Averting Global Catastrophe

Alexander Sheppard · 2003-02-06 23:59:09

In a previous message I remarked that it is a point not generally understood among people who want to spread civilization among the stars that you cannot do this if civilization is first annihalated here at home. As technological progress strides foward, humankind can only assume more and more awesome societal responsibilities--and similiarly growing consequences for failing in them.

The fundamental problem, I think, is this. Humankind stands enough of a chance as it is running into some fatal problem without any help from other human beings--releasing, say, uncontrollable mutating nanites ("grey goo") which destroys the biosphere, or several other possibilities. Unless we switch to social structures which place value on liberty and mutual aid, rather than the intentional destruction and subjugation of other humans, the likelihood of a fatal disaster is far increased over what it would be in a situation where humanity collaborates to achieve things agreed to be great.

The most obvious threat, I think, right now of such a civilization destroying event is nuclear war. As systems of domination extend their grip further over world affairs, the result can only be a situation of increased tensity, suffering, and hatred. The potential for a civilization destroying nuclear war--several basic scanerios can be envisioned--becomes progressively greater. Vast human suffering and waste is also possible in the event of tactical nuclear first strikes by the US, something which has been outlined recently in "defense" reports.

Another threat is that of ecological destruction. There are several avenues whereby this could cause a massive disaster. First, if the ozone layer becomes too depleted, it is a sure bet that the incidence of cancer among populations worldwide will rise, with unknown consequnces depending on the level of the increase. Second, it is also possible that global warming could initiate a massive melting of some of the more unstable parts of Antarctica, resulting in the submergion of most of the major centers of industrial civilization.

In the future, new threats may arise. Consider the possibility of someone guiding an fair sized asteroid into an impact with the Earth. The consequences need not be stated here. Genetic engineering, once developed extensively, will doubtless pose grave dangers to the enviornment if handled irresponsibly by despotic governments or greedy corporations. This goes moreso for the possibility of real self reproducing nanites, although from what I can gather, this is probably not a very near term possibility.

What is the solution? Should we all go crazy and try to institute a totalitarian government to make sure these threats to civilization do not get out of hand? No. These technologies, in the hands of a totalitarian government, would be even more dangerous than they are in the present situation, where the most powerful nation is merely imperialist. The only viable course is to make do as best we can and try to create societies which are based on independent thought, rationality, and mutual compassion. Working together for what is agreed to be worthwhile can only maximize our chances of survival and progression into a real Type II civilization.

soph · 2003-02-07 05:34:15

Yes, we need to switch every nation to a capitalist democracy or republic, where the market responds to the wishes of the people, and the people elect their leaders.

The fundamental flaws with this system are not in the system, theyre in the education of people. People have to be properly educated to make wise choices, both politically and financially. If they are hardworking, and well educated, they can get ahead.

edit: by switch i dont mean forceably, i meant every nation should be a representative capitalism. I wasnt talking about nation building.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-07 06:26:53

Yes, we need to switch every nation to a capitalist democracy or republic, where the market responds to the wishes of the people, and the people elect their leaders.

Bullshit. What you said is nation building! You are clearly unable, just like politicans in America, to accept that other systems can facilitate democracy just as well, if not better than capitalism. This is propaganda at its worst. This is the kind of propaganda that causes people to die unnecessarily beacuse of ideology. The US has taken the ?support capitalist democracies? road but many of them were dictatorships in and of themselves. Authoritarian capitalist despots because resources were unjustly pooled to those with power. And you can't say they weren't capitalist, because private property was allowed. Because everyone was too poor to afford it changes nothing.

The fundamental flaws with this system are not in the system, theyre in the education of people.

The flaws exist where there are no checks and balances. Capitalism needs anti-monopoly laws and regulations for the free market, where true competition exists, to work. Any version of capitalism without these laws, is going to lead to depotism. I can prove this through simple logic, and I have several times on these forums. It doesn't take no economics doctorate to understand this.

Free market does not equal no regulations (which is what I lot of people think when they think ?free market?). The concepts are completely counterintuitive. Without regulations, the market isn't free, but rather controlled by the largest monopolies.

