Global Warming?

Quasi-duck wrote:

GreatbigHippo wrote:

Did I just defeat oceanhawk?

A dead dog could.

oceanhawk wrote:

A dead dog still is smarter, than commies. Because it may not say anything about capitalism, but it sure wont say anything stupid like Communism

Pablo22510 wrote:

No. but capitalism doesn't 'let it be'. Capitalism turns it and harnesses it into something good.

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

A dead dog still is smarter, than commies. Because it may not say anything about capitalism, but it sure wont say anything stupid like Communism

So your a prejudiced bigot, are you?

Pablo22510 wrote:

No. but capitalism doesn't 'let it be'. Capitalism turns it and harnesses it into something good.

How can you turn riots and street violence into "something good"? Hire foreign workers for cheap to clean up the bodies and say you are creating jobs?

Food riots, Street violence

sounds like Venezuela

Pablo22510 wrote:

GreatbigHippo wrote:

But for the right reasons.

Did I just defeat oceanhawk?

Look. Greed, envy and competition are NATURAL human feelings. Capitalism tries to harness them, and turn it into a good thing. Capitalism is good. Capitalism is the system that allows you to be there, at home, on a computer talking to some random guys online, complaining about the very system that allows you to do that. Capitalism generally has free speech, no Communist country has had free speech so far.

oceanhawk wrote:

GreatbigHippo wrote:

@oceanhawk, the problem with capitalism is that a surplus is a bad thing. It's even good to not have enough of a product to supply the entire population, because that keeps the value up. Objectively, this makes no sense. In communism a surplus can be produced because the value stays the same, because the market is controlled by the government. Take the mining industry for example. A common practice in it is to extract raw materials but not sell them. Over time the markets will be lacking the raw materials needed so people will pay a higher price to get them. This is good for business, but it is almost counter-productive in the big picture. How can you create a massive public works project when the value of the materials you need is being intentionally driven up? It is true that competition helps to ease this, but businesses have been known to co-operate in such actions to maximize their profits, at the expense of society. There's also something called monopolies.

AAhh, usually bill just shouts out random stuff that makes no sense. I look forward to slamming this idea, to the ground. Although it isnt the worst thing with Communism.

No it is bad to have a deficit of supply, because this will cause the price to rise. If demand stays the same, and supply falls, price rises. Or is Demand stays the same, and Supply increases Prices fall. As there is a surplus.

What you are talking about there, is white collar crime, that is a crime, and a discrace. And a lot of Conservatives are harsh on this stuff. That is a crime, and is dealt with elsewhere. Although the government controlling the price and production of the mining may sound great. The improvements in Mining technology as well as the motive for hard work, is almost non existant. Competition does more than simply drive down the price. It also encourages Innovation. Yes this is due to the money incentive. Real economic growth comes from increasing quality and quantity of the factors of production. The government doesnt have that ablility to take risks and look into other mining methods, or even invest in a organic replacement of raw materials!

Now onto the gold The problem with the government holding the factors of production, is that the government cant take into account every single need of the people. There cannot ever be 100% Government control

In a free market, under the protection of a limited government individuals are free to express their preferences as consumers. By their purchases or refusals to purchase. They help to determine the prices of consumer goods and services. There needs to be a balance. I value you mowing my garden at 10$ and you value the 10$ more than work of mowing the lawn. Now, as for the production in a command economy. The government would never be able to to plan and control everything. They wouldn't know enough, be powerful enough or be able to cope promptly enough with new and unexpected changes as they took place. Every day, citizens would be making decisions and doing things, in the process of living and surviving. No central planner could hope to take into account every single needs.

1. Innovation only happens if it can provide monetary benefits. Certain innovations can lead to automations that will make the human workforce obsolete.
2. I do not believe the government should control all businesses. Certain luxury businesses, such as food service and landscaping can remain in private hands because they are not necessary. There can even be private retail, as long as there is a state owned counterpart.
3. Localized planning is a thing. You can have someone in each county that requisitions the goods that are needed. Private luxury businesses can buy goods from the government.

oceanhawk wrote:

Food riots, Street violence

GreatbigHippo wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

GreatbigHippo wrote:

But for the right reasons.

Did I just defeat oceanhawk?

Look. Greed, envy and competition are NATURAL human feelings. Capitalism tries to harness them, and turn it into a good thing. Capitalism is good. Capitalism is the system that allows you to be there, at home, on a computer talking to some random guys online, complaining about the very system that allows you to do that. Capitalism generally has free speech, no Communist country has had free speech so far.

