Is Capitalism Unsustainable?

[SWP's back]

It is to a degree. I don't think 7 year-olds will be going up chimneys anytime soon or that the mills will be re-opening. But the point was that some of the safeguards introduced to protect ordinary people by the Atlee government and since are being reversed. Inequality has and financial insecurity has increased measurably. Public utilities, rather than being not-for-profit, exist to serve shareholders rather than their customers. A fellow City fan was complaining that the off-peak train fare on the line they use has increased by over 40% in two years.

Like you, I'm a reasonably well-off professional who should, on all counts, be a Tory voter but I'm beginning to fear for society. We're facing a political situation very similar to the 1940's, when the public got fed up of austerity and going without, although that was largely due to the war rather than economic mismanagement. That's why Atlee got a landslide in the 1945 election and starts to explain why Corbyn, a man not fit to lick Atlee's boots, could yet end up in power. People want change and they're prepared to overlook his many faults in order to get that.

Don't disagree with that and most of those issues could be rectified inside one term of parliament.

But issue was the Victorian comment, poverty as defined now is very different to how it was defined 130 years ago. Mainly thanks to capitalism funnily enough.

 

[GortonBlue62]

Eventually, yes, it's unsustainable.

But it's got 100 years or so left to run imo. Maybe 200. What makes its demise inevitable is that eventually there will no longer be any need - in fact no room - for any human endeavour. No work humans can do will be of any value to anyone. And therefore no-one will voluntarily pay anyone else to do anything. No-one will be able to earn any money by doing work.

Before that point is finally reached, we'll need a different method of wealth redistribution, since the number of "have's" will be so vastly outnumbered by the "have not's" that the whole system will break down.

You seem to have no understanding at all about human nature. (Are you a socialist?)

Suppose, for the sake of argument, we reached a point where all our needs were met; where we wanted for nothing. I guarantee you some '****' would still be trying to out do his neighbour by having a fitter wife, a faster car, a bigger house, a better set of golf clubs, etc. It's what we do. It's why we're exchanging ideas on this forum and not sitting around a fire in a cave scratching our arses waiting for spring. We will never be satisfied; that's human nature and it's a good thing, a very good thing.

(You can't distribute wealth if someone isn't busting a gut to create it in the first place, cf. communism).

 

[SWP's back]

This just gets better and better... a Financial Adviser who doesn't recognise or understand how the banking sector have received State support in the last 10 years.

No, the difference is I do actually fully understand.

 

[jacko74]

You're on a sticky wicket mate, honestly. SWP may be many things, but a financial numpty, he is not.

Well I think I'll take my chances at not using an FA who's proved beyond doubt that he doesn't understand the concept of true free market capitalism,

 

[Chippy_boy]

You seem to have no understanding at all about human nature. (Are you a socialist?)

Suppose, for the sake of argument, we reached a point where all our needs were met; where we wanted for nothing. I guarantee you some '****' would still be trying to out do his neighbour by having a fitter wife, a faster car, a bigger house, a better set of golf clubs, etc. It's what we do. It's why we're exchanging ideas on this forum and not sitting around a fire in a cave scratching our arses waiting for spring. We will never be satisfied; that's human nature and it's a good thing, a very good thing.

(You can't distribute wealth if someone isn't busting a gut to create it in the first place, cf. communism).

No mate, I am as far a right wing Tory as you will find on these forums!

I've just spent many, many hours on the motorways alone with my thoughts, pondering on the future and how things will ultimately be. It seems to me that (overwhelmingly) desirable that capitalism may be for the next decades, *eventually* there will come a point where it doesn't work.

If I might be so bold to suggest it, I think what your assessment overlooks is that *eventually* humans won't be any good at anything, compared to the machines that we've created. When computers can make far better business decisions than any human ever could; robots can perform every conceivable task better than any human ever could - when that point is arrived at, as it surely one day will be, then the "****" wont have any ability nor opportunity to outdo his neighbour. There won't be enough opportunities for 11 billion people to create value. For a few million perhaps, but you cannot have say 300m people in work earning a fortune and 10.7bn out of work, on punitive levels of benefits. It doesn't work - there would be civil unrest long before we arrived at that point.

That's why there will have to be effectively a communist global central government which distributes wealth equally.

IMO ;-)

 

[SWP's back]

Well I think I'll take my chances at not using an FA who's proved beyond doubt that he doesn't understand the concept of true free market capitalism,

You really don't understand English do you.

