|
On May 18 2012 14:17 DeliCiousVP wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 13:54 Kiarip wrote:On May 18 2012 13:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:DeliCiousVP so at this point if you can't answer the question beyond posting links to 2hr long propaganda films then I'm done with this little debate even though it's been fun  . It's a simple question in market economies but a huge question as to how a RBE will be run in the real world. If it (in both parts 'a' and 'b') cannot be answered thoroughly then the RBE cannot work. Here's the question again. In a RBE (Resource Based Economy) how do you evaluate whether or not building a steel mill is: a) worth the specific resources it will consume in its construction and use b) a better use of resources than other options Note: you do not have infinite resources - building the steel mill will mean that something else that is wanted will not be built. Of course he has no answer to this... All attempts at Utilitarian central control economies have failed and will continue to fail, and can never succeed, because we as humans are individualists, and the social circle of the people we actually care about is much smaller than the society that we live in, so we have dissenting interests, the "fair" reconciliation of which is a problem of exponential mathematical complexity, meaning it's not solvable in practice, at least in a dynamic system. We're not bees or ants in a single hive or anthill, we don't all share a common purpose without coercion. You say we dont share the common purpose as a need ? So its just fiction that we need food water and shelter? You are not an individual capable of critical thinking you are a guardian of the status quo which is the absolute opposite of an well informed individual. Its cute to be so naive, and dangerous to be so ignorant.
Oh here comes the condenscending ad hominems to go with a logically flawed rebuttal.
My need for food is actually a conflicting interest with your need of food, because there's a finite amount of food, and if in a case when there's not enough food for everyone these interests become not only conflicting, but their fulfillment becomes mutually exclusive.
The same goes for our interest in acquiring anything else, and there are things that are even more scarce than food, the interests for which cause even more conflicts.
Seriously, save the condenscending tone for a place where the majority of the population is uneducated and stupid enough to buy into your fairy-tales. That place is not TL.
Centralized ulilitarian distribution is a mathematically unsolvable problem, and your inability to provide a solution for it in a very isolated example of a single steel mill is just another unnecessary demonstration of that. You can't argue against facts, even the Traveling Salesman Problem which is a very MINOR but deeply intertwined part of the utilitarian distribution problem would entail more computations than we and all our creations have made as a civilization throughout our entire existence for a system the size of the world's current population.
edit:
I find it absolutely hilarious our forums are liberal enough to have people openly come out and discredit the intelligence of someone who does as much as question evolution, but everyone has taken it so easy on you when you come here to argue against MATH.
lol.
|
To be fair, this thread consists of about 50 pages worth of rebuttals against DeliciousVP, he hasn't been taken easy on.
|
Oh here comes the condenscending ad hominems to go with a logically flawed rebuttal.
To be fair, this thread consists of about 50 pages worth of rebuttals against DeliciousVP
Lol .
You realy think you refuted annything?
American debating is so far from reality,
You can debate and proof anny point if you better then your opponent, it has lost all connection with reality.
Great ideas and decissions dont come from people debating, they come from people with visions.
You can debate all you want, and its relativly easy to shut this idea down but dont think you did proove annything.
People against this idea just dont get it.
And i will now leave this thread with the happy feeling that in the far future history will proove delicious right.
Every case has manny arguments and sides, wich side is more important is a matter of taste.
|
On May 18 2012 20:08 Rassy wrote:
Oh here comes the condenscending ad hominems to go with a logically flawed rebuttal.
To be fair, this thread consists of about 50 pages worth of rebuttals against DeliciousVP
Lol .
You realy think you refuted annything?
American debating is so far from reality,
You can debate and proof anny point if you better then your opponent, it has lost all connection with reality.
Great ideas and decissions dont come from people debating, they come from people with visions.
You can debate all you want, and its relativly easy to shut this idea down but dont think you did proove annything.
People against this idea just dont get it.
And i will now leave this thread with the happy feeling that in the far future history will proove delicious right.
Every case has manny arguments and sides, wich side is more important is a matter of taste.
