Posted on 05/21/2015 10:57:10 AM PDT by youngphys01
So I am in a debate with colleagues about the future of capitalism and socialism and they are claiming that with the rise of automation, capitalism will fail as an economic system and the only way to prevent mass starvation and severe poverty i to implement all of the socialist ideas of Obama, Elizabeth Warren, Nancy Pelosi and others and do it now. The idea is that with the rise of automation technology, any job that depends on manual labor and repetitive actions will simply be gone and tons of construction and other jobs will disappear. And so there will be millions upon millions of jobs that will not exist and so there will be many millions of people who will be homeless and dying of disease and starvation unless they get a living income regardless of whether or not they are working.
The argument is that a Capitalist society will not be sustainable since it will only be possible for a minority of Americans to work for a living the way we see it now. And so they are arguing that we need socialism, perhaps even going into communism now, in order to make the transition feasible without mass homelessness and starvation.
How would you go about refuting this argument?
I am looking for assistance in addressing and countering this argument in favor of capitalism.
Argumentation in favor of Socialism is already being done by 0bamabots.
People have been automating stuff for centuries and it hasn’t caused universal unemployment yet. (Take stream-powered water pumping and felting for example) How long do they project this shift is going to take? Another 500 years? Cause it certainly doesn’t seem to be working that way so far.
Google Hayek vs Keynes
then the Austrian School of economics.
also acquire a copy of Eat the rich by P.J. O’Rourke
Ask them for an example of a country where communism, socialism, fascism has lasted more than three or four generations. USSR lasted 70-80 years but there were two World Wars to divert attention from problems.
To be truthful, Cuba is nearing an exception to this, but they are geographically isolated and more easily controlled from outside influences. That said, it is no testament that so many of its captive citizens have gone to extraordinary measure to leave there, the IRON CURTAIN having been replaced by the Gulf of Mexico and surrounding.
Look further at South America now and see how governments like that are doing. Tell them to Google “toilet paper shortage” “food shortage” and so on as well as foreign loan debt and inflation.
It’s a no brainer.
BTW, why in the heck are you even talking to these people?
Automation is simply a step in manufacturing and has nothing to do with economic policy.
Plenty of jobs have been made obsolete by machinery over the course of history. This is called “progress” and “productivity increases.”
In general, progress is good for society because it allows greater economic output with fewer inputs, resulting in greater wealth for all classes.
Now - your Obamabots probably view “progress” as an opportunity to sit on their collective arses and collect Obamaphones and EBT cards. The rest of us view it as an opportunity to do bigger and better things. For example, if you had a lawn mowing robot, would you use the time you normally spent mowing your lawn to watch cat videos on the internet? If the answer is “yes,” then your colleagues are right - we’re doomed and only handouts will help us. If, instead, your colleagues aren’t lazy pieces of sh!t, then they’ll find a way to add value to society with the extra free time that increased productivity brings.
Simple as that.
I don’t know about having to go to socialism, but we are going to have to figure out a way to operate with most folks not having jobs, and having lots of stuff for acquisition in spite of nobody having jobs.
Yes, as always technology will outdate some jobs- do you see many classifieds for ‘horse and buggy whip manufacturing?” but its super short sighted to think that new technologies will not create new jobs that support those technologies. As long as people still want ‘thingies’ there will be jobs to harvest raw materials for ‘thingies’, create ‘thingies’, market ‘thingies’, adapt ‘thingies’, repair ‘thingies’. While the basics for sustaining life will probably require less effort in the future this will not decrease demand for other items. Did the Car create or destroy jobs? Did the internet destroy jobs or create more jobs? The jobs will change, but capitalism is still the best method for producing and distributing across a society.
The hope is that increased human demand that goes along with it will create separate classes of jobs. And to be sure, some economists think so: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2015/02/robots-arent-about-to-take-your-job.html
Now clearly, if AI gets as advanced as some of the alarmists say it will, then no economic system has a chance of working and loss of jobs will be the very least of our issues.
