• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Does people-replacing technology and socialism go hand in hand?

PureX

PureX

Veteran Member
BSM1 said:
In your stereotypical description of capitalism you leave out one very important fact: the success of capitalism depends on customers and consumers.
Click to expand...
No, it really doesn't. Capitalism is just money being used to capture more money. It's a PART of commerce, but it's not commerce, itself. So commerce can continue even while the capitalists gain more and more ownership and control of the available money and property. Eventually, yes, the economy will collapse because too much wealth and power has piled up in too few hands leaving everyone else unable to engage in commerce, to survive. But if you think this looming disaster stops the capitalists from seeking as much wealth and power as they can possibly gain, you'd be wrong. They have in the past, and will continue in the future, to collapse the economy with their boundless greed.
BSM1 said:
Profit is non-existent if their is no one to by the goods and products. It seems most non-capitalists depend on the Hollywood version of the robber barons to view all capitalist endeavors.
Click to expand...
It seems you imagine that the capitalists won't let this happen, but they have let it happen in the past, and the will let it happen again, in the future. Because greed has no point of satiation, and capitalism is nothing more than systematized greed.
 
Last edited:
BSM1

BSM1

What? Me worry?
PureX said:
No, it really doesn't. Capitalism is just money being used to capture more money. It's a PART of commerce, but it's not commerce, itself. So commerce can continue even while the capitalists gain more and more ownership and control of the available money and property. Eventually, yes, the economy will collapse because too much wealth and power has piled up in too few hands leaving everyone else unable to engage in commerce, to survive. But if you think this looming disaster stops the capitalists from seeking as much wealth and power as they can possibly gain, you'd be wrong. They have in the past, and will continue in the future, to collapse the economy with their boundless greed.
It seems you imagine that the capitalists won't let this happen, but they have let it happen in the past, and the will let it happen again, in the future. Because greed has no point of satiation, and capitalism is nothing more than systematized greed.
Click to expand...


Obviously you have a skewed view of Capitalism that limits your real-world understanding of the subject.
 
Jonathan Bailey

Jonathan Bailey

Well-Known Member
Mock Turtle said:
As others have pointed out, the capitalists are the ones who gain from robots/automation (maximising profits). You seem to have it the wrong way around - since Socialism seemingly has the welfare of the majority as its aim unlike those who gain from and exploit technology to gain more wealth.
Click to expand...

Social Democrats seem to have the aim to make as many Americans welfare-poor as possible and then suck on Uncle Sam's tit.

F.D. Roosevelt wanted to make America a strong working middle class. The New Deal. A whole different kind of Demo in the 1930's.


How can people without real money still buy things in 2020?
Credit cards. Imaginary money.
No commodities, gold standard or cash to back it.
Making payments on those credit cards? Good luck!

The American Dream is NOT fueled by DEBT!

Yes, social services government WELFARE as it's aim is right!

America needs Roosevelt/Truman/Eisenhower and Kennedy capitalism.
 
Last edited:
Jonathan Bailey

Jonathan Bailey

Well-Known Member
Revoltingest said:
Instead of socialism, I say that this tech goes hand in hand with more social welfare benefits.
- As people become unemployable.
- As ability to support unproductive people increases.
Click to expand...


SOMEBODY still has to work to generate that revenue for welfare.
Do robots generate income taxes?
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Heyo said:
They generate income, which should generate taxes.
As it is, the robot owners are practically tax exempt. That's the problem.
Click to expand...
The way to be tax exempt is to make no profit.
Such robot owners won't be around long.
Better robot owners will replace them.
Competition, you know.
 
Heyo

Heyo

Veteran Member
Revoltingest said:
When one claims that no companies using robots pay taxes on income,
this isn't bolstered by claiming that only 60 out of 500 companies paid
no taxes. Moreover, it would be illuminating to find out why those 60
didn't pay. Were there carried forward losses from other years?
Click to expand...
I don't know which legal trickery they used to avoid taxes or how much each of those companies relies on robots to generate revenue. I do know that the taxes they avoided to pay aren't directly linked to their use of robots.
 
Mock Turtle

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Jonathan Bailey said:
Social Democrats seem to have the aim to make as many Americans welfare-poor as possible and then suck on Uncle Sam's tit.

F.D. Roosevelt wanted to make America a strong working middle class. The New Deal. A whole different kind of Demo in the 1930's.


How can people without real money still buy things in 2020?
Credit cards. Imaginary money.
No commodities, gold standard or cash to back it.
Making payments on those credit cards? Good luck!

The American Dream is NOT fueled by DEBT!

Yes, social services government WELFARE as it's aim is right!

America needs Roosevelt/Truman/Eisenhower and Kennedy capitalism.
Click to expand...

What is socialism, really?

