|
This being the case, why are so many first world economies relentlessly trying to expand its own wealth where it would be better served in poorer countries?
Because if the last 50 years have proved anything, it is that sending money to poorer countries is not a better use of it past a certain point than keeping it here. That certain point is anything above or beyond simple humanitarian aid, and even then there are lots of places in sub-Saharan Africa where even that has failed at helping them, because the countries are so politically messed up.
|
On April 20 2012 10:42 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 10:08 Dali. wrote:On April 20 2012 09:58 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 09:12 Dali. wrote:On April 20 2012 08:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 20 2012 07:48 Dali. wrote:On April 20 2012 07:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 20 2012 07:29 Dali. wrote:On April 20 2012 07:23 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 07:07 xeo1 wrote:
[quote]
Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit. History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run. The bolded part is a pretty, well, bold claim. Maybe within the entity of a single state (though inequalities are typically growing), but resources are hardly efficiently or fairly distributed in a planetary context. Are you dismissing the hundreds of millions of people in Asia that have, in the past two decades alone, been lifted out of horrible poverty by profit motive? Or are you complaining that through the market system (and profit motive!) shortages in food and energy are rare? No. Considering humanity as a whole, shortages in food and energy are common in the sense that they are localised to underdeveloped countries which account for a large portion of the population. P.S. Straw man much. Shortages in energy and food are rare in the parts of the world that use the market system currently and have done so for years. Shortages are common where market forces are absent due to things like war or governments that have completely failed (ex. Somalia). So it's not a problem of markets improperly allocating resources, it's much more complicated than that. It is much more complicated. Let me speak personally so as to explain my position. All my material wants and needs have been more accounted for and probably will be for the rest of my life. I am not rich, I am middle class. The success of a market economy in New Zealand is undoubtedly responsible for my good fortune. Why is it that so many people do not live a life remotely resembling my own? Starvation, disease and violence are a daily reality for so many but to me, they do not even enter my frame of reference. Countries with material wealth very seldom encounter these 'evils'. It is well established that GDP per capita has extremely diminishing returns beyond certain points thresholds (sometimes charted as low as $15,000 per capita). This being the case, why are so many first world economies relentlessly trying to expand its own wealth where it would be better served in poorer countries? I feel that the economy in wealthy countries has become its a self-serving beast rather than a friendly giant that serves the people. Our major resources are being chewed through quickly, our emissions piling upon one another and the excesses of wealth prove unfulfilling. Even with all this intensive and excessive use, we still can't provide a decent life for ourselves (humanity). There are so many issues facing us which we have barely accounted for: overpopulation, climate change, resources depletion, pollution, soil degradation etc. The brunt of which will be taken by the poor. The market may provide me with its benefits but if it does so at the expense of others then I am uncomfortable and unwilling to participate. /directionless rant And yet you are participating. Although you're completely wrong I don't understand how someone who believes the same severely misguided things you do can continue on basking in your wealth while you believe slaves are working and starving for you. Its twisted to be frank. You're either evil or you don't honestly believe these things. There's no other alternative. By all means educate me on why I am wrong about my conception of the system. You present an air of knowledge and confidence in your position. I will gladly listen. I am participating, but I make a concerted effort to minimise my negative impact as best I can. Everyday there are new things ways to negate the impact of my consumption. I am, without doubt, a constantly failing case and will probably never live up to my ideals, but I am trying. The good thing about the market system is that you can choose who to support though. For instance you can buy "fair trade" coffee and other edibles, which operates under a system where the farmers are given a liveable wage by cooperatives that they work for. You can also buy from environmentally friendly companies, or ones that don't have their electonics manufactured by companies in china with very low safety/human rights standards (i.e. Foxconn, which incidentally Apple tacitly supports as was shown by an article in the new york times if I remember correctly). The market itself isn't inherently evil. It will bend to the consumer; if consumers are informed and choose to buy from environmentally/socially responsible companies, then their business models would change. In practise this is really difficult because people are kind of lazy; but if you want to make the world a better place you've got to be an activist and try to get a movement started. That's how fair trade became as large as it is today  edit: Its even better today because access to information is ubiquitous, and penetrates nearly every company. Its a lot harder to get away with things today than it used to be; social awareness is a really powerful force that is dramatically changing the market IMO.
