Quote from: giantdragon on November 01, 2013, 06:28:58 PM

Quote from: Behemot on November 01, 2013, 04:59:09 PM

There is so bloody many things I don't have and want. Somebody needs to make them, what a sruprise. And oh, a small fact. There is like 4 bilion ppl who do not have even as little as I have so I won't worry with these fantasmagoric predictions.

These 4 billion people in the third-world countries don't have enough money to buy expensive stuff produced in the EU/USA, so why do you think they will boost our economy? Capital owners suddenly will decide make them a gift? Shocked

Well...

As a rather dedicated capitalist who isn't out to screw anyone, I'd have to say no. Not a gift. But a discount?

Why not? If I could produce a widget that 1/2 of those 4 billions wanted, and sell it for one satoshi over cost, and at that rate 1/2 of those 2 billions could buy it, that would be a profit of 1 billion satoshis. Other markets would bear a greater price, due to more affluence and a desire for things like better packaging, support, etcetera. As a marketer, I'd be a fool NOT to do this.

Right now, it's done to a small degree but tariffs and import duties and general statist horseshit interferes and adds to that price to the point where they CAN'T afford it. In all of these sessions lambasting capitalism, I almost NEVER see those doing the bashing pointing out the immense harm of regulation and other statist bullshit.

When it comes to marketing, I have no prejudices save one: Can you pay? That's it. I also would like to do good by those less fortunate should I become more fortunate, so, yes, I would give some stuff away at or below cost if I had the excess. A principled capitalist realizes very quickly that every person who's life he improves is a potential customer. Charities operated by corporations and rich individuals are highly effective when they DON'T follow the socialist model. A useful charity gives a hand UP, not a hand OUT.

A person operating a private charity measures their success by the number of people who STOP using their services. A "publicly funded" charity gets it's funding based solely on the number of people it "serves", thus has a perverse incentive to encourage recidivism and dependence, REGARDLESS OF ACTUAL INTENT of those who started it.

While there are some concepts embodied in socialism that I approve of, the vast majority of those "solutions" are better served by free markets and competition. Real competition, not regulated competition.

As for the original topic, I doubt very much that we will reach a point where no one has to work to support themselves, but I can see a point where automation takes up so much of the brute labor that we as a species have much more free time and are able to trade upon our desired employment/ hobbies for our luxuries and contribute very little to the brute labor. Probably maintenance of the machines for most, and a great deal of creativity. The industrial revolution proved that greater productivity led to greater employment of those willing to learn and adapt, and utter disaster for those with a luddite or Malthusian mindset. Adapt or perish.

Further, we have a technological base that is capable of reaching the stars, now. It's not been implemented, but the hurdles are matters of will and employment, not new breakthroughs. New frontiers present new challenges and new opportunities. Given our unrestricted breeding cycle, population pressure WILL drive expansion in the not too distant future, once again obviating the problem proposed in the first post.

Giant Dragon, don't take this as an attack, as I think your posts are well presented and posit questions that need to be answered. You are treading ground that I have been researching for more than two decades, however, so I have a lot to say. But right now I have to go to work