Communism?

[PLAYER57832]

Okay, then explain how ancient civilizations had such great disparities of wealth and power with such little trade, or capitalism.

(again, it isn't capitalism).

)

Uh since when did Ancient societies not have trade?????

To the extent they did not, they had those in power simply taking what they wanted from those underneath. However, trade very much happened. Its just the world was effectively smaller.

I didn't say that. See the underlined. "Little trade" refers to the relatively small degree of trade compared to the degree of trade in today's global economy.

Is it fair to say that trade was less, in the context of an economic system, when its more that the world itself was so much smaller?

Also, it was that trade that largely spurred on exploration, and you can say exploitation of course, but expansion worldwide. China is the main contrarian. Yet, I believe even they had trade within.

[PLAYER57832]

At the risk of becoming embroiled in misunderstanding:

(1) Medieval "governments" didn't exist because of the idea that those in power were put there by God. Medieval power existed because of wealth and force (same as today). In medieval times they justified being in power by, among other things, "Hey, I'm here because of God." Some of those other things were "hey, I have more swords than you" and "hey, my dad was duke." In modern times, people justify power by, among other things, "I have more money than you" and "You get to elect me."

Good of you to point out the parallels. However, to deny many people are trying to return to "he is in charge because GOD wants him to be" is to deny a major force. And one (as I have said before) that is absolutely not cooincidental.

(2) I would argue that government interference prevented cities from becoming clean or jobs from becoming humane. I could point to that lecture on Youtube I always link to, but I won't, because it's pointless.

You can argue that, but without evidence, it is pointless to try, yes. For my part, I acknowledge that some private entities have stepped up to do "good works" (to sum up a whole bunch of things from clean up efforts to even direct benefits from recycling, reduction in costs from reducing waste,etc., etc and using "greener" stuff) BUT... and this is pretty key, the paradigm is not "prove you will do not harm BEFORE you act", it is "as long as I am making money, its OK unless you prove me wrong" and that will always fail when it comes to health and the environment because by the time impacts are really known, companies are long out of business (among other issues, such as the fact that damage done usuallycannot be simply undone. whether it is a stream ecosystem destroyed or children who's lives have been heavily harmed)

(3) People with money dominate politics and the government because the government is involved. If the government were not involved, we wouldn't have such domination. I've provided examples in this thread and elsewhere.

Anarchy doesn't work better. In fact, its far less efficient. You miscontrue government for a government we have allowed to be dominated by big corporations. To a point,it was intentional in that we have a Republic not a true Democracy precisely to mitigate the whims of a highly manipulatable populace.

However, this move to ignore negative impacts in favor of a few religious issues has heavily skewed current politics. You feel it is merely cooincidental or incidental. I absolutely do not. The problem with the 1970's was not too much government... we actually had less than now, it was that the PEOPLE benefitted from the changes pretty universally at the expense of some wealthy folks. Some errors were made, but we had eliminated childhood hunger, made huge inroads into pollution control and clean up (Superfund, etc.). All that went by the way side to give a few at the top largess. It was done by focusing folks on issues like homosexuality, abortion and prayer in schools while ignoring unions,etc.

If Barack Obama and John McCain weren't unofficially told what to do by the people and companies giving them money, we may have had a much different election four years ago.

Agreed. Except you have argued very much for the use of money to "vote" as being "proper". This is a result of that. Are you now saying voting with money is wrong?

I do agree with your oil company comment, obviously, and that illustrates my point. If the government imposed one tax system on all companies, without differentiating on an industry-by-industry basis or company-by-company basis, things may get better. I think, like pmmchugh, you've confused oligarchy with capitalism. I wish I knew more about the Soviet Union so I could show you how rich people and companies can control even ostensibly non-capitalist systems.

No confusion. The problem is that capitalism, left alone, without government constraints leads to an oligarchy.

In fact, the tendency of ANY system is to move to an oligarchy because once people get into power, they like to ensure they maintain it. The system does not matter in that regard. They ALL do it.

