Solution to poverty - Socialism or Capitalism?

[freedomno1]

Well Ibian has a point anything taken to excess is a problem
Thinking more along the lines of a poor country than a highly developed country as long as their is an incentive to work that is greater than the incentive not to work.
Denmark and a cradle to grave works but it would make sense if they all work towards that society.

[Ibian]

Additionally, the entire western world is facing a common problem. The fertility rate is too low. More people are dying than are being born. This means the income from the working age people is shrinking relative to the old non-working people who also happen to be the biggest drain on public medical resources. It's the perfect economic storm, failing demographics for the economic system we use coupled with a breakdown in work discipline and, for europe, massive immigration which makes it even harder to find jobs and puts further strain on the welfare system.

[AZwarel]

Yes, You got really valid points about inequality perceived by economic or moral standpoint. Although, economic view, as i see it, can not deal - or care - about moral point of views, because at that very moment it is not science anymore. I think we agree on this one.

I appreciate that You mentioned the Chinese middle class formation through "cheap labor force exploited by evil western capitalists", because that certainly proves my point that free markets serves more to eliminate poverty than everything else!

About environmental damage: if we would have real unregulated private property use - which means total control of usage AND at the same time total responsibility in the caused harm done by using it -, than using our basic rule of "exclude of force" (filling your city border with toxic waste is actually physically harming You!) the company and it's leaders polluting the environment (external costs) could be put on trial/jail, now that is an incentive to take care about the surroundings is it? :-)

But if anyone needs evidence, just look at the pollution caused by eastern block-soviet industry vs. western private industry. And yes, oil companies that "blow up" nature, and killed our habitat should have been on trial, and the key thrown away. It is a sad thing it did not happened. Because they have friends in the government, so they do not have to pay the price misusing their private property is against the most basic rules of capitalism as i know it.

Regarding Marx, i think he has made a terrible job identifying the real causes of corruption. The problem is arbitrary - and so necessarily - use of force, which can only reside with government, NOT voluntary exchange between employee and employer!
So regarding the problems of society, he was right, regarding the causes, he was terribly wrong. So wrong, that his ideas basically destroyed all the possibilities of the promising 20th century - and to be honest, he WAS AWARE of this! (just read the letters sent to the early dissident to Russian revolutionists about how to implement proletarian dictatorship in Russia!).

[AZwarel]

Additionally, the entire western world is facing a common problem. The fertility rate is too low. More people are dying than are being born. This means the income from the working age people is shrinking relative to the old non-working people who also happen to be the biggest drain on public medical resources. It's the perfect economic storm, failing demographics for the economic system we use coupled with a breakdown in work discipline and, for europe, massive immigration which makes it even harder to find jobs and puts further strain on the welfare system.

Yes, while what You say is a 100% correct, i do not think it is good or bad. It is just a fact :-)
Actually, we should be happy, that there are fewer of us. More resources/space etc per person. The problem as You mentioned is the overblown social welfare system of medicare and retirement checks. People do not know, but retirement pension was started after the II. world war, it is no more than a 60 years of welfare program, centrally planned, which means it was doomed to fail! If someone could save that money for themselves what they now pay for retirement money to the State, they would have a pension, bam! Unless they are stupid, and do not make savings.
But why should the rest of us pay for someone who was not able to take care of himself???

Also, now we have bitcoin, which as a non-inflation currency, you can actually save for the future :-)

[twiifm]

I understand. It is a long video, he is not academic (thx god), but 99% of the graph shown were from US government institutes. The whole video is just number crunching basically. Math is just math:)

Btw, why is that most people only listen to academics? That is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem. You do not argue the argument, you argue the person. If i were a peasant boy in the age of Galielo saing You, that the Earth is round, You would have ignored me, but still i was right! :-)

What I meant by not academic is that he's more like politician.  He has some politics he's pushing and he finds data to to support his argument.

In academics you don't do that.  You hypothesize something then you try to find empirical evidence to support your hypothesis.  Then you write a paper that gets peer reviewed.  Your conclusions might be opposite of your hypothesis after to look at the empirical data.  Also you invite critics to falsify your claims

I don't think academics have a more valid opinion.  But they are experts in their field.  Anyways, the attitude is just different because the goals are different.  I'm more interested in learning how things work than pushing some political agenda.