Economics has nothing to do with civil liberties. I agree that capitalism was designed with good intentions, but you cannot underestimate the power of greed. It's like the atom, it can be harnessed for good, but it needs to be contained or else it will destroy you. Capitalism does not have sufficient containment.

oceanhawk wrote:

GreatbigHippo wrote:

@oceanhawk, the problem with capitalism is that a surplus is a bad thing. It's even good to not have enough of a product to supply the entire population, because that keeps the value up. Objectively, this makes no sense. In communism a surplus can be produced because the value stays the same, because the market is controlled by the government. Take the mining industry for example. A common practice in it is to extract raw materials but not sell them. Over time the markets will be lacking the raw materials needed so people will pay a higher price to get them. This is good for business, but it is almost counter-productive in the big picture. How can you create a massive public works project when the value of the materials you need is being intentionally driven up? It is true that competition helps to ease this, but businesses have been known to co-operate in such actions to maximize their profits, at the expense of society. There's also something called monopolies.

AAhh, usually bill just shouts out random stuff that makes no sense. I look forward to slamming this idea, to the ground. Although it isnt the worst thing with Communism.No it is bad to have a deficit of supply, because this will cause the price to rise. If demand stays the same, and supply falls, price rises. Or is Demand stays the same, and Supply increases Prices fall. As there is a surplus.

What you are talking about there, is white collar crime, that is a crime, and a discrace. And a lot of Conservatives are harsh on this stuff. That is a crime, and is dealt with elsewhere. Although the government controlling the price and production of the mining may sound great. The improvements in Mining technology as well as the motive for hard work, is almost non existant. Competition does more than simply drive down the price. It also encourages Innovation. Yes this is due to the money incentive. Real economic growth comes from increasing quality and quantity of the factors of production. The government doesnt have that ablility to take risks and look into other mining methods, or even invest in a organic replacement of raw materials!

Now onto the gold The problem with the government holding the factors of production, is that the government cant take into account every single need of the people. There cannot ever be 100% Government control

In a free market, under the protection of a limited government individuals are free to express their preferences as consumers. By their purchases or refusals to purchase. They help to determine the prices of consumer goods and services. There needs to be a balance. I value you mowing my garden at 10$ and you value the 10$ more than work of mowing the lawn. Now, as for the production in a command economy. The government would never be able to to plan and control everything. They wouldn't know enough, be powerful enough or be able to cope promptly enough with new and unexpected changes as they took place. Every day, citizens would be making decisions and doing things, in the process of living and surviving. No central planner could hope to take into account every single needs.

1. Innovation only happens if it can provide monetary benefits. Certain innovations can lead to automations that will make the human workforce obsolete.
2. I do not believe the government should control all businesses. Certain luxury businesses, such as food service and landscaping can remain in private hands because they are not necessary. There can even be private retail, as long as there is a state owned counterpart.
3. Localized planning is a thing. You can have someone in each county that requisitions the goods that are needed. Private luxury businesses can buy goods from the government.

GreatbigHippo wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

AAhh, usually bill just shouts out random stuff that makes no sense. I look forward to slamming this idea, to the ground. Although it isnt the worst thing with Communism.No it is bad to have a deficit of supply, because this will cause the price to rise. If demand stays the same, and supply falls, price rises. Or is Demand stays the same, and Supply increases Prices fall. As there is a surplus.

What you are talking about there, is white collar crime, that is a crime, and a discrace. And a lot of Conservatives are harsh on this stuff. That is a crime, and is dealt with elsewhere. Although the government controlling the price and production of the mining may sound great. The improvements in Mining technology as well as the motive for hard work, is almost non existant. Competition does more than simply drive down the price. It also encourages Innovation. Yes this is due to the money incentive. Real economic growth comes from increasing quality and quantity of the factors of production. The government doesnt have that ablility to take risks and look into other mining methods, or even invest in a organic replacement of raw materials!

Now onto the gold The problem with the government holding the factors of production, is that the government cant take into account every single need of the people. There cannot ever be 100% Government control

In a free market, under the protection of a limited government individuals are free to express their preferences as consumers. By their purchases or refusals to purchase. They help to determine the prices of consumer goods and services. There needs to be a balance. I value you mowing my garden at 10$ and you value the 10$ more than work of mowing the lawn. Now, as for the production in a command economy. The government would never be able to to plan and control everything. They wouldn't know enough, be powerful enough or be able to cope promptly enough with new and unexpected changes as they took place. Every day, citizens would be making decisions and doing things, in the process of living and surviving. No central planner could hope to take into account every single needs.