I agree with you. But I feel that this idyllic view of the market is about as impractical or unreachable as the easily dismissed as egalitarian utopias. Relying on the bulk of consumers to make ethical choices when the benefits of 'unethical' practice save them money and the negative consequences are invisible is a tall order indeed.
|
On April 20 2012 10:46 Endymion wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 09:12 Dali. wrote:On April 20 2012 08:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 20 2012 07:48 Dali. wrote:On April 20 2012 07:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 20 2012 07:29 Dali. wrote:On April 20 2012 07:23 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 07:07 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 06:59 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 06:38 xeo1 wrote:
[quote]
My point is we should eliminate the profit system before dealing with space as everything is going to end up being privatized just like here on earth. In the system I advocate (resource based economy), we would have way more involvement in space as projects wouldn't be limited by money. Maybe you should study economics before falling hook, line, and sinker into that nonsense. Limited by money? Yes, its money, and not resources, that limits projects, of course. Resources (and don't restrict that to mean physical resources) are limited, and if you think you and a bunch of bureaucrats can distribute and implement them more efficiently than successful businessmen then you're simply arrogant. If you think you can do it better then prove it! Nothing is stopping you! Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit. History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run. The bolded part is a pretty, well, bold claim. Maybe within the entity of a single state (though inequalities are typically growing), but resources are hardly efficiently or fairly distributed in a planetary context. Are you dismissing the hundreds of millions of people in Asia that have, in the past two decades alone, been lifted out of horrible poverty by profit motive? Or are you complaining that through the market system (and profit motive!) shortages in food and energy are rare? No. Considering humanity as a whole, shortages in food and energy are common in the sense that they are localised to underdeveloped countries which account for a large portion of the population. P.S. Straw man much. Shortages in energy and food are rare in the parts of the world that use the market system currently and have done so for years. Shortages are common where market forces are absent due to things like war or governments that have completely failed (ex. Somalia). So it's not a problem of markets improperly allocating resources, it's much more complicated than that. It is much more complicated. Let me speak personally so as to explain my position. All my material wants and needs have been more accounted for and probably will be for the rest of my life. I am not rich, I am middle class. The success of a market economy in New Zealand is undoubtedly responsible for my good fortune. Why is it that so many people do not live a life remotely resembling my own? Starvation, disease and violence are a daily reality for so many but to me, they do not even enter my frame of reference. Countries with material wealth very seldom encounter these 'evils'. It is well established that GDP per capita has extremely diminishing returns beyond certain points thresholds (sometimes charted as low as $15,000 per capita). This being the case, why are so many first world economies relentlessly trying to expand its own wealth where it would be better served in poorer countries? I feel that the economy in wealthy countries has become its a self-serving beast rather than a friendly giant that serves the people. Our major resources are being chewed through quickly, our emissions piling upon one another and the excesses of wealth prove unfulfilling. Even with all this intensive and excessive use, we still can't provide a decent life for ourselves (humanity). There are so many issues facing us which we have barely accounted for: overpopulation, climate change, resources depletion, pollution, soil degradation etc. The brunt of which will be taken by the poor. The market may provide me with its benefits but if it does so at the expense of others then I am uncomfortable and unwilling to participate. /directionless rant oh you're such a philanthropist!! please liquidate all of your holdings and wire the result to ugandanmilitary@gmail.com... oops i mean ugandanhumanitarianorganization@gmail.com
I'm not sure why I'm deserving of your scorn or being the butt of your joke. Should I be ashamed that I wish to lead a life avoiding hyperconsumption, even if I will fail so many times. Have I placed myself as a moral superior because I choose this lifestyle? I prefaced the 'rant' stating I would speak of my own personal opinion.
Your statement appears arrogant. If you are deserving of this arrogant elucidate why I am so foolish.
|
On April 20 2012 10:59 Dali. wrote:
I'm not sure why I'm deserving of your scorn or being the butt of your joke. Should I be ashamed that I wish to lead a life avoiding hyperconsumption, even if I will fail so many times. Have I placed myself as a moral superior because I choose this lifestyle? I prefaced the 'rant' stating I would speak of my own personal opinion.
Your statement appears arrogant. If you are deserving of this arrogant elucidate why I am so foolish.