I don't think the Nordic model is perfect but you have to compare the economic stats between tax rates of different countries and try to determine is there is a causal link between tax rates and economics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates

I'm not saying every country should just raise the tax rate to solve their economic problems.  What I'm saying is that the national budget comes from taxation and where there is higher taxation there is better social programs, infrastructure, etc.. that create the stability for growth to occur.  The other way without taxation is to receive capital from the outside in terms of investment.  But that could lead to problems like debt.  A common criticism of IMF is that they structure loans to third world countries that can't be paid off so there is some amount of exploitation going on.

I think you are not thinking in terms of economics.  You are using example of one situation

Look at the logic this way and decide if it scales to the entire economy.   If you raise the tax rate SOME people might be de-incentivize to work harder.  But I think it won't de-incentivize all people.  Lets say if I earn $100K/ year I get taxed 35%.  But $100K-$300K I get taxed 40%.  If I'm offered a job of $102K of course I'd only take $100K.  But if  I get a promotion to $120K.  Of course I take the promotion.  Even if I'm only making $7K more and maybe I have to be more responsible & work more hours.  I take it because after that promotion I go higher up the ladder.  People are forward looking.  They don't set a goal and then stop once they hit that goal.

Look at the wiki chart I linked.  You can see that the richest countries in the world have the highest taxes.  What is the correlation and what conclusions can you draw fro this data?  If high taxes create contraction in economies then why are the largest economies have highest taxes and smallest economies have lowest taxes?

If you tax high earners and throw the money in the garbage then its pointless.  But if you use the taxes to reinvest in education, infrastructure, social programs, defense, research etc..  Wouldn't that have a positive net effect over the long term?

[Ibian]

Additionally, the entire western world is facing a common problem. The fertility rate is too low. More people are dying than are being born. This means the income from the working age people is shrinking relative to the old non-working people who also happen to be the biggest drain on public medical resources. It's the perfect economic storm, failing demographics for the economic system we use coupled with a breakdown in work discipline and, for europe, massive immigration which makes it even harder to find jobs and puts further strain on the welfare system.

Yes, while what You say is a 100% correct, i do not think it is good or bad. It is just a fact :-)
Actually, we should be happy, that there are fewer of us. More resources/space etc per person. The problem as You mentioned is the overblown social welfare system of medicare and retirement checks. People do not know, but retirement pension was started after the II. world war, it is no more than a 60 years of welfare program, centrally planned, which means it was doomed to fail! If someone could save that money for themselves what they now pay for retirement money to the State, they would have a pension, bam! Unless they are stupid, and do not make savings.
But why should the rest of us pay for someone who was not able to take care of himself???

Also, now we have bitcoin, which as a non-inflation currency, you can actually save for the future :-)

It's bad. There has never been an example in history of a culture recovering from the current conditions. We are looking at an extinction event for northern and western europe over the next 50 or so years. As the native population dwindles and immigrants keep coming, there is a real risk that we will be displaced. The states have similar but slightly different problems.

[AZwarel]

I understand. It is a long video, he is not academic (thx god), but 99% of the graph shown were from US government institutes. The whole video is just number crunching basically. Math is just math:)

Btw, why is that most people only listen to academics? That is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem. You do not argue the argument, you argue the person. If i were a peasant boy in the age of Galielo saing You, that the Earth is round, You would have ignored me, but still i was right! :-)

What I meant by not academic is that he's more like politician.  He has some politics he's pushing and he finds data to to support his argument.

In academics you don't do that.  You hypothesize something then you try to find empirical evidence to support your hypothesis.  Then you write a paper that gets peer reviewed.  Your conclusions might be opposite of your hypothesis after to look at the empirical data.  Also you invite critics to falsify your claims

I don't think academics have a more valid opinion.  But they are experts in their field.  Anyways, the attitude is just different because the goals are different.  I'm more interested in learning how things work than pushing some political agenda.

I don't think the Nordic model is perfect but you have to compare the economic stats between tax rates of different countries and try to determine is there is a causal link between tax rates and economics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates

I'm not saying every country should just raise the tax rate to solve their economic problems.  What I'm saying is that the national budget comes from taxation and where there is higher taxation there is better social programs, infrastructure, etc.. that create the stability for growth to occur.  The other way without taxation is to receive capital from the outside in terms of investment.  But that could lead to problems like debt.  A common criticism of IMF is that they structure loans to third world countries that can't be paid off so there is some amount of exploitation going on.