Socialism is a political ideology that advocates for an egalitarian redistribution of wealth and power in society through the redistribution of society’s means of production (or means of making money). Socialism, in the simplest of terms, involves making more of an effort to balance the scales between the rich and the poor.

Not that this is what all mean by Socialism, and the results are very variable, but many might see such as its aims.
 
Jonathan Bailey

Jonathan Bailey

Well-Known Member
Mock Turtle said:
What is socialism, really?

Socialism is a political ideology that advocates for an egalitarian redistribution of wealth and power in society through the redistribution of society’s means of production (or means of making money). Socialism, in the simplest of terms, involves making more of an effort to balance the scales between the rich and the poor.

Not that this is what all mean by Socialism, and the results are very variable, but many might see such as its aims.
Click to expand...

What political system was in place when the middle-class was the strongest in America? I don't think the middle-class in America was ever as strong as it was from the implementation of Roosevelt's New Deal until just before the Clinton administration. What political system was in place when unionization was prominent? I'd have to guess some animal called "bridled capitalism".

Can capitalism, conservation, and cosmopolitanism coexist? Here’s what I learned.

Unbridled capitalism cannot accurately value nature, and does not recognize the property rights of the people who depend upon the natural world for survival. All of humanity depends upon natural systems, of course — but it’s the poor living off the land who have the most to lose from their destruction.

When capitalism is bridled and harnessed, so as to recognize the rights of the disenfranchised, it can provide prosperity and protect the environment.

As economist Amartya Sen has argued, the goal of economic growth is not simply growth, but the provision of liberty. When people have freedom — freedom from hunger, disease, and oppression, the liberties necessary to take the long view — they can protect the resources they depend upon, not to mention the creatures and landscapes they love.
 
Mock Turtle

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Jonathan Bailey said:
What political system was in place when the middle-class was the strongest in America? I don't think the middle-class in America was ever as strong as it was from the implementation of Roosevelt's New Deal until just before the Clinton administration. What political system was in place when unionization was prominent? I'd have to guess some animal called "bridled capitalism".

Can capitalism, conservation, and cosmopolitanism coexist? Here’s what I learned.

Unbridled capitalism cannot accurately value nature, and does not recognize the property rights of the people who depend upon the natural world for survival. All of humanity depends upon natural systems, of course — but it’s the poor living off the land who have the most to lose from their destruction.

When capitalism is bridled and harnessed, so as to recognize the rights of the disenfranchised, it can provide prosperity and protect the environment.

As economist Amartya Sen has argued, the goal of economic growth is not simply growth, but the provision of liberty. When people have freedom — freedom from hunger, disease, and oppression, the liberties necessary to take the long view — they can protect the resources they depend upon, not to mention the creatures and landscapes they love.
Click to expand...

Not sure what this has to do with technology implemented by the owners of factories to make more money, and hence in getting rid of workers, has to do with Socialism. Who has freedom when one depends upon the charity of owners to set wages or working conditions? One might like to reflect on unions and what it was like before they began to have any effects. :rolleyes:
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Heyo said:
I don't know which legal trickery they used to avoid taxes or how much each of those companies relies on robots to generate revenue.
Click to expand...
How do you know it was legal trickery?
In my businesses, I've had years of income, & years of losses.
So they've generated tax liability in some years, but not others
I do know that the taxes they avoided to pay aren't directly linked to their use of robots.
Click to expand...
The real purpose of using robots is to get higher quality & production
at a lower cost than using people. It's safe to assume that, some
companies in some years will make money as a result.
Example.....
There's a new bicycle company (Helix) in Toronto. They make
high end (several thousand $ each) folding bikes. They use
robots because it would be impossible to even find enuf humans
to make them. In this tight labor market, it's been difficult to find
enuf skilled labor to run the automated machines they have.
Anyway, they've been in business for several years, but aren't
yet profitible, & so they're very likely not paying any income taxes.
 
Heyo

Heyo

Veteran Member
Revoltingest said:
How do you know it was legal trickery?
In my businesses, I've had years of income, & years of losses.
So they've generated tax liability in some years, but not others
Click to expand...
Those where big and all around profitable fortune 500 companies. Some of them might have had a no revenue year due to investments but it is more likely that they invested into a team of tax lawyers that found all the loopholes.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Heyo said:
Those where big and all around profitable fortune 500 companies. Some of them might have had a no revenue year due to investments but it is more likely that they invested into a team of tax lawyers that found all the loopholes.
Click to expand...
One man's "loop hole" is another's "tax deduction".
We must get past judgmental terms applied to situations
not analyzed, & see what is actually being criticized.

I'm reminded of how the local tenants union would decry
landlords as "making money hand over fist". They never
actually saw anyone's books....they just assume.
We can do better than that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top