Is Capitalism still the answer?

[Grykten]

Food would not need to be bought. It would be produced for use and not profit.

What the articles said was their is easily enough money to produce that amount of food.

No you don't understand! There is only so much arable land, only so many tractors, only so much pesticide. We litteraly are incapeable of producing enough food to feed the world in more than a starvation diet

We could always develope sykscrapers to grow food in. Although I imagine they would have to work the bugs out first.

[Lithuanian Empire]

There's also the matter of their not actualy being enough food for them to buy with all that cash.


Once again, scarcity.

Scarcity will be overcome in the future. Or, at least, it'll be rendered increasingly irrelevant, such that society will become effectively post-scarcity, even if its technically still subject to scarcity.

It won't be overcome. Scarcity means that there is a limited amount of anything. It is impossible to make something out of nothing.

[Ardoki]

Food would not need to be bought. It would be produced for use and not profit.

What the articles said was their is easily enough money to produce that amount of food.

No you don't understand! There is only so much arable land, only so many tractors, only so much pesticide. We litteraly are incapeable of producing enough food to feed the world in more than a starvation diet

Source?

[North Yakistan]

I am not advocating the system in which this corruption took place.

That is state capitolism.

I am an Anarcho-Capitolist.

An anarcho capitalist society would be just as, if not, even more corrupt, without a government to step in and prevent corruption.

What kind of corruption? Please explain.

[Ardoki]

Australia is not state-capitalist, it is market-capitalist. In an "anarcho"-capitalist society the problem would be 100s of times worse.

False Australia IS state capitolist, the state intervenes in the market.

False without the state to prop up monopolies or taxes workers could buy product at true market value without added tax load.

So you compare Australia to North Korea?

[North Yakistan]

No you don't understand! There is only so much arable land, only so many tractors, only so much pesticide. We litteraly are incapeable of producing enough food to feed the world in more than a starvation diet

We could always develope sykscrapers to grow food in. Although I imagine they would have to work the bugs out first.

That would be a remarkably inefficient use of resources that would take ages to break even. Hydroponics are a better bet.

[Grenartia]

Food would not need to be bought. It would be produced for use and not profit.

What the articles said was their is easily enough money to produce that amount of food.

No you don't understand! There is only so much arable land, only so many tractors, only so much pesticide. We litteraly are incapeable of producing enough food to feed the world in more than a starvation diet

Currently, yes. However, if we make the proper investments, not in the future. Space farms, hydroponics, etc., etc..

[Ardoki]

No you don't understand! There is only so much arable land, only so many tractors, only so much pesticide. We litteraly are incapeable of producing enough food to feed the world in more than a starvation diet

We could always develope sykscrapers to grow food in. Although I imagine they would have to work the bugs out first.

That is actually a good idea. However it not needed just yet.

[Cuprum]

Yeah

[Grykten]

It's not unlikely at all, I grew up in a farming region and still live in one. Crops can fail any given year because of disease, weather, or a my raid of other factors.

And capitolism has a built in mechanism for this, supply and demand.

And socialism has production-for-use which is more efficient (not nearly as much waste).

They are not any more wasteful than eachother (profit and use). They just are different. Profit produces more under the expectation that it will be bought. This with supply and demand forms a consumer society. Use value just produces what is needed and no more unless there is very strong demand for it.

[North Yakistan]

No you don't understand! There is only so much arable land, only so many tractors, only so much pesticide. We litteraly are incapeable of producing enough food to feed the world in more than a starvation diet

Currently, yes. However, if we make the proper investments, not in the future. Space farms, hydroponics, etc., etc..

And at that time the human population will dwarf the current one.

[Gorgashia]

It keeps free markets and all that.
Theres a method of doing it that I prefer, which is basically that anyone who works for a corporation gets 1 share of stock to vote with. No non-workers may vote with stock.
Wages would be abolished, instead, every worker gets a share of the corporate profits determined by the collective.
(The current progenitor is the Mondragon corporation, which uses:

Unskilled labour - 1 share
Skilled Labour - 3 shares
Management - 5 shares
Upper Management 7 shares)

System.
thus, upper management will only EVER receive 7 times the pay of the lowest paid work, and that pay is ENTIRELY dependent on how well the corporation functions.
If profits go up, everyones wages go up. If profit goes down, everyones wages go down.

This model makes firing people (for reasons other than incompetence or bad behaviour) obsolete. We no longer have to fire people because times are tough. People will willingly leave when their pay goes down. (Too many workers sharing not enough profit. Those willing to leave will do so. If noone wants to leave, then there is no problem.)

