I think that getting the developing world to become developed will be the best thing for controlling global population as birth rates drop as living standards and education rise. Capitalism plays a part. People want to better themselves if they can see they might be better off or at least have more options. Its difficult to see that here as we’ve become somewhat nonchalant about schooling but kids in poorer nations seem to want it more.

Of course that’s all not great for fossil fuels though but I think technology will provide a solution. Sadly our inability to cooperate has meant that we’ve left it too late and capitalism will have to fix the problem and it will be a very bumpy ride that will no doubt worsen some people’s lives.

I’m not talking about untypical examples Trailmonkey & Stoner, I talking about expected averages – in most respects I consider myself fairly average.

you have neither grazed knuckles, nor a propensity to grunt GG, therefore you too are not the expected average of a site chippy 🙂

Ernie – I don’t agree with you on a lot of points but have a great deal of respect for the clarity of your thinking. I would suggest you are far from average. No homo.

From anyone else I might I have considered that to be an insult Stoner, but from you, not least because of your presumed recent experiences, I take that it’s tongue in cheek. I my own extensive personal experience, the typical building worker appears to be slightly more “intelligent” than average, the reason for, I have never really completely understood.

So what have we learnt in STW school lately then, big words are good and small brains rock ❓

Also that the big bad tree’s and plants have been defeated by the righteous capitalists and that the lovely carbon monoxide/dioxide flavoured air is now free for everyone globaly.

Which has a useful side effect, that means that the pesky natural shield that once protected the planet from asteroids and meteorites or other space debris, now lets far more in. So long **** shield, you have been REJECTED!

Also being outside now gives you a tan in far less time and comes with free scin cancer too, woo hoo!

Actually free flavoured stuff like water, air and soil aka pollution are now everywhere and free.

If a few billion people starve or suffer and a few million get murdered, raped or tortured, well it’s all in the name of progress.

Also if a global catastrophe should come along and catch humanity with it’s proverbial pants down, I’m sure the habbit of not working together and being selfish bastards, will not mean that we can’t work together or sacrafice for each other to over come it ❓

Yes I see now that capitalism is a good thing, that what it offers (slavery) is far more important than what it takes away! (freedom).

keep up kaesae – we’ve moved on from Economics 101* to Ernie Ego Massaging.

If you still need remedial lessons we’ll do a revision class after Newsround.

Torminalis – I don’t want to get any further bogged down on issues which have nothing to do with this thread, but you are wrong in your conclusion imo. ‘Clarity of thinking’ has nothing necessarily to do with intelligence or its average. I like to use the evolutionist vs creationist argument because it shows that despite the fact that a creationist can, quite unbelievably, actually be “intelligent”, they may still lose an argument against a “less intelligent” evolutionist. The evolutionist might well show greater ‘clarity of thinking’ despite being less educated/academic/intelligent/etc. Any further comments on the issue ought to be on another thread imo.

JustAnotherLogin – Member

I think that getting the developing world to become developed will be the best thing for controlling global population as birth rates drop as living standards and education rise.

it’s not the number of people that’s the problem, but the amount we consume, a small number of educated/rich people will consume more than a bigger population of uneducated/poor people.

Ernie, I made no mention of intelligence. Nuff said.

Sorry Torminalis, I took “No homo” to be a reference to Homo Erectus.

Were you talking about my sexuality then ?

No homo = ‘I may respect you, but I do not wish to see your bottom’

the pesky natural shield that once protected the planet from asteroids and meteorites or other space debris

The what now?

Kaesae, we don’t think capitalism is good. However we have very little choice unfortunately.

i think quite clearly summarizes my feelings on this whole debate:

to all of you, no homo x

Stoner – Member
keep up kaesae – we’ve moved on from Economics 101* to Ernie Ego Massaging.

If you still need remedial lessons we’ll do a revision class after Newsround.

Sorry old chap, one didn’t realize this had because a massaging session. When you’re finsihed with ernies ego could you deal with the tension in my pants ❓

kaesae – if it isn’t the right answer, what is? I’ve not seen your manifesto for the alternative, but is that because it is easier to just throw stones at what is there?

Capitalism with greater regulation, the free market is only good for those controlling the companies. And profit should be kept out of public services.

TooTall – Member
kaesae – if it isn’t the right answer, what is? I’ve not seen your manifesto for the alternative, but is that because it is easier to just throw stones at what is there?

Even if I had the answer, how would you propose I implement it?

The point of this thread isn’t to massage my ego, it’s to raise awareness for the issue and see what solutions can be put forwards.

I have already said that capitalism has some very good aspects, however the current system of hyper capitalism where the lust for wealth and power has created a vacuum of instability and has also created a system where by the negative effects on the planet or environment and the peoples living on it, far outweigh the positive.

This cannot be allowed to continue as it makes it less likely that we as a species will survive. I have also said that we as consumers can decide which companies and organisations to support and should be looking to have a greater say in where the resources are going and what is being done with them.