If they are hardworking, and well educated, they can get ahead.

Right, and even though more people are graduating than ever before, the wealth gap is increasing. This is complete nonsense. It's propaganda which is just simply wrong. Tell me soph, how can I start up a store that competes with Wal-Mart?

Heh, had a Starbucks come up near where I lived a year ago. You know, the sterotypical complain about Starbucks, right? It's true, what they say. It put every coffee house out of business. The only place that made it was Slurpy King. No, not Slurpy King. Damn, I can't remember their name. They were about 6 miles from the Starbucks, though. And they specialized in a huge variety of cold drinks. The only way these people, the ones who went out of business, could have done anything, is if they preemptively switched over to being a Starbucks before the new one was built. And then, two Starbucks in half a block radius are, well, going to compete for business, and we all know the one with easy access (ie, the new one that was built specifically for drive in access) is going to get more attention.

Perhaps if pot was unbanned people could start up pot growing businesses... there we go! There'd be a huge desire for that!

by switch i dont mean forceably, i meant every nation should be a representative [of] capitalism

What does that mean? Most nations do trade with one another. Now, some deal in arms, as a huge export (like, say, the US or Korea), and some have huge arm imports (like say, China or Israel). And some deal with legitimate things like food, and medical supplies. Technology and things of that nature. Progressive things, which don't cause any damage.

Personally, I think every nation should be a representative of democracy. But I think how we get there isn't be blowing them up unnecessarily. The world community is certainly stronger than it's ever been before. This is proven by their unrelenting desire to hold to inspections within Iraq, even though US pressure is on them greatly.

Indeed, I this is actually the first time I can think of where the US was actually, well, the minority on a decision within the Security Council. Every time the US had veto power, because of its supporters (France, Germany, and the UK). Now they don't have France or Germany, this is truely historical. Although it's likely we will gain their veto when a new resolution comes up...

I wasnt talking about nation building.

Then I suggest you clarify what you mean by ?representative [of] capitalism? then. Because there is simply no other way to interpret ?we need to switch every nation to a capitalist democracy or republic.? Really.

soph · 2003-02-07 06:54:15

Meh, I was talking in a theoretical sense. I'm not saying anyone should be doing it. My true idea would be a single planetary republic, with the countries or regions as provinces. They get their own government, and country governments, and so on.

Capitalism responds to the whims of the people. If people wanted a smaller coffee shop, if enough people, then it would exist. Starbucks makes good coffee. At reasonable prices.

Nike began with a track&field coach selling shoes out of his trunk. Many of the largest coporations began as tiny peddling operations like that.

Checks and balances are provided by a legal system. If you take anything at its purest form, it probably wont work. Thats why you add assisting elements to the mix. Obviously there is some regulation. I don't think Adam Smith suggested otherwise. In fact, I believe he supported a certain degree of govenment regulation. Capitalism requires it.

In capitalism, a motivated, clever individual can find ways to morally and legally acquire resources. Is that wrong? No. Just because the wealth gap is great doesn't mean that this is indicative of a problem. Raising the minimum wage too much will hurt the economy, in a sense, because countries like Indonesia will produce goods for less. An economic system has to take into account its global climate. The answer to low wages is better public education, because with it, people can be more productive, and thus earn more wages.

Look, no system is perfect, but I like capitalism because it does conform to the market. Government bureaucracy has bloated some of our economy, but this is not the fault of capitalism.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-07 07:33:47

Yes, that's one of capitalisms strengths, it does respond to the whims of the people. But don't pretend that capitalism equates lots of competition and so on, because it usually leads to corporate ownership of one service. One coffee shop. One grocery store, etc.

Depending on how things pan out, a consumer gets more or less choices whenever a monopoly buys out their current provider. Physical choices really aren't the deciding factor, it's the percieved choices that matters. A lot of people see Starbucks and think, ?Wow, drive through! Fast coffee!? But they see the small shop and think, ?oh, black coffee and cream,? neglecting to realize that the small coffee shop actually carries more coffees than the Starbucks, or not caring because the Starbucks is cheaper and faster during peak hours.

