Economic Classes explained - General

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52453190]one of the big problems with capitalism is that once everyone earns enough to sustain basic needs and life in general, economic growth slows down to a stop due to the lack of demand for new stuff. but humans aren't like that at all, for they are never actually satisfied with the current level of material possessions they've got and usually desire to have more (often in a social setting they want more than their peers). the other problem with capitalism is that it generated increasing complexity (as is the nature of expanding production, technology, distribution, etc) which eats up an increasing share of resources and the return on investment declines the more you pump into it.[/QUOTE] How is socialism a solution to either of these alleged problems? The problem with socialism is that demands aren't met and people starve to death.

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;52453255]How is socialism a solution to either of these alleged problems? The problem with socialism is that demands aren't met and people starve to death.[/QUOTE] This also applies to capitalism. Poverty and starvation isn't fixed in Africa and parts of Asia yet.

[QUOTE=RB33;52453275]This also applies to capitalism. Poverty and starvation isn't fixed in Africa and parts of Asia yet.[/QUOTE] Okay, explain to me how socialism would fix Africa. They tried and it always worked even worse than capitalism. Every. Single. Time. Because guess what, socialism won't fix terrible soil, burning sun, malaria, AIDS, tsetse flies, and the economic isolation of landlocked nations in the middle of nowhere. To fix the economical issues of Africa you need to fix the geography first

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;52453255]How is socialism a solution to either of these alleged problems? The problem with socialism is that demands aren't met and people starve to death.[/QUOTE] i don't recall mentioning socialism as a solution. I can criticise capitalism without being a socialist also what do you mean "alleged problems", do you deny that these exist within capitalism or what

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52453421]i don't recall mentioning socialism as a solution. I can criticise capitalism without being a socialist also what do you mean "alleged problems", do you deny that these exist within capitalism or what[/QUOTE] The burden of proof is on you, I don't see any signs of either problem anywhere. Not to mention that you contradict yourself in that first argument where you said "the demand for new products goes down, but the people want more"

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;52453452]The burden of proof is on you, I don't see any signs of either problem anywhere. Not to mention that you contradict yourself in that first argument where you said "the demand for new products goes down, but the people want more"[/QUOTE] the first parts point is that due to reasons of basic human psychology, capitalism inevitably requires infinite growth in order to satisfy human needs/wants. if people restricted their consumption, then the entire basis of the capitalist economic system changes dramatically the second part (capitalism is increasing in complexity and the costs incurred by increasing complexity) is especially true we have seen evidence of it in agriculture, mineral extraction, technological development, etc in extracting resources people always go for the easiest stuff, and then as it diminishes (or you want to increase production) you need to invest into increasingly expensive (and often more complex) solutions to resolve the problem. this in turn leads to diminishing marginal returns. in order to repeat something like the green revolution (fertilizers and tractors for farms) you would need to buy even more expensive machinery and chemicals and use them in greater numbers just to achieve the same increase in output as your previous work managed

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52453461]the first parts point is that due to reasons of basic human psychology, capitalism inevitably requires infinite growth in order to satisfy human needs/wants. if people restricted their consumption, then the entire basis of the capitalist economic system changes dramatically the second part (capitalism is increasing in complexity and the costs incurred by increasing complexity) is especially true we have seen evidence of it in agriculture, mineral extraction, technological development, etc[/QUOTE] Population growth is going to stop worldwide soon enough, so infinite economic growth won't be necessary to satisfy everyone's needs. And building more complicated stuff needs more complicated methods, go figure

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;52453403]Okay, explain to me how socialism would fix Africa. They tried and it always worked even worse than capitalism. Every. Single. Time. Because guess what, socialism won't fix terrible soil, burning sun, malaria, AIDS, tsetse flies, and the economic isolation of landlocked nations in the middle of nowhere. To fix the economical issues of Africa you need to fix the geography first[/QUOTE] So Africans are doomed to have it terrible? Socialism would deliever cheap tools to farmers, free medicine to people and better non-exploitative economic cooperation. Something capitalism refuses to do, since you know, profits.

[QUOTE=RB33;52453500]So Africans are doomed to have it terrible? Socialism would deliever cheap tools to farmers, free medicine to people and better non-exploitative economic cooperation. Something capitalism refuses to do, since you know, profits.[/QUOTE] Will every African also get a free handjob and a lifetime supply of doritos? Where are the resources to do all this coming from? Of course Africa isn't doomed, but expecting a magical free stuff economy to fix it somehow is delusional and naive. There is no such thing as "free" and if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;52453588]Will every African also get a free handjob and a lifetime supply of doritos? Where are the resources to do all this coming from? Of course Africa isn't doomed, but expecting a magical free stuff economy to fix it somehow is delusional and naive. There is no such thing as "free" and if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.[/QUOTE] If you don't charge for it, it's free. Socialism isn't about making money, it's to serve the people. Making sure they don't suffer, starve or die of preventable diseases. We're produing low-quality trash for useless mass consumption every day. If we instead shifted that focus to saving people's lives, it wouldn't be hard at all. But apparently, profits are more important.

