Why do you hate Capitalism?

[glockmail]

Whats with these Libs and socialists that Hate good ol' American Capitalism? It's brought so much to so many. Todays "poor" live in luxury compared to a century ago.

I think they're just a bunch of under achievers that need something to whine about.

[diuretic]

It's not about hating capitalism. Capitalism has been pretty good. But it's getting time for a change, that's all. Capitalism was fine when resources were plentiful and environmental change wasn't a problem but capitalism only works if those two things continue to apply. Now they don't apply we need to look at another way of organising our economies.

[82Marine89]

It's not about hating capitalism. Capitalism has been pretty good. But it's getting time for a change, that's all. Capitalism was fine when resources were plentiful and environmental change wasn't a problem but capitalism only works if those two things continue to apply. Now they don't apply we need to look at another way of organising our economies.

So you would be willing to give up all of your hard earned dollars just so another person can live a comfortable life?

I would also like to know what resources aren't so plentiful and how environmental changes effect capitalism.

[GW in Ohio]

It's not about hating capitalism. Capitalism has been pretty good. But it's getting time for a change, that's all. Capitalism was fine when resources were plentiful and environmental change wasn't a problem but capitalism only works if those two things continue to apply. Now they don't apply we need to look at another way of organising our economies.

Yes, capitalism is just fine, but unbridled capitalism, where the people with all the money take advantage of those with little or no money, is not good. That was the situation in the early part of the 20th century, when rich capitalists exploited poor laborers. And when the poor workers started to organize into unions, the rich guys responded with violence to break up the labor movement.

Not nice.

These days, the union struggle has ben largely won, and indeed, unions in many instances are obstacles to workers. But where capitalism needs to be restrained by government today is in the environmental area. If industrial corporations were not constrained by environmental laws, they would pollute our environment to the point where it was unliveable.

Capitalism is dandy, but it needs the responsible hand of government to restrain it and guide it for the common good.

[darin]

It's not about hating capitalism. Capitalism has been pretty good. But it's getting time for a change, that's all. Capitalism was fine when resources were plentiful and environmental change wasn't a problem but capitalism only works if those two things continue to apply. Now they don't apply we need to look at another way of organizing our economies.

Capitalism is DRIVING the "Man-made-global-warming' panic.

And as mentioned above 'Unions' are probably the worst thing going in our country right now. I'd love to see 'closed shops' outlawed.

[loosecannon]

Whats with these Libs and socialists that Hate good ol' American Capitalism? It's brought so much to so many. Todays "poor" live in luxury compared to a century ago.

I think they're just a bunch of under achievers that need something to whine about.

Glock, define what you mean by capitalism.

There are a half dozen different meanings invested in the word.

And according to only one of those is capitalism responsible for the wealth of America today.

Capitalism as the source of wealth is like slavery being cited as the source of wealth. The slave owning class became fabulously wealthy as a result of slavery. Same of serfdom.

The slave owners and feudal Lords owned the means of production and became the recipients of the wealth of surplus production.

[diuretic]

So you would be willing to give up all of your hard earned dollars just so another person can live a comfortable life?

ALL of my money? No, that would be stupid. Of course that has nothing to do with the discussion either so it's irrelevant.



I would also like to know what resources aren't so plentiful and how environmental changes effect capitalism.

Oh, oil? Coal? Water? Water depending on where you are (have you read the original "Dune" by Frank Herbert?). You do realise that all resources are scarce? Are you, for example, sitting on a gold mine at your place? Everything is scarce, that's what economics is about.

Environmental changes. Well let me see. Are you familiar with Blake's "Jerusalem"? A great old Anglican hymn - first verse:


And did those feet in ancient time
walk upon England's mountains green?
And was the holy Lamb of God
On England's pleasant pastures seen?
And did the counterance divine
Shine forth upon our couded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here
Among those dark Satantic mills?

Get it? Blake wrote this in the 19th Century.

Capitalism has affected our environment. Time to stop, take stock and think how we can stop damaging our environment. Capitalist are people of wit, apparently, they should be able to work it out. Problem is unless we pressure them through our governments they won't. Capitalism doesn't respond to ethical calls, it responds to threats to profit. Let's threaten their profits and make them change for the good of all of us. Them included.

[loosecannon]

Capitalism doesn't respond to ethical calls, it responds to threats to profit. Let's threaten their profits and make them change for the good of all of us. Them included.

The law has even been interpreted to say that corporations can not operate for purposes other than profit.


Dodge v. Ford Motor Company, 204 Mich. 459, 170 N.W. 668. (Mich. 1919), was a famous case in which the Michigan Supreme Court held that Henry Ford owed a duty to the shareholders of the Ford Motor Company to operate his business for profitable purposes as opposed to charitable purposes.

The Court held that a business corporation is organized primarily for the profit of the stockholders, as opposed to the community or its employees. The discretion of the directors is to be exercised in the choice of means to attain that end, and does not extend to the reduction of profits or the nondistribution of profits among stockholders in order to benefit the public, making the profits of the stockholders incidental thereto.

