[JJ Roberts]

I find this completely fascinating and I believe he is right. What do you think?

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-b...capitalism

Bio of author : Jeremy Rifkin is the bestselling author of twenty books on the impact of scientific and technological changes on the economy, the workforce, society, and the environment. His books have been translated into more than thirty five languages and are used in hundreds of universities, corporations and government agencies around the world.

TED talk here : http://www.ted.com/talks/jeremy_rifkin_o...vilization

Latest book here : http://www.thezeromarginalcostsociety.com/

[Grange]

Don't get too excited.

[Veloce]

Interesting article.

The only constant in life, is change. Historically, change doesn't happen through easy and peaceful transitions. It can happen violently and disruptively.

I've been interested in the downfall of capitalism since reading Chomsky in high school.

If the collapse of our current economic system happens in our lifetime, it's going to be very, very ugly.

[JJ Roberts]

(11-19-2014 11:30 AM)Veloce Wrote:  

If the collapse of our current economic system happens in our lifetime, it's going to be very, very ugly.

Well if you look into what he says in a little more detail he is talking about the rise of creative commons and it co-existing with capitalism in a hybrid system for a while.

If he is right about that I can see a smooth transition.

[Deluge]

Will capitalism collapse? Perhaps that's a step too far. But looking back on the economic history of the last few hundred years it would be naive to think that our economic systems won't look radically different in the near future. Even the system of today is a very different beast from the Baby Boom era, and things seem to be changing now faster than ever before.

[Veloce]

(11-19-2014 11:40 AM)JJ Roberts Wrote:  

(11-19-2014 11:30 AM)Veloce Wrote:  

If the collapse of our current economic system happens in our lifetime, it's going to be very, very ugly.

Well if you look into what he says in a little more detail he is talking about the rise of creative commons and it co-existing with capitalism in a hybrid system for a while.

If he is right about that I can see a smooth transition.

Yeah I read that, but I don't share his optimism.

I don't think we're anywhere near the end of capitalism. The common man can still live an exceedingly high quality of life with a little effort. When that ceases to be the case, we'll see more drastic change.

The corporate state is essentially privatized totalitarianism. To think that they would happily co-exist with "creative commons" is awfully wishful thinking. There are a lot of very powerful people that are heavily invested in the current system.

[Dismal Operator]

What the author calls 'collaborative commons' is really just 'the free market,' allowed to work without interference. He makes the common mistake of viewing capitalism as just a system of corporations pushing consumerism. I do agree that the corporation model might be a thing of the past, but going forward as long as we're to produce goods and services for each other, we are going to need land, labor and capital. The only thing that is changing is the mode by which those things are brought about.

Advances in technology bringing costs down is not the death of capitalism and free markets, but rather the result. What dies are the interests that are vested in the old way of doing things. This same article could have been written in the 19th century, lauding the rise of steamships, locomotives and the telegraph as the game changers which were going to take us to a new age. All of these things brought costs down, and enabled small interests to compete with the big boys. That's what technological advances do - the real issue is allowing the advances to benefit society as a whole by embracing the drastically reduced costs that result. The only thing that can get in the way is the collusion between governments and large corporate interests which look to maintain their stranglehold on power by artificially keeping costs and barriers to entry high. The triumph of new technology doesn't necessarily create a new post capitalist system, but rather enables freer markets to escape from the shackles of corporatist/government hegemony

[SteveMcMahon]

Quote:

No one in their wildest imagination, including economists and business people, ever imagined the possibility of a technology revolution so extreme in its productivity that it could actually reduce marginal costs to near zero, making products nearly free

Well, nobody except Karl Marx and co, who predicted this over a century ago. It still hasn't happened, because in the real world materials and machines and manpower costs money.

Quote:

and absolutely no longer subject to market forces.

What? They won't be subject to supply and demand? What bollocks is this?

Quote:

“We are seeing the final triumph of capitalism followed by its exit off the world stage and the entrance of the collaborative commons,”

This is just reheated triumph of the proletariat nonsense.

Quote:

The creation of a new economic system, Rifkin argues, will help alleviate key sustainability challenges, such as climate change and resource scarcity, and take pressure off the natural world. That’s because it will need only a minimum amount of energy, materials, labour and capital.

Climate change is bollocks.

We already have a solution for resource scarcity - it's called prices.

And what are we to make of "it will need only a minimum amount of energy, materials, labour and capital". Um, really? Why? Will the new economy be powered by fairy dust?

3D printers and whatnot are great, but they'll still cost money to make and run and repair. They'll still need raw materials to be provided somehow. They'll still require someone's time and trouble to operate them.