1. Innovation only happens if it can provide monetary benefits. Certain innovations can lead to automations that will make the human workforce obsolete.
2. I do not believe the government should control all businesses. Certain luxury businesses, such as food service and landscaping can remain in private hands because they are not necessary. There can even be private retail, as long as there is a state owned counterpart.
3. Localized planning is a thing. You can have someone in each county that requisitions the goods that are needed. Private luxury businesses can buy goods from the government

And that is not completly true, stuff like the min wage, makes the work force obsolete. Having robots take over fast food outlets. But yes, a lot of people will try make robots that can do Surgery , ETC but there will be some areas where Humans are superior. But robots taking over Human life, isnt really for this discussion.

Why do you think somethings should stay private? Like food service and Landscaping?

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

Food riots, Street violence

You silly thing, I only said riots and street violence. I'm on about Euro 2016.

oceanhawk wrote:

Nobody will really go out of their way to improve iPhones, if they aint gonna make some $$$

oceanhawk wrote:

Still going on in Communist venezuela

GreatbigHippo wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

GreatbigHippo wrote:

But for the right reasons.

Did I just defeat oceanhawk?

Look. Greed, envy and competition are NATURAL human feelings. Capitalism tries to harness them, and turn it into a good thing. Capitalism is good. Capitalism is the system that allows you to be there, at home, on a computer talking to some random guys online, complaining about the very system that allows you to do that. Capitalism generally has free speech, no Communist country has had free speech so far.

Economics has nothing to do with civil liberties. I agree that capitalism was designed with good intentions, but you cannot underestimate the power of greed. It's like the atom, it can be harnessed for good, but it needs to be contained or else it will destroy you. Capitalism does not have sufficient containment.

As I said yesterday

The percentage of the population, living on a dollar a day, has fallen by 30% in the last 30 years. This was because off free enterprise.

Free enterprise lifted 400million people out of poverty in China in the 20 years between, 1981 and 2001

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

Nobody will really go out of their way to improve iPhones, if they aint gonna make some $$$

What if you give them a medal?

some plastic shitty medal. Unless it is earned for doing something heroic, like serving in the army, I will take my $$ and go

oceanhawk wrote:

Unless it is earned for doing something heroic, like serving in the army,

oceanhawk wrote:

GreatbigHippo wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

GreatbigHippo wrote:

But for the right reasons.

Did I just defeat oceanhawk?

Look. Greed, envy and competition are NATURAL human feelings. Capitalism tries to harness them, and turn it into a good thing. Capitalism is good. Capitalism is the system that allows you to be there, at home, on a computer talking to some random guys online, complaining about the very system that allows you to do that. Capitalism generally has free speech, no Communist country has had free speech so far.

Economics has nothing to do with civil liberties. I agree that capitalism was designed with good intentions, but you cannot underestimate the power of greed. It's like the atom, it can be harnessed for good, but it needs to be contained or else it will destroy you. Capitalism does not have sufficient containment.

oceanhawk wrote:

GreatbigHippo wrote:

@oceanhawk, the problem with capitalism is that a surplus is a bad thing. It's even good to not have enough of a product to supply the entire population, because that keeps the value up. Objectively, this makes no sense. In communism a surplus can be produced because the value stays the same, because the market is controlled by the government. Take the mining industry for example. A common practice in it is to extract raw materials but not sell them. Over time the markets will be lacking the raw materials needed so people will pay a higher price to get them. This is good for business, but it is almost counter-productive in the big picture. How can you create a massive public works project when the value of the materials you need is being intentionally driven up? It is true that competition helps to ease this, but businesses have been known to co-operate in such actions to maximize their profits, at the expense of society. There's also something called monopolies.

AAhh, usually bill just shouts out random stuff that makes no sense. I look forward to slamming this idea, to the ground. Although it isnt the worst thing with Communism.No it is bad to have a deficit of supply, because this will cause the price to rise. If demand stays the same, and supply falls, price rises. Or is Demand stays the same, and Supply increases Prices fall. As there is a surplus.

