Greed Based Systems and Alternatives

[nolla]

For some time now it has been obvious that capitalism is the best financial system, while democracy is the best governing system. They are both based on human greed. Capitalism is about having some and making more of it. Democracy is about protecting your personal interests.

This works well most of the time but in some cases both of the systems raise ethical questions. Is it right that capitalism is effectively keeping the poor countries poor? Or, in case of democracy, we can't make drastic changes in environmental policies as it would be a political suicide to, for example, try to pass a law that bans fuel powered cars as personal transportation (you know it is ridiculous to have one person sitting inside a two-ton metal case driving to the store in the next block).

All the other options seem to have failed, though. So, my question is, do these systems work because they are tapped to one of the basic human emotions? They are not intellectual or subtle, they are based on a very basic self-preservation instinct.

[disregard]

Related viewing: Zeitgeist: Addendum (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912)

[Jack Flak]

Capitalism works at this point in history because of competition, both within and without a system (nation). The cool thing about it is that within successful capitalist countries, there is great wealth disparity, but even the unwealthy don't generally have it that bad. Of course, some do....everywhere.

Related viewing: Zeitgeist: Addendum (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912)
LOL yeah, let's watch Zeitgeist for some qualified objectivity.

[Metamorphosis]

This works well most of the time but in some cases both of the systems raise ethical questions. Is it right that capitalism is effectively keeping the poor countries poor?

Capitalism doesn't necessarily keep poor countries poor. If it weren't for the capitalist system, first rate countries would have no incentive to outsource, thus providing no jobs, investment, infrastructure, or education to third world nations.

The Soviet Union wasn't known for being particularly generous to countries it didn't need.

[Risen]

Don't blame the system, blame the operators. You will NEVER understand the root cause of anything unless you look at who's behind the curtain.

[colmena]

Claudius?

It's not pretty.

[pure_mercury]

Is it right that capitalism is effectively keeping the poor countries poor?

I'd love to hear how this works.

[nolla]

Capitalism doesn't necessarily keep poor countries poor. If it weren't for the capitalist system, first rate countries would have no incentive to outsource, thus providing no jobs, investment, infrastructure, or education to third world nations.

I hear you. But, average western citizen lives better than any king during the middle ages. I mean, what standard of living is enough?

Don't blame the system, blame the operators. You will NEVER understand the root cause of anything unless you look at who's behind the curtain.

They operate for personal gain (or gain of some group) so, it comes down to greed there also. This is what I mean that it is psychology based. The operators are inclined to behave in certain way because of how the system works.

[kuranes]

I think wanting to own things is a fairly primal need, and it is somewhat indulged by Capitalism. ( By that I mean some people within the capitalist system enjoy more feeling of "control" than others, and not that Communism would give you more of a feeling of ownership. )

It is when we get into the implications that people are owned ( in all but name ) or can be owned period that we run into trouble, of course.

In the "Conservative Feminism" thread it was mentioned by Peguy that the nuclear family as a primal unit ( fulfilling those needs ) has been around in its current form for so long that history has judged it the best way for individuals to proceed, and continue life etc. I don't think anyone questions that this approach also fits a primal demand. When discussing alternatives in that thread, it seemed the idea was that other perspectives were doomed by not being so tried and true, or primally basic.

In the thread on cheating, people were discussing different concepts of what "betrayal" means in couples, with some people thinking emotions/intentions were more primal than physicality, and others feeling more "( physical ) possession is nine tenths of the law", to paraphrase it. :) Possible subconscious feelings of "ownership" here too, with respect to people, but in different ways.

Of course these descriptions of "ownership" can be looked at in more than one way, with couples proud to tell one another "I'm glad you're 'mine' " and "I do take you for granted, but in a good way. I have faith in you and I know you feel the same about me" etc.

But "ownership" can obviously be taken in a bad way too, and this has been pointed out in the feminist oriented threads as being something women have been forced into putting up with sometimes over centuries, even by "well meaning" guys versus the issue of generic slavery per se..

So to rule out feminist alternatives to the old ways of the family by saying that they go against the grain of natural urges is not really accurate, because it pits one urge against another, in a way, with both having been around waaay long enough not to constitute a "flash in the pan" or merely trendy approach, as is sometimes implied by various criticisms. Nobody wants to be "owned". ( K leaves himself open here for claver retort . )

* ducks *

[nolla]

I'd love to hear how this works.

The big companies can easily dominate any poor country's economy. The money goes over to America or Europe. They pay as few dimes as possible for their cheap materials and manufacturers to make their prices lower for you and me.

[Modern Nomad]

i kinda wanted an apocalypse. It would be kinda fun riding a horse to your friend's pad, instead of driving a car.

[Metamorphosis]

The big companies can easily dominate any country's economy. The money goes over to America or Europe. They pay as few dimes as possible for their cheap materials and manufacturers to make their prices lower for you and me.

Those countries receiving small amounts of money is better than the zero money they would be receiving without capitalism.

[nolla]

I think wanting to own things is a fairly primal need, and it is somewhat indulged by Capitalism. ( By that I mean some people within the capitalist system enjoy more feeling of "control" than others, and not that Communism would give you more of a feeling of ownership. )

It is when we get into the implications that people are owned ( in all but name ) or can be owned period that we run into trouble, of course.

In the "Conservative Feminism" thread it was mentioned by Peguy that the nuclear family as a primal unit ( fulfilling those needs ) has been around in its current form for so long that history has judged it the best way for individuals to proceed, and continue life etc. I don't think anyone questions that this approach also fits a primal demand. When discussing alternatives in that thread, it seemed the idea was that other perspectives were doomed by not being so tried and true, or primally basic.

So, if we would like to consider alternatives to capitalism or democracy, we should find a human emotion that is about power but not about greed. Would "respect" work? How would a respect based system be like?

[nolla]

Those countries receiving small amounts of money is better than the zero money they would be receiving without capitalism.

So, are you ready to say that their economy will eventually get on the level of the western economies?

[pure_mercury]

The big companies can easily dominate any poor country's economy. The money goes over to America or Europe. They pay as few dimes as possible for their cheap materials and manufacturers to make their prices lower for you and me.

But how would make a country poorer, if they didn't even have those dimes from the big companies to begin with? You can't make someone poorer by buying goods and labor from them.

[Risen]

Jeez man. There isn't any system that will trump basic human nature or the level of consciousness of the people under it. In order for you to see anything that works better than the various systems we already have, there has to be a change in the consciousness of the people under it. Sorry if I sound spiritual here (though I am), but that's a fact. The people have to change quite dramatically before the collective societies and economic structures they create can ever change. Gotta fix the foundation of the house (the people) before you can work on the building a new one (a financial/governing system). You can go around in circles discussing it until the end of time, but not a darn thing will change in the end until that happens.

[Metamorphosis]

So, are you ready to say that their economy will eventually get on the level of the western economies?

It's a possibility. And there are many non-western countries that are doing great. It helps to have natural resources, though.

[kuranes]

So, if we would like to consider alternatives to capitalism or democracy, we should find a human emotion that is about power but not about greed. Would "respect" work? How would a respect based system be like?
Well, I don't think this technically fulfills all the attributes of a respect oriented system, but it seems to be the closest thing operating in today's world. Yes, people use money and own things, but there is a place for respect. Here is a link to another post here, which apparently most people missed, or it was the thread killer. :)

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/politics-history-current-events/6043-business-owners-leaders-entrepreneurs-not-all-evil-5.html#post311243

[IlyaK1986]

Communism appeals to human virtue. Everyone is equal, give according to your abilities and you will be given to according to your needs. Everyone contributes and lives a happy lifestyle.

Except for the dumb schmuck that gets things anyway but has no ability. Which makes the smart guy who contributes so much wonder why he's working so hard. He could just be lazy also.

The result is that nobody does anything and expects rewards for more than they do.

Capitalism isn't a system for the greedy. It's a system in which you get out what you put in. Be talented, work hard, be creative, persevere, and you'll go far. Despair and drop out, and you're a nobody.

And it works damn fine.

Democracy has its flaws in that most people aren't too bright but have as much voting power as a genius. So far, it's worked pretty nicely, when coupled with limited terms. Except for Bush. He's the flaw.

[nolla]

But how would make a country poorer, if they didn't even have those dimes from the big companies to begin with? You can't make someone poorer by buying goods and labor from them.

I said KEEPING the countries poor. Ok, say we have a tiny country that has some U.S. owned factory. Their economy is dependent of it. The factory pays its workers the average pay of the country. The tiny country has a functional government that cant do anything about that factory not giving more money, because it would destroy their economy if the factory shipped to the next cheap country. This doesn't make the country stay poor directly, but, those people working in the factory could be working in small businesses that would benefit the country more by strengthening their private sector.

The people have to change quite dramatically before the collective societies and economic structures they create can ever change. Gotta fix the foundation of the house (the people) before you can work on the building a new one (a financial/governing system). You can go around in circles discussing it until the end of time, but not a darn thing will change in the end until that happens.

So, you say that I am the first one of a new level thinking? ;) I like the sound of that.

Communism appeals to human virtue. Everyone is equal, give according to your abilities and you will be given to according to your needs. Everyone contributes and lives a happy lifestyle.

Except for the dumb schmuck that gets things anyway but has no ability. Which makes the smart guy who contributes so much wonder why he's working so hard. He could just be lazy also.

I am not for communism, for the tenth time!

You know, people, I was hoping to see visions to where the system could be led to, not this status quo reinforcing. I bet most of you guys could easily vision some sci-fi scenarios reaching thousands years from now, yet you are unable to vision some other ways for the system? You do see that capitalism has many stages behind it? Do you really think that this is it? The final and the best form? We are in an interesting time in history, the capitalism is changing and I would like to get your view on how it might become in the next fifty, hundred or thousand years.