Could you quit derailing the thread and go debate your weird philosophy in another one?
|
On April 20 2012 10:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +This being the case, why are so many first world economies relentlessly trying to expand its own wealth where it would be better served in poorer countries? Because if the last 50 years have proved anything, it is that sending money to poorer countries is not a better use of it past a certain point than keeping it here. That certain point is anything above or beyond simple humanitarian aid, and even then there are lots of places in sub-Saharan Africa where even that has failed at helping them, because the countries are so politically messed up.
A fair point. In which case, why do we continue to grow the economy at all, when said growth contributes to the quickening depletion of essential resources and the increased output of greenhouse gases?
I am aware that this is entirely out of the question to the current economic model. But from my understanding growth will probably end, and it would be best to slow it on our own terms.
|
This company reminds me of Cerberus (mass effect series). Looks insanely cool, we can always use more resources.
|
from my understanding growth will probably end, and it would be best to slow it on our own terms.
This is impossible unless you bring in breeding controls, and good luck doing that
|
|
|
On April 20 2012 11:06 Dali. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 10:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:This being the case, why are so many first world economies relentlessly trying to expand its own wealth where it would be better served in poorer countries? Because if the last 50 years have proved anything, it is that sending money to poorer countries is not a better use of it past a certain point than keeping it here. That certain point is anything above or beyond simple humanitarian aid, and even then there are lots of places in sub-Saharan Africa where even that has failed at helping them, because the countries are so politically messed up. A fair point. In which case, why do we continue to grow the economy at all, when said growth contributes to the quickening depletion of essential resources and the increased output of greenhouse gases? I am aware that this is entirely out of the question to the current economic model. But from my understanding growth will probably end, and it would be best to slow it on our own terms.
You need a growing economy with a growing population, or else there won't be enough jobs for everyone. Right?
Why do you use a computer, it obviously depletes natural resources and outputs greenhouse gases (which I think we can both agree is bad)... It is obvious some things are just too difficult to give up. The next best thing is to use them appropriately. I think the investments in science and space exploration being made here will ultimately help our environment in the long run by making things more efficient and improving technology. A growing economy will also help develop these technologies as well, so I would lean to saying it is a good thing.
Also, very glad to see this new step in the right direction for space exploration!
|
On April 20 2012 11:24 dannystarcraft wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 11:06 Dali. wrote:On April 20 2012 10:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:This being the case, why are so many first world economies relentlessly trying to expand its own wealth where it would be better served in poorer countries? Because if the last 50 years have proved anything, it is that sending money to poorer countries is not a better use of it past a certain point than keeping it here. That certain point is anything above or beyond simple humanitarian aid, and even then there are lots of places in sub-Saharan Africa where even that has failed at helping them, because the countries are so politically messed up. A fair point. In which case, why do we continue to grow the economy at all, when said growth contributes to the quickening depletion of essential resources and the increased output of greenhouse gases? I am aware that this is entirely out of the question to the current economic model. But from my understanding growth will probably end, and it would be best to slow it on our own terms. You need a growing economy with a growing population, or else there won't be enough jobs for everyone. Right? Why do you use a computer, it obviously depletes natural resources and outputs greenhouse gases (which I think we can both agree is bad)... It is obvious some things are just too difficult to give up. The next best thing is to use them appropriately. I think the investments in science and space exploration being made here will ultimately help our environment in the long run by making things more efficient and improving technology. A growing economy will also help develop these technologies as well, so I would lean to saying it is a good thing. Also, very glad to see this new step in the right direction for space exploration!
The obvious answer is to stop growing the population, which is very difficult.
Indeed I agree with the rest of what you said. However it seems like outerspace resource acquisition is very difficult to sustain. I would advocate spending in more renewable sources. Of course, considering those associated with the project, there is a good chance they will have a pretty amazing plan in place.
|
Someone from UK saying there's a conference in Seattle that will "inject trillions of dollars into the GDP." O.o
2 different countries = specify which GDP. I know it's the US GDP because I looked it up, but summarizing the article just to make someone look up what you mean isn't extremely effective :/
But, on point, I'd love to see some space rock mining in the future.
