Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Capitalism's intrinsic flaw

Jump to new
Julia, the carbon taxes forces innovation. It forces a movement from the finite (resources) to the potentially limitless (new energy technologies).

It's conceivable that someone will come up with a technology that is totally out of this world - cheap and self-renewing. We're already close to that with solar thermal, but I mean something that even exceeds that.
 
Gringotts Bank said:
As natural resources dwindle, whole economies could fail. While resources are finite, the development of new technologies is theoretically limitless. Technologies for food and energy production can become ever more sophisticated, efficient and cheap.

If that was the path we take (I assume it is), then the only problem left is physical space.
Click to expand...
There's been a simmering debate about this sort of stuff on a public forum in Tasmania for quite some time now. There's quite a few involved and you could divide them into these basic groups:

1. There is no problem. Climate change is a myth and there's plenty of oil.

2. Climate change is real, oil is limited but the world is going to use the lot anyway so we may as well enjoy it and stop worrying.

3. We should have dammed the Franklin back in 1983 and we wouldn't have to worry about power now if we had.

4. Advocates for various small scale options like solar water heaters, better insulation etc that can't really solve the issue but which do create awareness.

5. One individual who is particularly keen on beaming energy down from space and/or colonising other planets.

6. Those who see that any fix to the question of energy only prolongs the inevitable, that growth is unsustainable no matter how it is fuelled.

With the exception of point 3 which is an eternal debate unique to Tasmania and which will probably never really die, I'd say that practically everyone fits into one of those categories.

I'm clearly in category 6, although I'd rather a dam and some solar panels over coal or nuclear any day (but I acknowledge the futility of building either if there is to be constant growth since we'll still end up using all the coal in the end).

The one thing that does surprise me in that debate, is just how many environmentalists seem willing to cross the floor and support things they strongly oppose (specifically dams) on the condition that they are an actual replacment for fossil fuels. But, like me, they see no point if it ends up being a dam AND coal due to constant growth, with the dam simply prolonging the inevitable.

I would personally say the same about nuclear - I'm strongly opposed to it whilst it remains in addition to other energy sources and simply prolongs the inevitable. But if it were an actual replacement, if we were to go nuclear and end growth, well then I'm more willing to consider that it may have some benefits. But as it stands today, we'll use all the coal and oil with or without also using uranium, so we might as well leave the uranium in the ground and avoid the hazards it brings.
 
Wysiwyg said:
Do you think it is more in defiance of being told what to do rather than a thinking minds uncontrollable urge to reproduce? I am convinced women birth for reasons other than biological urge. Birthing in poor countries to keep their race existing, birthing in rich countries to take advantage of encouraging/generous government handouts for example.
Click to expand...

No, i think most women have a very deep biological urge to reproduce, which was intially based on keeping the race existing.

Back in the day before oil when energy input had to equal energy output, breeding was a way of ensuring the human race. Because oil has changed things so rapidly many of our biological urges have not yet changed/evolved (hence why so many obese people now also).

My partner for instance has known since she was about 16 that she want children and she has been both rich and poor in that time, its just a deep desire that can defy logic.

FWIW, the gov handouts dont help, but definitely not the reason why (most) people have kids imo
 
prawn_86 said:
My partner for instance has known since she was about 16 that she want children and she has been both rich and poor in that time, its just a deep desire that can defy logic.
Click to expand...
Right there is a want, not need nor biological urge. It is for humans a want or desire as much as it is a natural act.
 
Gringotts Bank said:
Julia, the carbon taxes forces innovation. It forces a movement from the finite (resources) to the potentially limitless (new energy technologies).

It's conceivable that someone will come up with a technology that is totally out of this world - cheap and self-renewing. We're already close to that with solar thermal, but I mean something that even exceeds that.
Click to expand...

Bring on the hover cars its about time...might explian the increase in UFO sightings in the UK.:D
 
prawn_86 said:
The problem is it is biologically inbuilt in most of us (especially women) to want to have children. Until we can change this biological urge its pretty much impossible to change the birth rate with out government controls worldwide.
Click to expand...

Tell that to Japan. No government controls, yet declining population for quite a while now!
 
