|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 29 2013 10:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2013 10:15 hypercube wrote:On December 29 2013 10:11 xDaunt wrote:On December 29 2013 09:54 sam!zdat wrote:
xdaunt since you're so smart why don't you fucking help us, you asshole. We don't know the answer and we're scared as fuck, you're just a smug jerk who's got his and wants to keep it, fuck everyone else and fuck the future. Well fuck you You are much more fun when you're high (or I dunno, maybe you were sober previously). As to your point, you wouldn't accept my help anyway. You'd categorically label whatever I had to offer as being reactionary, which isn't what you are after. I'm not looking to tear down the system. I want to help people thrive within the system. Sorry to barge into the conversation but why? A more reasonable approach would be to examine if it is possible for a large majority to thrive within the current system. Maybe it's not. So what is the alternative?
That's a good question and people are putting much less effort into it than they should.
Partly because deep down they think the model that has worked for the last 150 years will continue to work indefinitely. But a lot of that was because we were harvesting the low hanging fruit. Definitely in terms of resources and probably in terms of technology too.
It's very possible that we'll get to the point where we have to say: "Nope, that's it, that's all we can get from this planet. No amount of ingenuity or technological progress can change that significantly in our lifetime."
Then the question is how to allocate those finite resources in a way that makes as many people reasonably happy as possible.
The tragedy is that there's an alternative solution. We can borrow against the future, even if the only way for them to repay will be a massive drop in their standards of living. And I say that euphemistically.
Some people would argue that we are already well beyond that point. We certainly are in terms of biodiversity, although that won't affect our quality of life too much. But we are there in terms of climate change and we will get there soon with clean freshwater and possibly other stuff too.
So yes, sustainability is not a hard limit, it is a function of technology. We emit much less CO2 per energy produced than we did 30 years ago. And we can do more stuff with a unit of energy now. But still total emissions are higher, and more importantly total CO2 concentration is much higher than what is acceptable.
So technology has extended the limit of what is achievable sustainably (i.e, without completely fucking over the next generation or our future selves) but actual growth has well outpaced both. And now we are faced with a future where we are already over our technological limit, our limits are expanding slower and slower (because we already got the low hanging fruit) but we are institutionally and socially committed to further growth.
|
On December 29 2013 10:34 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2013 10:22 xDaunt wrote:On December 29 2013 10:15 hypercube wrote:On December 29 2013 10:11 xDaunt wrote:On December 29 2013 09:54 sam!zdat wrote:
xdaunt since you're so smart why don't you fucking help us, you asshole. We don't know the answer and we're scared as fuck, you're just a smug jerk who's got his and wants to keep it, fuck everyone else and fuck the future. Well fuck you You are much more fun when you're high (or I dunno, maybe you were sober previously). As to your point, you wouldn't accept my help anyway. You'd categorically label whatever I had to offer as being reactionary, which isn't what you are after. I'm not looking to tear down the system. I want to help people thrive within the system. Sorry to barge into the conversation but why? A more reasonable approach would be to examine if it is possible for a large majority to thrive within the current system. Maybe it's not. So what is the alternative? It is not practical for people to wait around for the Marxist Jesus Christ to save us all from capitalism. You want to wsit around for the innovation messiah to save us from the environmental catastrophe wrought by capitalism.
Is that really only a problem with capitalism? The Soviet Union was terrible in managing its environmental resources and there were even agricultural societies that suffered ecological collapse through overuse of resources. Some even saw it coming and couldn't change their ways anyway.
|
I would like to mention that climate change actually does not mean that it will rain dinosaurs and meteors at the end of the century, annihilating mankind, so it would be a good idea to stop thinking in absolutes. The future will probably be okay, we don't need to overthrow the whole system to prevent the doomsday.
I don't know what a "techno messiah" is, as technological progress is the opposite of just sitting and waiting around and hoping that something good happens. I think betting on technological progress is a far better idea than waiting that everyone on this planet is abandoning consumerism and switching to some kind of hipster Buddhist lifestyle.
|
I don't get how you can make fun of the techno messai theory yet at the same time advocate for a system to induce technology to save us. This is one of those situations where you need to look at the small picture instead of the big one. Things are getting less worse per year and everything shows that its going to continue.