My issue with your arguments is the claim that capitalism, alone will somehow subvert that. In fact, it will just create more concentration based on weath. In Capitalism, the only control is money. As I have said before, the turn the century saw a system about as close to true capitalism as has ever existed. The revolution that resulted came because the abuses were so very extreme that people just plain were willing to literally die for better conditions. Those companies failed the Machiavellian model in this regard. Today, corporations are considerably "cleaner", but that does not have to remain. Also, all of that is very much overshadowed by environmental impacts, which our current education/media/government system is operating very hard to ignore and pretend is not as real a problem as it is (or, often, they operate to divert attention from real root causes to side issues).

One example of diverting thought is perhaps all the blame that oil faces for the global climate change issue. Listen to some and its as though eliminating oil is about all that is needed to change things. However, coal is probably a greater threat. And, whether oil is a problem or not depends a lot on how it is used. For my part, I see a serious danger in heavy dependence on ANY resource that is so inherently limited. But... research into true sustainable systems, (say, something like an algae that self-replicates in your tank to continually produce fuel... to name one far off example) are not funded or even truly supported. (I am not enough of an engineer to pick out too many specific examples, but they are out there). Understand, I am not saying oil is OK, I am saying that climate change is not the primary reason we need to get away from oil. And that pretending changing the climate is just about or primarily about doing away with oil is wrong.

[BigBallinStalin]

Okay, then explain how ancient civilizations had such great disparities of wealth and power with such little trade, or capitalism.

(again, it isn't capitalism).

)

Uh since when did Ancient societies not have trade?????

To the extent they did not, they had those in power simply taking what they wanted from those underneath. However, trade very much happened. Its just the world was effectively smaller.

I didn't say that. See the underlined. "Little trade" refers to the relatively small degree of trade compared to the degree of trade in today's global economy.

Is it fair to say that trade was less, in the context of an economic system, when its more that the world itself was so much smaller?

Yes. Compare trading by oxcart, river raft, and on foot to trading with international air carriers, ships, satellites, etc. And all the productivity gains from technology, etc. There's a vast difference in the extent of trade...

[BigBallinStalin]

I do agree with your oil company comment, obviously, and that illustrates my point. If the government imposed one tax system on all companies, without differentiating on an industry-by-industry basis or company-by-company basis, things may get better. I think, like pmmchugh, you've confused oligarchy with capitalism. I wish I knew more about the Soviet Union so I could show you how rich people and companies can control even ostensibly non-capitalist systems.

No confusion. The problem is that capitalism, left alone, without government constraints leads to an oligarchy.

Then how do you explain political capitalism and capture theory?

[Phatscotty]

I think if you didn't state your premise backwards, you would have more answers if you started with "Communists tend to be Atheists".

Maybe committed communist ideologues do tend to be atheists,so what?.

So what? nothing? I was answering another poster. Thank you for helping me verify. I'm not saying anything by pointing out that reality, other than to point out that reality.

[Phatscotty]

I know, I have failed to find solid evidence of that actual statement. However, if you look at progressive ideals and Communists ideals, they are 2 peas in a pod, and the statement is based on that.

Okay, I'll acknowledge/understand the metaphorical intent of your statement but will have to agree to disagree with its applied meaning as described above.

I hate you

heh, You can operate on that if you want. I want to show at least 4 examples off the top of my head, but it will have to wait for tomorrow.

Well Democrats don't really need the meager resources the fringe can provide. Rather, they're obliged to corral all parts of the U.S. left as part of the National Front strategy the U.S. uses for domestic political discipline - where all competing ideologies are penned up together in a single patriotic mass movement ... the left-wing loosely under the Democrat Party and the right loosely under the Republican Party, but the two parties ultimately unified; the system the U.S. imposed on itself after WWII so that nuclear weapons would be in the hands of a boringly predictable regime with no risk of sudden radicalism as had (and still?) plagued Europe.

Anyway, I digress.