Because this company was in business for profit, Ford could not turn it into a charity. This was compared to a spoilation of the company's assets. The court therefore upheld the order of the trial court requiring that directors declare an extra dividend of $19 million.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Company"

[diuretic]

The law has even been interpreted to say that corporations can not operate for purposes other than profit.

Yes, it does. Guess who made those laws?

It may be a surprise to our capitalists here but Adam Smith never foresaw corporations. He would have decried them as an anathema to his ideas in his "Wealth of Nations". We have them so we should take what they can give us and restrict them just like we would with any natural citizen. Unfortunately that isn't the case. I doubt if Adam Smith could have foreseen the rapacious greed of the modern corporation and the damage it can do.

[loosecannon]

Yes, it does. Guess who made those laws?

It may be a surprise to our capitalists here but Adam Smith never foresaw corporations. He would have decried them as an anathema to his ideas in his "Wealth of Nations". We have them so we should take what they can give us and restrict them just like we would with any natural citizen. Unfortunately that isn't the case. I doubt if Adam Smith could have foreseen the rapacious greed of the modern corporation and the damage it can do.


Corporations were very different in Adam's Smith's time, but even Adam Smith opposed monopolies.


Ironically, Smith's epic work The Wealth of Nations, which was first published in 1776, presents a radical condemnation of business monopolies sustained and protected by the state. Adam Smith's ideal was a market comprised solely of small buyers and sellers. He showed how the workings of such a market would tend toward a price that provides a fair return to land, labor, and capital, produce a satisfactory outcome for both buyers and sellers, and result in an optimal outcome for society in terms of the allocation of its resources. He made clear, however, that this outcome can result only when no buyer or seller is sufficiently large to influence the market price—a point many who invoke his name prefer not to mention. Such a market implicitly assumes a significant degree of equality in the distribution of economic power—another widely neglected point.



http://deoxy.org/korten_betrayal.htm

[Birdzeye]

Yes, capitalism is just fine, but unbridled capitalism, where the people with all the money take advantage of those with little or no money, is not good. That was the situation in the early part of the 20th century, when rich capitalists exploited poor laborers. And when the poor workers started to organize into unions, the rich guys responded with violence to break up the labor movement.

Not nice.

These days, the union struggle has ben largely won, and indeed, unions in many instances are obstacles to workers. But where capitalism needs to be restrained by government today is in the environmental area. If industrial corporations were not constrained by environmental laws, they would pollute our environment to the point where it was unliveable.

Capitalism is dandy, but it needs the responsible hand of government to restrain it and guide it for the common good.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

The problem with any system, whether it be capitalism, socialism, communism, or some mix of any of them, is the uneven distribution of power, which the powerful are notorious for abusing for their own personal and greedy gains.

When people suggest that we pass laws to curb certain abuses, the vested interests will howl and scream and try to demonize those efforts. In the USA, the tactic often is to accuse those calling for reform of being "communists," which almost always is a baldfaced lie.

[Dilloduck]

:clap: :clap: :clap:

The problem with any system, whether it be capitalism, socialism, communism, or some mix of any of them, is the uneven distribution of power, which the powerful are notorious for abusing for their own personal and greedy gains.

When people suggest that we pass laws to curb certain abuses, the vested interests will howl and scream and try to demonize those efforts. In the USA, the tactic often is to accuse those calling for reform of being "communists," which almost always is a baldfaced lie.

What is your suggetion for reform then. Electing officials who have the power to interfere with business? If I were a business owner and the government restrictions became so counter productive, I would move it elsewhere. What happens to America when all of our busineses decide to do that?

[loosecannon]

What is your suggetion for reform then. Electing officials who have the power to interfere with business? If I were a business owner and the government restrictions became so counter productive, I would move it elsewhere. What happens to America when all of our busineses decide to do that?

First of all, they already are moving elsewhere, both by offshoring production but also by moving corp headquarters overseas. Our Merchant marine for example is 97% offshored today.

But second we have laws on the books to prevent monopolies but we no longer enforce them. We have more specific rules on the books to prevent media monopolies, but companies violate those rules without any penalty whatsoever.

We only need our representatives to enforce the law. Specifically the DOJ. Get my drift?

[Dilloduck]

First of all, they already are moving elsewhere, both by offshoring production but also by moving corp headquarters overseas. Our Merchant marine for example is 97% offshored today.

But second we have laws on the books to prevent monopolies but we no longer enforce them. We have more specific rules on the books to prevent media monopolies, but companies violate those rules without any penalty whatsoever.

We only need our representatives to enforce the law. Specifically the DOJ. Get my drift?

Of course they are and you kow why. Our country is owned by business. As distasteful as it may be to some, it would behoove them to understand the consequences of a collapsed economy--get my drift?

[OCA]

What is your suggetion for reform then. Electing officials who have the power to interfere with business? If I were a business owner and the government restrictions became so counter productive, I would move it elsewhere. What happens to America when all of our busineses decide to do that?


That is one of the major reasons you see so many businesses moving out of country, government interference.

You handicap capitalism and you handicap America, its as simple as that.

[loosecannon]

Of course they are and you kow why. Our country is owned by business. As distasteful as it may be to some, it would behoove them to understand the consequences of a collapsed economy--get my drift?


I do, but I am certain that better economies are possible if we were freed from the shackles of our present econ model.

