Economics and China

[kandrathe]

Are we on the precipice of another global economic meltdown, or is this a natural correction to China's inability to sustain 10% growth? There have been some interesting moves by China to un-peg it's currency, which seems to me to have destabilized the global economy.

You may recall, a few years ago I groused about how China manipulated it's economy by artificially setting the value of the yuan. It resulted in a flood of capitalization into China, and spurred their meteoric economic rise over the past decade. I tend to believe in the Newtonian principles of cause and effect, whereas some great boon usually comes at some great cost, although in markets and global economic activity there is not a strict zero sum proposition. There is no free lunch, but sometimes we do seem to get an economic miracle of loaves and fishes when we can formulate win-win-win scenarios for 2 parties and the commons. The vast increase in the consumption of global resources, for example, has benefited the Chinese people and driven world economic growth, but may have long term ecological and economic consequences in the form of pollution, and resource shortages.

Then again, is it fair for only the US and Europe to be resources consumers while the remainder of the world suffers in poverty (defined by lack of consumption)? No, of course not. True leadership (lacking), in the US and abroad, would be positioning our economies to thrive while moving away from non-renewable resources (e.g. petroleum, metal, rare earth, etc). And, we should be planning for intense recycling of certain critical materials (Periodic Table: Mo, Cu, Ni, W, Ti, Co, Re, Pt, RE, Nb, In). Otherwise, like peak oil, we will hit peaks for other important commodities shortly.

What are your thoughts?

[Jester]

There is no free lunch, but sometimes we do seem to get an economic miracle of loaves and fishes when we can formulate win-win-win scenarios for 2 parties and the commons.

/head explodes

I'll think through a more serious reply. But that sentence did my head in something fierce.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I'll think through a more serious reply. But that sentence did my head in something fierce.

I guess the type of scenarios I was thinking of involved something environmentally beneficial, like wind power, which also promoted free trade.

[Taem]

Wind and solar? Maybe. There was an article I read just two weeks ago that conveniently went missing from the net after the stocks dipped, however it was an impartial study made to observe the worlds natural resources and the report discovered that we (as a planet) had exhausted our natural resources for the year in August, and that last year, we hadn't exhausted them until October. So in summation, we're using up resources faster than we can accrue them, meaning as population rises, so will demand and the product won't be there, thus prices will rise substantially in the upcoming years... this is inevitable. This isn't the news article I was looking for, but it will suffice to show the disparity: Link

So what does that mean? It means it doesn't matter what China does or does not do, so long as we as a species keep propagating at the level we are, we are doomed unless we can teraform other planets very soon.

EDIT: Found a article similar to the one I had read before: Link

[FireIceTalon]

Wind and solar? Maybe. There was an article I read just two weeks ago that conveniently went missing from the net after the stocks dipped, however it was an impartial study made to observe the worlds natural resources and the report discovered that we (as a planet) had exhausted our natural resources for the year in August, and that last year, we hadn't exhausted them until October. So in summation, we're using up resources faster than we can accrue them, meaning as population rises, so will demand and the product won't be there, thus prices will rise substantially in the upcoming years... this is inevitable. This isn't the news article I was looking for, but it will suffice to show the disparity: Link

So what does that mean? It means it doesn't matter what China does or does not do, so long as we as a species keep propagating at the level we are, we are doomed unless we can teraform other planets very soon.

EDIT: Found a article similar to the one I had read before: Link

"There are too many people in the world, it doesn't matter what happens with China's economy" - this is basically what you are saying, and sorry man, but its ridiculous on a number of levels. It is a popular argument to be sure, but a bogus one nonetheless.

Two immediate glaring problems:

Firstly, it is a way too generalized argument that reduces all the economic problems of China, or otherwise, to overpopulation - even if we assume the basis of the argument itself can be substantiated (which it cannot). There are approximately 5 empty houses in the USA for every 1 homeless person, for example. This has nothing to do with overpopulation. Granted, this is just one aspect of the economy in one country, but it is an example (among countless other contradictions) of a much more fundamental and deeply rooted problem of the system: Artificial Scarcity. The misallocation of resources and the way production is handled and distributed under capitalism are the problems here, not global population. In fact, I would venture to argue that population has little if any relevance whatsoever in the problems we face today. Distribution of resources, not the number of resources, is the problem. We have enough resources to feed, clothe, and shelter every human being on the planet MANY times over, but we don't. Because again, it is a problem of resource allocation - a problem that is intrinsic to and necessitated by the very system itself; for obvious reasons.