What you are talking about there, is white collar crime, that is a crime, and a discrace. And a lot of Conservatives are harsh on this stuff. That is a crime, and is dealt with elsewhere. Although the government controlling the price and production of the mining may sound great. The improvements in Mining technology as well as the motive for hard work, is almost non existant. Competition does more than simply drive down the price. It also encourages Innovation. Yes this is due to the money incentive. Real economic growth comes from increasing quality and quantity of the factors of production. The government doesnt have that ablility to take risks and look into other mining methods, or even invest in a organic replacement of raw materials!

Now onto the gold The problem with the government holding the factors of production, is that the government cant take into account every single need of the people. There cannot ever be 100% Government control

In a free market, under the protection of a limited government individuals are free to express their preferences as consumers. By their purchases or refusals to purchase. They help to determine the prices of consumer goods and services. There needs to be a balance. I value you mowing my garden at 10$ and you value the 10$ more than work of mowing the lawn. Now, as for the production in a command economy. The government would never be able to to plan and control everything. They wouldn't know enough, be powerful enough or be able to cope promptly enough with new and unexpected changes as they took place. Every day, citizens would be making decisions and doing things, in the process of living and surviving. No central planner could hope to take into account every single needs.

1. Innovation only happens if it can provide monetary benefits. Certain innovations can lead to automations that will make the human workforce obsolete.
2. I do not believe the government should control all businesses. Certain luxury businesses, such as food service and landscaping can remain in private hands because they are not necessary. There can even be private retail, as long as there is a state owned counterpart.
3. Localized planning is a thing. You can have someone in each county that requisitions the goods that are needed. Private luxury businesses can buy goods from the government.

Yes Innovation, mainly happens due to the financial benifts, gained by the innovators. That is what I am saying. Nobody will really go out of their way to improve iPhones, if they aint gonna make some $$$

And that is not completly true, stuff like the min wage, makes the work force obsolete. Having robots take over fast food outlets. But yes, a lot of people will try make robots that can do Surgery , ETC but there will be some areas where Humans are superior. But robots taking over Human life, isnt really for this discussion.

Why do you think somethings should stay private? Like food service and Landscaping?

I think robots is for this discussion. An automated workforce isn't science fiction anymore. There are already entire careers that are now completely automated. This won't stop and as it continues to happen capitalism will not only become obsolete, but communism, or something similar, will become necessary. Even without minimum wage it would be cheaper and more efficient to buy robots to make products. It is true that humans will remain superior in some jobs, but that's only a few people out of the hundreds of millions who would be unemployed.

You could say the same thing happened in the industrial revolution, and you'd be right, but even then the world developed a completely new way of looking at economics. The same thing will have to happen again.

oceanhawk wrote:

GreatbigHippo wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

GreatbigHippo wrote:

But for the right reasons.

Did I just defeat oceanhawk?

Look. Greed, envy and competition are NATURAL human feelings. Capitalism tries to harness them, and turn it into a good thing. Capitalism is good. Capitalism is the system that allows you to be there, at home, on a computer talking to some random guys online, complaining about the very system that allows you to do that. Capitalism generally has free speech, no Communist country has had free speech so far.

Economics has nothing to do with civil liberties. I agree that capitalism was designed with good intentions, but you cannot underestimate the power of greed. It's like the atom, it can be harnessed for good, but it needs to be contained or else it will destroy you. Capitalism does not have sufficient containment.

I could say the same for Communism, but it doesnt actually good do.

As I said yesterday

The percentage of the population, living on a dollar a day, has fallen by 30% in the last 30 years. This was because off free enterprise.

Free enterprise lifted 400million people out of poverty in China in the 20 years between, 1981 and 2001

GreatbigHippo wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

GreatbigHippo wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

GreatbigHippo wrote:

But for the right reasons.

Did I just defeat oceanhawk?

Look. Greed, envy and competition are NATURAL human feelings. Capitalism tries to harness them, and turn it into a good thing. Capitalism is good. Capitalism is the system that allows you to be there, at home, on a computer talking to some random guys online, complaining about the very system that allows you to do that. Capitalism generally has free speech, no Communist country has had free speech so far.