Socialism, capitalism, free enterprise, commyism, laisse faire; these are just a few ideas. They are not the only ideas, nor the best.

They are just the first few that have been suggested or imagined.

It is inescapably obvious to me that we can do much, much better as we learn much more about the engine that economics is and moreso can be in driving society.

Steering a society according to the arbitrary dictates of profit motive, or allowing society to be directed by the needs only of profiteers is akin to relegating hardened pirates to manage shipping fleets. And every bit as singular in scope and foolish.

But in the very begining the seas were pioneered and colonized by pirates. That was how it happened in the real world.

We long since learned to seek a higher standard for the benefit of everyone.

[Birdzeye]

Of course they are and you kow why. Our country is owned by business. As distasteful as it may be to some, it would behoove them to understand the consequences of a collapsed economy--get my drift?

Some businesses operate in less than honest ways, and when someone suggests making laws to ban a specific unfair/exploitative/dishonest practice, will howl about the sky falling. I wonder how much caterwauling there was when the Sherman Antitrust Act was passed.

[Dilloduck]

Some businesses operate in less than honest ways, and when someone suggests making laws to ban a specific unfair/exploitative/dishonest practice, will howl about the sky falling. I wonder how much caterwauling there was when the Sherman Antitrust Act was passed.

Since when has honesty been rewarded by the Government?

[Dilloduck]

I do, but I am certain that better economies are possible if we were freed from the shackles of our present econ model.

Socialism, capitalism, free enterprise, commyism, laisse faire; these are just a few ideas. They are not the only ideas, nor the best.

They are just the first few that have been suggested or imagined.

It is inescapably obvious to me that we can do much, much better as we learn much more about the engine that economics is and moreso can be in driving society.

Steering a society according to the arbitrary dictates of profit motive, or allowing society to be directed by the needs only of profiteers is akin to relegating hardened pirates to manage shipping fleets. And every bit as singular in scope and foolish.

But in the very begining the seas were pioneered and colonized by pirates. That was how it happened in the real world.

We long since learned to seek a higher standard for the benefit of everyone.

If we are "freed from the shackles of our present econ model "? By who--Aliens ?? :laugh2:

[Birdzeye]

Since when has honesty been rewarded by the Government?

That wasn't the point I was trying to make. I was suggesting that some people will only be honest if they're required to by law or if they know that the law will allow for them to be punished for their dishonesty. This is true in a free market capitalist system or a communist system.

[glockmail]

It's not about hating capitalism. Capitalism has been pretty good. But it's getting time for a change, that's all. Capitalism was fine when resources were plentiful and environmental change wasn't a problem but capitalism only works if those two things continue to apply. Now they don't apply we need to look at another way of organising our economies.

Perhaps you can enlighten us what resources are not plentiful, and why capitalism causes adverse environmental change. :poke:

[glockmail]

Glock, define what you mean by capitalism.
....
The free market system that you Democrats have been resisting since prior to the Revoluton.

[glockmail]

:clap: :clap: :clap:

The problem with any system, whether it be capitalism, socialism, communism, or some mix of any of them, is the uneven distribution of power..... With capitalism the consumer has the ultimate power: his wallet.

[loosecannon]

If we are "freed from the shackles of our present econ model "? By who--Aliens ?? :laugh2:

By ourselves of course.

Capitalism is only a softer gentler version of slavery. It is outstanding for the slaveowners who own the means of production. But not so special to the slave class.

Capital is not what makes our economy work. At least not the only thing. Labor plays as large a role, as does the social input.

Economies of scale are what make us wealthy. Social stability is what makes us wealthy. Combining our efforts toward common causes makes us wealthy. Technology makes us wealthy. Free resources makes us wealthy.

Capitalism merely decides who assumes the risks and keeps the surplus value.

In capitalism the owners of capital keep the surplus, in socialism the people themselves do, in communism the state does. In credit based economies like ours, banks always keep a % of the surplus by definition.

But there has never been a true capitalist society, or a true socialist society, or a true commynist society. All societies since the dawn of the industrial age have been hybrids and muts.

[loosecannon]

With capitalism the consumer has the ultimate power: his wallet.

I wish that was accepted as truth. But capitalists are loathe to even recognize the significance of demand and consumption in the equation.

[loosecannon]

The free market system that you Democrats have been resisting since prior to the Revoluton.

The capitalists themselves adamantly detest free markets. They demand an uneven playing field and work without rest to tilt the field to their advantage.

Those who succeed in securing an unlevel advantage thrive, while those who do not, fail.

Capitalists detest true capitalism as described by Adam Smith. Which is why we have never been truly capitalistic as a society.

[glockmail]

I wish that was accepted as truth. But capitalists are loathe to even recognize the significance of demand and consumption in the equation.
That makes zero sense, man.

[glockmail]

The capitalists themselves adamantly detest free markets. They demand an uneven playing field and work without rest to tilt the field to their advantage.

Those who succeed in securing an unlevel advantage thrive, while those who do not, fail.

Capitalists detest true capitalism as described by Adam Smith. Which is why we have never been truly capitalistic as a society.

