Economics and China

[kandrathe]

Before I bow out of this portion of the discussion as we return this topic back towards China, I'd like to comment how I've noticed over the years your opinions have changed, as have mine. I'm not implying anything negative or positive, just an observation. I find it intriguing that concepts a person once held onto so adamantly at one point in their life can be altered in a few short years by having a few new life experiences. It just goes to show that there really is no room for bigotry, intolerance, or arrogance when it comes to disputing the opinions of others... a life lesson for me that has taken years to assimilate.

I guess I'd say I've been somewhat consistent, but still some type of malleable metal. There is not much point in having an open minded conversation, if you enter the conversation as closed and certain of your position. I'm also not so sure there is just one right answer on some stuff.

I still have some very classically liberal/fiscally conservative (Austrian) notions, and I remain a more socially liberal "live and let live" kind of person in most other matters. I have a personal belief system, but I have no interest in cramming it down anyone's craw. I respect each person's opinion, and rights to their own world view as long as they aren't cramming it down my craw either. I know I used to trust the US government more than I do now, which was never too much.

Some of my empathy might be the natural empathy you develop for other families, when you have one of your own. I used to loathe parents who brought their kids to restaurants. Until, I tried to take mine to restaurants for the first 10-12 years.

But seriously, for example, Syrian refugees. I can only imagine how incredibly horrible it must be to leave everything you know behind, to head out with only what you can carry, with your spouse and young children, into a dangerous unknown future. Or, to be mistakenly drone striked by the US in a country who is not at war with the US.

I used to be so brash and confrontational, lol; memories. Take care.

Used to be? :-) j/k. Cheers.

[eppie]

Copper is self sanitizing. Same reason some hospitals are starting to use copper door knobs and fixtures.

True. I think there are some plastics that can also be anti-microbial.

It probably comes down to price and availability of a pipe, fixture, or a door knob. I prefer metal fixtures, but then again I'm not all that ecologically focused sometimes in my more emotionally driven purchases, like water faucets. So, Feng yuck, who'd want a plastic water faucet?

There is more than enough copper in the world. The only issue is getting it in its useful metallic form, and the amount of energy you can spend on that. So it is an energy issue more then a material issue actually.

[kandrathe]

There is more than enough copper in the world. The only issue is getting it in its useful metallic form, and the amount of energy you can spend on that. So it is an energy issue more then a material issue actually.

Imagine a world where everyone consumed like an American.



I guess my concern is more economic, and down range. I feel what hurts the average and poor people most are rapid changes brought about by boon, bust cycles which add instability to our lives. We suddenly find we cannot afford the needed daily staples, and we lose our jobs, savings, retirement funds, and sometimes access to needed services, such as health care.

I propose this happens when economic activity surpasses economic growth, resulting in what I would call "artificial demand". This isn't just *real* demand, but also hypothetical, or ginned up demand made by offering consumers deals that are "too good to be true". It pushes the ability of the economy to deliver commodities to the limits of their capability, whether that be the number of earth moving trucks, miners, oil workers, pipelines, tankers, ports, rails, or whatever. There is a peak capacity set for any and all together the movement of stuff through the system, and we hit the roof sometimes. When we do, consistently, over a period of months the result is a recession, or mini-depression as demand drives the prices of limited commodities beyond the economies ability to factor them into current inventory, costs, and the profitability of doing the thing in the first place.

For example, if the cost of the commodities needed to make a car rises by $10K in a year, it exceeds my employers capability (or willingness) to give me the corresponding raise to enable me to afford that new car. And, if my employer does decide to compensate me at the new "cost of living" set by the fluctuating economy, now many kids won't be able to afford to attend our fine university due to tuition hikes, nor to drive to school with the price of fuel at $10/gallon. This is the suffering on the boon side.

Then, Ford can't sell cars, and kids can't afford to go to school. Businesses fail, people get laid off, the prices on everything plummet, and people suffer on the bust side, until things stabilize, and the dust settles. Then, if the infrastructure for the economy remains intact, (or after a little rebuilding) then we find we are not at peak load, but can again move goods efficiently, with things reset to within reasonable operating capacity, with prices that people can afford within their wages.

I think the economy operates more like stop and go traffic on the freeway, where 8AM and 5PM are the peak loads. The only differences is that in the real economy, the boon times, and bust times actually destroy the roads and bridges.

China's emergence is akin to doubling the number of vehicles on the road every year, and the worlds infrastructure is hardly able to cope. Plus, the bigger it gets, the more damage is done, on every cycle. Some argue this is somewhat the nature of a free market economy, with winners and losers. Unfortunately, the "losers" have become the 99.99% middle and lower classes, while the winners remain the worlds top .01%

[Taem]

NASA plans on sending a team to Mars by 2025, it's already in the works. If it turns out to be highly habitable, then guess what, we can supplant part of our population by mining that planet for resources and everyone wins... people, corporations, the planet.

