Squeers
That’s your idea of defending your propositions is it – more ad hominem drivel?

If we take away all your schoolyard snivelling, your circular argumentation, your superstitious worship of government, and your infantile squalling for the teat, there’s nothing left.

And this is the great economic genius who wants to replace the will of over six billion people with his own, on the ground of the superior wisdom and virtue of - himself. But he’s not so wise, or so virtuous, that he can venture to express what he would replace it with, aside from – cop this – citing Karl Marx: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Everything you have advanced in the entire thread rests on the assumption that capitalism is unsustainable, which is what is in issue in the first place, you fool.

If this was one of those cage fights, we would be at the stage where you, having failed to land a blow in the entire match, lie bashed and bleeding on the floor, with my foot on your neck.

So why didn’t you just admit at the outset that you are only ventilating your ignorant prejudices, had no honest intellectual interest in the question you posed, and that your pretended concern for humanity is just so much fake moral exhibitionism?

Peter Hume,

I bow to your superior ego (knees bending). Nice little mirage in your mind, no doubt, eh, your foot on Squeers throat.
I'll let him rebut your rant (if he can be bothered).
I have an uncle who always, at family gatherings, uses similar tactics to your own (he's really rather insecure, but we like to humour him). Every time a discussion ensues, he immediately issues challenges left, right and centre. He always ends up with no-one to talk to, but it seems to fuel up his ego until next time.

So, things I have learned from this discussion:

From Peter Hume,
Capitalism will go on forever. It is entirely sustainable and anyone who questions that (or declines to answer Peter's "challenges") is intellectually bankrupt and devoid of moral backbone.

From Stern,
The "only" alternative to rampant libertarian capitalism is the gulag...and...Stern is the proud possessor of a vast collection of quotes from right-wing pollies and commentators.

Jolly good then...I'll be off now.

Dear Peter Hume,

Why don't you stop beating around the bush and tell me what you really think?
Whatever you say (and this time you really are "hysterical"), I have posted a lot more logical argument and secondary material than you have.
And for the record, since you and your ilk can't conceive of anyone's thinking outside a stereotypical box (certainly you lot can't), I'm in favour of minimal government and I'm anti-totalitarianism. When have I ever exhibited "superstitious worship of government"? I haven't, such is merely your imaginative presumption.
<Everything you have advanced in the entire thread rests on the assumption that capitalism is unsustainable, which is what is in issue in the first place, you fool.>
I've "argued" its unsustainability and offered secondary sources, as have others; whatever the weakness in that argument, you've offered nothing to counter it but reactionary rhetoric.
<If this was one of those cage fights, we would be at the stage where you, having failed to land a blow in the entire match, lie bashed and bleeding on the floor, with my foot on your neck.>
Enjoy your fantasy.
The charge of "moral exhibitionism?" (nice phrase) is one I do take seriously, since I'm no different to other consumers. There is certainly the danger that we're merely accumulating "ethical capital" in bemoaning the evils of the day while still enjoying the trappings of our comparative wealth: a kind of subjective/objective quid pro quo, or super-egoic payoff.

Peter Hume

At first I thought I was reading one of Col/Stern verbals. Had to double check it was you.

Yesterday morning I asked:

>> Not one (neo-con) has addressed the issue of how continuous growth and expansion can be maintained indefinitely. Instead we are subjected to a boatload of anachronistic thinking and deliberate obfuscation.

Therefore, instead of the personal slurs I ask Peter Hume (as the most literate of the G.C's - Global Capitalists) to detail how we can continue business as usual in a finite world. <<

What a mistake, I actually thought that:

a) Peter was courteous enough to try and explain how unregulated Capitalism can be sustained in a finite world.

b) That Peter was capable of presenting answer.

Having demonstrated a vacuum of intellect by his most recent post, b) cancels any possibility of a).

Pathetic.

I think I'll have to join the others and ask PH, and Stern, to outline their basic arguments that will show how all is well, and how we will survive 'going forward', as the goons are wont to say every third word, into a world of more and greater consumption, everywhere in the world.

I would also appreciate being advised which elements of government PH would strip away first... I am assuming it would be something like public education/health/transport/housing all being a total drain on the wealthy, offering them absolutely nothing in return.

After that, I would not be shocked to see the police force and jails being closed down, along with, I would hope, all 'extras' to pollies and wasted positions such as state governors and our GG. If people want these positions, they should tender for them and pay for the privilege.

What next? Oh CSIRO, state bodies like the DPI services...all parks and gardens people-real waste there- and charities, since they bludge into the private sector and undermine Capitalism and free markets.

Will the bludging religions survive though? I hope not myself, and would join PH in his closing down of the taxhaven there.

Over to you two... show us all where we have it so wrong..oh..what about the armed forces... they really are inefficient and very costly always buying the wrong gear, and never looking after their soldiers properly, costing us a fortune in shattered lives after the wars are over.

Yabby.
I've asked you repeatedly to verify your claim that Apple had anything like a monopoly by just giving us the year. You've skipped around like a crustacean on a griddle, but consistently failed to supply a simple answer.
Basically, your statement was false.
“The one company who held the monopoly on a great operating system was Apple,
already in 1984.”
What an interesting use of the word “monopoly”. By this definition, Microsoft has always had a 'monopoly' on Windows, as Microsoft is the only one who can sell Windows.
As indeed every company has a 'monopoly' on their product, if they have a patent. This quite clearly has nothing to do with the 90% market share Microsoft currently enjoys; it was merely misdirection.
Another company that had a 'monopoly' on a great operating system was Commodore, which was the largest selling computer in the world for about a decade. Then there was Tandy's TRS 80, -another 'monopoly' in the same market- which had a great run in the eighties... in fact in the early eighties there were over a 100 computer manufacturers, all fighting for a slice of the pie.
This was capitalism at it's finest; a host of healthy competitors supplying reasonably priced products with reasonable profit margins, self regulated by simple competition. What we have now is 'post capitalism'; only 2 commercial players, both obscenely rich through lack of competition.
Far from enjoying anything like a market monopoly, the very best Apple ever managed was a distant third.
No doubt you will defend your untenable position by saying “they were just toys”. In fact, all the major players at that time were programmable in BASIC; Commodore had the advantage of the 'superior graphics'; much better than the Apple 11e that I owned, in fact.
Apple's big break came with Visicalc, the first 'killer' business app., which wasn't written by Apple, or even arguably for Apple. By happenstance, it was written -independently- on an Apple, and enabled Apple to compete -albeit only briefly- with the much larger IBM corporation.
Yabby. Credibility zero.