Baloney. We love free markets. The only time guv'mint needs to get involved is to set standards (a gallon is a gallon and an octane is just that), and break up monopolies in the rare cases when they form.

[Dilloduck]

With capitalism the consumer has the ultimate power: his wallet.

Except the Fed can turn your wallet into dust.

[glockmail]

Except the Fed can turn your wallet into dust. No doubt. Then put you in Club Fed.

:pee:

[diuretic]

Capitalism is DRIVING the "Man-made-global-warming' panic.

It is? I thought science was revealing the damage done and also the potential damage. Some capitalists have realised this and are doing something about it - and more power to their arm for so doing.

http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/yoursay/index.php/theaustralian/comments/murdochs_climate_change_challenge/



And as mentioned above 'Unions' are probably the worst thing going in our country right now. I'd love to see 'closed shops' outlawed.

You still have closed shops???? I've been in a union all my working life and worked for the union as well at various levels but no way would I condone a closed shop.

[diuretic]

Perhaps you can enlighten us what resources are not plentiful, and why capitalism causes adverse environmental change. :poke:

I'd have to go region by region to work out which natural resources are at what level but two which have a global impact are water and oil. In SE Asia, due to human activity, deforestation is a huge problem, not only are native animals losing their habitats but the effect on the region's environment is deleterious.

It's not just capitalism that causes adverse environmental change, it's the industries that are driven by capitalistic processes. The corporations that own the industries will resist efforts to force them to invest some of their profit in minimising environmental damage (I'm generalising of course, some are starting to wake up to the self-interest in minimising damage). But in all fairness, it's not just capitalism, it's industrialisation. The former Soviet Union, in its rush to industrialistion, committed massive crimes of environmental vandalism. And I believe that today China is on the way to wearing that tag,.

[Hobbit]

Capitalism actually deals with scarce resources quite effectively. It creates a sort of self-imposed triage, if you will. Scarce resources cost more, and only those with money to piss away or those who really need them buy them. Take, for example, the following alternative to the current state of things. What if the prices, per pound, of caviar and peanut butter were reversed. People would put caviar on sandwiches, feed it to their pets, and put away a couple of scoops on crackers as a snack, while peanut butter would be spread on fancy crackers and served at uppity balls and parties by those with money to burn.

When fossil fuels start falling short, few people will be buying them as the price goes up, but there will still be a demand for the energy they produce. That is when entepreneurs will step in and develop other ways to get that energy, then sell it to the public at a profit.

Now, there needs to be a bridle on capitalism, in the form of anti-trust laws, environmental protections, and guarantees of civil rights, etc. However, too much regulation drives business away.

[diuretic]

Capitalism actually deals with scarce resources quite effectively. It creates a sort of self-imposed triage, if you will. Scarce resources cost more, and only those with money to piss away or those who really need them buy them. Take, for example, the following alternative to the current state of things. What if the prices, per pound, of caviar and peanut butter were reversed. People would put caviar on sandwiches, feed it to their pets, and put away a couple of scoops on crackers as a snack, while peanut butter would be spread on fancy crackers and served at uppity balls and parties by those with money to burn.

A good example of commodity fetishm. I'm not sure if that's an original term or I just dredged it up from the back of my mind from something I read somewhere. Anyway I won't claim it as an original thought, just in case. But yes, the point is well made - scarce means expensive. And yes, supply and demand works on that level I think.

But supply and demand are features of a market economy. I see them as being part of a market socialist economy such as used to exist in Yugoslavia and performing the same role as you've described, so it's not limited to capitalism.



When fossil fuels start falling short, few people will be buying them as the price goes up, but there will still be a demand for the energy they produce. That is when entepreneurs will step in and develop other ways to get that energy, then sell it to the public at a profit.

Problem is that so many things we use now use fossil fuels. Sure it's just another energy source but it's one we use a lot. Perhaps the entrepreneurs would like to be thinking of the application of those other energy sources. I'm sure they are.




Now, there needs to be a bridle on capitalism, in the form of anti-trust laws, environmental protections, and guarantees of civil rights, etc. However, too much regulation drives business away.

Yes, corporations hate regulation and they will go to wherever has the slackest regulations.

[loosecannon]

That makes zero sense, man.

It makes sense if I elaborate. Capitalists love to argue that investment capital spurs the economy. That tax cuts for the capitalist class therefore spur the economy.

And Monetarists (bankers) love to argue that credit spurs the economy and therefore that regulation of the money supply is the key to spuring the economy.

Neither of these groups of capitalists will admit the obvious. Consumption and demand drive/spur the economy.

[Birdzeye]

The capitalists themselves adamantly detest free markets. They demand an uneven playing field and work without rest to tilt the field to their advantage.

Those who succeed in securing an unlevel advantage thrive, while those who do not, fail.

Capitalists detest true capitalism as described by Adam Smith. Which is why we have never been truly capitalistic as a society.
:clap:

[loosecannon]

Baloney. We love free markets. The only time guv'mint needs to get involved is to set standards (a gallon is a gallon and an octane is just that), and break up monopolies in the rare cases when they form.


No whether it is erecting monopolies, cooking the books, playing games with stock prices to boost upper management compensation or flooding the marketplace with cheap software to drive competitors outta business the factors that dictate success are inseperable from creating an unlevel playing field.