|
On April 20 2012 11:31 Dali. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 11:24 dannystarcraft wrote:On April 20 2012 11:06 Dali. wrote:On April 20 2012 10:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:This being the case, why are so many first world economies relentlessly trying to expand its own wealth where it would be better served in poorer countries? Because if the last 50 years have proved anything, it is that sending money to poorer countries is not a better use of it past a certain point than keeping it here. That certain point is anything above or beyond simple humanitarian aid, and even then there are lots of places in sub-Saharan Africa where even that has failed at helping them, because the countries are so politically messed up. A fair point. In which case, why do we continue to grow the economy at all, when said growth contributes to the quickening depletion of essential resources and the increased output of greenhouse gases? I am aware that this is entirely out of the question to the current economic model. But from my understanding growth will probably end, and it would be best to slow it on our own terms. You need a growing economy with a growing population, or else there won't be enough jobs for everyone. Right? Why do you use a computer, it obviously depletes natural resources and outputs greenhouse gases (which I think we can both agree is bad)... It is obvious some things are just too difficult to give up. The next best thing is to use them appropriately. I think the investments in science and space exploration being made here will ultimately help our environment in the long run by making things more efficient and improving technology. A growing economy will also help develop these technologies as well, so I would lean to saying it is a good thing. Also, very glad to see this new step in the right direction for space exploration! The obvious answer is to stop growing the population, which is very difficult. Indeed I agree with the rest of what you said. However it seems like outerspace resource acquisition is very likely to sustain with consistency. I would advocate spending in more renewable sources. Of course, considering those associated with the project, there is a good chance they will have a pretty amazing plan in place.
I agree stunting the growth of the population would be ideal, but I do not see a foreseeable way for this to happen in developing nations. :/
Did you mean that outer space resources will not sustain with consistency (EDIT: nvm you fixed it)? I think this will be true for at least the next 100 years, but after that I think technology has a good chance of profiting. I think that our investment in space could pay off in unexpected ways. I also agree that we should put more money into renewable resources.
Honestly, I think the key is this: several good ways to spend money seem to be "fixing problems on earth", "investing in space", "investing in renewable energy," etc. But all of these have a limit as to when more investment and money is just not worth it. The key is to invest an amount which give the most "bang for the buck" so to speak!
|
^ It's the global GDP, not the US alone isnt it?
|
On April 20 2012 11:37 dannystarcraft wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 11:31 Dali. wrote:On April 20 2012 11:24 dannystarcraft wrote:On April 20 2012 11:06 Dali. wrote:On April 20 2012 10:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:This being the case, why are so many first world economies relentlessly trying to expand its own wealth where it would be better served in poorer countries? Because if the last 50 years have proved anything, it is that sending money to poorer countries is not a better use of it past a certain point than keeping it here. That certain point is anything above or beyond simple humanitarian aid, and even then there are lots of places in sub-Saharan Africa where even that has failed at helping them, because the countries are so politically messed up. A fair point. In which case, why do we continue to grow the economy at all, when said growth contributes to the quickening depletion of essential resources and the increased output of greenhouse gases? I am aware that this is entirely out of the question to the current economic model. But from my understanding growth will probably end, and it would be best to slow it on our own terms. You need a growing economy with a growing population, or else there won't be enough jobs for everyone. Right? Why do you use a computer, it obviously depletes natural resources and outputs greenhouse gases (which I think we can both agree is bad)... It is obvious some things are just too difficult to give up. The next best thing is to use them appropriately. I think the investments in science and space exploration being made here will ultimately help our environment in the long run by making things more efficient and improving technology. A growing economy will also help develop these technologies as well, so I would lean to saying it is a good thing. Also, very glad to see this new step in the right direction for space exploration! The obvious answer is to stop growing the population, which is very difficult. Indeed I agree with the rest of what you said. However it seems like outerspace resource acquisition is very likely to sustain with consistency. I would advocate spending in more renewable sources. Of course, considering those associated with the project, there is a good chance they will have a pretty amazing plan in place. I agree stunting the growth of the population would be ideal, but I do not see a foreseeable way for this to happen in developing nations. :/ Did you mean that outer space resources will not sustain with consistency? I think this will be true for at least the next 100 years, but after that I think technology has a good chance of profiting. I think that our investment in space could pay off in unexpected ways. I also agree that we should put more money into renewable resources. Honestly, I think the key is this: several good ways to spend money seem to be "fixing problems on earth", "investing in space", "investing in renewable energy," etc. But all of these have a limit as to when more investment and money is just not worth it. The key is to invest an amount which give the most "bang for the buck" so to speak!
