Anti-Capitalist Sentiment (with some morality)

The central banks are instruments of socialism even if they are so-called private companies. They answer to governments. Again not a criticism of capitalism but of big government. Central banks are government-enabled monopolies that do incredible harm changing interest rates from free-market based rates to whatever the fuck basically that they think the rate ought to be. It's a price control like anything else, and it fails massively like every price control in history has.

Capitalism drives innovation and technology faster than any government can. Honestly the only way that government programs can advance technology is by dumping insane amounts of tax dollars into research, again with a massive expertise deficit. The space race caused a great amount of innovation to occur but it wasted insane amounts of resources in doing so. In terms of stifling innovation, that's what governments do when they make it very expensive and difficult to be an entrepreneur or when they divert tax dollars to the research firms of their own choosing, usually for nepotistic or cronyistic reasons instead of merit-based ones. They also stifle innovation when they subsidize ANY industry, including industries of innovation. A solar-power subsidy distorts the market for alternative energy by providing an unnaturally large signal to get into solar when there might be greener innovative pastures to be found in geothermal energy. Meanwhile markets are naturally pushing toward alternative sources. This can be seen in the rapidly increasing price of oil, which governments including the U.S. hilariously subsidize.

Ong said that capitalism discourages the use of abundant resources in favor of those that are scarce. This couldn't be farther from the truth. Oil is incredibly abundant and cheap compared with the alternatives, that is why it is the prevalent source. Capitalism doesn't encourage scarcity, it only recognizes its existence. The prices of abundant resources quickly approach zero in a free market as providers continue to innovate and reduce their costs to compete with other providers. The costs of abundant goods are a pretty good sign of how free and developed an economy is. I'm currently living in Cambodia where electricity is the 2nd most expensive on the planet, and drinking water costs about 8 times as much as adjacent Thailand.

Quote:

---

They answer to governments.

---

I strongly disagree with you here renton. I think it's the other way round. Governments answer to the central banks. That's why we're all in so much debt. The only nations that do not answer to the central banks are the ones we invade. And Iceland, who were on our terrosit list for a short time but I guess we realised that there would be literally no justification to invading Iceland.

Quote:

---

Oil is incredibly abundant and cheap compared with the alternatives, that is why it is the prevalent source.

---

This is just wow. Why don't you try comparing UK or US energy prices with, say, Iceland? Iceland's energy comes almost exclusively from hydroelectic and geothermal, with 0.1% fossil fuels. We pay twice as much for energy, I'm not sure about you guys because the stats I found include gas for cars, which you're gonna get a lot cheaper than Iceland, plus it probablt varies across states. The vast majority of nations that are cheapr than Iceland are big gas and oil exporters.

Geothermal is much cheaper. Infrastructure would obviously be very expensive, but we're talking of a super high speed train between London and Birmingham and up North, because saving half an hour getting From London to Manchester is worth many billions of pounds apparently. We can afford to consider trains that go 150mph+ in a small nation, but we can't have clean renewable energy?

What are the maintenence costs of geothermal? Negligable when compared to drilling oil from the seabed.

Oil is not abundant, far from it. It is not renewable, we are using a lot more oil than the earth can create. Thus, it is scarce. Abundant means we are using less than can be made, at least when it comes to energy.

Quote:

---

The prices of abundant resources quickly approach zero in a free market

---

You say this, but this supports my argument! Why would the powers that be want us to be using an abundant energy source that is virtually free? This is why we're still drilling oil! Because it's scarce, not abundant, and as such can be sold at a much higher price than alternatives.

Central banks don't control everything, they administer monetary policy. Monetary policy is such an important part of the economy that you could say it's THE most important part since good policy with make a strong economy while bad policy will destroy it. They don't create debt the way people think, and they don't maintain the wealth of the elite. While it is theoretically possible for a free banking world to function better than central banks, no nation on the planet has ever come close to figuring out how. On the other hand, history is amply on the side of sound central banking. I guess people can say central banks are causing problems that wouldn't exist if they didn't exist, but there really isn't any evidence for that. Monetary policy is pretty complicated stuff that I can't say I understand enough to go much deeper, but be aware that an anti-central banking stance isn't a serious one without some hardcore academic explanations behind it


Ong, Iceland uses geothermal because it can. It's really cheap in certain places, but its production rate is naturally low and storage/transportation utility is expensive. There isn't some vast conspiracy here. If geothermal was what you said it was, Iceland would be exporting it like crazy and become the new Saudi Arabia. Even if governments dumped a trillion dollars into ramping up geothermal and hydroelectric and wind power and solar and literally everything, the costs to run a car on oil pulled out of the seabed would be far lower. Millions of people with a ton of brainpower have been working on these problems.

Not allowing free, competitive currencies into a market is a problem. Virtually all governments hate that even though it's good stuff. But it's absolutely essential to have a central bank that runs the national currency. It's possible that all forms of free money could never achieve that high of status without a central bank and government that backs it anyways. Huge inflation and deflation spikes are normal, but it is only after central banks countered them through monetary policy that steady growth became a thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

This is just wow. Why don't you try comparing UK or US energy prices with, say, Iceland? Iceland's energy comes almost exclusively from hydroelectic and geothermal, with 0.1% fossil fuels. We pay twice as much for energy, I'm not sure about you guys because the stats I found include gas for cars, which you're gonna get a lot cheaper than Iceland, plus it probablt varies across states. The vast majority of nations that are cheapr than Iceland are big gas and oil exporters.

Geothermal is much cheaper. Infrastructure would obviously be very expensive, but we're talking of a super high speed train between London and Birmingham and up North, because saving half an hour getting From London to Manchester is worth many billions of pounds apparently. We can afford to consider trains that go 150mph+ in a small nation, but we can't have clean renewable energy?

What are the maintenence costs of geothermal? Negligable when compared to drilling oil from the seabed.

Oil is not abundant, far from it. It is not renewable, we are using a lot more oil than the earth can create. Thus, it is scarce. Abundant means we are using less than can be made, at least when it comes to energy.

---

I said abundant when compared with the alternatives. We're never gonna run out of oil, man. Naysayers keep saying that we're gonna run out of these finite amounts of oil, aluminum, iron, etc and we keep finding more. It just becomes more and more costly to extract. As this happens, other sources will begin being able to compete with oil. It's a problem that is solving itself.

Do you honestly think if geothermal were such a bang-on cheaper option that a large firm with billions from investors wouldn't emerge to start providing that to the world?

I also notice you citing the Zeitgeist movies rather a lot. I can't deny how persuasive and well put together those movies are, but fact checkers have torn them apart. The first movie believed in the 9/11 false flag conspiracy theory for crying out loud, now Peter Joseph shies away from that since a decent amount of people take him seriously as a person now. The resource-based economy espoused by Jacques Fresco is about as misguided and potentially malicious to peoples as the brutal controlled economies that were attempted during the 20th century.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

If geothermal was what you said it was, Iceland would be exporting it like crazy and become the new Saudi Arabia.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

We're never gonna run out of oil, man.

---

These two pearls of wisdom trump any of the nonsense I've spouted. Bravo.

Quote:

---

The first movie believed in the 9/11 false flag conspiracy theory for crying out loud

---

I can't leave it alone. There is no fucking way fire caused those buildings to collapse. jfc that's so retarded that it amazes me they got away with it. It was the 9/11 stuff that got me watching zeitgeist, but it was Fresco who interested me the most. It's all very well shouting that the world is fucked up but this guy has solutions. I know he's distanced himself from the movement, probably because it's not in his interests to be associated with the 9/11 truth movement.

The evidence to suggest 9/11 could not have happened as they tell us is pretty overwhelming to me. I don't know what did happen, I can only guess like the majority of fruitcakes on the internet.

yeah let's hijack this into a 9/11 truthers or w/e thread!

I went through a phase and eventually came to the conclusion that there are some fishy things about 9/11 and that the 'conspiracy nuts' speculate some nutty ass shit because there's no hard proof of anything.

I always thought an interesting angle was the training exercises the admin was running that supposedly confused air traffic, slowing down the scrambling of jets. I've never heard a great explanation for that, especially considering there was intel that shit was maybe going down that day, so why risk anything with drills then? At best, it seems like incompetence on their part, but it certainly wouldn't be the first time someone in history has pulled shit like that. PNAC new pearl harbor IRL risk game stuff fits right in too. Gotta grab dat iraq

Speaking of which, anyone hear that rumsfeld interview on O&A with louis ck? It's pretty amazing.

Yes it is an undeniable fact that we will not run out of oil. The limits to oil use are rate of production and cost of extraction, not absolute amounts. If we made it a point to consume all oil regardless of any other factors, sure we'd run out of the limited quantity in existence, but this is not relevant in an economics discussion

On the one hand, we have every credible person on the planet, who all say geothermal can't scale. On the other hand, we have WrongBonga (cheers Hoop), whose greatest musings come over a bowl of electric lettuce

lol

Anyway tell me more about how Iceland could export geothermal power.

Quote:

---

yeah let's hijack this into a 9/11 truthers or w/e thread!

---

I won't delve further into 9/11 talk unless baited. All I'll say is what they tell us is so obviously bollocks that I facepalm the fucking world. So many smart people just accept the bullshit. We deserve everything we get.

http://youtu.be/e0G2KeIPXP8?t=6m2s

Capitalism in all its grandeur.

9/11 was exactly as the official report suggested - WTC 1 & 2 collapsed because there were too many pancakes on the 80th floor, WTC7 was brought down by the stay puft marshmallow and the F16s were despatched from langley in the wrong direction because godzilla was spotted in the ocean. It's all legit

Yup, exactly how the report suggested. The guy who claims he wasn't one of the hijackers, I don't buy it. I believe America because America Fuck Yeah.