[Lateralus]

I said KEEPING the countries poor. Ok, say we have a tiny country that has some U.S. owned factory. Their economy is dependent of it. The factory pays its workers the average pay of the country. The tiny country has a functional government that cant do anything about that factory not giving more money, because it would destroy their economy if the factory shipped to the next cheap country. This doesn't make the country stay poor directly, but, those people working in the factory could be working in small businesses that would benefit the country more by strengthening their private sector.
Do you have data that shows that companies pay just the average salary?

[pure_mercury]

I said KEEPING the countries poor. Ok, say we have a tiny country that has some U.S. owned factory. Their economy is dependent of it. The factory pays its workers the average pay of the country. The tiny country has a functional government that cant do anything about that factory not giving more money, because it would destroy their economy if the factory shipped to the next cheap country. This doesn't make the country stay poor directly, but, those people working in the factory could be working in small businesses that would benefit the country more by strengthening their private sector.

Usually, people who are dirt poor are subsistence farmers and artisans, and then they get a factory job that pays wages, then their children and grandchildren (who finally have extra money) start businesses of their own, get educations, etc. That's how most economically backward countries modernize.

[Jack Flak]

I am not for communism, for the tenth time!

You know, people, I was hoping to see visions to where the system could be led to, not this status quo reinforcing. I bet most of you guys could easily vision some sci-fi scenarios reaching thousands years from now, yet you are unable to vision some other ways for the system? You do see that capitalism has many stages behind it? Do you really think that this is it? The final and the best form? We are in an interesting time in history, the capitalism is changing and I would like to get your view on how it might become in the next fifty, hundred or thousand years.
You are correct. How about communism? If artificial intelligence takes off, so will other tech, and we'll have a self-advancing society which damn well better be communist. Trouble is, capitalism is the best thing going right now, and probably will remain so for at least another fifty years.

[IlyaK1986]

I am not for communism, for the tenth time!

You know, people, I was hoping to see visions to where the system could be led to, not this status quo reinforcing. I bet most of you guys could easily vision some sci-fi scenarios reaching thousands years from now, yet you are unable to vision some other ways for the system? You do see that capitalism has many stages behind it? Do you really think that this is it? The final and the best form? We are in an interesting time in history, the capitalism is changing and I would like to get your view on how it might become in the next fifty, hundred or thousand years.

I can't. Because human nature won't change. People, no matter with what kind of technology, will be greedy. Which is why capitalism works.

[disregard]

Would greed be as prevalent without a scarcity of resources? Is it really human nature?

[Anja]

This will sound like I'm looking at something through rose-colored glasses and to some degree I suppose I am. So please bear with me as I talk about something I saw through the eyes of a child and perhaps the perceptions of a child.

I grew up with possibly the last remaining piece of the barter system operating in a communal way. The prairie folk were insular and interdependent. People who formed small communities each had a place in that community with skills that they could devote to better and sustain their mutual lives and living circumstances. The townspeople were dependent on the farm people and vice-versa.

A certain amount of trust had developed. People married into other families and close bonds were built. The community's members learned who kept their word and who didn't, whose work was exceptional and prompt and whose wasn't.

There was domestic and street violence, avarice, scandal but it was the exception and there was little room for comfortable settlement for those who couldn't overcome those problems. Those who tried receive support from the community. It was everyone's concern because the community was small.

If a man beat his wife and she was the woman who was going to do your washing on the weekend, you had an investment in protecting her well-being.
If a man fell ill and couldn't work others harvested his crops for him. Because if he didn't have money to spend in town the shop owner's children would go hungry.

Chickens were traded for medical services. The individual who ministered to the people's spiritual needs was paid in Sunday dinners. Baked goods were exchanged for seamstress services. People found mutual sustenance and respect through these exchanges.

It was a system which promoted esteem in the individual as well as the community. One's worth very much became tied to his values and his abilities.

Amazingly, this system is still in existence "down home." Many people don't lock their homes or cars. And trading is a common practice. The bank still gives out loans by a man's word.

I used to joke with my parents that I could wipe them out by walking into the bank and telling them that my folks wanted me to withdraw their savings! My friend who never left has bought and sold farms in the same manner. Why not? They've been living together for three or four generations now.

Quaint? Indeed. A safe place to live and raise children? For sure. Are there greed and human failings? There are, of course. But the way the system works promotes taking care of one's neighbors as well as one's self.


I can't help but believe that, despite it backwardness and shortcomings, this system worked very well in providing health in a number of life areas. And I think that many of the qualities we had in that little spot in fly-over country have been discarded by a society which seems to be rushing headlong into confusion, mistrust and meaninglessness.

The focus on material things has robbed many of their sense of connection with people. And at great cost to all.

[kuranes]

I grew up with possibly the last remaining piece of the barter system operating in a communal way.
Where was this, Anja ?

It sounds a leetle bit like Mississippi, when I went through there in the mid 70's.

I bet you've got a lot of good memories from those days.

[pure_mercury]

Would greed be as prevalent without a scarcity of resources? Is it really human nature?

It would be irrelevant then. And capitalism wouldn't exist. Unlimited wants + unlimited resources = no economics.

[Anja]

South Central MN, kuranes, where I have returned.

I had family in Chicago and when they came to visit they never wanted to go home. It was a great place to grow up. We probably put a little more emphasis on education than Mississippi!

[IlyaK1986]

A touching story of innocence, Anja, but if you've ever wanted something you couldn't afford, or have been jealous, or just craved some financial security, then you've been stricken with the same greed responsible for so many inventions and innovations.

You also don't see that your system grows quickly beyond carrying capacity. In a small community, this works. But once someone--anyone--becomes displeased with such an existence, then who knows.

[kuranes]

You also don't see that your system grows quickly beyond carrying capacity. In a small community, this works. But once someone--anyone--becomes displeased with such an existence, then who knows.
They say that once we went beyond the bicycle we started more than just automobile tires rolling, because then there was a need for mechanics, for better roads, for catastrophic accident care, for improvements to the cars, etc. which hassle outweighed the benefits of the cars themselves.

I remember a story about a tycoon who was on vacation and noticed from his villa view that a local fisherman was always coming home after half the day was over. He watched it enough to know that it was probably a regular pattern and then he accosted the fisherman, and asked him why not stay out all day. The fisherman replied that he met his needs in less time than that, and that he wanted to spend the time with his wife and family, enjoying himself and them. The tycoon told the fisherman that by working beyond his own personal needs he could amass more capital or profits to re-invest. The fisherman asked him what he would invest in, and he replied "More boats, or better equipment" and the man asked "What for ?" The tycoon replied that "This way you will eventually be able to simply hire a guy to do the fishing for you." "And why would I want to do that ?" "So you can enjoy yourself." The reply - "But I am already doing that."

Of course these stories are overly simplistic but here seems a kernal of truth to them. :)

Kuryakin ? Waverley here. Solo to re-supply you at the meeting place.

[colmena]

...please bear with me as I talk about something I saw through the eyes of a child and perhaps the perceptions of a child...

Gorgeous, Anja. Yesterday I watched a Turkish film called Bes Vakit (Times and Winds). It sounded very much like what you described. A small community by the sea and mountains that is very insular. The village people gave food to the teacher, they helped repair "Grandma's" home, if someone else needed something, others helped to get it. It quickly became a new ideal. It had its share of problems, but you couldn't help but feel that the strength of interdependence would get them through anything.

The pictures below show clips from the film. The first is the modern elders discussing how best to deal with a man who had beaten a child. Second shows (I think) one of the interpretive "death" scenes. The third (a tiny part of the film), a place of religious practice. The fourth, a view of the village, mountains, and sea.

http://i12.tinypic.com/4bz5mkm.jpg

This is set in the present. The odd car, a tractor, refrigerator, modern appliances, a mobile phone for the doctor (no one else would need one, that's for sure).

Relentlessly engaging; a beautifully filmed study of a divided society

[Kaizer]

You're confusing an economic system with a governance system.

It is indeed very interesting how control over the power-money nexus is the main bone of contention and how politics and democracy too serve to consolidate and perpetuate social structure which includes vested interests especially. Coincidentally, organized religion when in the form of codified law seems to serve the same purpose and seeing as religion (in the form of codified law) was the only politico-economic and social system, it makes sense why it seems so akin to and why its logical end seems to be similar (in this intermediary stage when large breakthroughs of a fundamental nature are still to truly take place) to the end that the combination of the various political, social and economic systems that have existed in history have successively brought humanity to.

Two things I heard mentioned on bbc...

first the 'religious' nature of the new larger system in the world which someone else had verbalized as the 'new trinity' of the nation state, globalization & capitalism.

second was some years ago when a study had tried to get a measure of how 'happy and satisfied' (or so I loosely recall) citizens of various countries were. interestingly enough they said that Cuban citizens were 'happier and more satisfied' than American citizens. could never have imagined that to have ever been the case!

Anja's comment : http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/politics-history-current-events/9422-greed-based-systems-alternatives-3.html#post353033

Anja, that barter stuff is being mentioned more as days go by.. & yes its the year 2008! :)

[nolla]

Quaint? Indeed. A safe place to live and raise children? For sure. Are there greed and human failings? There are, of course. But the way the system works promotes taking care of one's neighbors as well as one's self.

I can't help but believe that, despite it backwardness and shortcomings, this system worked very well in providing health in a number of life areas. And I think that many of the qualities we had in that little spot in fly-over country have been discarded by a society which seems to be rushing headlong into confusion, mistrust and meaninglessness.

