Analysts: LCD TV sales to fall for first time

That's the problem when you make something too good. Then everyone already has one that works, and you don't sell any more.

That's the problem when you make something too good. Then everyone already has one that works, and you don't sell any more.

Actually, if our economic system made any sense whatsoever, that would be the ideal.

However, since our economic system is only interested in making more wealth for the very wealthy, it is a "bad" thing once you have saturated your market and the product doesn't break the day after the warranty expires.

However, since our economic system is only interested in making more wealth for the very wealthy, it is a "bad" thing once you have saturated your market and the product doesn't break the day after the warranty expires.

Come and get your brand new Obamatron TV, made in China by GE. Only gets one channel, in black and white, with The Won's face on it 24/7. But there will be no evil "wealthy" capitalist-roaders once socialism gets done spreading the poverty around. That will make life soooo much better, won't it?

Except for our beneficent nomenklatura, who will Learjet down from their villas on the Crimean on holidays to bestow their blessings on the "small people".

What is going to happen when the wealthiest, who own an ever larger percentage of the economy, decide that they no longer need people to manufactre things? As people become less and less relevant to the 'economy', how will we adapt our society? Our economies all depend on 'expansion' to remain healthy - can this continue indefinately? When do the concepts of capitalism and socialism become irrelevant?

geokstr:

I certainly wouldn't want to live under the "classic" definition of communism, as I'm sure anyone here wouldn't.

It amazes me that whenever someone criticizes capitalism, or else calls for any form of equality or justice in the world, they are instantly labelled a "bad" person or a "communist".

Nevermind the fact that the declaration of independence boldly states, "...all men are created equal..."

I challenge AMERICANS to read Orwell's Animal Farm, and realize for once that it's as much a rebuke against capitalism as anything else, because capitalism says, "all are created equal, but some are created more equal than others," having secretly changed the moral standard to an immoral counterfeit.

Ironically, it was the American document which proudly stated, "all are created equal," and it was the American document which Orwell's animals quoted in their bill of rights, to be butchered by the pigs in just the same way it is done today in America.

When do the concepts of capitalism and socialism become irrelevant?

At the current rate of advancement, it will be very soon. Moore's law suggests that the PC will hit the atomic scale for transistors in 22 years, plus or minus 1 year.

by this time, our abilities in other nano tech regarding manufacture and biology will have exploded. The ability to produce almost all foods and goods with little or no human labor involved will exist.

Economics as we know it will not exist, and "money" as we know it will be worthless within a few years afterwards.

You don't need currency, nor would it be worth anything, when manufacturing and farming requires no labor.

Economics as we know it will not exist, and "money" as we know it will be worthless within a few years afterwards.

Sounds like a recipe for total chaos. We will need SOME kind of structure. The technology seems as if it would give individuals the ability to live better, free from the dominance of the 'ownership' class. But will we be allowed to do so? And what about the temptation to 'excess'? Will we need to control access to resources? Who will be permitted to do what? Our society is going to change rapidly within a few decades. I don't think people are near ready to think about it yet.

Sounds like a recipe for total chaos. We will need SOME kind of structure.

How about merit based technocracy? That'd be where someone with a new idea shares it and people value the idea based on its individual merit and application.

someone with a new idea shares it and people value the idea based on its individual merit and application.

The ultimate form of democracy? With wireless communications people could register their vote on an idea immediately, and the person would get access to resources. Of course this leads to where oppression by the majority would pretty much squash free expression of individuality.

Of course this leads to where oppression by the majority would pretty much squash free expression of individuality.

Why is that?

The more informed and persuasive you are, the better your idea will appear, the more popular it will become. Without the profit motive, the want to cheat brought on by greed will be gone.

Informed and Pursuasive? Unfortunately we have a lot of uninformed voting done in our political elections, voting for rather pursuasive idiots. We have a republic, and the representatives who 'run' things moderate the 'peoples will' somewhat. Laws need to be set up to protect minorities. Many people have kneejerk reactions against 'new' ideas. I would not trust the majority to allow free thinking to flourish.

While technology might be able to create a crazy amount of *wealth* for society to use - we will always have the problem of how to distribute it. Currently this is done with jobs and money as the basis of our economy. If there are no jobs, or if only a small percentage of people HAVE jobs & money - we have an inequitable situation which would quickly spin into violence. Geokstr was worried about a system where everyone was equally poor and equated it with *socialism*. If everyone could share *wealth* equally - is it still socialism?

Informed and Pursuasive? Unfortunately we have a lot of uninformed voting done in our political elections, voting for rather pursuasive idiots.

Well that's because the average person isn't well read. They have to struggle to make enough money to survive in our society that they don't have time to educate themselves on the issues. When you're trying to feed your kids it's hard to sit down for extended periods of time and learn global weather dynamics or combustion chemistry of coal products, etc.

This is why these changes may be so massively difficult to deal with. We're geared in an entirely opposite direction at the moment.

Geokstr was worried about a system where everyone was equally poor and equated it with *socialism*. If everyone could share *wealth* equally - is it still socialism?

If "wealth" is shared equally, who will produce the new "wealth" as the old is consumed?

Sounds like "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". Recognize it? It's from the Sacred Book of The Das of Kapital, as handed down to St Karl of Marx.

The problem is that it doesn't square with human nature. When everybody gets the same rewards, regardless of differences in intelligence, motivation, and effort, then why should I strive so that others who don't can have exactly as much as I do?

Once human nature prevents socialism from being properly implemented, because the subjects resist, then that's when you get the pogroms and genocides to force compliance. Learn from history, like those 100 million poor bastards already dead from socialism and its logical conclusion - communism.