This does not make practical sense, at least in my view. The predominant problem in interplanetary travel is the presence of gravity wells. As Kim Stanley Robinson put it, "The hardest part is leaving Earth behind." Mars is smaller, but the resource base for getting minerals off it is nonexistent. Asteroid mining is a far easier method of obtaining just about anything you could want than strip mining Mars, with the bonus that you get them already in space.

In any case, the capacity to mine Mars is at barest minimum 50 years away, probably more like a century or two, if we're talking economic viability. It's too far away, the infrastructure (including an atmosphere!) is too undeveloped, and the alternatives are too easy.

As for "if it turns out to be highly habitable," I'm not sure what you mean. Mars has no atmosphere, no biosphere, no soil, and almost no nitrogen. Even under ideal conditions, where there are no real impediments to terraforming, a Mars capable of relieving population pressures on Earth is centuries or even millennia away.

-Jester

Indeed, I didn't do any realistic research on this whatsoever; I was merely musing fanciful notions, trying to pass them off as hope. Asteroid mining sounds like it has potential, but doesn't even remotely solve the issues this topic has brought up, looks like that idea has crashed and burned. Thank you for your input on the matter.

I just read an article on the upcoming movie The Martian, and apparently the writer of the original book and director Ridley Scott took great care to ensure all science was as accurate as possible, and the article had quips from NASA scientists whom helped with the film. In short, growing plants on Mars would be possible, however the most major pitfall the team admittedly didn't address was the effects of radiation on humans - maybe the Martian grows tons of seaweed for the iodine to flush the radiation from his system .

A bit unrelated, however I'm not so certain soil farming is even necessary anymore. My neighbors have a self-sustaining soil-less system in their backyard - known as Aquaponics - which takes the waste from a tank of trout (that they get to harvest bi-monthly I believe) and uses that waste to nourish plants, via a continually running water pump system, which are growing atop lose gravel - no soil required! He has several beds filled with flourishing plants with no soil, some in vertical growers. As a side-note, I sometimes work with an employee who is *very* enthusiastic about marijuana growing (legally) and grows without sunlight using leds which give off the ultraviolet light the plants need to survive. Combining the two concepts, apparently scientists have created a "perfect" system for feeding the world, and I would imagine keeping astronauts fed on other planets: How We'll Grow Food In The Future.

[Taem]

@kandrathe re: our discussion on the world being unsustainable as human population grows.

I've read a few interesting articles in the interim of our last discussion on the topic in this thread, and was surprised to find two separate articles in Popular Science today touching on these concepts in a very direct way. The first one I quoted back to Jester regarding plant growth on another planet. The second one regards mass extinction on our planet: How To Survive The Sixth Mass Extinction. It's ironic that the models predicted by this survey of the rate current species on our planet are going extinct match precisely my observations of other reports detailing humans mass consumption and waste destroying this planet. You can deny all you want in disbelief, but I think at this point the writing is on the wall here, and as I said before, without "intervention", nothing will stop this train until it is already too late, and as we both concluded, people generally don't desire change so until its past the point of no return, nothing will change.

You may not like what I'm about to say, however it’s sad but true: as a species, humans generally only think about themselves; I’ve always maintained this and brought forth plenty of empirical evidence during our conversations of altruism and the true motive behind every good deed. To change, it takes a great leader to see a greater future and stand up to the idiots and unite the people, and this --->always<--- requires the use of force. Looking back at history, you'd know there would not be any great nations, any industrial revolution, any progress had someone one day not stood up and said to themselves, "if we can unite these provinces, we can stop fighting and have peace and free trade and offer better protection from barbarian hordes", and thus many a king conquered for years, always to make their country great, even if that meant defeating a tribe of peaceful squatters just for their resources. All the great nations were formed due wholly to this very concept, and without it, I dare say we'd still be in the stone-age. And as you well know, the heroes and villains are one and the same - you're role depends on if you are the winning side or the losing side. As a related side-note and nod do Godwin, it’s ironic that Stalin is a hero in Russia after his well-known genocide tactics rivalling that of Hitler, yet Stalin accomplished much good for his country during his reign! Ironically, it can be surmised that had Hitler won the war, he’d also be a folk hero in Germany as Stalin is in Russia. History has a sick sense of humor.

Stalin set goals for within a 5 year period. In that period, dissenters and people who were suspected of anything bad were sent to gulags. Gulags were basically work camps. He brutally used them to modernize Russia. Many dams and bridges were built connecting cities in the Soviet Union (it was a vast territory.) He built up the military and suppressed the many factions that vied for power in Russia bringing a sense of security. He united Russia against the so called "evils of capitalism". He brought Russia's economy up. In one instance, his countrymen were starving, yet he took the farmers' grain and exported it all for cash. What he did was brutal, but before he came in power, Russia was a hundred years behind the leading powers. In a period of just 15 or so years, he brought Russia to #2 in the world next to Britain and the U.S.