The focus on material things has robbed many of their sense of connection with people. And at great cost to all.

Sounds great. I wonder how it could be possible to take those values into modern system. Maybe communism was trying to achieve that, but failed in making it too fast and too big.

A touching story of innocence, Anja, but if you've ever wanted something you couldn't afford, or have been jealous, or just craved some financial security, then you've been stricken with the same greed responsible for so many inventions and innovations.

But, in a tight community like that your emotional needs are mainly satisfied. There is little need to show "that you are somebody" because you are already respected by providing something for the village. If you are respected and have your say in things, why should you want to make a lot of money?

You also don't see that your system grows quickly beyond carrying capacity. In a small community, this works. But once someone--anyone--becomes displeased with such an existence, then who knows.

You are right. It stopped working when people moved to cities. But, I imagine it could work again if we built the cities in a different way. Now they are built in order to maximize people's privacy and maximize the amount of people in the area. What if they were built in a way that in each floor of a building there were some space for the people to socialize with each other? Like a living room for the whole floor. Everyone know their neighbor. If you want a babysitter, why not ask your neighbor and give her a cake in return.

This kind of little change could bring barter back in business and people would again be social animals and not these money making machines. I bet that in a community like that you could have someone unemployed "bum" working so much for the community that he would feel respected even if he doesn't have a job that he could brag about.

I remember a story about a tycoon who was on vacation and noticed from his villa view that a local fisherman was always coming home after half the day was over. He watched it enough to know that it was probably a regular pattern and then he accosted the fisherman, and asked him why not stay out all day. The fisherman replied that he met his needs in less time than that, and that he wanted to spend the time with his wife and family, enjoying himself and them. The tycoon told the fisherman that by working beyond his own personal needs he could amass more capital or profits to re-invest. The fisherman asked him what he would invest in, and he replied "More boats, or better equipment" and the man asked "What for ?" The tycoon replied that "This way you will eventually be able to simply hire a guy to do the fishing for you." "And why would I want to do that ?" "So you can enjoy yourself." The reply - "But I am already doing that."

Good story :)

first the 'religious' nature of the new larger system in the world which someone else had verbalized as the 'new trinity' of the nation state, globalization & capitalism.

Yeah, I have been noticing it also. The invisible hand is doing gods work at wall street as we speak :yes:

second was some years ago when a study had tried to get a measure of how 'happy and satisfied' (or so I loosely recall) citizens of various countries were. interestingly enough they said that Cuban citizens were 'happier and more satisfied' than American citizens. could never have imagined that to have ever been the case!

They still know what community and belonging means. We.. we are people raised by our parents who didn't have community or family. They choose the people they interact with. We have been raised to think that we have the right to cut off people we disagree with. Individualism. I can't even imagine what it is like to live in a tight-knit community.

Anja, that barter stuff is being mentioned more as days go by.. & yes its the year 2008! :)

And that is because barter didn't die for being too old way, it died because the community died. I would really like to see this come back.

[Victor]

For some time now it has been obvious that capitalism is the best financial system, while democracy is the best governing system. They are both based on human greed. Capitalism is about having some and making more of it. Democracy is about protecting your personal interests.

This works well most of the time but in some cases both of the systems raise ethical questions. Is it right that capitalism is effectively keeping the poor countries poor? Or, in case of democracy, we can't make drastic changes in environmental policies as it would be a political suicide to, for example, try to pass a law that bans fuel powered cars as personal transportation (you know it is ridiculous to have one person sitting inside a two-ton metal case driving to the store in the next block).

All the other options seem to have failed, though. So, my question is, do these systems work because they are tapped to one of the basic human emotions? They are not intellectual or subtle, they are based on a very basic self-preservation instinct.

Both modern economics and modern liberal democratic politics are based on counter-intuitive thinking.

Who would have intuitively guessed before Adam Smith explained that private greed led to public properity. It is entirely counter-intuitive.

And all politicians intuitively want to increase their power, but the essence of liberal democracy is the limitation of power. It is entirely counter-intuitive.

And before universal literacy gave us counter-intuitive habits of thought, everything was intuitive.

Astrology was intuitive but Astronomy is counter-intuitive. Alchemy was intuitive but Chemistry is counter-intuitive. MBTI was intuitive while psychometrics is counter-intuitive. Maximising power was intuitive but limiting power through liberal democracy is counter-intuitive.

The whole of the modern world is based on counter-intuitive thinking.

While the medieval world intuitively knew that greed was a sin. And that usury was as sin. And that the usurers were Jews. So that they intuitively thought that if we can get rid of the Jews, we can get rid of usury and greed.

Not only were they wrong but they took us right to the edge of absolute evil.

But still we hanker for the intuitive.

We embrace MBTI and its intuitive father, Carl Jung. And we reject his rival, the counter-intuitive Sigmund Freud.

God help us.

[nolla]

So, you are saying that it is not about greed but about greed control?

Indigenous people everywhere led intuitive lives quite successfully. Don't you think you give too much credit on its evil powers?

[Kaizer]

Sounds great. I wonder how it could be possible to take those values into modern system. Maybe communism was trying to achieve that, but failed in making it too fast and too big.

Glasnost before perestroika maybe?
and China isn't going down that path maybe?
neither expansionist nor colonial?
Looks like the difference between China and Russia/the ex-Soviet Union is becoming more evident with the passage of events and time.

[Victor]

Indigenous people everywhere lead intuitive lives quite successfully. Don't you think you give too much credit on its evil powers?

Good heavens, this is the myth of the Noble Savage perpetrated by Jean-Jacques Rousseau of the Eighteenth Century.

If you care to read, "The Little Children Are Sacred", report by the Australian government, you may wake from your dream.

But if you woke from your dream of the Noble Savage, you may wake from your dream of MBTI.

[Oberon]

Indigenous people everywhere led intuitive lives quite successfully.

...right up until the time they were out-competed by counter-intuitive people with better organizational systems and better technology. When that happened they either got on board with the new systems, were assimilated into the competitive people group, or died en masse.

There's a reason why the Lakota no longer follow the buffalo.

[IlyaK1986]

...right up until the time they were out-competed by counter-intuitive people with better organizational systems and better technology. When that happened they either got on board with the new systems, were assimilated into the competitive people group, or died en masse.

There's a reason why the Lakota no longer follow the buffalo.

Quoted for truth.

[Victor]

Indigenous people everywhere led intuitive lives quite successfully.

Indigenous people everywhere were, and are, intuitively brutal to women and children and each other.

Good God, we lived for 200,000 years before the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.

And life was short, nasty and brutish.

[Antisocial one]

I find replys in this thread quite narrow minded because no one proposed anything really new. This is not problem just on this forum it is a global problem and very serious problem.

My vote goes to hibrid of capitalism and socialism with ratio 1:2. But there must be a lot of critical thinking, strong imperative on freedom of speech and there must be private property.
Plus there has to be a strong scientific background.


This probably sounds like a fairy-tale but not only that this is what I am thinking but this is also the only way that can create good outcome in the future toward my opinion.


I think that modern capitalism has created many dangerous illusion. The most dangerous one is that people started to think like "When will it be done?" of "How much will it cost?" but the real question is "Can it be done at all and how stabile will it be on the long run?"

Capitalism as we know it was very good system 130 years ago. But in the last 130 years many things have changed so we are looking at totally different situation right now.

I could say many things about this kind of things but for now I will leave it at question:


Does this planet really has enough resources for us to continue the game?

[colmena]

Indigenous people everywhere were, and are, intuitively brutal to women and children and each other.

There are plenty of indigenous tribes that don't harm one another.

Good God, we lived for 200,000 years before the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.

And life was short, nasty and brutish.

Plenty of elders, too.

[ptgatsby]

Does this planet really has enough resources for us to continue the game?

I agree with you. The fundamental problem with capitalism is that it consumes exponentially more resources, and the mentality is still that "capital" are physical resources.

Of course, it isn't "capitalism" and its associated theories that are the issue. It's the social concept of capital that matters. The root of capitalism is in machinery... well, technically in animals I suppose, but either way, rooted in the concept of reproductive items. This is great - it vastly improves our quality of life, material wealth... but everything comes down a fundamental issue - we need to feed these things exponentially more to get exponentially more out of them.

Yes, I suppose I am talking about sustainability. But I'm not talking about "green" sustainability, but the long term shift to sustainable forms. The reality is that we will eventually have to do this. Eventually resources will run out, eventually equilibrium will be forced upon us... eventually, but not without a sudden shock. Those shocks are evolutionary milestones - the tendency is to wipe out the majority of the population.


I have nothing to contribute on how to achieve this goal, it is merely my opinion the greatest shift that will be required. I believe that resources should be strangled at the world level, progressively and artificially, so as to force a slow adoptation of higher technology and sustainability.

[nolla]

I find replys in this thread quite narrow minded because no one proposed anything really new. This is not problem just on this forum it is a global problem and very serious problem.

Yes, I am very surprised by this attitude and lack of imagination. Also, how is it possible that the psychological perspective is ignored? This forum should have many people interested in psychology, so it shouldn't be much of a problem to look at capitalism from that perspective.

I think that modern capitalism has created many dangerous illusion. The most dangerous one is that people started to think like "When will it be done?" of "How much will it cost?" but the real question is "Can it be done at all and how stabile will it be on the long run?"

Yes. Capitalism is expansive system. It starts to be at the limits of its expansion, since there aint no places to expand to. Other than that, the market doesn't know how to flatline. Capitalism needs to grow or crash. That is dangerous.

Does this planet really has enough resources for us to continue the game?

