Skip to main content
8 events
when toggle format what by license comment
May 16 at 19:00 comment added Italian Philosopher To add to which, why would Capitalism, specifically, need an answer? And not the other -isms? I would assume a free market would be fairly well positioned to reallocate resources and prices to changing circumstances. Certainly, capitalist countries can afford some of the better welfare systems that are around. Not to say that it won't be challenge, perhaps even unsolvable. But will other political systems do much better?
Jan 18, 2019 at 19:44 history edited Chloe CC BY-SA 4.0
Add reference for 1901 food expenditures
Sep 27, 2018 at 23:45 comment added Perkins Do note that if you're living in the first world you're probably already enjoying a higher standard of living than most 19th century royalty while working only 40 hours a week. The king had more human servants, sure. But the food was worse, the healthcare was worse, the climate control was worse, the indoor plumbing was worse, the travel was worse, and most of those servants went to doing the stuff that Alexa will do for you today for free.
Dec 4, 2017 at 15:37 comment added J. Doe buying enough healthy, organic food for 5%-10% of your income? Not sure.
Apr 25, 2017 at 0:40 comment added Chloe @jharris8567 huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/08/3d-printed-houses_n_5773408.html Everything gets cheaper, in all industries.
Apr 24, 2017 at 21:43 comment added RandomlyOnside It seems to me your thesis is based around 1 industry, food. There are other necessities that are more expensive than in the past with little gains in income. Not sure i fully understand your answer.
Apr 24, 2017 at 9:17 comment added Aki Suihkonen Correct. Under capitalism, there is no question of automation. Instead, automation is an answer to the question of not merely staying alive but one of thriving.
Apr 23, 2017 at 19:46 history answered Chloe CC BY-SA 3.0