Where am I wrong?

>>3324373
Yeah, no shit. But under which ideology?

>>3324373
>is a zero sum game
False.

>the economy needs more energy and natural resources
False

>more efficient in its production processes
One of many ways to increase wealth

>planet is finite
Yes, although we're thousands and thousands of years away from running out of anything.

>capitalism is doomed to be destroyed because of wealth disparity
False. Wealth disparity is the rule, not the exception throughout history.

Capitalism is by far the best we've got. Nothing will replace it nor should anything replace it.

>>3324373

There is an pretty much infinite resources on our planet, light from the sun.

How do thermodynamics limit our ability to increase productivity?

Lastly, this increasing accumulation of wealth in the hands of less people is not certain to happen at all.

>>3324407
"WRONG" the post

>>3324420
Not an argument.

>is a zero sum game
False.

>the economy needs more energy and natural resources
False


>planet is finite
You don't understand what economics means by scarcity

>capitalism is doomed to be destroyed because of wealth disparity
False.

>>3324407

The only long term way for economic growth is increases in productivity. What other ways do you know?

> we're thousands and thousands of years away from running out of anything.

You got any dodo's for sale?

Natural resources are finite, but we can maintain economic growth in the long-run by making improvements in technology or organisation, thereby increasing the production possibilities frontier of the economy.

>>3324429
He's already conceded. Good.

>>3324435
>increase in productivity
Or just plain efficiency, producing the most isn't always the best for economic growth.

>>3324441
Still not an argument.

>>3324446
You realize "not an argument" isn't an argument either, yeah? Invoking a stale meme doesn't make your bullshit too good to be looked down on.

>>3324446

efficiency = productivity

Trillions of world exist outside our own.

Barter system is for tribal people.
Capitalism is for pre-modern humans.
Socialism is for post-scarcity civs.

>>3324453
Not an argument.

>>3324459
Yes, but producing MORE isn't always the best economic decision, hence infinite growth part is false.

Supply & demand is what drives markets.

>>3324471
>post-scarcity
If the price is free we will never run out of anything.

>>3324478

Who's talking about producing more?

Increasing productivity or efficiency (they are the same thing) is the only way to long term economic growth.

>>3324484
Yes, such is the world we live in. No other system will change that, nor will any other system be better than capitalism. Capitalism is the best we got, deal with it.

>>3324493

???

The endgamr of capitalism the total allocation of all wealth to top 0,1%

>>3324531
The end game of capitalism is feudalism.

>>3324510
>>3324531
Capitalism über alles. Keep crying bitch niggas.

>>3324543
You don't need to make your nazibooism so blatant.

>>3324543
>yes my corporate master let me auck your dick some more for this opportunity to earn minimum wage with no job security or holidays because keeping your free time would imply laziness

File: 1486262827273.png (92KB, 554x380px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 554x380px

>>3324561
>>3324562

Uneducated morons like you should just leave this website for good.

Capitalism WITHOUT economic growth IS a zero sum game because without an increased production or more efficiency what one person acquires must come from the possessions of somebody else.

How the hell can you deny this?

>>3324579
>posts reeeeeee-ing Marx
>uneducated morons get out of my board

Do you completely lack self awareness?

>>3324586

Not exactly, because we value things differently. If I value an apple at $2, and the guy selling apples is willing to sell them for $1, by buying an apple I have gained value while the seller is no worse off.

>>3324586
>>3324587
>being this uneducated

>>3324593

But the seller of apples won't hire new workers because the production isn't increasing. And since there isn't a more efficient way to produce apples no new farmers will appear. That apple seller will indefinetely accumulate all the money from the people that needs them to survive.

>>3324595

Please educate me

>>3324613

You're right, I stand corrected.

File: Future_comunism.png (837KB, 1430x801px) Image search: [Google]

837KB, 1430x801px

>>3324373
The Future is red

>>3324531

Well if thats the way you choose to see it. I bet you like that youtube video showing the terrible wealth inequality in America. The other half which you neglect is we as consumers demand goods produced cheaper and more efficiently. We can sit here and whine about Bezos's 90 billion but we were the ones that made it possible for him to aquire so much wealth. The system owes nothing to us it only serves as a medium through which we can succede or fail.

On the long run we certainly need to expand beyond Earth.

There is a lot of room for better use of resources. For example a better recycling program. Thing is, those resources aren't scarce enough and keeping a clean environment isn't factored in the cost of goods.

>>3324373
>Capitalism without economic growth is a zero sum game.

This is where you went wrong, in literally your first sentence. Efficient!

Capitalism creates new markets, it is its own engine of growth.

>>3324613
>>3324593

But if you buy those apples and turn them into apple pies, you will be able to sell them for more than you paid for them.

Capitalism is doomed period once we establish viable space travel because the resources of the solar system plus fusion basically guarantee a post scarcity world.

>>3325637

There will ALWAYS be things that are worth more than other things, even if they're just "the view from your window" or "spending time in the company of beautiful / interesting people".

>>3325640
>capitalism will continue to thrive in a situation where energy and food are so easy to produce and so plentiful that they are not profitable at all solely on the basis of people wanting a better view for their apartment window

>>3324373
No. Actually Unless we develop cold fusion and colonize space, communism will never be achievable.
The whole point of economics is that things are finite.

>>3325656
Energy will always be finite (unless of course the universe itself is infinite, which I don't think is the prudent assumption to take from our perspective). Even in situations where energy has become extraordinarily abundant, the hypothetical Dyson swarms (which don't come without their own flaws), massive hydrogen powered fusion generators and planet-wide geothermal plants you still need to store and transport that energy to population centers, and there will be inefficiencies in that process even in the distant future. This not accounting for the fact that the energy consumption of Man will increase dramatically in lockstep with our energy generating capabilities as we progress to a space-faring species and our economies of scale kick in across the entire Solar System. And if we do become a mass space faring species spread out in the trillions across the terraformed bodies in the habitable zone, I have a feeling we'll use the solar system's relative abundance up faster then we want to believe just as we have every other seeming abundance that has been presented to us.

Food becomes the same problem. The Star Trek replicator is a pipe dream. You need more energy in the exchange then you'll ever get out of the food. Far more efficient to feed a cow, or sow crops in a suitable region and then transport the product. You would never see one where energy conservation matters, like on a star ship. You would see solar gardens like what NASA has developed on the ISS instead. The energy problem makes it difficult to justify seeing them in the soup kitchen either. You would just, you know, figure out how to grow better crops.