The tension is businesses making money but also contributing back to society through fair wages, social responsibility and levering their influence to help. Too little profit, and the business tanks. Too little contribution to society, and the gap between the wealthy and society keeps widening. Both non-profit groups and the government can help to bridge the gap, but only so far.

Credit, credit, and more credit.  Household debt is at levels that could not have been imagined in the 1950s.

This is pretty ignorant. Businesses contribute to society by making money and selling their product. Apple contributes to society by providing it with Iphones that change the way we live our lives, stores contribute to society by giving us convenient places to shop for the things we need, Stardock provides us with software that makes our lives easier or more entertaining, and tire companies provide us with ever cheaper tires so that the cost of living goes down and every one is richer. Competition in turn ensures that these businesses not only aid society but ensure they are the best possible way to do it.

I like how your example of a failure of capitalism in need of socialism is corrupt government...

Your robot factory example is also very bad. You can't just buy a factory and get free money. You would have to compete with every other factory and that means that you run the risk of losing everything unless you run your factory or company better then your competition which in turn means you provide more to society and all society is better off.

I can see why some people would believe that but it won't happen. Socialism cannot exist outside a economy dominated by manufacturing. All the stats reveal that unions are disappearing as manufacturing is replaced by the much more fluid and innovative information economy. Government regulation and control also has no real part to play in this new economy for similar reasons. The new economy focuses too much on change, risk taking, and innovation for governments to keep up or hope to even understand. All they can do is stifle growth in a hopeless attempt to prevent change. Sure you can have a progressive tax structure and welfare but that's not socialism, and welfare is never to be desired.

Right now the economy is in the process of a transition, similar to that of the Industrial Revolution. Eventually we will see a new equilibrium but not until a lot of jobs disappear and are replaced by new types of jobs which will require a painful transition and large parts of society to be re-trained.

Of course I might be wrong, but by my definition of contribute is to give without cost. Although, I agree businesses contribute, it is not by making money and selling their product, as these are costs to the society and a sale of a good.

Many business contribute by providing infrastructure to the local community at no cost to the community. Namely, a factory is built and the company updates and builds roads for the community to get the company. This is a contribution.

Another contribution businesses commonly provide for the community is local jobs for the community.

All companies are usually forced to give mandated contributions in terms of taxes to the society, but by and large there are some larger companies that are circumventing these mandated contributions, even with their quite large profit margins.

One part of the contributions to society that leads to a perceived problem is the contribution is given at a world scale and no longer at the local country scale. The switch to automation is a fine innovation, but the companies are faulted not in the automation, it is that their contributions to the local area have decreased as such and this is where things start to become faulty. The investment in the local community is no longer necessary part of making a business successful and as more and more larger companies avoid mandated local contributions, the result is a weaker economy in these areas.

This is not true for all business and many businesses are unable to avoid the mandated contributions, but a company contributing to society by making money and selling their product is not a contribution to society. The contribution is the jobs the company provides and the infrastructure that company creates. As Frogboy puts it, the more automation takes over, the less these companies have to contribute to their local infrastructure to be successful (local work force) and in turn the less contributions that company makes towards the local society.

I fail to see how that proves me wrong. The fact of the matter is that this company making money and selling their product contributes to society is false. I did not say that it does not change society and provides a different platform for others to contribute to society. But like I said I might be confused by the definition of contribution which comes at no cost. What cost did the Android and IOS have on the society? Did the companies that developed these products give them to society at no cost, set up the infrastructure to use these products at no cost to society? If I recall correctly, one can obtain the Android OS for free at no cost, and so by my definition that is a contribution, thus your statement doesn't prove me wrong.

I for one have not used an Android or IOS don't have the money to afford that kind of phone. Is my life affected by these products, of course. Same as my life will be affected if a mine was built next to the only major water supply in the world fails to keep the poisons from entering the water. That is a great contribution of the company as it came at no cost to society... but then what do you imply is cost at this point. I was careful to point out that the cost to society must be negligible in order for it to be a contribution. I don't go to the store and say what a great contribution that lawnmower company made to me. I say instead that lawnmower company provided a great product for me to purchase. It was not a contribution to me, it was a contribution to who? who was able to have the item at no cost?

The modern computer did reach their current state to improve the local community. Otherwise what is the impetus for the sale of the item, if it does not improve something why would someone purchase the product? Watch the "God's must be Crazy" and tell me what a modern computer would be to that society, to summarize it would be useless, because they don't know anything about it, nor how to use it. Thus, these companies are forced to contribute to society by educating the populous (much of what Apple did in a lot of public schools).

Medicine on the other hand has a lot of contributions, but who bore the cost of these "contributions" and can you get all this information for free?

For the business side, If they made a drug that only 10 people could afford, then is that a contribution to society, suppose that it cures any ailment without consequence. Under that circumstance, what is the contribution to society?

I am simply curious on what the definition of contribution being used is here. I noticed that you used contribution to society that a business who developed the original framework contributed to society by have other companies contribute to society. That is not the same as the first company directly contributing to society. That would imply that any work done as a derived work of another is that others contribution, but not the one who made the final result. That is akin to suggesting that the car is a contribution of the oil companies.