The Everlasting CCCP !

[GeneralTacticus]

This kind of crisis has hit every nation in the past, and they've recovered; why do you think it won't recover this time?

[GeneralTacticus]

Who'd want to invest in a company that didn't make money?

Somebody who thought it had the potential to make money?

[Jamski]

Its a destructive cycle. The stocks of certain companies grow always higher, when seen in the long run. Eventually a "growth ceiling" will be reached, when a company cannot increase its profits anymore. What happens when all the companies reach this point? Noone will invest in them, and the people already invested in these companies will not be able to sell. Why buy a $4 stock if it will never be worth more than $4?

-Jam

[GeneralTacticus]

Because holding stock entitles you to a share in the company profits? Why do you believe that there will be a profit ceiling, anyway? If absolutely nothing changes, perhaps, but technological advancement hasn't slowed down at all.

[Jamski]

There's a profit ceiling because there is a buying ceiling. People can, and will, only buy so much. If people are richer, they can buy more, but most of the developed world is, on the whole getting poorer (in real terms) while the undeveloped world remains exactly that - undeveloped. If the undeveloped world was richer, then profits would not increase owing to the new markets, but shrink, owing to increased costs of raw materials and labour. At some point the limit will be reached, with current tech, of course.

-Jam

[GeneralTacticus]

And your last assumption is what invalidates your argument, because technology is NEVER static. It's always developing.

[Jamski]

But is anyone working on a tech to make this situation better? No - quite the opposite in fact. Most technological innovation is designed to increase profits (or the research wouldn't be paid for)
but no tech will lift the buying ceiling. In fact many profit increasing techs (factory automation?) decrease the total buying power as they lead to higher unemployment. All future tech may do is hasten the collapse of the kapital system.

-Jam

[GeneralTacticus]

Um, I thought your problem was that since profits would stop increasing, nobody would invest, and hence the economy tanks? What is it now? And why won't tech lift the buying ceiling? Are you claiming that we don't buy mroe now than we did in, say, 1850?

[Jamski]

I'm still claiming that the economy will tank (nice expression GT) due to growth stoppage. We can see this in action in Germany. I'm also caliming that this will ahppen everywhere in the future as there is an universal growth limit imposed by a "buying ceiling" Sure, we're buying more than in 1850, but we're not buying much more than in 1990. Everyone has a computer/washing machine etc. Computers bought in 1995 are still good enough for most non-gaming applications. Cars bought in 1990 still go. Washing maschines from 1970 still go, so technology has practically stopped increasing consumer spending. The only "blip" was the mobile phone boom of the late 90's, but now that everyone has a handy, this sector of the economy is in serious trouble, as the massive growth was not sustainable. Sure 250% growth for the last three years is great, but then everyone has a phone, and we've borrowed lots of money based on our growth prediction figures... This is how technology will not break the cycle. I predict 3 more booms - cheap TV phones, convincing home VR and automated household drones. And then we'll see the kapital system die.

-Jam

[GeneralTacticus]

I think you left out things like biotechnology, and non-consumer markets like, say, space techology. Moreover, cars from 1990 and all the rest may still be running now, but they won't keep running forever.

And, of coruse, you forgot to mention population growth, which means there will always be new consumers.

And, fo course, you're also forgetting that most people in the Third World don't have this stuff, so there will be that as a kind of last resort market. I imagine even the IMF, WTO, et al would choose to give the Third World back it's rights rather than face their own economic collapse.

[GeneralTacticus]

Also, I note that you still haven't answered my question about why you don't believe in deterrence.

[Jamski]

Because the death penalty in the USA (harshest punishment) is coupled with the extremly high murder rate. Obvously noone is deterred, no matter how harsh the punishment. Also the "rational murderer argument" from last week. Most muderers (for example) are not acting rationally, so how can we expect the rational deterrment to work.

Non-consumer markets rely on taxpayers' money/sponsorship. If I don't have a job, then I can't pay any taxes. If my firm is "tanking" then I won't sponser a space programm.

Population is shrinking in Europe and Japan.

Do you really think the Third World will get its rights ?

-Jam

[Cedayon]

Good grief, you guys took this thread from 15 pages to well into the 17th page in under 7 hours...

[Jamski]

Yeah, its been a slow day. I actually had to do some work, so the posting rate was down on last week (!)

-Jam

[GeneralTacticus]

Because the death penalty in the USA (harshest punishment) is coupled with the extremly high murder rate. Obvously noone is deterred, no matter how harsh the punishment.

1) Just how many murderers that are actually caught and convicted are sentenced to the death penalty?

2) What do you think would happen if they did what you would like them to and abolished any kind of punishment for murder?

Also the "rational murderer argument" from last week. Most muderers (for example) are not acting rationally, so how can we expect the rational deterrment to work.

Even if we accept that mos tmruders are committed by irrational people, would this not mean that if you don't punish it (hence eliminating the rational argument against it), rational people will have no reason not to kill ohter than their own conscience?

Non-consumer markets rely on taxpayers' money/sponsorship. If I don't have a job, then I can't pay any taxes. If my firm is "tanking" then I won't sponser a space programm.

Non-consumer markets won't save the economy alone, but they aren't necessarily dependant on the rest of the economy either; space exploraiton, for example, could be invested in directly by companies that wanted to reap the benefits of it.

Population is shrinking in Europe and Japan.

While at the same time it's growing elsewhere.

Do you really think the Third World will get its rights ?

If the current situation continues, no. If it does eprsist, and you turn out to be right, then teh blame will belong to those institutions.

However, I note that you didn't address my argument that just because people already have things, doesn't mean theyw on't buy others - things wear out or are made obsolete, or people just want more of them. Also, some things will always be consumed, simply because we need them and we use them up - water, food, power (including petrol and such), construction materials (for new housing), the various things requried to make them, and so on. Not to mention entertainment.