I think you are not thinking in terms of economics.  You are using example of one situation

Look at the logic this way and decide if it scales to the entire economy.   If you raise the tax rate SOME people might be de-incentivize to work harder.  But I think it won't de-incentivize all people.  Lets say if I earn $100K/ year I get taxed 35%.  But $100K-$300K I get taxed 40%.  If I'm offered a job of $102K of course I'd only take $100K.  But if  I get a promotion to $120K.  Of course I take the promotion.  Even if I'm only making $7K more and maybe I have to be more responsible & work more hours.  I take it because after that promotion I go higher up the ladder.  People are forward looking.  They don't set a goal and then stop once they hit that goal.

Look at the wiki chart I linked.  You can see that the richest countries in the world have the highest taxes.  What is the correlation and what conclusions can you draw fro this data?  If high taxes create contraction in economies then why are the largest economies have highest taxes and smallest economies have lowest taxes?

If you tax high earners and throw the money in the garbage then its pointless.  But if you use the taxes to reinvest in education, infrastructure, social programs, defense, research etc..  Wouldn't that have a positive net effect over the long term?

In theory yes. For example, more money on education from taxes would increase economic wealth. But, it is not the question. The question is, does the private sector can organize a high level education on it is own, or this complex problem can only be solved by central planning?

Everyone can tell, that high level education around the world is almost exclusively is organized by the private sector. And it costs half per year/student than government financed public education (http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/they-spend-what-real-cost-public-schools) !!

You must understand, even though, in a moral standpoint i am against taxation, since You can not choose not to participate (buy/not buy), if government financed projects backed by taxation would be more efficient, i would admit it. But, they are just are not. That is my problem. They i think amoral, since you can not choose, AND they are in every way worst in efficiency to spend/allocate resources - by resources i mean what the citizens produce, since the government does not produce anything.

About the tax rates. Yes, in average it is true, that the 1st world countries has the highest tax rates. Also, they have the highest national debts and economic plummeting, they have the highest comparative disadvantage due to mostly this (manufacturing left the western world mostly due labor cost taxes and regulation, that ain't worked too great for us?), and a of course you can only tax highly advanced economies! Try a 50% tax in like an African backwater country, 1st, you could not collect it, 2nd, people would just shoot you, because they would starve, if you take 50% of their 2$/day.

I agree about Your point of political motives behind numbers. I am a careful sceptic myself :-) That is EXACTLY why i only care about the fact part of that video, and not the political message - even if i might agree personally, but as a scientific thinker, i look only at the evidence. And, some hypothesis are just happen to be right, even if it is a layman's hypo.

[AZwarel]

Additionally, the entire western world is facing a common problem. The fertility rate is too low. More people are dying than are being born. This means the income from the working age people is shrinking relative to the old non-working people who also happen to be the biggest drain on public medical resources. It's the perfect economic storm, failing demographics for the economic system we use coupled with a breakdown in work discipline and, for europe, massive immigration which makes it even harder to find jobs and puts further strain on the welfare system.

Yes, while what You say is a 100% correct, i do not think it is good or bad. It is just a fact :-)
Actually, we should be happy, that there are fewer of us. More resources/space etc per person. The problem as You mentioned is the overblown social welfare system of medicare and retirement checks. People do not know, but retirement pension was started after the II. world war, it is no more than a 60 years of welfare program, centrally planned, which means it was doomed to fail! If someone could save that money for themselves what they now pay for retirement money to the State, they would have a pension, bam! Unless they are stupid, and do not make savings.
But why should the rest of us pay for someone who was not able to take care of himself???

Also, now we have bitcoin, which as a non-inflation currency, you can actually save for the future :-)

It's bad. There has never been an example in history of a culture recovering from the current conditions. We are looking at an extinction event for northern and western europe over the next 50 or so years. As the native population dwindles and immigrants keep coming, there is a real risk that we will be displaced. The states have similar but slightly different problems.

I understand fully. The question here i think we both agree is: can we "pass" the cultural heritage, the civilizational code to whomever moves here or not. Are our values remain, live through or not. It is a very valid and serious question!!
I am not anti immigration, given, they accept the basic rules of the local. This of course i would do if i were to move into their culture, but since i do not agree with many of the immigrant's values i do not go there. I hope this was not racist or alike, i acknowledge the different cultures, but i maintain my right to choose which iI want to embrace!

