Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Lituya
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Oct 19, 2018 - 11:02am PT
|
Hogwash. The natural order is community living. That's how man evolved.
No it's not. Not in modernity. Not in medieval times. Not even in antiquity. Sure, pockets of "community living" exist in recorded history. The order always looked like this:
Nobility
Commoner
Slave
Capitalism is a system for failure. The world nowadays is run on capitalist principles. As you supporters of capitalism point out, even the PRC is capitalist now. Yet this glorious system has the world living in poverty.
Fewer humans are living in poverty now than at any time in human history. Because of capitalism. The PRC problem is the "communitarian" form of government they cling to, economic-capitalist dabbles notwithstanding. (Spare me your revisionism re USSR practicing 'state capitalism.')
Capitalism is a disaster for the planet.
Human need and an expanding population are an issue regardless of economic system. See Reily's Malthus reference above.
It's only when people organize that some fairness enters the system.
I have no problem with private-sector unions offsetting the collusion corporations employ to manipulate wages.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Oct 19, 2018 - 11:38am PT
|
In other words, you have no argument to make against the facts that the world is capitalist and in poverty.
LOL... you're minimally entertaining, Gary.
But you've also become tiresome. If you can't read my arguments above with comprehension, and you're not willing to read books written by people who've lived through the "heyday" of your model utopias, then, frankly, you're not intellectually honest. Like xCon, I won't respond to you any further.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Oct 19, 2018 - 11:41am PT
|
NutAgain, and where does that created wealth go to, if not to stay within families? After all, it doesn't evaporate once created.
You imply that families are not "entitled" to "keep it internally," so you must imagine that it goes somewhere. Where? And why is that "place" MORE "entitled" to it than the family?
|
|
Lituya
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Oct 19, 2018 - 12:30pm PT
|
Imagine a capitalist society with a small tweak: no inheritance of the financial assets:
no passing of estates
no children as beneficiaries of trusts
no children as owners or business associates of companies owned or managed by parents
You are channeling Marx. The devil is in the details.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Oct 19, 2018 - 12:59pm PT
|
Going by more long term models and forecasts, such as the Club of Rome report that Malamute posted on the climate thread - https://www.clubofrome.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/A-finer-future.pdf
 It is quite likely that much of the gains made so far to reduce world poverty are based on a non-sustainable bubble. We have not accounted for long term damages to the environment, which we can only get away with for a limited period.
So far our technology has usually provided enough "fixes" to any big limits on growth that we think this will always be the case. When we thought we were running out of oil and natural gas, fracking came to the "rescue."
Capitalism is often quite incompatible with societal planning, except maybe where the government is highly controlling, such as China.
I'm not saying that government is very efficient or effective, but often that is because any policy or regulation is seen as the enemy by the capitalists, who then impede and prevent efficient policies (carbon tax for example) and everything is fought over by lawyers for years, so the government instead pursues very indirect and wasteful rules.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Oct 19, 2018 - 02:18pm PT
|
who then impede and prevent efficient policies (carbon tax for example)
Your bias is showing, which hurts the credibility of your general claims about "capitalism."
For example, one could completely agree that climate change is a problem and that governmental intervention is going to be necessary to combat the problem, and that same person could ENTIRELY disagree that carbon taxes are going to be either "efficient" or effective.
Perhaps it's better to continue that debate on the already vast climate change thread. This thread is about wages.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Oct 19, 2018 - 03:34pm PT
|
Your blindness is showing, as it usually does.
A revenue neutral carbon tax is only an example of things we need to look at as a collective. Wages and sustainable jobs are also part of that article, which you seem to be unable to comprehend. Instead of leaving everything up to individual capitalists, who take the easy way out and dump their external and long term costs onto someone else.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Oct 19, 2018 - 03:57pm PT
|
^^^ Your presumptions are showing.
You have a particular view of what is effective and "efficient." When anybody doesn't agree with that view, well, then the goto position is "evil capitalists."
And that's why the left is not winning, even with people like me that would like to find ways to work together on such issues.
When I said, "Your bias is showing," that's not an insult. But when you say, "Your blindness is showing," that's an insult. Saying, "You are blind" dramatically ups the ante over "I think you have a bias here."
|
|
Lituya
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Oct 19, 2018 - 04:00pm PT
|
I would be ok if this value was forced on all of society as a way of leveling the playing field for more humans. How many folks object to this?
Who gets the house? The business? The farm? Your new government?? Stunning that you think this is a moral endeavor. Object? You think? Ideas like this are why we have the Second Ammendment.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Oct 19, 2018 - 04:16pm PT
|
^^^ There you went over the top. See, the left can't cope with the idea that it's not "moral" to make "our" government into ANYTHING they can dream up. No limits. The government IS the moral authority.
This is why each election cycle is like an existential crisis for both parties.
So, when you imply FIGHTING, like with GUNS (gasp), like a revolution, to keep the government from becoming the all-in-all, well, that's just crazy-talk to the left. So, you lost them.
Of course, in my increasing experience, the left has no interest in discussion. They just intend to win the ultimate power, so that they can cram their utopia down our throats.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Oct 19, 2018 - 04:41pm PT
|
You are missing the entire point of Club of Rome article, which is that short term wages are only one part of long term well-being.