Rifkind seems to think 3D printers = Star Trek replicators. If only! At the moment and for the foreseeable future they're just an expensive way to make cheap and shitty simple plastic products. Companies running multibillion dollar fabrication plants don't need to worry about being replaced by homebrew in our lifetimes.

Quote:

“Ecosystems can’t catch up with the shift in the planet’s water cycle and we’re in the sixth extinction pattern,” he warns. “We could lose 70% of our species by the end of this century and may be imperilling our ability to survive on this planet.”

Yes, we could lose 70% of our species by the end of the century. Lindy West could also be named "Sexiest Woman Alive". I wouldn't worry too much about either, as there's no actual evidence to suggest Exctincta- or Lindy- geddon are ever going to happen.

Quote:

“You’ll have near zero marginal cost electricity with the probability of printed out cars within 10 or 15 years,”

Dude! I want what he's smoking!

Printed out cars! Cheap as free electricity! In 10 or 15 years! Far out, man! Will I be hug-closing green skinned Martian babes at my holiday home on the Moon, too?

Do I even need to explain why this prediction is hilariously retarded?

Quote:

Rifkin is particularly interested in the upheaval currently rippling through the energy sector and points to the millions of small and medium sized enterprises, homeowners and neighbourhoods already producing their own green electricity.

Because they have subsidies coming out of their arseholes. And as a direct result of that, and because of the inability of most Western governments to get new power plants built thanks to green tape, electricity costs are rising sharply in most Western countries.

Green energy is a monumental scam. The actual market value of electricity produced in most green energy schemes is only a fraction of the cost of subsidising them. And it will never replace current forms of mass energy production because of the laws of physics.

It doesn't matter how cheap solar panels become - you will never be able to power your entire home or drive your car using solar power alone. There simply isn't enough solar energy falling on your home to do it, especially in dark winter months when you need things like heating.

Quote:

You can create your own green electricity and then go up on the emerging energy internet and programme your apps to share your surpluses across that energy internet. You can also use all the big data across that value chain to see how the energy is flowing. That’s not theoretical. It’s just starting.

This would be great if there was a global electricity grid, so somebody in Sydney could sell cheap solar electricity to your home in freezing cold Aberdeen. Guess what, though? There isn't one. It's not technically feasible. You could have a local, maybe a national market for electricity. But... we already have these.

Quote:

People think this is off on the horizon but if I had said in 1989, before the web came, that 25 years later we’d have democratised communication and 40% of the human race would be sending information goods of all kinds to each other, they’d have said that couldn’t happen.

O RLY? I'm calling bollocks on that one as well. Many people predicted that the internet or something like it would come about, long before 1989. To name just one example: William Gibson's cyberpunk stuff long predates the fall of the Berlin Wall.

By 1989 we had mobile phones, computers had become affordable to the masses, and modems, BBS systems, email and fax machines all existed. Only an idiot would have said, in 1989, that those technologies wouldn't evolve and spread.

Quote:

Millennials are already seeing through the false notion that the more we accumulate, the more we are autonomous and free. It seems they are more interested in developing networks and joining the sharing economy than in consumption for consumption’s sake.

Are these the same Millenials I see glued to their iPhones and iPads and buying designer running shoes and complaining that somebody else should pay off their $100,000 student loans for their masters degrees in Basket Weaving?

Quote:

Rifkin believes the gap left by the disappearance of major corporations will be filled by the nonprofit sector.

So the fat, middle aged, politically correct women who infest big charities will be running things? Won't be long till we devolve into Mad Max then.

[BlurredSevens]

How can capitalism collapse if it doesn't exist in the first place?

By definition, capitalism is a marketplace controlled by private owners for profit, and is free of government oversight and intervention. Does such an economy actually exist anywhere on the planet?

If anything, based on his article, technology will move us closer to true capitalism rather than promote its collapse.

[The Beast1]

What a bunch of bull.

I laugh whole heartily about this concept of a "sharing" economy. Millennials being the dumb @$$es that they are think renting everything is a smarter idea.

Fools, i want to be the one who OWNS all of the things they rent. It's called being a serf and that's what the majority of these fools are happily allowing themselves to become.

[CimbomluBkk]

What will it be replaced by?
Capitalism is a natural phenomenon , people didn't say one day that " omg we should be capitalists", everyone is capitalist to a certain extent. Communism and Socialism on the other hand is totally artificial, it is against human nature.

[supadoopa_paratroopa]

We have a heavily regulated quasi-capitalist economy. The real power has been in the hands of banks / big businesses and government lobbyist for a very long time. Before that, it was in the hands of a few super-rich like Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan, and before that - old money (descended from nobility, etc.).

