The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Does capitalism drive population growth?

Does capitalism drive population growth?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. Page 10
  10. 11
  11. 12
  12. 13
  13. ...
  14. 38
  15. 39
  16. 40
  17. All
Excellent, Peter Hume, what fun!

Much as it pains me to be a damper on such rhetorical flourish, I fear it fails to disguise an utter want of substance and a clutch of straw men you lay waste to.

To begin with (again), why must we deal in cliches, or in this case stereotypes?
Who are "anti-capitalists", and are they the same for all seasons? I hadn't realised my disenchantment with the present system was so historically monolithic.

<Are the anti-capitalists really arguing that the fault of capitalism is that it is the cause of large numbers of people being alive and healthy who would otherwise be dead or diseased?>
I don't know. Seems rather morbid! Are they?
For myself, as I've said ad nauseam, I'm concerned that capitalism's fundamental dynamic, endless growth in a closed system, is unsustainable. To me the equation seems simple enough. This internal logic is not subject to alteration without its ceasing to "be" capitalism, yet if we don't turn the growth off, thus terminating capitalism, we will rapidly complete the job we're embarked upon: exhausting resources and running out of markets to cultivate. Indeed, logic dictates that capitalism is engineering its own spectacular demise, I only demur that we should perhaps intervene "before" the thing implodes? I suppose I should be grateful that we'll go out in grand style.
continued...
Posted by Squeers, Wednesday, 7 July 2010 4:52:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<Anti-capitalists *still* argue that capitalism makes the mass of people poorer, while *simultaneously* arguing that it makes the mass of the people too rich.>
Do they? Seems silly! Can you provide references?
<And what exactly do "you" [who? Anti-capitalists?] propose to put in its place?>
Well that is a poser isn't it? I hadn't thought of that! Perhaps we should? Or do "you" (capitalists?) prefer that we crash and burn, and make it up as we go?

<peaceful exchange based on private property> sounds lovely! How do we do that?

<The anti-capitalists are like religious adherents.> I hate zealots! <They are not interested in learning about the disproofs of their beliefs.> You just can't tell some people!

...Continued
Peter Hume:
<They are like one of those plastic punching clowns with a bias at base. The more you punch them down, they more they just keep on popping up with that silly enthusiastic grin on their face.>
I love the analogy!

Now do you have any comments or counter-arguments to make about what I or anyone else has been saying, or about the realities of our unsustainable, unethical and doomed capitalist system? Why is it that one cannot criticise a rotten institution without being assigned to a ready-made belief system?
Why don't you hop off that heavy base with the bias, wipe off that ridiculous make-up, and let's have a serious refutation of the basic premises that have "actually been made" above. :-)
Posted by Squeers, Wednesday, 7 July 2010 4:55:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"CAPITALISM is essentially people participating in a free market"... well, that, and all that goes with it, is first class bollocks.

Quoting Adam Smith's ideas as describing global capitalism today is about as relevant as comparing China's brand of capitalism with Marx.

As we are changed by evolution, so too are our economic-social systems.

Agonising over whether capitalism is good or 'evil' is futile.

We are lumbered with our economic system, until it alters again, as it drives everything else, good, bad and indifferent.

Clearly we have expanded at an unsustainable exponential rate, which appear to leave us in a bad shape environmentally, and mentally too, judging by what many people seem to value in their lives today.

There are glimmers of light, within capitalism, characterised by such as Amory Lovins & Co, with their 'natural capitalism' but then if you read Sharon Beder, then all hope is lost for any decency emerging.

One only has to look at the GFC to see that some of the most irresponsible people are allowed to run our communities, coupled with the vast range and numbers of incredibly wealthy people in the world, who seem to think they are owed vast incomes, well beyond any possible needs.

Of course, there have always been such people, but like cancer, they expand far too fast these days.

Why do people feel the need to 'protect' capitalism over and above the overall environment we live in?

It's not about being 'anticapitalist' in some throwback view of the Cold War world... it should be about looking to see how the Earth can continue to spport life beyond cockroaches and gin-slingers.