Secondly, because of the above problem described, your analysis also fails to acknowledge the ramifications that a China meltdown would have on Western economies. Capitalism is entering a stage, or more likely has already been in for the last few years, where it is extracting surplus without investing, or is under investing. This of course can be done for awhile, by running productive infrastructure and capital into the ground, but you can't do it forever. This is the case in the USA and many Western Europe countries. As I am sure you know very well, the US economy is very interlinked with China's and their large investment into the dollar. Do you think an actual downturn in the Chinese economy is not going to have an effect on the dollar? I think we both know it would. And given that the US is already doing very little investing, guess what that would mean? Yea, you guessed it - more austerity politics for working people and all the negative effects (both immediate and long term) that come along with it (more frequent and more severe bubbles, lower living standards, higher unemployment, more suppression of civil liberties and spying on citizens as times get tougher, etc).

A third problem, is that it reeks of defeatism, while employing the idealistic, unnecessary (and unrealistic!) solution of humans migrating to another planet in the near future. You've been watching too much Interstellar, I'm afraid.

So please kill that noise about overpopulation. It is an oversimplified and 'vulgar economics' argument that just serves to be another scapegoat in order to obfuscate what is really going on.

Now the effects of the current Chinese situation on other economies has yet to be seen, it should be said that this isn't even going to necessarily be the worst yet (that remains to be seen), but that is neither here nor there regarding the above points.

[Taem]

"There are too many people in the world, it doesn't matter what happens with China's economy" - this is basically what you are saying, and sorry man, but it’s ridiculous on a number of levels. It is a popular argument to be sure, but a bogus one nonetheless.

Firstly, it is a way too generalized argument that reduces all the economic problems of China, or otherwise, to overpopulation - even if we assume the basis of the argument itself can be substantiated (which it cannot). There are approximately 5 empty houses in the USA for every 1 homeless person, for example. This has nothing to do with overpopulation. Granted, this is just one aspect of the economy in one country, but it is an example (among countless other contradictions) of a much more fundamental and deeply rooted problem of the system: Artificial Scarcity. The misallocation of resources and the way production is handled and distributed under capitalism are the problems here, not global population. In fact, I would venture to argue that population has little if any relevance whatsoever in the problems we face today. Distribution of resources, not the number of resources, is the problem. We have enough resources to feed, clothe, and shelter every human being on the planet MANY times over, but we don't. Because again, it is a problem of resource allocation - a problem that is intrinsic to and necessitated by the very system itself; for obvious reasons.

I was specifically talking about all resources. It's a fact that we've used up a years’ worth of resources in only eight-months. The real calamity of the situation here is in this sentence:

The date is based on a comparison of humanity’s demands – in terms of carbon emissions, cropland, fish stocks, and the use of forests for timber – with the planet’s ability to regenerate such resources and naturally absorb the carbon emitted. That implies the excess demands being placed on natural systems are doing more permanent harm that cannot be easily undone.

Anyway, I feel like the original article I read was discussing all world resources such as minerals (i.e. copper, gold, silver, etc...), natural resources (i.e. trees, wool, silk, etc...), and so on. The issue that I’m trying to discuss is if we as a species keep consuming at the rate we are, with 3rd world countries quickly turning into 2nd or even 1st world countries overnight and having the demands of an "always-on" society, the weight of the requirements to fulfill this need will be far too great for the world to sustain it.

Re: the rest of what you said, would a negative surplus bring about world-wide austerity? I really couldn't say, but I am sure it won't be good. In this world, people consume indiscriminately, and businesses rely on this greed, on you getting a new smartphone upgrade every two years, a new car every five to seven years, a new computer or television every eight to ten years, etc. We live in a throw-away society by design and yes FIT, I acknowledge that this has everything to do with Capitalism. My question is if all 1st world nations stopped consuming indiscriminately, would this solve anything assuming the rest of world would soon catch-up? I doubt it, meaning the only real solution lies in the problem which is not our over consumption, but the lack of resources at the current rate of usance meaning quite simply that we are overpopulated.

[kandrathe]

... lies in the problem which is not our over consumption, but the lack of resources at the current rate of usage meaning quite simply that we are overpopulated.