So let’s bring it forward: what does this have to do with our current situation, you ask? This world will not change on its own, and to wait for everyone to "wake up" is to wait until it is already too late – our sixth great extinction will take us as well. The problem is we've lived in peace and passivity for so long, that the ebb and flow is in dire need of a dictator who will set the world straight though force to save the planet because the bitter truth is when someone tries to use logic or peace to move the mass in this day and age, their means are often twisted to a darker agenda if not directly subverted. I believe the world requires a strong political force to enrapture the world, rallying the majority against the greater evils of our generation(s) of decadence and wanton waste, with the cause of the day to destroy the modern world and those who oppose, or more specifically, those who oppose change. Those in power whose interest lie in money, and the effects of greed through (I hate to use one of FIT's monikers here) Capitalism will fight this battle to the bitter end defending their wealth, while those who want to help the world before it’s too late will fight against them. And with foresight, should this great dictator win and rechristen the world a planet of sharing, where there is plenty of food for everyone, where all products are grown in farms and everything recycled so our seas and forests are not depleted or polluted and our wildlife is let to flourish once again, this individual will be looked upon as a great revolutionary with magnanimous vision and foresight who not only saved the planet, but brought it into a new age out of the severe state of greed and copious consumption it was in. We need an "emperor" to bring balance to the force. Anyway, assuming the necrosis of our planet through felodese (what else could it be since we already know the truth about our planet and resources), I only see this solution as a possibility looking forward into my children's generation or possibly one more after that before we've passed the point of no return. The world will not change on its own. I should be a science fiction writer .

EDIT: Hahahaha, I made it sound as if I were saying Hitler did great things in his lifetime. Reworded to make sense!

[FireIceTalon]

The only good thing Hitler accomplished during his tenure was putting a bullet in his own head - was the best thing he ever did. The only good thing Stalin did was winning the war to ensure this happened, though it also had the unfortunate and terrible consequence of the Red Army committing various atrocities against German citizens, including the brutalizing and raping of German women.

As for Stalin still being a hero to Russians, what evidence do you have to support this notion? Saying that the Germans are more ashamed of the Nazi regime than the Russians are of Stalin's rule is not enough and tells us very little. If anything, it is more likely Lenin who still resonates, to some extent, with some Russian citizens. But that is neither here or there. A more fundamental question is, who the hell cares? Either way, it is all just 'Great Man' theory rhetoric which is of little use; whether for advocating change or for a tool to explain history. The fact history vindicates one tyrant over another is not of importance, nor should it be.

Indeed, the world will not change on its own; all change (past, present and future) has and will require human agency. But specifically now, only the world proletariat - not an individual - is capable of achieving genuine, revolutionary change and emancipating all of humanity from barbaric social relations that now constitute our world. One individual trying to change the world to THEIR will never work (history has shown this), because no individual is or can be that powerful, ever. The old cliche (but true) still applies - "Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past". Napoleon and Hitler learned this the hard way. All persons, regardless of how much power they hold, are constrained by the larger social and historical forces that drive history forward; the 'internal logic' of the present order of things so to say.

If history does have a sick sense of humor, it is because it almost always is written from the perspective of those who rule society (namely those who own private capital or manage its affairs) and sold to the rest society as truth or fact. Thankfully, some of us (though not nearly enough), have the wits not to buy it. Our public education system, which favors standardized testing over critical thinking, and teaches respect for authority over self-determination, is both a tool to perpetuate this way of thinking about history as well as a reflection of it. All so that the imperialist, capitalist war machine can churn out more wage slaves, as it must so the system can recycle its very own existence; again it is part of the systems 'internal logic'. But I digress.

[LavCat]

Most species only think about themselves.

[kandrathe]

So let’s bring it forward: what does this have to do with our current situation, you ask? This world will not change on its own, and to wait for everyone to "wake up" is to wait until it is already too late – our sixth great extinction will take us as well.

I'm more in the camp of... Climate Change is not our fault

However, as the article indicates, we are responsible for it, and to mitigate the harms we've already committed.

From my perspective as an astronomer, human beings and the cultures we've created are just another expression of the planet. We're not inherently bad or anti-nature. We're just something the Earth has done and, if you look at it, we've done it pretty well. Without intending to, we changed the atmospheric radiation transport properties of an entire planet.

That's kind of remarkable for a bunch of hairless apes.

Now the question for the age is; Now that we realize what we are doing, how are we going to stop doing it without freezing in the winters, or giving up our amazing transportation capabilities. How do we move forwards without fossil fuels, and not backwards?

The problem is we've lived in peace and passivity for so long, that the ebb and flow is in dire need of a dictator who will set the world straight though force to save the planet because the bitter truth is when someone tries to use logic or peace to move the mass in this day and age, their means are often twisted to a darker agenda if not directly subverted. I believe the world requires a strong political force to enrapture the world, rallying the majority against the greater evils of our generation(s) of decadence and wanton waste, with the cause of the day to destroy the modern world and those who oppose, or more specifically, those who oppose change.

Peace is not a problem, even if it were true. The 20th, and now 21st centuries have shown to be some of the most brutal.

Benevolent Dictatorship is Never the Answer.

