# Capitalism - Is It Against Human Nature



## emma42

But, Natasha, capitalism _requires _that there is a pool of workers available, beholden to the vagaries of the economy, and used as "factory fodder" whenever required and discarded when not required. This is one of the main reasons that certain rich capitalist democracies periodically start chipping away at the welfare state. It must not be too easy to not work. Workers are often given a choice between poverty-line state welfare benefits and slightly higher poverty-line wages. If they refuse to take any job, their welfare benefits will be taken away. People are caught between a rock and a hard place and that is an integral part of capitalism. One cannot exist without the other.

*Mod Note:  *These posts were culled from another thread entitled "Cheap Clothing - Slave Labour?" which was also started by Emma42. Emma asked that I move the posts pertaining to Capitalism vs. other economic systems here.


----------



## natasha2000

emma42 said:
			
		

> But, Natasha, capitalism _requires _that there is a pool of workers available, beholden to the vagaries of the economy, and used as "factory fodder" whenever required and discarded when not required. This is one of the main reasons that certain rich capitalist democracies periodically start chipping away at the welfare state. It must not be too easy to not work. Workers are often given a choice between poverty-line state welfare benefits and slightly higher poverty-line wages. If they refuse to take any job, their welfare benefits will be taken away. People are caught between a rock and a hard place and that is an integral part of capitalism. One cannot exist without the other.


 
Hmm.. Emma, maybe this text goes beyond the limits of my knowledge of English,but I would say that I agree with you. Of course, you should specify to which countries' workers you refer. It is true that in first world countries not all things are in rose color (or what ever this expresion is ), there is poverty too, there are many people who are forced to work for miserable wages because the only option they have is not to work, for a Crist's sake, recently there was a strike of "mileuristas "in Spain, people who earn around 1000 euros, which is not enough for a life with dignity, and there are a lot of people who work for even less, at least here, in Spain. There will be always injustice, but I deeply doubt that boicoting cheap clothes will resolve anything.


----------



## Papalote

Hi,
 
I’ve got ten thousand questions and answers binging in my brain a mile a second! But don’t worry  , I’ll just jot down a few things that have crossed my mind while reading y´all!

In the real world, capitalism and greed go hand in hand, I just wish people wouldn’t admire those CEO and the such who make millions of dollars just in annual bonuses while 80% of their work force barely survive on their annual salaries.

Yes, in the real world most people have to work for miserable salaries or beg in the street. People living in countries where welfare exists seem to have it better since they won’t immediately have to starve. But, I wonder where the psychological effects of unemployment are worse, in a society where no welfare exists so your family is there to support you, or in a society where your family expects you to either find a job immediately or go on welfare and moral support is minimal. (Hm, this last comment is probably off-topic, sorry!)

I agree with Maxiogee about Ireland having been considered a low wage economy when big business settled there. I imagine it applies to many other countries, Mexico being one of them, where a few multinationals left for cheaper pastures. The only problem is that in Mexico, and countries like it, there is no welfare system on which the labour force can fall back. Their only recourse is to lower the wages even more so as to once again attract big business.

As Emma said, these are the games big business plays. And will always play.

But to answer Emma’s original question , _I wonder what forer@s' experiences of buying cheap imported clothing are?_ , I have no choice but. the only reason being that all of my clothes bought since last year (I’ve only started looking at the place of origin of what I buy since last year) are made somewhere else besides Canada. And, believe me, it wouldn’t be a pretty picture if I had to go around naked!!! 

Just my thoughts but I wish there were a more equitable solution to global employment.

P


----------



## natasha2000

emma42 said:
			
		

> I think you have understood the English very well, Natasha.
> 
> "Not everything is rosy".


 
Oh, Emma, I didn't mean to be ironic nor sarcastic. I really mean it. I am not sure I understand why do you disagree with me. And I conclude you are disageeng with me by the beginning of your post with: "But Natasha!" On the other hand, everything you've said, looks as if you agreeing with me. I am very sorry for this misunderstanding...


----------



## emma42

Hi Natasha.  Yes, I was disagreeing with you BUT I might have misunderstood you, so lets see.

As I understood you, you were saying that we had to accept that workers would lose their jobs because there was nothing we could do about it, and that we should retrain them as quickly as possible.

