Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
An economic topic, but I'll see how this does here first.
I can no longer defend the theories of "capitalism." (Not that the U.S. subscribes to capitalism; it is a selectively socialist oligarchy)
The "free market" requires the economic principle of scarcity. The problem is that our most important resources (food, energy, and water) are not limited unless we artificially choose to limit their availability to populations.
Food: The organisms we consume are self-replicating. We have the farming technology to cultivate stable populations of our food. The energy needed to cultivate food is also renewable, as mentioned below.
Energy: We have 5 billion years of energy coming from that yellow ball in the sky. We also have renewable wind and hydroelectric power.
Water: Water simply changes state. There can be no water shortage, as we have the technology to purify it.
The scarcity LIES are brought to us by our governments, which have the unlimited ability to create their own fiat currencies. So.... why does this riddle even exist?
Since your theories about capitalism are hooey, it's about time you admit it.
Capitalism is ownership, and all the rights that conveys, of property.
Why is that any different from the instances where capitalism as failed?
where has capitalism failed? not in the U.S.A.......we are a young Republic compare to Europe, Asia, Africa and South America countries and we have accomplished more in 100 years under capitalism than any other country and system on earth.
where has capitalism failed? not in the U.S.A.......we are a young Republic compare to Europe, Asia, Africa and South America countries and we have accomplished more in 100 years under capitalism than any other country and system on earth.
This is an absurd statement if I'm understanding it correctly.
It seems like you're saying since American has only been around for a little over 200 years, we are objectively better because we achieved more in only 200 years than European nations that had centuries of validation before it. Is that what you're implying? That because America shot ahead and was young, it was more impressive?
Because that's extremely inaccurate.
America didn't start form scratch. We were a European colony. We started on the exact same level as Europe. We basically had the centuries of validation that the rest of Europe had already with us; all the knowledge and ideas. The only benefit was that we had a country that hand't been made into Europe yet, so lots of resources to capitalize on. That's the main reason America had it's success. Europe has been around for thousands of years, having the resources stripped. While America was populated, the population was a little more environmentally conscious than we cared to be.
We industrialized around the same time as Europe. We advanced at the same pace as Europe. We are not better than Europe, we just lucked out and landed in a resource rich continent allowing us to become economic super powers. But Europe and America have WAY more in common than we do differences and to imply that America is somehow better because we did more with less is simply untrue. And if that logic does work better, I'd argue Germany has done far more than America has and it's way younger. Yeah, it had a genocide, but so did we; we just prefer to call it 'manifest destiny.' But Germany industrialized very quickly after becoming a nation and became a very powerful one far faster than we did. You wanna talk young republics that had quick success stories, maybe you should look a little harder.
Right wingers like to assume that the history of capitalism began in 1950 and the grand prosperity that followed WWII was all because of the free market.
They forget that the history of capitalism as it transcended the feudal age was birthed in colonialism, slavery, war, genocide and imperialism. I don't know how these jokers think the Brits expanded from a small island in the North Atlantic to subjugating people in South Asia? Did they do it offering crumpets? No but at the barrel of a gun.
Same with the US all the way down to the post war period. The Cold War was less a battle to protect us from communism and more of method to protect US economic and political interests abroad. The fact that older baby boomer really believe in the old comic book battle of good vs evil when it comes to the Cold War makes me think that that generation is beyond scarred and beyond repair.
So this world is not dealing with scarcity and all these issue just because. It's not because it's just naturally this way. Most of the world is capitalist because the West tore down the walls of nations and made sure their borders were open to trade.
Most of the world is capitalist and most of the world is poor. I know some of you boomer types believe that third world nations are not capitalist but then again, you guys don't really follow facts pretty well.
An economic topic, but I'll see how this does here first.
I can no longer defend the theories of "capitalism." (Not that the U.S. subscribes to capitalism; it is a selectively socialist oligarchy)
The "free market" requires the economic principle of scarcity. The problem is that our most important resources (food, energy, and water) are not limited unless we artificially choose to limit their availability to populations.
Food: The organisms we consume are self-replicating. We have the farming technology to cultivate stable populations of our food. The energy needed to cultivate food is also renewable, as mentioned below.
Energy: We have 5 billion years of energy coming from that yellow ball in the sky. We also have renewable wind and hydroelectric power.
Water: Water simply changes state. There can be no water shortage, as we have the technology to purify it.
The scarcity LIES are brought to us by our governments, which have the unlimited ability to create their own fiat currencies. So.... why does this riddle even exist?
here is the problem:
most people are too stupid to learn and create.
they refuse to learn and create without incentive.
as a result capitalism is needed to trick them into creating things.
socialism/communism forces them to create while not rewarding them.
as a result they only produce just so much to satisfy their masters instead of going all out.
some people in capitalism and socialism though are genuinely altruistic not all but there are those that exist. I won't say Bill Gates or Warren Buffet for donating vast sums as they are both likely having their own agendas to look good in the public's eye
genuinely altruistic people do not show off do not attract attention but give without others noticing or thanking them. They are only found out later by accident rather that they did these good deeds.
those that bask in the limelight like BG or WB are fake altruists.
