Economics and China

[kandrathe]

All very excellent points; touche. And I fully agree that the sentiment of ending world hunger and equality is what we all desire across the broad spectrum of political ideologies.

Thanks. I like civil discussions.

So, my only retort to your comments is that if, as a planet, we did drastically cut-back on our intake of consumable goods and non-renewable resources to extend the sustainability of our increasing population, I am most certain that without a way to supplant the lost income these mega corporations would lose due to such an act, we'd see a new Great Depression destitute our economies. A slow, graceful cutting back of commodities might work... over time, however the stock exchange is not going to take that sitting down, and I feel this is more of an all-or-nothing type deal that would take decades of a different mindset than currently runs the major countries of this world.

Mostly, I think anything knee jerk and sudden impacts markets adversely. The stock market is really only speculation on what the value of corporations will be in the future.

If a corporation changes their products to be more sustainable, and profitable, it should impact the price of that corporation stock favorably. However, if they are dependent on say rare earth magnets, then stock holders may not have confidence in my long term viability, and every time there appear shortages, that company would be unable to fulfill orders, and their stock value would plummet.

With our (as species) track record of legislation through crisis - as in waiting until the final moment to make a decision - I am most certain we will not see anything resembling this logic until we've reached a point of no return, and then what? Some people like to say, "look at the here and now", others say, "look towards the future". Perhaps I am a bit of a dreamer, but I don't see anyway our countries will force its citizens to ever cut back on commodities now or in the future, so I'm trying to view alternatives.

Well, yes. Politics is a mechanism of populism, and not pragmatism. Hence, the Trump, and/or Sanders.

I feel that Obama failed in principle to make his promised "Change" in transitioning away from a Petrodollar economy. My guess is he expected the status quo (from 2008, oil demand was peaking and price was soaring above $100/barrel) to aid him as a "stick" in driving the economy away from oil, and providing the political populism in providing government "carrots" in the transition. For an example of carrots, my sister (who lives in California) was able to lease an electric car with a buyout of $15,000. The California, and Federal rebates added up to $15,000. In essence, she had a 2 year lease at a reasonable monthly cost, with a free car at the end. Who wouldn't want that if they had a relatively short commute?

It's funny, but I was discussing this very concept with my wife in the car yesterday and we pretty much agreed that the easiest and best way to go about starting this revolution is if all governments started taxing companies that didn't use recyclable goods for all products that didn't expire after 15-years, as in all products, such as cell-phones, computers, cars, etc.., would have to be designed specifically to last a minimum of 15-years, with a steep penalty per violation. All devices would be required to have a 15-year warranty that would allow faulty parts to be swapped out at minimal charge to the owner. This would be the start of weening mega-corporations to renewable resources, and allowing them time to find other ways to make their money instead of from raw commodities, such as excellent customer service and software, while also getting customers into the mindset of keeping what they have, and possibly just exchanging parts. Such as, keep your phone case and lcd screen, but swap the motherboard inside. Little things such as this could save the planet. This, combined with my vision for Mars, is my ideal situation for the future.

No, I don't think I would support that level of tyranny. Somebody owns the mineral rights to that land, and has the right to earn a reasonable profit from mining it and selling it as a commodity. If it becomes in short supply, they can jack up the price until nobody can afford it. That is how our world works. Government taxing can only distort the natural systems of supply and demand.

It is WE the consumers, who need to make better choices by understanding OUR consumption power. At some point it comes down to morality, and we need to have a moral society. This may not mean what you think it means. I mean that when we know coffee, or cocoa is harvested by slaves, WE should choose not to buy it, rather than participate in an immoral system. It is our demand, and tacit approval that can then be used by those who would exploit others for their profits. But, yes, there should still be laws prohibiting slavery. I just can't see a global legal system able to hold rogues to honor. Case in point, incandescent light bulbs... they have been outlawed. Do you think I could still get them? {answer}

Also, the amount we consume may be immoral. We buy too much, prepare too much, consume too much, and end up disposing of too much. Meanwhile, those with less wealth in this world are not getting their needs met.