Thanks monkey. You are reminding me about why I've always hated capitalism. This is the kind of thing that needs to change.spuriousmonkey said:
The True Purpose of Capitalism
- Thread starter TruthSeeker
- Start date
Casting a slave and master role is wholly by pessimistic choice. The fact is we're an interdependent species. Third world countries do not have to supply the US. Thus they are not slaves. They do so because the money is good.
Capitalism is neither honest nor dishonest. Saying it is dishonest is complete fallacy. Painting the master/slave relationship is also fallacy. The system we "belong to" is a natural resultant of global competition.
Please though, keep your head in the sand and pretend "those bastards just want to fuck everyone". Certainly there are some bastards who want to fuck everyone, but they do not comprise the entire system. Feigning that this is so is retarded socialist wanna-be dogma which I find quite pathetic from people who are supposed to be participating in honest debate.
Capitalism is neither honest nor dishonest. Saying it is dishonest is complete fallacy. Painting the master/slave relationship is also fallacy. The system we "belong to" is a natural resultant of global competition.
Please though, keep your head in the sand and pretend "those bastards just want to fuck everyone". Certainly there are some bastards who want to fuck everyone, but they do not comprise the entire system. Feigning that this is so is retarded socialist wanna-be dogma which I find quite pathetic from people who are supposed to be participating in honest debate.
wesmorris said:
And rest assured that the US will topple a regime if a particular country doesn't see this benefit of this excellent trade.
chile:
chile decided it was time to take back what was theirs:
The US didn't quite see the profit in that.
Guess what happened then?
Iraq. Oil you say?
Last edited:
Hehehe... good one monkey. 
Now, I will bring back the same argument I have so many times... but now I have quite an interesting evidence.
In the 60s, the US conspirated against Brazil and many other countries to prevent them from growing economically, after the second world war. Here is the article about it.
Brazil and CIA
by Peter Gribbin
"In the rush to consolidate its role as the new leader of the so-called Free World, the U.S. government saw as a major task the containment of countries which, during the Second World War, had begun to pursue an independent course of development. If and when change was to occur, it was to be of a made-to-order variety, directed from Washington. To this end, the establishment of powerful, centralized police forces in Asia, Africa, and especially Latin America became a top priority. "
Capitalism is putrid in the hands of abusive greedy people such as... americans.
The love of money is truly evil...
Now, I will bring back the same argument I have so many times... but now I have quite an interesting evidence.
In the 60s, the US conspirated against Brazil and many other countries to prevent them from growing economically, after the second world war. Here is the article about it.
Brazil and CIA
by Peter Gribbin
"In the rush to consolidate its role as the new leader of the so-called Free World, the U.S. government saw as a major task the containment of countries which, during the Second World War, had begun to pursue an independent course of development. If and when change was to occur, it was to be of a made-to-order variety, directed from Washington. To this end, the establishment of powerful, centralized police forces in Asia, Africa, and especially Latin America became a top priority. "
Capitalism is putrid in the hands of abusive greedy people such as... americans.
The love of money is truly evil...
devils_reject
Registered Senior Member
If I was to take the face value of this statement it will mean that 3% of the human population of America have the highest intelligence, because the wealthiest people are 3% of the population. These people including people like Opray Winfrey and George Bush. I don't know but I think there are ideas that will come to me easier than to either of these two people. Nonetheless poor people have a lot more changes to adapt to, so technically they ought to be smarter. But you might be...right
I have the worst hang over from a night outdevils_reject
Registered Senior Member
A Swiss bank addressed an issue on the radio yesterday, an issue I have pointed out many times in this forum. In this day and age 2006 C.E there are people with billions of dollars in assets while somewhere else a mother nurses her two sons along a dusty road side pavement. How is this progression? Can someone please tell me? In a world where some government actually pays farmers to stop producing, e.g. Australia, Austria, and France, all in the name of regulating price, you will think that we are actually living in some sort of archaic society. And please don't give me that capitalism bullcrap because even if everybody was equally smart some people will still have to be relegated to the "odd positions". Wealth is not how much money you have but how well it circulates and accommodates the community. Capitalism is fine but as long as some people who, not through DNA hereditary, hoard certain amounts of money you have to admit there is something wrong with this archaic system. Of cause we are also a group of people even in 2006 C.E believe that there are demons and angels from the sky. I think quotas ought to be established on how much people can have at any given time for the sake of others, because the society should benefit from science and technology not just the individual. The developed nations prance around with this title but as long as we are all citizens of the earth and just next door are people living besides dusty roads you have to ask yourself "just what is so developed about developed countries?" Of cause when you compare yourself to the unfortunates you appear developed, in fact comparison is the basis of capitalism," you like your neighbors new windows and you want one too"; taking away self gratification and self realization. Developed nations have always lived in denial and comfort zone, its natural. I like capitalism, a synonym for opportunity, and euphemism for exploitation, but it needs a reform. The Romans claim they were the epitome of civilization while going around beheading people and roasting them alive, the same way America claims to be the epitome of ethics and staunch pro humanity while possessing huge caches of WMD’s, I’ve never really understood this. All this issues boils down to government, and we need a world government if we are going to stop destroying ourselves, wasting money on defense, and progress. George Bush is right on one issue, one government and global economy is inevitable. Culture, an ideal which initially separated civilizations, was created as a tool of survival and entertainment; ideas which science and tech has adequately replaced today. Culture today is a tool of the businessman. Of cause people like things done for them, but at the end of the day you have to ask yourself "what’s really so good about having so much stuff?" I like capitalism but you have to admit the world is fucked up, and nobody should be entitled to so much; as long as it takes many people to make you wealthy you ought to give your dues the same way. I consider myself a progressive capitalist, capitalism based on progression not necessarily opportunity.