In the long run, no. And this is the truth capitalism tries to keep from surfacing. If and when the oil production starts declining, the market flatlines (If we are lucky. It could as well decline) for a long time. Capitalism will not handle that. If we had something to replace oil, then we might get to play the game a little longer. But I really doubt that this expansion can go on forever.

[ptgatsby]

In the long run, no. And this is the truth capitalism tries to keep from surfacing. If and when the oil production starts declining, the market flatlines (If we are lucky. It could as well decline) for a long time. Capitalism will not handle that. If we had something to replace oil, then we might get to play the game a little longer. But I really doubt that this expansion can go on forever.

Here's a conceptual thought for you...

What would happen if we decided we no longer needed to grow? That is, the SOL right now is "ideal".

How many hours would you have to work maintain the level of services we have right now?


There are plenty of indigenous tribes that don't harm one another.

I'd like to see a few examples - they were extremely rare. Most peace was transient, at best, and only isolationist tribes, by definition, weren't normally in conflict.

[nolla]

What would happen if we decided we no longer needed to grow? That is, the SOL right now is "ideal".

How many hours would you have to work maintain the level of services we have right now?

I have thought about this. I actually wrote a post somewhere on this forum about it. Right now, it goes like, if I work I have to work all the time 8 hours a day, because I cant choose to work "enough" for my well being. My employer basically owns me and I cant choose that now I have just the right amount of money to buy my food and necessities. If I could work "just enough" I would need about 500 euros a month + some for the rainy day. So lets say 600e. That means that I would work a week in a month, or that I work three months in a year.

I don't know how this would work for other people and I am sure that if we changed to this kind of system it would freeze the growth and destroy the economy.

[ygolo]

I agree with you. The fundamental problem with capitalism is that it consumes exponentially more resources, and the mentality is still that "capital" are physical resources.

Of course, it isn't "capitalism" and its associated theories that are the issue. It's the social concept of capital that matters. The root of capitalism is in machinery... well, technically in animals I suppose, but either way, rooted in the concept of reproductive items. This is great - it vastly improves our quality of life, material wealth... but everything comes down a fundamental issue - we need to feed these things exponentially more to get exponentially more out of them.

Yes, I suppose I am talking about sustainability. But I'm not talking about "green" sustainability, but the long term shift to sustainable forms. The reality is that we will eventually have to do this. Eventually resources will run out, eventually equilibrium will be forced upon us... eventually, but not without a sudden shock. Those shocks are evolutionary milestones - the tendency is to wipe out the majority of the population.


I have nothing to contribute on how to achieve this goal, it is merely my opinion the greatest shift that will be required. I believe that resources should be strangled at the world level, progressively and artificially, so as to force a slow adoptation of higher technology and sustainability.

This reminds me of a talk I saw once on TV:
Universal scaling laws from cells to cities: towards a unified quantitative theory of biological and social structure and organization (http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/eventssummary/event_27-6-2008-10-28-28?eventid=39354)

The basic idea is that system that exhibit this sort of exponential have to have punctuated changes that "restart" the exponential under new constraints.

That would mean finding new resources and finding more efficient use of resources.

Perhaps we'll eventually be forced to terraform and colonize other planets.

[nolla]

Perhaps we'll eventually be forced to terraform and colonize other planets.

I find it more credible that the system will change before we have to go terraforming.

[ptgatsby]

I have thought about this. I actually wrote a post somewhere on this forum about it. Right now, it goes like, if I work I have to work all the time 8 hours a day, because I cant choose to work "enough" for my well being. My employer basically owns me and I cant choose that now I have just the right amount of money to buy my food and necessities. If I could work "just enough" I would need about 500 euros a month + some for the rainy day. So lets say 600e. That means that I would work a week in a month, or that I work three months in a year.

I don't know how this would work for other people and I am sure that if we changed to this kind of system it would freeze the growth and destroy the economy.

But, if you stopped working, who would do what you do? Lets say you are a server. If you stop serving, would you still go out to eat? Who would serve you? the 500 euros is dependent on everyone *else* working (ie: being trapped).

Expand on it. What do you enjoy doing? How many people have to support it? Even something cheap, like biking, would suddenly becomes extremely expensive. Building your home - thousands, tens of thousands, of man hours. What would happen? Less houses, more crowded conditions.

The reduction in hours of work is similar to less efficient forms of labor - as in, lower technology. That's the issue. Even though technology enables all of us to do more, the balance point is very particular. If you do less, and others do less... you can do less and there is less. The maintenance of our economy is literally just below our actual output.

For example, if we tentatively work out that about 25% of our population can support 100% of us at the industrial level (because that's how many people it would current take to maintain the old standard of living and the technology infrastructure required), then we could reduce our hours to 25% of what we currently do.

But it would be meaningless! We'd be living without computers, medicine... heat, air conditioning. To maintain all infrastructure requires virtually everyone to be, as you say, trapped. You can easily become "free" with virtually no money. I worked it out to less than $15,000 here in BC - the approximate cost for a bunch of land on which you can farm, seed money, set up tools. You'd work long hard days, though... so what is the benefit?

The basic idea is that system that exhibit this sort of exponential have to have punctuated changes that "restart" the exponential under new constraints.

Kind of an aside - do you believe in the singularity concept? (The abstract indirectly reminded me of it)

That would mean finding new resources and finding more efficient use of resources.

Perhaps we'll eventually be forced to terraform and colonize other planets.

I think this is the way forward. Well, that's what we are doing, but replace terraforming with being able to mine increasingly hostile environments (artic, undersea). However, the logic behind squeezing resources now is relatively simple: it forces the change (ie: new resources/efficient use of resources) to come faster than would be economically viable. Examples? Stuff like taxing iron mining and subsidising iron recovery/recycling.

I wasn't a popular camper when I said that I think that there should be an exponentially increasing tax on gas. We recently introduced a carbon tax here - I said that they should raise it by 2% every year (ie: 1.02*1.02). The money gets returned to the citizens in the province in direct rebates (ie: cheque). I think it's a good idea... not many agree :D

Our infrastructure is built around our resource dependence and constraints will lead to a more robust infrastructure and reduces the odds on "doomsday" level events and reduce system shocks. Humans, as an organism are... well... organic. We'll adjust, as we did when we were faced with extinction (down to the thousands), assuming any survive. However, the position that we have is heavily dependent on the systems we have. To move forward, we need to exert some control over environment. Market failure within a country is one thing - world wide "market failure" is disaster.

Perhaps I'm being greedy - but I think that there is a systemic bias in humans (time preference) that reduces the amount of research/advancement in the correct areas (and often encourages in the wrong areas) and that we don't computer externalities very well (ie: future garbage issues vs reclaiming old use).

[ygolo]

Kind of an aside - do you believe in the singularity concept? (The abstract indirectly reminded me of it)


I am skeptical of it, but with most of these things, I don't consider it impossible, but we won't know till we try.


I think this is the way forward. Well, that's what we are doing, but replace terraforming with being able to mine increasingly hostile environments (artic, undersea). However, the logic behind squeezing resources now is relatively simple: it forces the change (ie: new resources/efficient use of resources) to come faster than would be economically viable. Examples? Stuff like taxing iron mining and subsidising iron recovery/recycling.

I wasn't a popular camper when I said that I think that there should be an exponentially increasing tax on gas. We recently introduced a carbon tax here - I said that they should raise it by 2% every year (ie: 1.02*1.02). The money gets returned to the citizens in the province in direct rebates (ie: cheque). I think it's a good idea... not many agree :D

Our infrastructure is built around our resource dependence and constraints will lead to a more robust infrastructure and reduces the odds on "doomsday" level events and reduce system shocks. Humans, as an organism are... well... organic. We'll adjust, as we did when we were faced with extinction (down to the thousands), assuming any survive. However, the position that we have is heavily dependent on the systems we have. To move forward, we need to exert some control over environment. Market failure within a country is one thing - world wide "market failure" is disaster.

Perhaps I'm being greedy - but I think that there is a systemic bias in humans (time preference) that reduces the amount of research/advancement in the correct areas (and often encourages in the wrong areas) and that we don't computer externalities very well (ie: future garbage issues vs reclaiming old use).

Our ability to model complex systems is still largely lacking. Unfortunately, we have no choice but to "cast a wide net" and find what works.

[nolla]

Expand on it. What do you enjoy doing? How many people have to support it? Even something cheap, like biking, would suddenly becomes extremely expensive. Building your home - thousands, tens of thousands, of man hours. What would happen? Less houses, more crowded conditions.

The reduction in hours of work is similar to less efficient forms of labor - as in, lower technology. That's the issue. Even though technology enables all of us to do more, the balance point is very particular. If you do less, and others do less... you can do less and there is less. The maintenance of our economy is literally just below our actual output.

But it would be meaningless! We'd be living without computers, medicine... heat, air conditioning. To maintain all infrastructure requires virtually everyone to be, as you say, trapped. You can easily become "free" with virtually no money. I worked it out to less than $15,000 here in BC - the approximate cost for a bunch of land on which you can farm, seed money, set up tools. You'd work long hard days, though... so what is the benefit?

Yes, I see the problem here. But I am inclined to think that at least half of the work we do and the output of that work is excess, in other words waste of time and resources. This is because the system does not encourage "enough attitude". Do you honestly think that we really NEED everything that we have in this world? We could, if we wanted to, prioritize the services and drop the work hours to something like 40%, for sure. I don't know when they started to "make needs" for people, but it has been going on for a long time. This all needs to go.

[Anja]

I truly believe that decentralization of government would improve our situation.

I've seen economic growth in action here where I've lived again for the last thirty years. Acres and acres of some of the most fertile farmland in the world, is being stripped of its loam to go into land fills. This is land which took millenia to become the rich, life-sustaining earth which grows corn and wheat and beans.

