reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
Of course humanity will always move forward by new discoveries which revolutionize the technologies of production, or new goods or services, things
that have never existed before, but which require some human labor to produce, and this provides some demand for human labor.
You mentioned the industrial revolution, past that we have the information technology revolution, which re-ordered nearly everything in human society,
and was a source of demand for employment and it provided growth in the world economy.
Past that again, we will have or are in the early stages of 'revolutions' in bio-technology and in energy production, both which will create a
demand for human labor as they evolve.
However, the basic problem remains that when the primary goal of the economy is efficiency, then a major portion of a 6 billion plus herd of humanity,
will always be surplus, and will be living in abject poverty as the people employed will always be the least cost labor pool.
So, I had hoped the answer to that would be obvious enough, efficiency should not be the singular goal shaping human economies.
For example, it would be less efficient for Africa to develop industrial and information, and biotechnologies, etc. than to simply rely on excess
capacity in each of those realms, and simply for Africa to be supplied from the excess capacity as it exists around the world, rather than develop it
That would be more efficient, but it would also keep the human populations in Africa at the bottom of humanity in terms of skill sets, income,
spendable wealth, and the means to supply its needs generally.
So while it would be less efficient, Africa should still develop its own production capacities.
And the same could be said for the US for example and consumer durables industries, the US could continue to import the bulk of what it consumes in
consumer durables, but then some portions of the US public will remain, surplus, unskilled, unpaid, without the means to be self supporting.
So efficiency should not the only goal by which economic decisions are made for divisions of humanity.
Therefore, this implies that governments, and global corporations must require that other goals, such as a reasonable distribution of wealth,
distribution of opportunity, constructive redundancy, and other economic goals should shape actual economic development.
And there is the concept of a 'social credit' which even Republican Richard Nixon understood the necessity of and incorporated a version of in the
US tax system. The social credit is needed transitionally, to keep economies, and to keep members of society from falling into such a negative
position in the economy that their lack of participation as producers is impossible to reconstruct, or to create in the first place.
Think about this, we have in the US a 'free educational system' - public schools, which are funded by society in general, and people help to pay for
this whether they have children or not in those schools.
So we in the US realize that while this is a shared responsibility, it benefits everyone in society enough to keep it maintained.
But as you know, there are some people, Republicans by philosophy, in fact who want to destroy and eliminate this shared support so they can send
their children to private schools, or just to not have to pay this expense anyway, which they argue is inefficient and a burden on them.
My point is the Republican perspective runs against societies greater need, and that pure efficiency should not be the determining factor in whether
the US maintains or abandons its system of public education.
And of course that is one instance only of this issue.
Another example is science conducted for the public welfare, such as monitoring and predicting the weather. This information is costly to develop but
it is shared between nations.