Ahh yes you are correct. A silly mistake of mine ^^
I feel that, in the case of renewable energies, there is realistically no true state of diminishing return as alluded to in the final section of your post. Upkeep and maintenance aside (which perhaps do need to be accounted for), since the fuel of a renewable is essentially, in human terms, infinite, then it is always going to be useful and of non-marginal returns. I don't feel the same way about outerspace resource collection, but then again what would I know.
|
On April 20 2012 11:46 Dali. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 11:37 dannystarcraft wrote:On April 20 2012 11:31 Dali. wrote:On April 20 2012 11:24 dannystarcraft wrote:On April 20 2012 11:06 Dali. wrote:On April 20 2012 10:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:This being the case, why are so many first world economies relentlessly trying to expand its own wealth where it would be better served in poorer countries? Because if the last 50 years have proved anything, it is that sending money to poorer countries is not a better use of it past a certain point than keeping it here. That certain point is anything above or beyond simple humanitarian aid, and even then there are lots of places in sub-Saharan Africa where even that has failed at helping them, because the countries are so politically messed up. A fair point. In which case, why do we continue to grow the economy at all, when said growth contributes to the quickening depletion of essential resources and the increased output of greenhouse gases? I am aware that this is entirely out of the question to the current economic model. But from my understanding growth will probably end, and it would be best to slow it on our own terms. You need a growing economy with a growing population, or else there won't be enough jobs for everyone. Right? Why do you use a computer, it obviously depletes natural resources and outputs greenhouse gases (which I think we can both agree is bad)... It is obvious some things are just too difficult to give up. The next best thing is to use them appropriately. I think the investments in science and space exploration being made here will ultimately help our environment in the long run by making things more efficient and improving technology. A growing economy will also help develop these technologies as well, so I would lean to saying it is a good thing. Also, very glad to see this new step in the right direction for space exploration! The obvious answer is to stop growing the population, which is very difficult. Indeed I agree with the rest of what you said. However it seems like outerspace resource acquisition is very likely to sustain with consistency. I would advocate spending in more renewable sources. Of course, considering those associated with the project, there is a good chance they will have a pretty amazing plan in place. I agree stunting the growth of the population would be ideal, but I do not see a foreseeable way for this to happen in developing nations. :/ Did you mean that outer space resources will not sustain with consistency? I think this will be true for at least the next 100 years, but after that I think technology has a good chance of profiting. I think that our investment in space could pay off in unexpected ways. I also agree that we should put more money into renewable resources. Honestly, I think the key is this: several good ways to spend money seem to be "fixing problems on earth", "investing in space", "investing in renewable energy," etc. But all of these have a limit as to when more investment and money is just not worth it. The key is to invest an amount which give the most "bang for the buck" so to speak! Ahh yes you are correct. A silly mistake of mine ^^ I feel that, in the case of renewable energies, there is realistically no true state of diminishing return as alluded to in the final section of your post. Upkeep and maintenance aside (which perhaps do need to be accounted for), since the fuel of a renewable is essentially, in human terms, infinite, then it is always going to be useful and of non-marginal returns. I don't feel the same way about outerspace resource collection, but then again what would I know.
Well, I am not an expert (so I may be wrong), but I think with certain types of energy maintenance is such a cost and hassle that it is unreasonable. I think geothermal is the example. The temperatures corrode the metals in geothermal pumps quickly. I think the main problem is the high initial cost of these renewable sources. Yes, wind and solar power is great, but we cannot possible pay for everything to be powered by them. I am not sure if there is enough land! ^^
Expertise is not a issue on TL. Most of us are simply concerned individuals discussing our opinion! Now, I admit that I am a bit biased towards space (as I am employed in the sciences). But I feel that some of the indirect inventions due to space exploration (improved computing, more efficient combustion processes, medical advances, improvements in aircraft design, and the inspiration of future generations to learn) are reason enough to abandon a cost/benefit analysis and just say go for it! But even so, some of these improvements are saving significant amounts of money compared to the opportunity cost -- (the next best alternative). I think that neglecting research in these areas is detrimental and will inhibit future discoveries that have the potential to be just as effective, but we should still not focus too much in one area. What do they say... everything in moderation, nothing in excess.