There are some fishy things about 9/11, but the controlled demolition theory is absurd. At worst, the gov't knew about it and let it happen. Most likely though its more like the gov't had intelligence but failed to act on it in time. Sometimes you just have to consult Occam's Razor. It's simply too contrived for such a grand conspiracy to happen in the information age. The Kennedy assassination, on the other hand, was almost certainly a conspiracy.

I think a lot of the anti-capitalism feeling comes from jealousy and a feeling that the system is stacked against the non-wealthy. I mean, the system works by those who have lots doing things with their resources with the sole purpose of gaining more. Those who don't have much have little choice but to play the game and do whatever is asked of them by those who have in order to get a little for themselves. Those who have know that they only need to give a little to those who haven't in order for to grow their assets at a rate which is not feasible for those who haven't.

This is what pisses people off. They have little choice but to play the game.

So the anger isn't really about capitalism being the optimal way to expand resources for all, it's a feeling that those with all the resources have a huge amount of power and freedom, specifically the freedom to not be forced to play the game that those without such assets are forced to play, and this is perceived as being unfair.

This feeling isn't wrong. The system is quite simply set up by those with power and resources in order for those with power and resources to maintain and grow their power and resources. Everyone else gets something as a by-product of this system.

I don't think anyone begrudges someone who works hard, has a new idea and manages to move from the group of have nots to the group of haves, but people are angered that the haves tend to always have and their future generations will do also. Maybe the way to remove a lot of the anger at the system is to not allow anyone to pass on assets of greater than x to their offspring, with x being a small number. Maybe upon death all assets should revert to the population as a whole somehow, so the game is reset every generation, rather than having been started hundreds of years ago and nothing more than the luck of who you are born to determining your chances of success.

In fact the more I think about it the more the above makes sense. It's that so much wealth is stuck at the top and doesn't circulate, which is one of the tendencies of capitalism. It isn't temporary either. If wealth was recycled upon death somehow then it would ensure a more equal chance for everyone and remove the problem of wealth disparity to a huge extent.

I agree with the description, but am not sure if estate taxes solve the problem. To whatever degree we tax estates, corporations also have to be taxed. Removing money from the ownership of individuals would give corporations tremendous power advantages they don't currently have. People tend to like the idea of taxing corporations anyways, but that's probably worse than taxing individuals based on investment reduction rates

I tend to consider distaste for the silver spoon a red herring that doesn't solve any problems. The wealthy usually become the most educated and most productive, largely because they have to in order to not go broke. There's a whole lot of flux in whose wealthy and whose not, and I don't see that many examples of de facto dynasties through estates (none, actually).

Overall, I guess I just don't support taxing businesses or individuals. Tax sales. It's the easiest thing to meaningfully quantify, and the encouragement of savings would overall make the economy far stronger and wealthier.

Also, I'm pretty sure Paypal, Tesla, SpaceX, and Solar City wouldn't exist if it wasn't for one dude having incredibly rich parents

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

I agree with the description, but am not sure if estate taxes solve the problem. To whatever degree we tax estates, corporations also have to be taxed. Removing money from the ownership of individuals would give corporations tremendous power advantages they don't currently have. People tend to like the idea of taxing corporations anyways, but that's probably worse than taxing individuals based on investment reduction rates Agree with the corporations issue.

I tend to consider distaste for the silver spoon a red herring that doesn't solve any problems. The wealthy usually become the most educated and most productive, largely because they have to in order to not go broke. But they have the means to do so, that's the point!

There's a whole lot of flux in whose wealthy and whose not, and I don't see that many examples of de facto dynasties through estates (none, actually). Would love to see how many of the top 1% wealthiest individuals started in the top say 3% or maybe had parents in the top 3% or w/e.

Overall, I guess I just don't support taxing businesses or individuals. Tax sales. It's the easiest thing to meaningfully quantify, and the encouragement of savings would overall make the economy far stronger and wealthier.

Also, I'm pretty sure Paypal, Tesla, SpaceX, and Solar City wouldn't exist if it wasn't for one dude having incredibly rich parents. This would still be the case. If the parents couldn't pass it on upon death they would have no reason to do anything other than plough it into their offspring like this. Besides which, a few examples of the current system working aren't proof that it is optimal or that alternatives aren't better.

---

.

Also, re the corporation issue, ownership of the corporation can't be passed on either, so upon death those shares would have to be sold and any revenue be ploughed back into society. So how would it be an issue?

I wonder if the realisation that funds can't be passed on to offspring would result in an increase in philanthropic projects?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rong

But they have the means to do so, that's the point!

---

If that is the point (which I agree it is important), I think there are better ways to achieve them. Some measure of redistribution is probably necessary to make a welfare state that addresses this, but I don't think it's as much as people think. Taxing wealth because its there isn't the same as -- and can be counter to -- welfare goals. I think that all our welfare goals can be met through straight sales taxes, but if that's not true, a measure of progressiveness would be necessary, but that means something as simple as 5% higher tax on wealthy estates (we already do this and more anyways), which virtually nobody has a problem with. It's when the ideologies that think of things as "unearned wealth" and similar notions that there comes support for huge taxes, like over 50% of estates, which is probably pretty bad

Quote:

---

This would still be the case. If the parents couldn't pass it on upon death they would have no reason to do anything other than plough it into their offspring like this. Besides which, a few examples of the current system working aren't proof that it is optimal or that alternatives aren't better.

---

This looks like a loophole to the tax, which looks like it would create more recklessness

Quote:

---

Also, re the corporation issue, ownership of the corporation can't be passed on either, so upon death those shares would have to be sold and any revenue be ploughed back into society. So how would it be an issue?

---

Parents can't pass on assets to kids?

Quote:

---

I wonder if the realisation that funds can't be passed on to offspring would result in an increase in philanthropic projects?

---

This sort of thing already exists, but to what degree I don't know. Maybe it needs to be more, maybe not

I feel like overall it doesn't really change much. Like take big tech companies for example, most of them are reinvesting at high rates because it's better business for them. This shows the system working, that the inherent incentives are there. I can't think of any examples of true hoarding, where a company sits on money forever and ever. Any company that does that will quickly get crushed by competition. Apple currently does it, but Apple is sort of an outlier that has never been that good at business. It took 30 years or whatever for technology to finally catch up to its business model, and its doing basically jack shit to make sure the company will survive another 30.

When it comes to finances, people have a "circle the wagons" mentality. Because of this, I don't think taxes on individuals, especially ones that treat people differently, are a smart move. Sales taxes don't really have this effect because the individual is in the process of buying something when paying the tax, but when a collector shows up at the door and takes money you feel you own, unforeseen problems happen. Here's an example

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/...et_rid_of.html

Olive Garden and Red Lobster are not doing well, and the first response by the shareholders is "circle the wagons!" It's self-preservation. It happens in business and it happens in the household. If people think they're being over-taxed, they're gonna act like it

This is why economic growth is so important. Wealth redistribution when times are tough just causes strife, but in a growing economy where people expect steadily growing wages and profits for the future, the "circle the wagons" mentality is lessened. This is why central banks are so important. Nothing comes close to affecting growth like central banks. You can basically do anything when you control money, because you control a necessary facet of growth. All the most brilliant entrepreneurs on the planet would be powerless in a shrinking economy

ong rong 1-2 punch is picking this thread up.

Too much to read right now, though. All I want to say is that I was thinking about Prudential as the military purchaser of a free society and the picture gets ridiculously complicated after a few steps. First, the idea of an insurer is the same as a casino, make as many +EV bets as possible, but the insurer carries around many more liabilities. I assume insurers fight this slight risk of ruin in the face of redundant calamities through cost-saving measures (denials, pay-out caps, etc). Imagine the sort of risks you would be assuming if you were to insure against extra-societal military forces (existential forces). The fee we pay to insure against those risks is what we call a Military Budget and it is huge. How could competition thrive in a market with such overwhelming demand requiring coherent entities to satisfy? Prudential would have to be far and away the biggest company around to insure all of everything else and any competitor must also be way the biggest company around.

Anyway, I just don't see how you can ever get people who hold the legal authority to wield armies to give 'em up and transition into a free society unless it was some poe-dunk Euro nation (and even the Eurozone is chattering about getting its defense act together these days) and will on these gounds declare a fully free market society impossible to mine imagination!

Next up, steps in that direction anyway!

edit: cleaned it up a slice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rong

I think a lot of the anti-capitalism feeling comes from jealousy and a feeling that the system is stacked against the non-wealthy. I mean, the system works by those who have lots doing things with their resources with the sole purpose of gaining more. Those who don't have much have little choice but to play the game and do whatever is asked of them by those who have in order to get a little for themselves. Those who have know that they only need to give a little to those who haven't in order for to grow their assets at a rate which is not feasible for those who haven't.

This is what pisses people off. They have little choice but to play the game.

So the anger isn't really about capitalism being the optimal way to expand resources for all, it's a feeling that those with all the resources have a huge amount of power and freedom, specifically the freedom to not be forced to play the game that those without such assets are forced to play, and this is perceived as being unfair.

This feeling isn't wrong. The system is quite simply set up by those with power and resources in order for those with power and resources to maintain and grow their power and resources. Everyone else gets something as a by-product of this system.

I don't think anyone begrudges someone who works hard, has a new idea and manages to move from the group of have nots to the group of haves, but people are angered that the haves tend to always have and their future generations will do also. Maybe the way to remove a lot of the anger at the system is to not allow anyone to pass on assets of greater than x to their offspring, with x being a small number. Maybe upon death all assets should revert to the population as a whole somehow, so the game is reset every generation, rather than having been started hundreds of years ago and nothing more than the luck of who you are born to determining your chances of success.

---

Somebody better call the jelly-school.

I do endorse this analysis from emotional intelligence or whatnot. Executive leadership is about moving human pieces, and they are an emotional bunch.