Amazing.
|
On May 18 2012 20:08 Rassy wrote:
Oh here comes the condenscending ad hominems to go with a logically flawed rebuttal.
To be fair, this thread consists of about 50 pages worth of rebuttals against DeliciousVP
Lol .
You realy think you refuted annything?
American debating is so far from reality,
You can debate and proof anny point if you better then your opponent, it has lost all connection with reality.
Great ideas and decissions dont come from people debating, they come from people with visions.
You can debate all you want, and its relativly easy to shut this idea down but dont think you did proove annything.
People against this idea just dont get it.
And i will now leave this thread with the happy feeling that in the far future history will proove delicious right.
Every case has manny arguments and sides, wich side is more important is a matter of taste.
'American debating'? Whats with the american adjective? There have been many people from all across the globe arguing against this idea, asking for legit statistics that will prove how this centralised destribution will be calculated and catered. You're just trying to downplay others people's authority based on where they are from, which is rather narrow minded.
Great idea's come from people thinking, great executions come from careful debate and expertise. There's a reason 'I want to fly' is a great idea that made many people jump off of cliffs with feathers strapped to their arms, but it took expertise and knowledge to get it to become a reality. This is what we want, to move from a beautiful idea to a marvelous reality, not to roll the dice on humanity and have it destroyed because the new system wasn't managed right.
We are NOT arguing against the beauty of the idea, just like we aren't arguing against the splendor of what communism was supposed to be. The idea of world peace, having everything for free and all of that, everyone agrees that would be awesome. What the opposition dislikes is the lack of execution plans, transition plans and concrete figures that would prove this thing would be self reliant, more efficient and less prone to corruption than our current system.
Being against the current system is easy as hell, coming up with a better system is a lot harder especially if you want to prove that it would be better, which is the least you can expect someone to do once he suggest he has a better more efficient system. This isn't a two sided coin, I.E. 'you are against the current system, therefore you MUST be for this system'. Suggesting that it is like that shows just how you pidgeonholed yourself into believing everyone is against you if they don't share your opinion.
|
No, i dont think everyone is against me.
It seems though that the majority is against this idea but i dont take that personal at all
It is not easy to start a revolution, and to start a revolution or to win people for your idea you sometimes need to be populistic and ignore obvious drawbacks.
All to often in history of man people have said "this cant be done" , "that cant be done" "this is impossible because"
And they all had good arguments to support their case but history prooved them wrong.
I realise this idea is far from practical atm, i just want to try get people to dare to dream.
To stop taking the current system for granted as best and the only one and start think.
This i find a beautifull idea, though i think we several 100,s years from implementing.
Well thats last i will say, i still find this a verry interesting thread.
|
Is it serious or trol?
User was warned for this post
|
On May 18 2012 21:04 Rassy wrote:No, i dont think everyone is against me. It seems though that the majority is against this idea but i dont take that personal at all It is not easy to start a revolution, and to start a revolution or to win people for your idea you sometimes need to be populistic and ignore obvious drawbacks.
Yeah, I'd hate to bring up Godwins Law again, but this is how bad systems like the Nazi party came to power. Ignoring obvious drawbacks to create an ideal world without any reasons behind it, going purely on populistic standpoints to decieve people is a surefire way to end up kneedeep into dictatorship, plutocracy or any other failed system. You can't gamble with countries and people like that because you think it might work, becaues the risk of failure is equal to limiting the growth of humanity and your people as a whole for generations.
On May 18 2012 21:04 Rassy wrote:
All to often in history of man people have said "this cant be done" , "that cant be done" "this is impossible because"
And they all had good arguments to support their case but history prooved them wrong.
I realise this idea is far from practical atm, i just want to try get people to dare to dream.
To stop taking the current system for granted as best and the only one and start think.
This i find a beautifull idea, though i think we several 100,s years from implementing.
Well thats last i will say, i still find this a verry interesting thread.