Frequently throughout human history, people begin to think, just as you are here, that a consolidation of power will remove the barriers to positive change. This is because they fixate on the fantasy of the "positive change", rather on the reality of how power is shared or how consensus is built in society. The problem is not the lack of centralized power, the problem is the lack of a unified consensus on what we actions should be made, and subsequently who should do, or pay for them to be done. But, let's say yes, you get your emperor. Now with unchecked power, what assurances do we have that the fantasy of the "positive change" becomes a reality? If the majority are opposed to the changes, and our emperor imposes the changes "by force" with barrel bombs, and boot heels. What is the result? I think we are seeing it in Syria, with refugees, malnutrition, disease, poverty, suffering, death, a generation lost, and civil wars.

Those in power whose interest lie in money, and the effects of greed through (I hate to use one of FIT's monikers here) Capitalism will fight this battle to the bitter end defending their wealth, while those who want to help the world before it’s too late will fight against them.

And with foresight, should this great dictator win and rechristen the world a planet of sharing, where there is plenty of food for everyone, where all products are grown in farms and everything recycled so our seas and forests are not depleted or polluted and our wildlife is let to flourish once again, this individual will be looked upon as a great revolutionary with magnanimous vision and foresight who not only saved the planet, but brought it into a new age out of the severe state of greed and copious consumption it was in. We need an "emperor" to bring balance to the force.

Ow. Run on sentence much? Capitalism is not to blame either. It is merely the entirely fair proposition that to those who sow the seeds, should reap the harvest. If I have earned much, which I have earned honestly, what right does anyone have to lay claim to my boon?

But, as a society, we must also consider the condition of those who are in the society with us. Peace is easier when people's needs are met. So, it makes logical sense for the person with more, to share some with those who have less. There will always be inequity in wealth. It just needs to be moderated enough to prevent a civil war. My goal is to convince the wealthy to see this logic, and convince them therefore to part with enough to meet the needs of those less well off to prevent suffering. A compassionate capitalism, which for the most part is what we practice in the USA. The trouble is that in "business" much as in the starving survivors in a lifeboat, what you do to survive as a business may not be the ethical thing, and so you maybe should choose an honorable ethical death rather than eat the remaining survivors with you in the boat.

The battle for fairness in society is an ethical one, regardless of the political system attempting to achieve that fairness. The failures in empires, democracies, or totalitarian regimes are ones of ethical failure within all levels of the society. It is as much a fantasy to believe wealthy people will of their own accord share enough to sate to desires of those in need, as it is to believe a benevolent totalitarian will fairly distribute the wealth of the nation. This never happens. Ever. We need systems of checks and balances to prevent the accumulation of too much power in any area of governance, and to blow the whistle on corruption in the other branches of power when it inevitably emerges.

Another point: Our poor in the USA, are quite wealthy by the world standards of poverty. We have more than enough to go around now. It is just some get too much (e.g. where are people obese?) and some get too little. The barriers to getting stuff to the poor are political, more than structural. For those who consume too much, again, it is political supported by a consumerist driven society. We need to convince people to consume less, and we need to adjust our economy to grow by means other than excess consumption.

Anyway, assuming the necrosis of our planet through felodese (what else could it be since we already know the truth about our planet and resources), I only see this solution as a possibility looking forward into my children's generation or possibly one more after that before we've passed the point of no return.

Well, more like an addiction to fossil fuels. If we go cold turkey, we die. We need to find our Methadone, and eventually switch to renewable energy sources.

The world will not change on its own.

Oh, yes, it will. It will continue to change everyday, as it has since it formed. It may just be a world without us, and possibly if we mess it up enough, without any life.

I should be a science fiction writer .

I should be your editor.

[Jester]

We have more than enough to go around now. It is just some get too much (e.g. where are people obese?) and some get too little. The barriers to getting stuff to the poor are political, more than structural.

If the problem with obesity is that some people have "too much," then why does the map of US obesity look like a mirror image of income?



-Jester

Edit: Well, that was certainly a gigantic map.

[kandrathe]

If the problem with obesity is that some people have "too much," then why does the map of US obesity look like a mirror image of income?

I propose possibly;

1. Correlation <> causality.
   
2. The Relationship Between Poverty and Obesity is more complicated than a bottom line figure.
   
3. If poverty can be fattening, then also perhaps obesity may be impoverishing. Obesity: Epidemic or Myth? Poor health leads to less income, more health care, and more poverty. Or, as my doctor assures me regarding my aerobic exercise, " it is a flabby heart that will kill you, so don't worry about getting BMI under 20".
   
4. Poverty in the US, due to food programs, may not indicate the presence of hunger. There may be a dearth of nutrition, but that is more a caloric choice, or lack of choice issue.
   
5. There are some notable issues with your map (and I suspect it's data interpretation). Why are the border areas in Texas, and California (obvious impoverished areas) not obese? Why is Kansas and Missouri, more completely obese? Clearly, there are factors beyond poverty at play, such as those suggested in the article; food choices, sedentary hobbies (lack of exercise), stress, unemployment rates, and regional culture

Here is an interactive US poverty map by county. >click< I see issues with the simple poverty = obesity equation. But clearly, the worse condition would be to find oneself both obese and impoverished.

