The end of private ownership in the means of production

It really comes down to which countries are willing or can make the effort as to which makes cars, electrical goods etc.

As in all team sports the winners will be the fittest, unencumbered by the unemployable, sick, lousy politicians etc.

Sad but true.
 
Oh come on! People will think of something to do. Its good that robots can make production cheaper; we can have more stuff for less cost; planes can fly, trains can run, and sneakers can sneak. Its good the whole tribe doesn't have to spend all day carrying jugs back and forth from the well; we can do something else if we have a pump. Why lament?... why not think of the something else. These are of course real people we are talking about, skills or not, privileged or not; they all want to live and move beyond the level of need to problems of higher order. Should we all have remained as small dirt farmers?
 
Quote from Ed Breen:

Oh come on! People will think of something to do. Its good that robots can make production cheaper; we can have more stuff for less cost; planes can fly, trains can run, and sneakers can sneak. Its good the whole tribe doesn't have to spend all day carrying jugs back and forth from the well; we can do something else if we have a pump. Why lament?... why not think of the something else. These are of course real people we are talking about, skills or not, privileged or not; they all want to live and move beyond the level of need to problems of higher order. Should we all have remained as small dirt farmers?
More...


Too many people and not enough work = war = less population = back to population and resources equilibrium.

Nature abhors exponential growth curves. Massive upheavel is coming within our lifetime.
 
Ok, clearly this thread has got so long that people can't be bothered getting the jist of it before replying so time to put it to bed.

But just a hint, nobody has said anything about technological progress being a bad thing. The purpose of this thread was to discuss the political consequences for a society where its citizens no longer need to work, but apparently I'm alone in seeing this as inevitable.

What did I expect bringing this up on an american trading forum.

Thank you and goodnight
 
Matt, I did read your argument in the first few pages of this thread and it is a sesible argument. Clearly, those without skills are facing a tough stretch and it may likely manifest in geo-political unrest but I don't think the cause is technological advancement. This idea of surplus labor being created by innovative business advancement driven by capital that makes labor more productive is a recurring theme. You can see it talked about by Malthus in his day or Swift in his 'Modest Proposal' to address the famine in Ireland and the purported surplus population. This is not a new argument.

In the current situation it appears to me that we have a self inflicted problem related to monetary mismanagement creating repeating malinvestment bubbles combined with fiscal mistakes that are being driven by the death throws of the failing welfare state model.

The unskilled and unemployed are more a product of moral and cultural decline then they are related to any shortage of work.

Ideas make work and work makes money. Ideas are cheap, you can just take them where you find them, people are full of them and they give them away, there is no shortage of ideas, so there is no need to have a shortage of work.

The question is why we are not applying capital to the work that comes from ideas. You are looking at a symptom when you see idle capital and surplus labor. Ask what fiscal policies would encourage capital to be invested in developing real assets with the related need to do real work. That is what happens naturally, capital makes labor more productive, providing the basis of sustainable employment and real wage gains. When it is not happenning then you need to find the thing that is repressing it.
 
the US economic situation is calcified because of the welfare state which has resulted in disrespect for the ideal of work. if low wage workers started to figure what they could get from the state without work they would have little incentive to work.
 
I can see where this argument is going. Put the unemployed into labour battallions to do the drudge jobs that machines can't do yet. With Mr Big Boss and a few drones to push the knobs and collect most of the wealth. A nightmare made by uncaring capitalism freaks. OK if you are a big boss but a lousy deal for the majority.
Fascism to give it it's true name.
 
Humpy, your comment points out the difference between ideology and reality. "Big Boss", "Drone Workers": you are living in a cartoon. Do you think the workers at Google, Apple, or even Cummins Engines are "drones?" How about a guy who makes fins for jet engines at extremely high tolorance with expensive capital equipment and skilled CNC operators in his privately owned machine shop supplying parts to an aftermarket repair firm, that is also privately owned, that supplies parts for he repair and maintenance for Pratt & Whitny engines...do you think its the Big Boss and the Drones? Do you think the workers feel oppressed by the "Big Boss." Would it make a difference to the workers if the "Big Boss" could afford to invest in a robot? Might it make thier production go up, if they could focus more on programing the CNC's and less on measuring, feeding and adjusting the machines? Maybe they could run more that one machine at a time with a little capital investment help...might that let them make a little more money?

You are talking more about pre and early industrial reveloution imagery than you are about modern production. Today you have to go to Asia, where they still have Chineese fire drills to unload trucks instead of using a fork left, or you could take a look at a U.S. Government bureacracy (think Postal) to apprecieate something of what your cartoon comment is playing at.
 
Quote from Ed Breen:

Matt, check out this essay written by a late friend of mine in the early 1990's; it addresses many of your concerns and can be understood to agree with you. It revolves around the observation that voters will always choose the promise of 'good socialism' over 'bad capitalism.' It could have been written yesterday:

http://www.polyconomics.org/index.p...279:economic-growth&catid=32:essays&Itemid=28

Its long but worth the read, even a skim is worthwhile.
More...

Thanks I will certainly read, and thanks for the posts they have been interesting.

This appears to be quite a hot topic atm:

http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2012/12/10/1303512/the-robot-economy-and-the-new-rentier-class/
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/08/rise-of-the-robots/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top