

I've long held that a solid way forward is worker ownership. Ever heard of cooperatives? Ever heard of the Basque Country? If you mixed worker cooperatives/federations/syndicates with what we have now, you wouldn't have anywhere near the level of abuses you see. Wages would be much higher, the working class would be infinitely stronger, and lord knows what else. And when automation— artificially intelligent automation, of course— finally arrives, the worker-owners will actually own these things directly, without any middleman.

Not only that, but an empowered working class means that the government wouldn't be totally beholden to just the super-rich. Back when we had unions, we saw a little of this, but unions outlived their usefulness. They should have been followed up with syndicalist movements, but they weren't, and that's one big reason why we're in this mess now.

Let's start with the basics: what is an economy? The exchange of goods and services. An economy only exists if things are being exchanged. That includes on a radically decentralized level. That's one reason why markets work so well— a market literally is the economy in action. Central planning can only work for limited occasions.

People often say that only socialists engage in central planning, but that's actually how authoritarian capitalism works. Think about it— how does a typical company work? A central figure(s) dictate how things run, and when profits come in, that central board pays out according to how they see fit.

Somehow, this is exploitative in capitalism but "social justice" with socialism. And as I said, part of the reason is because, ever since 1917, socialism = Bolshevism. That is, a central vanguard party that centralizes all power. AKA statism. And because the USSR was the most successful socialist state (call it whatever you will; socialist, state-capitalist, communist, whatever), that's what 20th century mainstream leftism based itself on. That's why leftism has been such a clusterfuck of failure.

Remember what it was like before the Bolsheviks? When leftists thought the best way forward was through economic democracy and decentralization?

Check out /r/Technostism and /r/Vyrdism for where I want this to lead. Also check out /r/Cooperatives, /r/LibertarianLeft, /r/EconomicDemocracy, /r/MarketSocialism, /r/PirateParty, and /r/Rad_Decentralization.

TL;DR: Less tax the rich, more empower the poor. Less nationalizing the industries, more workers managing companies.

Compare the Basque Country to Venezuela.

One contains the world's most successful worker cooperative federation and lives at a first-world standard with little income inequality and high levels of freedom, liberty, and culture. The other is an authoritarian-socialist dystopia that is about to go full-Mercenaries 2.

[–]TheFutureIsNye1100 -1ポイント0ポイント  (10子コメント)

Socialist capitalism seems one of the best solutions moving foward. If you give everyone means to participate in the capitalist model then it would work really well. You still get the benefit of the free market and competition with capitalism. And you get economic security and a super charged economy when your money escape velocity in your society increases. Right now it's about 100 to 110% amoung the poorest in America and only 10 to 30% for the richest. If we tax the rich to redistribute the cash more effectively to benefit the economy so everyone can participate more then it will really benefit us all. And if people a spending the money in the same companies then those rich people get their money back, but now it's more fair and the people pay them instead of government more than not, or at leaSt not as much.

[–]aminok 1ポイント2ポイント  (8子コメント)

Socialist capitalism is far less effective than pure capitalism. Centralized control to any degree is always harmful. The more you have, the less an economy grows.

You still get the benefit of the free market and competition with capitalism.

You get less of the benefit.

And you get economic security and a super charged economy when your money escape velocity in your society increases.

Economic security bought at the price of authoritarian taxes. And empirically you're wrong. Socialist capitalism, or social democracy, is associated with stagnant economic growth rates.

[–]TheFutureIsNye1100 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

I wasn't talking about pure 100% controlled socialism. The only socialism part is the redistribution of wealth. And thats only for a baseline so economy doesn't crash. Oxford published a study on 2013 that in 20 years 46% of jobs were likely to be automated. The great depression, which was the worst dip in American history only had an unemployment of 25%. Our economy is going to break very soon if we don't give every one a baseline universial income. The current system will just make the rich richer and suck more money from the poor. Which I would argue would be hard to do because 50% of america is lower class and money does not go nearly as far as it used to already, and we're only at around 5% unemployment now.

[–]aminok 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Any degree of socialism harms the economy. 100% controlled socialism harms the economy a lot more than a moderate dose of socialism, but the latter harms it nonetheless.

Oxford published a study on 2013 that in 20 years 46% of jobs were likely to be automated.

Jobs have been destroyed over the last 200 years. That is the nature of innovation. It doesn't mean there will be fewer jobs available overall.

The great depression, which was the worst dip in American history only had an unemployment of 25%.

Because the government created minimum wages far above the market rate. The Great Depression is well studied and its causes are all linked to mismanagement by centralized institutions. In other words, problems that never would have had an opportunity to emerge had control over the economy not been centralized in the first place.

The current system will just make the rich richer and suck more money from the poor.

You're ignorant about what is happening around the world. I recommend you learn more economics.

Progress in the global war on poverty

Almost unnoticed, the world has reduced poverty, increased incomes, and improved health more than at any time in history.

[–]Locke66 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Jobs have been destroyed over the last 200 years. That is the nature of innovation. It doesn't mean there will be fewer jobs available overall.

