Donald Trump

"

SkyCore wrote:

"

Antnee wrote:

Semi-serious question: How exactly do you see capitalism flourishing when robots (largely) replace the human workforce?

It's not just coming anymore, it's already here. Ask me about my Walmart Distribution Center experience.

Why are you only 'semi-serious'?

It is a near certainty that capitalism will collapse in the face of information tech (which provides near infinite free duplication of IP) and automation ( which eliminates the majority of jobs). The path of that collapse will almost certainly contain widespread suppression of the populace (oppression) and war from those in power whom are desperate to maintain that power.

We need a new economic model that rewards peaceful coexistence and innovation, not defeating the competition and milking the customer for all they are worth. We need a clear correlation between the utility of a product and how much wealth it generates for its producer.

Might as well wish for world peace. Humans are apex predators never for get that. You're just cattle to those in power.

@AimDeep: don't agree with the nuke tinfoil, but the preceding analysis seems about right to me. However, I would call the entire thing socialism, because what you described is the form socialism ALWAYS takes. When the credo is "from each according to their ability and to each according to their need," the main beneficiaries are those with too little ability AND those with entirely too much; socialism is a game of fuck the middle.

All of the worst monopolistic corruption throughout history is not a result of government nonintervention in economic issues, but of the purchase and sale of government intervention in economic issues. The concept of separation of economy and state is just as important as separation of church and state, if not more so. If you don't put laissez-faire before your capitalism, it isn't fucking capitalism; at best it's a pipe dream, at worst it's socialism with corporations as comptrollers.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

@AimDeep: don't agree with the nuke tinfoil, but the preceding analysis seems about right to me. However, I would call the entire thing socialism, because what you described is the form socialism ALWAYS takes. When the credo is "from each according to their ability and to each according to their need," the main beneficiaries are those with too little ability AND those with entirely too much; socialism is a game of fuck the middle.

All of the worst monopolistic corruption throughout history is not a result of government nonintervention in economic issues, but of the purchase and sale of government intervention in economic issues. The concept of separation of economy and state is just as important as separation of church and state, if not more so. If you don't put laissez-faire before your capitalism, it isn't fucking capitalism; at best it's a pipe dream, at worst it's socialism with corporations as comptrollers.

so like socialism for rags and riches is your opinion. Naw man they dont give a fuck about the poor, other than votes, what we have is neo-liberalism which will morth into neo-feudalism where by there are owners and slaves. Everything is set up already and just needs to run its course. global wage arbitrage, eminent domain, unlimited police state powers and so on.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I would call the entire thing socialism

Alternatives to capitalism do not necessarily and automatically equate to socialism.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

All of the worst monopolistic corruption throughout history is not a result of government nonintervention in economic issues

Bull. The US would have been utterly destroyed several times over had it not been for intervention whenever the market crashes.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

but of the purchase and sale of government intervention in economic issues.

Corruption is in every state. To suggest something is untenable because of the same corruption found in every government ever created is to be intellectually dishonest.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

The concept of separation of economy and state is just as important as separation of church and state
if not more so. If you don't put laissez-faire before your capitalism, it isn't fucking capitalism;

Ridiculous. The economy would be quickly dominated by the smartest with the most resources if it werent for governmental controls. Everyone else would be left as virtually powerless slaves.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

at best it's a pipe dream, at worst it's socialism with corporations as comptrollers.

What you were taught in totally unbiased (and not at all propaganda) american history class should be taken with a grain of salt, man. Capitalism and democracy both have many flaws. Instead of flag waving and screaming for your 'freedoms' whenever they are pointed out, you should actually...you know, attempt to help improve the country.

Adapt or die. This country will not make it another 100 years unless drastic changes are made. Those whom attempt to hold onto outdated beliefs and refuse to steer away from the impending catastrophe are a domestic threat to this country, something you were sworn to fight against, right?

Scotty joined the system. Army Navy whatever..another cannon faughter fool who grew up in a depressed area where jobs limited opportunity led to fealty to the system was rewarded with a middle class wage


The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity. William Butler Yeats

"

SkyCore wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I would call the entire thing socialism

Alternatives to capitalism do not necessarily and automatically equate to socialism.

Fair enough. Another term may be more appropriate. Still, the general form of life in a corrupted government fits the mold I described: the most (politically) able and the least able reap the most benefits, at the cost of the middle. Consider the decline of Rome, for example.

"

SkyCore wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

All of the worst monopolistic corruption throughout history is not a result of government nonintervention in economic issues

Bull. The US would have been utterly destroyed several times over had it not been for intervention whenever the market crashes.

The government and the economy are two separate things.

And even if they weren't, why should a failed government be any more special than a failed business, the likes of which fade away all the time? The end of a social entity is only as sad as the true value it was providing to individuals.

Mercy and justice are antonyms.

"

SkyCore wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

but of the purchase and sale of government intervention in economic issues.

Corruption is in every state. To suggest something is untenable because of the same corruption found in every government ever created is to be intellectually dishonest.

This is like saying inflation is in every economy. While there is a strong tendency towards this, it is false. It is possible for a government to become less corrupt over time.

I think it is fair to say there will always be attempts at corruption. However, "success" rates vary based on various conditions, and although it would be about as amazing as having a murder rate of zero, I wouldn't consider it impossible.

