Maryland abolishes death penalty.

[kandrathe]

The big issue with u to capitalism is that it requires increasing consumption. Capitalism requires you to buy a stereo which brakes down after 2 years after which the best (cheapest) option is to buy a new one.

Well, sort of, but...

One of the manufacturing companies I worked at had dominated their market having about 65% of the market share, and 3-4 other companies dividing the remainder. Their product was a vehicle, about car sized and about as complex. Their distinctive was quality. So, their products lifespan was more like 30 years, or more with good maintenance. The price was higher than their competition. They were founded in 1870, and most of their decisions are long term decisions. I think our poor consumer education and choices, glitzy marketing, and global wage differentials contribute to the product choice confusion.

34 years ago when I was single, and had the money pouring in from my first *real* job. I saved up money, and bought a reasonably good stereo. I still have it, although one component has problems. But it is also obsolete having no remote controls, no new technology, and no computer interfaces. I also don't have much use for the turntable anymore. A car might be a better example, since people often opt for the cheaper price point and sacrifice longevity. It is also not so prestigious driving around in an 10-20 year old car, even if it is in good shape and working order.

Growth doesn't always mean the waste or excess consumption of raw materials, it also can be achieved through non-physical products (services) and the quality of the product. Or, it can be achieved by replacement, that is by innovation, by building the better mouse trap. I think though that core to growth in our modern economies is access to abundant and cheap energy.

So weird, Japan has gotten so much shit over it because there was no economic growth, even though the country was wealthy enough.

Well, from an investment point of view, growth is necessary in order to realize any return on investment. That ROI depends upon convincing the consumer of the value of the thing you build, and that the consumer would be better off in buying your product. This is why borrowing too much is *really* dangerous. Yes, borrowing to build present capacity is good, if that capacity is needed, and that capacity will result in economic gains sufficient to justify it. Japan reached their debt crisis in 1989/90 and has suffered for two decades. The rest of the world has caught up. Total gross debt in Japan (government, non-financial corporation and consumer) is over 450% of GDP. The origin of their decline began with the Plaza accord in 1985, which caused their currency value to rise by 51%. In response to declining export pressure, the BOJ dropped interest rates. This cheap borrowed money was used for more than increasing exports, so the prices of stock and real estate skyrocketed (a bubble economy). In 1989, in an attempt to stop the hyper-inflation, the BOJ re-instated interest rates and they climbed eventually to 6%, and this popped the bubble. Hence, my concern about how the US Federal Reserve has intervened in the present crisis. Japan has suffered 20 years of a sluggish economy, with the BOJ selling JGB's, mostly held domestically, and rounds of quantitative easing. Sounds familiar. They are in a pickle, since their only abundant natural resource is their productive people which are in decline. They are experiencing the same post-WWII boomer problem, and have a declining birth rate.

Anyway, this is the reason why I am always in favor of a mixed system where the government has the power to steer things which it thinks are important.

The problem is when the government has the power. Really, I'd prefer the people to have the power, and check the government.

Of course, you can run into problems here when eg your government thinks it is a good idea to spend billions of dollars to invade Iraq because it says that the 9/11 terrorists were supported from there, but it will probably be better than the choices the market makes.
The market as it is now will not include costs of natural resources or environment in its cost calculations.

$810,718,615,300 give or take some millions. We should resolve to agree that the US did not attack Iraq because of WMD, or 911, or other nonsense. Those were sales gimmicks, and false advertising to sell the war. I believe the reason for the Iraq war was oil. But, not the pedantic simple notion of stealing it. It was that Saddam was causing price instability by selling too much Iraqi oil. This upset our friends in the region, and Wests multi-national oil companies. Iraq had the capacity to flood the market with oil, break the price, and reap big revenues. The war took Iraqi oil out of play, and kept the prices higher. Not only do governments control the value of money, but also the value of commodities we depend upon, like oil. Which is why the re-emergence of fascist (Government+Corporation) rule is so dangerous.

The market will solve things in the end is not good enough for me.
If we now know for example that people in Africa are dying while we buy their agricultural lands by paying money to some high officials who put most of this in their own pocket and we see the market doesn't do anything about it or when we know we are warming up our planet to dangerous levels because we are not willing to invest more in alternative energy sources we can safely say the free market is not able to solve things.

I agree wholeheartedly. I think we only differ slightly in the means by which that end is achieved. I would opt to keep the government bureaucracy out of it as much as is possible, and keep more of the decisions (power) with the people.

Going green or saving Africa if we knowingly let things get out of hand must be enough for us to say, let's stop this now.

I agree that we need a plan, a shorter term plan for food safety, and a short and long term plan for energy. However, part of the Africa problem is akin to the Balkans. They have political instability due to tribal conflicts, post-colonial dictatorships, and the Islamists versus the Christians all were frozen by the cold war. Our US/European response has been reactionary, sending in more military which is more driven by economics (protecting sources of natural resources), than a concern over helping the people of Africa amiably resolve their conflicts.

But if you very sec just look at the economy the market works fine of course. Economist are the most powerful people on earth, the pity is only that they are pretty ignorant when it comes to things outside of their expertise area.

Well, more like powerless. Many voices, often who basically say the same things, but half the people don't know what they are saying and the other half don't listen.

God why did I even come back to this thread.

For the witty repartee'?