I am really not convinced of this argument or at least the concerns should not be dismissed out of hand. There is a fundamental difference between past improvements in technology and the coming phasing in of automation technologies. While we don't know for certain the capabilities that will be available the pattern that is emerging is that they are going to replace not only human muscle but human brainpower which is very different to what we've seen in the past.

It also seemingly discounts the historic significant social upheaval that moving from one set of technologies to another can cause as a trivial by-product of progress. The cottage industry worker or farm hand of the 18th century who was forced to abandon their way of life to go work in a factory may not have seen the Industrial Revolution as a net benefit. Generally in each technological leap forward that humanity has made the species does better but the individual does worse over the short term. It's worth evaluating and discussing whether some of these problems can be minimised.

[–]TheFutureIsNye1100 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well let's compare farming jobs. In the early 1900s farming had about 40% of the labor force. Now I believe it's below 2%. ThIs people moved on as the job was automated. But now we're talking about technology that is going to replace all jobs. Lawyers, construction workers, truck drivers, stock brokers, doctors. You name it and it's being worked on. Their not taking them over night. But over the last 50 years it has already started. Look at banks. They are a fraction of the size they used to be. So when all the required jobs are replaced by machines and are automated then what's left? Only jobs that are non essential to the economy. But there is already AI writing new articles and making music. All human jobs are in the danger. And the only solution is get rid of this model that won't fit the situation anymore. If we're going to live in a world where you can define your own living because all of the requires jobs to make society work are taken, then you have to give a universial income.

Also the level of money the top 1% of america owns more money right now compared to the rest of the population is the highest it's been since right before the great depression. I wonder if there is theme there.

[–]Zergzapper 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

You say there is less benefit but you don't provide proof or sources to back up your assertion.

[–]aminok 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Here you:

Author of Scandinavian Unexceptionalism explains why universal welfare (UBI) won't work: "From 1870 until 1970, Sweden was a free market success story. Sweden had the highest growth rate in the industrialized world. .. [After taxes were raised in the late 60s and 70s] Sweden stagnated"

This study looks at 129 countries, and finds the optimal size of government to be 18-19% of GDP:

http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/research/groups/grangercentre/documents/15-02.pdf

That brooks no room for social democracy, which requires far higher levels of government spending.

[–]miniaturecontent 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

A book written by a libertarian ideologue and a "study" that uses a ridiculously simplistic equation. What a joke.

[–]GeoffreyArnold -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Socialist capitalism seems one of the best solutions moving foward. If you give everyone means to participate in the capitalist model then it would work really well.

No. That misses the whole point of how capitalism has been so successful in creating human flourishing over the last 100 years. You don't GIVE people anything. Those who want it have to take it for themselves and that competition makes all of our lives better.

The means to participate already exist. You don't give anyone anything. They work and develop a skills. Then they market those skills for higher pay. Alternatively, they take those skills and create a business. They acquire funding for that business through a bank loan. They higher people and those people now have the means to acquire new skills. etc., etc., etc.

[–]farticustheelder -4ポイント-3ポイント  (2子コメント)

We like capitalism as a system, especially when tied in with democracy. We can preserve the core of that system if we rejig the fundamental property rights just a little: the right to make profits is contingent on making sure that society as a whole gets 80% of all wealth generated. This supports the UBI, keeps the economy growing, and everyone gets richer over time.

[–]aminok 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

'Rejigging property rights' as you propose would enslave people. It would force them to hand over the majority of the private property they earn in private trade. It requires that people get permission from some political representative of the people to even be allowed to engage in voluntary trade, which is similar to what socialist states behind the Iron Curtain had.

People have a moral right to engage in voluntary activities. They should not have to get anyone's permission. They should not have to report their private transactions to some authority, to ensure that they are taxed a sufficient amount. It's bad that you're pinning hopes on getting 'free money' from universal welfare (UBI), that is coerced from others, and depends on violating their privacy rights.

[–]farticustheelder 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You are overstating the case somewhat drastically. The only thing a system like mine does is put constraint on greed. The underlying theory is not hard: natural resources are the property of humanity in general. The benefits of exploiting these resources should be shared by humanity in general. Government is the mechanism that enforces the desired ratio of sharing. Economics is the theory that establishes that ratio. This system has the added benefit that it gives the government something really close to 'dial a growth rate' control of the economy. As a side effect of this system the super-hyper-giga-rich serve a purpose, that society demands ultimate control of their greed just becomes another rule of the game.

[–]SchiferlED -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Of course not. It's not even the right system now. That's why we have a "mixed economy". It's capitalism with government regulation where needed. As society and technology evolves, the optimal degree of regulation changes. Eventually capitalism should be phased out entirely, assuming such a thing as no-scarcity is achievable.

[–]definitelyoffensive2 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Nope, socialism, it's worked pretty much everywhere its been.

[–]manbjornswiss -5ポイント-4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Austrian economists are as relevant to current economic theory as communists, meaning they are not.