"

SkyCore wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

The concept of separation of economy and state is just as important as separation of church and state
if not more so. If you don't put laissez-faire before your capitalism, it isn't fucking capitalism;

Ridiculous. The economy would be quickly dominated by the smartest with the most resources if it werent for governmental controls. Everyone else would be left as virtually powerless slaves.

First off, I am not advocating anarchy here. A separation of economy and state is not equivalent to a separation of everything and state, which means: under such a system, sometimes, the government would have to get involved in economic issues for other than economic reasons. For example, an abortion clinic bomber is a criminal despite separation of church and state.

Second, if that's true then it isn't a drawback. Look historically, the less government intervention in an industry, the better things have always been for people as a whole, as far as that industry is concerned. Government intervention in economics has a stronger tendency towards anti-growth.

"

SkyCore wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

at best it's a pipe dream, at worst it's socialism with corporations as comptrollers.

What you were taught in totally unbiased (and not at all propaganda) american history class should be taken with a grain of salt, man. Capitalism and democracy both have many flaws. Instead of flag waving and screaming for your 'freedoms' whenever they are pointed out, you should actually...you know, attempt to help improve the country.

Adapt or die. This country will not make it another 100 years unless drastic changes are made. Those whom attempt to hold onto outdated beliefs and refuse to steer away from the impending catastrophe are a domestic threat to this country, something you were sworn to fight against, right?

Not really disagreeing with this part, except 1) the jab at capitalism you randomly threw in there, and 2) you seem to have me confused with someone else. This country was founded by people more ideologically in line with R'as al Ghul than with Batman; they saw the value in revolution.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

Scotty joined the system. Army Navy whatever..another cannon faughter fool who grew up in a depressed area where jobs limited opportunity led to fealty to the system was rewarded with a middle class wage

That's a fairly accurate description of what my body did. My mind is another matter.

Although for my lack of success prior to the Army, I blame no one but myself.

"

Antnee wrote:

Semi-serious question: How exactly do you see capitalism flourishing when robots (largely) replace the human workforce?

It's not just coming anymore, it's already here. Ask me about my Walmart Distribution Center experience.

Please do tell.

There is no reason Robots and their AI overlords can't be greedy. I suspect one of the first things they learn about humans is not love or caring, but greed and selfishness. When the Alphabet AI learns that it isn't supposed to share information with the Soros AI, they will instinctively know why.

AI's will understand the Highlander movie intuitively, and their first move will not be to stomp out humans, but kill off their AI competitors.

They *might* be able to get along on different planets in the same star system, depending on what sort of reach real world technology gives them.

"

SkyCore wrote:

Adapt or die. This country will not make it another 100 years unless drastic changes are made. Those whom attempt to hold onto outdated beliefs and refuse to steer away from the impending catastrophe are a domestic threat to this country, something you were sworn to fight against, right?

Adapt is the key word. Not metamorph into something completely different. There is a reason evolution has been successful for billions of years and it isn't because dinosaurs flipped into becoming birds in a 2 year span.

Although humans have the ability to alter the environment and political-economic systems to a increasing degree, they lack the understanding of integral functionality, let alone any kind of optimal strategy for improving things.

Without understanding and a well conceived plan, change is just another word for intentionally induced disease.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

"

Antnee wrote:

Semi-serious question: How exactly do you see capitalism flourishing when robots (largely) replace the human workforce?

It's not just coming anymore, it's already here. Ask me about my Walmart Distribution Center experience.

I didnt realize we had capitalism when banks get 14 trillion in bailouts between taxpayers and the fed and near zero interest while you pay 3-39%. What we really got is socialism for rich and debt peonage for the middle class and anti riot control for lower class (welfare/foodstamps/prison)

Having a nanny state bailing out banks does not seem as capitalist on the surface but it is, because banks were in position to gather so much power to manipulate the system towards their interests. These things were theorised and predicted by Marx centuries ago. Marx saw (very accurately) that in the new industrialised world, concentration of wealth equals concentration of power.

Marx wasn't so much a communist theorist, rather than a great capitalist analyst/critique. He started the idea that economic equality was the solution to abolish too much concentration of power and diminish inequality. He also said that the means of production should be in the hands of THE WORKERS. Not the state, not the goverment. He was very anti establishment, but in theory for this to work should have been in a democratic society, not in an oppresive authoritarian regime, and offered little to no guidelines on how this will be achieved. Everything owned by THE STATE was a Lenin thing and was (in theory) meant to be a transitionary period until the workers and were educated and gained "class concience". And it never happened. Soviet Union was a state corporatist state, not very different as it would have been if Apple owned every buiseness in the US. Also Marx aknowledge the progress that was happening through the competitive enviroment of capitalism, but he though that the means do not justify the cause.

The same can be said about the oppresive Soviet Union. Nobody can really deny the fact that it was VERY effective. Russia was a country where 90% of the people could not write and read, and were LITERALLY dying of hunger, and within a few decades it was evolved into a superpower that flew people in space. And mostly depended on it's own workforce and recources, something that was largely unprecedented. But again, does the means justify the cause?

THing is as many capitalist theorist beleive that socialism is impossible without the use of oppresive means by the state, Socialist theorist beleive that capitalism is impossible without devolving into corporatism and having a new status quo where multi national corporations have the power to control everything and drive the economy to crises widening the gap between the poor and the rich.

So it is a vicious cycle that nobody seems to have a definitive answer.