Very Interesting Comment Left On Telegraph Article

[bogbrush]

Are you a Capitalist?

I reckon so.

[bogbrush]

I not sure how this solves the problem- won't market pressure mean that you new capitalists will be driven to invest in automation themselves, or risk being out competed by their automated competition?

I agree that we can't not improve our productive technologies, but the more successful we are in this, the more we exacerbate the problem- to talk about 'improving productivity' is to talk about eliminating employment- that's what productivity means, doing more with less.

What we have is a 19th century model of employment combined with 21st century production technology and the two are in collision- the moral precept that one must work to earn one's daily bread is being undercut by a drive to eliminate that work as fast as possible.

So we believe in two contradictory principles-

1) That all work should be done by the most efficient and cost effective means possible- irrespective of any social consequences this may incur.

2) That all human beings must work in order to earn a living. Anyone who does not do so is defined as lazy scum.

The first is a project to undermine the viability of the second. So, as a society, we are sending out a double bind command to our people- we demand of them that they must get a job, while at the same time investing huge resources in the ongoing attempt to make sure they can't find one.

And double binds have been shown to drive people crazy.

There's no problem; people could just use the productivity to make new stuff if they were inclined that way. Once upon a time it took loads to make a car, when it doesn't use the time to make something else that people want which they can afford to buy because the cars are now cheap (which they are).

Why that doesn't happen is another subject, but it's certainly not because there are too many people with entrepeneurial instincts..

It's not a sealed up system; there's no limit to the stuff we can make and use and buy, because everything is getting cheaper.

Edited September 17, 2010 by bogbrush

[Meat Puppet]

I not sure how this solves the problem- won't market pressure mean that you new capitalists will be driven to invest in automation themselves, or risk being out competed by their automated competition?

I agree that we can't not improve our productive technologies, but the more successful we are in this, the more we exacerbate the problem- to talk about 'improving productivity' is to talk about eliminating employment- that's what productivity means, doing more with less.

What we have is a 19th century model of employment combined with 21st century production technology and the two are in collision- the moral precept that one must work to earn one's daily bread is being undercut by a drive to eliminate that work as fast as possible.

So we believe in two contradictory principles-

1) That all work should be done by the most efficient and cost effective means possible- irrespective of any social consequences this may incur.

2) That all human beings must work in order to earn a living. Anyone who does not do so is defined as lazy scum.

The first is a project to undermine the viability of the second. So, as a society, we are sending out a double bind command to our people- we demand of them that they must get a job, while at the same time investing huge resources in the ongoing attempt to make sure they can't find one.

And double binds have been shown to drive people crazy.

Superb. Another nail, if one was really needed, in the coffin of utopic theories. Capitalism, within a generation, will be seen as ridiculous as Marxism as a way to organize ourselves. All this nonsense about free markets which humans should obey contrary to their impulses to satisfy some "utility" maximization.

[bogbrush]

Superb. Another nail, if one was really needed, in the coffin of utopic theories. Capitalism, within a generation, will be seen as ridiculous as Marxism as a way to organize ourselves. All this nonsense about free markets which humans should obey contrary to their impulses to satisfy some "utility" maximization.

Back to the fields with you then.

[pandora's box]

World population is about 7 billion and rising.

What fraction of 7 billion is required to provide food, shelter and communication for the world?

What will the rest do?

[bogbrush]

World population is about 7 billion and rising.

What fraction of 7 billion is required to provide food, shelter and communication for the world?

What will the rest do?

Entertain you, cut your hair, invent new gizmos, dig your garden...

I don't know. What would you like them to do for you?

[wonderpup]

There's no problem; eople just use the productivity to make new stuff. Once upon a time it took loads to make a car, when it doesn't use the time to make something else that people want which they can afford to buy because the cars are now cheap (which they are).

It's not a sealed up system; there's no limit to the stuff we can make and use and buy, because everything is getting cheaper.

I like the sound of this- but it reads suspiciously like the economic equivalent of a perpetual motion machine.

There is a limit on what a person with no income can buy and it kicks in at a very low threshhold- are your cars going to be that cheap? Even with near zero labour costs there will be overheads.

