Is Capitalism Flawed?

[BillyBobZorton]

Capitalism is the best system we've found thus far to organize societies. The malice and competitive nature of mankind is bet confined in the capitalist system. Capitalism leads to great inequality and other problems, but the alternatives aren't any better.

We can't have an ideal world, but we can improve it. The banking system is a scam, we can improve the rules of the capitalism with decentralized technologies such as bitcoin.

If you have better alternatives, then im willing to hear that.

[thejaytiesto]

Is Capitalism flawed? I used to believe that Capitalism solves issues, but if I really look around me, it actually only creates more issues that were not here before.

> There are many rich people with tons of capital but there are more unemployed people that will not have access to that

> People are living in luxury mansions and driving very expensive car, and then kids are starving in other places

> Profits of companies is going up, but real wages going down, people are living paycheck to paycheck

> Everyone is in debt, nobody has any savings, and most people are working part time jobs

> Nobody has a house, nobody can afford one, yet real estate speculators own thousands of them

> Banks have trillions of $ of money, but they still charge you 50$ / transaction because of their greed

> People have no future prospects, no career opportunity, they just live from paycheck to paycheck trying to pay off the debt and buy some shit GMO food filled with poison, because why sell healthy food to the public when the GMO food is more profitable?


It looks to me like Capitalism is flawed. Nobody has any money and everyone is suffering. I think a universal income must be implemented as fast as possible.

Capitalism creates great income inequality, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. It is a scientifically proven those who make $75,000+ annually are essentially as content with their lives as multimillionaires. The reasons for this are many, but mostly because the rich work more hours... even though they have more, they spend way more time working and therefore have far less time to actually enjoy the fruits of their labor.

I agree with what has being said about how capitalism is the best we've found thus far and I honestly don't know any alternatives, but this "the rich work more hours" narrative is one of the biggest bullshits ever. The rich work smarter, not harder.
The working class spends most of their time working. Established rich families just live off dividends. If you have 10 millions in the bank, you can sit on your ass all day as you get dividends from safe stocks. That is what all these rich kids from instagram do. Oh and now they even get more money by flaunting their wealth on social media since these rich guys get tons of followers which leads to ad revenue.

The people that go from nothing to rich are the ones that spend the most hours trying to figure out a way to get rich (assuming you just don't luck out), but after that, once you are established with enough millions, you can live off passive income and do fuck nothing if you don't want to.

I work my ass off all day, then spend the little amount of free time I have researching crypto stuff trying to get rich. I laugh at the idea of all these rich cunts working more time than me.

[moedasdofuturo]

I agree that in capitalism it has all this, but it is still the best system

[deisik]

What is UBI specifically?

Who is going to pay it and why helping the poor this way is going to change anything? I guess it should be as cleas as day that it won't make them rich. We already have social benefits to be paid to the unemployed and disabled (obviously, different countries have different systems in place), but this is utterly inconsequential to either capitalism or communism. That is to say, these benefits don't change anything in particular in the social and economic order of the state. So how exactly is this universal income going to change the current lay of the land?

Automation is displacing many jobs.

If there are no jobs, there is no income. The corporations will have nobody to sell their products and services too. It's the tragedy of capitalism.

Worker income shrinks due to greedy corporations, and then their profits shrink too, since nobody is left to buy their stuff.

The only solution is UBI, the corporations should pay a % of their profits into an UBI system which gets redistributed across the people.

It could work perfectly, everyone wins in the end.

I certainly understand your apprehensions

But I guess we are far from it (provided we ever come close to). Automation leads to unemployment in certain fields, this goes without saying. But so far, it has also led to the creation of more jobs in a lot of other fields and also certain fields themselves. Introduction of computer made quite a few people jobless at first but then it gave rise to whole new sectors of economy (computer engineering, software development, telecommunications, etc). As to me, there is no need for the introduction of such a system

[Hydrogen]

On the topic of jobs & automation.

Automation kills many more jobs than it creates.

No one wants to admit that but it is true.

Slavery/indentured servitude/sweatshops/prison labor also kills more jobs than it creates.

As does outsourcing/offshoring of jobs, etc. As that tends to be an exploitive practice.

[deisik]

On the topic of jobs & automation.

Automation kills many more jobs than it creates.

No one wants to admit that but it is true

Can you prove that?