It just seems to me that capitalism is the optimal system for growth and technological progress and the biggest problem is wealth disparity and the desperate urge of the wealthy to preserve and grow their wealth and therefore the questionable practices this leads to. By restarting the game every generation once a certain level of wealth is reached no more is required and therefore those practices may reduce in number and severity.

Quote:

---

I think a lot of the anti-capitalism feeling comes from jealousy and a feeling that the system is stacked against the non-wealthy.

---

No this isn't true, at least not from my pov. Yes there's bitterness that I was never able to do things that I wanted to do, but that's negligable when I look at the bigger picture. I'm still happy with fuck all, I get a meagre income for doing fuck all, I get my rent paid etc. I'm doing a lot fucking better than the majority of people in the world. At least I live in a country where people aren't forced to beg and steal to get by. I understand this system is better than anything we've had before. But that's the point. That's why people think it's so great. Because we don't know any better. But we can do better than this, jfc. I honestly do not think this is blind optimism. I mean for fuck's sake, look what we apparently acheived in Egypt tens of thousands of years ago? Our knowledge of astrology was pretty damn advanced back then. What the fuck has happened since? They understood things about geology that the vast majority of people today do not understand, me included. Yet we can't run the world on the massively abundant supply of solar and geothermal energy in 2013? We're being held back, I'm convinced of it.

Yeah I realise it's all consiparcy talk. I'm not on some mission to convince the world, I mean why would I want to anyway when I can't know for certain? I just don't believe the bullshit I read in the news any more. I had no reason to question the way the world works until 9/11. That event caused a huge rise in people who take conspiracy theories seriously. That suggests strongly that it's more than just the usual paranoid crackpots that believe it's bullshit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I mean for fuck's sake, look what we apparently acheived in Egypt tens of thousands of years ago? Our knowledge of astrology was pretty damn advanced back then. What the fuck has happened since? They understood things about geology that the vast majority of people today do not understand, me included. Yet we can't run the world on the massively abundant supply of solar and geothermal energy in 2013? We're being held back, I'm convinced of it.

---

LOL. Jesus, dude. First off, you meant astronomy, not astrology. And it isn't true. If you indeed meant astrology, you get a bigger JESUS, DUDE and an accusation of trolling

Whoever you're listening to is not representing the facts of geothermal and solar as well as you think. Or maybe they are but you're not putting them into accurate context. Either way, there are a million things that go into turning those two sources of energy into viable ones. Currently they counter other sources pretty much exactly as much as they are viable to do so. Like it or not, it's still cheaper to pull packed carbon from the seabed or mountainsides and ship it around the world than to try to do the same with geothermal or solar. Eventually, solar will be cheaper (probably incredibly cheaper) than packed carbon, but it currently is not. Geothermal never will be. Never. Not ever. It works only in certain regions and can't be exported that easily. Iceland has so much of it because of its position on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge divergent plate. No other regions can do what Iceland can

From now on, whenever you think of energy, think of packaging. One of the main reasons we use what we use is because of storage. Oil and coal is already stored incredibly efficiently by nature itself, while solar and wind and everything else is dependent on weak ass battery tech. As soon as it's cheaper to move a box of solar energy from one place to another, we'll rapidly shift off oil

I can see why some people would have a couple of minor quibbles with capitalism based on it doing what they percenive as concentrating wealth to a relatively few people. I can see why people would have a problem with people dying because they can't afford food or healthcare.

What I can't see is how they can have a problem with the system as a whole. Love it or hate it, capitalism is pretty much responsible for everything good that has ever existed, in the world and in your individual lives. There's just something a little weird about a bunch of bourgeois internet-forum people with cheap laptops and cheap broadband internet and cheap air conditioning and cheap electricity bitching to others about the system that enabled this whole picture to exist. Talk about the external costs that aren't accounted for or something. But don't indict the whole philosophy, its borderline hypocritical.

Quote:

---

Geothermal never will be. Never. Not ever. It works only in certain regions and can't be exported that easily. Iceland has so much of it because of its position on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge divergent plate. No other regions can do what Iceland can

---

This is emphatically not true. We're not on a tectonic plate fault. We have zero volcanoes. We do have huge geothermal potenital though. Based on current known technology it seems we could reach 20% of electrical consumption and 100% of our heat needs thanks to geothermal. If instead of fighting wars we invested in geothermal, we'd be sorted. But the energy companies won't be happy about that because they won't be able to sell it for as much. If people can heat their water for free, that's gonna cause British Gas shares to plummet.

There's a million things that go into making oil a viable source too. We're drilling under the sea for fuck's sake. How can that ever be cheaper and more efficient than drilling a hole on land? Oil is limited, there's only so much you can take from a well before it runs dry. Not so with geothermal. The energy potential within the Earth is obviously sufficient to meet our needs, I don't think you can argue that. But we either already could create the technology to move forward with it, or we damn well should be able to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

I can see why some people would have a couple of minor quibbles with capitalism based on it doing what they percenive as concentrating wealth to a relatively few people. I can see why people would have a problem with people dying because they can't afford food or healthcare.

What I can't see is how they can have a problem with the system as a whole. Love it or hate it, capitalism is pretty much responsible for everything good that has ever existed, in the world and in your individual lives. There's just something a little weird about a bunch of bourgeois internet-forum people with cheap laptops and cheap broadband internet and cheap air conditioning and cheap electricity bitching to others about the system that enabled this whole picture to exist. Talk about the external costs that aren't accounted for or something. But don't indict the whole philosophy, its borderline hypocritical.

---

Yes it's ironic

When post-scarcity happens, it will be because of capitalism

renton, do you really think this is the best we can do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

We do have huge geothermal potenital though. Based on current known technology it seems we could reach 20% of electrical consumption and 100% of our heat needs thanks to geothermal.

---

Show me the evidence

I'm having an impossible time finding one credible source that doesn't say the exact same things I have. Geothermal isn't that transportable, and estimates of potential use are greatly exaggerated (as they are in all forms of energy exploration). Viable geothermal only exists in certain locations

Quote:

---

If instead of fighting wars we invested in geothermal, we'd be sorted. But the energy companies won't be happy about that because they won't be able to sell it for as much. If people can heat their water for free, that's gonna cause British Gas shares to plummet.

---

Chevron loves its geothermal. It has the biggest plant in the world, after all. And no, it isn't free. Still a bunch of stuff to pay for with it. Geothermal is probably about as cheap as nuclear would be or easily accessible coal mines used to be. Your dystopian view of industry is naive. If geothermal was exactly as you say it is, it would be incredibly profitable and the biggest companies would be outbidding each other to get at it. In fact, companies would end up making more on geothermal than coal. Like, a shitload more. They still have to pay for the plants and all the engineers and workers for design and maintenance, just like with nuclear plants. If the energy was so cheap relative to coal, they would be able to charge less than coal while making higher profits due to lower overhead

Quote:

---

There's a million things that go into making oil a viable source too. We're drilling under the sea for fuck's sake. How can that ever be cheaper and more efficient than drilling a hole on land? Oil is limited, there's only so much you can take from a well before it runs dry. Not so with geothermal. The energy potential within the Earth is obviously sufficient to meet our needs, I don't think you can argue that. But we either already could create the technology to move forward with it, or we damn well should be able to.

---

You straight up do not know how geothermal works. Or oil, for that matter. A big reason why there is so little geothermal use is because of "wells running dry" problems. Just because the earth makes things hot doesn't mean it's easy peasy to power homes and cars with it


I am unconvinced you are reading anything I've said. You're trying to counter by extrapolating what Iceland can do with what other places, like Brazil, could do. Like it or not, oil and coal are so popular largely because of that packaging I already told you about. It can be pulled out of anywhere and shipped anywhere. Geothermal cannot and never will. If you want to power most of the world on geothermal, you will never, ever, ever, ever, ever succeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

renton, do you really think this is the best we can do?

---

Nobody has any better theories, and nobody is trying to stifle potential creation of those theories. Ironically, if anybody is trying to stifle progress towards something better than capitalism, it's those who would unwittingly turn the world into Russia through denial of what capitalism does

Quote:

---

Show me the evidence

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geother...United_Kingdom

Quote:

---

Deep geothermal resources could provide 9.5GW of baseload renewable electricity – equivalent to nearly nine nuclear power stations – which could generate 20% of the UK’s current annual electricity consumption;
Deep geothermal resources could provide over 100GW of heat, which could supply sufficient heat to meet the space heating demand in the UK

---

Quote:

---

it's those who would unwittingly turn the world into Russia through denial of what capitalism does

---

Russia is as capitalist as the rest. Russia and China have more billionaires than any nation other than USA. Yes wuf I'm naive. So is everyone here who is not an expert, which by my reckoning is all of us. Of course I'm naive, I hardly take that as an insult. I'm talking shit in a poker forum commune, not running for Prime Minister.

Quote:

---

Love it or hate it, capitalism is pretty much responsible for everything good that has ever existed

---

I do not agree with this. I thought about this somewhat before actually saying so. I think the opposite. I think it brings out the worst traits in humans. Greed is rewarded, screwing people over legally is the way to be successful. Everything good that has ever existed? What, like love? Friendship? Community? Art? Chess? I didn't realise it was capitalism that gave me what I value most.

The problem with this idea is that it assumes a different system would not be able to provide the things that capitalism has, such as medicine. I don't doubt capitalism is as good as we've had it. I'm not suggesting communism or socialism because they are even more flawed, at least it seems so. But just because it's as good as we've ever had it, that does not mean it's as good as it could, or should be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geother...United_Kingdom

---

Forgive me, I wasn't looking for a potentials estimate from Wiki. You ever notice how every few years we hear about some new field that could fuel the world for 50 years? Well, they're always massive exaggerations wooing investments. It costs a TON of money to even find out the remotest of accurate estimates. So whenever you hear "potential" in the energy field, know that the number you're dealing with isn't anywhere close to true. In order to turn that "potential" into "actual", enormous sums needed to already be put into the project. Geothermal has among the highest upfront costs anyways.