My thought was more related to a "World View" on wealth and hunger. Which more closely correlates to GNI PPP. WHO's view on global obesity in women.

[Jester]

I propose possibly;

1. Correlation <> causality.

I didn't propose any causality; you did. Specifically, you proposed that "too much" (in the inequality sense, presumably referring to wealth or income) causes obesity. To quote:

We have more than enough to go around now. It is just some get too much (e.g. where are people obese?) and some get too little.

That's what I was responding to. And while a correlation doesn't imply causality, the *opposite* correlation is pretty difficult to square with the cause you propose.

There are some notable issues with your map (and I suspect it's data interpretation). Why are the border areas in Texas, and California (obvious impoverished areas) not obese?

I don't think that's an issue with the map, I think that's a fact of the data. But if I had to guess? Migrant communities, with different cultural characteristics, upbringing, diet, and so on to the average american poor family.

Why is Kansas and Missouri, more completely obese? Clearly, there are factors beyond poverty at play, such as those suggested in the article; food choices, sedentary hobbies (lack of exercise), stress, unemployment rates, and regional culture

No doubt. Who claimed otherwise?

I see issues with the simple poverty = obesity equation.

Me too! But as far as oversimplified equations go, it's a lot closer to true than wealth = obesity, at least for the United States. But so long as you're no longer defending the earlier statement, I'm satisfied.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I see issues with the simple poverty = obesity equation.

Me too! But as far as oversimplified equations go, it's a lot closer to true than wealth = obesity, at least for the United States. But so long as you're no longer defending the earlier statement, I'm satisfied.

I still stand by the "notion" that wealthy nations (e.g. by GNI PPP), by whatever distributive process, results in more obesity for it's citizens.

[Jester]

I still stand by the "notion" that wealthy nations (e.g. by GNI PPP), by whatever distributive process, results in more obesity for it's citizens.

Yeah, but it's Simpson's paradox, innit? (What goes in one direction for the whole, goes in the other for some subgroups.) Richer *countries* are more obese, but within those countries, it's the *poorer* people who are more obese. So there has to be more than just distributional issues going on, some people with too much, others with too little.

It all seems to suggest to me it's processed food which is to blame. The cheapest and easiest way to eat is unhealthily. But it could be all sorts of things.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

It all seems to suggest to me it's processed food which is to blame. The cheapest and easiest way to eat is unhealthily. But it could be all sorts of things.

There is the changing of the US diet, with about 70+% of food consumed being processed and consumer packaged. This is not necessarily an evil, because hey, I like a cookie once in awhile and making cookies from scratch is work. And... let's face it, cookies even the ones I'd make from scratch are a bit of flour and flavor, with a bunch of sugar, and fat. It is convenient to buy them pre-made. But, I consider them a treat, so they get consumed a few at a time. Or, ice cream, or soda pop. Yet, make them cheap enough, and convenient, and it's quite easy to get a big glass of milk and binge on a bunch of cookies. Or, to buy some ale and a bag of Doritos and munch them while watching a weekend sports show. We, as consumers, like the taste even though we know they contain a ton of calories. Many more than we'd burn off raking leaves after the game is over.

Then, there is the decrease in exercise... We won the labor saving device race, and so we have machines do all the work. Cars, and the designs of our urban spaces allow us to drive almost curb to curb. If I didn't push myself to get out and run/walk a mile a day, my exercise would be mostly limited to getting in and out of the car, with 4 brief walks into my office, and home. It's a far cry from what I did growing up on a farm. If you get unhealthy enough, Medicaid will buy you a scooter to get around. I dare you to Google Scooter+Walmart. Remember, you cannot unsee it.

[Taem]

Frequently throughout human history, people begin to think, just as you are here, that a consolidation of power will remove the barriers to positive change. This is because they fixate on the fantasy of the "positive change", rather on the reality of how power is shared or how consensus is built in society. The problem is not the lack of centralized power, the problem is the lack of a unified consensus on what we actions should be made, and subsequently who should do, or pay for them to be done. But, let's say yes, you get your emperor. Now with unchecked power, what assurances do we have that the fantasy of the "positive change" becomes a reality? If the majority are opposed to the changes, and our emperor imposes the changes "by force" with barrel bombs, and boot heels. What is the result? I think we are seeing it in Syria, with refugees, malnutrition, disease, poverty, suffering, death, a generation lost, and civil wars.