I'm not sure if that coffee shop ever went out of business, though. I went in there once before, after the Starbucks opened, and they had a lot less business. I asked the owner and his outlook was pretty bleak. I joked with him that it's okay, and that caffeine is bad for ya anyway... then suggested he should advertize that he had more coffee than Starbucks. Hopefully that worked, but I doubt it. The exotic coffees were a bit expensive.

Don't think that the whims of the people aren't controlled on many levels by corporate media...

In capitalism, a motivated, clever individual can find ways to morally and legally acquire resources.

Definitely, you should have seen me during the dot com boom! Dunno why you brought morality into the discussion, though. It's ?moral and legal? to be a anti-competitive monopoly, but I would say otherwise...

Just because the wealth gap is great doesn't mean that this is indicative of a problem.

You erroneously claimed that intelligent people can get somewhere, and the evidence is contrary to that claim... of course it means there is a problem. Either with the logic you gave or the system itself. I would say the logic, because the system itself, unchecked, means an increasing wealth gap.

The answer to low wages is better public education, because with it, people can be more productive, and thus earn more wages.

I agree that education is the most important factor at making a society wealthy, certainly. But how are we to pay for it? (One should note that education is a very very small part of our national budget- educating people is cheap compared to national defense or something to that effect.)

Look, no system is perfect, but I like capitalism because it does conform to the market.

I like very small government, decentralized, socialism, because monopolies are inherently harmful to the free market. I'm not saying corporations shouldn't exist, but I am saying they should be much more open.

And anarchism is perfect.

soph · 2003-02-07 07:45:12

You know, you can get about a dozen coffee varieties at your local Mobil, and they are quite good. 7-11 has 3 or 4 coffees available. Just for example's sake.

And there are always areas where the corporate entities won't touch, because the markets are too small. If you go to smaller communities, you still have those smaller shops, and this is where the chance for new, innovative companies is.

An intelligent person can get ahead, if he makes the right choices. Bill Gates is an example, although his methods were shady, to put it lightly. Getting ahead doesn't mean getting rich. A poor black person from the slums has an opportunity to move to a better neighborhood through hard work. It isn't easy, I grant you that, but it is possible.

Our education budget isn't very useful. Education is a conundrum, because of population differences and concentrations. New York is a good example. The city should be getting more education funding, but our governor is more of an upstate-man. So, with heavy population density, the funding, which may exceed the upstate funding, is insufficient. And then you have to manage those resources.

Education is also a difficult thing, because you don't want a static learning environment. You always have different teaching styles, which you want, but also leads to differences in education quality. So education, almost more than anything else, is a tremendously fragile system of humans and resources.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-07 10:10:58

Yeah, I do know and agree that you can get ahead if you try really hard. But surely you agree that if everyone ?tried really hard? the odds of one or the other getting ahead are about the same.

For every high industry, highly skilled worker, there are thousands upon thousands of low industry, relatively unskilled workers. Education can't change this. There are only so many highly skilled jobs. The only thing that can change this is a more equitable distribution of resources.

Hope is what drives people within capitalism. Hope that one day you'll push through to the top. It's false hope, though. Because a majority can not and will not.

soph · 2003-02-07 10:18:22

Not necessarily. Because every entrpreneur can start a business, that creates jobs for other people, who can advance to start their own business, and so on. There are so many job opportunities in this country, aside from the recession, that I think everyone could get ahead, or at least to what is deemed as "middle class" living standards.

But I've said before, that unless you constantly redistribute resources, a more innovative person will always make better resources than his neighbor, leading to an inequality. Capitalism works on these traits, and the differences in humans inherent in the species, which is why it revolutionized society to an extent, and was heralded as the beginning of economics (smith himself is called the "father of economics).

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-07 11:55:05

That's what they said about the dot com boom, but it didn't happen (that “entrpreneur(s) can start a [successful long term] business, that creates jobs for other people, who can advance to start their own business, and so on”).