[twiifm]

Yes, You got really valid points about inequality perceived by economic or moral standpoint. Although, economic view, as i see it, can not deal - or care - about moral point of views, because at that very moment it is not science anymore. I think we agree on this one.

I appreciate that You mentioned the Chinese middle class formation through "cheap labor force exploited by evil western capitalists", because that certainly proves my point that free markets serves more to eliminate poverty than everything else!

About environmental damage: if we would have real unregulated private property use - which means total control of usage AND at the same time total responsibility in the caused harm done by using it -, than using our basic rule of "exclude of force" (filling your city border with toxic waste is actually physically harming You!) the company and it's leaders polluting the environment (external costs) could be put on trial/jail, now that is an incentive to take care about the surroundings is it? :-)

But if anyone needs evidence, just look at the pollution caused by eastern block-soviet industry vs. western private industry. And yes, oil companies that "blow up" nature, and killed our habitat should have been on trial, and the key thrown away. It is a sad thing it did not happened. Because they have friends in the government, so they do not have to pay the price misusing their private property is against the most basic rules of capitalism as i know it.

Regarding Marx, i think he has made a terrible job identifying the real causes of corruption. The problem is arbitrary - and so necessarily - use of force, which can only reside with government, NOT voluntary exchange between employee and employer!
So regarding the problems of society, he was right, regarding the causes, he was terribly wrong. So wrong, that his ideas basically destroyed all the possibilities of the promising 20th century - and to be honest, he WAS AWARE of this! (just read the letters sent to the early dissident to Russian revolutionists about how to implement proletarian dictatorship in Russia!).

I'm not a socialist my any measure.  But I have my criticism of Capitalism.  Sure Capitalism have served use well in the 19th & 20th Century but we are almost hitting the limits of how it can serve society.  What is known is that there is increasing inequality.  And if you project that trend into the next 50-100 years we could be facing some disastrous event like the World Wars in the 20th Cent.

My main point concerning this thread is that inequality will be one of the big economic problems that need to be solved in the 21st century.  One of the problems of the OPs question is that it supposes there are only 2 types of economic systems.  I think we are moving towards a post-Capitalist system, but the problem is people still have rigid ideas because they pigeon hole themselves into outmoded ways of classifying economies into "labels".

I really hate Communists for personal reason.  The problem I have w bitcoin is the affiliation W Anarcho Capitlaism.  It reminds me of Communists.  Its just another type of class warfare but instead of proletariat vs aristocrats, its the avg guy vs bankers.  There's just too much hypocrisy and contradiction.  I don't like Capitalism because rich people are advantaged but I want if I'm the advantaged rich guy w my bitcoin wealth.  I don't want to pay taxes or Social programs with my money, but I don't mind redistributing wealth if take from the bankers and put the money in my wallet. 

Marx was a pretty good economist for his time.  I didn't care for his Communist Manifesto, but I respect him as an intellectual & academic.  Marx studied under Hegel's pupil Bruno Bauer.  His "Manuscripts of 1844" was a pretty great. But Mao, Uncle Ho, Song Il Kim & Pol Pot, these guys took Marx's ideas to the extreme to justify their peasant revolutions.  Then they either imprisoned or killed all the intellectuals.  And this is why I  at Stefan Molyneux cult.  They are anti-academic for the same reason that Mao Zedong, Sung Il Kim, Uncle Ho, Pol Pot were anti-academic.  These guys are politicians, they used Marx's ideas to convince farmers to take arms in a peasant revolt.  Of course they don't want any critics or opposing ideas.

If you are morally against taxation then where is the money to build schools & infrastructure come from?  It known that private University give more quality education but not everyone can be accepted and not everyone can afford.  We still need public schools to take care of the rest of the people.

If you have a proposal of how to take care of services without taxes I'd like to know.  You have bids for contracts?  so like law enforcement & fire fighter would be private companies that have contract?  We already subcontract soldiers..something like that? so who pays for these projects?

[bobos15]

Capitalism can not continue to exist because in today's age we have automation. And automation creates poverty. Must find a new model. Perhaps an anarchist model, or a gift based economy, or a model based on Silvio Gesell s ideas.