To put it bluntly, we have been living in an Oligarchy for some time, with a few key issues drummed up each election cycle to give the illusion of freedom, and the quaint notion that voting matters. It doesn't matter if you vote, it matters if you count the votes.

Once technological progress makes vast swaths of the populace unnecessary, they will be dealt with. And I assure you, none of the solutions is good for the common man.

This is a sad thing, but inevitable. Civilization is hard to build but easy to break. We're going to reap the rewards of being too successful as a species. Nature wants to restore balance, and it will. The only question that matters is what each of us will be willing to do when backed against the proverbial wall.

[la_mode]

Economics = numerical philosophy.

[Badamson]

Quote:

Millennials are already seeing through the false notion that the more we accumulate, the more we are autonomous and free. It seems they are more interested in developing networks and joining the sharing economy than in consumption for consumption’s sake.

Millennials can wisely see through all this, yet still are generally not be able to differentiate between forms of the words "your" and "you're," "to" and "too," and "loose" and "lose." I'm not buying it.

[SteveMcMahon]

(11-19-2014 02:22 PM)Badamson Wrote:  

Quote:

Millennials are already seeing through the false notion that the more we accumulate, the more we are autonomous and free. It seems they are more interested in developing networks and joining the sharing economy than in consumption for consumption’s sake.

Millennials can wisely see through all this, yet still are generally not be able to differentiate between forms of the words "your" and "you're," "to" and "too," and "loose" and "lose." I'm not buying it.

Also note: It seems they are more interested in developing networks and joining the sharing economy than in consumption for consumption’s sake.

What a retarded thing to say. And yet so revealing of his mindset.

I'll bet you anything he doesn't think his own consumption is "for consumption's sake". No, no. That's something other, less enlightened people than Jeremy Rifkin do. Probably people who haven't written several books and teach at an Ivy League college.

What a twat.

Nobody consumes "for consumption's sake". Not even alcoholics. People consume products or services for the benefits - real or assumed - they gain from them.

If I eat a chocolate bar, it could be because I'm hungry. Or because I'm bored. Or because I just like the taste of chocolate. In no scenario would a rational person consume a chocolate bar for the sake of consuming it.

I suspect - fantasies about printed cars in 10 years notwithstanding - the guy knows this. But in Rifkin's weaselly way of writing, what he means to say is "the proles don't really need their big screen TV's, their cheap flights, or their central heating".

The plebes should make do with less, is the subtext and logical upshot of his message.

[WestIndianArchie]

Sounds pleasant.

My take

- America falls, because of debt, because of political impasse, because of defense commitments
- China rises and then suffocates
- most of Latin America and the Caribbean - tourism, agriculture, and narcotics
- Africa gets recolonized by India, Arab States, and China - but not with "boots on the ground" but through financial means and intermediaries.
- North and South pole continue to lose ice, sea levels rise, coasts are endangered
- Europe, Japan, and the 4 Asian Tigers - As nations they never get out of the shadow of American/China, and their populations are aging.
- The Middle East/SW/Central Asia/Eastern Europe - continues to splinter and fight amongst themselves. Won't be surprised if Pakistan nukes India, spurred on by peoples in Afghanistan.

Any stable societies that provide security from invasion, will largely be poor people thinking that they're middle class, the truly poor, the criminal, and a top 1-5% of people who hold wealth - and the bottom 4% are losing ground.

The US of A has been in a hollowing out process since the 70's, but the only real reason we were ever on top was because the main economic engine of the world, Europe, was bombed out by WW2. Software and Robots will continue to automate much work.

Rampant intellectual property theft now, only gets better when 3d printers get better and designs are traded via darknet.

"lemme print out a vintage 2005 Lambo Gallardo in carbon fiber, and BE QUICK ABOUT IT"

*buys compound in North Canada*
*dies when my real estate agent is tortured by crazy canucks - The Sons of Owen Cook*
*riding their bio-diesel fueled ATV's, armed with printed plastic guns*

WIA

[MrXY]

Rifkin is a Crypto-Marxist elitist who has been peddling the same fallacious nonsense for decades.

There is no actionable takeaway from him, put him on ignore.

[LeBeau]

(11-19-2014 03:13 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  

*buys compound in North Canada*
*dies when my real estate agent is tortured by crazy canucks - The Sons of Owen Cook*
*riding their bio-diesel fueled ATV's, armed with printed plastic guns*

WIA

Let us know when you're coming up on our side of the border, I'm sure more than a few of us would buy you a round.

Also, that would give us enough time to break out the tactical igloos, polar bear cavalry, and Kevlar hockey goalie pads in case any of the neighbours have beef with our friends from the south.

[h3ltrsk3ltr]

Great post! The takeaway for me:

Social Capital and sharing: it isn't about communism-esque government, it's about globalization.