Imagine it as basically a form of socialist-corporation.
It means you can entirely scrap things like workplace-health acts, since the workers of the company are going to vote for healthier working conditions anyway.
And if they dont vote for them, who are we to say otherwise? They know the risks best.
The importance of the vote is that it allows workers to fire incompetent managers by voting them out, which can be vital. Ofcourse, it is NEVER in their interest to fire an actually competent manager. Doing so would hurt their incomes.
It also means that every worker has a vested interest in the corporation doing well. If it does well, they get more cash.
It minimizes laziness. Every worker knows they get a share of the profit, so why laze?

What about that then ^.
That's an alternative.

Yeah, that's a good one. Kind of a cooperative with some hierarchy.

Of course, the rabid and vile egalitarian in me demands that the Cooperatives operate under a democratic system that shares the stocks equally, but that's simply the ideal.

My personal idealism aside, I'm totally cool with this.

[Lithuanian Empire]

We could always develope sykscrapers to grow food in. Although I imagine they would have to work the bugs out first.

That is actually a good idea. However it not needed just yet.

And who would build them in a communist society? There are no investors and no state, and people themselves don't have any funds.

[Ardoki]

Scarcity will be overcome in the future. Or, at least, it'll be rendered increasingly irrelevant, such that society will become effectively post-scarcity, even if its technically still subject to scarcity.

It won't be overcome. Scarcity means that there is a limited amount of anything. It is impossible to make something out of nothing.

Post-scarcity does not imply making "something out of nothing".

[Grykten]

We could always develope sykscrapers to grow food in. Although I imagine they would have to work the bugs out first.

That would be a remarkably inefficient use of resources that would take ages to break even. Hydroponics are a better bet.

Probably true. I am no expert in agriculture.

[North Yakistan]

That is actually a good idea. However it not needed just yet.

And who would build them in a communist society? There are no investors and no state, and people themselves don't have any funds.

Ding ding ding the magic question

[North Yakistan]

It won't be overcome. Scarcity means that there is a limited amount of anything. It is impossible to make something out of nothing.

Post-scarcity does not imply making "something out of nothing".

Dosnt change the fact post scarcity is a childlike fantasy with no basis in reality

[Grykten]

Currently, yes. However, if we make the proper investments, not in the future. Space farms, hydroponics, etc., etc..

And at that time the human population will dwarf the current one.

But there will be more labor to build more of these things and the technology will be much cheaper. Human population size and ingenuioty will save the day. Probably.

[Lithuanian Empire]

It won't be overcome. Scarcity means that there is a limited amount of anything. It is impossible to make something out of nothing.

Post-scarcity does not imply making "something out of nothing".

Post-scarcity is an alternative form of economics or social engineering in which goods, services and information are universally accessible.[1] This would require a sophisticated system of resource recycling, in conjunction with technologically advanced automated systems capable of converting raw materials into finished goods.

It technically doesn't, but who would regulate it? There is no state?

[Ardoki]

Currently, yes. However, if we make the proper investments, not in the future. Space farms, hydroponics, etc., etc..

And at that time the human population will dwarf the current one.

The human population is stabilising and my even decrease.

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/global-population-10-billion-not-so-fast

[North Yakistan]

And at that time the human population will dwarf the current one.

The human population is stabilising and my even decrease.

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/global-population-10-billion-not-so-fast

The western population is, the population of Asia is exploding like a alge bloom

[Ardoki]

That is actually a good idea. However it not needed just yet.

And who would build them in a communist society? There are no investors and no state, and people themselves don't have any funds.

The people would decide if they should be built and several (worker-run and public) businesses will build them.

[Ardoki]

The human population is stabilising and my even decrease.

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/global-population-10-billion-not-so-fast

The western population is, the population of Asia is exploding like a alge bloom

The Asian population is also stabilising. Did you not read the article? It was referring to the whole world, not just the Western world.

[Ardoki]

Post-scarcity does not imply making "something out of nothing".

Dosnt change the fact post scarcity is a childlike fantasy with no basis in reality

Post-scarcity is definitely possible with the right technology.

[Lithuanian Empire]

And who would build them in a communist society? There are no investors and no state, and people themselves don't have any funds.

The people would decide if they should be built and several (worker-run and public) businesses will build them.

But where could they get the materials, or the funds? All of their work results are given to others, and those others may not want to build it - not everyone is singl minded.
By the way "work results given to others". Reminds you of something?