I guess the world equity argument would be then that the overpopulation began many decades ago, if you equitably base per capita consumption at the US/Europe level, and not at the India/China level.

One view would be that the US and Europe should reduce consumption of critical resources to allow for the increases in consumption by developing nations. India's (112th place) population growth rate is 1.26 (UN) and (158th place ) China is at .52 (UN) -- so you can't say the population control message is not resonating in those nations. The issue of resource shortage is no longer one of population growth, but one of growth in industrialization in those nations with large populations. In the past and present, you have about 10% of the worlds population in the US and Europe, who consume at a high rate, while 20% in China consumes at a lower rate, and the 20% in India at a much lower rate. If consumption were equitable, the US would need to cut their consumption drastically (like 90%), and Europe some what less drastically (like 50%) to allow for these larger population nations to consume at higher levels.

For me, the bottom line is that it is not "ok" for the US and Europe to maintain the status quo in being the big resource consumers. Our answer to shortages cannot be simply that the remainder of the developing would should just stop developing. What then should be the criteria for regulating supply and demand? You've heard from the other side, whereas us capitalists would say, "price".

Now, it is fortuitous for the us in the former Colonial Empires that we've horded and exploited the world's wealth over the past few centuries. We can afford 3$ for a 12 oz box of cereal. However, it is unfortunate for us that we also sell these former repressed peoples our advanced weapons such that they may attempt to establish some equity by force. I believe a more prudent strategy would be for us to be more understanding in the distribution of resources to our developing neighbors, thus avoiding the many millions of deaths were we to leave it until the four horsemen are unleashed.

[Taem]

... lies in the problem which is not our over consumption, but the lack of resources at the current rate of usage meaning quite simply that we are overpopulated.

I guess the world equity argument would be then that the overpopulation began many decades ago, if you equitably base per capita consumption at the US/Europe level, and not at the India/China level.

One view would be that the US and Europe should reduce consumption of critical resources to allow for the increases in consumption by developing nations. India's (112th place) population growth rate is 1.26 (UN) and (158th place ) China is at .52 (UN) -- so you can't say the population control message is not resonating in those nations. The issue of resource shortage is no longer one of population growth, but one of growth in industrialization in those nations with large populations. In the past and present, you have about 10% of the worlds population in the US and Europe, who consume at a high rate, while 20% in China consumes at a lower rate, and the 20% in India at a much lower rate. If consumption were equitable, the US would need to cut their consumption drastically (like 90%), and Europe some what less drastically (like 50%) to allow for these larger population nations to consume at higher levels.

For me, the bottom line is that it is not "ok" for the US and Europe to maintain the status quo in being the big resource consumers. Our answer to shortages cannot be simply that the remainder of the developing would should just stop developing. What then should be the criteria for regulating supply and demand? You've heard from the other side, whereas us capitalists would say, "price".

Now, it is fortuitous for the us in the former Colonial Empires that we've horded and exploited the world's wealth over the past few centuries. We can afford 3$ for a 12 oz box of cereal. However, it is unfortunate for us that we also sell these former repressed peoples our advanced weapons such that they may attempt to establish some equity by force. I believe a more prudent strategy would be for us to be more understanding in the distribution of resources to our developing neighbors, thus avoiding the many millions of deaths were we to leave it until the four horsemen are unleashed.

How narrow-minded of you; I am disappointed: Population Projections
World Energy Consumption vs Population
Report on Global Food Eating Trends
Report detailing consumption requirements to 2050

It is naive of you to believe the volume of population has no bearing on shortage of resources and quite frankly, I'm a bit aghast you even suggest otherwise. Your and FIT's ideal strategy to cut consumption in all developed nations is not only ludicrous, but asinine all level of business infrastructure. What would a real win-win scenario look like? No FIT, this is no "Interstellar" bullshit... 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. True insight towards the future starts with what we can do, and this is within our grasp as a species. Cutting emissions and resources down to safe levels is impossible even if all 1st world countries back because the rest of the world is growing and expanding so rapidly, it simply cannot sustain itself. How much farmable land do you imagine there is in the world versus the rate of population growth? How much potable water? How much mineral resources? This isn't rocket science here - do the math. Cutting back no consumption will help stymie the effects of this situation, however not forever. It's vital we as a species look forward NOW, because I'm fairly certain teraforming Mars cannot be done overnight; it may take over 100-years to plant enough oxygen producing species of fauna to make the air breathable and by that time, in 2115, how many people will be on this planet?