Last edited:
Summary: Not only must mankind find a way not to exploit excessively peoples in othe lands, but also a way to not excessively burden later generations.
I have only read most recent page post but tend to support the position taken by Devil's reject. I.e. Excessive accumulation of wealth seldom is desirable, even for the one who has done so. But the solution he at least appears to be suggesting (world government, redistribution of excessive wealth etc.) is flawed also.
It might solve the problems of wars, which always are struggles between at least a pair of geographically distinct power bases, but there is still the "war" between peoples separated in time, rather than space.
For example this generation is using up non replaceable parts of Earth's natural endowment and leaving a less desirable Earth behind for the next in fossil fuels, but may be able also to leave developed alternatives to them. Certainly most generations have had it better than those which preceded them, especially in the medical/ health areas. Just look at life expectancy data.
However, modern society is a very complex interdependent web. Partly reflected in the fact one can buy things instead of making all that one needs. This made possible and convenient by the invention of money. However, Fiat money has permitted the war between the generations to intensify. For example, each new born baby in the US is more than $26,000 dollars in debt before it takes its first breath. We appear to (in US at least) entering an era never experienced before. The burden on the younger generation is so large that to pay for the things consumed before they were born, they must accept a life style of lower options (lower real income) than their parents had. Just as badly repressed/ exploited people in other lands revolt, so will the exploited people of later times. I am old enough that I will very likely be dead before the revolt of the young generation comes, but it will come. They can not pay for the consumption they did not enjoy and for their own needs. they will begin slowly, changing the social security system etc. to lessen the burden, but the debt is already beyond the point of no return and will be paid only by more fiat money (run the printing presses, which will hurt all generations)
I have only read most recent page post but tend to support the position taken by Devil's reject. I.e. Excessive accumulation of wealth seldom is desirable, even for the one who has done so. But the solution he at least appears to be suggesting (world government, redistribution of excessive wealth etc.) is flawed also.
It might solve the problems of wars, which always are struggles between at least a pair of geographically distinct power bases, but there is still the "war" between peoples separated in time, rather than space.
For example this generation is using up non replaceable parts of Earth's natural endowment and leaving a less desirable Earth behind for the next in fossil fuels, but may be able also to leave developed alternatives to them. Certainly most generations have had it better than those which preceded them, especially in the medical/ health areas. Just look at life expectancy data.
However, modern society is a very complex interdependent web. Partly reflected in the fact one can buy things instead of making all that one needs. This made possible and convenient by the invention of money. However, Fiat money has permitted the war between the generations to intensify. For example, each new born baby in the US is more than $26,000 dollars in debt before it takes its first breath. We appear to (in US at least) entering an era never experienced before. The burden on the younger generation is so large that to pay for the things consumed before they were born, they must accept a life style of lower options (lower real income) than their parents had. Just as badly repressed/ exploited people in other lands revolt, so will the exploited people of later times. I am old enough that I will very likely be dead before the revolt of the young generation comes, but it will come. They can not pay for the consumption they did not enjoy and for their own needs. they will begin slowly, changing the social security system etc. to lessen the burden, but the debt is already beyond the point of no return and will be paid only by more fiat money (run the printing presses, which will hurt all generations)
Good post. But why do you thinka single government would be better if the problem is governments? I think we shouldn't have any governments, once we are able to. There ARE no political boundaries. We create thoe boundaries ourselves. It is an ignorant way to treat each other. But I still think we are a long ways from elminating those boundaries, unfortunately. It's just the way we have been "raised" in this planet. We need to grow up and become a mature civilization. But we first need to have the integrity to admit that we have done a lot of mistakes and we still do. We can learn from our mistakes, but we first need to accept them.devils_reject said:
You are very wise Billy TBilly T said:
Yes, that was perfectly said. What you are trying to say is what in economics we call "crowding out". Crowding out basically happens when government increasing borrowing crowds out private economics activity. That creates a burden on future generations who have to pay deficit while the present generation enjoys consumption.