Adam Smith envisioned and spoke of a regulated level field.

Modern corps do everything in their power to succeed by tipping the game board.

Point at any true success story in modern business from exxon/mobile to microsoft to Honda and you can easily find examples of their success coming as a direct result of legal and illegal success at creating an unfair advantage for themselves to compete within.

[loosecannon]

Except the Fed can turn your wallet into dust.

LOL:clap: :clap: :clap:

[loosecannon]

Capitalism actually deals with scarce resources quite effectively. It creates a sort of self-imposed triage, if you will. Scarce resources cost more, and only those with money to piss away or those who really need them buy them. Take, for example, the following alternative to the current state of things. What if the prices, per pound, of caviar and peanut butter were reversed. People would put caviar on sandwiches, feed it to their pets, and put away a couple of scoops on crackers as a snack, while peanut butter would be spread on fancy crackers and served at uppity balls and parties by those with money to burn.

When fossil fuels start falling short, few people will be buying them as the price goes up, but there will still be a demand for the energy they produce. That is when entepreneurs will step in and develop other ways to get that energy, then sell it to the public at a profit.

Now, there needs to be a bridle on capitalism, in the form of anti-trust laws, environmental protections, and guarantees of civil rights, etc. However, too much regulation drives business away.

That was all very well said. Globalism is what raises the problem of business fleeing if you regulate or tax them. They CAN simply go elsewhere, like Dubai, a mega city being built exclusively for the purpose of encouraging corporate flight by offering duty free trade zones, cheap and slave labor and no- low taxes.

So how do you address globalization?

How do you esp regulate business with basic standards like no slavery, child labor and extreme exploitation of labor, and environmental responsibility if a corp like BP can rape the forests of Equador and then just leave and avoid all responsibility for the destruction they may leave behind unremedied?

[Dilloduck]

That was all very well said. Globalism is what raises the problem of business fleeing if you regulate or tax them. They CAN simply go elsewhere, like Dubai, a mega city being built exclusively for the purpose of encouraging corporate flight by offering duty free trade zones, cheap and slave labor and no- low taxes.

So how do you address globalization?

How do you esp regulate business with basic standards like no slavery, child labor and extreme exploitation of labor, and environmental responsibility if a corp like BP can rape the forests of Equador and then just leave and avoid all responsibility for the destruction they may leave behind unremedied?

First of all vote against ANYONE with a globalist agenda and in favor of a North American Union.

[loosecannon]

First of all vote against ANYONE with a globalist agenda and in favor of a North American Union.

That is a place to start but globalization is already half way complete. We also need to restore some kind of system of checks and balances.

I don't know how we can.

[glockmail]

I'd have to go region by region to work out which natural resources are at what level but two which have a global impact are water and oil. In SE Asia, due to human activity, deforestation is a huge problem, not only are native animals losing their habitats but the effect on the region's environment is deleterious.

It's not just capitalism that causes adverse environmental change, it's the industries that are driven by capitalistic processes. The corporations that own the industries will resist efforts to force them to invest some of their profit in minimising environmental damage (I'm generalising of course, some are starting to wake up to the self-interest in minimising damage). But in all fairness, it's not just capitalism, it's industrialisation. The former Soviet Union, in its rush to industrialistion, committed massive crimes of environmental vandalism. And I believe that today China is on the way to wearing that tag,.

You get a gold star for naming the one resource that is limited and does not have a substitution: wildlife habitat. If Liberals/ socialists would admit this then we could have a serious discussion on how to maintain as much of it as possible. But unfortunately, you ran on about oil and water being limited resources, which is untrue and therefore sullies your argument.

You also made the correct point that non-capitalist countries like the former USSR and China are a serious threat to the environment, hence are a threat to wildlife habitat as well as human existance.

[glockmail]

No whether it is erecting monopolies, cooking the books, playing games with stock prices to boost upper management compensation or flooding the marketplace with cheap software to drive competitors outta business the factors that dictate success are inseperable from creating an unlevel playing field.

Adam Smith envisioned and spoke of a regulated level field.

Modern corps do everything in their power to succeed by tipping the game board.

Point at any true success story in modern business from exxon/mobile to microsoft to Honda and you can easily find examples of their success coming as a direct result of legal and illegal success at creating an unfair advantage for themselves to compete within.

So your solution is to be a commie? :poke:

[loosecannon]

So your solution is to be a commie? :poke:


No. Was that a facetious question?

My solution is to invent an economic model that is not designed to serve banking first and the rest of the world second. And figure out a check and balance system that rewards a level business playing field.

I also think we need waaaaay more education so that most of us are competent to be involved in owning the businesses we work in either as partners or worker investors.

If the employees of Ford for one example had owned half the company they would never, ever have been so blind to the change in the marketplace when gas prices rose. Ford would still be healthy instead of on life support.

There has to be a bridge between profit motive and social decision making.

Oil comapanies, esp monopolies, should not get to choose our energy policy no matter what. It leads to shortages. It leads to not investing in infrastructure. Because shortages and defering investments are profitable at our expense.

[glockmail]

No. Was that a facetious question?