[kandrathe]

How narrow-minded of you; I am disappointed: ...

It is naive of you to believe the volume of population has no bearing on shortage of resources and quite frankly, I'm a bit aghast you even suggest otherwise. Your and FIT's ideal strategy to cut consumption in all developed nations is not only ludicrous, but asinine all level of business infrastructure.

Well, first it is not ideal, nor is it mine. Realistically, our world has certain finite useful resources, like metals. I'm not advocating "cutting" consumption, but rather voluntarily conserving consumption. For example, is there any reason why plumbing must be done with copper pipes, rather than bio-plastic PVC?

Second, I did say the "volume of population" has a bearing on shortages, but the shortages we are seeing are due to improving the living standards in countries with already large populations. If shortages are related to overpopulations, then those overpopulations occurred decades ago, where the bulk of those populations existed at subsistence levels. Now they are aspiring for the middle classes, with consumption commensurate with the improvement in living standards, like owning an automobile, and having hot/cold running water and a toilet in the house.

To illustrate the point, I will use data from the link you supplied; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
Between 1990, and 2008 China's population increased by 17% (1.141 Billion to 1.333 Billion), while their energy consumption (per capita) increased by 111% (8839 kWh/capita to 18,608 kWh/capita). Looking at total energy use paints a bleaker picture, China went from 10.1 (1000 TWh) to 24.8 (1000 TWh), which is a 146% increase. But, imagine if all China's population consumed at the US rate of 87,216 kWh/capita (or 26.6 (1000 TWh). Please also note that over this same period the population of the US rose 22%, which is 5% larger than China.

Third, China, and to a lesser degree India are addressing their population growth issues (not well enough, but hey they are worried about choking to death on their own smog). The largest percentage population growth currently is in the middle east and Africa.



"World population (UN)" by Conscious
Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Commons

What would a real win-win scenario look like? No FIT, this is no "Interstellar" bullshit... 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. True insight towards the future starts with what we can do, and this is within our grasp as a species.

Yet, putting our eggs of sustainability into a non-existent basket is neither ludicrous, nor asinine? If, and when, we developed additional habitable planets, then I would begin to count on them. However, we still must deal with what we have now, right in front of us.

Cutting emissions and resources down to safe levels is impossible even if all 1st world countries back because the rest of the world is growing and expanding so rapidly, it simply cannot sustain itself.

I think "safe" is perhaps not the right word. I can "safely" live as a cave man, but I would prefer not to do so. I like having cheap electricity, delicious fresh food, a warm house, and readily accessible high speed transportation. The difficult proposition is to look at commonly expected amenities of our modern society and figure out how it would be capable to deliver the same level of service to every person on the planet.

How much farm-able land do you imagine there is in the world versus the rate of population growth? How much potable water? How much mineral resources? This isn't rocket science here - do the math. Cutting back on consumption will help stymie the effects of this situation, however not forever.

I think it is the wrong questions. I recently drove across South Dakota, so my view of resources per capita is a bit skewed right now. I think the question we might want to ask is whether we are using the land/water resources we have developed efficiently. To which I would say, no. As for fresh water resources, much of our issues in North America have to do with where people choose to live. Is it a surprise that Californians are having trouble with water resources? No, it is an arid environment which cannot naturally sustain its population. They must rely on importing much of their resource needs from places where those resources are more abundant. This is also true for other places in the world, like Japan, or Dubai. But, there are huge opportunities to resolve these issues with solar power desalinization facilities. Other places, like here in Minnesota, have issues with ground water contamination. There is plenty of fresh water, but unless we control pollution, none of it will be fit to drink.

It's vital we as a species look forward NOW, because I'm fairly certain teraforming Mars cannot be done overnight; it may take over 100-years to plant enough oxygen producing species of fauna to make the air breathable and by that time, in 2115, how many people will be on this planet?

Again, if we agree to go by the UN medium projection, it would be around 10 billion. I would re-iterate that our shortage issue will not be due to huge increases in population, but rather the increasing desire for people to improve their living conditions.

I think we can agree that we want there to be zero poverty in the world, and it is an attainable goal. But, in order to peacefully achieve it we (the wealthy nations) must be willing to conserve, and reduce our consumption but also share our abundance with those who have less. I'm not really with FIT on this as we see the same goals, but achieved by different means.

