I Found An Odd Term In The Latest Edition Of The Economist Today.

[winkie]

Selfridges tried to charge me sixty quid to change a watch battery.

So I watched a youtube video on how to do it, got a battery for £1.50 off ebay (inc postage) and fixed it in 3 minutes.

Get the point?

I get the point....they can only charge £60 because they know there are people who will gladly pay £60 for an instant service at a price they can afford.....cash rich, time and effort poor.

[PopGun]

Hmmm. Welcome to unfettered capitalism, sonny. There will be a large number of losers and a very small number of winners and according to the economics textbooks I read, that's not a design fault. The only thing standing between you and obsolescence is the state - effectively reigning in capitalism's excessive and destructive tendencies. I wish this were better understood in Conservative government who don't seem to regard their own ideal as ultimately flawed. It is flawed because when you are on the scrapheap, you can no longer afford the very goods and services you were designed to consume. It is unsustainable.

Communism is the logical opposite, where the state controls everything and the small number of winners are bureaucrats (instead of entrepreneurs). This was shown to have been a failure in the USSR because of the practical implications of such demand management - without computers of course. Communism is not synonymous with a jackboot state (which is how its main detractors describe communism). Communism has been shown to be reasonably successful when implemented on a micro scale (like a Kibbutz) but latter examples ultimately succumbed to easy credit in the 1980s which led to eventual destruction too.

This is also why it is bitterly ironic that Maggie Thatcher's dotage and funeral was paid for by the state which was an obsolete institution in her mantra. If she had truly lived by her own creed, she should have allowed herself to have been thrown on the scrapheap when she stopped being useful to the capitalist engine.

Unfettered capitalism has shown itself to be a busted flush and I am still gobsmacked that it is the Conservatives of all people advocating direct market intervention in a free market in the form of Help To Sell Help To Buy. It is fundamentally against all free market capitalism stands for.

That is basically how bloody revolutions begin of course. The only sensible solution is social democracy or regulated capitalism. Germany does this, Japan does this. The US doesn't, the UK doesn't. I see a pattern there.

+1

[cybernoid]

Because it was true.

That shows how advances in technology increase productivity. There was an amusing thread where someone was trying to tell me that chart had something to do with trickle down instead. And no that doesn't mean fewer jobs either. And so what if it did. Which it doesn't.

[Traktion]

Has anyone thought of limiting technology so that more people can have jobs?

[PopGun]

That shows how advances in technology increase productivity. There was an amusing thread where someone was trying to tell me that chart had something to do with trickle down instead. And no that doesn't mean fewer jobs either. And so what if it did. Which it doesn't.

so...

where's the wage increases for the workers who use/deploy or indeed maintain this technology?! Strange how we still work 5/6 day weeks, isn't it?

[Mr Jib Fingers]

Hmmm. Welcome to unfettered capitalism, sonny.

I see this argument a lot and I really don't get it. Unfettered capitalism implies a market free from state interference, but over the past 70 years that is the opposite to what we have had as governments have grown in size and scope.

Are people really trying to argue that use of land or currency is completely free and lack of any regulation has causes the current "crisis of capitalism"?

Someone help me out here.

As far as I see it the main engine of redistribution towards the 1% has been the state and as it has grown then so has the wealth of the richest in comparison to everyone else.

[Traktion]

While there is more competition for labour, there is less competition for capital.

There is less competition for capital, because there are more monopolies controlled by those with capital.

Why has this occurred? Because of the biggest monopoly of them all - the monopoly on violence by the state.

The state has allowed/enabled:

- Monopolies on land (read: rent seeking for the modern landed gentry)

- Monopolies on money (read: bailouts for the rich)

- Monopolies on ideas (read: patents and copyright)

- Monopolies on enforcement (read: police and military, ordered from the top down)

- Monopolies on employment (read: regulation/barriers to entry)

The list goes on, all enabled by the state monopoly on violence.

Meanwhile, labour has been displaced through global competition and automation, with the fruits of it being taken by the wealthy at the top (due to the above).

Competition is good, but it has to apply to everyone. Otherwise, those not subject to competition will reap the rewards at the expense of everyone else.

The alternative - no competition anywhere - will lead nowhere pleasant either. It will just lead to stagnation, entrenchment and yet more violence to enforce it.