Creativity: Do you have an abundance mindset or a scarcity mindset? This is something MikeCF has talked about a lot. The Internet and social media engenders the social mindset of abundance and sharing into our evolution.

Connection: IF the Internet can be utilized for individuals to share energy (in spite of E.ON, this seems like a key long shot) THEN these wonderful things will take place wonderfully. The only way this will happen is through optimistic and forward-thinking men who invest, invent and integrate in the future...kinda like we're doing now.

[Gorgiass]

He ignores the economies of scale in both manufacturing and energy production as well as previously noted misstatements. This stuff is econ 101, fantastical piece.

I do think life in 50 years will be very different but probably not for the better. Enjoy the decline but prepare for the collapse.

[zaqan]

[Grange]

(11-19-2014 09:02 PM)h3ltrsk3ltr Wrote:  

Great post! The takeaway for me:

Social Capital and sharing: it isn't about communism-esque government, it's about globalization.

Creativity: Do you have an abundance mindset or a scarcity mindset? This is something MikeCF has talked about a lot. The Internet and social media engenders the social mindset of abundance and sharing into our evolution.

Connection: IF the Internet can be utilized for individuals to share energy (in spite of E.ON, this seems like a key long shot) THEN these wonderful things will take place wonderfully. The only way this will happen is through optimistic and forward-thinking men who invest, invent and integrate in the future...kinda like we're doing now.

Scarcity in economics doesn't mean there's a lot of stuff, it means there's not enough stuff to satisfy everybody's desire for it. Unless people stop desiring to use materials/resources/time for the satisfaction of wants (theirs or, more commonly, somebody else's) there will always be scarcity in the economic sense. A "post-scarcity" world is impossible.

[Feisbook Control]

I have a couple of thoughts on this that haven't already been covered well by others.

The first is that of conspicuous consumption. The notion that everyone will 3D print whatever they need ignores the reality of the human condition with regard to status seeking. As social animals, humans are constantly trying to position themselves as higher status than other humans. This is hardwired into our biology for reproductive purposes. Some of us buck this, but most don't. How else would one explain the fact that I could go out and buy two t-shirts, most likely produced in the same factory in China from the same materials, and pay five to ten times as much for one simply because of the presence of a particular logo that serves no functional purpose? If anything, in a post-scarcity world, conspicuous consumption will become even more important. Of course, there will be people who try to produce cheap knock-offs, as there are now, but really good designers/producers will still find ways to guard against that, and there will still be certain things that can't be 3D-printed on the cheap. However, not everything is made from plastic. As such, the concept of post-scarcity doesn't really make sense. This leads into my next point.

Even if certain things such as electricity could be produced cheaply and in abundance (which I don't think will happen), there are certain things that simply won't ever be in that category because of certain hard limits on the natural world. An obvious one is food. Let's even ignore the debate over phosphorous reserves. Even if people could produce their own electricity, they're certainly not going to produce their own food. You can produce enough vegetables, fruit and some other things such as eggs in your own backyard, but to feed yourself (i.e. provide major sources of carbohydrates and protein) you need at least a couple of hectares. The average person does not have a couple of hectares. Certain countries are/could be self-sufficient for food, but that does not mean that all, or even many, individuals within those countries are/can be. Some countries are right on the cusp of a Malthusian collapse and violent social upheaval because their populations already greatly exceed the national carrying capacity and they are extremely sensitive to increases in the price of staple foods such as rice, wheat, etc. Of course, necessary for the growing of food is clean water. Many countries (e.g. Jordan) are rapidly depleting their aquifers. Likewise, there are regions of the world where river rights are going to become huge issues. Both the Indus (Pakistan) and the Brahmaputra (Bangladesh), as well as several of the tributaries of the Ganges (India, Bangladesh) originate in China. If China were to divert those to within China, South Asia would literally be crippled.

The smart money is on agricultural land right now. I don't believe it is any coincidence at all that China, South Korea, Saudi Arabia and others are heavily investing in securing access to food. Everyone knows that the Chinese have effectively bought up huge swathes of Africa, but they've also buying up farms on other continents also.

So where is all of this going? Anyone who really thinks we're heading towards some sort of post-scarcity Utopia has rocks in his head. Many parts of the third world are going to get crushed by the coming resource wars (which may even end up as shooting wars). That largely goes without saying though: Africa is Africa, which is to say, fucked (up). More than that, though, a lot of people in the West (particularly the more densely populated parts of Western Europe) are going to get crushed also due to a combination of individual idiocy and their governments being completely out to lunch. What use is there in being able to 3D-print a new cover for your mobile phone for next to nothing if the cost of necessities keeps rising faster than your income?