[LavCat]

For example, is there any reason why plumbing must be done with copper pipes, rather than bio-plastic PVC?

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

[Taem]

[...]

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. 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. 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.

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.

[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.

[kandrathe]

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?

[Taem]

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.

Tyranny? Perhaps, however I'd like to point out this tactic has been done to great success numerous times in America for various unrelated odds and ends such as pollution cap-and-trade, but it's usually only done when there is risk to the populace, such as the tobacco tax and alcohol tax. California does have a CA-Redemption Value tax on most recyclable goods, batteries, and some electronics. I never looked too deeply into it before, but I wonder if this is incentive based for corporations, such as carry these recyclable products, get a tax write-off at the end of the year which in turn is passed to the consumer - as this tax - whom can chose to recycle their item to get their money back or, as is usually the case, not. I guess what I'm saying is instead of forcing corporations hands, it might work better to offer incentives for change? But fyi, regardless it is the consumer who will get the short end of the stick with the tax. Change will come at a price...

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.

Again, I agree with the sentiment and sound logic, but you're shouting into the wind. Little guys like us can't make a difference unless it's with mass consensus, but telling people to give up their amenities to save the world... hahahaha.... most people would rather watch this world burn, and that's the sad, sad truth. Change has to start with the corporations, and they won't change unless government either, 1) makes them via my first suggestion through penalties, or 2) gives them incentives that makes them want to change; at least, I don't see any other realistic options other that the two I listed regarding this particular matter. I honestly don't believe the average citizen will chose to change, and the media only serves to entice for the new this, and the new that.

[Jester]

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

[kandrathe]

Tyranny? .... such as the tobacco tax and alcohol tax.

Primarily I reject rampant excesses of Progressivism. The goal of which, is to use government to mold a better society.

How are these tobacco tax and alcohol taxes (regressive, and moralistic) affecting peoples behavior? "The U.S. per capita consumption of alcohol edged up to 35.2 liters in 2011 from 29.7 liters in 1997, according to Fortune." Smoking in the US is down, but more than compensated by increasing exports. It is OK, for Africans to get lung cancer, but by god we need to stomp our usage in the US. You know I am a HUGE advocate for personal freedoms to choose, so long as you only harm yourself. Ya, ya, I know. You will ask "But, what about the societal cost of the poor person denied health insurance due to a life time of not exercising, excessive smoking, over eating, or excessive drinking?" Certainly, we might consider a TAX or charge on that person, the one who is actually imposing the risk. This is supposed to be how insurance works. If your insurance rates are too high, you might be either having too many claims, or at risk for too many claims. A well regulated private insurance market would ensure rates are fair. Government enforcement of the rules doesn't make it better insurance, it should only make it apply fairly and equally. Similarly, making something a government program, and mandatory tends to disperse the burden of the cost onto the entire populace, rather than the one abusing their health. Then, we need to regulate the individuals choices to bring down the governments costs. Tyranny.

I guess what I'm saying is instead of forcing corporations hands, it might work better to offer incentives for change? But fyi, regardless it is the consumer who will get the short end of the stick with the tax. Change will come at a price...

Ok, so on the one hand I understand why we might want to treat corporations like individuals... (e.g. making contracts, determining ownership, but I don't subscribe to the notion of total corporate person-hood. Mostly, corporations (a collection of owners) exist to provide goods and services to the public, in exchange for a profit on their investment. Corporations (their ownership, boards of directors, and designated leadership) are liable for hoodwinking, fraud, breaches of contract, and sometimes very serious crimes, and as such, clearly our justice system needs to hold actual people accountable for the actions of a corporation. Lots of things are dangerous in this world, such as being scalded by hot coffee. Or, having a nail gun shoot a nail into your skull. Smoking a cigarette is only dangerous as a habitual daily habit, as is drinking a daily pint of vodka, or eating a pound or five of Twinkies. We could have a lengthy discussion of the implied risks in consuming addicting products (e.g. Twinkies). The corporations liability in my mind ends in disclosure of the risks of abuse. I don't think any sane person in the past 50 years thought while chain smoking 3 packs of unfiltered Camels, "I'm doing my body some good today".