In short my point is this, if change is to happen it must be a conscious swing towards all of us being involved in that change, yes it will take a great amount of work. That said the, let us do your thinking for you! way of life that capitalism has always relied on and that hyper capitalism now promotes so skillfully, is simply not working.

Lifer – Member
Capitalism with greater regulation, the free market is only good for those controlling the companies. And profit should be kept out of public services.

We cannot wait for these fools and their allies in politics to regulate themselves. It simply will not happen, we need to actively decide if and where we give support to companies and organizations.

Having come to this thread v late (probably good thing in terms of avoiding ego massaging and bottom smelling) I think the point about capitalism is this – it’s crap, it leads to disproportion and increasing inequality (and equality, as we now know, is an index of how happiness is perceived), not to mention periodic catastrophic crisis, starvation and war. It’s not that ‘there’s no alternative’, but that the political and ideological apparatus of capitalism worldwide does everything in its power to strangle and pervert all possible alternatives at birth………..its ideological power is immense and it is this which keeps our brains enslaved and unable of being able to conceive of a world without the profit motive.

OK all you neo-cons and right wing goons – come and get me!

and equality, as we now know, is an index of how happiness is perceived

Is it ? really ? acording to whose worldview ? I should imagine there are vast swathes of humanity for whom the concept has little meaning towards their happiness.

in fact the concept of hapiness being linked to gdp or any other kind of economic stats form the basis of the argument for capitalism that you seem to be arguing against.

confused, devon.

it’s crap, it leads to disproportion and increasing inequality (and equality, as we now know, is an index of how happiness is perceived),

As already mentioned on the thread, the concept that its ok for the poor to be poorer as long as the rich are less rich is pointless -The truth is that the wealthier those around you are, the better off you are. This is very important. The more wealth your neighbours have, the more they can buy. The economies of scale drive prices down, increasing your standard of living, and decreasing your cost of capital so you can increase your productivity and further increase your standard of living. One man possessing enormous wealth does in no way negatively affect any other people, unless he uses that wealth as a means to initiate force.

The saying should be: the rich get richer and the poor get richer. Everyone gets richer under capitalism where they are free to do so.

not to mention periodic catastrophic crisis,

A squirrel collects nuts for the winter, if he works hard and collects enough he has enough to last him till next spring – does this repeated boom and bust cycle indicate that nature, as a system, does not work?

starvation

Name a capitalist democracy that has suffered a famine? I can point you towards more than enough communist famines…

and war.

Free trade stops wars!… And we figure out a way to fix the rest

It’s not that ‘there’s no alternative’, but that the political and ideological apparatus of capitalism worldwide does everything in its power to strangle and pervert all possible alternatives at birth… its ideological power is immense and it is this which keeps our brains enslaved and unable of being able to conceive of a world without the profit motive.

Can you point me towards a single communist democracy? I do not recall West Berliners being shot for trying to escape the evil capitalist West!

Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures, the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge, has marked the upward surge of mankind…!

There are problems with managed economies. There are other problems with un-managed economies.

So, the problem is with economies. I wonder if it went wrong when someone invented money.

it [capitalism] leads to disproportion and increasing inequality (and equality, as we now know, is an index of how happiness is perceived), not to mention periodic catastrophic crisis, starvation and war.

War (or conflict) seems to have been a part of human history since the beginning. Inequality very likely has as well. Starvation a function of capitalism? China, North Korea and Ethiopia’s recent experiences with famine don’t tell me that story, but I’m open to the idea that I’m misremembering things I didn’t know that much about in the first place.

Oh, and a secular ‘Amen’ to the thought above that there’s nothing like free trade to make folk friendly!

It’s not that ‘there’s no alternative’, but that the political and ideological apparatus of capitalism worldwide does everything in its power to strangle and pervert all possible alternatives at birth………..its ideological power is immense and it is this which keeps our brains enslaved and unable of being able to conceive of a world without the profit motive.

I have no idea where to begin regarding possible alternatives – any reading on thinking that has been done on this would be appreciated but right now I can’t think of a better system than capitalism for dragging standards of living uphill. And IMO alternatives would need to bear in mind that human nature isn’t evolving – the alternative would need to take us as we are.

Maybe a simpler question, is it possible to “conceive a world without the profit motive” while still keeping (broadly speaking) my current lifestyle (bike bits, food from a supermarket, lovefilm, etc)?

The saying should be: the rich get richer and the poor get richer. Everyone gets richer under capitalism where they are free to do so.

Ah, see here’s the thing; ‘where they are free to do so’.