There's a rule about economics. You have to have a good proportion of consumers to producers, otherwise the system fails. During the dot com boom, we had a lot of people innovating, creating new technologies to sell and everything, but there was no one there to buy it. Only a few industries lasted (generally the first ones to anticipate a particular field, and jump on it), and even they are having a hard time profiting.

The analogy still stands, because people don't risk investing in industries that already exist (due to the fact that they could get sued for IP violations, and also because they have very little competitive advantage since they can't throw tons of money into marketing and development).

“Getting ahead” is only for a select few.

soph · 2003-02-07 12:01:55

No-the dot com boom was predicated on selling nothing. Economics is based on labor, supply and demand. Except there was no real labor, no real supply, and thus, no real demand. They were selling nothing! Yahoo is a good example-there was nothing besides a search engine and ads.

People found a bubble that they could get investments in, and then found out that their plans had no substance! They weren't providing a real, tangible service. Whereas Amazon.com did, and they are successful for it, companies expected to get money for selling nothing.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-07 12:09:46

There was too plenty of stuff to sell! The ads were ads for something were they not? It was just exaggerated. The ads were for Amazon.com, and other similar services. Granted, a lot of it was crap, but a good majority of the stuff that was being sold in the dot com boom was geniune.

There was real labor, because there were real businesses (check fuckedcompany.com archives!), and there was plenty of supply, the demand was non-existant though. Don't be revisionist, soph. Check fuckedcompany.com! (Yes, there are some examples of non-companies there, but the majority of them were not.)

The point is, once people were satisfied with one product, they stuck with it. All the other attempts to get into the same undustries failed.

soph · 2003-02-07 12:41:33

I'm not being revisionist. Yahoo and Amazon each had a few thousand people working for them. Grumman near me had 35,000 people working for them before they shut down. A few thousand people is nothing.

Obiously, without demand, you wont get anywhere! That's the whole point of economics, and capitalism! You can't sell something people either don't want or don't want to pay for!

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-07 12:51:12

Yeah, and you can't start a business without guessing about potential demand. The successful dot coms overestimated, and compensated (eBay layed off a lot of people early on when htey realized they didn't need a lot of people). The rest of the dot coms simply disappeared because they weren't even successful from the start (all it took was being late in the game by a month).

Amazon wasn't profitable for quite a long time. But they did billions in business. One thing you neglect to realize, is that in the dot com industry, you don't need lots of labor to do the same kind of work.

Wal-Mart's website runs a lot more efficiently, and cheaply, than Wal-Mart itself. You only need a few hundred or so designers and database people. The rest can be done via third party shippers. An actual Wal-Mart store needs thousands of employees!

You are being revisionist when you say that people weren't selling anything, and that there was no supply. There was plenty of supply. The demand is what was lacking in this picture. The companies built themselves upon guesses with regard to potential demand. Some were right, most were wrong.

Alexander Sheppard · 2003-02-07 18:09:59

A point that you both seem to be missing is that the "rugged individualism" which is talked about as a great feature of capitalist systems is actually, upon not-so-close inspection, found to an example of dependence and domination, not individualism. We simply need to ask: what does a person need to do in order to get wealthy, to get power? Well, that person, in a capitalist system, will get money by providing some kind of service to people who already have money, in return for which they will give him money. Bill Gates amassed his fortune by selling software to companies who desired it, by pleasing them. This is not an example of individualism, rather it is an example of renting yourself out to authority. Some servants get rewarded more than others, and become masters, but it is fundamentally a system based on elitism.

Josh says that democracy can be fostered by systems which are not capitalistic, but that's not saying enough. Capitalism is inherently anti-democratic, resources are controlled not by the people affected by thier production and usage but by those whom might be termed "robber barons". Democracy in capitalist countries is inhibited greatly by the fact that numerous major institutions, most notably the media, is controlled by a tiny elite, unaccountable to anyone, even though the service they provide is extremely important to society.

soph · 2003-02-07 18:13:47

Wow, if I had more time before I had to go, I would have a lot of fun with this post. It is utter rubbish!

Cobra Commander · 2003-02-07 19:15:46

Unless we switch to social structures which place value on liberty and mutual aid, rather than the intentional destruction and subjugation of other humans...