Quote:

---

Russia is as capitalist as the rest. Russia and China have more billionaires than any nation other than USA. Yes wuf I'm naive. So is everyone here who is not an expert, which by my reckoning is all of us. Of course I'm naive, I hardly take that as an insult. I'm talking shit in a poker forum commune, not running for Prime Minister.

---

You say stuff then when called out on it you step back and say what you said was never meaningful in the first place. I don't understand this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I do not agree with this. I thought about this somewhat before actually saying so. I think the opposite.

---

Oh I get it now. In that case, don't forget the save a pretzel for the gas jets!

Capitalism results in war, had you not noticed? Anyone who thinks we went to war with Iraq because Saddam had WMD's is more naive and deluded than I'll ever be. Saddam wouldn't play ball with America. He wanted to sell his oil in Euros. If oil was traded in another currency, the American economy, and ours, would collapse. That's why we can't let it happen. That's the consequence of a debt based economy. America imports a great deal more than it exports. But America can continue to print money, because every nation that consumes oil (ie every nation in the world) must trade it in dollars. That means nations build reserves of dollars, which it is forced to reinvest into the American economy. What happens if the American economy collapses? All those reserves that China, Brazil Russia have, they become worthless. So the big nations do not want to see the dollar collapse, at least not until they have shifted their reserves in favour of another currency.

Someone mentioned JKF earlier, I think dozer. He says that's very probably a conspiracy. It's not even in doubt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GYx3y34ELY

The President answers to those who control the banks. If he doesn't, he gets shot. JFK wanted to take America out of the dollar and into a new resource based currency, not a debt based currency. That did not suit the agenda of those who can makes things happen.

JFK was one of the few Presidents you had that had any sense of obligation to the people he served.

Quote:

---

Forgive me, I wasn't looking for a potentials estimate from Wiki.

---

Dude a newly discovered oil well is only a potential source until they figure out how to get to it. You're telling me Iceland churns out geothermal because it can, I show you that we can too, but we don't. That energy will remain potential energy until we actually fucking use it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Dude a newly discovered oil well is only a potential source until they figure out how to get to it. You're telling me Iceland churns out geothermal because it can, I show you that we can too, but we don't. That energy will remain potential energy until we actually fucking use it.

---

You completely missed the point of what it means when energy sources are called "potential". The 20% "potential" you showed me has the potential to be just 2%. Additionally, you have completely ignored everything that strongly suggests if geothermal was viable, companies would be jumping all over it. After all, you declare it's abundant and cheap to scales of which oil companies would get richer selling it than selling oil. Of course, in order for you to consider any other possibility, you'd have to duck out of your worldview informed by the notions that capitalism is all about scarcity and companies are just trying to fuck you

Quote:

---

Capitalism results in war, had you not noticed? Anyone who thinks we went to war with Iraq because Saddam had WMD's is more naive and deluded than I'll ever be. Saddam wouldn't play ball with America. He wanted to sell his oil in Euros. If oil was traded in another currency, the American economy, and ours, would collapse. That's why we can't let it happen. That's the consequence of a debt based economy. America imports a great deal more than it exports. But America can continue to print money, because every nation that consumes oil (ie every nation in the world) must trade it in dollars. That means nations build reserves of dollars, which it is forced to reinvest into the American economy. What happens if the American economy collapses? All those reserves that China, Brazil Russia have, they become worthless. So the big nations do not want to see the dollar collapse, at least not until they have shifted their reserves in favour of another currency.

Someone mentioned JKF earlier, I think dozer. He says that's very probably a conspiracy. It's not even in doubt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GYx3y34ELY

The President answers to those who control the banks. If he doesn't, he gets shot. JFK wanted to take America out of the dollar and into a new resource based currency, not a debt based currency. That did not suit the agenda of those who can makes things happen.

JFK was one of the few Presidents you had that had any sense of obligation to the people he served.

---

Your causalities and facts are all messed up. I don't know what else to say. You've already stated you opine before thinking or researching. What's the point?

I can't remember who I'm responding to but it's something about capitalism giving us everything good in our lives. I agree it is responsible for most of the good. But it's also responsible for all of the bad. You seen to think turning humans into consumers of crap is a good thing. Look at the bullshit most people spend their money on. We've allows money to be the ultimate goal in itself rather than being a means to obtaining that goal. This is part of the problem. Money is so important to everyone. I mean we allow advertising companies to target children for fucks sake.

If the whole system is designed by those with wealth to maintain their wealth why on earth would you assume this would lead to optimal asset allocation for the rest of society? Or anything optimal for the rest of society? Big business is at odds with what's widely considered best for society on general but gets away with it through the vast power given to them by our entire legal / media / political system. They buy the smartest people they can find and pay them to convince the masses that they want something which they don't. They pay for the finest lawyers they can find to allow them to navigate the legal system and let them get away with questionable practices. They get the best minds they can to petition the government to change the legal system to suit their needs and not the needs of greater society. I could go on. All of these are by-products of capitalism that are quite simply abhorrent.

This is the point I was referring to above about questionable practices. This is a design flaw in the current system. All the cheap material crap in the world won't change my views on this although I'm sure it will distract me for a while.

despite problems of its own, japan has a sort of innate, cultural socialism that people are pretty contented with and it has resulted in very little levels of poverty. people voluntarily have relatively equal income distributions without government intervention. nobody really has ambitions to get richer than his neighbour, just be well off enough to defend his family's honour or whatever.

In a completely free market would we even be aware if climate change?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

What, like love? Friendship? Community? Art? Chess?

---

Yeah, actually. Pre-capitalist societies had to struggle so hard to even stay alive that there wasn't really much time for chess or art or love. Those things are actually secondary needs which take a back seat to food/shelter/security, and increasing the wealth of a society allows people to have easier lives and more free time to spend on artistic endeavors, or freedom to have relationships outside of pure utility ("I have to stay with this poor of the world).

Now i'm sure your rebuttal will be that socialist policies or the resource-based economy idea would alleviate the problems of the poor, but that's just not practically possible. Capitalism as I said recognizes that scarcity exists, and attempts to deal with it in the best way, resources are distributed based on their greatest need. Socialism attempts to mask scarcity and often outright denies its existence, with devastating consequences that leave the poor even poorer than they started.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rong

In a completely free market would we even be aware if climate change?

---

Well, since most modern markets are pretty free, you can already verify the answer to this question: yes, of course.

Sustainability is a huge buzzword and many are willing to spend the money required to become more sustainable. People who have buildings constructed often pay big to attain a LEED certification. LEED is a completely private entity that estabilishes recommended guidelines for sustainable construction. So there's an example of sustainability catching on with zero help or incentive from governments.

Also, I think increasing the wealth of a society makes it more likely for people to attach value to clean air. This can be seen with teh stark contrast of pollution levels in developed countries and undeveloped ones. People in Cambodia for example are too poor to have the luxury of caring about that stuff. Let's just say I believe that we have a much greater chance of mitigating climate change if we eradicate poverty first.

But how would we even know about it in a completely free market? Who would pay for the research? Why would they do it? I'm not referring to increased efficiency in products as that has verifiable value to the consumer. But on the larger scale why would we know about contamination of water sources in poor countries or problems with holes in the ozone layer or problems caused by mass deforestation and pollution. Business has no incentive for that information to raise it's head in the public domain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rong

But how would we even know about it in a completely free market? Who would pay for the research? Why would they do it? I'm not referring to increased efficiency in products as that has verifiable value to the consumer. But on the larger scale why would we know about contamination of water sources in poor countries or problems with holes in the ozone layer or problems caused by mass deforestation and pollution. Business has no incentive for that information to raise it's head in the public domain.

---

There is certainly a market for providing that information to people. TripAdvisor, for example, makes money by providing a place for people to recommend or bash restaurants, bars, and hotels. Consequently, these establishments begin to be quite aware of companies like TripAdvisor and are thus far less likely to rip people off or provide poor service. TripAdvisor is a somewhat crude and simplistic example of what I mean, but this basic concept can be applied to tons of other subjects, such as commercial health inspection, police, security, military, pollution and pretty much anything else.

And even if there's not a direct profit in it (although I'm skeptical that this would ever be the case), there will always be organizations that care about that stuff enough to do research and come up with solutions.

So we're relying on do-gooders to look into the environment? I don't see how they would have the funding required. There's a huge amount of money that's gone into research on climate change and I don't see where that would have come from. Once it's out there I understand how a company might see it as an opportunity for differentiating itself but I don't see how the knowledge would come about in the first place. Climate change is not comparable to hotel reviews in terms of money/effort/time and other resources required to gain an informed opinion from scratch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Capitalism results in war, had you not noticed? Anyone who thinks we went to war with Iraq because Saddam had WMD's is more naive and deluded than I'll ever be.

---

If Saddam actually had WMD's the war wouldn't have happened. Iraq was defenseless after the first Gulf War and UN sanctions. It was a capital conquest pure and simple just like all wars and occupations. Americans always harp on about "free trade and democracy" whenever their government is constantly overthrowing, attempting to overthrow, or destabilising democratically elected governments overseas to advance US interests or of course supporting dictators. Such is capitalism.

The cynical use of the IMF and World Bank by the US to pry open new markets and force neo-liberal economic policies on foreign nations while not embracing the doctrine themselves provides a clear picture of what is really going on. It's a means of generating massive wealth for America and trying to keep poor countries economically dependant and subservient to the US.