Interesting thread, chang50, Scott, BVP, et. al.!

the progressive tax rate for one. Death taxes and eminent domain for some others. In fact, I already made a post concerning the issue at hand in the 78-81 Communists thread. You can disagree, but you can't say I am making it up or overreaching too badly with the original premise either. Fair?

[thegreekdog]

At the risk of becoming embroiled in misunderstanding:

(1) Medieval "governments" didn't exist because of the idea that those in power were put there by God. Medieval power existed because of wealth and force (same as today). In medieval times they justified being in power by, among other things, "Hey, I'm here because of God." Some of those other things were "hey, I have more swords than you" and "hey, my dad was duke." In modern times, people justify power by, among other things, "I have more money than you" and "You get to elect me."

Good of you to point out the parallels. However, to deny many people are trying to return to "he is in charge because GOD wants him to be" is to deny a major force. And one (as I have said before) that is absolutely not cooincidental.

(2) I would argue that government interference prevented cities from becoming clean or jobs from becoming humane. I could point to that lecture on Youtube I always link to, but I won't, because it's pointless.

You can argue that, but without evidence, it is pointless to try, yes. For my part, I acknowledge that some private entities have stepped up to do "good works" (to sum up a whole bunch of things from clean up efforts to even direct benefits from recycling, reduction in costs from reducing waste,etc., etc and using "greener" stuff) BUT... and this is pretty key, the paradigm is not "prove you will do not harm BEFORE you act", it is "as long as I am making money, its OK unless you prove me wrong" and that will always fail when it comes to health and the environment because by the time impacts are really known, companies are long out of business (among other issues, such as the fact that damage done usuallycannot be simply undone. whether it is a stream ecosystem destroyed or children who's lives have been heavily harmed)

(3) People with money dominate politics and the government because the government is involved. If the government were not involved, we wouldn't have such domination. I've provided examples in this thread and elsewhere.

Anarchy doesn't work better. In fact, its far less efficient. You miscontrue government for a government we have allowed to be dominated by big corporations. To a point,it was intentional in that we have a Republic not a true Democracy precisely to mitigate the whims of a highly manipulatable populace.

However, this move to ignore negative impacts in favor of a few religious issues has heavily skewed current politics. You feel it is merely cooincidental or incidental. I absolutely do not. The problem with the 1970's was not too much government... we actually had less than now, it was that the PEOPLE benefitted from the changes pretty universally at the expense of some wealthy folks. Some errors were made, but we had eliminated childhood hunger, made huge inroads into pollution control and clean up (Superfund, etc.). All that went by the way side to give a few at the top largess. It was done by focusing folks on issues like homosexuality, abortion and prayer in schools while ignoring unions,etc.

If Barack Obama and John McCain weren't unofficially told what to do by the people and companies giving them money, we may have had a much different election four years ago.

Agreed. Except you have argued very much for the use of money to "vote" as being "proper". This is a result of that. Are you now saying voting with money is wrong?

I do agree with your oil company comment, obviously, and that illustrates my point. If the government imposed one tax system on all companies, without differentiating on an industry-by-industry basis or company-by-company basis, things may get better. I think, like pmmchugh, you've confused oligarchy with capitalism. I wish I knew more about the Soviet Union so I could show you how rich people and companies can control even ostensibly non-capitalist systems.

No confusion. The problem is that capitalism, left alone, without government constraints leads to an oligarchy.

In fact, the tendency of ANY system is to move to an oligarchy because once people get into power, they like to ensure they maintain it. The system does not matter in that regard. They ALL do it.

My issue with your arguments is the claim that capitalism, alone will somehow subvert that. In fact, it will just create more concentration based on weath. In Capitalism, the only control is money. As I have said before, the turn the century saw a system about as close to true capitalism as has ever existed. The revolution that resulted came because the abuses were so very extreme that people just plain were willing to literally die for better conditions. Those companies failed the Machiavellian model in this regard. Today, corporations are considerably "cleaner", but that does not have to remain. Also, all of that is very much overshadowed by environmental impacts, which our current education/media/government system is operating very hard to ignore and pretend is not as real a problem as it is (or, often, they operate to divert attention from real root causes to side issues).