That is a valid point of view.  However, my argument is why the hell should we accept that workers should lose their jobs and then have to retrain, probably in something not of their choosing, and then be further subject to the needs of the market with no question of them, as individuals with minds and souls, having any say in it?  

This is something at the heart of capitalism.  It goes on and on about individual choice and freedom, but...well, do I need to say more? 

Capitalism is bad.  It is against freedom.  Against compassion (it may pay lip service to it, but by its very nature, profit is its motive - profit of the few by the many).  People say, "capitalism works", but it doesn't.  Otherwise we woud not have the poverty etc all over the world that we have.  It is a rubbish system.  It works for a few.

And no, my alternative is not communism as extant in the former Soviet Union etc.


----------



## Etcetera

emma42 said:
			
		

> And no, my alternative is not communism as extant in the former Soviet Union etc.


And is there any alternative at all?.. I wonder.


----------



## emma42

Alternatives?  Well, I am not going to go into them now (I may later).  But we need to see things from a historical perspective.  Capitalism arose from a certain set of circumstances (as did communism, which could not have happened without capitalism).  We are so used to living in a capitalist society (those of us who do!) that it sometimes seems as though it has always been here and is a product of human nature.  The world has not always been run on capitalist lines.


----------



## Etcetera

I think that in the future capitalism may step aside, letting something new take its place. There was some economic system before capitalism, there will be something after it.
But for the present, it seems, capitalism really reigns the world.


----------



## emma42

Capitalism "step aside"?!  It is not in the nature of the beast to step aside.  In my view, it will either be overthrown or will be forced to evolve or will disappear under a radioactive cloud.


----------



## natasha2000

emma42 said:
			
		

> The world has not always been run on capitalist lines.


 
Emma..
It wasn't, true. There were faudalism, and the ancient societies that lied on slave labor... I cannot think of anything else.... After capitalism, came communism, but we all saw its shameful end...


----------



## cuchuflete

There is no need to either attack or defend capitalism.  It is, as every other economic/social system humankind has ever invented, flawed.  Understanding it might be a better way to spend our time, but I cannot find a purely capitalist system in existence these days.

From the early industrial capitalism of Britain in the 19th century, much has changed.  The so-called capitalist economies have many constraints, from anti-trust laws to labor union/syndicate rights to social security and state-provided medical care and education.... the list could, with the help of bureaucrats, go on for many pages.
Most "western" economies and societies are part capitalistic, part socialistic, with the trend in some towards more state control, and in others towards a "correction" from excessive control.

Nowhere in Europe or North America does anything approaching pure capitalism exist.  If you are not sure why I say this, consider state taxation of corporations.  The monies collected are used, with whatever efficiency, for such basics of social welfare as schools and roads.

There is an economic theory called 'comparative advantage'. Oversimplifying greatly, it suggests that some regions are better at producing some kinds of goods, while others do a better job at making others.  Hence they trade.  This has been going on for many centuries, before capitalism, or socialism or communism were invented.   Trade, reflecting the ability of some people and regions to do a comparatively better job at making/growing/catching some things, was once based on barter.  Money is just a proxy.  We still barter our labor for food and clothing, with money as a medium of exchange, to simplify the process.  

This may just be a coincidence, with no causality, but most of the most "egalitarian" economic societies of the past century were places with the least freedom.


----------



## emma42

But if the society were, say, smaller (I am thinking of maybe co-operative federation, NOT Soviet communism), then "society" would be friends, neighbours, family, comrades (I do not use that word in the Soviet communism sense).

Natasha, please stop getting upset. Your posts are really interesting and well thought out. I am not offended in the least and love to see what you have to say.


----------



## maxiogee

emma42 said:
			
		

> And no, my alternative is not communism as extant in the former Soviet Union etc.



as *EXTANT* in?

I thought that the various component states of the former Soviet Union (which generally speaking now form the CIS) had discarded Communism? Is it extant anywhere amonst them?


----------



## emma42

Maxiogee, I meant "as formerly extant in the former Soviet Union", as well you know! And, "extant" was the wrong word to use. Should have just said "as formerly in the former USSR.."

I have asked Genjen to consider moving some of the posts in this thread to a new thread, possibly entitled "Alternatives to capitalism" or "Is capitalism human nature?" This is just for information and is not an invitation to go further off topic than we (inc me) already have.

I, too, buy a lot of secondhand clothes (charity shops, Ebay).