I've not even mentioned free market capitalism. I've disagreed with your views on the banking system being socialist.

Credentials? Or just jog on and stop making a show of yourself. It's cringeworthy so far.

 

[remember arthur mann]

No mate, I am as far a right wing Tory as you will find on these forums!

I've just spent many, many hours on the motorways alone with my thoughts, pondering on the future and how things will ultimately be. It seems to me that (overwhelmingly) desirable that capitalism may be for the next decades, *eventually* there will come a point where it doesn't work.

If I might be so bold to suggest it, I think what your assessment overlooks is that *eventually* humans won't be any good at anything, compared to the machines that we've created. When computers can make far better business decisions than any human ever could; robots can perform every conceivable task better than any human ever could - when that point is arrived at, as it surely one day will be, then the "****" wont have any ability nor opportunity to outdo his neighbour. There won't be enough opportunities for 11 billion people to create value. For a few million perhaps, but you cannot have say 300m people in work earning a fortune and 10.7bn out of work, on punitive levels of benefits. It doesn't work - there would be civil unrest. That's why there will have to be effectively a communist global central government which distributes wealth equally.

IMO ;-)

 

[Chippy_boy]

HAHAHAHHAHAHHA.

I know, it makes your head explode! But it's an inexorable conclusion I think. *Eventually* there will be no need for humans at all. We're bounded by our own biology whereas computers and machines are not. We will ultimately be as insignificant in the functioning and running of the planet as ants are today.

The hope is that the machines we've created will value human life more than other animal life. If they decide that's illogical, then we're in for a rough ride, Terminator style!

 

[GortonBlue62]

No mate, I am as far a right wing Tory as you will find on these forums!

I've just spent many, many hours on the motorways alone with my thoughts, pondering on the future and how things will ultimately be. It seems to me that (overwhelmingly) desirable that capitalism may be for the next decades, *eventually* there will come a point where it doesn't work.

If I might be so bold to suggest it, I think what your assessment overlooks is that *eventually* humans won't be any good at anything, compared to the machines that we've created. When computers can make far better business decisions than any human ever could; robots can perform every conceivable task better than any human ever could - when that point is arrived at, as it surely one day will be, then the "****" wont have any ability nor opportunity to outdo his neighbour. There won't be enough opportunities for 11 billion people to create value. For a few million perhaps, but you cannot have say 300m people in work earning a fortune and 10.7bn out of work, on benefits. It doesn't work - there would be civil unrest. That's why there will have to be effectively a communist global central government which distributes wealth equally.

IMO ;-)

Our friend (the ****) will invent a better machine and put his competitor out of business.

I remember in the early 70's the predictions were all about a future where we wouldn't have enough work to do and we would be a leisure based society. They were all wrong. People are working longer and harder than ever before and they are choosing to do it. Work fulfills a basic human need. Ideally we would work at something we love, but even doing a shit job to pay for a family holiday or new car is reason enough to get out of bed in the morning.

Relax. Socrates said that wisdom is learning what not to worry about.

I'm worried about the derby on Sunday. Capitalism and democracy will ensure a safe prosperous future.

 

[inbetween]

It is to a degree. I don't think 7 year-olds will be going up chimneys anytime soon or that the mills will be re-opening. But the point was that some of the safeguards introduced to protect ordinary people by the Atlee government and since are being reversed. Inequality has and financial insecurity has increased measurably. Public utilities, rather than being not-for-profit, exist to serve shareholders rather than their customers. A fellow City fan was complaining that the off-peak train fare on the line they use has increased by over 40% in two years.

Like you, I'm a reasonably well-off professional who should, on all counts, be a Tory voter but I'm beginning to fear for society. We're facing a political situation very similar to the 1940's, when the public got fed up of austerity and going without, although that was largely due to the war rather than economic mismanagement. That's why Atlee got a landslide in the 1945 election and starts to explain why Corbyn, a man not fit to lick Atlee's boots, could yet end up in power. People want change and they're prepared to overlook his many faults in order to get that.

People do not want change, they were offered change at the last election and the majority of people chose a Tory government which lets not forget was running the worst Tory campaign ever seen.

What Labour really wants is the capitalist system we have now where the rich just pays for everything that everyone else refuses to pay for.

Unfortunately the reality is that the rich cannot pay for everything and quite simply everyone will have to pay for it, that is the demand of a socialist system they won't tell you about and it is certainly not a vote winner!