My solution is to invent an economic model that is not designed to serve banking first and the rest of the world second. And figure out a check and balance system that rewards a level business playing field.
....

OK to you're so frigging smart that you alone can "invent an economic model" better than capitalism. I tell you what: you and 1,000,000 other super intelligent liberals go to the moon, Mars, or some 3rd world country somewhere and invent this system, test it out for 100 years or so and then we can compare scientifically which is better. In the meantime, we corrupt capitalists will have 1,000,000 less libs trying to screw up our system that has so far proven to be the best that man has yet devised. :laugh2:

[loosecannon]

OK to you're so frigging smart that you alone can "invent an economic model" better than capitalism. I tell you what: you and 1,000,000 other super intelligent liberals go to the moon, Mars, or some 3rd world country somewhere and invent this system, test it out for 100 years or so and then we can compare scientifically which is better. In the meantime, we corrupt capitalists will have 1,000,000 less libs trying to screw up our system that has so far proven to be the best that man has yet devised. :laugh2:

We don't have a capitalist system Glock and yes I am smart enough to invent an econ system that would work better than pure capitalism or our existing system.

But I would defer that to bigger minds on the order of freidman and Keynes.

DO you know how our capitalist system came into being Glock?

Do you know HOW it was invented and by whom?

[glockmail]

We don't have a capitalist system Glock and yes I am smart enough to invent an econ system that would work better than pure capitalism or our existing system.

...

OIC so we have something other than capitalism. Maybe you can explain to us what it is then. :rolleyes:

If you're so smart then why don't you write a book or something on your new economic system and enlighten us? :pee:

[diuretic]

You get a gold star for naming the one resource that is limited and does not have a substitution: wildlife habitat. If Liberals/ socialists would admit this then we could have a serious discussion on how to maintain as much of it as possible. But unfortunately, you ran on about oil and water being limited resources, which is untrue and therefore sullies your argument.

You also made the correct point that non-capitalist countries like the former USSR and China are a serious threat to the environment, hence are a threat to wildlife habitat as well as human existance.

Oil is a limited resource, we know the reserves we have. but anyway it's a moot point so I'll cede that one as I don't think we have a critical scarcity at the moment (but I wish the price would come down anyway).

Water is a scarce resource already in many regions. Where I live water is a huge political issue right now, first time I've seen it feature so largely in everyday politics. As well it's an issue for the future. As climate change grips us then it will affect rainfall and hence water supply.

[loosecannon]

OIC so we have something other than capitalism. Maybe you can explain to us what it is then. :rolleyes:

We have a moneterist economy, monetarism is not a component of or exclusive to capitalism. But monetarism is the MAIN structure in our economic system.

We do not have a capitalist system according to Adam Smith's definitions because our economy is fraught with monopolies. In fact they are everywhere.

We do not have a capitalist system according to Marx's definition because the economy no longer even centers on production or it's means as the primary economy. For example the service sectors now comprise up to 80% of economies in very developed nations. Service sectros are not production.

We do not have a laise faire capitalism because we have no free market.

We have some kind of hybrid which is not socialism, communism, capitalism, laisse faire capitalism, Marxist capitalism, Adam's capitalism.

Many people call it corporatism. But even that is only a part of it.

We have a monetarist, Corporatist, monopolist, globalizing economy that includes elements of capitalism and excludes many as well.





If you're so smart then why don't you write a book or something on your new economic system and enlighten us? :pee:

As I said earlier it would behoove us all to let somebody on a par with Milton Friedman or John Keynes write that book. But they won't.

Those books are almost always written to serve the agenda of the banking class.

[loosecannon]

Water is a scarce resource already in many regions. Where I live water is a huge political issue right now, first time I've seen it feature so largely in everyday politics. As well it's an issue for the future. As climate change grips us then it will affect rainfall and hence water supply.

Water is scarce in almost half of the most populated regions of the world and in my region.

And water rights are being privatized meaning people in many places no longer have the rights to use the water below ground or from rain runoff without paying for it.

As population nearly doubles in the next 43 years water will become what wars are fought over. Look for Israel to be the first nation to go to war for more water.

[diuretic]

Water is scarce in almost half of the most populated regions of the world and in my region.

And water rights are being privatized meaning people in many places no longer have the rights to use the water below ground or from rain runoff without paying for it.

As population nearly doubles in the next 43 years water will become what wars are fought over. Look for Israel to be the first nation to go to war for more water.

Yes, it might be time for water-rich nations to start bumping up their defences.

[manu1959]

Water is scarce in almost half of the most populated regions of the world and in my region.

And water rights are being privatized meaning people in many places no longer have the rights to use the water below ground or from rain runoff without paying for it.

As population nearly doubles in the next 43 years water will become what wars are fought over. Look for Israel to be the first nation to go to war for more water.

no need.... they have the ocean...http://www.water-technology.net/projects/israel/

[loosecannon]

no need.... they have the ocean...http://www.water-technology.net/projects/israel/

If there is no need why is israel stealing water from Syria and palestine? And slant drilling to boot?

[loosecannon]

Yes, it might be time for water-rich nations to start bumping up their defences.

Canada

[diuretic]

Canada

Definitely.