[Errol]

Hmmm. Welcome to unfettered capitalism, sonny.

Where? The UK/US haven't had anything even approaching capitalism for a very, very long time.

[Bloo Loo]

Productivity allows us to compete with the Globally cheap labour pools abroad.

Of course, those pooles themselves ultimately get the productivity bug too as new labour pools appear even cheaper.

SIngapore used to be the place of cheap labour...today, wages are similar to here...they need to equip up as much as we do to compete.

It therefore is not capitalism that is at fault, but the promise foisted on us by GLOBALISTS.

[wonderpup]

Has anyone thought of limiting technology so that more people can have jobs?

I started a thread asking this exact question recently- it's interesting because almost everyone agrees that we should not do this- but almost everyone also agrees that everyone should work for a living.

So we are all in favor of labor saving technology- but at the same time we strongly disapprove of people who don't have jobs.

The joke is that we want the labor saving technology because we believe in the value of efficiency- and then we take the people that the technology replaces and force them to do work at the taxpayers expense via Workfare.

So if a private business ends up paying more tax so that the state can then re-employ the workers it has sacked due to labor saving technology- are we making progress?

[Executive Sadman]

so...

where's the wage increases for the workers who use/deploy or indeed maintain this technology?! Strange how we still work 5/6 day weeks, isn't it?

Transferred to people not to work/produce (retirees, benefits)

Transferred to people to work real sloppily (civil servants)

Transferred to people to do unproductive 'work' (banksters)

[wonderpup]

WTF is the op on about

Potatoes aren't like skills

And there you have it

Really? You don't think that the market value of potatoes is influenced by how many potatoes are available? I'm fairly certain that if it rained spuds tonight that Tesco would have a hard job selling any tomorrow- so clearly the market value is influenced by the supply.

The same thing applies to skills- the more people there are who have a given skillset, the less bargaining power those who have such skills have.

Which means that we cannot increase the bargaining power of skilled labor by creating more skilled labor- a reality even an economist might be expected to grasp. So this idea that we can solve the weak bargaining power of the labor force by skilling everyone up is flawed for the blindingly obvious reason that the more skilled people there are looking for work, the less bargaining power each one will have.

The real value of an education lies in the fact that not everyone has one- so like any other currency as the number of degree educated candidates in your field of expertise goes up- you personal bargaining power declines.

Edited November 6, 2013 by wonderpup

[wonderpup]

I see this argument a lot and I really don't get it. Unfettered capitalism implies a market free from state interference, but over the past 70 years that is the opposite to what we have had as governments have grown in size and scope.

Are people really trying to argue that use of land or currency is completely free and lack of any regulation has causes the current "crisis of capitalism"?

Someone help me out here.

As far as I see it the main engine of redistribution towards the 1% has been the state and as it has grown then so has the wealth of the richest in comparison to everyone else.

+1

What we have is not unfettered Capitalism-we have unfettered Crony Capitalism. Pure Capitalism is like Pure Socialism- both might work were it not for human nature.

[alexw]

That shows how advances in technology increase productivity. There was an amusing thread where someone was trying to tell me that chart had something to do with trickle down instead. And no that doesn't mean fewer jobs either. And so what if it did. Which it doesn't.

Errr it does have something to do with trickle-down theory.

That you are incapable of understanding how the whole trickle down ideology, has played a very large part in shaping the laws that have resulted in the disconnect between productivity and wages, does not mean that that link does not exist. It simply means that your blind and slavish following of neo-liberal ideology means that you are cannot accept nor understand such a concept.

[wonderpup]

That shows how advances in technology increase productivity.

What it shows is that if you are a worker then increasing your productivity will no longer make you better off. What it will do is make you more expendable- unless demand increases with output.

But since demand is a function of wages this will not happen.

So we have an inflection point at which any increase in productivity becomes a negative from labors perspective, since they gain nothing on the upside and risk losing their jobs on the downside due to the declining need for labor overall.

[Traktion]

I started a thread asking this exact question recently- it's interesting because almost everyone agrees that we should not do this- but almost everyone also agrees that everyone should work for a living.

So we are all in favor of labor saving technology- but at the same time we strongly disapprove of people who don't have jobs.