So you'll just run everything at a loss basically? We don't live in post scarcity times we literally cannot do that

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;52453482]Population growth is going to stop worldwide soon enough, so infinite economic growth won't be necessary to satisfy everyone's needs.[/quote] that's only if you exclude continents such as africa, which has seen its population pentuple in the past sixty years and is projected to double in the next thirty. of course if everybody wants to live at the living standards currently enjoyed in the west, this will have to mean a truly gargantuan increase in economic productive capacity and the consumption of several magnitudes more resources (some of which are in short supply and are increasingly expensive to extract and refine) [quote]And building more complicated stuff needs more complicated methods, go figure[/QUOTE] yes but the point is that complex things require much more resources. increasing output requires a growing number of resources, time, equipment, etc for each additional increase. we've already seen the cost of this increase steadily over time. people go for the easy stuff first and then they turn to marginal lands and use costlier methods to increase production to put it another way, the green revolution cost a lot in terms of resources to increase food production enough to feed 7 billion people or so. it's going to cost several magnitudes more in terms of resources to feed the next billion, and even more for the one after that. [editline]10th July 2017[/editline] investing into technology, complexity, etc has decreasing returns on investment. at some point we won't have productive capacity and capital spare to invest on increasing production/fixing problems because all existing resources will be allocated to maintaining an already strained complex system

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52453890]So you'll just run everything at a loss basically? We don't live in post scarcity times we literally cannot do that[/QUOTE] Define a loss, since money doesn't exist? Aren't we always running at loss by using natural resources? We can't exactly turn back the time once we done it.

[QUOTE=RB33;52453948]Define a loss, since money doesn't exist? Aren't we always running at loss by using natural resources? We can't exactly turn back the time once we done it.[/QUOTE] It doesn't matter if "money doesn't exist"(which I'm not sure you even understand how that as a concept doesn't work) when you're saying that you can just fix everyones illnesses, problems etc through just throwing resources(which translates to money even if you think it doesn't exist) and manhours(again, money) like it's that easy. It isn't, and at the same time you're using other peoples time and effort and perhaps even resources in ways they aren't voting with, how does that work? How does that not become even more in-efficient than capitalism? You know what you should do? You should travel. You should take a week, and go to a different country like the US, or China, or Canada, or whatever, and genuinely ask as many questions you can about how things work there because you seem very ill informed.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52453968]It doesn't matter if "money doesn't exist"(which I'm not sure you even understand how that as a concept doesn't work) when you're saying that you can just fix everyones illnesses, problems etc through just throwing resources(which translates to money even if you think it doesn't exist) and manhours(again, money) like it's that easy. It isn't, and at the same time you're using other peoples time and effort and perhaps even resources in ways they aren't voting with, how does that work? How does that not become even more in-efficient than capitalism?[/QUOTE] If it's resources, if it's manhours. It isn't money, it's just resources and manhours. No need to shoehorn money into it. I'm not saying it's going to fix every problem there is. But at least it's trying to fix things, instead of not giving a damn because there are no profits involved. Healthier Africans who can efficiently farm their own land will benefit both them and us. [QUOTE]You know what you should do? You should travel. You should take a week, and go to a different country like the US, or China, or Canada, or whatever, and genuinely ask as many questions you can about how things work there because you seem very ill informed.[/QUOTE] The US is a disgrace to western industrialized countries, that they still cannot provide proper healthcare cheaply and that third world countries surpass their ability. China is a joke, foreign companies exploiting cheap labour to sell to the west. We in the west are having it good, on the back of Chinese workers.

[QUOTE=RB33;52454005]If it's resources, if it's manhours. It isn't money, it's just resources and manhours. No need to shoehorn money into it. I'm not saying it's going to fix every problem there is. But at least it's trying to fix things, instead of not giving a damn because there are no profits involved. Healthier Africans who can efficiently farm their own land will benefit both them and us.[/QUOTE] money acts more like information, and for its faults it works quite well at distributing scarce resources over other methods

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52453922]that's only if you exclude continents such as africa, which has seen its population pentuple in the past sixty years and is projected to double in the next thirty.[/QUOTE] I don't really believe these sorts of projections. Africa can't support the people it already has. It can't possibly go as smoothly as a UN infograph would have you believe. And even according to that data, it's still slowing down. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;52453922]yes but the point is that complex things require much more resources. increasing output requires a growing number of resources, time, equipment, etc for each additional increase. we've already seen the cost of this increase steadily over time. people go for the easy stuff first and then they turn to marginal lands and use costlier methods to increase production to put it another way, the green revolution cost a lot in terms of resources to increase food production enough to feed 7 billion people or so. it's going to cost several magnitudes more in terms of resources to feed the next billion, and even more for the one after that. [editline]10th July 2017[/editline] investing into technology, complexity, etc has decreasing returns on investment. at some point we won't have productive capacity and capital spare to invest on increasing production/fixing problems because all existing resources will be allocated to maintaining an already strained complex system[/QUOTE] Now I can see where you're coming from, but is this a problem with just capitalism, or with scientific progress with scarce resources?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52454066]money acts more like information, and for its faults it works quite well at distributing scarce resources over other methods[/QUOTE] It also acts as a goal in producing profitable but generally useless products. Even if those are scarce resources.

