Thanks kabbes for a cogent and persuasive response to an utterly silly OP. I’ve quoted just this part of your post because its the only part that needs commenting on - the rest I wholeheartedly agree with.
In this section of kabbes’ post is the answer to the OP - capitalism will exist until resources stop being scarce.
Sua
Well, except resources aren’t scarce in the U.S. and haven’t been for at least the past 50 years.
Sure they are. Personally, I have nowhere near the amount of gold I want. Ditto bread, meat, oranges, sex, computer games, etc. Someone else has plenty of each, and in order to get them, I have to give him something he values. We simplify that process by using currency.
Sua
Gad, I feel like I’ve wandered into the middle of a soapbox speech in Washington Square, circa 1932.
It can’t be both. Continue.**
Wrong spelling. It’s Noam Chumpsky. **
The Wicked Witch Of The East is supposed to have an ugly grimace. Classy remark tho.**
It would take incredible dexterity to accomplish both tasks simultaneously. If Dick Cheney tried it he’d be in traction for months.**
Never happen, as long as you can get 24 microscopic fried shrimp for $1.99.
Seriously though, it’ll have to get a lot worse before the masses kick some asses and suck the oppressors dry. Conditions were far more harsh in the '30s without a revolution occurring here. If the continuing cycle of mega-mergers and thousands of people being thrown out of work with each deal* hardly raised eyebrows under Clinton, it’s hard to see anything changing under Bush.
Is the Wink of the Republicans Wink Martindale?
*How many SDMB Friends of the Masses use Verizon Wireless?
So, you want some shiny pebbles, a bologna sandwich, fruit, a prostitute, and a mindless distraction to take you away from the tedium of life for a while? And then you’d be happy?
I thought when kabbes was talking about scarcity, he meant needs, not wants. So, what you and kabbes are really saying is that capitalism is eternal, right?
Jmull said
I, I can’t believe I am reading this. Food, cars, shelter, clothes are just laying around for anyone who wants them?
If what you say is true, then there logically must be a person or group that is withholding necessities from people. otherwise, in a free market lacking scarcity of resources, everything would be free. Those things that are not scarce, air, sunshine, etc… are free.
But I will give you the benefit of the doubt. You must mean “raw materials” when you say “resources.” I guess if someone wants iron, they can just go and mine it…if they own land with mineral rights…but land is also scarce from an ownership stance…
OK, I wont give you the benefit of the doubt. That statement is just plain wrong.
hmmm. We have more wealth concentration than ancient Rome, honduras, El Salvador, Columbia? Never before in the history of socialism have I heard such a groundless assetion.
and hpw is this to be accomplished?
indeed, a woman is to be judged by her looks, and an ugly smile on the Secretary of State of one of the 50 states is proof of the intent of the president :rolleyes:
YOu mean sucking them dry by increasing the tax rate for working people? like Clinton and the Dems did? If I am not mistaken, Bush wants to decrease the tax rate for EVERYONE. and this is sucking them dry how?
Who is going to create “uncontrolled rental or mortgage” increases?
No one is taking your money except for the government. IF you don’t want to work to make it, that is not GWB’s fault.
jmullaney
The thing is, needs are already addressed in modern society. Bums can live into late middle age off soup kitchens and the occasional shelter if they are determined enough.
In fact, it all depends on what you want the needs to be. Do they need and education? A place to live? Transportation? Etc…?
Capitalism is relatively eternal, sure, so long as we allow restrictions to be placed on it and turn it from strict capitalism to a mixed economy. But sure, its as eternal as multiple soveriegn states. I don’t believe a closed market can truly be considered capitalism (ie-a one-world government) but hey, that’s just me 
msmith
Whoa! That’s a pretty strict cegmentation of the population. Somehow I don’t beleive it.
As far as the communism goes, yeah…er, are you saying we should do this err, umm… that would be a form of communism.
[/msmith]
Incidentally, what can replace capitalism but socialism as an economic system? That is, every time we address the “inherent problems” that a “free market” creates, we always remove the capitalistic component and replace it with a socialistic one. Or am I missing something?
Eh? I’ve seen proximity-based typos, you know, because the “d” key is next to the “s” key, or order-based typos, where “the” gets spelled “teh,” but I odn’t think I’ve seen a phonetic typo before…
Ah - well this is where it gets interesting and we may be able to force a debate. Scarcity is not a binary there-or-not state. Some things are scarcer than others. At the moment pretty much all material goods are scarce - but we do have the capacity to remove scarcity of food should we choose to do so. I think (my opinion). At the moment scarcity is dominant enough to force us to choose a scarcity-based system for our society and capitalism would appear to be the best bet.
