Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site bunker.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!ittvax!bunker!garys
From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Re: Re: What is "capitalism"?
Message-ID: <834@bunker.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 8-May-85 10:17:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: bunker.834
Posted: Wed May  8 10:17:39 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 10-May-85 21:58:00 EDT
References: <441@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> <1831@topaz.ARPA> <828@bunker.UUCP> <1904@topaz.ARPA>
Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct
Lines: 30

> In article <828@bunker.UUCP> garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes:
> (quoting me)
> >> The ultimate capitalistic society would be one in which there were no
> >> laborers; everyone makes his or her living by the income of their holdings.
> >> This may be physically possible in a few decades.
> >
> >You make it sound like you expect wealth to materialize out
> >of thin air.  So everyone is living off the interest or dividends
> >their wealth provides ...
> >Gary Samuelson

> As usual, subtlety falls flat on the net.

Rather than my inability to understand your "subtlety," consider
the possibility that the problem might be your obscurity.

> I thought it was obvious I was referring to automation.

> --JoSH

"Holdings" usually refers to either land or securities (I looked it
up, just to be sure), not machinery.  But the change doesn't help.
There will still be laborers (machine operators), unless you think
that the machines will be able to read minds (I hope not -- meaning
I hope that machines will not be able to do that).  Even supposing
that literally everything can be automated, how will it come about
that everyone will own enough machinery to provide a living?  In
particular, how will a newborn acquire money making machinery?

Gary Samuelson