[Bombthecat]

3000,since humans used some kind of currency.

It's always almost dead :)

The ones calling capitalism dead are the ones who want to replace it with communism and co.

And we know how that will end...

So we stick to capitalism and going back to future/ past feudalism

[ant6n]

capitalism in most of the world is less than 200 years old. Before that we had feudalism.

Most progressives want to amend capitalism with some socialism; social democracy exists or did exist in much of Europe, and is largely under pressure by the race to the bottom caused by globalization. And of course ever-more powerful multi-national corporations.

[open_bear]

First bourgeoisie states/city-states started to appear in 1500-1600s (Italian region). Many countries experienced a periods of reaction and return to feudal state (France and Britain for example). Last traces of feudalism ended somewhere in 1860-s. So full capitalism is less that 150 years old.

Same cycle happened before with transitions to slave labor and feudal system. Formation change is not a single event, but a process, spanning hundreds of years.

[witty_username]

What is the race to the bottom? And if so, it's a great thing. Lower wages mean cheaper products.

Powerful multi-national corporations often lobby for anti-capitalistic measures (protectionism, subsidies). Socialism only increases the influence of corporations via a bigger government.

[mmstick]

Lower wages doesn't necessarily mean cheaper products, especially once you take inflation into account. The cost of living has been increasing drastically, despite any efficiency gains. Wages have not been increasing to keep up with the pace. Seniors who are now retired are now effectively effed and are forced to go back to work to make ends meet. The young who are trying to get a fresh start aren't able to and most people in their 30s still live with their parents because a full time job isn't enough to afford the most basic apartment.

Companies are more willing to hire outside labor -- effectively slave labor, because they are able to pay foreign workers much less than domestic citizens. Companies are also more willing to replace human employees with robots, because it's cheaper than paying a human to do the same job. Companies will not help employees transition into new job positions. Fast food restaurants are beginning to replace all their workers with robots. The truck driving industry is about to replace all of it's drivers with robots. Walmart is replacing it's stockers and cashiers with robots. Pizza shops are even going for full autonomy with self-driving pizza trucks that automatically make pizza while delivering it. A huge percent of existing jobs today will soon be taken over by robots. You can definitely ensure that all the jobs that are considered entry level will no longer exist. How then, will the young get their foot in the door and become independent when they have no jobs?

That race to the bottom has merely displaced millions upon millions of people and abolished the middle class, in addition to destabilizing the world economy. Capitalism is entirely incapable of keeping up with the modern world. The only way forward is a basic income.

[witty_username]

> Lower wages doesn't necessarily mean cheaper products, especially once you take inflation into account. Wages have not been increasing to keep up with the pace.

The wages are lower even adjusted even with inflation.

> The cost of living has been increasing drastically, despite any efficiency gains.

No, it has not. See https://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid1611.pdf (PDF Page 70, Table 24). It's increased about 20% in the past 10 years.

In the same period GNI per capita (i.e. average income) has increased about 20%. (See http://data.worldbank.org/country/united-states)

> Seniors who are now retired are now effectively effed and are forced to go back to work to make ends meet.

But, why do you think this is due to capitalism?

> Companies are more willing to hire outside labor -- effectively slave labor, because they are able to pay foreign workers much less than domestic citizens.

How is it "slave labor"? Slavery is forced work. That's different from low wages, which are precisely why it's so wonderful. The poorest people of the world are getting jobs. It's bad but without a job they'll be in an even worse situation.

> Companies are also more willing to replace human employees with robots, because it's cheaper than paying a human to do the same job. [...] Walmart is replacing it's stockers and cashiers with robots. Pizza shops are even going for full autonomy with self-driving pizza trucks that automatically make pizza while delivering it.

That's great; we're moving one step towards robot utopia.

> Companies will not help employees transition into new job positions.

That's not in their contract so it's not their responsibility. Shareholders (most of us indirectly hold stock) want more money just like all of us.

> How then, will the young get their foot in the door and become independent when they have no jobs?

They will do other jobs that aren't replaced by robots. Those jobs' real wages will increase due to robots increasing purchasing power. Also, see lump of labor fallacy.

In fact, although this is probably due to the recovery from the 2008 recession, unemployment rate has been decreasing since the sudden increase in 2008. (https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000)

New technologies replacing jobs is hardly a new phenomenon. Robots aren't new either; they've been used for decades.

> The truck driving industry is about to replace all of it's drivers with robots.

Cheaper truck transport is great.

> That race to the bottom has merely displaced millions upon millions of people and abolished the middle class, in addition to destabilizing the world economy. Capitalism is entirely incapable of keeping up with the modern world. The only way forward is a basic income.

Who has been displaced? How has the middle-class been abolished? Globally, the middle-class is growing (7% -> 13 %) (http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/07/08/a-global-middle-class-is...) and inequality slightly decreased from 1981 to 2005 (ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/012/ak968e/ak968e00.pdf, PDF page 2, Table 1).

> in addition to destabilizing the world economy.

What destabilization? If you mean recessions, socialist countries have had recessions too. And how are recessions due to capitalism?

EDIT: made corrections to part about global inequality

[baq]

the problem is trust. there's a lot of people who don't trust capitalism and/or people with access to capital and thanks to technology only a few crazies are needed to completely destabilize the system. if you think about it it's actually amazing that the whole scheme hasn't collapsed yet.