Crowding out happens when the government borrows money and practically give it to people. Bush, for example, did that not long ago with tax cuts. But in the larger pitcure, the crowding out happens throgh overproduction and overconsumption, which delays the payments, putting the debt into the hands of younger and younger generations. It is hard to see that, because people look in the wrong place. They look at the individual production of industries when they should be looking at inflationary trends over the years. Things that used to cost little decades ago, now cost much more. Take a look at those charts! (on page 35, for example)
http://www.frbatlanta.org/filelegacydocs/dwyhaf.pdf
Quite remarkable how much more money you need to buy things, right! And when is it really going to end?
Yes, the income also rises, but it is the relationship between them that people are missing. And that is where my Endogenous Economic Growth Theory starts. And the variable missing in the Keynesian model is very obvious...
But anyways.... the bubble is eventually going to burst. Even Warren agrees with me.
Yaba Daba! :m:
In two words: crowding out.Facial said:
PS: Hail to the economic notes!
To some extent Truthseeker answered for me, but that answer is not necessarily correct. "Crowding out" is not necessarily a problem and can even be a benefit to the society if the government uses the money it borrows more wisely than the private sector would. (more later on this) The real answer to your question is well illustrated by the current US economic pattern that has developed during the administration of GWB. Government is not investing in the society but adding to the negative or no return economic activity (call it foolish consumption) that is always part of the public consumption pattern.Facial said:
For positive return example of government "crowding out" borrowing: The government could "crowd out" the private enterprise that wants to develop a new entertainment theme park when it borrows more and this makes interest rates rise. This borrowing, if for investment, such as full tuition scholarship for all students in the top half of their school, even a small stipend for "pocket money" would very likely make the US stronger in the long run than a new theme park would.
Unfortunately the current administration is making negative investments with its borrowed money and this has "crowed out" student loans, etc. and many other positive investments it should be making. The current administration is also using tax policy to increase the spread between the rich and the poor. For example, in the name of stimulating the economy a few years ago I received a government check for $300 dollars. I did not need more money so I (and many others who are relatively well off) just deposited the check to my savings account. This influx into the banks was part of the reason why interest rates decreased and this helped fuel the unsustainable increase in home values. (No sector of the economy can appreciate at twice the rate of the overall economy indefinitely. The longer it does so, the stronger the correction will be when it comes.) Many home owners took advantage of these lower rates to refinance, and often converted part of the equity they had been saving into consumption, so to some SHORT TERM extent the government checks did stimulate the economy, but it was really by converting saved assets in expenditures, not by real investment. The net effect was that both the public and private debt increased.
Neither sector has ever been so deeply in debt and most of the debt has been added in the administration of GWB. In five years the US economy has been converted from one with net savings, both public and private into one where both sectors are going into debt at the fastest rate the world has ever seen, with possible exception of the financing of WWII but that was done with reduced consumption (gas rationing etc.) The current both guns and butter approach to financing mainly "foolish consumption" designed to benefit those already rich is placing such a large debt on the many that they will never be able to pay it back with equal purchasing power. (It will be paid by inflation - printing press fiat money) The very rich will not be badly hurt by this inflation. They are converting their wealth into real assets, typically commodities, including gold. For example, during GBW's administration the price of copper and oil has approximately tripled. I am not very rich, (Graduate student for many years, then worked for same university) but I have seen the collapse of the dollar coming for several years, so to protect myself I invested in ADRs and my portfolio has now doubled in value as others are starting to do the same, driving up demand.
Unfortunately, there is no way the vast majority of young people in US today can protect themselves from the harm GWB is doing to them. Not only will it be a risk for them to travel in many parts of the world, most will not be able to afford do so. Their standard of living will be lower than that of their parents. Many will live with their parents out of economic necessity. Many will delay marriage for the same reason. Technological advances will provide some relief - instead of going to Paris etc. they will see the painting etc. there on their computer screens, etc. They will travel less domestically also, take shorter vacation, if any, etc. with fuel so expensive.