Two points; first and foremost, my propositions were mostly off-the-cuff, as I personally would never follow or bend to such a dictator, and would fight against it, even if the ultimate goal was one of benevolence, because as I said in a prior post, I like my gluttonous lifestyle too much to change it. Second, you point out the atrocities happening due to war, but this is true in every war and one of the main reasons I brought up Stalin, because many innocent people will die when a dictator seizes power despite their (leaders) good intentions, but how many more would die had that vision not been fully meted? It’s difficult to say, but if I’m right about my observations regarding our future, then it’s a safe bet to say more lives would be saved than would be lost when you’re looking at a potential mass extinction. Regardless, I never said my imaginary dictator would be benevolent; most conquerors weren’t know as known as “Kind” or “Just”, but as cruel, merciless, or great – I make no qualms about the type of person it’d take to accomplish this “unity”.

Capitalism is not to blame either. It is merely the entirely fair proposition that to those who sow the seeds, should reap the harvest. If I have earned much, which I have earned honestly, what right does anyone have to lay claim to my boon?

But, as a society, we must also consider the condition of those who are in the society with us. Peace is easier when people's needs are met. So, it makes logical sense for the person with more, to share some with those who have less. There will always be inequity in wealth. It just needs to be moderated enough to prevent a civil war. My goal is to convince the wealthy to see this logic, and convince them therefore to part with enough to meet the needs of those less well off to prevent suffering. A compassionate capitalism, which for the most part is what we practice in the USA. The trouble is that in "business" much as in the starving survivors in a lifeboat, what you do to survive as a business may not be the ethical thing, and so you maybe should choose an honorable ethical death rather than eat the remaining survivors with you in the boat.

Sentimental sensationalism; to be sure, my reference to Capitalism was directed towards gluttonous waste and the pursuit of cheaper materials through deforestation, over-mining, and nonuse of recyclable goods when they are clearly available. My next comment about sharing was attempting to tie this logic with *if* the world was conquered, and this leader (or even group, doesn’t have to be a singular entity) forced the wasteful corporations (cell phone makers anyone?) to use farms to grow as many resources as possible while also using recyclable goods. With the world starting to “recover” from its overuse and new mindset of living within its means, I assumed a natural sense of sharing would form from this unity hence I used the word sharing of resources, however I could be sadly mistaken and those in poverty stricken areas might find life even worse than before, and the greedy would find new ways to work within the current system so hence, nothing would actually change on a political level of how things run, but at least we’d have a few more centuries to ponder it. I see this leader not doing these things to “help” society, because our society is beyond all reproach of a level of cynicism for its leaders and institutions. No, this leader would be looked upon as a villain until the day they died, and only after that time would their great vision be realized. This leader would be doing what they do with the express intent of saving our species.

Anyway, if you haven't figured it out by now, that’s why I made the final comment about being a science fiction writer, because my enjoyment comes from fleshing out a concept to its fullest potential, with foresight into the extreme. In real life, I don't think too often about these things, but when I do, I enjoy siting and pondering deeply on them. Seeing everything that is happening to our world currently is like looking at a giant puzzle, and the fact Farmers Almanacs are now coffee coasters when they used to be highly prized for their accuracy confirms again all I’ve seen and heard and gets my thought process going trying to find a reason, looking at all the potential causes and looking way forward. In reality, even if we destroy our planet, I don’t fear our species will go extinct because if the world ever does become uninhabitable, some of our species will live in bio-domes with self-sustaining ecosystems while everyone else, I don’t know what will happen to them, but at least we will survive.

On a related note, here's another interesting thing I read: there is strong evidence that the Amazon rainforest produces its own rain. You can read about it here: link. Also, new evidence has come out showing that the chance of rain decreases with more pollution in the air, so we have a litany of potential problems with this one issue alone (deforestation). Basically, more droughts, but larger typhoons and hurricanes hitting hard and fast but not replenishing the used water because the ground is too dry to absorb it. Again, not a deal breaker, but just another piece in the puzzle.

To investigate changes in Amazonian precipitation and the projections in global climate models, the researchers modeled the relationship between precipitation and moisture flux. As expected, they found that atmospheric conditions play a strong role in the influence of anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change on overall precipitation.

[kandrathe]

Sentimental sensationalism; to be sure, my reference to Capitalism was directed towards gluttonous waste and the pursuit of cheaper materials through deforestation, over-mining, and nonuse of recyclable goods when they are clearly available.

Ok, good, we have some specific examples of what you think might be conspicuous consumption. I've studied this topic well. Who is cutting down the trees? It is being done by desperately poor people who are trying to get richer by exploiting the only "capital" they can get their hands upon. But, not so simple. The populist governments in the area use the topic for their own power gains.

Much like the illegal drug trade, people knowingly break the law to steal the most valuable trees from the forest, while power hungry corrupt officials nod and wink getting to hand out the favors. Put in the best light, the government tried to be more democratic in distributing to the people government owned assets in an attempt to relieve their poverty.

I'm not sure what you mean by "over-mining". When we make a mine we keep going until it's empty, and know it's non-replenishing. Perhaps we sometimes use the metal for useless purposes. I think there is variable success in recycling programs. I was shocked to find that at the hotel I stayed at in South Dakota they had no bins for recyclables. Where I live, I feel we recycle or compost more than other places.