You can't count on social change to be positive in any way other then natural change. Technological salvation is the only measurable solution.
|
Are you talking to me? I'm agreeing completely with you. I'm just saying technological progress is completely in our hands and has nothing to do with hoping and praying.
|
Norway28675 Posts
On December 29 2013 11:15 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2013 10:34 sam!zdat wrote:On December 29 2013 10:22 xDaunt wrote:On December 29 2013 10:15 hypercube wrote:On December 29 2013 10:11 xDaunt wrote:On December 29 2013 09:54 sam!zdat wrote:
xdaunt since you're so smart why don't you fucking help us, you asshole. We don't know the answer and we're scared as fuck, you're just a smug jerk who's got his and wants to keep it, fuck everyone else and fuck the future. Well fuck you You are much more fun when you're high (or I dunno, maybe you were sober previously). As to your point, you wouldn't accept my help anyway. You'd categorically label whatever I had to offer as being reactionary, which isn't what you are after. I'm not looking to tear down the system. I want to help people thrive within the system. Sorry to barge into the conversation but why? A more reasonable approach would be to examine if it is possible for a large majority to thrive within the current system. Maybe it's not. So what is the alternative? It is not practical for people to wait around for the Marxist Jesus Christ to save us all from capitalism. You want to wsit around for the innovation messiah to save us from the environmental catastrophe wrought by capitalism. Is that really only a problem with capitalism? The Soviet Union was terrible in managing its environmental resources and there were even agricultural societies that suffered ecological collapse through overuse of resources. Some even saw it coming and couldn't change their ways anyway.
Not to defend the Soviet Union, but the communism of the cold war was actually in competition with capitalism. Thus it was a perverted form of communism by default, one which aimed to be as productive and inspire to equal growth as capitalistic countries, which the ideology is obviously worse at achieving. It's not like the system samz advocates is one that has been tried and failed anywhere. (I largely agree with his analysis of what's wrong and what we need to do anyway, if not how to get there. I don't want the abandonment of private property rights or whatever, I just want heavy regulations on capitalism, the prioritizing of sustainability over growth, and actual government encouragement to consume less.)
It's not a problem with capitalism but it is a problem with the idea that we are involved in some grand competition to have more and better than other people. That idea isn't something capitalism seeks to curb, rather it is something it seeks to encourage, to inspire to more spending and more growth.
|
Norway28675 Posts
On December 29 2013 11:28 Nyxisto wrote:
I would like to mention that climate change actually does not mean that it will rain dinosaurs and meteors at the end of the century, annihilating mankind, so it would be a good idea to stop thinking in absolutes. The future will probably be okay, we don't need to overthrow the whole system to prevent the doomsday.
I don't know what a "techno messiah" is, as technological progress is the opposite of just sitting and waiting around and hoping that something good happens. I think betting on technological progress is a far better idea than waiting that everyone on this planet is abandoning consumerism and switching to some kind of hipster Buddhist lifestyle.
The future will probably be okay in western countries. Not so much for 150 million Bangladeshi who have to be relocated, probably a vast majority of them migrating to poor countries that are already struggling with many serious issues of their own, leading to them probably being considered a cause of worsened social conditions which then makes people dislike them.
Not to mention stuff like, malaria spreading to regions of Africa previously safe from it, or more extreme weather causing the mother of all tsunamis over south east Asia, or biodiversity suffering in ways that affect future generations in ways that is impossible to predict - just that it's not good. Sure in Norway it's no crisis that the temperature increases by 2 degrees. Except if it then alters the course of the gulf stream, making us as cold as Alaska. I mean basically, the possible consequences of climate changes are impossible to predict. It's possible to argue that western countries can largely just ignore the changes cause infrastructure is so good and the few countries near sea-level are wealthy enough to actually build protective walls. But it's looking much, much worse when you leave Europe/Americas/Australia.
It really becomes ugly when you also think about how western consumerism to some degree is connected with the historical exploitation of the non-west. It's entirely possible to argue that essentially, the west has exploited the non-west to enable itself to pollute the world in a way that greatly harms the non-west but that the west, through wealth partially gained through the continued exploitation of the non-west, can kinda just.. pay to not really feel the effects from..