One man possessing enormous wealth does in no way negatively affect any other people,

how can the man posses great wealth without me[us] being worse off?
imagine I work in the factory – they could give up the great wealth and pay me/us more for example
If we have 100 nuts and 5 squirrels and one of them has 65 nuts are the others squirrels really no worse off because of it’s great wealth compared to sharing the nuts equally? Comparing capitalsim to a squirrel collecting nuts made me smile but it is nuts.
IGMC

Problem there Junky is that rich squirrels great, great granddad, instead of eating one of his nuts, planted it in the ground – Its called return on investment, without that return there would be no incentive to plant the nut and grow the tree – he might as well have just eaten the nut himself…
and if granddad hadn’t planted the tree in the first place, you would have no ‘king nuts at all 😉

The real beauty of capitalism, is that the squirrel with 65 nuts now has more nuts than he can eat himself, so goes and plants five of them in the ground, so in a few years theres more trees and more nuts than ever before – and you know the other beauty of capitalism, you and a few of the other squirrels could go and plant a nut yourself, and go into competition with him by growing your own tree!

Elfin – Yes, capitalism is clearly to blame for the existence of a trade that has gone on for thousands of years and in every single major society from the Egyptians to the Romans and Ancient greece, but was outlawed and prevented by force only under the Globally Capitalist society of the British Empire…

That is a fascinating ramble there but you omitted to just answer the question – with the unequal sharing of the nuts how are the others not worse of as you claim ?

The real beauty of capitalism, is that the squirrel with 65 nuts now has more nuts than he can eat himself, so goes and plants five of them in the ground,

Whilst the others who, whilst apparently not being negatively affected by this, cannot survive the winter and starve- that is the very ugly side of inequitious wealth distribution inherent in capitalism. I assume you can see plenty examples in the real world we live in – Elfin even gave you a picture to help

No one in their right mind could argue. That wasting so much human life, which is our greatest resource, could be anything other than illogical and psychotic.

The assumption is that our evolution over the last few hundred years has been fuelled by capitalism, that somehow it is responsible for our technological advancement.

It could also be argued that without war, we would be far less advanced technologically, however if starvation and oppression, if tyranny and injustice is what humanity needs to motivate it, then humanity has gone mad.

To propose, that the capacity to accomplish all that we as a race have. Only exists when you have capitalism to drive our race, is for me simply preposterous.

However regardless of how we came to this point in time, we now require new leadership, that possesses great scope of vision.

We also require that we are involved in the decisions that determine the future of our race and that those who have power over us are held accountable when their actions are detrimental to our races development and evolution.

Humanity has become arrogant and complacent, the universe is a big place with a lot of change happening all the time, we have no idea what the future holds for us.

That said, if we cannot run the planet even when everything is going smoothly. What chance do we really stand if anything goes wrong?

The draw backs to the system far outweigh the advantages, for that reason alone we must look to either reform the existing system or replace it alltogether.

how are the others not worse of as you claim

Junky – without the (capitalist) incentive to plant the tree in the first place, you’d ALL be worse off, because there wouldn’t be ANY nuts!

You seem to be missing the point zulu-eleven, under capitalism you would need 25 squirrels to plant the nut and at least 25% to 50% of the nuts would go missing.

Plus the other squirells would all swap their nuts for tooth pics and stab the greedy bastard to death.

If there was capitalism in the squirrel kingdom that is.

Anyone read Tony Judt’s Ill Fares the Land, Postwar or the Memory Chalet? I’ve only read the latter, but have the other two kicking around. Great stuff.

The truth is that the wealthier those around you are, the better off you are

Mexico City (8th richest city in the World):

http://www.hardrainproject.com/hrpl.php?n=1392

Sao Paulo (10th richest city in the World):

Buenos Aires (13th richest city in the World):

Hong Kong (16th richest city in the World):

Mumbai (29th richest city in the World):

Manila (40th richest city in the World):

Wonders where first capitalist squirrel found first nut without capitalism to grow tree from which nut fell.

those photos are so depressing 🙁

Lifer – That is a truly fantastic post.

Right, I would never claim to be fully clued up with regard to economic theory, although Id like to think I can understand the basic principles. With all the current talk of economics etc, a question I keep coming back to is how the worlds #1 economy / economic powerhouse for most of the last century / and champion of free market economics has currently run up debts of 14 trillion…

usdebtclock

Looking at the big picture, as a system for wealth creation, this capitalism idea doesn’t seem entirely sustainable?

Should I start converting my lawn into a vegetable patch or a bunker?

Those photos are depressing, but are the problems of over-population really capitalism’s fault?

loco, have a look here: http://www.survivalistboards.com/. I’ve also got a link somewhere to choosing the most defensible home in a suburban development. It’s US centric (so assumes US style subdivisions and ready access to weaponry), but still…

Thanks Markie, fingers crossed I can get credit/mortgage/loan for some survival equipment. 😀

but are the problems of over-population really capitalism’s fault?

No, lots of factors contribute to over-population, but it wouldn’t be a problem if

The truth is that the wealthier those around you are, the better off you are

Which was the point of my post.