But at least it still benefits society.
there are very few genuinely altruistic people though
to motivate society to create you need to give them great motivation
Poor people can easily farm their own food create their own clothes
etc, instead of living on welfare but they have lost their will.
but many of them choose to go on welfare no matter what
they could at least cut coupons some do many do not
because they are lazy.
or have become lazy as they have given up on pursuing greatness or improving themselves.
they go into gangs to become rich so they think as it is easier for them to rob instead of learning a skill to create.
Not really. We have the technology to purify water relatively easily and there is more than enough food in the world too feed everyone.
Throw breathing in there and you've the three most important things needed to sustain life. So why are people still starving and why are there droughts that hurt crops? It wouldn't surprise me to see people do battle over water in the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
Why do you assume that without money, the only form of commerce left would be prostitution? Like, really, what nonsensical magical story did this come from? What were people doing before monetary systems existed? Just ****ing for corn?
Quite a few did. More so then than now. But only form of commerce left? You were stretching so far you had to of pull a back muscle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
Bare in mind that none of our money means anything. The federal reserve invents new money then sells the money to the US government to use. Somehow, that was determined to be the most practical way. The money itself is fake. We've invented an invisible credit system. This means one thing though: the system can change and we wouldn't even know it. The shift from the gold standard to the credit system we have didn't require any major societal changes. We could easily do it again if we were creative enough and brave enough to go up against the many wealthy people who benefit from our bizarre, eternal debt system we currently have.
As I've told my daughter, a liberal in debt and complaining about "the man" is simply beyond hypocritical. If the 99% decided to quit borrowing, and live within their means, they could theoretically collapse the system. But that would mean no $5 coffee, weekends in Carmel, and iThingies.
No, it is not. Food requires energy, money, and human production to produce. Energy is limitless due to the sun. Money is limitless because it is fiat. That leaves human production as the only constraint. Assuming the human population is stable, human production is stable. In fact, human production actually increases as technology and education increases.
I'll repeat again, solar energy is in fact unlimited for the next 5 billion years. Solar requires producing enough solar panels to power a stable human population (human production is required to produce solar energy). Money again is limitless because it is fiat. It only "exists" because the laws society lives by give it value.
Science 101:
Water is a renewable resource. Water just changes state. Fresh water is irrelevant, as humans have the technology to purify and / or desalinate non-fresh water reserves. The only constraint again is money (unlimited) and human production (sustainable assuming a stable population).
Resources require human production, which is sustainable indefinitely assuming adequate food and replacement level population.
Umm....................
That was the most confused collection of tripe I have read in a long time; Your "solution" relies upon circular reasoning to "explain" how every resource in the world should be "free", with the main culprit being capitalism.
Tell me.......................................... were resources unlimited in pre-Biblical times prior to capitalism?
You suggest that somehow "Money" (which is not currency and vice versa) is unlimited and is restricted only by fiat. That is INSANE. "Money" is a symbol for a unit of transfer and trade which represents limited resources, i.e. LABOR (the biggest factor), ENERGY (no, it is not unlimited unless one has the power to unlock those unlimited resources), FOOD (again- we have already reached "peak food" and are in global ag decline), MATERIALS ("grow" me a walnut forest- STAT!), and WATER (like energy, water is limited by the costs required to obtain it).
Your insane assumption presumes that one can simply snap your fingers and produce whatever you want, like Barbara Eden from "I Dream of Jeanie".
Keep in mind that ALL ENERGY is limitless, as mass and energy are one in the same. So is time and gravity (please review Einstein's equations). We can simply "snap our fingers", create cold fusion, and PRESTO! - energy problem solved.
Your "analysis" is akin to a Monty Python skit about a television show called "How To Do It", in which John Cleese plays offers simplistic, impossible "simple" solutions to the major problems of the world. That skit was just as funny as your post.
Throw breathing in there and you've the three most important things needed to sustain life. So why are people still starving and why are there droughts that hurt crops? It wouldn't surprise me to see people do battle over water in the future.
People are starving because food is only primarily sold in places where it's profitable. Store in the US throw out tons of food every week. If that food were sent to places where poverty was running rampant, and sold cheaply or donated, there'd be less hunger in the world. But that's not what makes money.
Droughts happen. We have the knowledge and ability to produce infrastructure to transport large amounts of water to areas that are experiencing a drought. We just don't do that, probably because it's costly.
And yes, it's quite possible people will battle over supply of fresh water, but that SHOULD be entirely avoidable. We can develop technology to purify water and have an abundance of water.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
Quite a few did. More so then than now. But only form of commerce left? You were stretching so far you had to of pull a back muscle.
I wasn't the one asserting that it would be the only commerce left. I know that to be false.
Plenty of places all over the world had simplified trade systems that did not rely on a monastery system prior to European colonizations. The Americas had a variety of economies. Some were basically communist and traded with other villages, some traded within villages, and some did have monetary systems. There are plenty of ways to change an economic system, but if we rigidly assume the way it works now is the only working way, we possibly restrict ourselves from bettering the system.
Not really. We have the technology to purify water relatively easily and there is more than enough food in the world too feed everyone.
And how, pray tell, do we connect all 6 billion people on Earth with this unlimited potable water and edible food?
Did someone invent replicator technology so that even the nomad in the desert or the slumdog beggar can simply walk up to one, say the name of the food or drink they would like and it just appears?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
