[p2p-research] Tick, tock, tick, tock… BING

[Ryan Lanham]

Here is the current scenario as I see it:

1. Technology has made labor "abundant."  As opposed to the era of the Great
Plague (1350) when capitalism started and modern technology took off, we
don't have a rarity of labor, we have far too much.

2. Sensing this, consumers over-consumed credit.  They had a party.

3. Short-term biases in compensation caused by faulty theories of management
and banking led executives to focus on the short-term and to ignore market
realities of point 2.

4. Technology reallocated these risks globally hiding the problem for a long
time.

5. Consumers and small businesses sensing a sea change stopped consuming.
They cannot expand their earnings because demand is slow.

6. People with high skills continued to earn.  Those with low skills became
poor.  Skill is a function of value/demand.

7. With falling demand, credit became dysfunctional.  Even with large
monetary expansions, there is deflation--violating all monetarism and
proving it false in several important circumstances of capitalism.

8. We now have abundant labor with technology able to make it more abundant
still.

Logical outcome: Long term deflation, high unemployment and rapidly falling
populations as nations reach wealth.  Technology will accelerate because
labor is so unattractive it is functioning like a low-labor environment.
That is, costs of hiring people at a dignified wage cannot be justified.



On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Patrick Anderson <agnucius at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 6:02 AM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > people cannot consume what we can make
>>
>> That is because ownership is being used for profit instead of product.
>>
>> We will use ownership to gain the control we need.
>>
>> And we will use profit to help latecomers gain the ownership they need.
>>
>>
> State your estimate of the probability that capitalism ends as now for
> every 5 year period going forward.  Combine that with the probability that
> this end will be peaceful and easy.  That is the likelihood, in a given
> period, you think your outcome will occur.
>
>
>> When you say 'capital' I assume you mean Capitalism.
>>
>>
> Capital is mostly money now.  If by capitalism, you mean a credit driven
> economy of markets, then, yes, I mean capitalism.  If you mean it as Marx
> did, then no, I don't mean capitalism.
>
>
>
>> Capitalism requires scarcity because profit is being misunderstood and
>> causes us to not realize the fatal requirements of traditional
>> investors who demand price never reach cost.
>>
>>
> Capitalism doesn't require scarcity.  I requires selective demand.  It
> isn't scarcity that is dying, it is selective demand.  People will always
> prefer the rare and the best...they just can't economically justify the
> costs to get variance.
>
>
> Treating profit as a reward for current owner incents scarcity and
>> destruction.
>>
>
> Profit is a form of reward for risk.  Risk is taken because someone has
> superior information, abilities to plan, or out of sheer gambling.  Want it
> incents is greater risk-taking so long as it doesn't fail.  Now, it is
> failing at every turn because money returns on loans are not working out.
>  It has nothing to do (so far as I can tell) with what capitalism
> causes...or how it is driven...the problem is demand based...Capitalism
> isn't failing by some other rules...it is failing by its own rules.  Credit
> doesn't work any more.  That's the issue.
>
>



-- 
Ryan Lanham
rlanham1963 at gmail.com
Facebook: Ryan_Lanham
P.O. Box 633
Grand Cayman, KY1-1303
Cayman Islands
(345) 916-1712
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20091212/042aad00/attachment.html>