So far I haven't yet seen anyone coming up with strong facts actually supporting this claim. On the other hand, automation itself requires higher division of labor and that directly supports the opposite claim, i.e. it contributes to creation of more jobs. Basically, you can't have it both ways. Either you accept that automation as such requires more advanced technology itself (but that necessarily means more people are required to support it) or this is not actually an improvement or advancement in technology (since it destroys more jobs than creates). With your other claims I basically agree

[marky89]

It looks to me like Capitalism is flawed. Nobody has any money and everyone is suffering. I think a universal income must be implemented as fast as possible.

Capitalism is certainly flawed. The end goal is, in fact, inequality. If the goal for capitalists is capital accumulation, the result for the majority of the population is rent extraction (paying rent for housing, living on wages rather than having access to capital, paying interest due to no access to money). In this way, capitalists accumulate and wage slaves as a whole become poorer and poorer.

Part of the problem in these discussions is that capitalists conflate "competition" with "capitalism." I am not against markets at all; free markets and competition are vital. And it is true competition which can actually address inequality, because in the context of free markets, prices tend to approach the cost of production (due to many competitive producers vying for market share). The problem under capitalism is that 1) governments are used to enforce monopolies and 2) even absent governments, private militaries hired by landowners are used to enforce monopolies. True competition under capitalism is impossible.

[freeyourmind]

On the topic of jobs & automation.

Automation kills many more jobs than it creates.

No one wants to admit that but it is true

Can you prove that?

So far I haven't yet seen anyone coming up with strong facts actually supporting this claim. On the other hand, automation itself requires higher division of labor and that directly supports the opposite claim, i.e. it contributes to creation of more jobs. Basically, you can't have it both ways. Either you accept that automation as such requires more advanced technology itself (but that necessarily means more people are required to support it) or this is not actually an improvement or advancement in technology (since it destroys more jobs than creates). With your other claims I basically agree

I didn't search the web to get you proof, but just logically, if we look at a modern production facility or factory, many stages of production are automated, using programmable robots to do repetitive tasks.  Sure there's a team that needs to program and maintain those robots, and although it's a much more intelligent team, the number of general labour jobs that are replaced are much greater.

For example, you could replace 500 general labour jobs with robots and maybe a team of 20 engineers.

I don't believe there's anything wrong with automation replacing jobs.  We just need to aim for more intelligent jobs or have a more socialist approach where it's not absolutely necessary for everyone to have a job and earn revenue.  Robots work 24/7 and don't need to get paid or take breaks.  That wealth can be shared.

[deisik]

On the topic of jobs & automation.

Automation kills many more jobs than it creates.

No one wants to admit that but it is true

Can you prove that?

So far I haven't yet seen anyone coming up with strong facts actually supporting this claim. On the other hand, automation itself requires higher division of labor and that directly supports the opposite claim, i.e. it contributes to creation of more jobs. Basically, you can't have it both ways. Either you accept that automation as such requires more advanced technology itself (but that necessarily means more people are required to support it) or this is not actually an improvement or advancement in technology (since it destroys more jobs than creates). With your other claims I basically agree

I didn't search the web to get you proof, but just logically, if we look at a modern production facility or factory, many stages of production are automated, using programmable robots to do repetitive tasks.  Sure there's a team that needs to program and maintain those robots, and although it's a much more intelligent team, the number of general labour jobs that are replaced are much greater.

For example, you could replace 500 general labour jobs with robots and maybe a team of 20 engineers

This is what people typically say

They innocently assume that all this automation appears out of thin air like banks are creating money. But industrial production is not banking. All these robots have to be first designed and then manufactured somewhere, and I promise you that somewhere deep down the line there will always be quite a lot of human labor involved. To get an idea, look at the history of automotive industry. It seems like it destroyed quite a few jobs in some sectors but it created many more jobs in other sectors as well as created entirely new ones. It's the same with automation and robotics, they just move human labor to other fields, and since they are more complex technologies, this necessarily means that more human labor is required in other fields. In other words, you can't escape the complexity loop

[RealBitcoin]

This is what people typically say

They innocently assume that all this automation appears out of thin air like banks are creating money. But industrial production is not banking. All these robots have to be first designed and then manufactured somewhere, and I promise you that somewhere deep down the line there will always be quite a lot of human labor involved. To get an idea, look at the history of automotive industry. It seems like it destroyed quite a few jobs in some sectors but it created many more jobs in other sectors as well as created entirely new ones. It's the same with automation and robotics, they just move human labor to other fields, and since they are more complex technologies, this necessarily means that more human labor is required in other fields. In other words, you can't escape the complexity loop

But average people cant take complex jobs.