I just don't see how, in the long run, we can design ourselves out of the process and still keep the show on the road. Production is great and cheap goods are great- but who is going to buy them?

Can we realistically continue to outsource and automate away jobs on an ever increasing scale and still wind up with a functioning economy?

The problem with a business that is either highly automated or employs mostly overseas workers is that it become's parasitic on the host economy- it takes in profit from the available wages being paid into that economy, but adds no wages of it's own.

So while we want ever increasing productivity from our home grown companies, and they might generate huge profits for their managers and shareholders, if they input no wages locally they are a negative input to the economy.

[bogbrush]

I like the sound of this- but it reads suspiciously like the economic equivalent of a perpetual motion machine.

There is a limit on what a person with no income can buy and it kicks in at a very low threshhold- are your cars going to be that cheap? Even with near zero labour costs there will be overheads.

I just don't see how, in the long run, we can design ourselves out of the process and still keep the show on the road. Production is great and cheap goods are great- but who is going to buy them?

Can we realistically continue to outsource and automate away jobs on an ever increasing scale and still wind up with a functioning economy?

The problem with a business that is either highly automated or employs mostly overseas workers is that it become's parasitic on the host economy- it takes in profit from the available wages being paid into that economy, but adds no wages of it's own.

So while we want ever increasing productivity from our home grown companies, and they might generate huge profits for their managers and shareholders, if they input no wages locally they are a negative input to the economy.

Provided we have proper competition - and that means all the consequences of competition such as large businesses going broke - prices will be forced down as costs fall. That means the real cost of everything falls, and to be fair that's pretty much what we see now, even though there is rampant protectionism which retards the process.

The next step is the real problem; an awful lot of people have to have an inclination towards earning by identifying needs and satisfying them. This is not how it is at all, mainly because it is drummed out of them from an early age.

If - and it's a huge if - these things were there, then we get the happy result productivity promises - more for less. It's not that hard to see though, look at what we have now compared to 100 years agio, and look at the definition of poverty now compared to 30 years ago. Was it possible to be classed as poverty striken in 1980 with a colour TV, mobile phone, whatever?

The final point about outsourcing is really a matter of national boundaries, which are breaking down anyway. Either we end up with a World government or no government but one way or another the idea of a nation with borders is bit by bit becoming obsolte, and what it really uncomfortable is when the boundaries work one way but not another (allowing freedom of trade but imposing higher costs of living).

None of this is a failure of capitalism so far as I can see.

[Boom Boom]

I reckon so.

Despite cowering behind the veil of limited liability?

[Boom Boom]

Provided we have proper competition - and that means all the consequences of competition such as large businesses going broke - prices will be forced down as costs fall. That means the real cost of everything falls, and to be fair that's pretty much what we see now, even though there is rampant protectionism which retards the process.

The next step is the real problem; an awful lot of people have to have an inclination towards earning by identifying needs and satisfying them. This is not how it is at all, mainly because it is drummed out of them from an early age.

If - and it's a huge if - these things were there, then we get the happy result productivity promises - more for less. It's not that hard to see though, look at what we have now compared to 100 years agio, and look at the definition of poverty now compared to 30 years ago. Was it possible to be classed as poverty striken in 1980 with a colour TV, mobile phone, whatever?

The final point about outsourcing is really a matter of national boundaries, which are breaking down anyway. Either we end up with a World government or no government but one way or another the idea of a nation with borders is bit by bit becoming obsolte, and what it really uncomfortable is when the boundaries work one way but not another (allowing freedom of trade but imposing higher costs of living).

None of this is a failure of capitalism so far as I can see.

What exactly is 'proper competition'? Seems a very nebulous term, especially given that the aim of any true Capitalist is to destroy competition and to ingrain a monopoly. What you seem incapable of understanding is that the equilibrium of a free market will always decay as the winners in the market use their success to tighten their grip. Monopolies (actual or defacto) are a guaranteed consequence of free markets. In allowing the state to intervene to control the formation of market monopolies we essentially accept the one monopoly of the state in preference to the numerous monopolies the free market would birth.

