You're right shorbe, but the fact that you are correct belies a greater danger.

You say that humanity is based on greed and this will never change - but this argument also acts in an apologetic fashion.
Implicit in the argument is the notion that there is little hope for drastic improvement in the workings of power.

Capitalism is effective namely because control of the economy, to a large degree, is taken away from the individual and placed more in the impersonal requirements dictated by supply and demand.
The problem is that every system will inevitably decay - the key driver behind socialism has been the fact that capitalism will inevitably result in wealth - and power - being in the hands of just a few.

Ironically, it is this accumulation of wealth and power that renders capitalism flawed. Capitalism's driving principle - greed - will ensure that the wealthy and powerful use their influence to distort the market.

This in turn leads to other problems - I believe it was Hobson who first theorised that capitalism as a financial system would generate warfare.

Of course, I tend to think Hobson didn't foresee the rising power of the middle class when he pointed out that the European imperialist expeditions (an earlier form of foreign investment) of the 1700's were largely generated by the lack of investment opportunities available in Europe at the time (poor with no spare money, and very rich with more than they can possibly spend = insufficient consumer activity & a stagnant economy leading to recession).

I suppose what I'm getting at in a roundabout fashion, was that while it's simple to view capitalism as encouraging the powers that be to secure resources, it is perhaps an even stronger requirement than many think.
It's going to get more intense in future. While the imperialist tendencies of old won't be directly repeated (there are plenty more investment opportunities today).
I suspect that this in turn necessitates greater regulation rather than reduced, if we are to achieve the best outcomes for the individual and avoid conflict.

TRTL: I think you're right on many things. However, I believe conflict is inevitable. People are selfish. Despite all the feel good environmentalism or notions of ending world poverty, we're not going to do that. To do either or both (and I think the two are mutually exclusive actually), we'd have to reduce our standards of living way below what they currently are, or experience a massive world-wide population decline. People simply wouldn't go for either. As such, there will be conflict, and it will be open conflict because it will be too big and too obvious to hide the blatant resource grab that will happen by mid-century. There are simply too many people already who consume far too many resources, but bring China (and probably a few other rapidly developing nations) onboard and it's almost certain to happen in my lifetime.

Yes, it's apologetic, but it's going to happen, whether we want it to or not, so I think it's better to be on the winning side of history. It would suck to be in a smallish, undeveloped nation, but that's too bad for them I guess. All we can hope for is that we maintain something resembling what we currently have, even if that means we have to export even more tyranny and if we end up as part of a larger (American?) political bloc that goes to war with China or any other major political bloc.

I personally think that we're headed for less democracy and far more authoritarianism. If anything, we're going to head more in the direction of a beefed-up Singapore because the majority of people won't put up with some bunch of ferals or civil libertarians if it threatens their shopping malls or supermarkets and the wars that will be needed to stock the shelves.

No political ideology is going to provide a solution to 12 billion people (projected by mid-century) squabbling over degraded land, collapsed fishing stocks, minimal fossil fuels, etc.

Fair enough shorbe... but doesn't the argument that there are fewer resources necessitate a revision of how these resources are distributed?

Capitalism does direct wealth into fewer hands - this has been socially acceptable, as the trickle down effect has been sufficient to improve the lives of people throughout the western world.

If the supply of resources, and therefore profit, begins to decline, then in the interest of maintaining capitalism and a better way of life for most, wouldn't it be necessary to regulate that perhaps, more of the profits go toward the lower echelons?

This concept is absolute anathema to the free market economy - but if we are indeed in for increased conflict over resources (and I think you're right, we are) and if the profits remain in the hands of a few while the majority suffer, then isn't that going to weaken Australia internally? At a time when we need to possess strength, won't we be inviting conflict and weaken ourselves if we refuse to countenance these possibilities?

TRTL: Yes, you're right in a predictive sense, though I don't think your solution will actually be a good solution.