Not everyone can be an AI programmer, a mechanical engineer or a mathematician.

Most people are bartenders, supermarket clerks or similar king of jobs.

Here is the news for you, they are already phased out:

* https://www.theverge.com/2016/12/5/13842592/amazon-go-new-cashier-less-convenience-store


The simple jobs get phased out as fast as lightning. The complex jobs remain for the latest, but they will be phased out too. After all an AI is probably a better engineer than humans.

There is no solution to this than to just abandon this flawed system.

[iram1011]

This is what people typically say

They innocently assume that all this automation appears out of thin air like banks are creating money. But industrial production is not banking. All these robots have to be first designed and then manufactured somewhere, and I promise you that somewhere deep down the line there will always be quite a lot of human labor involved. To get an idea, look at the history of automotive industry. It seems like it destroyed quite a few jobs in some sectors but it created many more jobs in other sectors as well as created entirely new ones. It's the same with automation and robotics, they just move human labor to other fields, and since they are more complex technologies, this necessarily means that more human labor is required in other fields. In other words, you can't escape the complexity loop

But average people cant take complex jobs.

Not everyone can be an AI programmer, a mechanical engineer or a mathematician.

Most people are bartenders, supermarket clerks or similar king of jobs.

Here is the news for you, they are already phased out:

* https://www.theverge.com/2016/12/5/13842592/amazon-go-new-cashier-less-convenience-store


The simple jobs get phased out as fast as lightning. The complex jobs remain for the latest, but they will be phased out too. After all an AI is probably a better engineer than humans.

There is no solution to this than to just abandon this flawed system.

Offcourse there are threats to some basic jobs from automation. There is no deny to that. A report by the McKinsey Global Institute concludes that  5 percent of occupations are likely to be completely wiped out by automation. We just can't escape that.

There are flaws to all systems and so does capitalism. But the simple fact is that where open markets exist with competition, people get more prosperous. If we look at socialism/communism as applied in its most ‘pure’ applications, millions ended up starving in China, Russia and elsewhere because the system simply was inherently dysfunctional. Free market capitalism has its downsides but at least it consistently delivers growth.

[deisik]

This is what people typically say

They innocently assume that all this automation appears out of thin air like banks are creating money. But industrial production is not banking. All these robots have to be first designed and then manufactured somewhere, and I promise you that somewhere deep down the line there will always be quite a lot of human labor involved. To get an idea, look at the history of automotive industry. It seems like it destroyed quite a few jobs in some sectors but it created many more jobs in other sectors as well as created entirely new ones. It's the same with automation and robotics, they just move human labor to other fields, and since they are more complex technologies, this necessarily means that more human labor is required in other fields. In other words, you can't escape the complexity loop

But average people cant take complex jobs

A few hundred years ago people were completely illiterate

They couldn't even read (let alone write), and so what? Complex jobs can be simplified to the point when your average Joe can do them (this is what division of labor basically means). Indeed, the jobs that can be automated will be automated, but the great divide remains unshaken, i.e. some jobs can't be done by robots, as simple as that. Apart from that, what AI are you talking about? This field has been stagnating for over fifty years already. All the recent "advances" have been entirely due to quantitative improvements only (more memory, more processing power, more specialized chips, etc). There is no true artificial intelligence as of yet and may never be (in the sense we think of it), it still essentially comes down to an incredibly complex set of conditions (if-else)

[TheCoinGrabber]

I'm no economist but even a brief look at most country's history would show that you can't beat capitalism when it comes to generating wealth and improving the overall income of people. Even avowedly communist China has adopted capitalistic practices. I suppose they'd still be eating sparrows if they didn't.

On the topic of jobs & automation.

Automation kills many more jobs than it creates.

No one wants to admit that but it is true.

Slavery/indentured servitude/sweatshops/prison labor also kills more jobs than it creates.

As does outsourcing/offshoring of jobs, etc. As that tends to be an exploitive practice.

