*You stated that TBC has no concept of modern China*

Er where did I state that, Severin?

*Planet Earth is finite*

Perhaps you have not been paying attention then. The point was
that with 250k people being added a day, we are living
unsustainably, so wether the big crunch comes a few years faster
or slower, hardly matters in the bigger scheme of things.

*Yabby, I know this doesn't apply to you, being a genetic dead-end and all,*

Or you, being a barren old spinster and all.

"If the opposition can table some valid argument that renders what others have been saying doubtful, let's hear it."

No-one in here has yet established what is in issue, namely:
1. that capitalism is unsustainable,
2. that capitalism, rather than the human tendency to want to live and reproduce, involves endless growth,
3. that resources are, for practical purposes, finite,
4. that capitalism is more unethical than any alternative
5. if the problem is the standard of living capitalism provides, in an alternative system, who would decide who lives and who dies, and how? But if it is a given that the same number of people should live, then who is to live at what living standard, and how is that to be decided, and why would that process be more ethical and sustainable than capitalism.

I understand, Squeers, that you regard the first four propositions as being so obvious that they go without saying. In that case, they should be easy to prove. But you haven't done so yet. But if you say you have, indulge us for a sec, and just say succinctly what you say those proofs are.

I would start a new post but it would probably need to be five posts to cover the above issues.

Squeers, farmers diluting milk is fraudulent and therefore illegal under capitalism. Such behaviour is no more an argument against capitalism than it is for or against any non-capitalist alternative. And it is merely laughable to suggest that farmers diluting milk disproves the general proposition that economic calculation serves the function of showing which alternative uses of the factors of production are more economical.

Poirot
“It would be nice to think that humans could be capable of existing quite happily by embracing an economic model somewhere between subsistence and outrageous fortune.”

This assumes that there is something outrageous about the existing capitalist provision for human wants. But no-one in here has established that, or even defined it.

Do we include our own living standard in what is defined as outrageous, obscene, luxurious etc? But if not, why not?

And where do we set the standard? If the acceptable standard is to be set above death and disease, how do we disentangle the products that enable people to avoid death or disease, from mere luxuries? Take soap. 500 years ago soap was a luxury item which only the rich possessed. With the rise of modern capitalism, and its characteristic of mass production for the masses, soap became commonplace. Now no doubt soap has saved lives and prevented disease through increased hygiene. So is it a necessity or a luxury?

But if it’s a necessity, how can the necessary living standard be defined to include products that are the result of modern capitalism?

Take PCs. Should people be allowed to sit at home enjoying themselves playing on PCs? Is it impermissible luxury? What about the fact that the invention of PCs has gone to helping hospitals and medics to prevent death and mitigate disease?

What about cars? Cars can be used to prevent death and mitigate disease, so does that mean they are permissible, or not, as being unnecessary luxuries? Or should they be permitted only on condition that the user can prove beforehand that they would be used to prevent death or mitigate disease?

Peter Hume... do write an article on the topic, so all your posts flow into one seamless narrative that will be read by more than the 6 or so commentators here...allowing for the fact that some readers do not post, of course.

Seems like you get about 1500-2000 words or so in an article.

Should be more than enough to outline all your major points.

Squeers might like to summon his thoughts, already outlined, into a rebuttal, again, in a single narrative.

I suggest PH goes first, since he is concerned about the 'posting' process.

(Okay well I get the message I should write an article or summat lark that, thank you.)

(cont.)
Obviously the answers are arbitrary, and could not be answered without constituting an arbitrary power to decide them on a case-by-case basis. Ethically, who should have this power of life and death? What reason is there to think that the decisions of this arbitrary power could or would produce any better overall decisions, either in practice or in ethics, than constitute the original (supposed) problem; for there is lots of reason to think that it would be characterised by arbitrary power, the initiation of force, legally privilege, corruption, waste, inefficient failures with shortages of essential goods, and overproduction in other areas, and worse outcomes for the poor and disadvantaged.

To say this, is just to say in other words, that the alternative system would be incapable of economic calculation. Human beings act on *all* their values, including ethical values, when they take action to prioritise the use of scarce resources. And thus self-ownership, private property and voluntary transactions – capitalism - is not only more sustainable than non-capitalist alternative, but more ethical as well.

Severin
“your precious free-trade is propped up by tax-payers”

If it’s propped up by tax-payers, it’s not free trade, and I’ m no more in favour of it than you are. It is mere confusion to think that, just because something is done in China, it’s “communist”, and just because it’s done in America, it’s “capitalist”.

The problem with all the critiques of capitalism in this thread is that they do not distinguish problems arising from the private ownership of the means of production, from problems arising from the public ownership of the means of production. They just lump anything they don’t like under the heading of “capitalism”, even if it is phenomenon that is caused by government policies. And for problems that are correctly identified as the result of capitalism, they don't say how any alternative is going to produce a better result, *when its downside as well as its upside* is considered.

PH

We agree on something then.

However, you then go on to talk of "the alternative" - what exactly are you referring to? The message I get from you and Yabby and his ilk, is that "the alternative" is communism. It isn't. It is true competition - which is stifled by monopolies, it is paying a liveable income to people at the coalface producing the goods. It is placing real value back into money. There is nothing to back currency any more. Hence we teeter on the brink of another GFC.

I have been arguing for a combination of private public ownership, clearly defined regulations, limits to the grasp and scope of multi-nationals and a fairer distribution of wealth than we have had since the 80's. I don't want a return to the 60's, however the percentage between the lowest paid compared to the highest has widened beyond anything that is remotely fair and equitable for the work produced.

Even if we were not facing peak natural resources and high level pollution, we still need to address the fact the unlimited growth cannot be sustained by a finite system and that includes the people at the bottom of the pecking order - they will not tolerate subsistence only level wages in the long term.

We need to make changes, deregulation has not worked. We have societal laws to ensure that people who abuse others and commit what is generally regarded as crime are held accountable and duly punished. Its not perfect but better than nothing at all. We require a business code to which all companies need to be held accountable. What we have at present is piss-weak - Wall Street is still doing very well, thanks for the bail-out. Assuming that all business leaders will act in the best interest of the majority of their workers is as demonstrably false an assumption as is assuming that big business will act responsibility within the environment from which they draw all their resources.