The current western social structure does "place value on liberty and mutual aid..." However, humans being how they are, there are times when the "intentional destruction" of other humans is required.

...the likelihood of a fatal disaster is far increased over what it would be in a situation where humanity collaborates to achieve things agreed to be great.

Ah, but agreeing on what is great... That's the real trick, isn't it

What is the solution? Should we all go crazy and try to institute a totalitarian government to make sure these threats to civilization do not get out of hand? No.

Exactly right. What is the point of defending something if in the process you destroy everything in it worth defending. People of America, take note.

That's my two cents.

Roark · 2003-02-07 19:29:56

Capitalism is inherently anti-democratic, resources are controlled not by the people affected by thier production and usage but by those whom might be termed "robber barons". Democracy in capitalist countries is inhibited greatly by the fact that numerous major institutions, most notably the media, is controlled by a tiny elite, unaccountable to anyone, even though the service they provide is extremely important to society.

Robber barons? In a capitalistic society, resources are controlled by those who are most productive with them. The company which most effectively and efficiently uses its resources is the most profitable. Whoever is most efficient will be most successful. How is this undemocratic?

The people who are affected by the production of the "robber barons?" They receive what is being produced for the least amount possible because its being produced as efficiently and therefore as cheaply as possible.

Alexander Sheppard · 2003-02-07 21:14:40

The current Western social structure places some value on liberty and mutual aid, it's not a Stalinism, but there are still many major elements in society which are controlled by tiny elites, and that should not be.

Let us examine this claim that in a capitalistic society, resources are controlled by those who are most productive with them. How do you get to control resources in capitalism? Well, you get money. How do you get money? Well, you provide some service to those who have money, so that they'll give you some of thier money: that's how every capitalist has amassed his fortune and how every wage laborer survives. Now, in the case of capitalists, they are in a position of power, they have a lot of freedom. Wage laborers, by contrast, in general will either do what the capitalists tell them or they will not survive. The capitalists begin by selling themselves to others, and then, if they are successful enough, they may become masters themselves. The wage laborers sell themselves to others continually. It is a system which is based on servitude, not individualism.

Thus, those who are most "productive" and "efficient" with resources are those who satisfy best the desires of the powerful, an interesting definition of productivity.

For decent people, it should be understood that nobody has the right to tell someone else that they should be doing something else because they are "not being productive" ; the underlying ideas are similiar to those used to justify totalitarianism. Everyone should be allowed to decide for themselves what is productive and not productive, free from coercion.

soph · 2003-02-07 21:32:26

alexander, take an economics class.

We have a legal system. You see, everyone from Ken Lay to Joe Shmo on the assembly line is subject to the law. So your whole "the elites control everything" is crap.

Second, we have supply and demand. The company that provides the best combination of the product and marketing mix gets ahead. This spurs competition. What is wrong with clever entrepreneurs getting their due reward? Nothing.

If a company's product isnt liked, the company dies.

Then we have another layer of competition. The workers will go where they feel most appreciated, paid, and loved. If they don't like a company, they can quit and find somewhere else, and not necessarily in that order. Wealthier people are taxed more than poor people.

Everybody has to work at his own job. A wage worker is in that position because he isnt as skilled as the CEO at his job. Would you rather less intelligent people run companies?

Servitiude is slavery. When you get paid, 40 hour work weeks, with weeks of vacation, healthcare and insurance benefits, this isnt servitude. Stalinism is servitude.

Cobra Commander · 2003-02-07 21:37:56

For decent people, it should be understood that nobody has the right to tell someone else that they should be doing something else because they are "not being productive" ; the underlying ideas are similiar to those used to justify totalitarianism. Everyone should be allowed to decide for themselves what is productive and not productive, free from coercion.

That only holds up if one accepts your definition of productive. If someone chooses to simply sit in front of the tv, scarf donuts, and smoke weed; I would call them unproductive. If someone wants to do that, it's fine with me.