But! I postulate that one day super-uber-robots will be able to build us anything we want we no human intervention. Scarcity, whilst not eliminated by a long shot, will be greatly reduced to the extent that it may not be our overriding concern. Want a car? Have a car! Want an ice-cream? Have an ice-cream! I note that land, for example, will still be scarce - but there are other ways to deal with this kind of small restrained scarcity. In this case we may decide that capitalism is not worth its side-effects. That day is still a paradigm shift in technology away though.
And thankyou to Sua for being nice about my post. 'Tis much appreciated.
pan
Of course they are.
You mean, perhaps, the legal system?
You don’t seem to have thought this through.
Oops! We appear to have entered jmullaneyland again! Everything we want is just lying about waiting for us to pick it up. No goods need be manufactured. No services require labour. Everyone could just sit about watching TV all day if only we got rid of pesky money.
Sadly though visas to jmullaneyland are seriously restricted, forcing us to merely take the 10 minute tour. Everybody back on the bus.
pan
kabbes – you are the one who said there is some problem with scarcity. Which is demonstably false. What you really mean is: due to rust and decay at some future point you are worried there may be a scarcity. Right?
Well since there are indeed enough cars for everyone on the planet, and enough food, and land and clothing, jmull please give me all of your posessions.
I can’t see any good in arguing about the existence of scarcity, or the concept that people put money and labor into creating things for the sole purpose of making a profit any more than arguing the color of the sky. You win, jmull.
Now I am going to go out and pick cars off of the car tree in my back yard.
Um, I did say there hasn’t been any scarcity (of needs) in the US for the past 50 years.
Run! Run for the hills!
A thread on economics is effectively over once jmullaney enters.
He’ll make a statement. Others will innocently correct his bizarre statement. He’ll reply with even more bizarre statments (ie farmers don’t work hard). The whole thread will degenerate into an attempt to pound some sense into his head, but that is impossible because Jesus explained it all to him and he’s not about to change. The only alternative is to ignore what he says, but once he’s contradicted he won’t stop putting out flame-bait until everyone gets bored.
Ah, well…it was fun while it lasted…
This is either the most bizarre statement I have ever read on this board (and that’s saying a lot), or we have a fundamental disagreement as to the definition of the word “scarcity”.
Scarcity does not refer to the sum total of goods available in the world. It refers to whether each person in the world has the goods he needs/wants. To put it simply, I don’t have anything that I need to survive. I have no wheat to eat growing in my back yard, nor cotton to make clothes, nor orange trees from which to get my vital Vitamin C, nor oak trees, or a oil derrick, or solar panels with which to heat my apartment so that I can survive the winter. In fact, I don’t even have a back yard. For me, all of these things are “scarce”. I must take action to obtain them, so that I do not die.
So long as I (and the vast majority of, at least, Americans), do not have the means personally available to survive, we have to have a system of getting things necessities to me. Now, someone out there has them. For most of these things, it’s a farmer. But he has needs, too. He needs building materials for his home, fuel, and whatever else he doesn’t grow/raise himself. Hence, we have capitalism.
BTW, don’t denigrate “wants”. Without wants, such as art, music, culture, etc., we survive, but our lives are “nasty, brutish, and short.”
Of course, blame the lawyers. Capitalism existed long before the rise of lawyers, and the elimination of lawyers would make the machinery of capitalism run rougher, but it would still run. Remember, the vast majority of lawyers are transactional - their job is to anticipate problems that may arise, and avoid them/plan for them ahead of time IOW, their job is to make it easier for people to get what they need/want, not create impediments to people getting what they need/want.
Same back atcha, pally.
Sua
Sorry if I’ve defeated my arch-nemesis Smoke & Mirrors once again! 
Well, might be, anyway, but I think the idea of scarcity that Sua and Mr. Z are debating with jmull deals not with true scarcity but relative scarcity. The latter is more commonly understood to be a distribution problem.
I think that’s what he’s saying, anyway. that there is enough stuff out there for us en todo, but there are distribution problems inherent in capitalism which create a scarcity on needed goods.
But, I’m still not sure about what a “needed” good is, but that’s what he seems to be saying.
Until he comes clearer, I am not agreeing or disagreeing with anything. But go easy on him, guys. 
So, if you are surrounded by apples, they are scarce because you have to bed over to pick one up? Are you sure I’m the one making the bizarre argument here?
Wants are OK.
I’m not blaming the lawyers. Mr. Zambezi’s statement that cars, for example, aren’t just lying around for anyone who wants them is false. I can look out my window and see over a hundred cars just sitting there. Utilizing one of them may take a little ingenuity on my part, but if I want anyone of them I can surely take one if I so choose. They are not scarce.