What is placed upon this neutered land? Rows and rows of cheap ticky-tacky "low-income housing" at inflated prices. Big box stores which rob the locals from their multigenerational family businesses. The buildings all look sickeningly alike and unnatural. I worry for the soul death of people who live in concrete with no access to sunlight for eight hours a day, nine months out of the year. Drive to work in darkness, arrive home in darkness. Inhale unnatural air and handle unnatural materials all day. Disabling allergies are increasing in incidence.

These buildings will be in tatters within twenty years and then what? Tear them down and build more. . .

Meanwhile our little city and its leaders clamor for "growth." A new strip mall opens and within a year the old one, which was functioning just fine, thankyou, closes leaving more deserted buildings. And more unused farmland. Restaurants, grandious and expensive, open and close like dandelions. We have a whole modern ghosttown on the hill of our pretty little valley. I can buy the identical cheaply made goods in any number of stores in town. (We are on our sixth kitchen clock while the one my in-laws got on their wedding day in the Thirties still runs. And my grandmother's from the late eighteen hundreds does as well.)

We have altered community standards to make room for the newcomers whom we encourage. They escape gratefully from the large cities and the world's troubled areas, grateful for our excellent social servces. And they bring their problems with them. We struggle to deal with situations which were unfamiliar to us. Gangs, drugs, extreme violence, unhealthy cultural practices. Our human resources are being taxed to the max here.


What will the succeeding generations think when there is no longer viable land to grow food? Eat man-made food? What is wrong when moose and deer, wolves are coming into the city limits? What are they telling us?Alienation everywhere. Our balance is tipping.

[ptgatsby]

Yes, I see the problem here. But I am inclined to think that at least half of the work we do and the output of that work is excess, in other words waste of time and resources. This is because the system does not encourage "enough attitude". Do you honestly think that we really NEED everything that we have in this world? We could, if we wanted to, prioritize the services and drop the work hours to something like 40%, for sure. I don't know when they started to "make needs" for people, but it has been going on for a long time. This all needs to go.

If the economy only grows at a few percent, do you really think that we consume 60% of overall resources to grow that much? Probably not. I think what you are saying that we should reduce our consumption because we over-consume. That I can agree with, in general, but the impact of trying is to make it more difficult to live (ie: that 500 would need to be higher). There is no way to slice away consumption without generally raising prices/lowering wages.

Having said that, it's not impossible. Europe and Scandinavia are examples of places that tend to have higher QOL across the board compared to the US. However, consumption is lower in Europe from what I understand. There is a knock on effect, however.

I don't want to reduce consumption just "because". I want to push us to sustainability - the "fully included cost" of everything, which will reduce consumption by default. What I really want is to stop overconsuming now and pushing the 'debtload' to the future.

[Kaizer]

I truly believe that decentralization of government would improve our situation.

Anja :) & may I add true and the maximum possible fiscal decentralization as a key imperative in this regard... I know mildly over simplified ... still theres an iceberg under it.

[pure_mercury]

I for one cannot wait for the end of the petroleum-based economy. It will be much better for the world (economically and environmentally) in the long run. Still, we have a long time before that happens (more than my lifetime, I am sure). That is fine. It needs to make economic sense for people to come up with other ideas. The thing I really don't get is why we still burn so much damn coal to make electricity in the United States. It pollutes way more than cars do.

[IlyaK1986]

Anyone who says we're going to run out of resources is silly. The biggest resource is human ingenuity. And in terms of natural resources, I recommend you people start to go and read things at Popular Science (http://www.popsci.com) . Trust me, it's a known issue that we can't keep on consuming fossil fuels. However, there are some inextinguishable resources. The sun. The ocean. The wind currents. And biological waste (human or otherwise). All of which will be utilized to create sustainable living.

Plus, as our architecture gets better, we can use the same space for more.

[ptgatsby]

The thing I really don't get is why we still burn so much damn coal to make electricity in the United States. It pollutes way more than cars do.

It's cheap and scales easily... (The same goes with gasoline and cars, actually)

[nolla]

I think what you are saying that we should reduce our consumption because we over-consume. That I can agree with, in general, but the impact of trying is to make it more difficult to live (ie: that 500 would need to be higher). There is no way to slice away consumption without generally raising prices/lowering wages.

I don't want to reduce consumption just "because". I want to push us to sustainability - the "fully included cost" of everything, which will reduce consumption by default. What I really want is to stop overconsuming now and pushing the 'debtload' to the future.

If we went and reduced consumption from want basis to need basis, it would be huge for sustainability. It would probably mean that the market drops down to, I don't know, 1920s level, but would that be the end of the world? This would need to be a global decision, otherwise it wouldn't work.

[ptgatsby]

If we went and reduced consumption from want basis to need basis, it would be huge for sustainability. It would probably mean that the market drops down to, I don't know, 1920s level, but would that be the end of the world? This would need to be a global decision, otherwise it wouldn't work.

:) Need is tribal level, or less. How do you define need?

[pure_mercury]

It's cheap and scales easily... (The same goes with gasoline and cars, actually)

We have other, cleaner ways to make electricity now. We are working on changing transportation, but it will take a long time (and a long-term increase in the price of oil) for non-petroleum transportation to be dominant. Wind, hydro, and nuclear are all being used in this country right now.

[nolla]

:) Need is tribal level, or less. How do you define need?


As opposed to want. The tribal can't work because there are too many of us, so we need to maintain other than tribal "services". Obviously the medical and science should also stay.

[Jack Flak]

We have other, cleaner ways to make electricity now. We are working on changing transportation, but it will take a long time (and a long-term increase in the price of oil) for non-petroleum transportation to be dominant. Wind, hydro, and nuclear are all being used in this country right now.
I, for one, am not incredibly worried. Society will do well aside from catastrophe like famine or nuclear attack (And I think the days of large-scale conventional war are over).

If gasoline were to hit $20 tomorrow in the States, it might take a few years to adjust, with power plants built and most people driving electric cars and using public transportation more. We'll survive.

[pure_mercury]

I, for one, am not incredibly worried. Society will do well aside from catastrophe like famine or nuclear attack (And I think the days of large-scale conventional war are over).

If gasoline were to hit $20 tomorrow in the States, it might take a few years to adjust, with power plants built and most people driving electric cars and using public transportation more. We'll survive.

I don't think it's a major problem for the future of American society. I just think it's stupid that we don't have more wind farms and hydroelectric dams, and no new nuclear plants in the past thirty years.

[nolla]

I don't think it's a major problem for the future of American society. I just think it's stupid that we don't have more wind farms and hydroelectric dams, and no new nuclear plants in the past thirty years.

Yes, it is unbelievable that politicians will never do anything until the last minute.

[ptgatsby]

We have other, cleaner ways to make electricity now. We are working on changing transportation, but it will take a long time (and a long-term increase in the price of oil) for non-petroleum transportation to be dominant. Wind, hydro, and nuclear are all being used in this country right now.

Coal is cheap... The others are not as competitive, especially the green versions (nuclear depending on scale, but I don't consider it green).

As opposed to want. The tribal can't work because there are too many of us, so we need to maintain other than tribal "services". Obviously the medical and science should also stay.

Obvious...? To you, maybe, but not to me. What level of medicine do you want? And for science, do you think we should be building atom smashers? Fusion generators?

Not tribal, because we need efficiencies in farming. Ok, so we need machines. And that means machining, refining, smelting, mining... we need oil for lubes, and power. We need maintenance, electronics.

And that's just for the farm. Then we need distribution networks, trucking/rail/etc... We need refrigeration, power systems...

Keep in mind I don't disagree with you, in principle. This is about how it can be done. It's impossible to come up with a method to simply cut consumption. Everything is connected together.

If gasoline were to hit $20 tomorrow in the States, it might take a few years to adjust, with power plants built and most people driving electric cars and using public transportation more. We'll survive.

Want to guess how much of the price of food is due to fuel costs...? Survival doesn't have to mean everyone, and it doesn't have to mean nice.

[Jack Flak]

Want to guess how much of the price of food is due to fuel costs...? Survival doesn't have to mean everyone, and it doesn't have to mean nice.
Can you honestly envision any significant number of Americans dying from starvation? [Rich] People help people, and if they suddenly decided not to, there would be mass violence. Mass violence.

[ptgatsby]

Can you honestly envision any significant number of Americans dying from starvation? [Rich] People help people, and if they suddenly decided not to, there would be mass violence. Mass violence.

I can, actually. The US came close in the great depression, and the economy wasn't nearly as vertical.

However, that is the worst case scenario. I meant mostly that it isn't "a few years to adjust". It'd be an economic shock across the board of the highest order.

The issue is with the word "tomorrow". It takes time to adjust, hence why I would love to see progressive taxation until it is entirely phased out.

[Jack Flak]

I'm not talking about the 30s, rougher time that was. There are benefactors out there today with enough money to feed a city for a year.

[ptgatsby]

I'm not talking about the 30s, rougher time that was. There are benefactors out there today with enough money to feed a city for a year.

:shock: Righty-o then!

[Jack Flak]

:shock: Righty-o then!
I take it you disagree. That's fine, I hope neither of us has to be proven incorrect.

But there are a lot of people without a lot of money but a lot of Tec-9s who might have something to say about starvation if it really came down to that.

[nolla]

Obvious...? To you, maybe, but not to me. What level of medicine do you want? And for science, do you think we should be building atom smashers? Fusion generators?

Not tribal, because we need efficiencies in farming. Ok, so we need machines. And that means machining, refining, smelting, mining... we need oil for lubes, and power. We need maintenance, electronics.