They will be tricked into thinking the governments energy research effort is to reduce the cost of fuel when it is actually it is focused on things like hydrogen fuel cells, etc. that only will require more fossil energy. - This because Greenpeace etc. are unknowingly aiding the oil industry CEO government maintain the dominance of oil in the energy picture. US is far behind in wind energy and 30 years behind Brazil in use of alcohol as car fuel. (Alcohol is environmental benefit, cheaper etc. and has made Brazil a net exporter of oil.) TV also helps maintain this ignorance in the US population. If it were not so sad, I would laugh when I see the BP adds with new meaning for the letters (Beyond Petroleum) promoting solar power car races across Austral or hydrogen fuel cells etc. (anything that is not a real challenge to oil, as alcohol is.)
US poputlation is now almost exactly 300,000,000 and public debt slightly more than 8 trillion (I.e. more than $26,000 for every man, woman, child and baby) and this does not count the private debt on cars, houses, credit cards. If GWB completes his full 8 years the per capita debt total will be well above $100,000 and interest rates will be significantly higher, as foreign resistance to financing it builds (around 10% would be my guess, assuming that the dollar has not totally collapsed).
Not a pretty picture for today's youth. My generation made very successful war on the next. We ate your cake and did not even leave you bread crumbs, only the bill.
Last edited by a moderator:
Eh? How's that?Billy T said:
Yeah.... weird, eh?
Nver understood that..
That's what TV is for...!
The situation is not any different in Canada. In Brazil neither, btw...
Hydrogen in fuel cells gives back only a fraction of the energy that was used to produce it (electrolysis of water takes the highest grade of energy.)TruthSeeker said:
Typically three times as much oil or coal energy is required to make the energy used in electrolysis, which is not 100% efficient. I do not have the efficiency numbers for fuel cells, but know they make considerable heat so lets say it is 0.8 efficient at production of electricity or after electric motor and gear losses etc 75% of the energy in hydrogen is converted into energy for moving the car.
Thus three units of fossil energy make one of hydrogen and that gives 0.75 for moving the car. Those same three units of fossil energy can make at least one unit of energy if burned in the IC engine of the car. Thus if 75 units of useful energy are required for moving the car, you can get them from 300 units of fossil energy via the fossil to hydrogen to fuel cell to wheels path. Or you can get those 75 units of energy for moving the car from 225 units of fossil energy if you just burn the gas in the car. (You could of course get them from sugar cane at less than 2.25 units (or less) of fossil energy, (trucks hauling cane to local plant still use oil derived fuel but will soon will use biodiesel if not alcohol.) but oil companies will not tell you that as that is only 1% of the fossil energy and that means less demand for oil, lower prices, lower profits, lower pollution, etc.) oil companies like the fact that gong from 225 units to 300 units is a 33% increase in the demand for oil. Higher demand = Higer price = Higher profits, WHICH ARE ALREADY AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL IN HISTORY. (Not surprizing that my investment in Brazil's oil company, Petrobras, is up 438% in slightly more than three years.)
Can you now see why the oil companies think fuel cells are the best thing since the internal combustion ingine (or sliced bread)? (They probably contribute to Greenpiece thru fronts so that hydrogen from nuclear power is only for the very distant future.)
Note that the conversion of oil to gas energy loses are easily inculded in the assumed 33% efficiency as the modern IC engine, well tune up etc can get about 40% conversion efficiency.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, hydrogen technology is still in its infancy. Of course the ideal would be to use pure hydrogen, otherwise it is pointless.
Do you know how much CO2 comes from the cars that burn alcohol compared to oil?
EDIT: Have you taken a look at the article I posted in this page? I recall my old history teacher saying one of the reasons why it happened was because Petrobras was groing and competing against the americans...
Do you know how much CO2 comes from the cars that burn alcohol compared to oil?
EDIT: Have you taken a look at the article I posted in this page? I recall my old history teacher saying one of the reasons why it happened was because Petrobras was groing and competing against the americans...
The fact that hydrogen production requires energy will not change. Hydrogen will always yield less energy than was used to produce it. You like many others seem to think of hydrogen as some new energy source. It is not and never will be.TruthSeeker said:
You can work it out: gas is approximately iso octane or H18C8 and alcohol is (if memory serves) H6C2 but with on of the 6Hs replaced by -OH or so it is H6C2O, but that may not be the way a chemist would write it. Now alcohol has only about 80% of the energy content of gas (basically because it has already combined with one oxygen atom, which is part of the reason it burns cleaner). Thus for equal energy yield you need about five alcohol molecules for every four of gas. Hence, for alcohol: 5xC2 = 10 carbon atoms relased. and,TruthSeeker said:
For gas 4xC8 = 32 carbon atoms relased.