The problem comes in with "mutual aid" and how far it goes. If I'm obligated to aid them when they run out of donuts and have no money for more food, then whose being coerced? If no one is required to aid them, they eventually die or resort to criminal acts. We either ignore the value we place on mutual aid in the former, or resort to coercion in the latter.

soph · 2003-02-07 22:12:56

ah, yes, we should allow people to pick their nose all day: "Im being productive, what do you want?" This is one of the reasons pure communism or socialism would probably fail.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-07 22:19:18

One word, soph. Guatemala (among many many examples). There's a real life Ares Corp for you.

I see nothing wrong with the assesment that capitalism fosters dependence and isn't very democratic (?Democracy is the breeding ground of communism,? says Pinochet). It profits from it, after all. This is the argument I have successfully made on these forums for a few years now (so no, Alexander, I certainly haven't missed that point). Someone needs to try harder to change my mind. :;):

?Mutual aid? is impossibly expensive right now... but that's okay, beacuse technological consolidation will take care of that. There hasn't been more than a couple of innovative technologies in fifty years or thereabouts. Everything is merely an extension or improvement on older technology. A portable MP3 player is no different than a walkman. They serve the same purpose. Give it time and the technology to make peoples lives better will come naturally.

What happens when the dot com dilemma of lots of supply but no demand occurs in real life? I mean, surely there is only a matter of time before people say, ?Hey, I don't need anything else, I can sit on my ass now and enjoy the shit I already have!??

I know it's hard for people to concieve of this (I expect to get insulting replies, actually), but it's not for me. I take the computer industry as a very good example. Once the computer met the needs of the average consumer, they didn't need to buy new ones. Computers were fast enough to satisfy their needs!

Most Americans need to spend about 80% of their work hours paying for energy. All we need is a revolution in efficient technologies, and cheap decentralized energies. It's only a matter of time. Don't think that capitalism isn't killing itself every day it makes things easier for us.

soph · 2003-02-07 22:29:11

This is all nice theory, but it isnt based on any economic fact!

The dot com fiasco, as I have said, is a perfect example of why capitalism works! Why should a prodcut with no demand be successful?

And if that person sits back and thinks they have everything, someone will get more, and they will lag behind!

This isn't a successful argument, because it is not logical. What could be more democratic than people choosing which companies live and die by their needs? Or would we rather have a communism with 3 choices for each good? No, that is undemocratic. When resources are shoved down people's throats, its undemocratic.

Well, I have to disagree with you on your technology comment. Why, certainly apollo was innovative? 1969 is less than fifty years ago. The computer was innovative. The Internet was innovative. Technology builds on technology: if you dont consider this innovation, then innovation never occurred in history!

Let me list a few:

1) Computers
2)Internet
3)Bioengineering of materials
4) Robots
5) Nanotech
6) satellite
7) fusion (yes, i would consider it discovered, because we are ever closer to the break-even point)
8) Unmanned aircraft
9) All kinds of new medical techniques
10) Im too tired

Oh, and countries like Guatemala are a perfect example of why proper regulation is necessary. With a corrupt government, no system will work! I can point to a number of corrupt states that aren't capitalist. It is all in the application!

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-07 23:22:37

Hey, you accept that laissez-faire capitalism is inherently corrupt, I'm glad. Finally, getting somewhere with you.

What, specifically isn't based on economic fact? You make these wide generalizations that make no sense, expecting them to cover your intentions, but they simply don't.

Obviously a product with no demand isn't going to be successful, that's the damn point. The question isn't whether or not success requires demand, but whether or not demand is going to last forever.

Firstly, it's a shown fallacy to think that people chose their companies. We've shown that industries which get there first, monopolize the market and people have few choices if they want to be productive. I could go to another auction place online, but I chose eBay because I get a bigger audience and selection. Do I have a ?choice?? Sure, but only a fool would go to a auction site with no traffic...

How many brands of TV can you get now, soph? Does it matter which brand of TV you can get? What if all brands of TVs were completely interchangable and the only difference on the outside was the logo?