I'm not really here to present that argument, what I wrote is not nearly nuanced enough and I don't want to elaborate too much into what is kind of a narrative you either buy or not. But I do think it's a legitimate point of view. And the notion that feeling badly about this despite the fact that we're not dropping everything we own to live climate-neutrally in the forest (which is hardly even possible anymore anyway) somehow makes samz or me or others hypocrites is ridiculous. You are allowed to feel badly for people who have a dysfunctional kidney without having to give your own away. You are also allowed to feel badly for wrongly imprisoned people even if you aren't quitting everything in your life to get a law degree to possibly help set them free. In any democracy, simply having an opinion and expressing it is a valid form of attempting to achieve change.
|
On December 29 2013 11:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2013 11:15 hypercube wrote:On December 29 2013 10:34 sam!zdat wrote:On December 29 2013 10:22 xDaunt wrote:On December 29 2013 10:15 hypercube wrote:On December 29 2013 10:11 xDaunt wrote:On December 29 2013 09:54 sam!zdat wrote:
xdaunt since you're so smart why don't you fucking help us, you asshole. We don't know the answer and we're scared as fuck, you're just a smug jerk who's got his and wants to keep it, fuck everyone else and fuck the future. Well fuck you You are much more fun when you're high (or I dunno, maybe you were sober previously). As to your point, you wouldn't accept my help anyway. You'd categorically label whatever I had to offer as being reactionary, which isn't what you are after. I'm not looking to tear down the system. I want to help people thrive within the system. Sorry to barge into the conversation but why? A more reasonable approach would be to examine if it is possible for a large majority to thrive within the current system. Maybe it's not. So what is the alternative? It is not practical for people to wait around for the Marxist Jesus Christ to save us all from capitalism. You want to wsit around for the innovation messiah to save us from the environmental catastrophe wrought by capitalism. Is that really only a problem with capitalism? The Soviet Union was terrible in managing its environmental resources and there were even agricultural societies that suffered ecological collapse through overuse of resources. Some even saw it coming and couldn't change their ways anyway. Not to defend the Soviet Union, but the communism of the cold war was actually in competition with capitalism. Thus it was a perverted form of communism by default, one which aimed to be as productive and inspire to equal growth as capitalistic countries, which the ideology is obviously worse at achieving.
Point is that overuse of ecological resources is not only a problem in capitalism. It's first examples predates capitalism. There are various motivations but the most common and most enduring ones are status and power. Though I agree that capitalism and especially consumerism doesn't make the problem easier.
It's not like the system samz advocates is one that has been tried and failed anywhere. (I largely agree with his analysis of what's wrong and what we need to do anyway, if not how to get there.
I don't know what he advocates exactly so I can't agree or disagree with him. I more or less agree with what seems to be his assessment of the current situation.
I don't want the abandonment of private property rights or whatever, I just want heavy regulations on capitalism, the prioritizing of sustainability over growth, and actual government encouragement to consume less.)
Well, large parts of the world are still living close to or below sustenance levels. We either have to accept unsustainable growth, mass poverty or a decrease in living standards in the developed world, through actual transfer of wealth. I'm not arguing for any course of action here, but I think the first step in making a political choice is understanding its consequences. Which is why, as much as it pains me to admit, I find sam's posts refreshing. He seems to be a better handle of what the possible options and its consequences are than most of us.
|
On December 29 2013 12:22 hypercube wrote:
Well, large parts of the world are still living close to or below sustenance levels. We either have to accept unsustainable growth, mass poverty or a decrease in living standards in the developed world, through actual transfer of wealth. I'm not arguing for any course of action here, but I think the first step in making a political choice is understanding its consequences. Which is why, as much as it pains me to admit, I find sam's posts refreshing. He seems to be a better handle of what the possible options and its consequences are than most of us.
While it's often criticized for human rights violations, China's one child policy seems to have a net overall very positive effect for the country. Of course, it would be near impossible to implement in most countries due to the lack of a strong government enforcement/regulations/general education of the population, but finding a way to enforce that themselves I imagine could help substantially without being completely dependent on the West.
This is independent of whether or not their current situation is a result of Western exploitation, and it is not either suggesting that they should be condemned to inferior industrial development.
|
On December 29 2013 12:07 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I'm not really here to present that argument, what I wrote is not nearly nuanced enough and I don't want to elaborate too much into what is kind of a narrative you either buy or not. But I do think it's a legitimate point of view. And the notion that feeling badly about this despite the fact that we're not dropping everything we own to live climate-neutrally in the forest (which is hardly even possible anymore anyway) somehow makes samz or me or others hypocrites is ridiculous. You are allowed to feel badly for people who have a dysfunctional kidney without having to give your own away. You are also allowed to feel badly for wrongly imprisoned people even if you aren't quitting everything in your life to get a law degree to possibly help set them free. In any democracy, simply having an opinion and expressing it is a valid form of attempting to achieve change.
There is nothing wrong with emphasizing with people who are worse off. Where it gets annoying is when people start to develop a sense of moral superiority because of it and call everyone who doesn't share their agenda a stupid asshole.
