I think there are some large capitalist corporations, such as car manufacturers, Banks and Child Care centres who are trying to Socialise their debts right now, and get the non-consuming taxpayer to bail them out.

They join the long line of "risk-taking success stories" who are continually propped up by the State.

If we were to take away all the human beings, there would be no value to speak of in the earth. There is no inherent value in nature. No-one has a right to speak for values over and above human values. Anyone pretending to, merely presumes to speak from the position of God. In reality, they are merely speaking for their own values, nothing more.

If we look at a graph of human population over time, it rises sharply after the advent of modern capitalism, with its characteristic of mass production for the masses. In non-capitalist societies, what happened to the human lives that capitalism supported for the first time in history is, they died.

You seem to be assuming that, in the absence of capitalism, yours would be one of the lives continuing. But it is more than likely that, in the absence of capitalism, it wouldn’t be.

Not only has capitalism supported a greater number of human lives, but it has supported them at a much higher standard. The poorest of the poor in capitalist societies live lives of a quality that in many ways is higher than that of kings only a couple of hundred years ago, for example, in their access to electric power and light, motor transport, fresh foods from great distances, modern pharmaceuticals, and telecommunications.

Socialists spent the first hundred years after Marx complaining that capitalism grinds the faces of the poor and is sure to bring us all to the point of starvation. Now they have spent the next fifty years telling us we’re all going to die because capitalism provides a standard of living that’s too high. Make up your minds!

Wobbles “I think there are some large capitalist corporations, such as car manufacturers, Banks and Child Care centres who are trying to Socialise their debts right now, and get the non-consuming taxpayer to bail them out.

They join the long line of "risk-taking success stories" who are continually propped up by the State.”

And I can think of thousands of people, like me, who recognize the superiority of libertarian capitalism over all other economic models and are angry that our hard earned taxes are used to prop up failed individual entities.

Personally, I would not have spent a cent on bailing out child care centres. Banks do not need our taxes either and why are ford and GM and Chrysler suffering when Toyota nd Honda seem to be dealing with the market environment?

“risk taking success stories” do not seek government alms, only incompetents who deserve to fail.

Finally, remember it is WEALTH created and distributed as dividends, purchases and wages and TAXES which are paid by the successful "risk takers" of capitalism, which finance the work of government and make possible the bailout money which the current government is profligately squandering on failed businesses so they can buy votes.

Protecting failed businesses is an expediency which suits imagination-free, here-today-gone-tomorrow politicians, intent of maintaining the status-quo it is not the natural expectation nor the desire of 'capitalism' and is more 'socialist' in its origin, where government gets involved in running everything.

Margaret Thatcher spent half a decade dismantling the stagnant edifices of the UK’s previous socialist governments nationalized businesses, to stop them dragging the entire UK economy into the abyss .

regardless of thatcher capitalism,that evolved into keating privatisation,then how_hard privatisation>feather bedding capitalism that saw the public service excess benifits paid up front,in full,into trust?funds]

we now have rudditecapitalism[noting the income his partner derived from the how_hard contracting labour/hire service]rudite capitalism is serving the same capitalised elites to reap the cream then expect govt to fix it when the milk left turns out to be menaline

we are getting some good returns on the topic,the why of capitalisms has evolved into which capitalistic system[im setting on liberal capitalism,but what does this mean?

we must allways allow idiots to risk their own money for gross personal gain[borrowed money should not be speculated[beyond what assets they are'willing'to risk loosing[ie pay up the bet]just what are they putting;'on the line'

so what ideas might serve a benificient capitalised syst-em to allow all to share the spoils equally[instead of getting govt money for failure,to'get it'by inovating]but proportuinate to their risk/return based on their specialised inputs.

im being vague because the vision im trying to write into words is only a fuzzy revelation[basiclly a form of personal credit based on our potential,our real worth/special skills or idea,or;invention even dare i say it based on our station

to explain a child has a natural credit based on its base potential[factored off his/her name country statis,locality and possability of return for their life skills investment]thus as a student of the arts they warrent certain credit for study[the best get'credit'for recording[the best of the best get credit to tour]the higher your personal skills/worth the higher the credit available.

the same with growing a product[more shall be given;based on your previous'return'[small succes is needed to get the credit for the next stage]in short the numbers reveal our true personal credit

ok its a confusing vision,but see how qualifying your skill realises the credit for the next stage[but each next stage is payed for by succes in the previous venture[be it a course or a buisness venture] only via succes shall more credit be given

ok now tell me what the ism's are of my concept[im calling it]ACcredit-ism

The problem that the socialist environmentalists seem to have is with the existence of human life and prosperity. Well I'm sure a dispensation of socialism should do much to fix that problem!

Anyone who claims to speak for nature is merely staking a claim as a human being to the use of particular natural resources as against other human beings.

For example, someone who wants land to be used to preserve native vegetation, instead of for growing food to supply to people who would otherwise starve, does not argue from a position of moral superiority just because they are defending the value of ‘the environment’.

Economic calculation comprehends anything exchanged against money. Things like natural beauty and futurity, so far as they are taken into consideration in the price, are a value in their own right over and above the money value. This means that, from the environmentalists point of view, they would be getting a bargain, and there is no excuse for them not solving the problems they allege by simply *buying* the resources they claim are under-valued. No need for force, no need for public ownership, just peaceful social co-operation.

The unevidenced assumption of fact underlying your argument is that the earth is facing an ecological catastrophe.

However Bjorn Lomborg, in his book The Skeptical Environmentalist, examines this. Lomborg was a card-carrying member of Greenpeace and an academic statistician, skilled in analyzing complex data sets. He gathers and critically analyses the best evidence in the world on all the topics of environmental concerns. He concludes that the evidence does not support the basic environmentalist assertion. We are not about to run out of natural resources. There is no ecological catastrophe staring us in the face. There have been enormous benefits to show for the use of resources so far. Much of the environmentalist claims have a basis in political vested interests, spoilt hypocrisy, and fashionable mass hysteria. Read it: get the facts and then decide.

You have not yet got to square one in suggesting that the problem is capitalism

Diocletian, reckon any old cockie like myself has lost sleep worrying about clearing land not so much in the early days, but mostly after WW2, when it seemed the Age of Industrialism was beginning to backfire.

Breaking down the last of a thousand acre piece, though one felt industrious to now have sight of the local town, was glad to see mallee hens along with scrub turkeys and kangaroos and emus, able to escape down into a wooded salt-lake area.

Many more years later, now it seems industrial man is capable of cleaning out timber and scrub from the whole globe no problem - so small wonder when natural growth lives mostly on carbon, small wonder that we are now trying to put God-given growth all back again.

Reckon it could be done, but as Adam Smith declared long ago, without government control of human greed, nature has little chance.

Furthermore as Socrates said so much earlier, Nature is very capable of paying back, even though it was Socrates who also gave the declaration, Out with Gods, and in with the Good.

Makes one wonder what in blazes is really good and what is flamin' bad?

Cheers, BB, WA.