Between automation (which is now hitting not just manufacturing but also starting to crest into transportation) and 3D printers I think the game is changing drastically. If these technologies continue on the path their on a significant portion of the retail life cycle will be rendered obsolete in a decade or so. Technology is a force multiplier, it allows a higher standard of living with less effort. Previously it still “made” jobs because of the higher standard of living, it gave us more stuff to make so we still needed lots of people to make it. But the new techs coming in are dropping the effort level extremely far extremely quickly. When most of what you order from Amazon goes straight to your printer the game will have changed drastically and the number of workers we will need will drop like a stone.
Automation is the future, but along with automation comes new jobs, building them, programing them, repairing them. training Operators etc.
Here Here!
Suggest the questioner read or research “Freedom’s Forge” by Aurthur Herman. See what crushed the social democrats, the communists, and made monkeys out of european business models.
Pay particular attention to what exactly caused most of the wasted time, money, manpower and delays.....communists and those cursed unions. The defense buildup shepherded by William “big Bill” Knudsen occurred smack dab in the middle of that blantantest of foils to the founders’ America..the new deal.
Great read, might put off your reposte to the sloppy commie/soci arguments, but worth it in appreciating American exceptionalism.
Cheers,
KYPD
Under socialism there is no way to calculate prices and therefore n way to allocate resources. Only a free market can correctly determine value. The USSR at least had the West as a reference point for such. This is probably the one reason that socialism cannot work even if you can remake man, which can’t be done. See Ludwig von Mises. mises.org
How do you get the machines that do the Automation?..how do you maintain the machines to do the automation?...
People running your own life does not end because you add a labor saving device..you use labor saving devices to create things of value..
...this view of the left comes through their assumption that the vast majority of people are nothing but vegetables that they need to control
Ask them why China adopted capitalism and has largely prospered with it. They may argue China is socialism, but the economic engine for generating wealth is largely capitalism. European socialism is also dependent on capitalism even if they won’t admit it. Socialist play word games or tell outright lies. Socialism requires a repressive government to impose it, which is what we see happening in our own country. From top to bottom, socialism is being crammed down our throats, and young people indoctrinated to maintain it.
Whenever you cite examples of how socialism has failed miserably wherever implemented (Soviet Union, Red China, Cuba, East Germany, North Korea, Vietnam) you can count on being told that
“True socialism hasn’t been tried yet!!!”
Applied socialism doesn’t count, only theoretical `faculty lounge’ socialism matters. Human failure doesn’t invalidate the theory. And to these people, the theory is sacred.
In other words, you’re attacking somebody’s religion when you criticize socialism. Expect the rage of the faithful when you do.
My view of the essential wrongness of socialistic theory is that it attempts to deny human nature by preaching that a model of man that is unselfish, unmaterialistic, and nonindividualistic is possible in the scheme of things of the New Order of socialism.
You can’t.
You accept their IDIOTIC, ASININE assumption that the rich pay taxes.
Taxes are a cost of doing business and are passed along to the weakest- the poor. All taxes.
So, where does the money to pay for socialism come from?
Ask yourself:
“Where did my rich boss, banker, grocer, landlord get the money for that nice car?”
He got it from you or a customer.
And that’s where he gets the money to pay his taxes.
The glory and ultimate triumph of capitalistic economic theory and practice is that, when a new idea appears that will make some money for the person who markets it, it gets funded, and a whole new range of enterprise is brought along in its wake. Innovation is encouraged, and with each new innovation, new opportunities and even whole new professions are created. So the drudgery jobs eliminated by automation make available a whole new workforce, ready to be trained in the new technologies.
What ever happened to the hundreds of young women who manned the telephone exchanges? Or the legions of workers toiling on an endless and somewhat mindless assembly line? Few of these people ever voiced much satisfaction with the job (though of course there were those who GLORIED in the job). When the mechanization of the drudge work came along, they were free to experiment with applying what they already knew elsewhere. Some opened their own entrepreneurial activities, a further expansion of capital implementation, and eventually an almost exponential return on investment.
Capitalism is a system which feeds upon itself, generating its own expansion with reinvestment and gathering the fruits of innovation, scattering them upon a receptive and willing consumer. Socialism also feeds upon itself, but since there is no mechanism for reinvestment or expansion, eventually it runs out of the fund of capital with which it started.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.