I'd rather have automation over sweatshops, those people are not getting their fare wages. Of course, that means those people would then need to find some other sources of income. In the industrialized world, I think automation is not as a do-or-die case. Just find some other field that can't be automated yet.

As for outsourcing, it's as natural as countries focusing on what product they can make best. If an American won't take $400 a month to answer irate customers, then find someone in India or the Philippines to do it.

[EdfuJihad]

Capitalism is indeed flawed, so much of inequality to the point the working class got abused. They worked really hard, their labor is not equal to the income they earning. So much for the other side, unlike the working class,  less physical labor but they have millions of earning. I don't have any oppositions to the capitalism system because it is already inevitable, but i think one we can change, one of the many flaws we can removed slowly is the mindset of capitalism towards the workers. Like for example giving them incentives and reasonable incomes, proper treatment e.g giving respect.

[pearlmen]

I don't believe capitalism is flawed because comparing it to other economic system, its still the best. People get to be rich and even contribute to the society, the ability to grow to the highest is not limited by the society, you create a path for yourself to the best of your ability. You decide if you want to stay in the hood for the rest of your life or you want to get out and dine with those that matter all by yourself and not limited by the society that is what capitalism promises and that's why I don't see it as flawed under any circumstances but not perfect.

[Beerwizzard]

Not everyone can be an AI programmer, a mechanical engineer or a mathematician.

In IT world the general situation is mostly similar to irl jobs. You might not have eniugh abilities to become a software developer but it requires quite a few skills to become a tester. The solution for lower qualified employees will always be found in the market. Getting a job in capitalistic country nowadays is easy as never before.

[RealBitcoin]

A few hundred years ago people were completely illiterate

They still are...

They couldn't even read (let alone write), and so what? Complex jobs can be simplified to the point when your average Joe can do them (this is what division of labor basically means). Indeed, the jobs that can be automated will be automated, but the great divide remains unshaken, i.e. some jobs can't be done by robots, as simple as that. Apart from that, what AI are you talking about? This field has been stagnating for over fifty years already. All the recent "advances" have been entirely due to quantitative improvements only (more memory, more processing power, more specialized chips, etc). There is no true artificial intelligence as of yet and may never be (in the sense we think of it), it still essentially comes down to an incredibly complex set of conditions (if-else)

No you can't dumb down complex engineering jobs, it doesnt work like that ,you need brains there which a large part of the population simply doesnt have.

And it's not a question of whether that job an be automated, its a question of time when they will be. Even the engineering jobs can be automated.

Meet engineerbot2.0, I bet he will do calculations much better and with much more precision and care than your average engineer.

It will be like from the movie Terminator, the robot will design a better robot and that will design a better robot.

There will not be much use left for humans, I hope it doesnt end like in the movie but if we want to make use of the robots then we can let them work and we should live off their production.

[olushakes]

With all the social economic systems in the world, capitalism is still the supreme because several others have failed but capitalism is still standing despite it's flaws across the globe and even countries that have embraced other forms of economic systems have to realize that capitalism breeds individual quest to achieve development because there is a sense that you get to eat from your personal effort or profit compared to doing it for the state or even the community as other economic systems have professed to be the best.

[RealBitcoin]

With all the social economic systems in the world, capitalism is still the supreme because several others have failed but capitalism is still standing despite it's flaws across the globe and even countries that have embraced other forms of economic systems have to realize that capitalism breeds individual quest to achieve development because there is a sense that you get to eat from your personal effort or profit compared to doing it for the state or even the community as other economic systems have professed to be the best.

It is better than what we had before, but it still has obvious, major flaws.

So it seems like something better could exist out there that doesnt have these flaws.

[deisik]

A few hundred years ago people were completely illiterate

They still are...

That largely depends on your point of view

Regarding your other points, they didn't go very far from someone claiming some 50 years ago that now when calculators could calculate faster and with higher accuracy than any human would, the end of humanity was near. Now calculators can calculate orders of magnitude faster and with even higher accuracy and precision than ever before, but did the end become nearer? Further, we basically don't know what being a sentient being means, so all such assumptions and ideas about the Terminator style future are mostly speculations. And while you may have some substance behind your claim that the majority of population don't have enough brains (though this is debatable), the technology may be specifically intended to address this issue. In fact, even simple calculators do exactly that, though on a rather primitive level, of course



After all, any technology hinges on making human life better and easier in some way or other