[RomertL]

Because, what you guys call capitalism, is not capitalism. The US is not capitalism since the creation of income tax, the FED, the anti-trust laws, the 60's war on poverty welfare programs, etc. And Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, where the ruler can just seize you if he wants.

Capitalism based on voluntary exchange of goods and services at the market produced by men in competition free of coercion, with private property and personal liberty at the absolute basic right.
Show me how can people in the US choose not to use state provided services, and in turn not to pay taxes, like a voluntary trade with companies, and i say you have capitalism in the US.
Show me a real private business forces you to buy its product. If it can than it is not a private business in capitalist terms.

Finally! Somebody who understands.  

Thx Neofelis!

I have been reading this forum for months, and, actually reading your posts was the reason i registered! I can finally talk with someone from the "same page". :-)

Ok, so no government involved in commerce, so who issues the money?

Haha that's a very funny thing to ask on this forum, not sure if you did it to prove a point :)I agree with Azwarel, true, free capitalism might never have been tried on a big scale before. Being from Sweden, a socialist-ish country, I sometimes hear people refer to US as a extreme capitalism, but that's not true at all. Removing the governments power over currency is key to create true capitalism. Thanks to Bitcoin we have a unique opportunity to create a better world with more power to to people and less to corrupt governments.

[Ron~Popeil]

Capitalism can not continue to exist because in today's age we have automation. And automation creates poverty. Must find a new model. Perhaps an anarchist model, or a gift based economy, or a model based on Silvio Gesell s ideas.

Automation lowers opportunity cost and allows us to focus on other pursuits. Economies change and people adapt.

[Ron~Popeil]

Because, what you guys call capitalism, is not capitalism. The US is not capitalism since the creation of income tax, the FED, the anti-trust laws, the 60's war on poverty welfare programs, etc. And Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, where the ruler can just seize you if he wants.

Capitalism based on voluntary exchange of goods and services at the market produced by men in competition free of coercion, with private property and personal liberty at the absolute basic right.
Show me how can people in the US choose not to use state provided services, and in turn not to pay taxes, like a voluntary trade with companies, and i say you have capitalism in the US.
Show me a real private business forces you to buy its product. If it can than it is not a private business in capitalist terms.

Finally! Somebody who understands.  

Thx Neofelis!

I have been reading this forum for months, and, actually reading your posts was the reason i registered! I can finally talk with someone from the "same page". :-)

Ok, so no government involved in commerce, so who issues the money?

Haha that's a very funny thing to ask on this forum, not sure if you did it to prove a point :)I agree with Azwarel, true, free capitalism might never have been tried on a big scale before. Being from Sweden, a socialist-ish country, I sometimes hear people refer to US as a extreme capitalism, but that's not true at all. Removing the governments power over currency is key to create true capitalism. Thanks to Bitcoin we have a unique opportunity to create a better world with more power to to people and less to corrupt governments.

Exactly. We are far from a truly capitalist free market. We just call it that to make ourselves feel better or worse depending on your perspective. 

[Harley997]

The purchasing power of the dollar has increased substantially over the past 3 decades without massive inflation.

Take the iPhone for example, today the general public can purchase an iPhone for a few hundred dollars. 30 years ago a computer with the same processing power would cost the equivalent of tens of thousands of dollars at the very least.

In the US there are also a number of social programs (food stamps, unemployment, EITC, welfare) that help people that technically are in poverty (defined by their pretax income from working) really don't live in poverty as they receive a large amount of benefits from the government. These programs do generally cause people to live in near poverty (but not in poverty), but spend much more then they earn (by spending their benefits from social programs).

The above social programs cause people to live just above poverty, while barely working (if at all). The above social programs are essentially socialism.

It is clear that socialism is not the answer to poverty.

[TaunSew]

Electronics may be cheaper but the basics continue to be more expensive and unaffordable.  The trend of people in their 20s, living with pension age parents, is a relatively new phenomenon in North America and Australia. 

In my instance, where a starter home in my city goes for $1.2+ million, my hand has been forced and I have given up on any prospects of owning real estate let alone having the space for a family.  (which goes back to an earlier post about declining fertility rates).  People still want kids but they don't want to have them in basement rentals or shoe box condos. 

At least the Medieval Serf had his own straw hut and a big field for all the kids. 

Poverty is ultimately the result of greed, imho.  For someone to live a middle upper class or a upper class lifestyle, someone has to suffer to make it happen.