Again, I agree with the sentiment and sound logic, but you're shouting into the wind. Little guys like us can't make a difference unless it's with mass consensus, but telling people to give up their amenities to save the world... hahahaha.... most people would rather watch this world burn, and that's the sad, sad truth. Change has to start with the corporations, and they won't change unless government either, 1) makes them via my first suggestion through penalties, or 2) gives them incentives that makes them want to change; at least, I don't see any other realistic options other that the two I listed regarding this particular matter. I honestly don't believe the average citizen will chose to change, and the media only serves to entice for the new this, and the new that.

Therein, lies the rub. If you attack the supply side, you only divert it into the shadows. Just like the war on drugs, it can only be beat by addressing the demand. If you cannot stem the demand, then just as with the 1918 prohibition of alcohol, all you are doing is forcing the otherwise honest person to break the law in satisfying an urge which is almost always only harming themselves. It is a fundamental difference of thought from our founding in the US in believing our government is an instrument to exact obedience to rules, rather than one serving to form a cohesive society that also preserves the maximal amount of individual liberty. My proposition is that our purpose in government should be to preserve "liberty and justice for all" equally, and I would say it is entirely impractical for a government to attempt to protect people from their own bad decisions.

As Edgar Friendly said, "That’s right. You see, according to Cocteau’s plan, I’m the enemy. Because I like to think, I like to read. I’m into freedom of speech, freedom of choice. I’m the kind of guy who would sit in the greasy spoon and think “Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the big rack of Barbecued spare ribs with the side order of gravy fries?” I WANT high cholesterol. I want to eat bacon, butter and buckets of cheese alright? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinatti in a non-smoking section. I wanna run around naked with green jell-o all over my body reading a Playboy magazine. Why? Because maybe I feel the need to okay pal? I’ve SEEN the future, you know what it is. It’s made by a 47 year-old virgin in gray pajamas soaking in a bubble bath, drinking a broccoli milkshake and thinking “I’m an Oscar-Meyer Wiener”. You wanna live on top, you gotta live Cocteau’s way. What he wants, when he wants, how he wants. Your other option: come down here, maybe starve to death."

[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.

[Taem]

Tyranny? .... such as the tobacco tax and alcohol tax.

Primarily I reject rampant excesses of Progressivism. The goal of which, is to use government to mold a better society.

I don't know if I agree with your sentiment on this logic. In the early era of our species, we have traditionally gathered into clans and tribes, most likely for protection purposes having evolved from when we were monkeys, however these clans have always rejected being absorbed into a larger body for the good of all. There have been many historical conquests to takeover and absorb countless countries into a monarchs reign, and not always because they wanted to exploit the natural resources of the area, but because by bringing this country into their fold, it would help stop fighting which was costly, help build roads to connect areas together, etc. etc... The point is, the concept of a government doesn't start out bad, but has roots in a solid philosophy to unite people, and unfortunately history has proven most of the time it must be done via force because... shocker... humans are reluctant of change, even when they know it's better for them**. Of course there are examples of countries relinquishing their sovereignty at will, such as Texas to the United States, but these rare cases are usually due to either an act of protection, or extreme poverty of a country, not because the country wakes up one day and says, "hey, we can save a ton of money and resources if we combine forces with country 'x'"... doesn't happen. So I think we can agree a lot of good comes from big government, and the concept of Progressivism is sound:

some American progressives rejected Social Darwinism, believing that the problems society faced (poverty, violence, greed, racism, class warfare) could best be addressed by providing good education, a safe environment, and an efficient workplace.

This is so true, and many posters on this site haven been keen on pointing this out as well. Of course it starts at home, educating parents to be better role models for their children, but give them a good job with time to spend with their families, give the children a good education and free college in a crime-free society, and you will have a society that succeeds. I don't disagree with anything in that link.

[...]