Of course people in history have said things can't be done, with a good reason. If something new isn't thoroughly explained, tested and debated, it's a risk to blindly go after it. Either the technology wasn't there yet to make the argument solid enough or people were simply too stubborn to believe that anything with a slightly different skintone was equal to them. That doesn't make this a good argument for the RBE, or more correctly anything, at all.
If you want to make people dream and think beyond the current system, that's great. But keeping it real and coming up with realistic goals ( getting rid of corruption in congress, getting rid of citizens united ) will get you much farther than 'everything will be free' because it's so far out there that people are more inclined to turn the other cheek and call you a lunatic.
|
Holyshit this is still going? Lets just agree to disagree and move on
|
On May 18 2012 22:46 BlindKill wrote:
Holyshit this is still going? Lets just agree to disagree and move on
Or those that are interested in debating the many topics and ideas brought up in this thread can continue to debate, and you can move on.
|
On May 18 2012 22:43 Chaosvuistje wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 21:04 Rassy wrote:No, i dont think everyone is against me. It seems though that the majority is against this idea but i dont take that personal at all It is not easy to start a revolution, and to start a revolution or to win people for your idea you sometimes need to be populistic and ignore obvious drawbacks. Yeah, I'd hate to bring up Godwins Law again, but this is how bad systems like the Nazi party came to power. Ignoring obvious drawbacks to create an ideal world without any reasons behind it, going purely on populistic standpoints to decieve people is a surefire way to end up kneedeep into dictatorship, plutocracy or any other failed system. You can't gamble with countries and people like that because you think it might work, becaues the risk of failure is equal to limiting the growth of humanity and your people as a whole for generations. Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 21:04 Rassy wrote:
All to often in history of man people have said "this cant be done" , "that cant be done" "this is impossible because"
And they all had good arguments to support their case but history prooved them wrong.
I realise this idea is far from practical atm, i just want to try get people to dare to dream.
To stop taking the current system for granted as best and the only one and start think.
This i find a beautifull idea, though i think we several 100,s years from implementing.
Well thats last i will say, i still find this a verry interesting thread. Of course people in history have said things can't be done, with a good reason. If something new isn't thoroughly explained, tested and debated, it's a risk to blindly go after it. Either the technology wasn't there yet to make the argument solid enough or people were simply too stubborn to believe that anything with a slightly different skintone was equal to them. That doesn't make this a good argument for the RBE, or more correctly anything, at all. If you want to make people dream and think beyond the current system, that's great. But keeping it real and coming up with realistic goals ( getting rid of corruption in congress, getting rid of citizens united ) will get you much farther than 'everything will be free' because it's so far out there that people are more inclined to turn the other cheek and call you a lunatic.
Though not the only proponents of a 'resource-based economy' (what a stupid term btw), I would like to bring up that the Venus Project, to my best understanding, does not propose a forceful restructuring of society. I believe they want to start communities that live by these principles, under the assumptions that eventually everyone will want to join them voluntarily, because life is so much better in the Venus Projects. Though I personally suspect it is doomed to fail, the experiment itself does seem to be rather benign. I'm not sure what the project has accomplished thus far, but the fururistic ideas are quite interesting. Though it must be acknowledged that that is what they are, futuristic.
|
And to answer this trivial question, Demand if someone requests a product it will be saved and entered into the system demand of a good or service will be meassured and production/Infrastructure adapted for it. Values will also be studied and the commericial society that we have today will go out the door.
Ok, some questions:
1. Under this system, is my request binary or do I get to express varying degrees of desire/need?
2. Can I just ask for everything? Or are there a finite number of requests I can make?
3. Assuming the answer to 1. is that I can express varying degrees of desire/need, can I just say I desperately need everything? Or do i have a 'pot' of need to allocate according to my priorities?