----------



## Etcetera

Well, Emma, you weren't so wrong, actually! In several countries of the former USSR communists still are in power. In Turkmenistan, for instance.


----------



## emma42

Indeed, etcetera.  THanks for pointing that out!  And it should be "you weren't so wrong".  Hope you don't mind.


----------



## maxiogee

emma42 said:
			
		

> Maxiogee, I meant "as formerly extant in the former Soviet Union", as well you know! And, "extant" was the wrong word to use. Should have just said "as formerly in the former USSR.."



I, and others, can only go on the words we read here.
We owe it to our fellow forer@s to choose our worms with care!
Yes yes, I know!


----------



## Brioche

emma42 said:
			
		

> Hi Natasha. Yes, I was disagreeing with you BUT I might have misunderstood you, so lets see.
> 
> As I understood you, you were saying that we had to accept that workers would lose their jobs because there was nothing we could do about it, and that we should retrain them as quickly as possible.
> 
> That is a valid point of view. However, my argument is why the hell should we accept that workers should lose their jobs and then have to retrain, probably in something not of their choosing, and then be further subject to the needs of the market with no question of them, as individuals with minds and souls, having any say in it?


 
It seems to me that what you are saying is that workers doing X are entitled to have a job doing X in perpetuity.

So when vinyl records were replaced by CDs, the workers in the LP factories should have been kept on making vinyl records that nobody wants? Or do we ask the LP makers for permission to introduce a new technology?

Should dial telephones never have been invented, because they caused all the manual switchboard operators to lose their jobs?

Should ordinary people be forbidden to have refrigerators, because that put the ice-carters out of a job?

No televisions because it put the cinemas out of business?


----------



## Mariaguadalupe

There was a study several years ago that said that in the not too far future, there would be no more countries as we know them today.  That our world would be divided by the "new feudal kingdoms" which would be the transnational corporations, GE, GM, IBM, MICROSOFT, etc.  Let me find the articles and I'll post them. 

I do remember how I felt when I realized that our region had changed so much that we were no longer a farming, ranching community but had given way to in-bond companies (maquiladoras)-companies that temporarily import goods to be returned to their country of origin as finished products.  And yes, it has changed our community so much that sometimes we can no longer recognize it.

Fields of corn have given way to plant chimneys and pollution.


----------



## Etcetera

emma42 said:
			
		

> Indeed, etcetera. THanks for pointing that out! And it should be "you weren't so wrong". Hope you don't mind.


I don't.

Maria, I'm really interested in seeing the articles you've mentioned. Frankly, I can't see how its authors could come to such a decision, so it would by very interesting to see their arguments.


----------



## emma42

Brioche, why does it seem to you that I am saying "that"? I'm not.   Could you let me know why you think that?


----------



## Brioche

emma42 said:
			
		

> Brioche, why does it seem to you that I am saying "that"? I'm not. Could you let me know why you think that?


 

You did say:


			
				emma42 said:
			
		

> why the hell should we accept that workers should lose their jobs and then have to retrain...


 
If no-one is ever to loose her job, and is never to need retraining, then we can never change the way things are done.


----------



## cuchuflete

There is a side to this that may round out the conversation.

What about business enterprises?  If they perform badly, that is, if they do not satisfy those who pay them ---customers--- then they get "sacked" or "made redundant" or ignored into oblivion.  That seems pretty simple and logical.

If workers, either through external circumstances beyond their control, or through their own efforts or lack of same, do not satisfy the needs of their own repective 'customers', employers, then they will suffer a similar fate.  Sometimes it's purely the result of things over which the workers have no say at all, and that is sad, disruptive to lives.  Yet it is not usually
a death sentence.

A business enterprise that is subject to external forces has fewer choices...either reconstitute its products and/or methods and/or financial structure, or go belly up.


----------



## emma42

Cuchuflete, I do not understand.  That's what happens anyway, isn't it?

Brioche, mate, I did say that, but I went on to say "probably in something not of their own choosing and then be further subject to the needs of the market with no question of them...having any say in it".

By that, I meant that, of course, people have to retrain sometimes, for all sorts of reasons, but that does not mean that they should be told what to retrain for/forced into work they hate/given no alternatives/not listened to/treated like labour fodder.


----------



## cuchuflete

The demonization of business enterprises is the point.  Those who decry the fate of workers overlook, consciously or otherwise, that those same workers have a role in determining their own fates.  Just as business owners and managers are accountable for the fate of their firms, sometimes workers have a lot to do with the loss of jobs.