Summary the combustion of alcohol releases less than 1/3 as much carbon (for making CO2) as does the combustion of gasoline, but this is not the main reason alcohol is much more friendly if you are concerned with CO2 release by mankind.
Switching to alcohol for your car's fuel actually reduces the amount of CO2 in the air. This is because 100% of the carbon released was first removed from the air by the growing cane. Most of the carbon captured by the cane from the air remains in the celulose of the cane stock and roots. I do not know the actual numbers, but bet that 90% of the carbon removed from the air does so. (only 10% OR LESS of the carbon is in the sugar of the sap that is then converted to alcohol.) If crushed stalk is feed to a cow, instead of burned for the heat of the distilation process, then roughly speaking 9 carbon atoms are removed from the air for every 1 released driving your car. I.e. a net removal of 8 carbon atoms compared to a release of more than 3 with gas. (Recal from above that gasoline releases more than 3 carbons for each carbon atom released by burning alcohol when producing the same energy yield.)
(It may not be as cheap, but could be legally required with very small increase in alcohol price, to use solar energy and counterflow heat exchangers for the distilation process. - boiling alcohol out of the fermitation liquid with solar energy is easier than boiling water - I.e. very practical use of solar energy, but the counter flow heat exchangers are essential to make the
keep the collection area of solar energy small)
Summary: The very fact you even ask this question reflects how little is understood about the environmental advantages of using alcohol in your car. instead of gas.
Last edited by a moderator:
devils_reject
Registered Senior Member
whether you refer to crowding out or government spending, or budget deficit, they are all dimensions of inappropriate capitalism; and in fact inevitables of capitalism. The whole reason why govnts spend or increase interest rates is to propagate growth and curb inflation respectively.
Better the official government than the local gangster. There is always going to be a smart ass or muscle head trying to dominate you. How else do you think government started in the first place? Don't get me wrong the government has its own issues. As Karl max puts it, " the struggle between class is a political struggle". If you don't believe this just look at all the legislatures that are passed by legislatures world wide, they are either to propagate economic growth (fatten bank accounts of the elite), increase government interests, or control your thought on what’s moral or unethical. Anyway I have no real solution to ineffective world economy but as it is we need a new world government and economic system. I just have that feeling deep down that we are wasting our resources exponentialy with the current one. I just don't see why one ass bag can't decide how to spend his 800 million while another is trying to make ends meet with his 300 dollar a week, meanwhile money is a public derivative.
Better the official government than the local gangster. There is always going to be a smart ass or muscle head trying to dominate you. How else do you think government started in the first place? Don't get me wrong the government has its own issues. As Karl max puts it, " the struggle between class is a political struggle". If you don't believe this just look at all the legislatures that are passed by legislatures world wide, they are either to propagate economic growth (fatten bank accounts of the elite), increase government interests, or control your thought on what’s moral or unethical. Anyway I have no real solution to ineffective world economy but as it is we need a new world government and economic system. I just have that feeling deep down that we are wasting our resources exponentialy with the current one. I just don't see why one ass bag can't decide how to spend his 800 million while another is trying to make ends meet with his 300 dollar a week, meanwhile money is a public derivative.
There is good debt and bad debt. The USA right now has a lot of bad debt and no good debt at all. What's the point in getting a whole bunch of debt and give all the money away in tax cuts? Then your children have to pay your bill later. I find that pretty disgusting.devils_reject said:
You sound hopeless. So is that it? We can't get something good, so we try getting something less bad...?
How do you know? Why are there people like that?
Do you think I have no control over who my child will become?
Yes. Sounds good to you?
Absolutely. Any other ideas?
devils_reject
Registered Senior Member
-Karl Marx,Communist Manifesto
highly recommended paper, only about 100 pages too
dixonmassey
Valued Senior Member
If hydrogen has little if any environmental advantages, alcohol doesn't differ much. It doesn't require a genius to transform all kinds of energy into alcohol. Alcohol is (to lesser extent than hydrogen) is an energy carrier, it's not a viable energy source. No experimental study have disproved that claim. All "optimistic" alcohol related studies are based mostly on the sucked of one's ass data and dreams to cheat a buck or two. Is it too much to ask learned folks to sow an acre of cane, produce alcohol (using alcohol only) and to show that the remainder of alcohol is sufficient to justify the trouble?Billy T said:
Experiment is unbelievable simple (if by any chance I'll get a piece of land, I'll try it
), however, nobody bothers to do something like that. It's a big, fat, red flag. Some things are good only for getting funded.