What a silly comment. World Bank data in 2010 had the US producing 18.2% of global manufactured products
This is a good post hobo1. Some believe that the last job left for people will be entrepreneurship. The entrepreneur sets up the business and then the fully automated company run by robots takes over. But in this scenario, how are people going to earn a living. Those unemployment check are going to be a permanent lifestyle. Robots do what they do best, which is work. And humans do what they do best which is cruise the Net and hang out on the beach.
This sort of nonsense has been going on for yonks. It makes little sense of course as, with technical progress, we increase income. As we increase income, we see more fluid demand and the creation of more individualised good and service. The op would only have a point if we were in a parallel universe characterised by constant income and product sold purely through 'economies of scale' production associated with long term economic planning.
Universities have to pay to access papers written with government's money ! When the majority of the economic activity is transferred to financial institutions labour becomes obsolete because those people buy and sell air , air is free . If i am not right how they are expecting Spain to grow with 40% unemployment ?
You're not interesting me. The idea that the 'majority of economic activity is transferred to financial institutions' makes no sense. You could go for a reference to 'neo-liberalism' and the hegemony of the financial class. However, that's a blip in capitalism and certainly cannot be used to refer to the demise of capitalism. What we get is beret wearers who just get overly excited and make guff up
The article below contradicts what you are saying. We have a jobless recovery with today's technology. Imagine what will happen when thinking robots can do any job. Where are people suppose to work. http://news.yahoo.com/practically-h...2e1bcf90-c5c8-4051-a128-72a14045807b&bcmt_s=e
That isn't an economic study. My comment is accurate. Technical progress creates opportunity. Income growth creates opportunity. You've gone for a dated myth reliant on ignoring that creation.
Look at Apple as a perfect example of high technology helping the economy and increasing employment. We all know this one tech company started with the first Mac computer - which certainly brought out a lot of questions about how the computer would affect the job market. And, to be honest, it replaced a few secretaries because documents could be produced faster. BUT it also created a whole new market of repair, sales, programing, etc. Years later, the iPhone and iPad, et.al continue to contribute to the economy of our country and improve the working efficiency of with rapid communication. The lesson to learn is that technology tends to create more jobs for people with skills. But the trend will continue downward for unskilled workers.
No, we both know that's not true. What you want is for me to say, "Oh wow, I guess you're right. Collectivism is the only way anyone can truly live." Which it isn't. Which is why it's never succeeded on any kind of long term basis in the entire history of the human race. It's an unrealistic pipe dream that does not account for human nature. Much like anarchism. If men were all angels, we would have no need for government. Just the same, if men were all motivated to work without reward and flawlessly selfless, collectivism would work fine. But that's not how evolution made us. No, you've been arrogant and condescending. And you know you have. In fact, you're doing it here. Stop for a second and ask yourself if you would try to teach a class the way you have been "explaining" things here. You hide behind a lot of verbose jargon. I can't tell if that's a front to disguse your insecurity or if you're just pretentious. Either way, it doesn't do much for your arguments.
A silly attempt given I favour a socialist approach that is easily embedded within Austrian economic analysis into individualism. The problem here is that, as you have no means to make a valid critique, you're making up a stance for me that fits within a right wing cliched outlook I wouldn't teach, not enough money in it! The more important issue is where right wing blinkered attitudes are derived. Why is economic analysis deliberately avoided? I'd go with a fake sense of righteousness which demands that both orthodox and heterodox schools of thought are avoided (the former because it leads to an understanding of market failure that favours liberal comment, the latter because it understands empirical phenomena and the problems inherent in capitalism) I bother with economic analysis. It seems to be a step too far for some folk. Put it right dear chap; e.g. demonstrate the long term stability in capitalism (without of course admitting that stability is heavily reliant on government interventionism)
Lol! Deflect, deflect, deflect. I called you out for acting like a tool, and you changed the subject. No, you hide behind big words to try to confuse people and talk over their heads in an attempt to dazzle them with bull(*)(*)(*)(*). I'm trying to imagine what it must look like when you try to pick up a woman, "Greetings and salutations, fair specimen of the feminine gender. Mightst I purchase you an intoxicating beverage to relax your stresses and allow you to verbally communicate more proficiently with my sexuality? Then perhaps we can relocate back to my residence for a night cap and potentially indulge in carnal intercourse? Oh dear, one moment..... I appear to have become unexpectedly arroused in my corpora cavernosa. Oh! Ooooh! I'm arriving! I'm arriving!!!!"
Zero content from you? Shame! Try again: "Why is economic analysis deliberately avoided? I'd go with a fake sense of righteousness which demands that both orthodox and heterodox schools of thought are avoided (the former because it leads to an understanding of market failure that favours liberal comment, the latter because it understands empirical phenomena and the problems inherent in capitalism)". This did make me smile. What do you class as a big word? Heteroscedasticity? Mere reference to economics will indeed confuse right wingers. Nature of the beast! Now stop with the non-economic prattle. Its unbecoming! Here is the task: demonstrate the long term stability in capitalism (without of course admitting that stability is heavily reliant on government interventionism)
You keep thinking 1990's when the PC revolution created jobs. I am talking about 2030' to 2050's. By then, there will be no job that will be done by humans. Maybe there will be one exception. Elected politician.
capitalism DOES NOT END. someone has to own the capital, which is the money and the tools of productions. someone has to do the labour which is the workers. robot or human being still the relationship between capital and labour shall always be in an exploitative relationship. capitalism rules forever.
Or we can have robots do everything we need, and we reap the benefits. - - - Updated - - - In a world where robots do most of our work, the best economic system is obviously some form of socialism or communism.
That's the thing you fail to see is the presence of new opportunities. We no longer have to waste a large portion of our lives working. Imagine what we could do and the opportunities we will have if we didn't have to work to live.
A key fail of basic neoclassical labour supply theory is that it treats work as neutral. It isn't. It is a source of utility in itself (rather than just a means to exchange leisure for consumption). As income rises and technical progress creates opportunity, we can see an increase in that utility creation.
I totally understand were everyone is coming from in this thread. Yes in the past this was true. Case in point, the bulldozer. In the past you needed an army of ditch diggers to make holes in the ground. They were replaced with 1 guy with a bulldozer. But this time things are different. We will be dealing with self programming, self replicating, virtually aware robots capable of doing any job that a human can do. Like the OP says, when that happens, the dream of Conservatives, the idea of a self reliant American is over. You just can't complete with a sentient robot. Here is a good article that touches on the subject. http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/02/androids-are-going-to-take-our-jobs-and-thats-great/
Yes, innovation is even more important as consumers demand a more diverse set of product trait. That makes the 'end of capitalism' comment look even more ridiculous
Did you even read the link? I'll post it again. http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/02/androids-are-going-to-take-our-jobs-and-thats-great/ The day will come were we will have a jobless economy. An economy were there is no possibility of a human to find work. At that point, there will be some form of income redistribution from robots to people. The robots work, we eat. Income redistribution is not capitalism. Call it socialism, communism whatever.
No I didn't as it would be a waste of my time. We're in an era of innovation. You're offering clichéd 'the end is nigh and I want my momma' conclusion that is terribly old hatted. Garbage!
Yes, consumers will demand more and different things. But robots will be building and designing these products. Is this really that hard to understand?