This can be illustrated with an example. http://www1.american.edu/ted/haitirice.htm

A few excerpts:

Quote:

---

Yet, in the almost 10 years that have passed, Haiti has also remained the least developed country in the Caribbean despite its openness to trade, critics of trade liberalization have been quick to point out. Following the adoption of these policies local production of rice in Haiti dropped dramatically.

---

Quote:

---

Several Haitian and international NGOs have claimed that the US is guilty of dumping rice in Haiti. The US now dominates the rice market in Haiti. Most American rice exports are handled "by a single US corporation -- American Rice Inc. -- which has enjoyed an almost monopolistic position in Haiti."[14]

---

These patterns are the same where ever you look a good example being the US intervention in Latin America. Free markets and genuine democracy are a pipe dream. Big companies don't want fierce competition they want fat profits. The political and corporate elite don't want genuine democracy because the consequences of democracy would effect their position of privilege dramatically.

Rilla posted a link to some great stuff regarding the middle east, wars, power struggles and shifting allegiances. Rando thread I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rong

So we're relying on do-gooders to look into the environment? I don't see how they would have the funding required. There's a huge amount of money that's gone into research on climate change and I don't see where that would have come from. Once it's out there I understand how a company might see it as an opportunity for differentiating itself but I don't see how the knowledge would come about in the first place. Climate change is not comparable to hotel reviews in terms of money/effort/time and other resources required to gain an informed opinion from scratch.

---

It's comparable in terms of the concept though: people want the environment (in TA's case, restaurants/hotels/bars) vetted so they can make informed decisions.

But to go in a different direction, a non-socialist concept that would improve climate change is increasing property rights. If a land owner owns the cone-shaped volume from the earth's core to the stratosphere, then any pollution that enters this cone is technically an act of aggression against his property. Currently this not the case so there's a tragedy of the commons. People have suggested a carbon tax which is effectively the non-libertarian version of this concept. A carbon tax is harsher though, and being accountable to other private individuals is a little easier to handle than being accountable to a state. If polluters were held accountable to the people they were polluting, then there would be less polllution.

The same goes for private roads. The scanning technology exists for roads to be handled privately and without any free riders. Road owners would then reserve the right to charge more to higher-pollution vehicles, giving a direct incentive to drive less or choose a less polluting car. Roads would cost more during rush-hour, giving a direct incentive for businesses to change their hours from 9 to 5 to 11 to 7 or 7 to 3, resulting in less traffic, less emissions, and less fuel wasted in busy metro areas. Keep in mind that I am quickly dusting over a very complex issue, I'm just trying to illustrate that non-government solutions exist.

It's not even close in concept. One is rating a service to help other consumers choose in a very competitive market. The other is the sustainability of our planet which requires vast research and a change in the habits of the population. With the first you can easily see a route to profit from the provider/collater of the data. With the second it's looking at a huge environment which everyone takes for granted and then convincing them that their behavior is destroying it. The mesdanger here is more likely to be shot than rewarded. There is no clear path to profit here, or if there is it is a very long and treacherous path.

The problem with the issue of the environment with regard to capitalism is the length of time between action of company and resulted damage in the environment, behavior change resulting in immediate loss of profit with only potential of long term benefit, difficulty in assigning blame and victim and often very poor victims and complete lack of incentive to discover or acknowledge the problem in the first place.

I think this is one area where pure capitalism with free markets fails. That's not to say that now the problem is common knowledge that capitalism can't deal with it, although it will be difficult, but pure capitalism would never have even found it.

Governments are a part of markets too, just too often monopolies. Handling of climate change is more of a symptom of the problems created by climate change, and the markets can handle it. We shouldn't assume that there is some fixable impediment to handling global warming. There isn't. The only way it will eventually get fixed is if technology gets advanced enough quickly enough. It may sound ironic, but those who care about global warming would best serve it by supporting the market economy, because that's the main source of technology

I wouldn't say capitalism is also cause of all our problems. Virtually all the shit existed before capitalism. From hunter-gatherers to the end of monarchism. Capitalism has been integral in making things far better than those times. It isn't a coincidence that when capitalism was adopted in the modern world, things got far better rapidly. It isn't a coincidence that when capitalism was rejected by the modern world, things went south. As far as I know, this is true of every region and every time

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

Well, since most modern markets are pretty free, you can already verify the answer to this question: yes, of course.

---

You get the award for most egregious cherry picker itt.

His question was would we even know about climate change if not for governments spending loads of tax dollars on research. It's easily demonstrable that the answer is yes. Not every scientist in the world is on a government grant, and people want to now about stuff like ths. There's a clear market for that kind of information. Now if the question is how would a private society stop climate change? Well that is a tougher question. How are governments stopping climate change? They of course aren't. So to pelt libertarians with tomatoes from your ivory tower of socialism over climate change is laughably absurd because you're doing no better of a job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

His question was would we even know about climate change if not for governments spending loads of tax dollars on research. It's easily demonstrable that the answer is yes. Not every scientist in the world is on a government grant, and people want to now about stuff like ths. There's a clear market for that kind of information. Now if the question is how would a private society stop climate change? Well that is a tougher question. How are governments stopping climate change? They of course aren't. So to pelt libertarians with tomatoes from your ivory tower of socialism over climate change is laughably absurd because you're doing no better of a job.

---

To be fair, all the important governments are largely controlled by industry so of course they're not biting the hand that feeds. Presumably these socialist tomato pelter types you speak of are dreaming of governments where this isn't the case. I think that's a pipe dream because I fatalistically believe that big money will always be in control and act in its best interest, regardless of whether or not it's private or "public". At least with capitalism, the power is less centralized.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

His question was would we even know about climate change if not for governments spending loads of tax dollars on research. It's easily demonstrable that the answer is yes. Not every scientist in the world is on a government grant, and people want to now about stuff like ths. There's a clear market for that kind of information. Now if the question is how would a private society stop climate change? Well that is a tougher question. How are governments stopping climate change? They of course aren't. So to pelt libertarians with tomatoes from your ivory tower of socialism over climate change is laughably absurd because you're doing no better of a job.

---

You're still cherry picking.

Examples of negative effects of capitalism are brushed off, since government intervention is too entangled in the market-- but as soon as there is a positive attributed to our current form of capitalism, you opine on how capitalism ushered in this benefit.

Is our current system too encumbered by government intervention to extrapolate meaningful claims about capitalism, or is it not?

What negative effects of capitalism? You mean, problems that already existed that capitalism doesn't fully solve? I'm having a hard time finding something that capitalism makes worse.

The problem with these things is most people are ideologues, one way or the other. Staying objective it hard apparently, but if you can pull it together, you stand chance of seeing the strengths and weaknesses of capitalism in every situation and adjusting for it.

Every firstworld country seems to agree that the idea of "public" or "essential" services highlights the failings of rabid libertarians, who say the government should have no role in the roads, or fire departments and the like, the private sector will sort it out. They act as if the government was mining the rocks that went into the gravel that helped pave the road, when all that is (usually) handled privately, as it should be. But the free market is selective, and certain areas of any country would inevitably suffer when the free market has no use for them. Paying taxes is worth the price of not having 3rd world pockets within your society. I think everybody is better for it.

Every problem I've seen people blame capitalism for can be summed up as one of two: (1) being alive and in need of resources. (2) population growth and density. History didn't start with Adam Smith. Everything from war to slavery to resource depletion to ecological destruction existed before capitalism. Some argue capitalism makes those worse, but it doesn't. It makes them better. Business growth and economic dynamism create all sorts of incentives and the infrastructure to enact them that didn't previously exist, ones that war or resource depletion are terrible for.

Maybe the disconnect is that people view things like oil spills and deforestation as products of capitalism. They're not, they're products of population growth. Population growth is in a cyclical relationship with and initiated by agriculture. Foragers, pastoralists, and horticulturalists deplete their environments as much as any humans, but because their populations don't grow, they never exceed ecological carrying capacity. But with growth, carrying capacity is exceeded, and that leads to all sorts of unconventional resources used and depleted. We're in relatively early stages of capitalism, yet have already experienced tremendous benefits. Eventually, the integrated human interests and technical capabilities will be far beyond what we currently have, all based on capitalism

Capitalism is the theory that you can own things and create more things and own them. On the level of civilizations, this is a phenomenon, and there isn't really anything wrong with it. As we've seen, for whatever reason, further use of capitalism increases liberties, security, and dynamism. At rates far swifter than previous eras. I don't see why people don't like this. Well, actually, I think I know why and it's because we see only what we see, and even though the arc of capitalist history is rapidly improving inequities, it still doesn't look like it to us

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by d0zer

The problem with these things is most people are ideologues, one way or the other. Staying objective it hard apparently, but if you can pull it together, you stand chance of seeing the strengths and weaknesses of capitalism in every situation and adjusting for it.

Every firstworld country seems to agree that the idea of "public" or "essential" services highlights the failings of rabid libertarians, who say the government should have no role in the roads, or fire departments and the like, the private sector will sort it out. They act as if the government was mining the rocks that went into the gravel that helped pave the road, when all that is (usually) handled privately, as it should be. But the free market is selective, and certain areas of any country would inevitably suffer when the free market has no use for them. Paying taxes is worth the price of not having 3rd world pockets within your society. I think everybody is better for it.

