You can use arrow keys to navigate in the map.
Nothing is compatible with our current system of capitalism- the wealthiest classes continue to accumulate wealth at the expense of the workers, and this will either cause a crash when the workers cannot afford basic life supplies, or a revolution.
The lives of the poorest of the poor around the world has only improved in the last few decades under regulated capitalism. It was only until China opened its economy that a middle class arose there. Responsible capitalism raises up the poor.
'Responsible' capitalism is an illusion. People in Britain starve to death because capitalism has failed them. Are they less worthy of survival than the upper middle class managers who refuse to employ them, or the wealthy who erase their jobs with the stroke of a pen?
People starved to death before the advent of capitalism. People starve(d) to death in the Soviet Union, Venezuela, Cuba, China. Starvation is natural in human societies
In freer capitalistic countries, the poor are more likely to be obese than to starve to death.
People starved to death in authoritarian state capitalist dictatorships calling themselves socialist, you mean.
People starve to death now when there is no shortage of food. People starved in primitive societies because there was a shortage. There is a difference.
No True Scotsman argument. Venezuela, Soviet Union, Cuba are as close as you can get to a socialist state in reality. When you have increased state power (even under the guise of "the people") you get corruption, starvation, and worse.
That not a "No True Scotsman argument".
S/He didn’t change the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample.
The definition didn’t include the counter-examples in the first place.
"Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production"
If the means of production are controlled by a dictator or any undemocratic government, it isn’t socialism.
It is extremely unlikely, and most likely impossible to achieve this because invariably leaders are needed to make change, and invariably those leaders become corrupted by the immense power they receive.
That just make regulated capitalism better than the authoritative warmonger and anti-science systems which existed before.
That isn’t a very hight standard.
When a machine replaces a worker, that worker now has no more income and therefore there is less currency circulating in the market. This also effects the owner of the machine, as there are now less people able to purchase the goods the machine is creating.
This assumes that a displaced worker will not be able to find any job whatsoever. There are many jobs that cannot or should not be performed by machines, such as teaching, or health care.
*cannot or should not be performed by machines YET
This assumes that automation will not create new jobs (of different type), which is incorrect.
Same as computers deprived some job types when they emerged, they created different jobs instead (developers etc).
1 person programms the
1 person builds the robot
1 person keeps the robot running
100 persons lose their job
-97 jobs total
This is an assumption, its a fallacy, but i wont be flagging it as a fallacy ill just explain:
a lot more than 1 developer develops a software for a robot.
a lot more than 1 engineer builds a robot.
to say 1 person is doing it is having no idea what is involved making a robot.
okay i thought it was clear for everyone that those are numbers i made up.
however in the end the amount of workers (or atleast the amount of money the workers get paid) will decrease else it wouldn't be worth doing it (it=creating robots)
I would support this claim if there is any data or source that proves the same happened with recent emerging technology which also deprived certain jobs.
(proof that new technology reduced the amount of money paid to workers)
that is basic game theory:
do i (as business owner) pay more if i let human workers work for me (and pay them)or if i let robots work for me (and pay the programmer, etc.)? what ever is the cheaper option i take it!
cheaper => reduced the amount of money paid (to workers)
Thanks for posting the "fallacy" in a "but" premise, it permit to counter-argument against the fallacy in a more logical and natural way. (that should be how the functionality works in the first place)
This is true, since humans used to calculate stuff like prime numbers, and now computers are doing that. However, computers have seen the rise of computer programmers, game testers, electricians etc. and has seen computer science taught in schools.
If you need the same total amount of work for a given production, with and without technology, it mean that the technology you are using is useless.
The only reason that we still have a lot of jobs, is that consumption had increased a lot (and pollution and depletion of natural resources with it).
If that is the case, then why didn't capitalism die during the industrial revolution? Capitalism has survived one major technological revolution, and therefore there is no reason why it can't survive another.
"i lost my eye and still can see - why should i be worried of losing the other one?"
But the industrial revolution didn't hurt anyone in the long run or poke out an eye in this analogy. It actually dramatically improved living conditions.
For the factory workers, positive changes did not occur until the unions gathered enough influence to get the corporations to meet their demands.