[jeffersonairplane]

The purchasing power of the dollar has increased substantially over the past 3 decades without massive inflation.

Take the iPhone for example, today the general public can purchase an iPhone for a few hundred dollars. 30 years ago a computer with the same processing power would cost the equivalent of tens of thousands of dollars at the very least.

In the US there are also a number of social programs (food stamps, unemployment, EITC, welfare) that help people that technically are in poverty (defined by their pretax income from working) really don't live in poverty as they receive a large amount of benefits from the government. These programs do generally cause people to live in near poverty (but not in poverty), but spend much more then they earn (by spending their benefits from social programs).

The above social programs cause people to live just above poverty, while barely working (if at all). The above social programs are essentially socialism.

It is clear that socialism is not the answer to poverty.

I don't see what technology has to do with it considering these are economical systems

[sana8410]

Well, I think neither of capitalism or socialism can be ultimate solution to poverty.. Firstly, we need to expel the fact that poverty can be eradicated.. I guess poverty can never be removed..
People say that Capitalism emphasis on superiority, and thus creates inequality in the society.. True but then it is also inspires one to improve..
Which are today's greatest nations? US, China, France, England, Rome, Greece, and the list goes on and on.. And then these are not only the greatest nations, but they also have the wealthiest population also.. Is there anything common to them? Simply, Capitalism !!

Yes, you are right. One of the main reason the communist countries (Republic of China & Soviet Russia, etc) changed to capitalism was because of the lack of incentive to progress and develop the country!
This is very easy to understand. Imagine you are a hard worker and you are getting paid the same as your co-worker who is very lazy. Pretty soon, you will lose the motivation to work hard also since your hard work is not being rewarded.
But the problem now is, are hard workers being rewarded enough in a capitalistic system? Because time and again we have seen employers who keep making bigger profits because of their employee's hard work but do not attempt to raise their employee's salaries.

Do you think the wealth in a company should be more evenly divided?

[Rigon]

Hey everyone. In today's developed world where we have glasses that can access the internet and robots that can think on their own, it is a shame that there are still people in parts of the world living under 1$ a day.
What can governments do to end poverty in their countries? Is a solution possible under capitalism? Or did Karl Marx had the right idea with his recommendation of a socialist government?

Neither can, but capitalism has a better chance As a society, we first need to expel the myth that poverty can be eradicated. We can prevent people from starving, which can be done in a Capitalist society, like the US, but there is a paradox that prevents poverty ending. If everyone has a good amount of money, prices go up, and those with the least amount of money are impoverished. The only to that solution is Communism, which is a disaster in its own right.
What makes Capitalism so beautiful is that to get really rich, you have to enrich others. It is almost impossible in a Capitalist society to achieve success without contributing to society.

[Ron~Popeil]

Hey everyone. In today's developed world where we have glasses that can access the internet and robots that can think on their own, it is a shame that there are still people in parts of the world living under 1$ a day.
What can governments do to end poverty in their countries? Is a solution possible under capitalism? Or did Karl Marx had the right idea with his recommendation of a socialist government?

Neither can, but capitalism has a better chance As a society, we first need to expel the myth that poverty can be eradicated. We can prevent people from starving, which can be done in a Capitalist society, like the US, but there is a paradox that prevents poverty ending. If everyone has a good amount of money, prices go up, and those with the least amount of money are impoverished. The only to that solution is Communism, which is a disaster in its own right.
What makes Capitalism so beautiful is that to get really rich, you have to enrich others. It is almost impossible in a Capitalist society to achieve success without contributing to society.

If we have a level playing field the value for value dynamic can solve a lot of problems. Right now we have a few people getting a lot of value for no return due to crony capitalism. In a real free market the bad actors get weeded out.

[giantdragon]

Capitalism can not continue to exist because in today's age we have automation. And automation creates poverty. Must find a new model. Perhaps an anarchist model, or a gift based economy, or a model based on Silvio Gesell s ideas.

Automation lowers opportunity cost and allows us to focus on other pursuits. Economies change and people adapt.

Capitalism can only continue functioning if rate of product innovation (creation of new consumer product classes like flying cars) will outpace rate of process innovation (automation). This is known as "Luddite fallacy", however it is not a law of physics so can break away any time. If governments won't prepare to this moment, capitalism will be destroyed through bloody revolution instead of peaceful transition.