---

I tend to agree, but I think increases in dynamism probably have a negative correlation with the need for governments. At the very least we can see this in a broad way through economic globalization basically making a world war a thing of the past. The more integrated we are, the more people have important roles, and the more people have important roles, the more democratic the society ultimately is, and in a better way than the traditional "one man one vote" democracy

It's important to note that if the US government stopped doing things in the economics sphere, most of what would change is just elimination of things that benefit special interests. Things like height limits on buildings. Maybe at some infancy of capitalism would there have been a threat of sweatshop type work without government intervention, but we don't have that today

Also, I no longer find the idea of "rule by corporation" to have any merit. We tend to think that if there was no government then companies like Koch Industries could just spend their money to erect their own governing power that could do things like lock away any protesters at fracking sites, but I don't think that's remotely true. They, and the rest of the natural gas industry, doesn't have nearly enough money to get away with that. The amount of money that would come in against their efforts is far greater, and it still wouldn't be that necessary to keep them from their authoritarian schemes. "Rule of law" is not a natural phenomenon. It is a social one that depends on prestige and legitimacy. The amount of prestige and legitimacy the US federal government has is far beyond anything the largest industries on the planet could wield, because all other varied industries and citizens and factions give it that legitimacy. We would never give the Kochs that legitimacy. The drug war is a great example. The government did (does) that. All those arrests, trials, prisons, and ruined lives are not on the hands of various companies. Many companies have piggybacked or influenced the government, but it's the colossal legal legitimacy the government has that allowed the drug war to exist in the first place

I'll admit that money has less power than is has historically. I do think that things are better than they ever have been, and some of that is capitalism, some of that is "enlightenment" (democracy, rule of law stuff), some of that is industrialization, abundance from mining the "new world".

I get the sense that on the birds eye timeline, looking back to warlord or monarchy rule, we're still in the infancy of "figuring this all out" so when I hear people defend the status quo vehemently I can't help but be a little skeptical.

Denying capitalism has paved the way for huge benefits to society isn't really what the argument is about. I think it's feasible that capitalism is an essential part of human progress. But I think it's also feasible that we reach a point where capitalism is no longer optimal for the population as a whole.

Wuf, you refer to all criticisms of capitalism stemming from a growing population and a need for resources. That's kinds true. But it doesn't change the fact that at this current point in time resources could be allocated in a different way that would have huge benefits for society over all. Right now the wealth inequality has some people so wealthy they are spending millions to cater for every whim whilst others are starving and dying. Capitalism may well find a way of reducing the numbers of people in extreme poverty and the severity of that poverty for a large number of them, in time. But that doesn't mean it's the best way. Some would say that the mere fact we could improve that many lives so easily and don't, and specifically won't under capitalism, is a major criticism of that system all by itself.

I mean this sums up one of the problems with capitalism quite well. With a huge and growing population and dwindling resources we must sooner or later reach a point where allowing technological advancement, which is needed to solve the problem of population growth and dwindling resources, to be at the whim of the extremely wealthy, no longer adequately addresses the needs of the population which they are so far removed from. It takes someone, some group, government etc to say lets think about the problems of the majority and focus resources on solving those rather than focus on the problems of the minority (the wealthy wanting more) and hoping that we solve the problems of the masses as a byproduct.

Thinking about capitalism more, you could argue that what it actually does is allow those with vast wealth to do the bare minimum. The absolute minimum required to enhance their own fortune. This includes technological progress. They will invest the minimum required to improve technology for themselves.

If we look back at some of the questions posed by Renton in the op, lets consider s similar one.

Rich dude owns factory. He pays the minimum wage (minimum required to get adequate workers, not legal minimum) to his workers and does not offer a profit share. He may invest in research and development to improve efficiency and this has the benefit to society of improving the overall level of technological advancement. If he improves efficiency he can make more profit which is his motivation to do so. He will employ researchers and developers as he deems appropriate. This is capitalism.

Another option. Rather than paying the minimum he pays that figure plus a considerable profit share. If profit increases then everybody benefits. In this instance we have an entire workforce with an incentive to increase efficiency and consider ways of developing technological advancement. Now the factory owner could still hire an r&d team. If he did we would see at least the same level of technological advancement and possibly more as many more minds are focused on improving efficiency. Efficiency as a whole would probably be greater in this example, however profit to the factory owner would not.

So we just found a theoretical alternative to pure capitalism that would increase technological advancement at a greater rate and improve wealth inequality.

Why would our capitalist factory owner do this though? If he wasn't forced to then he wouldn't.

I think the frustration with capitalism is that many who argue for it argue for a truer form of it and that it is the optimal system and even more so in a pure form. People look around at wealth inequality and think surely we could do something about this in a way that the current system is not. I think unfettered capitalism leaves lots of people behind and that a tweaked version has the potential to benefit a greater number at a quicker rate.


As a side note I hate that the only time I have to focus any attention on this thread is when I'm at work which means using my phone which results in really disjointed posts. But meh, it's the best I can muster right now.

You've come up with a scenario that doesn't really make sense. It's like the person who owns the factory has a monopoly on whatever it is he is doing otherwise there is great incentive for research and development because he won't be the only person doing what he is doing. So if he didn't fund all that r&d someone would take his market share and he'd lose wealth.

I don't understand. He'd be fundung it either way. In the first instance he'd be doing so in the most economically efficient way. In the second it would be doing that amount plus more from the workforce which would otherwise not have been done due to it not being optimal financially.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

The more integrated we are, the more people have important roles, and the more people have important roles, the more democratic the society ultimately is, and in a better way than the traditional "one man one vote" democracy

---

"In the United States, one of the main topics of academic political science is the study of attitudes and policy and their correlation. The study of attitudes is reasonably easy in the United States: heavily-polled society, pretty serious and accurate polls, and policy you can see, and you can compare them. And the results are interesting. In the work that's essentially the gold standard in the field, it's concluded that for roughly 70% of the population - the lower 70% on the wealth/income scale - they have no influence on policy whatsoever. They're effectively disenfranchised. As you move up the wealth/income ladder, you get a little bit more influence on policy. When you get to the top, which is maybe a tenth of one percent, people essentially get what they want, i.e. they determine the policy. So the proper term for that is not democracy; it's plutocracy.

Inquiries of this kind turn out to be dangerous stuff because they can tell people too much about the nature of the society in which they live. So fortunately, Congress has banned funding for them, so we won't have to worry about them in the future."

http://www.alternet.org/visions/chom...our-free-press

Quote:

---

Also, I no longer find the idea of "rule by corporation" to have any merit.

---

If the government is completely removed and corporations are owned privately, decision making will be transferred from the government that is accountable to unaccountable private institutions on the hunt for big profits. This does not seem like a good idea to me. People have no say in how a company should be run whatsoever and none of their information would have to be disclosed to the public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rong

Rich dude owns factory. He pays the minimum wage (minimum required to get adequate workers, not legal minimum) to his workers and does not offer a profit share. He may invest in research and development to improve efficiency and this has the benefit to society of improving the overall level of technological advancement. If he improves efficiency he can make more profit which is his motivation to do so. He will employ researchers and developers as he deems appropriate. This is capitalism.


Another option. Rather than paying the minimum he pays that figure plus a considerable profit share. If profit increases then everybody benefits. In this instance we have an entire workforce with an incentive to increase efficiency and consider ways of developing technological advancement. Now the factory owner could still hire an r&d team. If he did we would see at least the same level of technological advancement and possibly more as many more minds are focused on improving efficiency. Efficiency as a whole would probably be greater in this example, however profit to the factory owner would not.


So we just found a theoretical alternative to pure capitalism that would increase technological advancement at a greater rate and improve wealth inequality.

---

If option B is a long-run superior option, then why not just trust businesses to choose that option on their own? A lot of the anti-capitalism stuff I see is critical of capitalists for being short-sighted or primarily interested in short-term gains. If that were the case, wouldn't the shortsighted business models be outperformed and outbid by the long-game playing ones? It is incredibly difficult to compete in a well-developed free market, and being able to think long-term is essential to survival. As was mentioned before, Costco seems to be having quite some success with a more living-wageish business model. That this seems to be working for them probably is applying some pressure to Wal-mart in the parts of the country that have Costco. Wal-mart, being the savvy corporation that it is, might decide to employ a similar strategy. Or not, and costco gains more market share.


Also, regarding the costco anecdote, I'm too lazy to do the research on this myself, but isn't it possible that costco employs fewer workers per-capita at a higher wage? It could be that they each pay a similar amount of wages as a percentage of their budget, only its distributed over fewer lucky people. If so, it's hard to say that a Costco store is doing more for the labor force than a Wal-mart one.


There's nothing wrong with a business offering better benefits or profit-sharing to its employees. There's something very wrong with a state forcing businesses to share profits with their employees. This ultimate causes fewer employees to be hired, increases in the prices of everything produced privately, and fewer business to launch at all. If you had to agree to distributing 20% of your share to employees in order to start making some New Thing, wouldn't that significantly effect whether you could afford to invest at all? Of course it would. Venture capitalists would have to count on making 25% more profit from a business than they otherwise would. Just like a high minimum wage law, a law like this would have the exact opposite effect of its intended purpose. The reason is that scarcity expresses itself one way or the other regardless of what the government forces people to do, and regardless of any government policy, entrepreneurs are going to aim to win appropriately big on their long-shots or they won't invest at all.

It's never an option for the business owner to accept a smaller return though, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rong

It's never an option for the business owner to accept a smaller return though, right?

---

No, it's not, because that's what they count on to begin with. It affects the odds of the business ever existing in the first place. I'm not saying there wouldn't be businesses in a society with draconian wage laws, im just saying there'd be significantly less of them, with less employees and more money pumped into capital. In order to pay an worker far more than his time is worth, you have to have loads of capital supporting that worker and fewer workers overall.

But when deciding what to invest in they look for the optimal return on their capital. If higher wages was assumed then all returns woujd be smaller, so it wouldn't make a difference. Also there's the effect of higher disposable incomes for the population and therefore greater demand accross the board.

I meant higher wages / profit share or w/e in every business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rong

But when deciding what to invest in they look for the optimal return on their capital. If higher wages was assumed then all returns woujd be smaller, so it wouldn't make a difference. Also there's the effect of higher disposable incomes for the population and therefore greater demand accross the board.

