One more example of why I detest Capitalism

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/us/30airlift.html

And before you start moaning, why should America bear the full financial burden of the aid effort, I agree with you, it should not. But under a nation state based capitalist economy, no one is going to want to shoulder any more responsibility than they absolutely have to. The only way around this is a centralised world economy based upon the needs and benefit of the majority and not the greedy profit grabbing few.

Guilt for causing it? Being one of the richest nations on the planet? Detecting nearby oil deposits with the world's most powerful underground sensor?

Ummm.... under any resource accounting system, nobody is going to want to do more than they have to. Each group is going to try to keep as much of it's budget as it can, and pass costs on to other groups, just to promote it's own power and projects. This even includes a world central government. Why? Well, in order for such an entity to operate, it can't have everyone do everything as that would just lead to confusion and inefficiency, instead it will have to have committees and departments with set allocations of resources who will try to do what they can and pass on costs where they can.

Now, I am not saying that the US has the best system for avoiding some of these issues. But really, people are fundamentally f***ed up, and utopia is a pipe dream. I mean, I don't see a society that is post-accounting, maybe there is a desire to have a society that is post-status, but the problem is that status is fundamentally human.

You said the Dreadful Word "centralize". Any centralized command economy is doomed to fail. Why? Aside from clashing with the normal egocentrism of people, the combinatoric complexity of a modern functioning economy is far in excess of any committee of "experts" to guide its functioning. Central Command failed miserably in the late and unlamented Soviet Union. In North Korea it is producing starvation on a total level for that unfortunate country and it has produced a dysfunctioning economy in Cuba. The Chinese were smart enough to start being quasi-capitalistic and they seem to be doing well.

ruveyn

Exactly what does your link have to do with capitalism? It's an article on the state of Florida asking for financial assistance from the federal government.

But since you mentioned capitalism:

According to the American Red Cross, 26 companies have given $1 million each (notably some of them above--read in addition to--their current commitments).

And according to the New York Times, $2 million was raised just from the text messaging campaign.

In reality it seems that the problem isn't capitalism, but government--surprise, surprise.

But then, especially with the latest Supreme Court ruling on the contributions of business to government, it seems obvious that government is a subset of capitalism.

Surely the socialist Cubans could help? Folks like Moore like to brag that Cuba has a better healthcare system than we do, so I'm sure the Haitians would be better off with Cuban doctors, right?


It will essentially always be true that people don't want to shoulder more responsibility than they have to. Religious organizations like the Presbyterian Disaster Assistance are there to help, and are also willing to commit to long-term rebuilding efforts, but they lack the infrastructure to deal with large numbers of critical patients. For that you're almost certainly going to need some government entity, and even under socialism you would have the Miami hospitals trying to weasel out of having to deal with a large number of new patients.

Since you appear to be a fan of Linux (based upon your avatar), do you think something like it could have ever come into existence in a "centralised world economy based upon the needs and benefit of the majority," or not? I can't think of anything comparable to it that emerged in any centralized economy that I can think of, but perhaps you can.

After all, the old USSR kept photocopiers under lock and key...can't think they were much for fostering creativity or certainly the spread of information.

Or, maybe someone like Pol Pot? Kind of disturbing that the Khmer Rouge shot people for wearing glasses based on this being a sign of something or other counter-revolutionary, but they sure did the centralized economy thing.

Capitalism is based on consistent quarterly growth. This was fine when there were a large number of resources and a smaller population. But now there is a huge population and shrinking resources and that growth is unsustainable. This will be the major theme of the 21st century.

There are plenty of resources around. We're just running out of the ones we know how to use properly.

Capitalism is doing more to help the people of Haiti than socialism ever would.

Of course it bloody could, if the resources and intellect were channelled into resolving issues rather than competing for market share, great things can happen. You talk about the USSR, a deformed workers state, that started life as such a technological back water and yet (apart from the moon landing) continuously went head to head with the USA (in many cases, advancing way beyond the US capabilities) and the rest of the western world in the space exploration technologies. Now I am not going to hold the USSR up as a shining light because it was at heart nationalistic. But the technological advances made in the USSR deny the logic that technology can only advance under a Capitalist system of competition.

KazigluBey regarding donations 56 million from fortune 500 companies whoopy f*****g doo. Rather than disprove my point to my mind you are further strengthening it. And 2 million from text messages as a proportion of owners of mobile phones is pitiful.

But the main issue as I see it, random donations are not the way in which a world should look after its poor and needy, really, do you think that the lives of millions of people should hang on the voluntary donations of individuals and corporations looking to reduce their tax burden, or even worse, find a foot hold into a country to garner a profit from their 'aid'

How so

Basing my opinion on the behavior of the USA towards Haiti, and the terrific enthusiasm the USA showed toward the government of Papa Doc and his Tonton Macoute it seems you are in need of a bit of historical correction.

I don't know what resources you're referring to exactly. There will still be resources - but production capacity will become harder versus increasing demand.

All resource extraction has 2 phases. The first phase is the easy one where you scratch at the dirt and it's just under the surface. The second phase is the harder one where you have to put in more energy to extract those resources. Think of it like a tub of yoghurt. The top is easy but towards the bottom you have to scrape.

Coming into this is an increasing population which is increasingly developing meaning greater demand. Greater demand versus higher production costs leads to a supply shortfall, reduced or deficit growth and therefore a reduced quality of life.

The technologies for extracting most resources - uranium, ore, oil, rare earth elements - have changed little in the past 25 years. Seismic monitoring was invented in the 1960's. Cornucopians predict that technology will remedy this short fall and offset peak production capacity in these fields. If this was the case, then it doesn't make sense why resource companies are trying to diversify their interests in order to limit their exposure to this coming cycle. Senior figureheads in these areas readily admit there will be a time when production capacity peaks despite increasing demand - the debate is the timing. For example where I live, my former lecturer just held a conference stating that Australian coal production - estimated to peak in 2150 - has been revised to 2030.

Unless someone pulls a rabbit out of their hat before the important resources start to decline - expect an economic crunch the likes of which have never before been seen.

Now you know me better than that to ; A. think that I regard Cuba as a shinning example of socialism, or B. Regard Moore as anything else than a self serving social democrat dilettante, but to the specifics of your point, Cuba is a tiny nation, with a tiny economy. If it was part of a network of true Socialist States I would fully expect it to act major staging / triage post. as should Miami