And there is a certain hypocrisy to it. You can't be wearing Nikes and sit in front of your macbook while defending the honor of Bangladeshi factory workers over the internet with a straight face. Expressing your opinion is awesome. But just donating 5 bucks and working voluntarily at an orphanage two times a year will do more good than signing a thousand avaaz petitions on the internet.
And I don't think that just Western countries will be better off in the future. Poverty is falling and live expectancy is rising in many countries. Sure , at an awful pace, but it's getting better. There's no reason to be all apocalyptic and scream for fundamental changes all the time.
|
On December 29 2013 12:41 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2013 12:07 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I'm not really here to present that argument, what I wrote is not nearly nuanced enough and I don't want to elaborate too much into what is kind of a narrative you either buy or not. But I do think it's a legitimate point of view. And the notion that feeling badly about this despite the fact that we're not dropping everything we own to live climate-neutrally in the forest (which is hardly even possible anymore anyway) somehow makes samz or me or others hypocrites is ridiculous. You are allowed to feel badly for people who have a dysfunctional kidney without having to give your own away. You are also allowed to feel badly for wrongly imprisoned people even if you aren't quitting everything in your life to get a law degree to possibly help set them free. In any democracy, simply having an opinion and expressing it is a valid form of attempting to achieve change. There is nothing wrong with emphasizing with people who are worse off. Where it gets annoying is when people start to develop a sense of moral superiority because of it and call everyone who doesn't share their agenda a stupid asshole. And there is a certain hypocrisy to it. You can't be wearing Nikes and sit in front of your macbook while defending the honor of Bangladeshi factory workers over the internet with a straight face. Expressing your opinion is awesome. But just donating 5 bucks and working voluntarily at an orphanage two times a year will do more good than signing a thousand avaaz petitions on the internet. And I don't think that just Western countries will be better off in the future. Poverty is falling and live expectancy is rising in many countries. Sure , at an awful pace, but it's getting better. There's no reason to be all apocalyptic and scream for fundamental changes all the time.
However, income inequality is rising in pretty much every Western country. Just a matter of how much.
|
On December 29 2013 12:41 Nyxisto wrote:
There is nothing wrong with emphasizing with people who are worse off. Where it gets annoying is when people start to develop a sense of moral superiority because of it and call everyone who doesn't share their agenda a stupid asshole.
And there is a certain hypocrisy to it. You can't be wearing Nikes and sit in front of your macbook while defending the honor of Bangladeshi factory workers over the internet with a straight face. Expressing your opinion is awesome. But just donating 5 bucks and working voluntarily at an orphanage two times a year will do more good than signing a thousand avaaz petitions on the internet.
And I don't think that just Western countries will be better off in the future. Poverty is falling and live expectancy is rising in many countries. Sure , at an awful pace, but it's getting better. There's no reason to be all apocalyptic and scream for fundamental changes all the time.
So are you saying there won't be consequences to climate change? Or that the consequences won't be as dreadful as scientists prediict?
|
On December 29 2013 14:38 Sandvich wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2013 12:41 Nyxisto wrote:
There is nothing wrong with emphasizing with people who are worse off. Where it gets annoying is when people start to develop a sense of moral superiority because of it and call everyone who doesn't share their agenda a stupid asshole.
And there is a certain hypocrisy to it. You can't be wearing Nikes and sit in front of your macbook while defending the honor of Bangladeshi factory workers over the internet with a straight face. Expressing your opinion is awesome. But just donating 5 bucks and working voluntarily at an orphanage two times a year will do more good than signing a thousand avaaz petitions on the internet.
And I don't think that just Western countries will be better off in the future. Poverty is falling and live expectancy is rising in many countries. Sure , at an awful pace, but it's getting better. There's no reason to be all apocalyptic and scream for fundamental changes all the time. So are you saying there won't be consequences to climate change? Or that the consequences won't be as dreadful as scientists prediict?
I'm saying they will be exactly as dreadful as scientists predict and not nearly as dreadful as some people in this thread predict. There's no reason to carry "the end is nigh" signs around as some people are doing here.
However, income inequality is rising in pretty much every Western country. Just a matter of how much.
That's true, and a more reasonable wealth and income distribution would be awesome. I just think there's no need for some kind of revolution or complete system overhaul.
|
I honestly don't know where to post this but I thought this thread would be the best:
It's a very random question from someone who is trying to understand basic economics.
Suppose you buy a house during a boom for x dollars. However, you sell the house later on for y dollars during a recession. Assuming that the value of the dollar remains somewhat consistent and that y < x, can you say with guarantee that you have lost money.
