*Moderation, unfortunately, is not a quality that humans excel at - which is a great pity, as a system like capitalism can only survive with restraint.*

That kind of makes my point for me Poirot, for of course it makes
no sense to blame the economic system, when some humans wanting more
and more is the reality. That's not capitalism but the human nature
of some.

IMHO its rather pointless being concerned about resources, whilst
we still haven't got to base 1 in doing something about the extra
250'000 extra humans a day, being added to the planet.

I've heard greens on OLO discussing banning air conditioners etc,
many peddle to work, but frankly all this is little more then a feelgood exercise.

Now if the global population can't even agree to get to base 1
about population and basic things like family planning, you
have buckley's chance of getting them to agree to share resources.
The law of the jungle will prevail, the fittest will survive,
nature will sort it out, as has always been the case.

Wow, a real live Marxist. I thought you were an extinct species.

Marx was certainly a charismatic and persuasive writer. But his theory is wrong and yes, I’ll happily refute it for you, but only on certain conditions.

1. Don’t ask me to do so unless you are genuinely interested in learning the reasons why his theory is demonstrably wrong; and why a socialist alternative is impossible not just in practice, but even in theory. If you are genuinely inflexibly unwilling to re-think his claims and your beliefs, then admit it and don’t waste my time. And I am genuinely willing to re-think my claims but you’ve got to do better than simply insisting that you or Marx are right. You have to prove it and refute the objections, not just argue in a circle, which is all you’ve done so far.
2. I’m not interested in putting up with ad hominem argument, mind-reading, misrepresentations, assuming bad faith, assuming what is in issue, and appeal to absent authority, which I have found from experience to be the universal fall-back tactics of all leftists when their claims are disproved or exploded, and which you have already tried in this thread. If you won’t agree to renounce dirty tricks beforehand, I won’t agree to spend my time explaining the refutations of Marx to you, okay? Three strikes and you’re out.
3. I am not going to box against shadows. You need to succinctly put the argument of Marx’s economic theory first, and I will then refute it.
4. Probably best to start a new thread.

I challenge you.

However if you don’t want to do that, you can read the one killer argument in: Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth by Ludwig von Mises
http://mises.org/econcalc.asp
This proves that any alternative would be *less* sustainable than capitalism because it would be incapable of economising on resources above the economic level of barter – that, is, assuming you are not advocating the deaths by starvation of large numbers of people.

Yabby, a worthy point ... "rather pointless being concerned about resources, whilst we still haven't got to base 1 in doing something about the extra 250'000 extra humans a day, being added to the planet".

Too bad about religions there, with their 'backwoods' view of procreating for the glory of gods.

And yes, on the aircons and bike riding.

Good design should see large numbers of aircons not needed, but I suspect they are a status symbol as a city 4WD is, or a log fire on the Gold Coast, and equally foolish in many circumstances.

Cycling is worth doing to keep healthier, as well as worth promoting instead of more cars, particularly in poor nations, since they are so (relatively) cheap there, even more so here.

Now, on this here, "when some humans wanting more and more is the reality. That's not capitalism but the human nature of some" you may also have a point.

But wouldn't Capitalism be shaped to be a reflection of that human nature? At least somewhat?

And that is not just 'human nature' of all but it surely has a dash of cultural-tinge to it, so the Western protestant mood requires more money all the time, whereas the Eastern peasant might seems content not to question the lot dealt, not seeking to get above his station in life (ah, the good auld days, eh? When everyone knew their place, as told from the pulpit of course).

If so, then it can surely be altered, albeit with difficulty and only via 'agreement', preferably not of the violent form or else it will not really reform at all?

All those 'piffling' activities do add up, and should they reach a 'critical mass' (thinking of those mass bike rides) then change is more easily achievable.

That doesn't add up to a communism, as feared by Stern, nor dismantle the essence of capitalism, but it would introduce curbs, and new expectations, into the mix, as has happened since Smith was creating something for market day in the village, which no longer reflects the activist Capitalism of today.

TBC re - driven by rightwing 'thinkers' and politicians, and the smugger I'm-alright-Jack types who so loath sharing the world with others.

Yawn

Imho, it is so much better to be among the

“I’m all right Jack” types

than the

“you have been more prudent and smarter and now have more than me, so Gimme, Gimme, to make us all equal” parasites

All you are doing is parroting the chant of the non-thinker

Nothing you have said comes close to challenging what I have observed being -

“collectivist policies have produced, at best, a complete waste and at worst, mass murder.”

nor

“the alternative to capitalism always ends up as the horror of “communism” by that name or any other”

The wasteful, murderous horror show of collectivism and you sound as if you want to give-it-another go….

God preserve us from the folly of the disease of the “socialist theorist” gene (yes, TBC, it is worse than leprosy) ,– although I am told it is a childhood complaint which many (but not all) grow out of
As Churchill said “If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”
(That’s “UK” liberal of course)

Yabby, I agree wholly with your points.

You are absolutely correct re population numbers, the driver of all demand.

In a capitalist, unregulated world, the nature of things means attrition and natural disaster tends to equalize unbridled growth, without the need for “regulation”. Problem, someone has been going around neutering the diseases which used to maintain the balance.
It might be survival of the fittest but that is a more “sustainable” outcome than the survival of all who are born, regardless of their fitness.

A smaller human population = more likely to be sustainable and with less competitive stress on the world’s resources

And of course, supply and demand, will declare that if world population continues to grow, regardless of what collectivists predict, eventually a lot of people will not be able earn enough to feed themselves and they will die off

Yabby,

Capitalism is predicated on the basis of human nature - the system is set up to take advantage of our penchant for acquisition. The two go hand in hand.

Stern,

You so charmingly observe that : "In a capitalist unregulated world, the nature of things means attrition and natural disaster tends to equalize unbridled growth without the need for "regulation". Problem, someone has been going around neutering the diseases which used to maintain balance".
That someone wouldn't be giant pharmaceutical companies, would it?

Dear Peter Hume,
I don't know what a "Marxist" is, I mean apart from the bogey-man you're so eager to invoke. I have no doctrine, of any kind, and don't believe in belief; it offends me when people refer to "my beliefs", I have no truck with them (for the sake of some of my interlocutors, I acknowledge my subscription to this reality; that is, that I suspend my disbelief).
Marx was charismatic, you say? The man lived in penury and virtual solitude for most of his life. Can you elaborate on his charisma please?
Point 1:
Yes I am genuinely eager to learn, even to be corrected; though please bear in mind that I have not spoken of alternatives, indeed I've admitted to not having one. The socialist alternative you (hysterically) allude to consists only in your presumptive imagination.
The only claim I've made is that capitalism is unsustainable and unethical. I am happy to defend these propositions. Can you please elaborate on the circularity of my argument?
Point 2: First of all I refer you to your own posts; can you defend them as anything more than inflamatory diatribe?
I apologise for my ad hominem assumptions and I confess to the prejudice of thinking you predictable (so far). Please enlighten me where I've got it wrong?
Can you define "leftist" for me? Presumably, since you appear to reason in this binary fashion, you're a "rightist"? "Three strikes and you're out" would seem to indicate so?
I agree, however, no dirty tricks(?).
Ctd...