It's natural. We can conceptualise and think cognitively,plan, follow logic or follow desire, act out of social comscience or out of short term self interest.
Women tend to gravitate/desire toward family,babies and sence of safety from a man. Men gravitate toward women out of desire even though the last thing they want is to be bound by babies etc. Even though they love their children once they have them.
We follow desire and compromise everything for it. Of course there are exceptions, but over all we do not rise above the animal kingdom governed by desire. Any species that becomes too dominant ends up destroying it's own environment.
Their still having babies in lands of starvation. Animals are stupid. Desire is stupid. Desire rules. Stupid rules.
 
So_Cynical said:
...conservatives seem to struggle with long term, big picture issues.
Click to expand...

While socialists waste our money on the next dumb$hit feel-good idea that achieves nothing.

Capitalism is a big part of the reason new technologies are developed. America has brought about some of the greatest technology to date due to capitalism.
 
There is no flaw in pure Capitalism as there is no pretense for the greater good of all. Pure Capitalism will do it's job, even if population reduction is the ultimate result.

Capitalism contaminated with Socialism, therefore a cognitively dissonant frankenconomy, is full of flaws, because it contradicts itself.

Capitalism is Darwinian, which is natural. Socialism feeds and promotes weakness which is the antithesis of natural.
 
wayneL said:
There is no flaw in pure Capitalism as there is no pretense for the greater good of all. Pure Capitalism will do it's job, even if population reduction is the ultimate result.

Capitalism contaminated with Socialism, therefore a cognitively dissonant frankenconomy, is full of flaws, because it contradicts itself.

Capitalism is Darwinian, which is natural. Socialism feeds and promotes weakness which is the antithesis of natural.
Click to expand...


Agree, I think an economy can run sufficiently with some socialist policy. But once the scales tip to far to the left business confidence ends up in the trash. Good luck with running the country when productivity is destroyed.
 
prawn_86 said:
The problem is it is biologically inbuilt in most of us (especially women) to want to have children. Until we can change this biological urge its pretty much impossible to change the birth rate with out government controls worldwide.
Click to expand...

Communism, Socialism and Green ideology have had a good go at achieving this but failed.

gg
 
wayneL said:
There is no flaw in pure Capitalism as there is no pretense for the greater good of all. Pure Capitalism will do it's job, even if population reduction is the ultimate result.

Capitalism contaminated with Socialism, therefore a cognitively dissonant frankenconomy, is full of flaws, because it contradicts itself.

Capitalism is Darwinian, which is natural. Socialism feeds and promotes weakness which is the antithesis of natural.
Click to expand...

Agree with this. The problem we have now however is if we were to switch to pure Capitalism (never happen, but lets theorise) then everything would need to be reset, otherwise those already with money/land/gold etc would be better placed.

This reset would then cause new wars, murders etc. Perhaps it is what we need...
 
Socialism can promote horrible apathy and weakness, and capitalism can promote greed and corruption, but then there's the Tao. :cautious:
 
prawn_86 said:
Agree with this. The problem we have now however is if we were to switch to pure Capitalism (never happen, but lets theorise) then everything would need to be reset, otherwise those already with money/land/gold etc would be better placed.

This reset would then cause new wars, murders etc. Perhaps it is what we need...
Click to expand...

Yes we seem to be stuck with the current frankenconomy. At some stage however a "reset" will inevitably occur. The only question is when. The current model which is predicated on perpetual growth cannot continue ad infinitum, this is irrespective of capitalism, socialism, or mongrel hybrids thereof.

One can only despair that at that point, given the world's leaders record of prudent economic decisions this far, the wrong decision will be made. :cautious:
 
Gringotts Bank said:
Socialism can promote horrible apathy and weakness, and capitalism can promote greed and corruption, but then there's the Tao. :cautious:
Click to expand...

Capitalism need not be lawless, the common law must always prevail in civilized society. Capitalism need not imply the law of the jungle as the United States 'fairly' successfully navigated a a good balance for quite some decades.

But in case you didn't notice, corruption and greed exists on either side of the ideological divide.

And yes, then there is the Tao. ;)
 
I like the fact that the two reining kings of capitalism have chosen to become nice socialistic 'weak' supporting charatyists, giving their stock piles of money to the most needy and encouraging all their princly counterparts to do the same.
The bigger the devide, the less secure is the king.
Darwin might find that a little confusing when it comes to homosapiens.
At what point does capitalist man realise that he is happier as a social appreciating/contributing creature than a ruthless competitor?
I guess when he is very rich!
There yet?
 

Similar threads

basilio
The age of Scarcity
Replies
5
Views
4K
jonojpsg
J
Top