And that's just for the farm. Then we need distribution networks, trucking/rail/etc... We need refrigeration, power systems...

Keep in mind I don't disagree with you, in principle. This is about how it can be done. It's impossible to come up with a method to simply cut consumption. Everything is connected together.

I guess I would start by taking away the shopping culture. Myself I've been fine with one pair of jeans for couple of years...

But, yes, I see what you are getting at. There is some point where the limit should be drawn. I don't know where. But, as far as we talk about distribution, we should see how much of that we need after decentralization. And we shouldn't have much use for cars after we make public transportation more effective (and, in my opinion it should be free at least inside cities). The science and medical treatment should be prioritized also. For that, I can't say much, but it should be top priority to develop more sustainable energy, like fusion reactors you mentioned.

[ptgatsby]

I take it you disagree. That's fine, I hope neither of us has to be proven incorrect.

Me too, and it isn't like gas will hit 20 tomorrow. Oil would have to hit 500+ a barrel, which would require a complete shutdown of the market.


But there are a lot of people without a lot of money but a lot of Tec-9s who might have something to say about starvation if it really came down to that.

History tells me that depending on the mercy of the wealthy is not... the best strategy. Keep in mind that we aren't talking about "money" issues, but price issues. You'd have to turn the economy into a command economy to even maintain production. Money would become virtually useless in that contex... otherwise the government could just print it off. Even the bailout recently is more than all the billionaires in the US combined (by my best guess).

[ptgatsby]

I guess I would start by taking away the shopping culture. Myself I've been fine with one pair of jeans for couple of years...

But, yes, I see what you are getting at. There is some point where the limit should be drawn. I don't know where. But, as far as we talk about distribution, we should see how much of that we need after decentralization. And we shouldn't have much use for cars after we make public transportation more effective (and, in my opinion it should be free at least inside cities). The science and medical treatment should be prioritized also. For that, I can't say much, but it should be top priority to develop more sustainable energy, like fusion reactors you mentioned.

I'm positive we agree, but the whole topic is... very conveluted.

I'm one of the few people who think that transportation is a public good, so in terms of transportation, I'm probably farther "left" than you are, by a huge degree. On other things, I'm probably not (ie: I am not against over-consumption, and think prices should set that)... I'm a big fan of land taxes (density) and abode size taxes (as in rebates for smaller areas, taxes for higher. I hate setting taxes by market value!)

You'll find me advocating the end of the welfare system, while at the same time as advocating tax rebates, exactly the same concept for all intents and purposes (but single system, rather than a myriad of them). I'm far enough left to want to create a standard of living, but not so far as to prevent choices for those that earn them.

It's difficult to find agreement on all things :D That's kind of the catch...

[lowtech redneck]

I remember a story about a tycoon who was on vacation and noticed from his villa view that a local fisherman was always coming home after half the day was over. He watched it enough to know that it was probably a regular pattern and then he accosted the fisherman, and asked him why not stay out all day. The fisherman replied that he met his needs in less time than that, and that he wanted to spend the time with his wife and family, enjoying himself and them. The tycoon told the fisherman that by working beyond his own personal needs he could amass more capital or profits to re-invest. The fisherman asked him what he would invest in, and he replied "More boats, or better equipment" and the man asked "What for ?" The tycoon replied that "This way you will eventually be able to simply hire a guy to do the fishing for you." "And why would I want to do that ?" "So you can enjoy yourself." The reply - "But I am already doing that."


Such an attitude creates massive problems for future generations; subsistence rural economies lead to overpopulation and resource depletion. Its kind of like wishing we never used fossil fuels, ignoring the fact that the alternative would be to cut down every tree in existence.

[lowtech redneck]

Yes, I am very surprised by this attitude and lack of imagination. Also, how is it possible that the psychological perspective is ignored? This forum should have many people interested in psychology, so it shouldn't be much of a problem to look at capitalism from that perspective.


Its not lack of imagination on our part, its a lack of prudence on yours. As for the psychological perspective, you keep proposing systems that essentially seek to re-create the human psych, rather than work within its limitations. That opens the door to disastrous "utopian" (many proposed utopias sound like utter hell to me, particularly some kind of needs-based barter economy) experiments, communism being the most famous.

[nolla]

I'm positive we agree, but the whole topic is... very conveluted.

You'll find me advocating the end of the welfare system, while at the same time as advocating tax rebates, exactly the same concept for all intents and purposes (but single system, rather than a myriad of them). I'm far enough left to want to create a standard of living, but not so far as to prevent choices for those that earn them.

It's difficult to find agreement on all things :D That's kind of the catch...

Yeah, well, the way I think is that this system is based on created desires. The option would be to take those away and focus on what people need. So, I am on left. Except that I always vote for green because I also think that politics should be about ideology and not about how much money you have (here we have a bit different system, but it basically goes like: lots of money = right; poor = left). I oppose the greens in that they dont want nuclear power while I think it is important for to make a smooth transition to clean energy.

Its not lack of imagination on our part, its a lack of prudence on yours. As for the psychological perspective, you keep proposing systems that essentially seek to re-create the human psych, rather than work within its limitations. That opens the door to disastrous "utopian" (many proposed utopias sound like utter hell to me, particularly some kind of needs-based barter economy) experiments, communism being the most famous.

So, I should just shut up? Come on, you must admit that this system will not be the final. What I am proposing is that we explore the possible alternatives just to give us some clue of the future.

This system isn't perfect for human psyche. It is isolative compared to the way people used to live. This creates problems. I don't know how you think that I am re-inventing psyche. Please explain.

[Jack Flak]

Yeah, well, the way I think is that this system is based on created desires. The option would be to take those away and focus on what people need. So, I am on left. Except that I always vote for green because I also think that politics should be about ideology and not about how much money you have (here we have a bit different system, but it basically goes like: lots of money = right; poor = left).
It just doesn't work. Ever. As I alluded to about a mile up, the only conceivable way for that to work is the equivalent of worldwide slave labor in the form of machines, so people will only work if and how they desire.

And I'm generally unfond of people who favor policy based on self-interest. This includes the poor who vote based on some backwards idea of what a politician will do for them at the expense of the rich, and vice versa. I wish people tried to take everyone in the voting district into account, and not just the individuals but the success of the nation, for example.

So, I should just shut up? Come on, you must admit that this system will not be the final. What I am proposing is that we explore the possible alternatives just to give us some clue of the future.
The time has not come.

[reason]

The word 'capitalism' was coined by Karl Marx. What he described was an abhorrent economic system doomed to unravel itself. Fortunately, capitalism never has, and never will, exist anywhere in the world.

[Jack Flak]

Marx did say capitalism was a necessary step on the way to communism, if I remember correctly.

[Anja]

I dislike soundling like a naysayer here but I believe that decline has escalated, and exponentially, for so long now that it is beyond fixable. I wish I had your optimism about this, Jack.

But from what I've seen I suspect it is going to take a complete breakdown of the system and rebuilding from scratch. And I do think we are closer to that rude fact than any of us care to believe.

Some of the things people are talking about here will be the least of our worries in the near future.

Argh. Call me Cassandra. . .

[Jack Flak]

I can understand how you might think that Anja, but it doesn't follow at all, not by analyzing the current state of affairs. Time will tell.

[reason]

Marx did say capitalism was a necessary step on the way to communism, if I remember correctly.Communism is what Marx thought would emerge when capitalism unravelled itself. People tend to equate capitalism and the free market, but Marx's description of capitalism has many important differences with the concept of a free market. Why free marketers adopt the language of Marx is a mystery to me, since it encourages misunderstanding and dislike of free markets. For example, the whole 'capitalism is a economic system based on greed' notion; perhaps it is, but the ideal of free markets is not.

[Jack Flak]

...but the ideal of free markets is not.
I think we disagree on definitions, man. What else is the free market based on, if not profit a.k.a. greed?

And capitalist systems may well crumble if left to their own devices. I don't think it's very likely for the Western World to see that in the next few decades, however.

[lowtech redneck]

This system isn't perfect for human psyche. It is isolative compared to the way people used to live. This creates problems. I don't know how you think that I am re-inventing psyche. Please explain.

For starters, you are assuming that people have limited wants, and would therefore be happiest if dragged into a subsistence barter economy. This is in contrast to capitalist theory (which, though imperfect, has vastly increased the standard of living for virtually all involved) based on the notion that people have unlimited wants and limited resources in which to satisfy those wants.

[Modern Nomad]

wowwwwwwwww

im gonna buy a horse soon... cool

[Anja]

I'm looking forwrd to a Mad Max culture here in the heartland. . .

[Anja]

Of course my perspective isn't abut fixing the market. It's about fixing the PEOPLE and we've forgotten them.

[Jack Flak]

I'm looking forwrd to a Mad Max culture here in the heartland. . .
I can't wait.

[nolla]

It just doesn't work. Ever. As I alluded to about a mile up, the only conceivable way for that to work is the equivalent of worldwide slave labor in the form of machines, so people will only work if and how they desire.

Sorry, I don't follow. If we limit the options of what people can buy (by higher taxes on products that are detrimental for sustainability), why would it be a dramatic change that takes us to slavery?

The time has not come.

Time to talk about this?!

For starters, you are assuming that people have limited wants, and would therefore be happiest if dragged into a subsistence barter economy. This is in contrast to capitalist theory (which, though imperfect, has vastly increased the standard of living for virtually all involved) based on the notion that people have unlimited wants and limited resources in which to satisfy those wants.

People have limited needs. Many wants are created by salesmen. I never said we have limited wants.