Look at the dismembered carcass of British Leyland.  Review the history of labor 'actions'.  Together with bad management, they helped bring that enterprise to an end, with the loss of tens of thousands of jobs.

In the US, the UAW (United Auto Workers union) bickered and 
caused long strikes to "protect" stupid, antiquated work rules.
The economic consequences, together with bad management, has caused huge job losses, as customers, including those same workers, chose to buy imported vehicles.  Big powerful labor organizations, together with big powerful companies, joined in a battle of ego that badly wounded both the corporations and the workers.


----------



## emma42

Oh dear.  You are, it would seem, arguing for a respectable sort of capitalism with an equitable balance of workers' rights and responsibilities.

Sorry, bud, that is not how capitalism is.  By its very essence, it will never work.  You cannot tinker around the edges of a phenomenon such as this and expect to achieve justice.


----------



## Brioche

emma42 said:
			
		

> Oh dear. You are, it would seem, arguing for a respectable sort of capitalism with an equitable balance of workers' rights and responsibilities.
> 
> Sorry, bud, that is not how capitalism is. By its very essence, it will never work. You cannot tinker around the edges of a phenomenon such as this and expect to achieve justice.


 
Currently, it seems to me that capitalism is working better than any other system.
There are fewer empty bellies in capitalist countries than elsewhere.
It is only in capitalist countries that enough value in generated to pay for pensions, benefits and other welfare measures.
It is to capitalist countries that refugees flee when they can.
How many South Koreans would like to move to North Korea?


----------



## Talant

Hi,

The problem about capitalism, as it happened with communism, is the people on top.

If they weren't so hungry for power and money both systems might work more or less for the benefit of all. However "hominus est lupus homine", and in communism the Party members chose to fight between themselves and hide the problems instead of correcting them (think China with the AIDS or the avian flu epidemies). In capitalism they just fight for money, having huge amounts is not enough. As it is, the vast majority of the people has to struggle for jobs, salary,... If the ones on top can grab another thousand, they'll gladly fire anyone.

The political parties need money to get elected and survive, thus they can't fight those guys. Some politicians might help them if they can get something in exchange.

Feudalism, guilds,... not a single economic system is without its faults. The main one is the dependence on a handful of powerful people.

Even anarchy would work for them, powerful people. It'll give them the means to get even more powerful without a "ever-vigilant" State.

Do I look a little pessimistic? You're wrong. I am a BIG pessimistic.


----------



## maxiogee

I have kept out of this topic since it was split from it's origins as I think the thread title is silly.



			
				Talant said:
			
		

> The problem about capitalism, as it happened with communism, is the people on top.



Communism and Capitalism are both concepts which go perfectly with "human nature" —> the theories are great, it appears everyone benefits, but in practice someone somewhere is lining their pockets and somewhere else a lot of people are getting shafted.
The only differences between the two systems are 
[*]there tends to be more pocket-liners per 1000 of population under Capitalism;
[*]the homes of the pocket-liner and the shafted tend to be further apart under Capitalism;
[*]under Communism only the locals gets shafted, Capitalism can shaft people halfway around the world.

Of course Capitalism and Communism go against human nature, but they don't go against enough people's human nature. There are more than one "human natures" around.


----------



## wsitiplaju

Brioche said:
			
		

> Currently, it seems to me that capitalism is working better than any other system.
> There are fewer empty bellies in capitalist countries than elsewhere.
> It is only in capitalist countries that enough value in generated to pay for pensions, benefits and other welfare measures.
> It is to capitalist countries that refugees flee when they can.
> How many South Koreans would like to move to North Korea?


 
A burgeoning middle class and increased spending (which are the figures that are usually cited in defense of capitalism’s morality) do not necessarily mean fewer empty bellies.  Indeed, they can mean both emptier bellies and more of them.  Lots of people do feel that this is one of the main effects of the current edition of capitalism.  (I won’t say “in capitalist countries” or “elsewhere” because I’m not sure what those might be in this day and age.)  
 
The statement “it seems to me that capitalism is working better than any other system” makes no more sense to me as a defense of capitalism than “it seems to me that imperialism is working better than any other system” makes sense as a defense of imperialism.  Even if it’s a true statement (something I’d be inclined to argue with), it doesn’t make me think, well, hey, three cheers for capitalism!
 