Economics has nothing to do with civil liberties. I agree that capitalism was designed with good intentions, but you cannot underestimate the power of greed. It's like the atom, it can be harnessed for good, but it needs to be contained or else it will destroy you. Capitalism does not have sufficient containment.

oceanhawk wrote:

GreatbigHippo wrote:

@oceanhawk, the problem with capitalism is that a surplus is a bad thing. It's even good to not have enough of a product to supply the entire population, because that keeps the value up. Objectively, this makes no sense. In communism a surplus can be produced because the value stays the same, because the market is controlled by the government. Take the mining industry for example. A common practice in it is to extract raw materials but not sell them. Over time the markets will be lacking the raw materials needed so people will pay a higher price to get them. This is good for business, but it is almost counter-productive in the big picture. How can you create a massive public works project when the value of the materials you need is being intentionally driven up? It is true that competition helps to ease this, but businesses have been known to co-operate in such actions to maximize their profits, at the expense of society. There's also something called monopolies.

AAhh, usually bill just shouts out random stuff that makes no sense. I look forward to slamming this idea, to the ground. Although it isnt the worst thing with Communism.No it is bad to have a deficit of supply, because this will cause the price to rise. If demand stays the same, and supply falls, price rises. Or is Demand stays the same, and Supply increases Prices fall. As there is a surplus.What you are talking about there, is white collar crime, that is a crime, and a discrace. And a lot of Conservatives are harsh on this stuff. That is a crime, and is dealt with elsewhere. Although the government controlling the price and production of the mining may sound great. The improvements in Mining technology as well as the motive for hard work, is almost non existant. Competition does more than simply drive down the price. It also encourages Innovation. Yes this is due to the money incentive. Real economic growth comes from increasing quality and quantity of the factors of production. The government doesnt have that ablility to take risks and look into other mining methods, or even invest in a organic replacement of raw materials!

Now onto the gold The problem with the government holding the factors of production, is that the government cant take into account every single need of the people. There cannot ever be 100% Government control

In a free market, under the protection of a limited government individuals are free to express their preferences as consumers. By their purchases or refusals to purchase. They help to determine the prices of consumer goods and services. There needs to be a balance. I value you mowing my garden at 10$ and you value the 10$ more than work of mowing the lawn. Now, as for the production in a command economy. The government would never be able to to plan and control everything. They wouldn't know enough, be powerful enough or be able to cope promptly enough with new and unexpected changes as they took place. Every day, citizens would be making decisions and doing things, in the process of living and surviving. No central planner could hope to take into account every single needs.

1. Innovation only happens if it can provide monetary benefits. Certain innovations can lead to automations that will make the human workforce obsolete.
2. I do not believe the government should control all businesses. Certain luxury businesses, such as food service and landscaping can remain in private hands because they are not necessary. There can even be private retail, as long as there is a state owned counterpart.
3. Localized planning is a thing. You can have someone in each county that requisitions the goods that are needed. Private luxury businesses can buy goods from the government.

Yes Innovation, mainly happens due to the financial benifts, gained by the innovators. That is what I am saying. Nobody will really go out of their way to improve iPhones, if they aint gonna make some $$$And that is not completly true, stuff like the min wage, makes the work force obsolete. Having robots take over fast food outlets. But yes, a lot of people will try make robots that can do Surgery , ETC but there will be some areas where Humans are superior. But robots taking over Human life, isnt really for this discussion.

Why do you think somethings should stay private? Like food service and Landscaping?

I think robots is for this discussion. An automated workforce isn't science fiction anymore. There are already entire careers that are now completely automated. This won't stop and as it continues to happen capitalism will not only become obsolete, but communism, or something similar, will become necessary. Even without minimum wage it would be cheaper and more efficient to buy robots to make products. It is true that humans will remain superior in some jobs, but that's only a few people out of the hundreds of millions who would be unemployed.

You could say the same thing happened in the industrial revolution, and you'd be right, but even then the world developed a completely new way of looking at economics. The same thing will have to happen again.

but I was enjoying the other debate.

oceanhawk wrote:

GreatbigHippo wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

GreatbigHippo wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

GreatbigHippo wrote:

But for the right reasons.

Did I just defeat oceanhawk?

Look. Greed, envy and competition are NATURAL human feelings. Capitalism tries to harness them, and turn it into a good thing. Capitalism is good. Capitalism is the system that allows you to be there, at home, on a computer talking to some random guys online, complaining about the very system that allows you to do that. Capitalism generally has free speech, no Communist country has had free speech so far.