[MarkG]

What you seem incapable of understanding is that the equilibrium of a free market will always decay as the winners in the market use their success to tighten their grip.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, in the EVIL FREE MARKET, Standard Oil saw its market share decline and the price of oil massively decline over the time period that it was an EVIL MONOPOLIST.

You see, in a free market, if you want to have a monopoly, you have to buy out all your competitors, who can then just start up a new business competing with you in the firm knowledge that you'll have to pay over the odds to buy them out.

Only when government prevents new competition can you actually create and sustain an unnatural monopoly (i.e. one where larger companies don't benefit from economies of scale to bring down prices). Yet idiots continue to demand that government interfere in the market to prevent EVIL FREE MARKET MONOPOLIES.

[MarkG]

You think this doesn't happen already? What do you see as being 'of value'? What people will pay for?

The assumption of this thread is that there will be absolutely nothing that the, say, 1% of useful people will choose pay the other 99% for. Yet we're supposed to believe that the 1% will continue to work in order to keep the 99% in plasma TVs and nachos when they're just using up resources that the 1% could otherwise use more profitably.

Ain't gonna happen.

[Boom Boom]

Meanwhile, back in the real world, in the EVIL FREE MARKET, Standard Oil saw its market share decline and the price of oil massively decline over the time period that it was an EVIL MONOPOLIST.

You see, in a free market, if you want to have a monopoly, you have to buy out all your competitors, who can then just start up a new business competing with you in the firm knowledge that you'll have to pay over the odds to buy them out.

Only when government prevents new competition can you actually create and sustain an unnatural monopoly (i.e. one where larger companies don't benefit from economies of scale to bring down prices). Yet idiots continue to demand that government interfere in the market to prevent EVIL FREE MARKET MONOPOLIES.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil#Monopoly_charges_and_anti-trust_litigation

About the worst example you could have used to try and make your point.

[Boom Boom]

The assumption of this thread is that there will be absolutely nothing that the, say, 1% of useful people will choose pay the other 99% for. Yet we're supposed to believe that the 1% will continue to work in order to keep the 99% in plasma TVs and nachos when they're just using up resources that the 1% could otherwise use more profitably.

Ain't gonna happen.

Damn right. The 99% will eventually realise what a rough deal they have and revolt. The gilded existence of your 1% has a price, and that price is not pushing the rest of society too far.

[MarkG]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil#Monopoly_charges_and_anti-trust_litigation

About the worst example you could have used to try and make your point.

Maybe you could try reading your own link.

Standard Oil could only maintain its market share by undercutting the competition or buying them out, which is the only way to sustain an artificial monopoly in a free market. When they stopped undercutting the competition or buying them out, their market share collapsed.

What part of that is so hard to understand?

Or are you seriously complaining that Standard Oil selling oil for below their cost of production was a bad thing for the American people?

[MarkG]

Damn right. The 99% will eventually realise what a rough deal they have and revolt. The gilded existence of your 1% has a price, and that price is not pushing the rest of society too far.

LOL.

So you're saying that in a world where only 1% of the people are productive enough to be of any use whatsoever, and they're having most of their wealth stolen from them to keep the feckless sitting on their couch with nachos and beer, that the feckless are going to 'revolt' against the people who are keeping them alive?

Back in the real world, the 1% would go on strike rather than be enslaved.

[Boom Boom]

Maybe you could try reading your own link.

Standard Oil could only maintain its market share by undercutting the competition or buying them out, which is the only way to sustain an artificial monopoly in a free market. When they stopped undercutting the competition or buying them out, their market share collapsed.

What part of that is so hard to understand?

Or are you seriously complaining that Standard Oil selling oil for below their cost of production was a bad thing for the American people?

Not in the short-term, but Standard Oil did not act in this way to help the consumer, they wanted to freeze out competition...

"Rebates, preferences, and other discriminatory practices in favor of the combination by railroad companies; restraint and monopolization by control of pipe lines, and unfair practices against competing pipe lines; contracts with competitors in restraint of trade; unfair methods of competition, such as local price cutting at the points where necessary to suppress competition; [and] espionage of the business of competitors, the operation of bogus independent companies, and payment of rebates on oil, with the like intent."

