General Discussion

Sounds just like an economic crash in capitalism except on a small, local region or industry. It comes across more like just a general description of the destruction of capitalism.

He describes it as an essential fact about capitalism where revolutionary innovations render existing products, processes, or technologies obsolete.

Entrepreneurs drive the process by introducing new goods, production methods, or opening new markets, forcing old firms to adapt or perish. While disruptive to labor and causing industrial decline, it is considered the primary engine for increasing productivity and profit over the long term and wider region.

Do we really have to have this destruction before we can make progress? Why do we have to regulate it? Shouldn't we have an economic system that encourages compliance with basic human needs and goals?

And existing profitable corporations fight this progress and change tooth and nail. Just look at how we have failed miserably in implementing renewable energy. The oil corporation are preventing the US from going there. They use their wealth and influence to prevent progress and and keep us chained to obsolete systems. Not only is the process basically a bunch of destructive crashes, it also creates barriers to progress and causes stagnation. It's why feudalism was overturned as an economic system. It created more barriers to progress than it promoted.

Yeah, Karl Marx missed the mark in several areas but what he did better than anyone else was to describe capitalism and all it's faults and problems. It's something the filthy-rich don't want you to know about. Which is why the filthy-rich created concepts like "free" trade, libertarianism and trickle down.