It's not broken, it's just that reality of labor is changing to the point that the ideas we have about how to create a healthy economy won't work anymore. It's similar to how Marx's theories were only applicable when the vast majority of labor was simple factory or agricultural work, and you assume everything about the industrial revolution would remain static.

The #1 method for creating a strong economy has been to try reaching maximum labor participation - everyone has a job, and government does what it can to move people into a position to meet labor demand.

Once we move into a post-labor economy, we will just have to adjust how we make capitialism work through things like Universal Basic Income.

Do you mean people trading with others on a voluntary, win-win basis, or do you mean what today is labeled capitalism but is characterized by coercive force and cronyism?

Capitalism always tends toward monopoly, there's only a difference in the minds of idealistic libertarians.

Only in the corporate welfare system we have today (see Chevrolet bailout). Without corporate welfare in the forms of subsidies, bailouts, and regulations, companies like Telsa would be destroying the major auto manufactures. What old major companies would still be around without un-capitlistic like interventions from the government?

No, it was true for East India, it was true for Standard Oil, and it's still true today. Much of regulation was intended for the protection of consumers, not to cement incumbents, and the subversion of the same is evidence of capitalism's predatory nature.

Businesses continue their regulatory capture in the US. The line between corporations and government grows thinner every time a burdensome regulation is created that only companies with significant resources can follow.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/060815-756320-domin...

Of course they do. This is not unique in history or in the US. This is simply capitalism working as intended.

What did you think Tesla would do after they finished "destroying the major auto manufacturers"?

Did you miss the use of the word "voluntary" in my comment?

Absent force, a person is free to either accept or reject a given deal.

A deal implies ownership. Ownership requires force. Try again.

Does a deal actually imply ownership? Where is the ownership in a deal trading service for service?

> or do you mean what today is labeled capitalism but is characterized by coercive force and cronyism?

That's what has always been labeled capitalism, starting with the socialist critiques of the dominant system (filled, as it was, with coercive force and cronyism) in the developed world in the mid-to-late 19th century who invented the term "capitalism" as a label for that system.

Outside of incoherent, fantasies the neither exist in the real world or stand up to much examination even in theory -- fantasies constructed largely as a propaganda to defend that coercive, cronyistic system from its critics -- nothing else but coercive, cronyism-dominated systems has ever been referred to with the label "capitalism".

I mean if efficiency leads to no one having jobs and thus cash to buy anything. That sounds like a broken system to me.

>It works until you run out of consumers with cash, at which point it no longer works.

edit: spelling

Having an economy dominated by private, profit-seeking businesses isn't really the problem here. For example, communist societies also face some awkwardness when there isn't enough work to go around, albeit to a lesser degree. The fundamental problem is the assumption that people have to work to live.