One example of diverting thought is perhaps all the blame that oil faces for the global climate change issue. Listen to some and its as though eliminating oil is about all that is needed to change things. However, coal is probably a greater threat. And, whether oil is a problem or not depends a lot on how it is used. For my part, I see a serious danger in heavy dependence on ANY resource that is so inherently limited. But... research into true sustainable systems, (say, something like an algae that self-replicates in your tank to continually produce fuel... to name one far off example) are not funded or even truly supported. (I am not enough of an engineer to pick out too many specific examples, but they are out there). Understand, I am not saying oil is OK, I am saying that climate change is not the primary reason we need to get away from oil. And that pretending changing the climate is just about or primarily about doing away with oil is wrong.

Frankly, I am so thoroughly confused by your post. I was going to type out this long answer and realized it would be a waste of time.

[pmchugh]

Capture theory is interesting.

One of the problems with regulating is that you tend to get paid more for being a regulated employee rather than a regulator, so the smarter people end up being the regulated. Is it really that surprising that they are powerless? It is like getting the least intelligent kid in the class to mark everyone's work.

[PLAYER57832]

I do agree with your oil company comment, obviously, and that illustrates my point. If the government imposed one tax system on all companies, without differentiating on an industry-by-industry basis or company-by-company basis, things may get better. I think, like pmmchugh, you've confused oligarchy with capitalism. I wish I knew more about the Soviet Union so I could show you how rich people and companies can control even ostensibly non-capitalist systems.

No confusion. The problem is that capitalism, left alone, without government constraints leads to an oligarchy.

Then how do you explain political capitalism and capture theory?

You mean this?

In economics, regulatory capture occurs when a state regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special interests that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory capture is a form of government failure, as it can act as an encouragement for large firms to produce negative externalities. The agencies are called "captured agencies".

Pretty much supports what I said. How do those agencies GET dominated? They are dominated by allowing money to speak, to dictate. That is the essence of capitalism.

You cannot accept the good and deny the bad. The alternative to unrestrained capitalism is not communism. Both are extremes. We need a middle.

Government regulations are the only thing that keeps companies from dominating individuals even more than they do. It does not require that companies be run by evil people, though of course, some always will be. It simply requires that a set of people are paying attention to money and not fully to the impacts of their decisions. The not paying attention might be because they have never been educated in, say , environmental science OR becuase they have so much pressure to just make money (either from above or internal pressure -- "the game") they just stop caring/are able to easily deny that the results they cause are really happening.

Its amazing how blind a few dollars make people. I see it all around here in Marcellus shale. We saw it in the BP oil spill. How many times in interviews did people say "I have mixed feelings.... I know people in the industry". Even when they knew for a fact that their livelihood was damaged, their health possibly forever (talking some living closest to the impacts), many still could not bring themselves to simply condemn the oil companies. These are not necessarily truly high paid folks, either.. just upper middle class folks to middle class folks.

[BigBallinStalin]

I do agree with your oil company comment, obviously, and that illustrates my point. If the government imposed one tax system on all companies, without differentiating on an industry-by-industry basis or company-by-company basis, things may get better. I think, like pmmchugh, you've confused oligarchy with capitalism. I wish I knew more about the Soviet Union so I could show you how rich people and companies can control even ostensibly non-capitalist systems.

No confusion. The problem is that capitalism, left alone, without government constraints leads to an oligarchy.

Then how do you explain political capitalism and capture theory?

You mean this?

In economics, regulatory capture occurs when a state regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special interests that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory capture is a form of government failure, as it can act as an encouragement for large firms to produce negative externalities. The agencies are called "captured agencies".

Pretty much supports what I said. How do those agencies GET dominated? They are dominated by allowing money to speak, to dictate. That is the essence of capitalism.

You cannot accept the good and deny the bad. The alternative to unrestrained capitalism is not communism. Both are extremes. We need a middle.

