a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by wryme
wryme  ·  4784 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Is Capitalism the Villain?
The problem with capitalism is that it very detached from the actual resources available in a given environment. In fact, capitalism thrives on the rapid depletion of natural resources because such a strategy is profitable. This is the classic tragedy of the commons.

Let's keep the larger picture in mind, here: we live on a finite planet with finite resources. Therefore the goal of any economy should be to effectively and efficiently make use of said resources -- to "economize." Embracing an economy which is built on the principle of increasing profits at any cost, especially environmental costs, is suicide on a global scale.

As a side note, the greatest and most creative minds on the planet (Friedman mentioned Einstein) were not inspired or motivated by profit. Curiosity and the pursuit of knowledge and creative expression are more potent motivators than any amount of money could be.





hootsbox  ·  4769 days ago  ·  link  ·  
However, we live in a world if almost infinite "ideas" and what to do with those resources. Economically, the resources are not limited. Natural resources may be, but economic resources change and expand with the expression of invention, ideas, and commerce. If you provide a good or service that people desire, and they trade either a monetary amount or goats and sheep, you get economic growth. The misunderstanding of many "command economy" or central planners, is they see the world as a zero sum game: people have to take at the expense of others to gain any type of success. This is Marxism at its core. You can believe in its concepts, but history teaches us that they have been abismal failures and end up robbing individuals of their dreams, aspirations, motivations and the incentive to reach beyond their "own little sphere". A free market system has provided, historically, the most efficient way of dealing with both unlimited and limited resources.
scarp  ·  4769 days ago  ·  link  ·  
What are "economic resources"?

> The misunderstanding of many "command economy" or central planners, is they see the world as a zero sum game: people have to take at the expense of others to gain any type of success.

This is only true when the total population exceeds the amount of natural resources available to support said population. I can't comment on whether or not this is the case, but it is very well possible that survival on this planet is a zero-sum game.

> This is Marxism at its core. You can believe in its concepts, but history teaches us that they have been abismal failures and end up robbing individuals of their dreams, aspirations, motivations and the incentive to reach beyond their "own little sphere".

History has taught us that no one likes living in a harsh dictatorship ruled by incompetent leaders. And I wouldn't be so sure that capitalism and free market systems haven't "robbed people of their dreams, aspirations, motivations or incentive," etc., in a world of extremely concentrated wealth, gaping wealth disparities, copyrighted food products, massive poverty, failing social programs, crippling debt, wage slaves, etc etc etc.

> A free market system has provided, historically, the most efficient way of dealing with both unlimited and limited resources.

Define "efficient." Every natural environment has been on the decline for the past 30 years. The atmosphere is becoming saturated by greenhouse gases. One fourth of the food wasted in the first world could feed every starving person in the third world. Modern society is completely dependent upon rapidly depleting fossil fuels with comparatively little investment in alternative energy.

(P.S., wryme is my old account. You are talking to the same person here, just to be clear.)

mk  ·  4769 days ago  ·  link  ·  
(P.S., wryme is my old account. You are talking to the same person here, just to be clear.)

Did you lose access?

scarp  ·  4765 days ago  ·  link  ·  
Oh no, nothing like that. I just wanted a different username.

Also it looks like I don't get email alerts for this account, possibly because I used the same email as my old one?

mk  ·  4765 days ago  ·  link  ·  
Huh. I haven't tried it. That's possible, but odd. Maybe clear the email in the old one? If you like just put in email@email.com, or whatever.
hootsbox  ·  4783 days ago  ·  link  ·  
Here here! Government should not be the determinant of "motive". There are profit motives, social motives (charitiy - not forced but allowed and instigated by the individual not government "re-distribtution" determined by select few who think they know best), and environmental motives (safeguarding the natural resources and the environment we live in). Let's get government out of the business of judging motivation and appropriating public resources to those whose motivation may not match other people's!
hootsbox  ·  4782 days ago  ·  link  ·  
Public resources as in taking from the labors of one and giving it to the "charity" or wasteful endeavor (shall I say Solyndra and not to say some investment in "green" is not good but not foolishly giving loans to companies that are already on tentaive ground).
hootsbox  ·  4782 days ago  ·  link  ·  
No, no...sorry. I do believe that government should regulate commerce (within constitutional bounds), and the environment (providing they do impact studies before passing regulation by caveat). Otherwise, stay out of the motive judging business.
mk  ·  4782 days ago  ·  link  ·  
Are you saying that charity, not government should be in the business of environmental regulations? For example, in determining what manufacturing products can be released into a river? Or, which type of logging method can be used in a particular valley?
hootsbox  ·  4782 days ago  ·  link  ·  
This comment has been deleted.
wryme  ·  4783 days ago  ·  link  ·  
I'm not sure I'm following you. I agree that a government cannot and should not be the determinant of motive, as motivation is internal and not external, but what are you saying with your last sentence?