...the fact that they ultimately failed is neither here nor there.

Edited September 18, 2010 by Boom Boom

[Boom Boom]

LOL.

So you're saying that in a world where only 1% of the people are productive enough to be of any use whatsoever, and they're having most of their wealth stolen from them to keep the feckless sitting on their couch with nachos and beer, that the feckless are going to 'revolt' against the people who are keeping them alive?

Back in the real world, the 1% would go on strike rather than be enslaved.

Another twit drunk on Ayn Rand kool aid. Let them go on strike, indeed, let them amass on some secluded island on which they can bask in their collective magnificence. Meanwhile, the world will still turn, and they will be replaced. Their sense of being irreplaceable is naive hubris.

[MarkG]

Not in the short-term, but Standard Oil did not act in this way to help the consumer, they wanted to freeze out competition...

Of course they did!!!!! Because the only way to maintain a monopoly in a free market is to sell things that people want for less than the competition!

Why do you think that people are better off if the government _FORCES THEM TO PAY MORE_ for the things they want to buy?

Edited September 18, 2010 by MarkG

[MarkG]

Meanwhile, the world will still turn, and they will be replaced.

BY WHO?

The whole premise of this thread is that we're supposedly heading into a world where only 1% of the population can do anything of value and the other 99% will be useless. If the other 99% are useless, how could they get off their ass and do something useful? And if they could get off their ass and do something useful, why wouldn't they be doing it?

[Boom Boom]

Of course they did!!!!! Because the only way to maintain a monopoly in a free market is to sell things that people want for less than the competition!

Why do you think that people are better off if the government _FORCES THEM TO PAY MORE_ for the things they want to buy?

Or do what Standard Oil did which is sell at a loss to destroy competition and then jack the prices up. So whilst consumers in one area got a good deal for a while, they'd pay for it in the long run.

[Boom Boom]

BY WHO?

The whole premise of this thread is that we're supposedly heading into a world where only 1% of the population can do anything of value and the other 99% will be useless. If the other 99% are useless, how could they get off their ass and do something useful? And if they could get off their ass and do something useful, why wouldn't they be doing it?

You have it wrong. It's more like only 1% will be needed as technology will have drastically cut the need for human labour. You choose to attach pejoratives to the other 99% because you have an ideological worldview which equates joblessness with laziness.

[Alan B'Stard MP]

What we need is to allow 99% of the population to write their own IOUs and hand it the 1% in payment for their goods - then pray they actually don't try to cash it in.

Problem solved.

[Saberu]

Was it possible to be classed as poverty striken in 1980 with a colour TV, mobile phone, whatever?

Eh I don't think having a TV or mobile phone means you are not in poverty. Almost everyone in China has a mobile phone, everyone who wants one that is which is almost everyone. Many people have two.

For 60-70 pounds in China, if you ignore the famous brands you can get a phone which is as good as 200 pound phones in the UK and just as good quality. These phones all have Chinese instant messengers on them (similar to msn) and it costs almost nothing (maybe 2-3 pounds/ month) to constantly stay 'online' on the phones.

China is a huge country yet their mobile phone services are 10x cheaper than ours, and their phones are cheaper too.

The way I would measure poverty is to look at how many hours a person works, and how much of their income is required to pay towards essential living costs like rent and food and how much job fulfillment they get.

A factory worker in China might earn 200-300 pounds/ month, a college teacher just 150/ month. But the factory worker works 4x more hours than the teacher (e.g. 60 vs 15), and their work is very damaging to their health. Which one is in poverty? I would definitely say it's the factory worker.

[Saberu]

Monopolies (actual or defacto) are a guaranteed consequence of free markets.

This isn't true, there are many competitive marketplaces. Monopolisation of markets in my view is a problem when you have branded goods and the barrier to entry is that many consumers may only buy trusted brands and you'd need a big advertising budget to get the necessary velocity to enter the market.