As for the question of re-training workers who made LPs when CDs came out, I would like to say that a system that requires the constant invention of new and improved goods does not seem to me self-evidently the most wonderful thing in the world.  I enjoy my technology, but I’m not convinced that it’s for the good of humankind that we toss our CD players in the trash and all go out and buy iPods.  There’s something pernicious, seems to me, in a system that depends on continually making skills, knowledge, and objects obsolete.  
 
Thanks.


----------



## macta123

Capitalism isn't bad. But if Capitalist try to expand the gap between the rich and poor, it is wrong. Capitalism shouldn't mean rich becoming more richer and poor becoming poorer. It means that devicing such ways inorder to rise the merit and skills of each and every person and award him accordingly. For eg. an executive at a Fortune 500 company (let's assume MBA) will earn more than an executive in a smaller company (let's assume he is only a graduate). Such a distinction is good. But, the hard-workers should also be seen with dignity. For eg. in many Indian states the day labours are just give Rs. 50 which is just around 1 US Dollar a day. Which is quite insufficient. But at the same time in states where Socialist rule is there they pay around  Rs. 150 a day. In some states the land-lords or the contractors may just give 10 or 20 Ruppees which is quite rediculous. Capitalism shouldn't play with the dignity of a person. Every person should be looked with dignity and respect.


----------



## Etcetera

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Of course Capitalism and Communism go against human nature, but they don't go against enough people's human nature. There are more than one "human natures" around.


I am perfectly sure that Communism is much worse than Capitalism. 
However young I am, I remember pretty well the Soviet times; besides, my parents used to tell me about their youth. If we compare any Russian city now and twenty/thirty/forty years later, the difference will be just striking. Today, everything's more bright and rich than it was. Well, folks! Look at South Korea and North Korea! See the difference?


----------



## Brioche

wsitiplaju said:
			
		

> I enjoy my technology, but I’m not convinced that it’s for the good of humankind that we toss our CD players in the trash and all go out and buy iPods. There’s something pernicious, seems to me, in a system that depends on continually making skills, knowledge, and objects obsolete.
> 
> Thanks.


 
Still using an Atari or Commodore 64 computer?
Dot-matrix printer?
Storing programs on cassettes?
50 baud modem?
Monochrome screen?
Do you remember them?

It seems bizarre to me to be using the most advanced technology in the world to criticise technological advances.


----------



## Etcetera

Oh, I remember dot-matrix printers and monochrome screens!.. 
The point is that technical progress must be for people, not people for technical progress. As long as new technologies are useful for most people, they're good. 
Personally, I can't see the point of replacing CD players with iPods immediately, and I still prefer VHS to DVDs.


----------



## emma42

I applaud wsitiplaju's post #30.

Macta123's post 31 - you mention "states where socialist rules" - these are probably state capitalist, not socialist.  Socialism has not, so far, been able to take a foothold in any state, not even Cuba.

When I say that capitalism does not work, I mean globally.  Of course it works for some people - that's why its here.


----------



## wsitiplaju

Brioche said:
			
		

> Still using an Atari or Commodore 64 computer?
> Dot-matrix printer?
> Storing programs on cassettes?
> 50 baud modem?
> Monochrome screen?
> Do you remember them?
> 
> It seems bizarre to me to be using the most advanced technology in the world to criticise technological advances.


 
As I said, I enjoy my technology.  I don’t see anything bizarre about using advanced technology to criticize technological advances.  Technology is an integral part of our social, economic, and political system, and if I use it, it is because I am part of that system.  I don’t see why the fact that I’m part of this world means that I shouldn’t make an attempt to think critically about it, or voice my doubts.  
 
It’s true, my computer is not a Commodore 64.  It’s an IBM Thinkpad, and I bought it refurbished less than four years ago.  My first computer, which is why I went for something modest.  Though it works perfectly well, I am considering buying a new one, because a lot of new things aren’t compatible with it.  That’s called forced obsoletion.  It means turning stuff that physically works fine into junk.  It was not a system invented for the good of the consumer, but to keep the consumer buying.  Technology’s only the most obvious example.  This system has vast ramifications in terms of our relationship to the world of objects, to the environment, to the other people who make our disposable doo-hinkies...  Just because I enjoy this system’s fruits doesn’t mean I have to pretend that its ills don’t exist.