For most of human history, deforestation in the Amazon was primarily the product of subsistence farmers who cut down trees to produce crops for their families and local consumption. But in the later part of the 20th century, that began to change, with an increasing proportion of deforestation driven by industrial activities and large-scale agriculture. By the 2000s more than three-quarters of forest clearing in the Amazon was for cattle-ranching.

So, not so much the "big evil corporations", but rather the result of desperation in a large impoverished mass of people. In despotic terms, if you want to save the rain-forest, depopulate Brazil. Have you heard of the VHEM? It doesn't remove the demand side of consumerism, or those suppliers who are attempting to violate laws. *cough* Lumber Liquidators *cough* But, unlike the "Red Lobster Fleet" vacuuming up all the fish from mostly international waters, things like timber, minerals, or drugs are more of a national issue, where the "product" gets to the docks, or borders with complicity by the populace and local governments. Then, yes, awaiting them at the docks are the capitalist mega ships eagerly gobbling up all the available raw materials. Brazil is currently run by Dilma Rousseff who in the PT had a strongly leftist and socialist past, yet embraced moderation in the early 00's. When you have lots of money you can just entice poor people to commit ecological Armageddon, to rape the earth, in exchange for not having to watch their children die of starvation, or just get an education.

My next comment about sharing was attempting to tie this logic with *if* the world was conquered, and this leader (or even group, doesn’t have to be a singular entity) forced the wasteful corporations (cell phone makers anyone?) to use farms to grow as many resources as possible while also using recyclable goods. With the world starting to “recover” from its overuse and new mindset of living within its means, I assumed a natural sense of sharing would form from this unity hence I used the word sharing of resources, however I could be sadly mistaken and those in poverty stricken areas might find life even worse than before, and the greedy would find new ways to work within the current system so hence, nothing would actually change on a political level of how things run, but at least we’d have a few more centuries to ponder it.

And... to what specific end would more farming, and less phone or efficient use of goods produce? I would say that "whatever is desirable" is the outcome we are striving for now. Perhaps it is the Smart Phone, that enables pure freedom of thought and communication. The ubiquity of the inexpensive smart phone is a type of tech enabled democracy. We don't only hear about the stories of the down trodden, we get live video of repression, and rebellion.


When we decide to do something and make a change we get good results. Even in Brazil...

I see this leader not doing these things to “help” society, because our society is beyond all reproach of a level of cynicism for its leaders and institutions. No, this leader would be looked upon as a villain until the day they died, and only after that time would their great vision be realized. This leader would be doing what they do with the express intent of saving our species.

I doubt an despot could have an ultimate aim of generous benevolence. Power mongers lust for power and crush any hint of opposition. They merely manipulate the exploitation into their favor, getting the means of determining who gets the cream, who gets the whey, and who gets nothing.

In rebuttal, I would suggest that the technological solution is at hand, although slow to emerge. Our lifestyles, and culture are in a tremendous shift right now. Conspicuous consumption is not cool, or an aspiration for most people anymore. We will dance on the edge of the sword, but I don't think we'll succumb to self annihilation by apathy or ignorance. Through our awkward bumbling democratic process we inch towards solutions.

Democracy, then, is key and it is inversely related to inequality. An international study has found that, controlling for per capita income, a more equal distribution of political power, as gauged by degree of political democracy, civil rights, and literacy, correlates with higher environmental quality. In another study of the 50 American states, a more equal distribution of political power correlates with stronger environmental policies.

[FireIceTalon]

Capital is dead labor, that sucks the life out of living labor. That is how it survives and perpetuates itself. The capitalist class as a whole are complete parasites who produce absolutely no social value whatsoever, and live off the (surplus) value created by the producing the class - the working class. Last I checked, that was called theft - just because it is legitimized/legalized by a state and police force doesn't change the fact it is theft (and violent, coercive theft at that).

So I guess the term 'zombie capitalism' can be understood in two ways, firstly by the above, and also by the fact it is seen as almost infallible and brazenly accepted as 'the natural order' of things from its defenders; w/o even the slightest hint of critical thinking involved.

[kandrathe]

Capital is dead labor, that sucks the life out of living labor. That is how it survives and perpetuates itself.

My complaint about our economic system relates more to choices, and how government regulates us into a particular limited set of ruts. These ruts are those most beneficial to the wealthiest .01%. A couple of off hand examples might be regulations eliminating the operation of food carts, or Uber from operating within our city.

The worker (within the allowed boundaries) is free to choose where to add their value, either to participate or to suffer on a subsistence allowance. No one, that I know of legally, is forced to serve at gun point (yet). In that then, the system has the veneer of a participatory endeavor. Labor is the time+skill used to transform a thing, into a new thing, thus adding value to the new thing. The laborer is then entitled to a share of the value they added, which is negotiated with the owner of the things. Again, my complaint is in the dwindling types of choices. I would call it an increasing dearth of freedom for workers to improve their conditions, or the 35 year history of wage stagnation.