Government regulations are the only thing that keeps companies from dominating individuals even more than they do. It does not require that companies be run by evil people, though of course, some always will be. It simply requires that a set of people are paying attention to money and not fully to the impacts of their decisions. The not paying attention might be because they have never been educated in, say , environmental science OR becuase they have so much pressure to just make money (either from above or internal pressure -- "the game") they just stop caring/are able to easily deny that the results they cause are really happening.

Its amazing how blind a few dollars make people. I see it all around here in Marcellus shale. We saw it in the BP oil spill. How many times in interviews did people say "I have mixed feelings.... I know people in the industry". Even when they knew for a fact that their livelihood was damaged, their health possibly forever (talking some living closest to the impacts), many still could not bring themselves to simply condemn the oil companies. These are not necessarily truly high paid folks, either.. just upper middle class folks to middle class folks.

A) Okay, and it bears repeating:

2) Having an economy which remains responsive to consumer demand is a clear shift of power toward buyers. The "oligarchy," or rule of the few, becomes untenable in market economies--unless of course you narrow your scope of analysis by ignoring the tremendous benefits.
(if you disagree, click here).

3) Considering (2), we must not confuse capitalism, or increased trade, or whatever you'll label it as, with government-backed monopolies, government-granted benefits to the wealthy, etc. Clearly, there's a difference between voluntary exchanges and rent-seeking. Clearly, there's a difference between capitalism and crony capitalism.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=169999&start=60#p3716897
from page 5.

If you can't tell the difference between crony capitalism and capitalism, then your analysis is faulty. You'll advocate for more constraints on "capitalism," but these constraints really just serve to keep the certain businesses in power by granting them monopoly privileges, by allowing them to use regulatory agencies to increase the costs of their competitors, by being granted certain subsidies, etc. (see spoiler under "For example," here. That isn't capitalism; that's crony capitalism, and it seems you've been supporting it for awhile--judging from your underlined statement.


B) Political capitalism, as oppose to capture theory, refers to businesses and government actively colluding. I know this may irritate your worldview, but you have to consider it. According to Gabriel Kolko's Triumph of Conservatism, he lays down a very strong argument. That probability can't be whisked away on pure faith for government regulation.

C) As I've said several times in this thread, blaming it solely on capitalism really misses the point and is entirely unproductive. Why? This response already explains why.

[PLAYER57832]

I do agree with your oil company comment, obviously, and that illustrates my point. If the government imposed one tax system on all companies, without differentiating on an industry-by-industry basis or company-by-company basis, things may get better. I think, like pmmchugh, you've confused oligarchy with capitalism. I wish I knew more about the Soviet Union so I could show you how rich people and companies can control even ostensibly non-capitalist systems.

No confusion. The problem is that capitalism, left alone, without government constraints leads to an oligarchy.

Then how do you explain political capitalism and capture theory?

You mean this?

In economics, regulatory capture occurs when a state regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special interests that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory capture is a form of government failure, as it can act as an encouragement for large firms to produce negative externalities. The agencies are called "captured agencies".

Pretty much supports what I said. How do those agencies GET dominated? They are dominated by allowing money to speak, to dictate. That is the essence of capitalism.

You cannot accept the good and deny the bad. The alternative to unrestrained capitalism is not communism. Both are extremes. We need a middle.

Government regulations are the only thing that keeps companies from dominating individuals even more than they do. It does not require that companies be run by evil people, though of course, some always will be. It simply requires that a set of people are paying attention to money and not fully to the impacts of their decisions. The not paying attention might be because they have never been educated in, say , environmental science OR becuase they have so much pressure to just make money (either from above or internal pressure -- "the game") they just stop caring/are able to easily deny that the results they cause are really happening.

Its amazing how blind a few dollars make people. I see it all around here in Marcellus shale. We saw it in the BP oil spill. How many times in interviews did people say "I have mixed feelings.... I know people in the industry". Even when they knew for a fact that their livelihood was damaged, their health possibly forever (talking some living closest to the impacts), many still could not bring themselves to simply condemn the oil companies. These are not necessarily truly high paid folks, either.. just upper middle class folks to middle class folks.