[glockmail]

Oil is a limited resource, we know the reserves we have. but anyway it's a moot point so I'll cede that one as I don't think we have a critical scarcity at the moment (but I wish the price would come down anyway).

Water is a scarce resource already in many regions. Where I live water is a huge political issue right now, first time I've seen it feature so largely in everyday politics. As well it's an issue for the future. As climate change grips us then it will affect rainfall and hence water supply.

There's more proven oil reserves now than at any time in the past. Plus it can be substituted with other forms of energy. Its not limited.

Water can be recycled or transported long distances. Its not limited. You just don't want to pay what its worth.

[glockmail]

....according to Adam Smith's definitions ...... according to Marx's definition ......

You do realize that you are full of shit, don't you?

[loosecannon]

There's more proven oil reserves now than at any time in the past. Plus it can be substituted with other forms of energy. Its not limited.

Water can be recycled or transported long distances. Its not limited. You just don't want to pay what its worth.

For the half of the world who lives on $3/day or less "paying what it is worth" could be prohibitive.

[loosecannon]

You do realize that you are full of shit, don't you?

Weeeellll MR Keynes, please enlighten us!

[glockmail]

For the half of the world who lives on $3/day or less "paying what it is worth" could be prohibitive.They will need to adjust their lifestyles then.

[loosecannon]

They will need to adjust their lifestyles then.

We are talking about water.

[glockmail]

We are talking about water. Move up stream or stop crapping in the well.

[Yurt]

Move up stream or stop crapping in the well.

Are you being serious?

[glockmail]

Are you being serious? Yes. There is plenty of water if people realize its worth and move to where there is plenty, stop polluting the source, and properly manage what they have. The only limiting resource here is brains.

[Yurt]

Yes. There is plenty of water if people realize its worth and move to where there is plenty, stop polluting the source, and properly manage what they have. The only limiting resource here is brains.

What about the columbia river?

[glockmail]

What about the columbia river? Whadda 'bout it?

[Yurt]

Whadda 'bout it?

Should we move to canada?

[glockmail]

Should we move to canada? I forsee a major deal with Canada some day to sell water to the US to feed the arid southwest and California. Until then people could move there or lots of other place without regional water issues. Or recycle more and use less. We got plenty here in the Yadkin Valley, and sell some to Greensboro even.

[Yurt]

I forsee a major deal with Canada some day to sell water to the US to feed the arid southwest and California. Until then people could move there or lots of other place without regional water issues. Or recycle more and use less. We got plenty here in the Yadkin Valley, and sell some to Greensboro even.

Ok. But this does not answer your post.


Move up stream or stop crapping in the well.

This is a very big issue. My folks live in San Diego. And you obviously know where the source of the Columbia River is, so, what deal will you work out for the fine folks in San Diego?

Move up river?

[glockmail]

Ok. But this does not answer your post.



This is a very big issue. My folks live in San Diego. And you obviously know where the source of the Columbia River is, so, what deal will you work out for the fine folks in San Diego?

Move up river? Water is too cheap for what its worth in California. Most of the State is a desert and eople insist on paying next to nothing for water. Either they move or raise the water rates, which will encourage conservation, enable the municipalitis to recycle more, and maybe encourage private enterprise to get involved.

My point is that water supply has historically been the role of guv'mint, which has subsidized it and artificially lowered its price, in order to encourage people to move into the region. The shortage is therefore a political issue, not an issue of a scarce resource. If people paid what the water is worth, they may find other areas of the county more desireable.

[manu1959]

Water is too cheap for what its worth in California. Most of the State is a desert and eople insist on paying next to nothing for water. Either they move or raise the water rates, which will encourage conservation, enable the municipalitis to recycle more, and maybe encourage private enterprise to get involved.

My point is that water supply has historically been the role of guv'mint, which has subsidized it and artificially lowered its price, in order to encourage people to move into the region. The shortage is therefore a political issue, not an issue of a scarce resource. If people paid what the water is worth, they may find other areas of the county more desireable.

when you say most of the state is dessert ... are you referring to california?

[glockmail]

when you say most of the state is dessert ... are you referring to california? Yup. Except dessert id food.

[manu1959]

Yup. Except dessert id food.

sorry can't type or spell.....california is hardly 51% desert.....

[glockmail]

sorry can't type or spell.....california is hardly 51% desert.....
Neither can I. But its pretty damn dry, the southern end where lots of folks live. By the time they're through with the Colorado River (which originates in Colorado) its a mud-trickle.

[Abbey Marie]

From Wikipedia:

"Deserts in California make up about 25% of the total surface area."

"Indeed, almost all of southeastern California is arid, hot desert, with routine extreme high temperatures during the summer."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California

[manu1959]

Neither can I. But its pretty damn dry, the southern end where lots of folks live. By the time they're through with the Colorado River (which originates in Colorado) its a mud-trickle.

blame nevada....

[glockmail]

blame nevada.... And Arizona (means arid zone" in Spanish). Before they pumped the wells in Tucson and lowered the groundwater over 200', you could fish in that river. People don't belong in deserts, or, in the case of New Orleans, below sea level.

[Abbey Marie]

And Arizona (means arid zone" in Spanish). Before they pumped the wells in Tucson and lowered the groundwater over 200', you could fish in that river. People don't belong in deserts, or, in the case of New Orleans, below sea level.