Of course my perspective isn't abut fixing the market. It's about fixing the PEOPLE and we've forgotten them.

Yes. This is one of my top concerns.

[Jack Flak]

Sorry, I don't follow. If we limit the options of what people can buy (by higher taxes on products that are detrimental for sustainability), why would it be a dramatic change that takes us to slavery?

That's just about the opposite of what I meant. Perhaps I will stop the verbosity, since it falls upon deaf ears.

[Modern Nomad]

I'm looking forwrd to a Mad Max culture here in the heartland. . .

seriously!

that movie is coming true... LOL

mad max is better than water world for sure.

horses > boats

[nolla]

That's just about the opposite of what I meant. Perhaps I will stop the verbosity, since it falls upon deaf ears.

I read it again and if I understood right you say that if we are to give people what they need, we will need incredible about of robots...

Still I don't get it. You say that there always has to be folks who are left without.

(You know, I wouldn't have this problem if you'd just talk Finnish with me)

[Jack Flak]

I don't start debates, I Finnish em! <--Hilarious.

Yeah, robo-waiters, and cooks too. Robots inventing Robots inventing anything you can imagine. All that jazz. Won't it be glorious?

[nolla]

I don't start debates, I Finnish em! <--Hilarious.

:doh::D

Yeah, robo-waiters, and cooks too. Robots inventing Robots inventing anything you can imagine. All that jazz. Won't it be glorious?

Yeah, makes me wanna buy shares.. :dry:

[Jack Flak]

:doh::D



Yeah, makes me wanna buy shares.. :dry:
I'd wait about forty years if I were you.

[nolla]

But they're cheap now!!

[Jack Flak]

But they're cheap now!!
You're just greedy.

[nolla]

Damn, you got me! Even I can't escape the Greed. But that's why we need to change the system. Let all of our sins be cleansed by The System.

[IlyaK1986]

They're not cheap now. Because they give no return. Speculative!=cheap. Penny stocks!=cheap.

Either way, a system that works because of human nature will always be more successful than one that tries to oppose it and make things "as they should be".

As Milton Friedman said, a system should be judged by its results, not its intentions.

[Anja]

I don't start debates, I Finnish em! <--Hilarious.

Yeah, robo-waiters, and cooks too. Robots inventing Robots inventing anything you can imagine. All that jazz. Won't it be glorious?

I gotta idea! Lets try to make people dispensible since they are at the root of all problems.

Put everybody out of work.

Then we can play Matrix. Well. A few of us, at least.

[Jack Flak]

Nothing would change in that regard, you know. By your logic, people are already dispensable.

[Anja]

I often think our Sci-Fi writers are our New World prophets.

Brave New World, anyone?

[Anja]

Jack ,stop being so dam verbose!

[nolla]

Either way, a system that works because of human nature will always be more successful than one that tries to oppose it and make things "as they should be".

I agree, I do believe it will have to be based on human nature. It can't work any other way. I would just want to have it based on something else than greed. Greed is part of the bad things in human nature. It could as well be based on something positive.

[Jack Flak]

I agree, I do believe it will have to be based on human nature. It can't work any other way. I would just want to have it based on something else than greed. Greed is part of the bad things in human nature. It could as well be based on something positive.
Well, if you base something on behavior, you don't get to pick and choose which tendencies to allow. The system wouldn't get off the ground.

[nolla]

I don't see why not. This system is up and running.

[Jack Flak]

Where

[reason]

I think we disagree on definitions, man. What else is the free market based on, if not profit a.k.a. greed?Althought free markets, as I understand the them, are not based on greed, they do cope with greed very well. However, even in a very altruistic society, free markets would be the way to go.

[nolla]

Where

I meant this current system. It is based on human nature and the regulation is there to limit the bad effects of the human nature.

Althought free markets, as I understand the them, are not based on greed, they do cope with greed very well. However, even in a very altruistic society, free markets would be the way to go.

So, where does the grow grow grow mentality come from if not greed? Why is it never enough?

[Jack Flak]

I meant this current system. It is based on human nature and the regulation is there to limit the bad effects of the human nature.
You're advocating a change, yet say the current system possesses the qualities you think systems should aspire to. I don't see logic there.

[nolla]

You're advocating a change, yet say the current system possesses the qualities you think systems should aspire to. I don't see logic there.

No.. I replied to you. You say that a new system couldn't work because its impossible to pick what tendencies to support. I said that it could work because we now have a system that works with the same principle.

I mean, this system is not as good as it might be, but there might be a new system based on the same principle (human nature minus bad human nature).

Why do I find it hard to make myself understood by you? This isn't the first time it happens... It's frustrating, I feel like a retard.:doh:

[ptgatsby]

So, where does the grow grow grow mentality come from if not greed? Why is it never enough?

He's saying that free markets's definition is limited to "the ability to trade", typically without restrictions.

Capitalism, however, is something different, built on the free market. The two are used interchangably now because capitalism requires free markets to operate correctly. The main characteristics of capitalism, both in practise and in theory, are about private ownership of production, ie: the ownership of capital.

Free markets is an important concept on its own because it is the optimal price-setting method, minus a few issues.

[Lateralus]

You should replace the term 'greed' with 'self-interest'.

[Jack Flak]

No.. I replied to you. You say that a new system couldn't work because its impossible to pick what tendencies to support. I said that it could work because we now have a system that works with the same principle.

I mean, this system is not as good as it might be, but there might be a new system based on the same principle (human nature minus bad human nature).

Why do I find it hard to make myself understood by you? This isn't the first time it happens... It's frustrating, I feel like a retard.:doh:
I wasn't isolating that one statement. Taking your whole argument into consideration, I found a contradiction. It's the art of debate, n'est-ce pas?

Anyway, today's free markets are still driven by "greed," which you think is an undesirable trait, and they're overall very successful at doing many things for many people.

[reason]

So, where does the grow grow grow mentality come from if not greed? Why is it never enough?Why is the current rate of cancer survival not enough?

Few people actually want to create economic growth as defined by GDP or whatever. People have goals and they are willing to trade with others to achieve those goals. The emergent result, intended by nobody, is economic growth. Goals can range from travelling to the moon, buying a new car, finding a cure for aids, or feeding the world's poor, and perhaps more than one of these at a time. For example, Sam Walton, founder of Wal-Mart, may have wanted to earn money to buy things, but he may have also wanted to make food more affordable to the poorest in society--the two goals are not, in this case, mutually exclusive.

[reason]

You should replace the term 'greed' with 'self-interest'.Talk of self-interest is at best redundant, and at worst misleading. Even if you give to charity then you are doing something in you are intested in doing. When someone says that people operate in their own interests they might as well be saying that people act in accordance with their goals, or try to do what they want.

The problem is that it becomes impossible to not act in self-interest, and so the term is uninformative. Moreover, its connotations of selfishness are prone to mislead those who are not accustomed to its use in economics.

[Little Linguist]

*rubs hands together and sits back in her armchair*

I'm sitting back and enjoying the ride because it's going to be a rollercoaster, folks. :D

[Lateralus]

Talk of self-interest is at best redundant, and at worst misleading. Even if you give to charity then you are doing something in you are intested in doing. When someone says that people operate in their own interests they might as well be saying that people act in accordance with their goals, or try to do what they want.

The problem is that it becomes impossible to not act in self-interest, and so the term is uninformative. Moreover, its connotations of selfishness are prone to mislead those who are not accustomed to its use in economics.
It might be a bit uninformative, but it's more precise than calling the system greed-based. Greed is not the primary motivation for everyone's decisions. If it was, charities would be far less successful (just one example). However, people do give to charities, because some value the resultant feeling more than the resources they gave away.

[Oleander]

There are always unspoken assumptions about this 'invisible hand' mentality where everybody does what they choose and by magic it all produces ever more growth (like cancer). One assumption is that what they want to do can be measured in economic terms at all. What Vincent van Gogh wanted to do wasn't. Another is (usually) that economic return (ie money) is their motivating reason for doing it. Van Gogh again. That assumption arises because the people who think this way usually can't imagine doing anything for its own sake. Then there's the confusion of two sorts of growth: there is the growth of quantity and growth of quality. As production becomes more complicated so more of the same becomes a more attractive goal than trying something different. That is why we are not all going to work a ten-hour week in monorails and hovercars with weekends on the moon: too much research for too little return.

[Anja]

I'm still waiting for the four-day work week they promised us was just around the corner when I was in high school. A lot of people are now working two jobs!

[nolla]

I wasn't isolating that one statement. Taking your whole argument into consideration, I found a contradiction. It's the art of debate, n'est-ce pas?

Anyway, today's free markets are still driven by "greed," which you think is an undesirable trait, and they're overall very successful at doing many things for many people.

Ah, so the contradiction was that the system already does many things that I would like it to do. Yes. But the system does many things I don't want it to do. These things can be simplified by saying that they are greed based. As long as free market is about people making a living, it is based by their desire for safety. This is ok by me. At some point it changes and the entrepreneur isn't doing it anymore for his or his family's well being.

There is no contradiction. I didn't say the whole system should fall. I am thinking about ways to make it better. There is something sick about world fueled with greed.

Why is the current rate of cancer survival not enough?


Why isn't forty-eight pairs of shoes enough? Medical treatment is important. Making people buy shit they don't need is not.

[pure_mercury]

Why isn't forty-eight pairs of shoes enough? Medical treatment is important. Making people buy shit they don't need is not.

No one makes people buy things they don't need, except for the government. Also, buying lots of shit is crucially important to a market economy.

[nolla]

Also, buying lots of shit is crucially important to a market economy.

