You are enunciating some of the true issues of capitalism. Pure capitalism only gives a person something for something (money for labor and so on). But yet it is human nature to want something for nothing. So humans will set up governments (called democracies) whose implicit purpose is to gain something for nothing -- bankers want to make profits with no risk, common people want free healthcare, and so on. These goals cause cognitive dissonance in not only individuals but large swaths of people.
As Aristotle rightly determined, this society eventually collapses and we eventually revert back to a command system.
Is it possible to ever have a stable system that is not prone to collapse? Marx thought so; when everyone was happy to live a very simple live and no one wishes to accumulate, then humanity would have no need of any system except communal-ism. I don't think so simply because social systems of highly intelligent and unpredictable beings are CHAOTIC.
So since chaos is built into life, simply accept it. Assume that most people will starve to death or die from horrible diseases or in some horrible war. That's life, embrace it.
No. It is not possible to plan a social system. Every system breaks down eventually, simply because humans are unpredictable. Someone invents the internet and all hell breaks loose. Someone gets the brilliant idea to package NINJA loans (subpar mortgages) and palm them off as AAA securities and all hell breaks loose. Someone invents the cell phone and Facebook and the Middle East explodes into chaos.
Darfur is the normal state of humanity, not the peaceful and well-ordered suburbs of the United States or Japan.
100% valid but I do not think that's what's going on right now. As an economy becomes more and more productive and efficient less people, or at least a smaller percentage of the population, should have to work - yes, but has the economy really increased it's output by such an amount over the last 10 years that we can be resting at the same number of jobs, with a larger population, and have the same kind of per-capita output as before? Most likely not.
True, but these numbers are for private sector jobs only. Or are you saying to subtract the government jobs from the private jobs?
I dont know much about economy but I see parallels between this and what happened and is still happening in a lot of 2/3 world countries (such as in Brazil and Mahgreb countries). The economy has grown and is still growing but the increase in the number of people has been stronger, and people actually have less than before and there is a lot of unemployment.It's too bad that we already consume more in a year that the earth produce. Time wont solve this problem.
Unemployment is the real reason for the revolt in the arab world. They dont do anything (other than hoping to be accepted as immigrants), they have no future and present. It's pretty grim. Now in order to prevent them to spread their general unhappiness on us I dont think we should accept them in our country. If we accept some people why don't we accept them all? Hey let's just switch our entire populations! I am quickly drifting further out of the subject.
"Confirming just how leveraged hedge funds and general investors were exiting February is the latest margin debt data from the NYSE, which indicates that the recent trend of pursuing beta on ever increasing margin continues.Total margin debt jumped by a whopping $21 billion from $289.6 billion to $310.3 billion, the highest it has been since July of 2008. It should, however, be kept in mind that this is a gross leverage number. To get the far more accurate net number, one needs subtract the margin debt from Free Credit Cash Accounts and Credit Balances in Margin Accounts, or in other words, the "net worth" of the investor (the less the supporting cash, the lower the "capitalization ratio" of the speculator). And here things get very concerning. The Net Free Credit (or net margin debt depending on whether one puts the + or - sign in front), calculated as Total Free Credit less Total Margin Debt jumped from ($46) billion to a massive ($57) billion. This is the third lowest net worth reading ever reported by the NYSE. Only the ($67.8) billion in May 2007 and ($79) billion in June 2007 are worse, and confirm that everyone is levered to the gills at virtually the same level as when the market was at its all time highs. We all know what happened next."