|
On April 20 2012 10:59 Dali. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 10:46 Endymion wrote:On April 20 2012 09:12 Dali. wrote:On April 20 2012 08:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 20 2012 07:48 Dali. wrote:On April 20 2012 07:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 20 2012 07:29 Dali. wrote:On April 20 2012 07:23 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 07:07 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 06:59 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
[quote]
Maybe you should study economics before falling hook, line, and sinker into that nonsense. Limited by money? Yes, its money, and not resources, that limits projects, of course. Resources (and don't restrict that to mean physical resources) are limited, and if you think you and a bunch of bureaucrats can distribute and implement them more efficiently than successful businessmen then you're simply arrogant. If you think you can do it better then prove it! Nothing is stopping you! Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit. History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run. The bolded part is a pretty, well, bold claim. Maybe within the entity of a single state (though inequalities are typically growing), but resources are hardly efficiently or fairly distributed in a planetary context. Are you dismissing the hundreds of millions of people in Asia that have, in the past two decades alone, been lifted out of horrible poverty by profit motive? Or are you complaining that through the market system (and profit motive!) shortages in food and energy are rare? No. Considering humanity as a whole, shortages in food and energy are common in the sense that they are localised to underdeveloped countries which account for a large portion of the population. P.S. Straw man much. Shortages in energy and food are rare in the parts of the world that use the market system currently and have done so for years. Shortages are common where market forces are absent due to things like war or governments that have completely failed (ex. Somalia). So it's not a problem of markets improperly allocating resources, it's much more complicated than that. It is much more complicated. Let me speak personally so as to explain my position. All my material wants and needs have been more accounted for and probably will be for the rest of my life. I am not rich, I am middle class. The success of a market economy in New Zealand is undoubtedly responsible for my good fortune. Why is it that so many people do not live a life remotely resembling my own? Starvation, disease and violence are a daily reality for so many but to me, they do not even enter my frame of reference. Countries with material wealth very seldom encounter these 'evils'. It is well established that GDP per capita has extremely diminishing returns beyond certain points thresholds (sometimes charted as low as $15,000 per capita). This being the case, why are so many first world economies relentlessly trying to expand its own wealth where it would be better served in poorer countries? I feel that the economy in wealthy countries has become its a self-serving beast rather than a friendly giant that serves the people. Our major resources are being chewed through quickly, our emissions piling upon one another and the excesses of wealth prove unfulfilling. Even with all this intensive and excessive use, we still can't provide a decent life for ourselves (humanity). There are so many issues facing us which we have barely accounted for: overpopulation, climate change, resources depletion, pollution, soil degradation etc. The brunt of which will be taken by the poor. The market may provide me with its benefits but if it does so at the expense of others then I am uncomfortable and unwilling to participate. /directionless rant oh you're such a philanthropist!! please liquidate all of your holdings and wire the result to ugandanmilitary@gmail.com... oops i mean ugandanhumanitarianorganization@gmail.com I'm not sure why I'm deserving of your scorn or being the butt of your joke. Should I be ashamed that I wish to lead a life avoiding hyperconsumption, even if I will fail so many times. Have I placed myself as a moral superior because I choose this lifestyle? I prefaced the 'rant' stating I would speak of my own personal opinion. Your statement appears arrogant. If you are deserving of this arrogant elucidate why I am so foolish.