[QUOTE=RB33;52454131]It also acts as a goal in producing profitable but generally useless products. Even if those are scarce resources.[/QUOTE] The alternative to money is bartering and trying to use a standard to compare things to which again leads to money. There are people smarter than either of us who have written about these issues. I encourage you to read up on hen before spouting off ideas that honestly don't make sense

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;52454130]I don't really believe these sorts of projections. Africa can't support the people it already has. It can't possibly go as smoothly as a UN infograph would have you believe. And even according to that data, it's still slowing down.[/quote] given that people naturally increase in numbers over time (barring something very unusual) i have reason to trust projections of population growth [quote]Now I can see where you're coming from, but is this a problem with just capitalism, or with scientific progress with scarce resources?[/QUOTE] its an intrinsic property of complex society

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52454149]The alternative to money is bartering and trying to use a standard to compare things to which again leads to money. There are people smarter than either of us who have written about these issues. I encourage you to read up on hen before spouting off ideas that honestly don't make sense[/QUOTE] People smarter than us that has written on the use of no money. You don't get money if you're consciously avoiding it. We're not reverting back to the bronze age and reinventing money again. The new standards name is working hours. It took us on average this much time to produce this, so give me something equally worked on in return or give back to us later.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52454387]given that people naturally increase in numbers over time (barring something very unusual) i have reason to trust projections of population growth[/QUOTE] That's quite a the flawed way of thinking. What you are suggesting is that if something has always been one way, then it will remain that way. Which is clearly not the case for a lot of things in modern society. Especially not birth rates, which have been below replacement levels in a very large portion of the world for decades now.

[QUOTE=RB33;52454428]People smarter than us that has written on the use of no money. You don't get money if you're consciously avoiding it. We're not reverting back to the bronze age and reinventing money again. The new standards name is working hours. It took us on average this much time to produce this, so give me something equally worked on in return or give back to us later.[/QUOTE] That isn't a useful manner of trade. What if I don't need your services [editline]10th July 2017[/editline] Maybe you should just read some of the books on the subject period?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52454387]given that people naturally increase in numbers over time (barring something very unusual) i have reason to trust projections of population growth its an intrinsic property of complex society[/QUOTE] [media]https://youtu.be/FACK2knC08E[/media]

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52454507]That isn't a useful manner of trade. What if I don't need your services [editline]10th July 2017[/editline] Maybe you should just read some of the books on the subject period?[/QUOTE] Then we're indebted to you and will return the favour later. Or we simply realize the goodwill that we should conduct ourselves with in a socialist world. We do not only care about ourselves but people in other countries.

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;52454454]That's quite a the flawed way of thinking. What you are suggesting is that if something has always been one way, then it will remain that way. Which is clearly not the case for a lot of things in modern society. Especially not birth rates, which have been below replacement levels in a very large portion of the world for decades now.[/QUOTE] you're ignoring parts of the world where growth is exponential (the african continent for instance) the only parts of the world where growth is stagnant/negative is in the developed western countries. meanwhile negative population growth has brought about its own problems (like japan undergoing a slow collapse) and again, the norm is usually for human populations to increase steadily with time (sometimes checked by disease, war, and famine). a sustained decline is very unusual and won't last forever given that people who have more children, their children in turn will likely have more children.

[QUOTE=RB33;52454610]Then we're indebted to you and will return the favour later. Or we simply realize the goodwill that we should conduct ourselves with in a socialist world. We do not only care about ourselves but people in other countries.[/QUOTE] Sorry but that isn't human nature. It's not capitalism to blame either. It's just not in our nature to work like that

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52454716]Sorry but that isn't human nature. It's not capitalism to blame either. It's just not in our nature to work like that[/QUOTE] That's exactly what human nature is, capitalism forces us to accept its reality, a reality where we don't (or rather can't afford to) care about each other. It's just a lie.

[QUOTE=RB33;52454795]That's exactly what human nature is, capitalism forces us to accept its reality, a reality where we don't (or rather can't afford to) care about each other. It's just a lie.[/QUOTE] How historically informed are you? Those aren't capitalist tendencies because they existed before capitalism

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52454994]How historically informed are you? Those aren't capitalist tendencies because they existed before capitalism[/QUOTE] With oppressive systems of government/economy gone. Humans are free to care and support each other. And no longer required to resort to selfish, divisive and exploitative behaviour. We will have everything to gain from cooperating, but now capitalism instead forces us to compete and is holding us back as humanity.