----------



## wsitiplaju

Etcetera said:
			
		

> Personally, I can't see the point of replacing CD players with iPods immediately, and I still prefer VHS to DVDs.


 
Ah, I think you have just told me something about the state of affairs in St. Petersburg!  If I knew how to put a smiley-face here, I would.  The only kids I've seen in a long time toting CD-walkmans lived in shacks made out of salvaged wood.


----------



## wsitiplaju

ah, there it is:


----------



## cuchuflete

wsitiplaju said:
			
		

> I am considering buying a new one, because *a lot of new things aren’t compatible with it.  That’s called forced obsoletion.*  It means turning stuff that physically works fine into junk.  It was not a system invented for the good of the consumer, but to keep the consumer buying.  Technology’s only the most obvious example.



The statement in bold is not correct.
If software designers were limited to adding additional capabilities, within the hardware and OS limitations of a four year old computer, the following would be true:

1. Software development would be more difficult, time consuming, and costly.  If programmer and designer skills are a scarce commodity, they would be wasted.  That is true in both socialistic and capitalistic economies.  It's called waste and inefficiency.
2. Some of the consumer benefits and functionality you have available on newer computers would simply not be available.

3. If techology for computers were frozen at the level of four years back, economies of scale in manufacturing and much reduced R&D expenditures would yield much *higher profits* for computer manufacturers.

It's so easy to toss off trivial comments like the one about forced obsolescence, without thinking through the real world economics, and without considering the technology involved.

Yes, there are industries with forced obsolescence.  The example given is not a good one.  Try fashion in clothing.
Changing the width of a lapel, or shortening or lengthening a hemline, in an attempt to force the fashion conscious consumer to buy more, unneeded nonsense might suit your argument a little better.


----------



## Etcetera

wsitiplaju said:
			
		

> Ah, I think you have just told me something about the state of affairs in St. Petersburg! If I knew how to put a smiley-face here, I would. The only kids I've seen in a long time toting CD-walkmans lived in shacks made out of salvaged wood.


Oh dear, do some Mexicans still live in such houses? Frankly, from what I've heard from my friend who lives in Mexico City, I somehow assumed that the state of affairs in Mexico isn't that bad.


----------



## wsitiplaju

I’m going to try to defend my trivial comment, as it does not seem to me that your (cuchuflete’s) post shows that what’s happening to my computer is not a case of “forced obsolescence”—it seems to me that you have simply explained some aspects of how obsolescence works and why it’s necessary to the system that has created it.  
 
First, I would like to try to clarify what I mean by “forced obsolescence” (thanks for correcting my “obsoletion”).  I mean that, because of technological advances, my computer has been forced into obsolescence.  The “forced” is perhaps redundant, as I think it can be argued that there is always something forced about obsolescence.  I do not mean that there is necessarily some sort of conscious behind-the-scenes agreement to create these conditions.  The fashion industry would be a lousy example because it makes a great show of “waste and inefficiency,” and deliberately sidesteps all the rational, economic arguments that make obsolescence seem like the only way to go.  (It occurs to me that you could think of the fashion industry as a kind of ludic perversion of regular industry.)  
 
When I said that this system was not invented for the good of the consumer, but to keep the consumer buying, I did not mean _consciously_ invented (though I would not be surprised if conscious planning were involved).  It may well be the case that if innovation were frozen, profits would be higher for manufacturers, and we couldn’t do so many neat things with our computers.  This does not mean, by default, that the extant system is at the service of the consumer.  Undoubtedly the consumer reaps many benefits, and these are often touted to show that the market economy is the best for all.  However, I still feel that it is a biting irony that functional objects become useless junk precisely in the name of cutting down on “waste and inefficiency.”  (Thanks for pointing this irony up.)  
 
I don’t think hypothetical situations are such a great way to get at “real world economics,” even if they are key to how economics is taught.  One factor remains in place, while everything else stays the same.  When you argue that handicapping software development to the limitations of old hardware, you imagine a scenario in which the pressure to produce new software remains unchanged.  You conclude that the cost of research would go up.  When you argue that freezing computer technology would lead to higher profits for manufacturers, you imagine a scenario in which the demand for technology continues unabated.  (And you note that the cost of research would be “much reduced.”)  I don’t think much is proven, least of all the non-existence of forced obsolescence in computer technology.  
 
Thanks for reading; sorry it's so long.


----------

