How Capitalism is killing itself

2»

Replies

  • Shawn C.Shawn C. Senior Member Posts: 7,027 Senior Member
    Sorry Ed, but I have to disagree with you. We are capable of some deplorable things that go way back to these days:

    Ape-man-with-bone-from-Stanley-Kubricks-2001-A-Space-Odyssey-150x150.jpg
  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 10,454 Senior Member
    EdB wrote: »
    Human nature is conditioned by the money system, it will readily adapt to an energy system.
    Ed,

    Can I have what you're smoking? Just let me know how many energy credits I need to send you for whatever it is.

    Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
  • jbillyjbilly Senior Member Posts: 5,407 Senior Member
    How could an energy system even be possible without capitalism? If you are going to have an energy system you better be able to store and transmit it. And how would you get those innovations....oh yeah....capitalism. How abou that.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,913 Senior Member
    Actually you do not need capitalism to have innovation. In Ed's world the economy would be run by scientists, who let's face it are not making a lot of money now. The problem is unless you can completely automate menial labor, I don't see how you are going to motivate people to empty port-o-potties.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • creekguycreekguy Senior Member Posts: 3,982 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    Betty Page....I don't even want to know.
    BettiePageActionDoll.jpg

    From each according to ability.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    The real problem with Wolff's basic thesis is that he disregards the benefit of market competition.

    Business owner's continue to seek lower labor costs in order to increase their own profits. We should take this as a given. (And for the record, innovation occurs because business owners look to increase their own profits - without that incentive, why spend the money and take the risk?)

    Wolff, however, believes that lower labor costs accrue to business owners. I find this tough to reconcile with a reality in which the return on equity for the S&P 500 has been more or less static (with some ups and downs depending on the economic cycle) for probably the last 30 years (if not longer). Because of market competition, lower labor costs lead to lower prices, which leads to higher real incomes (at least for those still working). All else equal, higher real incomes leads to higher aggregate demand. At least through minute 17, Wolff fails to address this fact.

    So here's the question: is the "internal contradiction" of lower wages offset by the "internal harmony" of lower prices?

    Basically, this is a reversal of the minimum wage argument.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Fly Fisherman stories delivered right to your inbox.