What if I told you that, many electronic parts are the same in different components which serve similar purposes, and that you're recieving the same product regardless of who gives it to you? You're buying the logo. Would you still think you had a choice in this situation? I can tell you that this occurs in embedded devices, like cell phones; I've seen it. People literally carry around cell phones which are identical internally. They purchase the logo. The very situation you described it happening already, with capitalism.

Oh, and about that lagging behind, crap, you're not listening. People aren't lagging behind in the computer industry, are they? They're not buying new computers... the system works. Consumers, the very things you say have a choice, are having a choice not to buy new computers because they don't care. Indeed, I'm sitting on a 5 year old relic of a computer. It's fine for my purposes...

But oh no, I'm lagging behind! It's illogical! I should be buying another computer because I'm a mindless consumer!

The computer existed before 50 years ago. The math for computers existed for 50 years before that. Don't be a silly nitwit. Almost everything you listed is over 50 years old with the exception of nanotech (I don't count fusion, and medical breakthroughs is too general). And it may come to light that nanotech is responsible for the future efficency of equipment. So there, half of our problems are met. All we need now is a nice energy source. Then all your problems are met, and we can all sit on our asses and defy old age economics in a fit of glorious laughter.

Capitalism isn't as pure as you pretend it to be. Sure, you make the obvious claim that any system can be corrupt, but you negelect to realize that in the case of Guatemala, it was capitalism that caused the corruption. When there were democratic elections to elect someone who was more graceful to the people, who returned the land back to the people, the UFCO basically turned the place into a mob state, killing anyone who dissented. And it wasnt' even communism, like the UFCO claimed it was! Their Constitution (the one they created when they had the elections) was based upon the US Constitution...

soph · 2003-02-08 05:38:03

The electronics industry is a perfect example! I can pick Dell, IBM, Gateway, or I can build my own PC! It all goes based on what I think is most convenient and beneficial to me.

Um, what's your point about demand not always being there? If there is no demand for your product, why should you still be selling it? Innovate, advertise, and so on!

I see nothing wrong with the assesment that capitalism fosters dependence and isn't very democratic (?Democracy is the breeding ground of communism,? says Pinochet). It profits from it, after all.

this isnt based on economic fact. the companies depend on consumers as much as vice versa, so they are forced to provide a supply that has a demand. People profit in terms of choices, competitive prices, and so on! Oh, and then there's higher wages and social mobility.

It is not a shown fallacy that people choose their own companies. Where'd you hear that from? Proudhon? If people buy from a certain company, it will be more successful than a company who has no customer base!

Ebay is a "monopoly," because people find their services reasonably priced and convenient. If someone came along charging nothing and offering free giveaways, traffic would slowly shift to them. DishTV was the first real satellite provider-now there are 2, and many cable companies have been forced to innovate to contend. Who benefits? The consumers!

Like I said with guatemala, it depends on the application. The US constitution is by no means an economic yardstick! I would have to do more study, but I would assume that the regulation was either more or less direct than the US, either of which can be corrupt.

Don't get me started on corruption! Socialism and Communism have the potential to bleed corruption.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-02-06 23:59:09

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#2 2003-02-07 05:34:15

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#3 2003-02-07 06:26:53

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#4 2003-02-07 06:54:15

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#5 2003-02-07 07:33:47

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#6 2003-02-07 07:45:12

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#7 2003-02-07 10:10:58

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#8 2003-02-07 10:18:22

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#9 2003-02-07 11:55:05

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#10 2003-02-07 12:01:55

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#11 2003-02-07 12:09:46

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#12 2003-02-07 12:41:33

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#13 2003-02-07 12:51:12

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#14 2003-02-07 18:09:59

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#15 2003-02-07 18:13:47

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#16 2003-02-07 19:15:46

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#17 2003-02-07 19:29:56

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#18 2003-02-07 21:14:40

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#19 2003-02-07 21:32:26

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#20 2003-02-07 21:37:56

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#21 2003-02-07 22:12:56

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#22 2003-02-07 22:19:18

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#23 2003-02-07 22:29:11

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#24 2003-02-07 23:22:37

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

#25 2003-02-08 05:38:03

Re: Averting Global Catastrophe

Board footer