Lots of people have talked about this.
The first problem is that “it’s someone else’s problem” since the market doesn’t change that fast.
The second problem is that there are still rich people who own the robots that can buy things.
The final piece of the puzzle is that Capitalism doesn’t give a shit about individual people unless their existence is maximizing profit somehow. It would happily(I say this knowing capitalism isn’t a person and has no emotion) allow the population of the earth to drop down to 1 million if that optimized profit for shareholders.
I agree, its totally evident capitalism is logic challenged.
Capitalism is not logic challenged, that’s part of the problem, people misunderstanding it.
Capitalism is just a concept, a method of doing things. There’s no reason why we need to allow it to operate freely. We choose what rules it plays by, and how to enforce those rules.
The government already regulates plenty of things so that Capitalism chooses a slightly better direction. The trick we need to pull off is regulating capitalism in a way that is beneficial for society, rather than just specific people which we’re doing a pretty shitty job of right now.
The first problem is that “it’s someone else’s problem” since the market doesn’t change that fast.
How come? Markets not good?
The second problem is that there are still rich people who own the robots that can buy things.
Quantity?
The final piece of the puzzle is that Capitalism doesn’t give a shit about individual people unless their existence is maximizing profit somehow.
This systems seems quite lacking as far as building a society on it is concerned.
Capitalism has many market failures. Long term planning is one of them.
This is really a problem with Shareholders giving the wrong incentives to management via bonuses on short term value gains.
Really Rich people? Millions to tens of millions.
All economic systems lack something, the question really comes down to which one is the least bad and how to drive it properly. Socialism (government ownership) and Communism (public ownership) both suck at producing variety and innovating for example and need to be specifically forced/controlled to do those activities.
The clich‘e is not quite as rigid, though. There are examples of successful public and state enterprises, like Mondragon in Spain and state owned industries in former Yugoslavia, respectively. Modern leftists generally admit that some form mixed approach is best.
And I agree with them, if you go look at my other recent comments I’d actually like to see:
Communism for land ownership, Socialism for necessities, and Capitalism for supplying additional options to necessities, and all luxuries.
What problem? The 90% wont trade anymore. It will be all filthy rich individuals and corporations doing the trading.
