A Ponzi Scheme implies that no wealth is created. Clearly this is not the case for capitalism. Surely there are better analogies? As a simple example, you could consider capitalism a wheel that is turned by human effort, and greed the brake: Too much greed and the wheel stops.

Yabby

"Sea freight anyhow, is an extremely efficient way of moving cargo, that is why rates are so low."

Rates might be low as you say, but the cost to the planet and to human health is anything but.

Shipping is responsible for about twice the emissions of carbon dioxide as aviation.

Particles emitted by ships burning bunker fuel, which to date is still the overwhelming majority of them, contain soot that researchers say captures heat when it settles on ice and could be accelerating the melting of the polar ice caps.

Health experts say the particulates worsen respiratory illnesses, cardiopulmonary disorders and lung cancers, particularly among people who live near heavy shipping traffic.

Ship engines also produce large quantities of nitrogen, which contribute to the formation of algal blooms at sea, which in turn use up oxygen when they decompose and create so-called marine dead zones in heavily trafficked waters.

“The sheer volume of pollutants from shipping has grown exponentially along with the growth of our economies and of global trade,” said Achim Steiner, the executive director of the United Nations Environment Program.

James J. Corbett, an associate professor of marine policy at the University of Delaware, is the co-author of a study published in December, 2007, that attributed 60,000 cardiopulmonary and lung cancer deaths each year globally to shipping emissions and forecast an increase to nearly 85,000 deaths by 2012 under current trends.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/business/worldbusiness/26shipping.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=worldbusiness

Enormous amounts of bunker fuel are consumed each year by the world fleet of cargo and commercial vessels as well as military ones. 2004 estimates give figures of around 290 million tons, 80% of which was heavy fuel oil.

http://www.gronkemi.nu/skepp_eng.html

"No point worrying too much about global warming whilst nobody worries about an extra 80 million humans a year being added to the global population."

What a cop out. We have to worry about both and you know it.

Trade is far more than it seems world trade gives us a reason not to make war on one another.
It opens us to new ideas and drives progress.
Yes we have problems with oil and over population.
We must not overlook it is the current system that drives change.
If world trade stops just what will hold us together?
Surely some of us, fear the answer to this crisis imposed on us will be war?
It has been in the past in such times.
While Ponzi scheme may not suit some I think the greed, crime, and carelessness behind our present problem makes a good fit.
Oil? if our system is not going to fall, we will find a replacement, we probably would have long ago if greed and self interest had no roll in the search.

*Shipping is responsible for about twice the emissions of carbon dioxide as aviation. *

Err so what? Compare it tonne for tonne of cargo moved and
shipping wins hands down, by an enormous margin. A huge amount
of cargo is moved by ship, compared to air.

Yup, ships burn bunker oil, which is the way that refineries get
rid of their rubbish. That is a refining or cost problem, not
a shipping problem. Those engines run great on clean fuel too.

*Ship engines also produce large quantities of nitrogen, which contribute to the formation of algal blooms at sea *

Bronwyn, I think you will find that algae or phytoplankton are
part of the food chain eaten by zooplankton, which are eaten
by fish. In many parts of the ocean there are no fish, as there
is no food. Dead zones usually occur close to land, close to
large human populations, where run off and human waste are dumped
into oceans.

*What a cop out. We have to worry about both and you know it.*

Nope, for me its common sense. Life is more then a feelgood
exercise. If we are going to make changes, they are going to
have to have visible results, more then just making people feel
a bit better about themselves.

Progress. What is progress? Is what we have experienced in the years preceding the financial crisis in Australia progress? I don't think so. Or if it is then it has a very narrow focus i.e. the increase of material wealth.

Progress of this sort has lead, in the already well off nations to a regression in social cohesion, overcrowding in cities that are getting ever bigger and bigger and lots of other adverse effects. It has degraded the environment both on a local level and on a global scale. Material growth has become an obsession with both our governments and of course all forms of business.

Unfettered free trade (and I don't advocate the opposite) is all very nice if the goal is more material wealth and greater economic efficiency (maybe). But it can cause major disruptions to established economies (eg Chile, Argentina, Uruguay in the seventies) and prevents some countries from ever breaking out of their poverty ruts. And the extent of global trade has been made possible because environmental externalities have not been costed in.

One thing is for sure the world cannot sustain for much longer the sort of material economic progress we have been having. The current free trade dogma needs to be tempered by a considered approach to what best in each circumstance needs to be done to improve well being NOT just what is most likely to help us consume more.

I think capitalism is a Ponzi scheme as it allows as to convert our stores of natural wealth to consumption. When those resources one by one run out the Ponzi scheme will be exposed.

RobP

"So, in other words, why can't free trade go hand in hand with scientifically-based mitigation strategies and applications? Aren't we smart enough to walk and chew gum at the same time?"

I'm not arguing for an end to world trade. Like Kulu, I'm pointing out the costs and the unsustainability of globalised free trade as it's been practiced in the last decade or so.

Yes, I agree, we could and should be exporting alternative energy expertise and technology. If the Howard Government had supported renewable energy as it should have done, we'd now be well-placed to do so. Instead, we're still exporting coal and uranium and exaccerbating both global warming and world insecurity in doing so.

Trade has its place and, as pointed out by Belly, can lead to improved relations between nations. Unfettered trade, however, creates winners and losers and fails to uniformly increase the wealth of all participants as it's claimed to.

Third world farmers, for example, who once subsisted from their land but who've now been driven to specialise for export, are frequently left unable to feed themselves when prices collapse or pests or adverse weather destroy their harvest. Suicide rates among these farmers are high and on the increase.

We have to become a lot smarter and a lot fairer in the way we trade. Trade, purely for trade's sake, will always create as many problems as it solves.