I keep trying to tell that to my brother, who is moving from the east coast to near Tucson. :(

[diuretic]

There's more proven oil reserves now than at any time in the past. Plus it can be substituted with other forms of energy. Its not limited.

Water can be recycled or transported long distances. Its not limited. You just don't want to pay what its worth.

It's not a question of payment, it's a question of scarcity. I'm looking at it from my point of view. I live in an arid country. Parts of it have too much water (tropical north) and there is a small area that has reasonable natural rainfall (the south-east) but even in those areas right now there is a bad drought, even Tasmania is in drought conditions. It's about scarcity. Pricing mechanisms don't even enter into it.

[loosecannon]

Originally Posted by glockmail
There's more proven oil reserves now than at any time in the past. Plus it can be substituted with other forms of energy. Its not limited.

Trick answer. Technically true but still BS.


Oil reserves refer to portions of oil in place (STOOIP) that are recoverable under economic constraints.

Oil in the ground is not a "reserve" unless it is economically recoverable, since as the oil is extracted, the cost of recovery increases incrementally. The recovery factor (RF) is the percentage of STOOIP which is economically recoverable under a given set of conditions.


So this particular definition of "proven reserves" (mind you this definition is new, it was completely diff just 4 years ago) states that proven reserves only applies to oil in the ground that can be recovered at todays prices.

So if prices go up, more oil will be recoverable. AND today's prices are 3 times higher than they were in 1999, which accounts for the fictional implication of proven reserves being at an all time high.

Obviously there is less recoverable oil in the ground than there was a year ago, or ten or 100.

The last reigning "definition" of proven reserves was any oil that was sweet crude and light and verified to exist in the earth. (only about 1/5th of all oil in the ground)

I definitely have to wonder who changed the definition of proven reserves and why.

[nevadamedic]

blame nevada....

Blame Nevada? It's not all desert here. Lake Tahoe is far from a desert and is one of this countries major tourist attractions. So is Las Vegas, given it is a desert city it is one of the world's biggest tourist attractions. There is nothing wrong with Nevada.

[diuretic]

Blame Nevada? It's not all desert here. Lake Tahoe is far from a desert and is one of this countries major tourist attractions. So is Las Vegas, given it is a desert city it is one of the world's biggest tourist attractions. There is nothing wrong with Nevada.

Nevada is very much like most of my state (outside the obvious agricultural areas). Driving north from Vegas to Lake Tahoe I was struck by the similarity with our outback (far north of the state). I think the population density is quite similar as well.

And yes, stunning country around Lake Tahoe.

[glockmail]

It's not a question of payment, it's a question of scarcity. I'm looking at it from my point of view. I live in an arid country. Parts of it have too much water (tropical north) and there is a small area that has reasonable natural rainfall (the south-east) but even in those areas right now there is a bad drought, even Tasmania is in drought conditions. It's about scarcity. Pricing mechanisms don't even enter into it. Baloney. You simply pay too little for what water is worth, thus you waste it. The average person in the US uses 100 gallons per day. That's 4 to 5 times what they weigh.

[glockmail]

Trick answer. Technically true but still BS.




So this particular definition of "proven reserves" (mind you this definition is new, it was completely diff just 4 years ago) states that proven reserves only applies to oil in the ground that can be recovered at todays prices.

So if prices go up, more oil will be recoverable. AND today's prices are 3 times higher than they were in 1999, which accounts for the fictional implication of proven reserves being at an all time high.

Obviously there is less recoverable oil in the ground than there was a year ago, or ten or 100.

The last reigning "definition" of proven reserves was any oil that was sweet crude and light and verified to exist in the earth. (only about 1/5th of all oil in the ground)

I definitely have to wonder who changed the definition of proven reserves and why. The definition changed because technology was invented to extract more, and people are willing to pay more, proving that substitutes will always be found for the stuff that we need.

[diuretic]

Baloney. You simply pay too little for what water is worth, thus you waste it. The average person in the US uses 100 gallons per day. That's 4 to 5 times what they weigh.

No, pricing mechanisms are less efficient in this instance than education. Our state government has instituted water use restrictions that don't use pricing mechanisms but instead rely on voluntary compliance. And they've done it in such a way that we - the community - police it ourselves. Heaven help someone wasting water where I am, or someone using water outside of their allocation. The smart thing about that is that the wealthy suburbs are subjected to the same restrictions as the less well-off suburbs. As I said, pricing mechanisms aren't the answer.

[glockmail]

No, pricing mechanisms are less efficient in this instance than education. Our state government has instituted water use restrictions that don't use pricing mechanisms but instead rely on voluntary compliance. And they've done it in such a way that we - the community - police it ourselves. Heaven help someone wasting water where I am, or someone using water outside of their allocation. The smart thing about that is that the wealthy suburbs are subjected to the same restrictions as the less well-off suburbs. As I said, pricing mechanisms aren't the answer.


So you and others give the finger to lawn watereres. Big Deal. If you paid a penny/ gallon, the water company would have more recycling, grey water sewers, and homes and businesses would all retrofit. No water shortage.