Ukip! Ukip! Ukip!

[tractor]

...

I wonder if the two are actually separate. Yes, poverty may make people in favour of more wealth distribution but more wealth distribution can also destroy incentive and make people poorer. A vicious circle or negative feedback as us engineers would have it.



Most impressive, still trying to work it out.

Ebb and flow, boom and bust. Oh I forgot, Gordon abolished that didn't he?

[doodab]

Only problem here is that Ponzi schemes are antithetical to capitalism. So it's hardly fair to claim it as a symptom of capitalism.

Unless you operate the ponzi scheme there is no incentive to invest and therefore no capitalism.

[doodab]

Also I dare say that that "rising tide" is measured, mistakenly, in income rather than wealth?

I am talking about income share due to capital and labour and have been all along. The distribution of the stock of capital is a separate but related matter. This works (because of the income distribution) overwhelmingly in favour of those who already have captial.

[doodab]

I think he's referring to Thomas Piketty's book, which implies as much. It's also coming under increasing criticism, however, for its lack of much of a theoretical framework and concerns about whether the historical data and his projections on it, previously seen as impeccable, is even reliable. The fact that he identifies an 'inexorable' trend under a system of centrally coordinated fractional reserve banking and then attributes it to an inherent feature of capitalism is suspect in and of itself.

You think wrong.

[vetran]

the problem is we will soon have more workers than jobs unless we keep the cycle of consumerism going faster, but we can't do that as we will run out of resources or planet.


As there are more workers than jobs the wages will continue to fall.

[BigTime]

the problem is we will soon have more workers than jobs unless we keep the cycle of consumerism going faster, but we can't do that as we will run out of resources or planet.


As there are more workers than jobs the wages will continue to fall.

That comment reminds me of this, http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popul...spiracy_theory

The person that 1st made me aware of it was convinced the USA were actively making it happen.

[doodab]

the problem is we will soon have more workers than jobs unless we keep the cycle of consumerism going faster, but we can't do that as we will run out of resources or planet.

As there are more workers than jobs the wages will continue to fall.

Workers are also consumers. This is why, all other things being equal, simply growing population leads to growth of the overall economy.

[vetran]

Workers are also consumers. This is why, all other things being equal, simply growing population leads to growth of the overall economy.

hence the caveat about the limits of the planet.

we either have to get off Earth or cut our cloth a lot more carefully resource wise.

We could possibly slow the process by filling in the oceans and developing better ways to feed & clothe us, but its logic that we will have less resources for a larger population. There will be a struggle and to get out of it we will need significant skill & investment. neither are likely to be easy to come by when chaos is reigning.

[tractor]

...

hence the caveat about the limits of the planet.

we either have to get off Earth or cut our cloth a lot more carefully resource wise.

We could possibly slow the process by filling in the oceans and developing better ways to feed & clothe us, but its logic that we will have less resources for a larger population. There will be a struggle and to get out of it we will need significant skill & investment. neither are likely to be easy to come by when chaos is reigning.

Sorry but you cannot fill in the oceans... for every tonne you put in the water level rises proportionately.

[d000hg]

Sorry but you cannot fill in the oceans... for every tonne you put in the water level rises proportionately.

You could pave over the top.