you're being scorned because you're acting like a bleeding heart.. you have everything at your fingertips yet you're biting the hand that feeds you in favor of communism which would sooner fist you than feed you. talk to people who lived in moscow while the USSR was at war in afghanistan about the lines to get a measly piece of bread, then try to tell me 'hyper-consumerism' is such a bad thing
|
On April 20 2012 12:08 Endymion wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 10:59 Dali. wrote:On April 20 2012 10:46 Endymion wrote:On April 20 2012 09:12 Dali. wrote:On April 20 2012 08:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 20 2012 07:48 Dali. wrote:On April 20 2012 07:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 20 2012 07:29 Dali. wrote:On April 20 2012 07:23 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 07:07 xeo1 wrote:
[quote]
Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit. History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run. The bolded part is a pretty, well, bold claim. Maybe within the entity of a single state (though inequalities are typically growing), but resources are hardly efficiently or fairly distributed in a planetary context. Are you dismissing the hundreds of millions of people in Asia that have, in the past two decades alone, been lifted out of horrible poverty by profit motive? Or are you complaining that through the market system (and profit motive!) shortages in food and energy are rare? No. Considering humanity as a whole, shortages in food and energy are common in the sense that they are localised to underdeveloped countries which account for a large portion of the population. P.S. Straw man much. Shortages in energy and food are rare in the parts of the world that use the market system currently and have done so for years. Shortages are common where market forces are absent due to things like war or governments that have completely failed (ex. Somalia). So it's not a problem of markets improperly allocating resources, it's much more complicated than that. It is much more complicated. Let me speak personally so as to explain my position. All my material wants and needs have been more accounted for and probably will be for the rest of my life. I am not rich, I am middle class. The success of a market economy in New Zealand is undoubtedly responsible for my good fortune. Why is it that so many people do not live a life remotely resembling my own? Starvation, disease and violence are a daily reality for so many but to me, they do not even enter my frame of reference. Countries with material wealth very seldom encounter these 'evils'. It is well established that GDP per capita has extremely diminishing returns beyond certain points thresholds (sometimes charted as low as $15,000 per capita). This being the case, why are so many first world economies relentlessly trying to expand its own wealth where it would be better served in poorer countries? I feel that the economy in wealthy countries has become its a self-serving beast rather than a friendly giant that serves the people. Our major resources are being chewed through quickly, our emissions piling upon one another and the excesses of wealth prove unfulfilling. Even with all this intensive and excessive use, we still can't provide a decent life for ourselves (humanity). There are so many issues facing us which we have barely accounted for: overpopulation, climate change, resources depletion, pollution, soil degradation etc. The brunt of which will be taken by the poor. The market may provide me with its benefits but if it does so at the expense of others then I am uncomfortable and unwilling to participate. /directionless rant oh you're such a philanthropist!! please liquidate all of your holdings and wire the result to ugandanmilitary@gmail.com... oops i mean ugandanhumanitarianorganization@gmail.com I'm not sure why I'm deserving of your scorn or being the butt of your joke. Should I be ashamed that I wish to lead a life avoiding hyperconsumption, even if I will fail so many times. Have I placed myself as a moral superior because I choose this lifestyle? I prefaced the 'rant' stating I would speak of my own personal opinion. Your statement appears arrogant. If you are deserving of this arrogant elucidate why I am so foolish. you're being scorned because you're acting like a bleeding heart.. you have everything at your fingertips yet you're biting the hand that feeds you in favor of communism which would sooner fist you than feed you. talk to people who lived in moscow while the USSR was at war in afghanistan about the lines to get a measly piece of bread, then try to tell me 'hyper-consumerism' is such a bad thing
I never argued in favour of communism. My posts have extolled the many virtues of the market and am forever grateful its provisions. I simply want to see the wonderful life I have been gifted available to everyone: free from all the ills of poverty. Next time I'll make things clearer Mr. McCarthy.
Notice I said hyperconsumption not hyperconsumerism. Hyperconsumerism is fine by me provided there are tangible benefits to the consumer and it doesn't not place a heavy strain on the resources of the planet. Since we currently live upon the back of a finite set of resources, we ought to avoid consuming them for marginal returns, and invest them in ensuring energy security.
For someone with a writer's icon, you don't do very much reading.
|
I just did a few calcs based on numbers given in wikipedia...
The largest known M-type asteroid is estimated to hold enough iron/nickel (1.7*10^19kg) in it to sustain our current iron/nickel usage (2 billion tonnes/year) for 8,500,000 years... 8.5 MILLION years of mining at todays rate of consumption.