An RNCF (revenue neutral carbon fee) is only one example of issues that affect well being and need to be looked at by a broad society. More examples that won't be fixed by capitalism not related to climate: drug costs, net neutrality, campaign finance, discrimination, prison & justice reform, Wall street tax reform, water pollution, noise pollution, campfire polution, pollution from mercury, lead, Roundup & herbicides, solvents, smog, etc., ozone depletion, public education, traffic, etc etc
I didn't say an RNCF was the only possible solution to climate change. You claim to want to work together. Sounds like typical republican false promises. But you as usual think it is ok to dismiss it out of hand without any thought that you need to then propose a plan for what would work even better. The problem didn't go away just because you think you found some glitch with that solution. The ol' "repeal and then forget to replace," the same as Obamacare/Romneycare.
Other measurements of poverty decrease are not as optimistic as the World bank: see the last part of this -- https://www.politifact.com/global-news/statements/2016/mar/23/gayle-smith/did-we-really-reduce-extreme-poverty-half-30-years/
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Oct 19, 2018 - 04:55pm PT
|
More examples that won't be fixed by capitalism
Capitalism is the default economic structure of human-transactions and has been throughout human history. It's not a way to "fix" anything. It's not "in place" TO "do" anything. It's just people trading with each other, and, thus, a market emerges. That simple.
So, the "purpose" of capitalism or "capitalists" is not to "fix" anything. And "capitalists" are not "resisting" anything in the sense you imply.
There are just people who agree with you regarding climate change and how to approach fixing it, and people who disagree with you on those same points. You'll find "capitalists" and "socialists" in both camps (I'm confident that fewer socialists disagree with you). Same with wages.
If what you mean is something like, "People that want the market to solve global warming are mistaken," then that's an opinion that we could discuss. But going to invectives doesn't invite discussion. And what you say about carbon taxes is WIDE open for debate. Intelligent people strongly disagree about that one.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Oct 19, 2018 - 05:01pm PT
|
IF you are serious about global warming, then first become a vegetarian and encourage everybody you know to do so! Otherwise, you are really just saying, "Let GOVERNMENT cram 'solutions' that won't really affect ME down everybody ELSE'S throats.'
Next, consider how an "evil capitalist" is bypassing government to create REAL solutions:
https://www.seattlebusinessmag.com/blog/bill-gates-solidly-behind-seeking-solutions-global-warming
The left sees "government everywhere" as the only hope of utopia. But the heads of mega-corps are almost entirely liberals. So why aren't they following Gates into private-investments into proven solutions?
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Oct 19, 2018 - 05:17pm PT
|
As far as removing all inheritances, (with the government presumably confiscating it all)
I think that was meant as an extreme mental exercise,
not within the realm of what will actually happen.
It's best not to harp on the most out-there ideas if you really claim to be pushing for reasonable ways to fix inequity. You are really arguing against a strawman.
Most people just think we need somewhat higher taxes on the rich and huge estates. Who has benefited the most from this country and who can best afford to pay to continue this country? The rich are already getting richer. They don't need the lower taxes granted by bush jr and now trumpy.
Many of the richest like trump play huge games of tax avoidance, setting up shell companies with fake earnings and losses for manipulation. trump ran on the promise of fixing the "carried interest" loophole and reneged. His tax henchmen have now decided that banks are not financial companies, so they get especially lower taxes.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Oct 19, 2018 - 05:20pm PT
|
If there were carbon taxes added to the cost of all meat production & agriculture for cattle, many more might become vegetarians.
For now agriculture pays NO fuel taxes for anything they claim is off road.
It is a FACT that climate change is NOT going to be solved by some of the people taking unilateral individual actions. It will only add up if EVERYONE is incentivized to change. What is your solution that gets everyone to change, not just a few volunteers? Remember your basic day one of the invisible hand?
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Oct 19, 2018 - 05:26pm PT
|
If a person earns more, but spends even more than that on rising bills for air conditioning, are they really richer?
If a person earns more, but spends more in order to clean up their toxic drinking water, are they really richer?
If a person earns more, but spends more time stuck in traffic, are they really richer?
If a person earns more, but their house is now often flooded, are they really richer?
If a person earns more, but is robbed more often, are they really richer?
If a person earns more, but now lives surrounded by diesel trucks and factories and has to carry an oxygen tank around, are they really richer?
If a person earns more, but can't catch their dinner from the sea anymore and have to buy imported food at a store, are they really richer?
If the GNP of a country rises, but the increase all goes to the 1%, is it really richer?
|
|
Lituya
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Oct 19, 2018 - 07:11pm PT
|
So, when you imply FIGHTING, like with GUNS (gasp), like a revolution, to keep the government from becoming the all-in-all, well, that's just crazy-talk to the left. So, you lost them.
Of course, in my increasing experience, the left has no interest in discussion. They just intend to win the ultimate power, so that they can cram their utopia down our throats.
MadB, I get where you're coming from. Agree with you 99.999. But positing a violent response to NutAgain's violent idea shouldn't come as a surprise. And I'm hardly worried about "losing" folks like this--most are too far gone to carry on an intelligent discussion as you have already noted. That NutAgain likely doesn't even realize he is espousing a Marxist tenet is almost as startling as the premise itself. In any event, the ad-hoc violence currently being undertaken by liberals and leftists would likely pale a thousand-fold in comparison to the response outright confiscation of family wealth would evoke. Somebody's gotta tell 'em--they might go too far some day.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!