Yes, this is disgusting. :steam:

[pure_mercury]

Yes, this is disgusting. :steam:

No, it's not disgusting at all. People like buying things, businesses like selling things, and voluntary exchange benefits them both.

[ptgatsby]

No one makes people buy things they don't need, except for the government. Also, buying lots of shit is crucially important to a market economy.

Hmm... you don't think wants are/can be induced?

[pure_mercury]

Hmm... you don't think wants are/can be induced?

Induced? I assume you mean advertising, marketing, demographics, etc. No, I don't think it can be "induced" in the sense of "coerced." Getting people to want things (without employing force or fraud) is really just showing people things they want in a new, exciting way. For instance, I am getting the HTC Dream phone. My old phone still works, but I want a new, better one, and this has features that will be useful to me in my future job. Is it necessary? Of course not. Am I willing to spend a relatively large amount of a paycheck to get it? Yes, I am, and it's to the benefit of both myself and the phone maker/cell provider.

[nolla]

No, it's not disgusting at all. People like buying things, businesses like selling things, and voluntary exchange benefits them both.

And you don't find it just a tad disgusting that they pollute the air water and ground with this mutually beneficial exchange?

[pure_mercury]

And you don't find it just a tad disgusting that they pollute the air water and ground with this mutually beneficial exchange?

Countries with command economies generally have worse air and ground pollution than do mature capitalistic economies. Pollution is a trespass; a tort, as we would say in property law. Polluters should be punished for ruining other peoples' property. You'd see a lot less pollution if polluters were subject to more personal and class-action lawsuits (although the burden of proof would and should be on the plaintiffs, not the defendants).

[nolla]

What I mean is, your phone is manufactured somewhere and it makes some amount of pollution. If we all buy a new phone every time we see something new come out, there will not be many generations after us.

[pure_mercury]

What I mean is, your phone is manufactured somewhere and it makes some amount of pollution. If we all buy a new phone every time we see something new come out, there will not be many generations after us.

That makes absolutely no sense. You don't buy every phone there is to buy on the market, and making a phone is not as bad as, say, driving a car or generating electricity or even eating meat. Should everyone stop these things, too? Should people in Africa stop them, too? They consume far less than Americans do, but they may also use things that are worse for the environment (old, dirty cars, burning down forests for grazing land, etc.). Are you in favor of some type of built-in pollution tax on goods? I don't see exactly what you are getting at here.

[nolla]

Psychological change would be optimal. The easiest way to be green is to not buy stuff.

[pure_mercury]

Psychological change would be optimal. The easiest way to be green is to not buy stuff.

That is also the easiest way to wreck the economy, which is counterproductive to being green. The best things we can do would be to:

1) make polluters, not taxpayers, responsible for paying for the damage they wreak;

2) stop subsidizing farmers in rich countries, ethanol, etc.;

and 3) continue working on the technology to get away from burning petroleum and coal for energy and transportation.

[nolla]

That is also the easiest way to wreck the economy, which is counterproductive to being green.

That is what proves the system imperfect. It needs to be changed before it crashes on its own.

[IlyaK1986]

I agree, I do believe it will have to be based on human nature. It can't work any other way. I would just want to have it based on something else than greed. Greed is part of the bad things in human nature. It could as well be based on something positive.

All systems based off of human nature are based off of what humans do on DEFAULT.

Every single human wants their needs and wants fulfilled. To that end, he is willing to sacrifice something (his time) in order to do something such that he could have money (aka he produces) so as to get his needs and wants fulfilled.

And that is capitalism. Plain and simple. It goes by the most basic foundations of human nature, which is self-interest. Self-interest is why communism fails and capitalism works.

[nolla]

Every single human wants their needs and wants fulfilled. To that end, he is willing to sacrifice something (his time) in order to do something such that he could have money (aka he produces) so as to get his needs and wants fulfilled.

And that is capitalism. Plain and simple. It goes by the most basic foundations of human nature, which is self-interest. Self-interest is why communism fails and capitalism works.

I agree with every word here. But you haven't convinced me that greed is the only possible basis for a system of our age.

[pure_mercury]

That is what proves the system imperfect. It needs to be changed before it crashes on its own.

Why? Wanting more things (or an easier, less strenuous life) makes people get up and work. That is a good thing.

[nolla]

Why? Wanting more things (or an easier, less strenuous life) makes people get up and work. That is a good thing.

Easy and less strenuous life would be to work less and be happy with food on the table and some friends and hobbies... They don't necessarily have to bring the apocalypse any closer. Buying stuff does.

[IlyaK1986]

I agree with every word here. But you haven't convinced me that greed is the only possible basis for a system of our age.

The 7 cardinal sins are the basis for a system of any age.

Greed, Pride, Sloth, Lust, Envy, Gluttony (okay fine, Wrath is what we make laws against).

Greed--you want something. So you work for it.
Pride--You want to be proud of yourself. So you work to develop a reputation.
Sloth--You want to do whatever it is you want to do with your time. So you work to make enough money such that you're in control of your life.
Lust--You want a beautiful significant other to make love to. So you in turn strive to be beautiful. This takes work.
Envy--You want what someone else has. So you work to get something like it.
Gluttony--You want to consume things. Whether it's expensive wines, or just go out to eat a little more, you work for that also.

All of these cardinal "sins", except Wrath--are what humans are at the basic level. Selfish. They want things for themselves, be it money or sex or possessions or tasty food, and will go to great lengths to achieve them. So in order to fulfill their "unlimited" wants, they go out and produce that which other people find a use for.

And so in turn, everyone is happy.

[Risen]

I am greed (hence the avatar :tongue10:), and greed will never die; nor will the systems humanity creates for itself ever be free of greed's grasp.

[nolla]

The 7 cardinal sins are the basis for a system of any age.

Greed, Pride, Sloth, Lust, Envy, Gluttony (okay fine, Wrath is what we make laws against).

Greed--you want something. So you work for it.
Pride--You want to be proud of yourself. So you work to develop a reputation.
Sloth--You want to do whatever it is you want to do with your time. So you work to make enough money such that you're in control of your life.
Lust--You want a beautiful significant other to make love to. So you in turn strive to be beautiful. This takes work.
Envy--You want what someone else has. So you work to get something like it.
Gluttony--You want to consume things. Whether it's expensive wines, or just go out to eat a little more, you work for that also.

All of these cardinal "sins", except Wrath--are what humans are at the basic level. Selfish. They want things for themselves, be it money or sex or possessions or tasty food, and will go to great lengths to achieve them. So in order to fulfill their "unlimited" wants, they go out and produce that which other people find a use for.

And so in turn, everyone is happy.


That's pretty good point actually. So if we would find out that there really isn't more that motivate people, we should focus on pride, sloth and lust, since they are environment friendly. Pride is kinda the same thing we talked about respect earlier.

Except that these are only the negative sides. The ideal communism was inspired by was most likely a family. Extended family working together for a better life for all. This is a positive emotion. It did fail as a system, but some communes might have been working all right, who knows. There must be more positives except the want to protect your loved ones.

I am greed (hence the avatar :tongue10:), and greed will never die; nor will the systems humanity creates for itself ever be free of greed's grasp.

Congratulations.

[wildcat]

I think wanting to own things is a fairly primal need, and it is somewhat indulged by Capitalism. ( By that I mean some people within the capitalist system enjoy more feeling of "control" than others, and not that Communism would give you more of a feeling of ownership. )

It is when we get into the implications that people are owned ( in all but name ) or can be owned period that we run into trouble, of course.

In the "Conservative Feminism" thread it was mentioned by Peguy that the nuclear family as a primal unit ( fulfilling those needs ) has been around in its current form for so long that history has judged it the best way for individuals to proceed, and continue life etc. I don't think anyone questions that this approach also fits a primal demand. When discussing alternatives in that thread, it seemed the idea was that other perspectives were doomed by not being so tried and true, or primally basic.

In the thread on cheating, people were discussing different concepts of what "betrayal" means in couples, with some people thinking emotions/intentions were more primal than physicality, and others feeling more "( physical ) possession is nine tenths of the law", to paraphrase it. :) Possible subconscious feelings of "ownership" here too, with respect to people, but in different ways.

Of course these descriptions of "ownership" can be looked at in more than one way, with couples proud to tell one another "I'm glad you're 'mine' " and "I do take you for granted, but in a good way. I have faith in you and I know you feel the same about me" etc.

But "ownership" can obviously be taken in a bad way too, and this has been pointed out in the feminist oriented threads as being something women have been forced into putting up with sometimes over centuries, even by "well meaning" guys versus the issue of generic slavery per se..

So to rule out feminist alternatives to the old ways of the family by saying that they go against the grain of natural urges is not really accurate, because it pits one urge against another, in a way, with both having been around waaay long enough not to constitute a "flash in the pan" or merely trendy approach, as is sometimes implied by various criticisms. Nobody wants to be "owned". ( K leaves himself open here for claver retort . )

* ducks *
Nuclear family (= the breakup of the family) is the product of Industrialism.
A new concept.
It means neglect and resregard of the environment:
The milieu of children and the elderly.

What a waste.

[Anja]

What a waste.

Wildcat, I am so glad you said the doubleyou word. It was what came to mind as I've read the last several posts.

__________________________________________________ ___

I am disconcerted, Pure, about the idea that charging those who can afford it, to pollute is a viable solution. Did I misread you?

I am in thought of something I see happening locally frequently. People who can afford lake property brazenly violate our environmental guidlines to create a milheu which is aesthetically pleasing to them. They don't care what it may do to the lake or it's shores or it's creature, all of which combine to keep a healthy environment. They pay outrageously high fines to have things their way and others be damned.

Others who are well-connected in government force their issues through the legal process by association and the hoi polloi