A) Okay, and it bears repeating:

2) Having an economy which remains responsive to consumer demand is a clear shift of power toward buyers. The "oligarchy," or rule of the few, becomes untenable in market economies--unless of course you narrow your scope of analysis by ignoring the tremendous benefits.
(if you disagree, click here).

You are just phrasing the issue wrong. Basically, both Machiavelli and Marx's views of the populacewere essentially correct in that both, (though using different sides to the same coin) essentially say that people will only take so much,then they rebell and throw off the leader/dicatator OR company. ( Machiavellie more phrased it as a warning to the leaders and ostentiably gave instructions for how to best maintain power, while Marx declared that people should and would rise up -- same result in the end when things get bad enough, people revolt).

That cycle happens whether the economic rule is monarchy, capitalism or any one of many other systems. Only communism differs in this, but not in the sense that it will succeed. Its just that the pressures differ. won't go into it,because I think we basically agree on why communism fails. People are not and really don'twant to be truly equal,except in small groups.


HOWEVER, where we disagree is that you seem to want to utterly ignore the real impact of resource aquisition and retainment. What keeps ALL economic systems operating well, (all systems established to date), is resource and technology (in this context another type of resource). Even communism works for a time if there is enough of everything for everyone.. up until one guy decides that "enough" is not enough, anyway and seeks more. Today, technology plays a much bigger role than in the past. Spain just got gold, Britain various resources, etc. The Empire began to fail both because it was too big, spent too much, and because it failed to pass on enough of the largess down. Colonies thus revolted.

We had the same thing here, just in smaller fashion. What allowed capitalism to flourish here was not just that its a decent economic system, to work we had to have resources. We had them in plenty... any resource you could want, plus lots of willing labor in all the mass immigration (a controlled immigration, though, remember.. ensuring a fairly homogenuous society, even while we allowed sections of "diversity".. that, too,was critical. Divisiveness in social structures will subvert prosperity as people get mired in fighting.

Then, it failed because a few gained extreme money and power and mostly were not willing to pass it on down. Natural impacts were ignored, the system was built as if growth were unlimited and the people the bottom did not matter, then it collapsed on multiple fronts. The rhetoric, explanations for why that was OK were about the same as what is being spouted today. Except, then the extremes were much greater. Rockafeller hated unions. Ford ostentiably was a bit more egalitarian, but only to a point. Ford's genius was in knowing that he had to support average people. BUT, he had the luxury of doing that while also aquiring serious wealth for himself because there was such extreme growth due to both resources available world wide AND new technologies. Today, we don't have either luxury. Other nations no longer want to be colonies and they now have the power to fight us. Technology is growing, but has limits. Unless it gets steered in a more "green" (truly green, truly sustainable not the hype we see now, that is..things like maybe algae or bacteria that will self-replicate in tanks providiing continuous fuel.. which I realize may or may not wind up being truly feasible, but I use as an example of a possibility for the future.)



NOTE.. I am not saying capitalism is bad. I AM saying it is not, as you wish to assert, self-correcting.

3) Considering (2), we must not confuse capitalism, or increased trade, or whatever you'll label it as, with government-backed monopolies, government-granted benefits to the wealthy, etc. Clearly, there's a difference between voluntary exchanges and rent-seeking. Clearly, there's a difference between capitalism and crony capitalism.

LOL.
"don't confuse" is an illusionary world and that is the problem. There IS no such thing as capitalism that won'g result in monopolies. History shows us this. To get to any other conclusion means ignoring a lot of realities. You cannot say "oh, sure, communism sounds interesting on the surface, but is not not real" (or similar for other systems) but look only to the textbook theory for capitalism. Capitalism operates in the real world, not apart from it. Have no resources and ALL economic systems will fail, period! ABuse people too much (the "too much" changes.. people in the 1900's may have been content, though not happy to work 7 days a week and eat weavel invested flour. People today won't do that).

