Paradox of Tolerance

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Yato said:

Automization only gets rid of middle man technology, it doesn't build spaceships and goes to the moon. It can't be your psychologist, or doctor. Automation will only, if at all, get rid of the jobs no one wants to do in the first place. Like work at McDonald's. 

 

Also, has nothing to do with Capitalism. 

Not in full automation, but don't you realize that even in the situation you described, there would still be no jobs for the majority of people, if the working class has no jobs, they can't support capitalism, the system does not work, it will fall apart, so yes, it is relevant to capitalism, a system that cannot survive this.

[Yatogami]

7 minutes ago, Ms. Maya the Bee said:

Not in full automation, but don't you realize that even in the situation you described, there would still be no jobs for the majority of people, if the working class has no jobs, they can't support capitalism, the system does not work, it will fall apart, so yes, it is relevant to capitalism, a system that cannot survive this.

And you seem to be overlooking the fact that won't happen until long after we are both dead. You are also overlooking the prospect of new kinds of jobs being opened up, and created as a result of automatize technology. Someone has to take care of the machines, and build them. If companies save money on automation, they will create new jobs that can only be done by humans to appeal to people and market it that way. Some people will prefer real people, over automation too. Resulting in a balance between the two.

 

There used to be a time, where certain technologies were thought to destroy all the jobs in the future, but didn't. Because it's too nearsighted to apply today's standards to the future. Humanity will evolve with this technology, and not before or after it. As it has always done. 

[CaptainYesterday]

[deleted]

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Yato said:

And you seem to be overlooking the fact that won't happen until long after we are both dead. You are also overlooking the prospect of new kinds of jobs being opened up, and created as a result of automatize technology. Someone has to take care of the machines, and build them. If companies save money on automation, they will create new jobs that can only be done by humans to appeal to people and market it that way. Some people will prefer real people, over automation too. Resulting in a balance between the two.

 

There used to be a time, where certain technologies were thought to destroy all the jobs in the future, but didn't. Because it's too nearsighted to apply today's standards to the future. Humanity will evolve with this technology, and not before or after it. As it has always done. 

Did you watch the Kurzegesagt video? It's already begun and will continue in the coming decades. 

[Yatogami]

Just now, Ms. Maya the Bee said:

Did you watch the Kurzegast video? It's already begun and will continue in the coming decades. 

Have you ever watched any video I have ever shared?

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, CaptainYesterday said:

The government doesn't support Capitalism.  It just doesn't enforce anti-Capitalistic laws (for the most part).  Capitalism is just what people would do with goods and services naturally if a government didn't exist or intervene.  It is the the natural state of trade.

 

Money represents limited resources that do have value.  Things like land, food, and labor, are all limited resources that money represents, so that my employer doesn't have to pay me in chickens.

Enforcing capitalist law is supporting capitalism

 

and no, it's really just numbers.

[Yatogami]

5 minutes ago, Ms. Maya the Bee said:

Enforcing capitalist law is supporting capitalism

 

and no, it's really just numbers.

What would you use, in place of exchange of goods to manage your economy and society. You love to say that Capitalism is bad, but you haven't explained with your own words what you have in mind to replace it with. 

[The Terrible Travis]

8 hours ago, ThaHoward said:

Bill Clinton and Obama and even Roosevelt did the same. So is the problem the right or left in this or perhaps something else? 

My point was that it doesn't make any sense to single out the left for "tolerating Muslim extremists" when the right actively sells weapons to them. It was not to waive any criticism of the left. 

[ThaHoward]

12 hours ago, Ms. Maya the Bee said:

 

and no, it's really just numbers.

So if you want to buy a car what will you trade it in with? Let's say you go to a local trade dealership, and the one who sell the car want cows to start a farm. But you don't have any cows, so you can't by cars. But you then have an agreed upon medium of value who can buy the car and the cows. So then when you give him xEuros for the car he can thn use those euros to buy some cows. And when I work what am I going to get paid in, grain? Wouldn't it be better if I could decide for myself what I want to do with my pay?

 

The thing is that money is only as valuble as we belive it is, but it is much more practical than the alternative. It is a reason why societies adopted some sort of monetary systm BEFORE capitalism was a thing and even before the rise of the merchant class in general. In our economy, let it be capitalist or not, there is simply too many moving parts for us to go back to a stone age economy where barter is the medium of exchange. We have just replaced by directly exchanging stuff (a fish for a bread) to indirect (sell a fish for money, and then buy bread with money). People who can't see the value and purpose of a monetary system often have a complete lack of how understanding of how an economy work and really should read more about how the world work. 

 

It is fascinating how similar it is to righwing populism in rethorics. Just change "global elite" with "capitalism", "free trade" and "immigration" with "money" and "free trade" and the slogans are basically the same. Where Trump will come in and fix everything to make america great, the communists will abolish capitalism and the elite to make the working class great. 

 

Both is destructive in their rethorics as they establish a us-against-them narrative and where they represent the true people and the "elite" is not a part of society, but rather an enemy.

[binary suns]

eh, what is tolerance - if we're discussing tolerance - maybe. but - IMO an ideal future that could occur, if things align, which could fail, then acceptance will lead to globally mutual benefit. But - you'd need to ramp up to it, compound efforts over time - too sudden of a shift will easily backlash. and, there is also the danger that if the global acceptance is found by passive people handled by a system, as investigated for example in psycho pass, then there's a good chance there'll be neglected individuals or groups who cause significant harm.