4. Say 1000,000 people ask for something that uses 1 of resource X, and 1000,000 people ask for something that uses 2 of resource X. What do you do if you don't have 3,000,000 X?
|
On May 18 2012 13:54 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 13:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:DeliCiousVP so at this point if you can't answer the question beyond posting links to 2hr long propaganda films then I'm done with this little debate even though it's been fun . It's a simple question in market economies but a huge question as to how a RBE will be run in the real world. If it (in both parts 'a' and 'b') cannot be answered thoroughly then the RBE cannot work. Here's the question again. In a RBE (Resource Based Economy) how do you evaluate whether or not building a steel mill is: a) worth the specific resources it will consume in its construction and use b) a better use of resources than other options Note: you do not have infinite resources - building the steel mill will mean that something else that is wanted will not be built. Of course he has no answer to this... All attempts at Utilitarian central control economies have failed and will continue to fail, and can never succeed, because we as humans are individualists, and the social circle of the people we actually care about is much smaller than the society that we live in, so we have dissenting interests, the "fair" reconciliation of which is a problem of exponential mathematical complexity, meaning it's not solvable in practice, at least in a dynamic system. We're not bees or ants in a single hive or anthill, we don't all share a common purpose without coercion.
Humans are individualists... I hate this ridiculous myth. Its absolute. fucking. bullshit.
Humans are a social animal. 99.9% of our genetic history was spent working in egalitarian tribal groups, and studies show people were much happier that way, even without all the medicine, abundant (albiet processed to hell) food, and techy toys. Connection, communication and affection from other humans is a fundamental need for psychological health.
It has been the undying objective of the elite, neo-liberalist oligarchs in the modern era to convince the public that humans are happiest alone, not caring for or tending to the needs of others for mutual benefit. It's bullshit. There's a word for people who don't empathize or collaborate with other people: sociopath.
|
On May 19 2012 00:16 Ayabara wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 13:54 Kiarip wrote:On May 18 2012 13:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:DeliCiousVP so at this point if you can't answer the question beyond posting links to 2hr long propaganda films then I'm done with this little debate even though it's been fun . It's a simple question in market economies but a huge question as to how a RBE will be run in the real world. If it (in both parts 'a' and 'b') cannot be answered thoroughly then the RBE cannot work. Here's the question again. In a RBE (Resource Based Economy) how do you evaluate whether or not building a steel mill is: a) worth the specific resources it will consume in its construction and use b) a better use of resources than other options Note: you do not have infinite resources - building the steel mill will mean that something else that is wanted will not be built. Of course he has no answer to this... All attempts at Utilitarian central control economies have failed and will continue to fail, and can never succeed, because we as humans are individualists, and the social circle of the people we actually care about is much smaller than the society that we live in, so we have dissenting interests, the "fair" reconciliation of which is a problem of exponential mathematical complexity, meaning it's not solvable in practice, at least in a dynamic system. We're not bees or ants in a single hive or anthill, we don't all share a common purpose without coercion. Humans are individualists... I hate this ridiculous myth. Its absolute. fucking. bullshit.Humans are a social animal. 99.9% of our genetic history was spent working in egalitarian tribal groups, and studies show people were much happier that way, even without all the medicine, abundant (albiet processed to hell) food, and techy toys. Connection, communication and affection from other humans is a fundamental need for psychological health. It has been the undying objective of the elite, neo-liberalist oligarchs in the modern era to convince the public that humans are happiest alone, not caring for or tending to the needs of others for mutual benefit. It's bullshit. There's a word for people who don't empathize or collaborate with other people: sociopath.
Though you are obviously correct that humans are very social animals, most hunter-gatherers cultures are not egalitarian. The Kung-San are an exception, not the rule. There is pretty convincing archeological evidence that hunter-gatherers were healthier and better nourished than early agriculturals. But I very much doubt any study has been able to show that hunter-gatherers were happier than modern people, I don't even how such a study would be accomplished.
|
In a RBE (Resource Based Economy) how do you evaluate whether or not building a steel mill is:
a) worth the specific resources it will consume in its construction and use
b) a better use of resources than other options
This is not easy indeed and it also feels a bit unfair to have to give a solution.
Capitalism doesnt make the right choises here either,
Sigarettes ,countless terrible products, failed investments show.
