08-22-2005, 07:20 AM
Brother Laz,Aug 22 2005, 07:37 AM Wrote:Yes, and it doesn't matter what John SmithYou mean Adam?
Brother Laz,Aug 22 2005, 07:37 AM Wrote:At the other end is unbridled capitalism, which leads to increasingly widespread poverty. Due to unavoidable positive scale effects [which get more and more noticeable due to the increasing level of technology] there is no way to stop the larger companies from pushing the smaller companies off the market, decreasing the amount of jobs on offer and forcing more and more people into poverty. In the limit, you get a small group of very rich shareholders and everyone else lives in a cardboard box.You are doing a single iteration of a capitalist scenario without following through the feedback loops, so none of it really stands up.
etc...
Introduction of new technology may reduce jobs in the short term, but it also reduces the cost of living (a point that anti-'free trade' people also seem to forget). Plus it also adds jobs to higher added value enterprises (i.e. those that design / manufacture robotics)
The scenario where economies of scale reach limits where a portion of need is not met is very rare, particularly now we have such a global economy. The scenario on a small scale happens when a company is making the decision to open a new plant, but there is not enough demand to make it profitable. So at a larger level the scenario would only happen in the opening of a second plant, where the first plant already satisfies more than fifty percent of demand.
The scenario where rich shareholders are buying product off other rich shareholders and the poor can't afford to buy, forgets that unless there are large barriers to entry then we can't get to, and sustain, this scenario as competitors will be encouraged to start up and undercut.