Seems kinda worth the investment in my mind
|
On April 20 2012 12:08 Endymion wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 10:59 Dali. wrote:On April 20 2012 10:46 Endymion wrote:On April 20 2012 09:12 Dali. wrote:On April 20 2012 08:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 20 2012 07:48 Dali. wrote:On April 20 2012 07:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 20 2012 07:29 Dali. wrote:On April 20 2012 07:23 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 07:07 xeo1 wrote:
[quote]
Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit. History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run. The bolded part is a pretty, well, bold claim. Maybe within the entity of a single state (though inequalities are typically growing), but resources are hardly efficiently or fairly distributed in a planetary context. Are you dismissing the hundreds of millions of people in Asia that have, in the past two decades alone, been lifted out of horrible poverty by profit motive? Or are you complaining that through the market system (and profit motive!) shortages in food and energy are rare? No. Considering humanity as a whole, shortages in food and energy are common in the sense that they are localised to underdeveloped countries which account for a large portion of the population. P.S. Straw man much. Shortages in energy and food are rare in the parts of the world that use the market system currently and have done so for years. Shortages are common where market forces are absent due to things like war or governments that have completely failed (ex. Somalia). So it's not a problem of markets improperly allocating resources, it's much more complicated than that. It is much more complicated. Let me speak personally so as to explain my position. All my material wants and needs have been more accounted for and probably will be for the rest of my life. I am not rich, I am middle class. The success of a market economy in New Zealand is undoubtedly responsible for my good fortune. Why is it that so many people do not live a life remotely resembling my own? Starvation, disease and violence are a daily reality for so many but to me, they do not even enter my frame of reference. Countries with material wealth very seldom encounter these 'evils'. It is well established that GDP per capita has extremely diminishing returns beyond certain points thresholds (sometimes charted as low as $15,000 per capita). This being the case, why are so many first world economies relentlessly trying to expand its own wealth where it would be better served in poorer countries? I feel that the economy in wealthy countries has become its a self-serving beast rather than a friendly giant that serves the people. Our major resources are being chewed through quickly, our emissions piling upon one another and the excesses of wealth prove unfulfilling. Even with all this intensive and excessive use, we still can't provide a decent life for ourselves (humanity). There are so many issues facing us which we have barely accounted for: overpopulation, climate change, resources depletion, pollution, soil degradation etc. The brunt of which will be taken by the poor. The market may provide me with its benefits but if it does so at the expense of others then I am uncomfortable and unwilling to participate. /directionless rant oh you're such a philanthropist!! please liquidate all of your holdings and wire the result to ugandanmilitary@gmail.com... oops i mean ugandanhumanitarianorganization@gmail.com I'm not sure why I'm deserving of your scorn or being the butt of your joke. Should I be ashamed that I wish to lead a life avoiding hyperconsumption, even if I will fail so many times. Have I placed myself as a moral superior because I choose this lifestyle? I prefaced the 'rant' stating I would speak of my own personal opinion. Your statement appears arrogant. If you are deserving of this arrogant elucidate why I am so foolish. you're being scorned because you're acting like a bleeding heart.. you have everything at your fingertips yet you're biting the hand that feeds you in favor of communism which would sooner fist you than feed you. talk to people who lived in moscow while the USSR was at war in afghanistan about the lines to get a measly piece of bread, then try to tell me 'hyper-consumerism' is such a bad thing
Here are a few quotes I read somewhere, summing up communism really nicely. Now, I favor a resource-based economy, but nonetheless it is beneficial to understand this system which has been misunderstood by many to this day:
The USSR was state-capitalist. Their economy was state-run and involved money. There's no modern example of a true communist economy.
The economies of those authoritarian regimes used money and were run by the state. It's called state capitalism. True communism would involve neither a state (let alone a political party) nor money. Its economy would be run by each voluntary member of the community with no authoritarian coercion from a minority.
The early 20th century wasn't ready for a real communist enterprise, especially technology-wise. Hence the failure. The situation is quite different today.
Many things that were unavailable at the time of Lenin are today available. We have advanced computers, the internet, satellites, 3D printers, etc. The likes of Creative Commons are the mark of people's awareness of common ownership. We now have far better bases for collective decisions, scientific resource management, etc.
In an environment of finite resources such as this planet, capitalism with its consumerist culture is unsustainable. It doesn't ensure the continuation of production and people's welfare of being. A shift is inevitable. The real question is not whether common ownership is possible but how to bring about the change peacefully.
|
On April 20 2012 12:49 KnT wrote:
I just did a few calcs based on numbers given in wikipedia...
The largest known M-type asteroid is estimated to hold enough iron/nickel (1.7*10^19kg) in it to sustain our current iron/nickel usage (2 billion tonnes/year) for 8,500,000 years... 8.5 MILLION years of mining at todays rate of consumption.
Seems kinda worth the investment in my mind
Its not a question of 'if there is energy/resources' its a question of 'how do we acquire it'.
For example:
"The total solar energy absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land masses is approximately 3,850,000 exajoules (EJ) per year.[7] In 2002, this was more energy in one hour than the world used in one year."
And yet we're still heading toward a potential energy crisis in the next 15-30 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