I would say yes, but someone recently told me you can't accurately say that since the value has fluctuated. I'm genuinely curious.
|
On December 29 2013 10:34 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2013 10:22 xDaunt wrote:On December 29 2013 10:15 hypercube wrote:On December 29 2013 10:11 xDaunt wrote:On December 29 2013 09:54 sam!zdat wrote:
xdaunt since you're so smart why don't you fucking help us, you asshole. We don't know the answer and we're scared as fuck, you're just a smug jerk who's got his and wants to keep it, fuck everyone else and fuck the future. Well fuck you You are much more fun when you're high (or I dunno, maybe you were sober previously). As to your point, you wouldn't accept my help anyway. You'd categorically label whatever I had to offer as being reactionary, which isn't what you are after. I'm not looking to tear down the system. I want to help people thrive within the system. Sorry to barge into the conversation but why? A more reasonable approach would be to examine if it is possible for a large majority to thrive within the current system. Maybe it's not. So what is the alternative? It is not practical for people to wait around for the Marxist Jesus Christ to save us all from capitalism. no no no, I'm doing the critique of messianism here asshole. You want to wsit around for the innovation messiah to save us from the environmental catastrophe wrought by capitalism. I want us to take collective responsibility for what we are doing and work together to think of solutions. That involves taking the problem seriously. Which you don't want to do because you are afraid of what it means, so instead you prefer to ignore it and hope some magic messiah makes it go away.
Who says that I think that we need an "innovation messiah to save us from the environmental catastrophe wrought by capitalism?"
Also, you're obfuscating the original point of what the alternative to capitalism is by focusing on the environmentalism. Deny it all you want, but without euphemism, what you're really hoping for is some revolutionary figure -- we'll just refer to him as a messiah for simplicity's sake -- to show the world a new alternative to capitalism that isn't as fatally flawed as previously presented and tried alternatives. This is why I am rather amused by your "critique of messianism."
|
On December 29 2013 14:54 Housemd wrote:
I honestly don't know where to post this but I thought this thread would be the best:
It's a very random question from someone who is trying to understand basic economics.
Suppose you buy a house during a boom for x dollars. However, you sell the house later on for y dollars during a recession. Assuming that the value of the dollar remains somewhat consistent and that y < x, can you say with guarantee that you have lost money.
I would say yes, but someone recently told me you can't accurately say that since the value has fluctuated. I'm genuinely curious.
Not sure why someone told you that. It's a capital loss. Housing is treated differently concerning your ability to deduct capital net losses from income, but it's still a capital loss. Unless I'm missing something as well.
|
On December 29 2013 14:54 Housemd wrote:
I honestly don't know where to post this but I thought this thread would be the best:
It's a very random question from someone who is trying to understand basic economics.
Suppose you buy a house during a boom for x dollars. However, you sell the house later on for y dollars during a recession. Assuming that the value of the dollar remains somewhat consistent and that y < x, can you say with guarantee that you have lost money.
I would say yes, but someone recently told me you can't accurately say that since the value has fluctuated. I'm genuinely curious.
FabledIntegral is correct. You will have lost money on the transaction. The only grey area comes in if you still own the home. If you bought the house at x, and now the value is y but you are not selling, you are not realizing your losses. Same thing if the value is z, where z>x, you will not have gained any money (capital) unless you sell the house, thus realizing your gains.
|
On December 29 2013 11:38 Nyxisto wrote:
Are you talking to me? I'm agreeing completely with you. I'm just saying technological progress is completely in our hands and has nothing to do with hoping and praying.
Yes, we can bend the laws of physics and innovate our way out of everything. But coming together and finding an equitable solution to problems of resource management, labor, and social structure is simply out of the question.
|
On December 29 2013 08:35 sam!zdat wrote:
no, I want to correctly price the costs of dirty energy so that your precious market will actually have the correct incentives to work for us instead of against us
yalls ideology is so fucking desperate.