Economics has nothing to do with civil liberties. I agree that capitalism was designed with good intentions, but you cannot underestimate the power of greed. It's like the atom, it can be harnessed for good, but it needs to be contained or else it will destroy you. Capitalism does not have sufficient containment.

oceanhawk wrote:

GreatbigHippo wrote:

@oceanhawk, the problem with capitalism is that a surplus is a bad thing. It's even good to not have enough of a product to supply the entire population, because that keeps the value up. Objectively, this makes no sense. In communism a surplus can be produced because the value stays the same, because the market is controlled by the government. Take the mining industry for example. A common practice in it is to extract raw materials but not sell them. Over time the markets will be lacking the raw materials needed so people will pay a higher price to get them. This is good for business, but it is almost counter-productive in the big picture. How can you create a massive public works project when the value of the materials you need is being intentionally driven up? It is true that competition helps to ease this, but businesses have been known to co-operate in such actions to maximize their profits, at the expense of society. There's also something called monopolies.

AAhh, usually bill just shouts out random stuff that makes no sense. I look forward to slamming this idea, to the ground. Although it isnt the worst thing with Communism.No it is bad to have a deficit of supply, because this will cause the price to rise. If demand stays the same, and supply falls, price rises. Or is Demand stays the same, and Supply increases Prices fall. As there is a surplus.What you are talking about there, is white collar crime, that is a crime, and a discrace. And a lot of Conservatives are harsh on this stuff. That is a crime, and is dealt with elsewhere. Although the government controlling the price and production of the mining may sound great. The improvements in Mining technology as well as the motive for hard work, is almost non existant. Competition does more than simply drive down the price. It also encourages Innovation. Yes this is due to the money incentive. Real economic growth comes from increasing quality and quantity of the factors of production. The government doesnt have that ablility to take risks and look into other mining methods, or even invest in a organic replacement of raw materials!

Now onto the gold The problem with the government holding the factors of production, is that the government cant take into account every single need of the people. There cannot ever be 100% Government control

In a free market, under the protection of a limited government individuals are free to express their preferences as consumers. By their purchases or refusals to purchase. They help to determine the prices of consumer goods and services. There needs to be a balance. I value you mowing my garden at 10$ and you value the 10$ more than work of mowing the lawn. Now, as for the production in a command economy. The government would never be able to to plan and control everything. They wouldn't know enough, be powerful enough or be able to cope promptly enough with new and unexpected changes as they took place. Every day, citizens would be making decisions and doing things, in the process of living and surviving. No central planner could hope to take into account every single needs.

1. Innovation only happens if it can provide monetary benefits. Certain innovations can lead to automations that will make the human workforce obsolete.
2. I do not believe the government should control all businesses. Certain luxury businesses, such as food service and landscaping can remain in private hands because they are not necessary. There can even be private retail, as long as there is a state owned counterpart.
3. Localized planning is a thing. You can have someone in each county that requisitions the goods that are needed. Private luxury businesses can buy goods from the government.

Yes Innovation, mainly happens due to the financial benifts, gained by the innovators. That is what I am saying. Nobody will really go out of their way to improve iPhones, if they aint gonna make some $$$And that is not completly true, stuff like the min wage, makes the work force obsolete. Having robots take over fast food outlets. But yes, a lot of people will try make robots that can do Surgery , ETC but there will be some areas where Humans are superior. But robots taking over Human life, isnt really for this discussion.

Why do you think somethings should stay private? Like food service and Landscaping?

I think robots is for this discussion. An automated workforce isn't science fiction anymore. There are already entire careers that are now completely automated. This won't stop and as it continues to happen capitalism will not only become obsolete, but communism, or something similar, will become necessary. Even without minimum wage it would be cheaper and more efficient to buy robots to make products. It is true that humans will remain superior in some jobs, but that's only a few people out of the hundreds of millions who would be unemployed.

You could say the same thing happened in the industrial revolution, and you'd be right, but even then the world developed a completely new way of looking at economics. The same thing will have to happen again.

The world will adapt, like it has before. The only thing that will happen, is Communist nations will fall even more behind the successful capitalist nations

but I was enjoying the other debate.

GreatbigHippo wrote:

Are you sure? Or do you just think you will lose if we keep going on about robots?

oceanhawk wrote:

haha, or is it cos you think you will lose, if we go on about the rest of the stuff?

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

haha, or is it cos you think you will lose, if we go on about the rest of the stuff?

You were the one who said you wanted to stop.

oceanhawk wrote:

yea, cos its boring, and Hippo and you know, that you wont win. Communism doesnt work, although I will admit, Hippo actually put up a decent argument, will constructed, with good points. Communism still sucks, and Capitalism, works and is better for everybody