Capitalism also fails in another aspect, it only takes into account the resources it gives a value.
Clean air and nature have a value but when we produce and spoil them and their value, this is not counted as a cost (though we are slowly seeing a verry small change in this)
But since we want to be better then capitalism i shall try give a solution.
I imagine an aproach in wich demand would be inventorised and categorised.
This would not only be material demand, doing the work you want, and not work you have to could also be a demand for example.
Then production could be inventorised and one could calculate wich production would fill the most of the demand.
Am not saying it is an easy way, and i definatly dont support a plan economy but i wouldnt go as far as to claim its impossible.
China prooved that it is possible to manage a huge economy with a non capitalistic system.
(though i have to admit that china is probably the most capitalist country in the world atm)
People who rule the world know this btw, luckily.
And thats why all realy important operations like disease control, space exploration and fundamental scientific research are done in a cooperative way, rather then a competitive and capitalistic way.
|
On May 18 2012 23:31 Umpteen wrote:Show nested quote +And to answer this trivial question, Demand if someone requests a product it will be saved and entered into the system demand of a good or service will be meassured and production/Infrastructure adapted for it. Values will also be studied and the commericial society that we have today will go out the door. Ok, some questions: 1. Under this system, is my request binary or do I get to express varying degrees of desire/need? 2. Can I just ask for everything? Or are there a finite number of requests I can make? 3. Assuming the answer to 1. is that I can express varying degrees of desire/need, can I just say I desperately need everything? Or do i have a 'pot' of need to allocate according to my priorities? 4. Say 1000,000 people ask for something that uses 1 of resource X, and 1000,000 people ask for something that uses 2 of resource X. What do you do if you don't have 3,000,000 X?
So I thought about this and decided to write my ramblings down.
If we accept the premises that:
1. Resources are not infinite, nor are they sufficiently abundant such that everyone can have everything they want.
2. Peoples wants and needs differ significantly from eachother.
Then we can immediately reject the proposition that requests should be binary and that people can have everything. We can also reject that there is some one-size-fits-all package that will satisfy everyone equally. Consumer choices are made through Utility optimization problems, subject to a cost-income constraint. This does not change in a 'Resource Based Economy'. In an efficient planned economy such optimization problems still need to be solved, even though the price-mechanism is absent.
In the planned ecnomies of old, they just sort of geussed what people wanted, produced a bunch of stuff, gave their subjects some money and let them solve their own utility optimization problems. It wasn't much more complicated than that. I think we can all agree that this did not work, it let to massive shortages of many products and it failed to produce the cast range of varieties that existed in free markets. According to propenents of the Free World Charter for some reason we also need to get rid of money, so we wouldn't even be able to do it this way. So there needs to be a better system in place.
First we need to estimate a cost-curve. This should be fairly easy to do. We can measure and estimate how much of each resource we have. Then we need to determine what goods, and which varieties of goods we need to produce, and how many resources it would take to produce each quantity. There are ofcourse enormous difficulties in this process, as was evident by the almost complete lack of varieties in planned economies of the past. But let us suppose we are able to do this. Then we have a cost constraint.
We are still not ready to produce. We now have a cost constraint but in order to solve the Utility optimization problem we have to estimate a utility function. In Economics, attempts have been made to estimate the Utility functions of individual consumers. This was done through an interview process where consumers were asked about their preferences, wants and needs. Even when it concerned only a few goods, lets say 10, this is a very painstaking process, that takes many hours to complete. An individual in modern times, ofcourse, consumes thousands of different goods through their lifetime, and their needs and wants change over time. So some sort of system needs to be invented that is capable of estimating individual utility curves, through some sort of elaborate questionaire system. Consumers will have to spend considerable time answering such questions periodically. We cannot even concieve of such a system yet, but lets say Peter Joseph, the brilliant visionary that he is, invents it.
