Scientists Warn the UN of Capitalism's Imminent Demise

[Kuya John]

His name escapes me just now, but this guy sold out a multi-Billion dollar business (to Microsoft I think ).

His take was that society is now like an hour glass......nothing changes at the top and nothing changes at the bottom, but the middle (classes)

get squeezed! This reference was of course to Wealth and he no longer felt comfortable with the direction the privileged few were taking us.

It was part of a two part documentary "The super rich and us" which was aired on UK-TV

[Guy F.]

52 minutes ago, Dave Hounddriver said:

There is a fine line between greed and ambition.  It has been my experience that greedy people and/or companies eventually fail while ambitious people and/or companies become so successful that they often need to be regulated to give other people a chance.  The most successful people/companies are that way because they are smarter and hungrier and more willing to do what it takes to win.  This leads me to a question.

 In a perfect world, who would you prefer to see running it?  A greedy loser, a successful and ambitious businessman, a politician who is skilled at convincing people they are happy, or a scholar who has never been either but teaches how they got that way?

There are more choices. I'd follow the rest of the industrialized world in choosing politicians who understand negotiation and compromise. Of course no one who wants the job should actually have it.

[GeoffH]

1 hour ago, Dave Hounddriver said:

 In a perfect world, who would you prefer to see running it?  A greedy loser, a successful and ambitious businessman, a politician who is skilled at convincing people they are happy, or a scholar who has never been either but teaches how they got that way?

 

If it's a perfect world then it doesn't really matter who runs it... because by definition it's perfect.

In a non-perfect world I'd rather see a highly intelligent, open minded person who straddles the middle ground between disparate views well and who can create cooperation where before conflict existed (and I'm not really talking about war here, just everyday running of a country) and who is realistic enough to know that nobody can know all the details so they have to be realistic enough to work well with people who do know the details.

It follows therefore that the original background isn't as important as the qualities the person brings to the job because an open minded intelligent leader will adapt to unexpected situations better.

It is rather telling that the US presidents that are best remembered as excellent at leading were all highly intelligent open minded individuals (and the same applies to Australian Prime Ministers).

[Jack Peterson]

 What a load of Bol...x the end of the world is NOT nigh, Humans & their  nature is adaptable and like Animal INSTINCT ( although human not as keen) means we  will live on  as we did before and we will again/continue. Living here in the PI for so many years has shown me this. Time to halt this Topic as it will run into an Area I think we will all want to stay away from. Scientists have never got it all right and on this issue, they are Waaaay off the Mark in my thinking 

[Dave Hounddriver]

1 hour ago, GeoffH said:

It is rather telling that the US presidents that are best remembered as excellent at leading were all highly intelligent open minded individuals (and the same applies to Australian Prime Ministers).

I hear what you are saying about popular leaders, but I maintain they had the same pile of crap to work with, the same wars and economy as the other leaders, and yet somehow they made people happy to be in their own little pile of crap.  That, to me, is "a politician who is skilled at convincing people they are happy".  Take Winston Churchill, he led the country through a war that devastated the country and the economy for years to come and had the people singing his praises while he was doing it.  Great leader.

[GeoffH]

1 minute ago, Dave Hounddriver said:

I hear what you are saying about popular leaders, but I maintain they had the same pile of crap to work with, the same wars and economy as the other leaders, and yet somehow they made people happy to be in their own little pile of crap.  That, to me, is "a politician who is skilled at convincing people they are happy".  Take Winston Churchill, he led the country through a war that devastated the country and the economy for years to come and had the people singing his praises while he was doing it.  Great leader.

 

I don't disagree with what you're saying... but the way you're phrasing their actions is a bit 'glass half empty' and I prefer my 'glass half full'    

[bastonjock]

Its not the first time that people  have become afraid  of automation , the luddites went around smashing machines up 

A prime example of @Snowy79  referrence to automation is the new London docks, an industrt that used to employ 10s of thousands now employs hundreds , all the containers are stacked using  auto cranes ,and the trucks come along and another auto crane reads the trucks transponder, goes to the stack of containers and picks up the apropriate container and off the truck goes, sat navs are now linked to where ever the truck is heading and the warehouse knows when that truck will arrive with the goods,  the truck reverses up to the loading bay , a guy opens the doors and an automated fork lift truck comes along and picks up the goods  and sticks them on a shelf,  someone orders that item and the automatic truck goes and gets it .

Ive seen warehouses that are 500 metersin lenght and its all automated ,i worked at the cargi handling facility at Heathrow,  again all automated state of the art technology 

So instead of many guys handling the goods,  all you need is some techy like me who can handle the software , the electrical power systems etc , and keep that equipment running 

What used to employ many now employs a few technicians 

The old jobs will dissapear ,have disappeared, just look at agriculture 

[earthdome]

13 hours ago, Jack Peterson said:

 What Capitalism Finished, can't be cos many still believe in this;

 

 

Democratic Government is the extraordinary belief that politicians, who are mostly liars and thieves, will work in your best interest instead of their own.

[earthdome]

4 hours ago, Dave Hounddriver said:

There is a fine line between greed and ambition.  It has been my experience that greedy people and/or companies eventually fail while ambitious people and/or companies become so successful that they often need to be regulated to give other people a chance.  The most successful people/companies are that way because they are smarter and hungrier and more willing to do what it takes to win.  This leads me to a question.

 In a perfect world, who would you prefer to see running it?  A greedy loser, a successful and ambitious businessman, a politician who is skilled at convincing people they are happy, or a scholar who has never been either but teaches how they got that way? 

D. None of the above

The world runs by the individual decisions of billions of people.

[Jollygoodfellow]

1 hour ago, bastonjock said:

What used to employ many now employs a few technicians 

Exactly. If you search youtube for automatic food production factories it's all automated with machines and robots.