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=169999&start=60#p3716897
from page 5.

No

If you can't tell the difference between crony capitalism and capitalism, then your analysis is faulty.

LOL, LOL, LOL.

Capitalism limited by a democratically run government, with limits to the bottom so people are not forced to just accept whatever the top decides to throw them... that is a system that works, but it is not what you are arguing for. Your idea that there is a possibility for unregulated capitalism that won't devolve into crony capitalism is naive in the extreme.. and perhaps downright stupid. People are greedy. Powerful people want more power, convince themselves that they deserve it and work to keep that power. Capitalism accentuates that, it does not stop it.

You'll advocate for more constraints on "capitalism," but these constraints really just serve to keep the certain businesses in power by granting them monopoly privileges, by allowing them to use regulatory agencies to increase the costs of their competitors, by being granted certain subsidies, etc. (see spoiler under "For example," here. That isn't capitalism; that's crony capitalism, and it seems you've been supporting it for awhile--judging from your underlined statement.

YOu are distorting what I have said, it seems intentional. I have never fully explained because whenever I start, you basically just call me stupid and stomp off.

B) Political capitalism, as oppose to capture theory, refers to businesses and government actively colluding. I know this may irritate your worldview, but you have to consider it. According to Gabriel Kolko's Triumph of Conservatism, he lays down a very strong argument. That probability can't be whisked away on pure faith for government regulation.

Irritate my world view? It SUPPORTS it. It is EXACTLY what I have said happens when you allow money to dictate. The answer is to set controls so that businesses HAVE to accept real and true ecological limits that exist , instead of pretending they don't have to worry about impacts, that people as a whole are smart enough and willing to make serious personal sacrifice to not destroy our environmental systems. That is not manipulable. Technology can fix some problems, but that only happens when companies and individuals are forced to admit the problems are real, are put in positions of seeing more harm from the damage than from letting things go. That does not happen naturally, not even in a farm economy. Time after time, history shows that people are quite willing to destroy their own futures so they can have some gain in the immediate.

C) As I've said several times in this thread, blaming it solely on capitalism really misses the point and is entirely unproductive. Why? This response already explains why.

As I have said over and over, unless and until you look at the real source of the problems.. environmental issues and resources, PLUS a lack of constraint on those with great power, you will continue to speak only in fictional illusion.

[PLAYER57832]

Simplified summary:

ANY system, even communism will do well as long as there are plenty of resources and wealth. The problem comes when resources either actually begin to diminish or are percieved to diminish because too many at the top want too much compared to what the rest have. The problem with communism is that by requiring absolutely no difference or too little difference, it takes only relatively little inequality for people to percieve failure. In Monarchy, by contrast, there is an inherent accepted lack of equality and so people accept perhaps a relatively high disparity. (or they have in the past).

Democracy/Capitalism begins with a middle ground. As long as resources or opportunities of some time.. physical land/resources or new technologies that are easy to attain and acquire ( a model T versus a hybrid; an apple 200 versus a smart phone, etc.), then most people are able to attain roughly a level that will make them happy. Some get very wealthy and allow the masses to "dream", but most are essentially content to stay at a lower level.. or relish the ability to strive for more. BUT.. then those at the top stop being content. Either there are just too many on the top layer to support or they want to acquire too much.

The stock market crash is put forward as a massive "failure" and economically, for those heavily vested in the system, it was. However, it was rooted in in ignoring impacts both environmentally and on other fronts (socially such as the rise of unions and safety regulations, etc, etc). In truth, it was a kind of revolution. Out of it came the bonus of the 50's and 60's, when people actually had real power. (even if highly constrained by the social system).

All that is now being subverted again. In the 1980's, companies began to regain the powers they had lost. The elite began collecting much more power, ironically enough, by declaring war on an imaginary "liberal elite" that was supposedly destroying not big business, but religious freedoms and "true americanism".

[BigBallinStalin]

I see you deviated from the original discussion. Would you care to make another thread?