So now we have the utility function of each individual. You may think that we can just aggregate all individual utility functions, subject it to the cost constraint, solve the optimization problem and then we know how much of each product to produce. But you would be wrong, and this is due to some fundamental problems with the concept of utility. Utility is an ordinal, not a cardinal rank. So we can say that a utility level of 4 is better than a utility level of 2, but we cannot say that a utility level of 4 is twice the utility of 2. As a result, utility levels of individuals can also not be expressed relative to eachother. We can say that Jack and Jill both prefer to have a Ferrari to not having a Ferrari, but we don't know how much happier Jack would be with a Ferrari compared to Jilll. Utility simply has no meaning beyond the individual case.
So maybe we should allocate each individual with their fair share of resources, making that their cost restraint, then, knowing the individual's utility curve we can choose the optimal package of goods for that individual. But this presents another problem. Lets say im assigned a certain amount of iron, with which goods may be produced for me. But maybe I have no need for iron-based products. Maybe I only like wood, and iron based products would provide much less utility for me compared to someone else.
A budhist monk supposedly has no need for worldly possesions and would need only a quiet place for meditation, a robe to cover his body, and food to sustain it. Then there are people like me who would take great delight in holding a destruction derby involving 30 lamborghinis, would it not make sense to bestow me with the monk's share or iron? Perhaps a better example would be a handicapped person compared to a healthy person. A handicapped person, up to a certain point, would be far needier of resources than a healthy person. It makes little sense to assign the same amount of resources to a person that is more needy than another.
The point is, that shit is complicated, I wouldn't trust an authority to get it right.
|
"Fuck the free world!"
Cheddar Bob
|
Oh here comes the condenscending ad hominems to go with a logically flawed rebuttal.
My need for food is actually a conflicting interest with your need of food, because there's a finite amount of food, and if in a case when there's not enough food for everyone these interests become not only conflicting, but their fulfillment becomes mutually exclusive.
Imagine now that you were the president or someone with alot of power. Imagine you still reason this way now you create a society built upon this notion. "There is not enough for all of us we most compete over the resources" This idea is a darwin expression used to justify the murdering of millions.
Well you say fact is a fact we cant/dont grow enough food for 10 billion people anyway so what is there to do?
http://www.foodfirst.org/en/conventional agriculture won't end hunger
For a 100 billion.
+ Show Spoiler +According to the CIA World Factbook, the total land area of Earth is 148.94 million square kilometers, with 17.34 million square kilometers used for crop production. In 2007, the US produced approximately 11,000 kg of vegetables per acre. According to the Institute of Simplified Hydroponics, a group of impoverished children in India has developed a 20 square meter hydroponic garden that produces 730 kg/year(1). If these yields were scaled to a full acre, those yields could increase to ~147,000 kg/acre(2). Using orbitropism, increased CO2 concentrations in the air, and LED lighting, yields could theoretically increase to between ~800,000 to ~1,500,000 kg/acre(3). By adding fulvic acid and gibberellin, yields could increase further. Aeroponic variants have demonstrated an 80% increase in production on top of standard hydroponic yields. With these estimates, it is theoretically possible to produce between 1.8 to 3 million kg/acre(4) – between 180 to 300 times 2007 production, enough to feed a few thousand people every year – and with vertical farming, these yields could be increased linearly. If 4.2 billion acres(5) were required to produce 1.3 thousand kg of food for each living person in 2007, the amount of land used for agricultural means could be dramatically reduced to as little as 3.5 million acres without stacking crops(6), to 1.75 million acres using 2 stacks(6), to 700,000 acres using 5 stacks(6), to 350,000 acres using 10 stacks(6), etc. Using advanced aeroponic facilities and vertical farming, it is physically possible to feed an entire city of up to a million people using only 10 acres of land and 50 stacks(7) – if the population increases, simply add more vertical stacks Source http://zeitnewsblog.blogspot.se/2011/03/meeting-human-needs-how-resource-based.html.
Now you just condemed a billion people to starve and i just applied science to society and created abundance. When people utter ultimatiums like cant be done, Never!,its unsolvable! you create suffering. This is not some maxistic mother russia notion this is the future of society and we need to reach it at a faster pace then we are today for the betterment of all mankind.