The joke is that we want the labor saving technology because we believe in the value of efficiency- and then we take the people that the technology replaces and force them to do work at the taxpayers expense via Workfare.

So if a private business ends up paying more tax so that the state can then re-employ the workers it has sacked due to labor saving technology- are we making progress?

I think thecrashingisles was being ironic!

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=194386&view=findpost&p=909422119

Why do you keep posting the same thing over and over again with minor variations?

Edited November 6, 2013 by Traktion

[cybernoid]

so...

where's the wage increases for the workers who use/deploy or indeed maintain this technology?! Strange how we still work 5/6 day weeks, isn't it?

People are paid for their time. Technology allows for more productivity in the same amount of time.

[cybernoid]

Errr it does have something to do with trickle-down theory.

That you are incapable of understanding how the whole trickle down ideology, has played a very large part in shaping the laws that have resulted in the disconnect between productivity and wages, does not mean that that link does not exist. It simply means that your blind and slavish following of neo-liberal ideology means that you are cannot accept nor understand such a concept.

Respond sensibly to the points raised on that other thread if you have something to say about it, you were unable to produce a rational argument before maybe you should try again.

[cybernoid]

What it shows is that if you are a worker then increasing your productivity will no longer make you better off. What it will do is make you more expendable- unless demand increases with output.

No it doesnt.

[alexw]

Respond sensibly to the points raised on that other thread if you have something to say about it, you were unable to produce a rational argument before maybe you should try again.

As I said you are incapable of understanding. I posted rational arguments. That you cannot understand that they are rational arguments means that you do not believe they are rational arguments.

Ask others here "has trickle down theory played a significant part in breaking the link between wages and productivity" and see what answer you get.

If i'm wrong they won't understand either, just as you don't.

[Mr Jib Fingers]

+1

What we have is not unfettered Capitalism-we have unfettered Crony Capitalism. Pure Capitalism is like Pure Socialism- both might work were it not for human nature.

So since it doesn't appear to be the free market that isn't working, rather a problem with corporations, bankers and rentiers using the state to extract cash from everyone else, why don't we concerntrate on reforming the latter whilst leaving the bit that does work alone?

It just seems like an excuse for the statists to make yet another power grab which it should be obvious by now won't solve the problems.

[cybernoid]

As I said you are incapable of understanding. I posted rational arguments. That you cannot understand that they are rational arguments means that you do not believe they are rational arguments.

Use the other thread if you have something rational to say. You repeat others opinions without understanding the rationale behind them, assuming there is any. I use simple examples that you have been unable to refute, you just sound ridiculous. Go ahead if you can on that thread, don't derail this one.

[wonderpup]

I think thecrashingisles was being ironic!

Trying to be ironic-I know - and failing because-as usual- he has not bothered to actually read what I have posted. I did not in fact say that we should limit technology to preserve jobs, I simply posed the question should we? in the hope that it might stimulate an interesting debate, which it did.

The problem with thecrashingisles is that his contributions consist mainly of popping up on a thread, making a content free ad hominem attack then dropping out of the conversation again- it's like the online version of ringing someone's doorbell and running away- a game that most ten year olds have long since outgrown.

But it keeps him amused I suppose.

Edited November 6, 2013 by wonderpup

[wonderpup]

No it doesnt.

So a diagram that consists of two lines that first run in rough paralell and then at a given point in time noticeably diverge does not in fact demonstrate a divergence between those two lines?

How so?

[SNACR]

Teaching people skills won't help.

Give a man a fish and he can feed himself for one day, give him a laptop and access to the internet and he can do any bloody-thing he wants to!

Technology has made us replaceable, not by technology, but by another human with the same technology. Gone are the days of a worker using his 20 years of experience to pressure for better wages, just sack him and replace him with a low skilled worker guided by technology.

I could do open heart surgery with the right youtube clip.

I suspect that's probably not as outlandish as it sounds. Although probably best to only practice in yourself.

I think a lot of people who have the ability to really harness the internet to learn new skills, source replacement parts to effect repairs and make better informed purchasing decisions have soared ahead. However, having said that, there's a load of people that can't even use it to order the correct cartridge for their printer.

The thing is with internet/youtube information that facilitates people taking on tasks, they'd normally have paid for, is will a farmer swap some meat for a video on how to replace an iphone screen that the creator of the video has made freely available to all?