--I'm only arguing for better incentives, correct incentives, my incentives
On December 29 2013 10:34 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2013 10:22 xDaunt wrote:On December 29 2013 10:15 hypercube wrote:On December 29 2013 10:11 xDaunt wrote:On December 29 2013 09:54 sam!zdat wrote:
xdaunt since you're so smart why don't you fucking help us, you asshole. We don't know the answer and we're scared as fuck, you're just a smug jerk who's got his and wants to keep it, fuck everyone else and fuck the future. Well fuck you You are much more fun when you're high (or I dunno, maybe you were sober previously). As to your point, you wouldn't accept my help anyway. You'd categorically label whatever I had to offer as being reactionary, which isn't what you are after. I'm not looking to tear down the system. I want to help people thrive within the system. Sorry to barge into the conversation but why? A more reasonable approach would be to examine if it is possible for a large majority to thrive within the current system. Maybe it's not. So what is the alternative? It is not practical for people to wait around for the Marxist Jesus Christ to save us all from capitalism. no no no, I'm doing the critique of messianism here asshole. You want to wsit around for the innovation messiah to save us from the environmental catastrophe wrought by capitalism. I want us to take collective responsibility for what we are doing and work together to think of solutions. That involves taking the problem seriously. Which you don't want to do because you are afraid of what it means, so instead you prefer to ignore it and hope some magic messiah makes it go away.
Your last posts are that of a practicing prophet, as pointed out by xDaunt. You brand the rest as religion, but point to no more than a different religion and different faith yourself. My messiah will save you from your capitalist sins, your free market approach is tantamount to blind faith--per se. You have no better plan that can be compared against the ones proposed.
As an aside, "Ivory tower bullshit" works on just so many levels.
|
On December 29 2013 11:15 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2013 10:34 sam!zdat wrote:On December 29 2013 10:22 xDaunt wrote:On December 29 2013 10:15 hypercube wrote:On December 29 2013 10:11 xDaunt wrote:On December 29 2013 09:54 sam!zdat wrote:
xdaunt since you're so smart why don't you fucking help us, you asshole. We don't know the answer and we're scared as fuck, you're just a smug jerk who's got his and wants to keep it, fuck everyone else and fuck the future. Well fuck you You are much more fun when you're high (or I dunno, maybe you were sober previously). As to your point, you wouldn't accept my help anyway. You'd categorically label whatever I had to offer as being reactionary, which isn't what you are after. I'm not looking to tear down the system. I want to help people thrive within the system. Sorry to barge into the conversation but why? A more reasonable approach would be to examine if it is possible for a large majority to thrive within the current system. Maybe it's not. So what is the alternative? It is not practical for people to wait around for the Marxist Jesus Christ to save us all from capitalism. You want to wsit around for the innovation messiah to save us from the environmental catastrophe wrought by capitalism. Is that really only a problem with capitalism? The Soviet Union was terrible in managing its environmental resources and there were even agricultural societies that suffered ecological collapse through overuse of resources. Some even saw it coming and couldn't change their ways anyway.
Capitalism is not a clear word. Marx never used capitalism, he only wrote about the "kapital" (the accumulation of capital). It's actually a pretty young world who really appeared in 1902 with Wener Sombart (with the book Der Kapitalismus).
The Soviet Union was collectivist (in theory), planificationist (obviously a failure) and first and foremost productivist (just like any modern "capitalist" nation). So as you said, it didn't do any better than the US in term of ecology.
And just like liquid'Drone said, you can't really judge sovietism like it is a real communist experience. Since the beginning it was "at war" - against almost all its neighbour. It was clear as day in the beginning (with the idea of "War Communism") and afterwards it was really hard for them to go back for some political problem (Stalin mostly).
On December 29 2013 15:09 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2013 14:54 Housemd wrote:
I honestly don't know where to post this but I thought this thread would be the best:
It's a very random question from someone who is trying to understand basic economics.
Suppose you buy a house during a boom for x dollars. However, you sell the house later on for y dollars during a recession. Assuming that the value of the dollar remains somewhat consistent and that y < x, can you say with guarantee that you have lost money.
I would say yes, but someone recently told me you can't accurately say that since the value has fluctuated. I'm genuinely curious. Not sure why someone told you that. It's a capital loss. Housing is treated differently concerning your ability to deduct capital net losses from income, but it's still a capital loss. Unless I'm missing something as well.
X and Y are nominal value, (they are face value, expressed in monetary term).
To see the real loss (or gain) after the selling you need to translate Y and X in real value (Y in X value adjusted from a nominal value to remove the effects of general price level price changes over time) so you need to take into consideration inflation or deflation between the moment you buy the house and the moment you sell it.
The only reason why you would not have lost money would be if between time x and time y there is a deflation (a decrease in the general price level of goods and services) so that Y in real value > X in real value (despite X in nominal value > Y in nominal value) - something rather impossible in today's world but it's still possible in theory.
For your exemple it is not really important, but if Y was higher than X it would be pretty important to calculate the real value of those number (500 $ in 1950 is not less than 1000 $ in 2010).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