The same goes for our interest in acquiring anything else, and there are things that are even more scarce than food, the interests for which cause even more conflicts.
Like we already confirmed your values are dangerous and ineffective. That is why you need new values updated and improved upon that offers compassion as a strength rather then indiffrence co-operation over competition. How can you understand something this advanced when your values are 200 years old?
Eventualy most if not all of you will reach the understanding of this direction, And to understand it is to approve of it because its not an idealogy that is just how you conceive it because of the lack in refrences you have. it is just the scientific method adapted to society and it welcomes change and improvement.
|
Crushinator Netherlands. May 18 2012 23:15. Posts 532
Off course this would be voluntary, and comparing it with nazism and implying this will lead to a dictatorship is simply not correct.
When i would skim this thread verry fast, i could devide it into 2 groups of people.
Thoose who say "yes we can" and thoose who say "no we cant" :p
In the meantime; the people who like this idea have to defend it against every attack and give a solution for every possible problem.
And the people who attack this idea, ignore every counter attack on their system.
And they dont have to come up with a solution to the manny obvious problems capitalism brings.
They can just say: "ya the system isnt perfect but its the best we have"
It feels like a verry onesided battle, wich is part of the fun though.
It also annoys me that while it is impossible to scientifically proove that this system can not work, (this isnt physics or math or chemisty, its a mix of socio economics and some psychology i would guess) everyone attacking it keeps bringing forth their arguments as if they are ever lasting facts.
Its also impossible to "proove" this would work btw, the only way it to actually go try it.
I do feel pitty for the people who think we will live in this missery for the rest of the time humanity exists.
Yes its a missery,
Even in the wealthiest country in the world, the US OF A ~ 25% of the population lives below the poverty line and like 10% of the people get food with food stamps,
And then there also is africa.
"and to replace something which has, for all its downsides, given us so much does require quite bulletproof evidence of its validity"
How can you say that the system has given us so much when you see the polution all over the world, the 50% of the world population that has less then 2.50 purchasing power parity a day, the large amount of people who claim to be unhappy in polls, all the (civil) wars.
Its just because we lucky to be born on the good side that we are relativly satisfied with the situation.
.
.
|
On May 19 2012 09:50 Rassy wrote:
Crushinator Netherlands. May 18 2012 23:15. Posts 532
Off course this would be voluntary, and comparing it with nazism and implying this will lead to a dictatorship is simply not correct.
When i would skim this thread verry fast, i could devide it into 2 groups of people.
Thoose who say "yes we can" and thoose who say "no we cant" :p
In the meantime; the people who like this idea have to defend it against every attack and give a solution for every possible problem.
And the people who attack this idea, ignore every counter attack on their system.
And they dont have to come up with a solution to the manny obvious problems capitalism brings.
They can just say: "ya the system isnt perfect but its the best we have"
It feels like a verry onesided battle, wich is part of the fun though.
It also annoys me that while it is impossible to scientifically proove that this system can not work, (this isnt physics or math or chemisty, its a mix of socio economics and some psychology i would guess) everyone attacking it keeps bringing forth their arguments as if they are ever lasting facts.
Its also impossible to "proove" this would work btw, the only way it to actually go try it.
I do feel pitty for the people who think we will live in this missery for the rest of the time humanity exists.
Yes its a missery,
Even in the wealthiest country in the world, the US OF A ~ 25% of the population lives below the poverty line and like 10% of the people get food with food stamps,
And then there also is africa.
Actually we can prove it doesn't work. People have, repeatedly, done so throughout this thread, from a number of different angles.
And as far as the flaws of capitalism goes, we don't actually need to defend them (nor do we itt afaik). This thread is about an alternative system, and to replace something which has, for all its downsides, given us so much does require quite bulletproof evidence of its validity. Instead, there's pretty much no proof at all, and in fact most of the statements, as I just said, have been disproven with logic and statistics. The proponents just dismiss this as not having "an open mind", as if that makes facts go away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