---

You're trying to create something from nothing. If investors have to factor in a lower amount of profits into their investment strategy, they will pass on marginal investments that they otherwise wouldn't. It's like how a poker player is reluctant to play small pocket pairs or suited connectors for a raise when the stacks are too shallow. When you are making a bet (read: investment) that's meant to pay 4:1 in order to show a profit, and you have 20% of the profit shaved off the top, many bets become ill-advised. Fewer people will be employed, and fewer businesses will exist. The only businesses that exist with tough wage laws are ones that still make huge amounts of profit in accordance with the increased risk imposed by the system. It's the same thing only worse.


I'm failing to convince you here so I'll go back to the basics. The tone of your argument and the words you choose ("accept a smaller rate of return" comes to mind) indicates that you believe that all of this is a zero sum game where the many are exploited by the few. As if value is not created when two people agree to a transaction. As if things haven't been getting continually better and better for the poor and middle class over the last century because of this. Nobody except governments exploits anybody.

Yeah I hear ya on this one. I agree that this would lead to some business opportunities being passed up and therefore less jobs etc etc. Just thinking out loud really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

What negative effects of capitalism? You mean, problems that already existed that capitalism doesn't fully solve? I'm having a hard time finding something that capitalism makes worse.

---

If capitalism is the economic system du jour, and it doesn't solve problems which were previously negative effects of past economic systems-- the fact that previous systems endured these problems doesn't negate the reality that these are problems with capitalism as well. All this hints at is that there is a more ideal system, just as capitalism is more ideal than feudalism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

If capitalism is the economic system du jour, and it doesn't solve problems which were previously negative effects of past economic systems-- the fact that previous systems endured these problems doesn't negate the reality that these are problems with capitalism as well. All this hints at is that there is a more ideal system, just as capitalism is more ideal than feudalism.

---

The logic of this doesn't follow. It only says capitalism isn't perfect, not that there's a more perfect system than capitalism.

So, there is one other good reason to keep gov't around. Gov't functions as the emotional arm of the system. This point shouldn't take much to sell to anyone as elections are emotional things which have real results on how gov't operates and what it attempts to do.

For instance, the FRA's decision to move to PTC (positive train control) systems for rail in America was driven almost entirely as an over reaction to a couple of bad accidents in quick succession. PTC is very complicated, expensive, and overkill considering the fail-safe design philosophy inherent in train control systems.

Anywho, that point alone is a little pleasing to me that any system we create doesn't run away from us to its own ends - we possess some level of a check, whether or not we consistently abuse it.

But beyond that, two of the great driving forces in history have been the investment on behalf of gov't into industry and science and it's this second one that is of particular importance. The old Medici's in Italy used to support the arts and sciences for the sole purpose of bolstering their own political power. America's scientific tradition is a direct result of elite European universities and not any aspect of innate American drive. It sounds to me like a fully blown free market would be exceedingly capable at solving problems but Science is a process that doesn't care what the results are or where the questions lead. How would a free market support an aimless practice whose only goal is to enrich our human understanding? I don't believe it would.

Which ties in nicely to pollution and climate change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seven-deuce

"In the United States, one of the main topics of academic political science is the study of attitudes and policy and their correlation. The study of attitudes is reasonably easy in the United States: heavily-polled society, pretty serious and accurate polls, and policy you can see, and you can compare them. And the results are interesting. In the work that's essentially the gold standard in the field, it's concluded that for roughly 70% of the population - the lower 70% on the wealth/income scale - they have no influence on policy whatsoever. They're effectively disenfranchised. As you move up the wealth/income ladder, you get a little bit more influence on policy. When you get to the top, which is maybe a tenth of one percent, people essentially get what they want, i.e. they determine the policy. So the proper term for that is not democracy; it's plutocracy.

Inquiries of this kind turn out to be dangerous stuff because they can tell people too much about the nature of the society in which they live. So fortunately, Congress has banned funding for them, so we won't have to worry about them in the future."

http://www.alternet.org/visions/chom...our-free-press



If the government is completely removed and corporations are owned privately, decision making will be transferred from the government that is accountable to unaccountable private institutions on the hunt for big profits. This does not seem like a good idea to me. People have no say in how a company should be run whatsoever and none of their information would have to be disclosed to the public.

---

30% of people having influence is kinda huge. We certainly don't have an aristocracy anymore. The point was mostly about growing integration, anyways

The point of my "complete removal of government" thing was to show how many of its decisions don't just get taken up by corporations. Most of the decisions end up just vanishing, because no companies have anywhere close to the level of prestige and legitimacy that a central government does. So if you want to go protest the Keystone XL pipeline and not get put in jail and tried as a terrorist, you can, because the Kochs and everybody else would not have nearly enough power to legally bind you.

In this scenario, however, there would arise institutions of legitimacy in some areas, but the amount of harm they could do to us would be far less than the government has done with things like the drug war. I don't say this to support removal of government. All sorts of security threats in all sorts of ways have to be dealt with, and I don't believe the market has evolved to handle those

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

How would a free market support an aimless practice whose only goal is to enrich our human understanding? I don't believe it would.

---

It could and it does currently. Universities, Elon Musk, PBS, SETI. I think we should overall increase the amount of government funding in research, but the more dynamic the market economy gets, the more capable and incentivized participants are to do things for pleasure. That's largely at the foundation of capitalism by definition: labor based on desire

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rong

Rilla posted a link to some great stuff regarding the middle east, wars, power struggles and shifting allegiances. Rando thread I think.

---

Such a legit article. Suleimani, the Shadow Commander.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...a_fact_filkins

It's a lot of effort but explains a lot and cuts through a lot of bullshit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

It could and it does currently. Universities, Elon Musk, PBS, SETI. I think we should overall increase the amount of government funding in research, but the more dynamic the market economy gets, the more capable and incentivized participants are to do things for pleasure. That's largely at the foundation of capitalism by definition: labor based on desire

---

Universities make sweet cash from gov't subsidized students.

Elon Musk is an example of the free market being incredibly good at solving problems, which is not necessarily what I was on about. The science I'm thinking of is the guy studying the neurons of silkworms just to put out some perspicacious literature on the neurons of silkworms.

SETIs cool and what I expected the answer to be: Excess cash that isn't feeding the needy is going to be feeding the curious.

lol this guy is great: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQWSm6DSpm4

"Just as right-wing hawks embrace the Orwellian notion that war is Peace, left-wing egalitarians believe that slavery is Freedom. The hawks wage endless war to end war, while the social democrats engage in massive theft—or “taxation” as they call it—to eliminate crime."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rong

Denying capitalism has paved the way for huge benefits to society isn't really what the argument is about. I think it's feasible that capitalism is an essential part of human progress. But I think it's also feasible that we reach a point where capitalism is no longer optimal for the population as a whole.

Wuf, you refer to all criticisms of capitalism stemming from a growing population and a need for resources. That's kinds true. But it doesn't change the fact that at this current point in time resources could be allocated in a different way that would have huge benefits for society over all. Right now the wealth inequality has some people so wealthy they are spending millions to cater for every whim whilst others are starving and dying. Capitalism may well find a way of reducing the numbers of people in extreme poverty and the severity of that poverty for a large number of them, in time. But that doesn't mean it's the best way. Some would say that the mere fact we could improve that many lives so easily and don't, and specifically won't under capitalism, is a major criticism of that system all by itself.

I mean this sums up one of the problems with capitalism quite well. With a huge and growing population and dwindling resources we must sooner or later reach a point where allowing technological advancement, which is needed to solve the problem of population growth and dwindling resources, to be at the whim of the extremely wealthy, no longer adequately addresses the needs of the population which they are so far removed from. It takes someone, some group, government etc to say lets think about the problems of the majority and focus resources on solving those rather than focus on the problems of the minority (the wealthy wanting more) and hoping that we solve the problems of the masses as a byproduct.

---

Wealth inequality doesn't tell us much, because it's a symptom of poorly understood dynamics (not all of which are problems). Regardless, we need hierarchies and inequality. Population size and tech levels make it so. As to how much, nobody knows.

I don't really disagree with the problems you state, except I don't think they're of capitalism. Even though I think that over the long run, capitalism can account for all these issues, I still think it works far better with the welfarism adjunct. Whenever I talk about an optimized society with capitalism, it assumes welfarism. The problems non-wealthy people have can be fully addressed by the team of capitalism-welfarism.

Quote:

---

Thinking about capitalism more, you could argue that what it actually does is allow those with vast wealth to do the bare minimum. The absolute minimum required to enhance their own fortune. This includes technological progress. They will invest the minimum required to improve technology for themselves.

---

The wealthy probably do more under capitalism than any other previous system. Aristocrats still did stuff, but they were more along the lines of personal and political things. Today's wealthy elite are pretty much all businesspeople, many with great educations and very high levels of responsibility

A response to this is that they can afford those things as well as afford to fail at those things. Which I completely agree with. Some institutions or laws, regardless of who gives them, should provide access to social mobility and a safety net to everybody. An example is how not having universal healthcare coverage has stopped a lot of people from starting their own companies, moving to knew jobs, or taking jobs they enjoy more. The wealthy have the luxury of not having to make decisions based on healthcare, and the working class should as well

Quote:

---

Rich dude owns factory. He pays the minimum wage (minimum required to get adequate workers, not legal minimum) to his workers and does not offer a profit share. He may invest in research and development to improve efficiency and this has the benefit to society of improving the overall level of technological advancement. If he improves efficiency he can make more profit which is his motivation to do so. He will employ researchers and developers as he deems appropriate. This is capitalism.

Another option. Rather than paying the minimum he pays that figure plus a considerable profit share. If profit increases then everybody benefits. In this instance we have an entire workforce with an incentive to increase efficiency and consider ways of developing technological advancement. Now the factory owner could still hire an r&d team. If he did we would see at least the same level of technological advancement and possibly more as many more minds are focused on improving efficiency. Efficiency as a whole would probably be greater in this example, however profit to the factory owner would not.

