> The OPs question was whether Capitalism as we understand it now, is suited for the future when we expect most kinds of labour to be done by machines.
Capitalism "as we understand it now" is not pure capitalism, it's capitalism accompanied by a welfare system. Why is that not scalable to a future where most labour is not done by machines; what's qualitatively different between 70% of the population working with 30% on welfare, and 10% of the population working with 90% on welfare?
>Which means automation will give rise to an increasing number of people who cannot undertake non-automatable knowledge-work, and thus become doomed to be unemployed, and leads to a self-reinforcing cycle out of which they cannot escape. This is a problem that the civilization has to confront, and our current way of thinking about economics will not work there.
How is it a problem? If they're less productive than robots in every way, why not just put them on welfare? Current economics handles this perfectly.
>If we consider that each of us is beholden to the collective past of entire humanity, the idea of ownership and 'fruits of labour' becomes just a social construct. This construct nevertheless is required today and for the foreseeable future as the only practical way to divide resources. However it is a complicated and probably intractable idea, and is not at all axiomatic as you seem to make it out to be.
'Fruits of labour' is axiomatic in the sense that rejecting it necessarily entails violence. Eg, if Joe picks an apple, but is not allowed to keep the fruits of his labour, this necessarily entails violence or the threat thereof to take the apple away from Joe. If Aaron sings a song and Camelia offers him a pumpkin in exchange for this, but they're not allowed to trade freely, this necessarily implies some violence or threat thereof against them to prevent them from making the exchange. If Martha builds a car for Fred and Fred offers Martha a house in exchange, but then it's decided Fred shouldn't be allowed to keep the car, violence or the threat thereof is necessarily required to take the car from Fred. Unless Fred wanted to give it away freely, for instance charity, but he's perfectly capable of doing this anyway under a 'fruits of one's labour' system.
>How is it a problem? If they're less productive than robots in every way, why not just put them on welfare? Current economics handles this perfectly.
Does it really handle it perfectly? I assume perfectly handling it will mean those who do live on this welfare system have their basic needs met, is that the case in the current economy?
>I assume perfectly handling it will mean those who do live on this welfare system have their basic needs met, is that the case in the current economy?
In most Western Countries it is. America seems to be an exception in terms of having relatively lower welfare payment rates.
>what's qualitatively different between 70% of the population working with 30% on welfare, and 10% of the population working with 90% on welfare?
The government receives less tax revenues because 20% of the population is no longer working (and paying taxes). At some point if enough of the population is no longer contributing, unless there are massive changes in how we manage the economy, the country will become insolvent and won't be able to afford the welfare payments as tax revenue decreases.
>The government receives less tax revenues because 20% of the population is no longer working (and paying taxes).
The assumption is that machines exist that are more productive than all these people no longer working. If these machines didn't exist, then these people would still be productively employed.
Except if consumers don't have jobs they won't be able to purchase the products made by machines, therefore the owners will NOT make the money, and the economy will enter into a "death spiral".
If you'd ever been on welfare for an extended amount of time, you'd realise that it's actually seriously scary. You worry that at any moment, the Government might take away some of your benefits, when you're literally at $0 at the end of every month.
Well, the problem is mostly that some significant number of voters hate the idea that their money is being spent on keeping someone else alive and well, so the Government is constantly changing who gets it and how much.
The problem is that when you're living off someone else's goodwill - even if that someone is the Government - you're entirely dependent on them, and they can put you through whatever hardship they please.
Capitalism "as we understand it now" is not pure capitalism, it's capitalism accompanied by a welfare system. Why is that not scalable to a future where most labour is not done by machines; what's qualitatively different between 70% of the population working with 30% on welfare, and 10% of the population working with 90% on welfare?
>Which means automation will give rise to an increasing number of people who cannot undertake non-automatable knowledge-work, and thus become doomed to be unemployed, and leads to a self-reinforcing cycle out of which they cannot escape. This is a problem that the civilization has to confront, and our current way of thinking about economics will not work there.
How is it a problem? If they're less productive than robots in every way, why not just put them on welfare? Current economics handles this perfectly.
>If we consider that each of us is beholden to the collective past of entire humanity, the idea of ownership and 'fruits of labour' becomes just a social construct. This construct nevertheless is required today and for the foreseeable future as the only practical way to divide resources. However it is a complicated and probably intractable idea, and is not at all axiomatic as you seem to make it out to be.
'Fruits of labour' is axiomatic in the sense that rejecting it necessarily entails violence. Eg, if Joe picks an apple, but is not allowed to keep the fruits of his labour, this necessarily entails violence or the threat thereof to take the apple away from Joe. If Aaron sings a song and Camelia offers him a pumpkin in exchange for this, but they're not allowed to trade freely, this necessarily implies some violence or threat thereof against them to prevent them from making the exchange. If Martha builds a car for Fred and Fred offers Martha a house in exchange, but then it's decided Fred shouldn't be allowed to keep the car, violence or the threat thereof is necessarily required to take the car from Fred. Unless Fred wanted to give it away freely, for instance charity, but he's perfectly capable of doing this anyway under a 'fruits of one's labour' system.