The capitalist class as a whole are complete parasites who produce absolutely no social value whatsoever, and live off the (surplus) value created by the producing the class - the working class. Last I checked, that was called theft - just because it is legitimized/legalized by a state and police force doesn't change the fact it is theft (and violent, coercive theft at that).

Examples would help your case. Fire = Ice, because I said it. The proof is left as an exercise.

[FireIceTalon]

Examples? Examples would be the very existence of every single member of the global capitalist class, and the social relation they share with every single member of the existing working class.

It is INDISPUTABLE fact that capital exploits labor - not because I say so, but because it has already been long observed scientifically before anyone's grandparents from this forum was even a thought. Capital HAS to exploit labor to perpetuate its very existence, that is part of the internal logic of the system. The proof is in the fact that the moment a capitalist stops exploiting labor, she/he will go out of business and be driven out of the market from her/his fellow capitalist competitors because he/she cannot produce the necessary capital to be competitive - is this not true? Workers must be exploited under capitalism, and capitalists by the same token, must exploit. This is the underlying social relation and class antagonism that makes capitalism what it is, and no amount of government interference (or lack of) can change that. Call it a 'economic law' of capitalism if you will.

The state and its agencies, such as the police, exist to protect and enforce the rule of private capital. It is an indirect AND direct way of the capitalist class saying " you WILL produce value for us, or else....". The consequences which range from, at best, being completely ostracized, all the way up to, at worst, imprisonment, starvation or death. You say we are not held at gunpoint and forced to work. If you truly think this, you are more naive than I thought. Try organizing a general strike and see what happens, you and your fellow workers would be held at gunpoint pretty quick - not directly by your employer, since they have a private police force to do that for them w/o any of the risk involved. It happens every day around the world, workers getting held at gunpoint, imprisoned, beatin', sprayed with tear gas or shot because they refuse to work, or because they want more crumbs off the table than their rulers are willing to give them. Unless of course, you live on planet Freedonia or Libertopia.

And of course government actions serve the 1%. You are just now figuring this out? Marxists, and other radical leftists of all stripes have known this for over a century now, and we have been telling you that this is the INEVITABLE result in a capitalist system. And time and again, we are proven correct, because once again, that is part of the internal logic of the system. The police, military, courts and lawmakers don't exist to serve the public, they exist to serve the current ruling class. And no, it hasn't become like this in the last few years or decades, it has been this way from DAY ONE.

Capitalism isn't in crisis, it is working EXACTLY as intended. To say otherwise would imply there is 'good' capitalism or 'bad/crony' capitalism, which isn't the case.

What I don't understand though, is this: Lets pretend for a moment there was only 1000 people left on the planet. If one person tried to horde all the resources to him/herself, the other 999 people would be like fuck that, and take it from his/her ass by force. I think we can agree that this is what would happen in that scenario, and rightfully so. Well, what we have, under capitalism, is the SAME EXACT thing, except instead of an individual hording the money or resources, we have a very small CLASS of people doing it, while everyone else is forced to produce value for them so they can live their privileged life and oppress the rest of us - all while giving us little crumbs off the table and calling the system "democratic" and saying the system provides freedom or whatever other buzzwords are in fashion at the time. Its the same exact thing as in the first example, just on a larger scale.

However, I am long disillusioned with the whole thing, and I see through it all for what it really is - regardless of how much propaganda the system throws at me (and believe me, it is alot). Far as I am concerned, any defense of the current order of things is an untenable position.

There is no choice under capitalism for the worker - you either work, or you starve, get imprisoned, shot, or tear gased. You are forced to sell the only thing you own, your labor power, to those who own private property (but produce no social value), in order to survive or face the above consequences. That is not a choice, that is called violent coercion. On top of that, the worker is not compensated even close to the value he/she produces, the vast majority is pocketed by the capitalist, who didn't do ANYTHING to produce that value but gets to keep the lion share just because they owns means of production, and they are backed by a state and police force to ensure this happens (and who will use nothing short of violence to achieve it). These are the harsh indisputable facts, which I do not need to prove as they can (and have long been) empirically observed - just as I don't need to prove that evolution is real, or that the earth rotates around the sun, as these are things that have been scientifically observed and proven already.

If anything, the onus is on you to prove that capital does NOT exploit labor, but because a negative cannot be proven; and because everything I said CAN be, HAS been, and IS materially observed and/or documented in the real world thus shown to be truth, that puts this question to rest. Capital exploits labor, and does so through violent force. There absolutely is no disputing this fact, as it is long beyond debate.

[kandrathe]

Examples? Examples would be the very existence of every single member of the global capitalist class, and the social relation they share with every single member of the existing working class.

It is INDISPUTABLE fact ...

<yawn tunes out ignores rant...>

If anything, the onus is on you to prove that capital does NOT exploit labor, but because a negative cannot be proven; and because everything I said CAN be, HAS been, and IS materially observed and/or documented in the real world thus shown to be truth, that puts this question to rest. Capital exploits labor, and does so through violent force. There absolutely is no disputing this fact, as it is long beyond debate.

So... No examples then?