---

These are both capitalism. There's nothing stopping business owners from distributing profits to workers in like manner. In fact, many do. Renton's points on this about how if it really was better, the system would work that way, has a lot of truth to it. That's what dynamism is all about

My addition is to not underestimate the amount of money it takes to invest. Some investments don't take much, but some take astronomical sums. Check out what Google's doing: Fiber, Glass, Cars, tons of others shit. What would they be doing if they had double the amount of investment capital? Triple? I think they'd be investing it all into these and some even more extravagant ideas. A lot of the great companies we hear about use their money for good. I think a lot of the ones who use their money for bad are gradually getting squeezed out. Again, it's about dynamism. It's the marketplace

My point with this is just because we see certain amounts of money needed for certain amounts of investments, doesn't mean that's how it always is. IIRC, Elon Musk and his partner dropped like 60MM of their own (parents') money on Paypal. That huge amount of capital was necessary to turn a start up into a sustainable niche, and it grew from there. But what if an opportunity came along that required 500MM to build and Musk didn't have it? What if he didn't have it because of all the taxes or profit distributions he paid earlier? Well, maybe somebody else would come in and do it. Unlikely that that is, it could happen. So let's say Musk went to Bill Gates and Gates loved the idea, so problem solved, right? What about that opportunity that costs 100B that nobody knows about? As you can see, we don't know what the upper limit is, and it's possible it doesn't exist. What this line of inquiry shows is that both hubs of wealth and private interests in control of those hubs are necessary for some business and tech innovations. The government isn't a solution to the Paypal problem. No matter how much money it has, the government doesn't do start ups. Innovation in the government does exist, but it's a weird kind and very limited.

Investments pay dividends to the future society as a whole. Stinking stupid filthy rich people with the capital to throw around optimize this scenario, and over the long term, it makes a better world than one without those investment hubs. As he's always my favorite example, Elon Musk has said he's willing to lose half his fortune from the Paypal sale on SpaceX. I don't know how much that is, maybe 200MM. If his SpaceX goals succeed, Musk will be responsible for trillions upon trillions upon trillions of added value to the world economy over the long run. Compare this potentiality in a scenario where Musk only has 20MM to work with versus 20B. If the former, he would likely not even take up the project in the first place, but if the latter, he would probably never go broke on it and could pursue the dream for a lifetime

Quote:

---

I think the frustration with capitalism is that many who argue for it argue for a truer form of it and that it is the optimal system and even more so in a pure form. People look around at wealth inequality and think surely we could do something about this in a way that the current system is not. I think unfettered capitalism leaves lots of people behind and that a tweaked version has the potential to benefit a greater number at a quicker rate.

---

Yeah that's my answer too. Capitalism-welfarism. Let's get things like this going http://www.morganwarstler.com/post/4...e-market-based

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Universities make sweet cash from gov't subsidized students.

Elon Musk is an example of the free market being incredibly good at solving problems, which is not necessarily what I was on about. The science I'm thinking of is the guy studying the neurons of silkworms just to put out some perspicacious literature on the neurons of silkworms.

SETIs cool and what I expected the answer to be: Excess cash that isn't feeding the needy is going to be feeding the curious.

---

Yes I don't think we're close to the stage where private capital can more than account for this, but we are moving in that direction. I think we'd have to live in a perpetually growing economy where social mobility is so great that the amount of millionaires is increasing at a non-insignificant pace for that to happen. I don't think that's too far off in the future, though

When you talk of capitalism=welfarism, is that the "third way" as advocated by the likes of Tony Blair and that Wolff chap?

Also this whole thread makes me think of this:

"Throughout recorded time, and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age, there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle, and the Low. They have been subdivided in many ways, they have borne countless different names, and their relative numbers, as well as their attitude towards one another, have varied from age to age: but the essential structure of society has never altered. Even after enormous upheavals and seemingly irrevocable changes, the same pattern has always reasserted itself, just as a gyroscope will always return to equilibrium, however far it is pushed one way or the other.

The aims of these three groups are entirely irreconcilable. The aim of the High is to remain where they are. The aim of the Middle is to change places with the High. The aim of the Low, when they have an aim -- for it is an abiding characteristic of the Low that they are too much crushed by drudgery to be more than intermittently conscious of anything outside their daily lives -- is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal. Thus throughout history a struggle which is the same in its main outlines recurs over and over again. For long periods the High seem to be securely in power, but sooner or later there always comes a moment when they lose either their belief in themselves or their capacity to govern efficiently, or both. They are then overthrown by the Middle, who enlist the Low on their side by pretending to them that they are fighting for liberty and justice. As soon as they have reached their objective, the Middle thrust the Low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves become the High. Presently a new Middle group splits off from one of the other groups, or from both of them, and the struggle begins over again. Of the three groups, only the Low are never even temporarily successful in achieving their aims. It would be an exaggeration to say that throughout history there has been no progress of a material kind. Even today, in a period of decline, the average human being is physically better off than he was a few centuries ago. But no advance in wealth, no softening of manners, no reform or revolution has ever brought human equality a millimetre nearer. From the point of view of the Low, no historic change has ever meant much more than a change in the name of their masters."

Upon listening to Robert Murphey's essay, I have discovered another nuggest that troubles me. His logical sense of how actors in his system shall act.

From the online text of the essay: https://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf

[img]http://i.imgur.com/P7EYVOg.png[/img] <---- do image tags not work any more? link here http://i.imgur.com/P7EYVOg.png

It's this belief that people are so rigorous in their decision making that I think is objectively false. It's true in narrow fields of focus that people will make executive, rational decisions of this nature. These tend to be fields where they've been trained, educated, or otherwise possess expertise. But people still heavily rely on in-grown methods for decision making and this becomes more and more clear as the world they occupy becomes more and more complicated. I mean, people eat McDonalds not because its food but because its hits all the right notes of salt, fat, and sugar. Advertisements so effectively ingrain products into the human psyche that it takes effort to see a green plastic soda bottle and not think Mountain Dew. If big firm BF wanted to bilk its employees, there likely could exist many methods of control that could be profitably used (I only add likely could because I haven't put forward any effort to figure out what these methods may be).

I would suggest that people need others looking out for them for no other reason than that you'll reciprocate. And as the world becomes increasingly more complex and fills with increasingly many people, this idea that the single person along with all the other single persons will independently together make just and prudent decisions at every step which will guide the whole of society efficiently forward doesn't strike right with me.

Yeah fairly true, though I think modern social mobility provides an amount of opportunity that's unique. The number of low->high transitions that happen in one generation, (albeit still low), are unprecedented. Also a lot of low has been replaced by the middle, proportionally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rong

The aims of these three groups are entirely irreconcilable. The aim of the High is to remain where they are. The aim of the Middle is to change places with the High. The aim of the Low, when they have an aim -- for it is an abiding characteristic of the Low that they are too much crushed by drudgery to be more than intermittently conscious of anything outside their daily lives -- is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal.

---

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/li...oak-in-spa.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVmNOT1W-Ss (if Discovery is America only or some such)

Nope, discovery I could watch but youtube I couldn't, go figure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rong

When you talk of capitalism=welfarism, is that the "third way" as advocated by the likes of Tony Blair and that Wolff chap?

---

Blair? You mean ex-Prime Minister? I know nothing about him. I followed Richard Wolff for a bit a while ago. Pretty sure he calls himself a Marxist, but as to how Marxist he is, I don't know. From what I remember and if I had to guess, Wolff is a capitalist-welfarist just like every other liberal economist around. Very few people are actual socialists, and virtually everybody from all walks of life support the theories of private property, markets, and a government that can tax to provide services for the welfare of its citizens i.e. capitalism-welfarism.

I like the killing two birds with one stone analogy made earlier. Socialism attempts it and fails at both, while capitalism and welfarism kill their own bird and complement each other. We can let markets be free and let businesses do virtually whatever they want as long as they're not destroying property (which includes things like poisoning you with bad food, your body is your property, after all), and we can fill in any gaps this creates by taxing and using the revenues for whatever services are necessary

I think perhaps some people are so anti-government and pro-free market that they think taxes shouldn't even be legal. Sadly for them, they ignore the facts that markets neglect certain things (like healthcare for the elderly) and that we don't even know if it's possible for an untaxed society to exist

That quote above from (the book "The theory and practice of oligarchical collectivism" which is within) the book 1984 tempted me to read the extracts from the internal book again. Orwell is a genius. If you haven't read it you really are missing something special.

They say we don't live in an Orwellian dystopia, but a Huxleyan one. Orwell is the communist brand and Huxley is the capitalist one. The communist one is about state control of the people through propaganda (which we don't have but communist nations did/do), the capitalist one is about citizenry inadvertently giving up their rights through consumer sensationalism (which we have lots of)

I've never read anything from Huxley. Brave New World is being dl'd as we speak.

Going back to the capitalism/morality thing, here's a great video that shows the importance of profits.

<object width="425" height="355">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9QEkw6_O6w

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rong

That quote above from (the book "The theory and practice of oligarchical collectivism" which is within) the book 1984 tempted me to read the extracts from the internal book again. Orwell is a genius. If you haven't read it you really are missing something special.

---

Orwell was a genius - but he was exposed to all the wrong stuff. I picked up a collection of his essays at a thrift book store and it has some incredible pieces

Politics and the English Language
Shooting an Elephant
Such, Such Were The Joys

But Orwell had a lensed view of the world. I don't know how to say it but he wasn't aware. Through all of his essays, through all the great quotes, it constantly shines through to me that he is incredibly, deeply, well read in all of the wrong material.

Funny aside about 1984, I remember in high school english class my teacher, who I really respected, said if GO didn't write it, someone else would have. And just about everyone else seems to disagree.