Again, another great response by you to which my mind is again taken aback. Yes, the war on drugs is a fine example of how this "progress" has failed, how force doesn't always win because, as I pointed out above, people are reluctant to change. When you look at the big picture, it is quite bleak and depressing. So, lets take your fictional world where if enough voices scream out, people will listen, or lets say that's impossible knowing that most people simply don't change once they've made up their minds, and lets say we finally run out of resources and it begins afflicting the lives of everyone and they suddenly wake up to the reality that this world cannot sustain itself and suddenly decide to reduce waste en masse... but by then, its too late. Okay, now lets take my approach (the Emperor was actually the good guy in Star Wars logic here), and expand big government and control the flow by taking over the world (extreme points of view call for extreme possibilities), and forcing companies to only produce recyclable goods that last a minimum of 15-years, and then the rebels come in and destroy everything which is why we can't have anything good! There is no winning this war because in a nutshell, everyone is selfish. We can debate on this fine website the pro bonos of austerity, but these concepts simply won't succeed in the world we live in due to the way people are hardwired to think, and neither your way nor mine will solve anything in the end until its too late. People like us, who are proactive thinkers, are far and few between unfortunately. I can't tell you how many people I've talked to during voting season who have, excuse the profanity here, no fucking clue what they are really voting on! They listen to commercials and talk to others and have made up their minds based on rumors and bullshit without lifting a finger to do any real research themselves and ironically, if they find out the truth about something they are voting for actually goes against their beliefs, again as I pointed out, they are reluctant to change their votes because once someone has made up their mind, it's finished! We swim in a sea of morons kandrathe. I should have finished school instead of starting a family so early... then maybe I could have made a difference instead of wasting brain-cells performing my current occupation. Peace-out!

**there are many more example I can link to that prove that as a species, humans will always do things such as: believe what they first heard, even when shown contradictory evidence and in some cases, this even enforces their original belief.

[kandrathe]

I don't know if I agree with your sentiment on this logic.
...
So I think we can agree a lot of good comes from big government, and the concept of Progressivism is sound:
...
We swim in a sea of morons kandrathe.

There is some of the "Progressive Era" which I thought sound, such as Trust busting, rooting out corruption, establishing National Parks, woman's suffrage, even some compulsory education. But, I don't believe we should surrender our lives, goals, or purpose to the desires of a cadre of still mostly wealthy, white, men in Washington DC. Who is to say that their world view, or even a majority world view is to be imprinted as the model of our lives? The difference is in being offered opportunities by our benevolent progress driven society, versus de-facto being enrolled into the myriad complexities of life against our will.

It is always tempting to defer societal decisions to the supposedly benevolent dictator, or in our case oligarchy. Or, this one for Jester. In this oligarchy world view, you are a worker, serving the needs of the corporation. You will be educated with consumerist values, and the skills needed by the corporations. You will be served, whether you like it or not, by the corporations and taxed a large percentage of your wages for the privilege of living in our society. You by law, must have a driver's license or picture ID on you at all times. You pretty much need a driver's license anyway in order to do most things in our society. You will be taken to a school from ages five to eighteen and taught according to the State standards, stamped for approval by the Federal Department of Education, or deal with their curriculum standards and tests for home schooling. Unless your parents are wealthy enough to send you to a private school, who must also adhere to State and Federal curriculum standards. You live in (iirc) California, which is a whole level more Effed, in the B when it comes to living by the law.

Ok, so this is an overly dystopian view of our current society. I see it more starkly as I'm very contrary to being a corporate tool. I think in this way FIT and I are alike, whereas in solutions I tend to be closer to individualist and anarchist, and he tends towards collectivism. The illusion is that government protects us from the corporations, whereas I think/feel the government is in collusion with corporations.

It's like boiling the frogs, by the time they realize the water is hot, they are already dead. Your negative self-perception is indeed indicative of the temperature of the water, and do not despair (I've felt the same). In our society, the value of something is determined by its utility to corporations, like your college education, your salary and the importance of this supposedly brain-dead occupation. My guess is like many of us 99%'ers you just feel trapped into doing what you have to do to make ends meet. Where are your choices? Who controls what you do every day?

I'm thinking along the lines of, Walden, by Henry David Thoreau. Maybe your purpose was not to get a marketable college degree, and make a huge contribution to the corporate machinery. Maybe, you are meant to be a good man, a loving husband, and raise amazingly well adjusted, thoughtful, caring children. Maybe, you could just be contented to have a happy home life, and "to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life".

I think the happiest man I ever met was a life long dairy farmer friend of my father, who had an eighth grade education. He had hands as hard, and rough as stones, but a big warm heart, and so much love for every person he met.

But, maybe you are correct, and we are swimming in a sea of morons. I'd say it's a sea that is getting way too warm for me. You? But, steering this back toward China... In comparison of freedoms, I'd rather live here, or Scandinavia.

[Taem]

[...]

Interesting article on the humanities, thank-you! 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 used to be so brash and confrontational, lol; memories. Take care.