I blame it all on Henry VIII and his sell off of lands post Dissolution, the beginning of landsales, and real private wealth.
Posted by The Blue Cross, Wednesday, 7 July 2010 6:57:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Yabby, I love your figures. That line about poor little Microsoft, with it's pitiful 90% share of the OS market, going in to bat against that nasty, monopolistic Apple with their dominating 7% share of the market; classic stuff. Meanwhile, poor old Linux, the 'free' open source system which frankly beats the p and pick handles out of the commercial OS's limps along with a measly 3%. Serves them right, the mongrel collectivists.
Let's look at a few more numbers. According to 'Poverty Facts and Stats', about half the world's population gets by on $2.50 a day. Meanwhile, your hero the monopoly thumping Gates at his richest claimed ownership of 101 billion dollars. He doesn't have that much now, of course, because he's a 'philanthropist', he's given 10 bil., away; leaving himself a paltry 40 bil., or so to play with (definitely envious; I've always wanted to buy Tasmania). For arguments sake, let's say this month he's worth 50 bil., a mere half the man he once was.
$2.50 per day -we'll assume these heathens will forgo their day of rest- multiplied by 365 days comes to the princely sum of $912.50 a year. At this rate, your 'average' or median human (of which there are more than 3 billion) would only have to work for fifty four million, seven hundred and ninety four thousand, five hundred and twenty one years to make as much.
If only we could get them to apply themselves, the shiftless 'collectivists'.
Perhaps, Yabby, you should think a new philosophy. I'm afraid the cow in the movie 'Babe' has stolen yours; “the way things are, is the way things are!” A distinctly bovine attitude, stimulating little rumination.
Stern, I thank you kindly for pointing out the error of my ways. I see now that describing someone (who half the world's population can only compete with by working a mere 54 million years or so) as a 'bloodsucking parasite' was wrong.
Posted by Grim, Wednesday, 7 July 2010 10:32:13 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Continued:
Nice people, decent people are far more likely to use terms like “stupid arrogance”, or “butcher” or “small minded envy” and “mad bloodlust”; all for having the impudence to suggest there appears to be a slight disparity between rich and poor.
I maintain, Lenin and Stalin were every bit as much 'good communists' as The Borgias, Torquemada and yes Hitler (sorry Godwin) were all 'good Christians'.
Hey, Wing Ah Hume, welcome back. I thought we might have lost you. I love your line “The anti-capitalists are like religious adherents. They are not interested in learning about the disproofs of their beliefs.
This is wonderful stuff, coming from a laissez faire libertarian. In every 'discussion' I've ever had with one of that clique, the single outstanding characteristic of them was that anyone who weren't with 'em, were agin 'em.
That's to say: under the heading “Capitalist” we have Laissez faire Libertarian.
Anyone who isn't a Laissez faire Libertarian is automatically listed under the general headings communist or (even worse) “collectivist”, including:
Social libertarians, social democrats, social liberals, small “l” liberals, democrats, neo liberals, neo Keynesians, Keynesians, Anarchists, post anarchists, syndicalists, fascists, yes collectivists, environmentalists, feminists, my own comensalists and arguably worst of all...ideologists, yuck poo ptah.
Yes, we poor non laissez faire libertarians have always only been able to stand back and watch with awe and (yes, I admit it) raw envy at the open mindedness, imagination and tolerance exhibited by your common or garden variety classic right wing libertarian, as they strive to cope with a world of 'us' (who are right), and all them (who ain't us).
Squeers, I blush. Your eloquence surpasses me. Blue Cross, love your work. Poirot, welcome to the fraternity (egalite, liberte).
Just a tiny tip on courtesy (Stern); please don't explain my own paraphrases back to me, I find it strangely annoying. Yes, you were terribly clever to recognise the source; why weren't you clever enough to recognise what it was?
Posted by Grim, Wednesday, 7 July 2010 10:35:16 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Hey Yabby, I love your figures. That line about poor little Microsoft, with it's pitiful 90% share of the OS market, going in to bat against that nasty, monopolistic Apple with their dominating 7% share of the market; classic stuff*

Ah Grim, but you conveniently forget history. Back in 1994, when
the internet first cranked up, PCs first became more common, you
had two choices. Apple, with its high cost and monopoly powers or
MS-DOS, the most consumer unfriendly bit of software imaginable.

Along came Bill Gates with his $49.95 special of Windows 3, which
changed the world forever. At last ordinary mug consumers could
use an Apple kind of system (even with many flaws), on any PC,
made by anyone, for a fraction of the price. The Apple monopoly was
finally broken!

The reason that Bill Gates became such a rich man was consumers
did not just respond in their millions, but in their tens and
hundreds of millions. Multiply that by 49.95 and you have
megawealth. Next came Office 94. A word processor, a spreadsheet
and a database, at around half the price of those in the market.
Again consumers responded in huge numbers, so did business.

So are you going to call Bill Gates a parasite, because consumers
loved his product so much, that hundreds of millions bought it?

Think again Grim.

Google was started by a couple of university geeks. They thought
they had a great idea, went to venture capital for some finance,
the rest is histopy. No rich parents, no crookery, simply supplying
consumers with what consumers think is a good idea. The only
ones they have upset are moguls like Murdoch, who simply cannot
compete with the changing technology.

So are they parasites because they created Google from nothing?
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 7 July 2010 11:16:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. Page 10
  10. 11
  11. 12
  12. 13
  13. ...
  14. 38
  15. 39
  16. 40
  17. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy