« First « Previous Comments 24 - 48 of 48 Search these comments
mell saysThey are and will keep realizing that there's no money in socialism and everyone will be worse off.
You don't understand. This is not a choice. Capitalism is circling the drain. It can't work if more and more people are useless.
Negative yields.
We have poor people, but we could literally produce everything they need and more. But we won't because they are useless and will be more and more useless as time goes by. Until socialism takes over.
There is no solution within the bounds of capitalism. If not the Chinese, the robots will take over. And no one can claim they worked hard to produce what robots did. Then you give it to people for free. And that's that.
The useful people will eventually abandon the useless, there is a choice.
#1 Manufacturing has been removed from the consuming areas.
#2 Robots/AI are not coming anytime soon.
Androids picking lettuce in California is both impossible
We ARE on the verge of a space revolution giving humanity virtually unlimited resources
#5. The future is going to be utterly decentralized.
Capitalism is failing to provide the basics for the population at large because a fraction of the population, given the right tools, CAN do everything that needs to be done. The rest is free to starve.
Agriculture is already done to a tiny percent of the population, and it's about to get worse as robots will soon run entire farms from A to Z. If not lettuce then wheat.
The farmer will be down to helping in rare situations when something breaks down.
mell saysThe useful people will eventually abandon the useless, there is a choice.
You're talking like useless people are a fringe. They will be the majority and be in the street asking for food.
You reason like if given a low enough wage and sufficient effort people could still be useful. This is still true now, but less and less true everyday.
Capitalism is failing to provide the basics for the population at large because a fraction of the population, given the right tools, CAN do everything that needs to be done. The rest is free to starve.
The farmer will be down to helping in rare situations when something breaks down.
Right now we can't even go to the moon. We can't have a small group living there.
This is what it would take: a giant step back from the current world which is optimized for efficiency, and deliberately duplicating efforts and focusing on non-efficient but higher quality solutions.
we won't because they are useless and will be more and more useless as time goes by. Until socialism takes over.
Predictions of technology eliminated employment go back to the 18th Century and the quasi-apocryphal Luddites who may or may not have actually been extant. I recall concerns about mass employment going back to the Greco-Roman era.
How will socialism make them less useless?
Useless people tend to rebel against society
Useless people do rebel unless they're fed and entertained doing nothing.
When they are, that's socialism.
It can't be the Chinese or the Mexicans, otherwise why isn't their consumption generating enough income and thus enough consumption so things align?
Why are wages barely growing when we have 3% unemployment?
If we don't have an employment and income problem why do we need to go in debt every year,
just to keep the economy growing slightly. The gov is about $1 trillion in the red, but the economy barely churns.
It can't be the Chinese or the Mexicans, otherwise why isn't their consumption generating enough income and thus enough consumption so things align?
Why are interest rates negative in so many places?
Why are wages barely growing when we have 3% unemployment?
The money simply isn't distributed, isn't circulating, isn't spent, isn't generating enough end demand. Why is that?
China keeps it's currency artifically cheap, retarding the buying power of Chinese consumersHonkpilledMaster says
Illegal Immigration and too many H1Bs.
If we have such an employment crisis, why is allowing millions of under-the-table workers (who aren't counted in stats)
That's "Multiple Human locations beyond the Earth, massively increasing the likelihood of species survival", then space travel is the best bet for the money.
Or we could pay artists, or mothers of newborns, or artisans producing high quality products but can't make a living out of it, or farmers producing organic vegetables, or invest massively in solar/wind, or rebuilt new infrastructures, or basic healthcare coverage for all, etc...
Being more inefficient is easy and sometime good on a human level.
But the incentives won't be provided by the markets.
The result is not enough income, and the need for debt. And some transfers to the poor as a way to compensate.
More of that is necessarily coming, as we are still moving in the same direction.
What I'm saying is there is not enough jobs for both Americans, under-the-table workers, and Chinese. You may say this worker should get the job rather than that one, but this is not the heart of the issue. The heart of the issue is there isn't enough for everyone. Those who do have the jobs are productive enough for everyone.
Not all debt is for consumption. In fact, most debts are supposed to be for investment . . .
I'm sorry, I don't find robbing other people to be an art
or invest massively in solar/wind,
The politicians who said these things are obviously commies and their opinions show they should be driven from office and kicked out of America.
Investments mean... buying stuff right? As in: money spent on people doing work, who then turn around and spend that money on other things.
Apparently there is not enough of that going on that the gov feels the need to do it itself. Massive quantities of it.
Why? Isn't the money going in a circle? If not where is the money getting stuck, not being spent?
You just need to read your credit card fine prints, or medical payments fine prints, or any such lawyer talk applied to doing business with people not as smart as they think they are. That ought to convince a reasonable man that robbing people is indeed an art.
« First « Previous Comments 24 - 48 of 48 Search these comments
Considering the very oldest Zoomer just graduated college, that the largest Milennial cohort by age is about 29, and the non-stop Socialist/SJW propaganda aimed at kids these days, this is really good news.
It's great when kids rebel against Socialist authorities in Education.
Oh, and I've been nattering on about who has kids? Studies - if you can believe them - have Gen Z going to Church more often than either Milennials or Gen X.
Naturally - leftists have fewer kids.