I used to consider myself somewhat libertarian, but I realise that's as much of a pipe dream as socialism, even though I think the Market is a good idea. It's a failed ideology (if, indeed, classical liberalism was ever really accepted by many at all), as all ideologies will be in a world of shrinking resources (absolute or relative to numbers of people). In such a situation, pragmatism will win the day.

"Right wing" economic policy is becoming, and will become, less and less accepted by most people. Those who were on the fence will get off the fence.

On the other hand, "right wing" social policies will become more and more popular. We will see a massive reduction (if not end) in immigration. Many civil liberties will disappear, and the government will become increasingly regulatory in most important areas of our lives.

However, none of this will necessarily entail better services for everyone. This will be put to us as being "for the good of the nation" but I'm not sure that the upper class/politicians will necessarily lose power or wealth. You can be sure that the politicians and their friends will make sure they're all right, whilst insisting that small businesses and the middle class in general bear the cost. People will fall for this too because people in this country resent the successful because people in this country are irresponsible financially.

The irony in moving away from a market system is we will see the middle class disappear or be completely beholden to the political class because of fear of the lower class, and this will exacerbate the nation's woes, which will in turn require more restrictions "for the good of the nation".

TRTL: I'd like to say something further about the financial position of people in this country.

Aside from sport, people in this country resent success. Rather than looking at the fact that they've blown all their money on booze, cigarettes, gambling or takeaway food, or have splurged on home theatre systems (in houses bigger than they need), overseas holidays, or any other consumer items, people want to point the finger at those who have foregone short term pleasure for long term financial success.

We have governments with no vision in this country that pork barrell only for the next election instead of making long term investments in the future of the nation, but I think that's only a reflection of our national psyche. Australia used to be a country where financial prudence was considered a virtue, and accordingly, we were a successful and prosperous nation. Now, we (well, not me) have maxed out credit cards. At the bottom of it, no one made Australians financially irresponsible but themselves. No one made us all rush out and buy plasma TVs instead of paying off the mortgage faster or saving/investing in another way. Sure, we have tough times ahead, and sure that will be taken out on people who have been clever and careful, but I don't believe Australia's future woes will be anyone's fault but our own. I take it as given that politicians and their cronies will always feather their own nests, but people can't seem to get it into their thick skulls in this country that if you not only waste your own money, but punish the financially prudent, then you're dooming yourself to be a banana republic.

My big beef these days is not the politicians (whom I consider to be like any other incurable parasite), but the multitude of morons with maxed-out credit cards burning holes in their pockets.

I see what you're getting at, and I suspect we're both agreed there's always going to be that disparity of wealth, it's just the way things are... I suppose, as always, the devil is in the detail. It's all in the fine print I suppose.

A few things that need considering I suppose, are thus;

Our birth rate isn't particularly high, and countries with far less by way of resources have much higher populations and still a first world quality of live - Japan for instance, though this is largely fuelled by a work ethic and competitive culture Australians are unlikely to match.

Theoretically however, our resources and vast space for agriculture (yes much of it is desert and unusable, but we still have much more arable land per head of capita than other nations) mean that we could sustain our way of life, or at least, a comparable way of life, for quite some time - longer than most anyway.

The issue then becomes, how should you sustain this way of life?
I agree with your sentiments regarding credit cards and over-spending, but not necessarily on the attitude toward the upper classes. I'd say one thing Howard has nailed, is the fact that people now see themselves as being rich one day, and resent too much intrusion on taxing business. It's how he's remained in power for a decade.

The problem I envision, is that we don't place enough of a value on core industries, despite the fact that in terms of trade, they're really all we have that competes with the big players globally.
As the world heads for a more dangerous place, these are going to be the industries that matter - this is the long term shortsightedness that we are guilty of displaying.
We reduce our agricultural R&D funding, we refuse to subsidise exports while competitors do so with impunity, we invest little in education, all the while privatising key assets and opening them up to foreign ownership.