Athens buildings burn down, Athens stock index goes up!

[Rainbow Dash]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/02/12/greece-bailout-vote.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/02/13/greece-austerity-monday.html


Prime Minister Lucas Papademos urged calm.
"Vandalism and destruction have no place in a democracy and will not be tolerated," Papademos told Parliament just before the vote. "I call on the public to show calm. At these crucial times, we do not have the luxury of this type of protest. I think everyone is aware of how serious the situation is."



Wait a minute, aren't you an unelected dictator who was put into power by IMF, and other banksters...?


There was nevertheless strong dissent among the majority Socialists and rival Conservatives, who along with a small right-wing party make up Greece's interim coalition government. The parties disciplined the dissenters in their ranks, with the Socialists and Conservatives expelling 22 and 21 lawmakers respectively, reducing their majority in the 300-member parliament from 236 to 193.

Oh, you mean Democracy means throw out anyone who doesn't agree?


bye bye capitalism :]

[Amit]

So how did the stocks go up exactly?

[Rainbow Dash]

The rioting began Sunday afternoon ahead of a historic vote in Parliament on yet more austerity measures. Lawmakers approved the bill in a 199-74 vote (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/02/12/greece-bailout-vote.html), to the relief of investors who pushed the Athens stock index up five per cent on Monday.

:]

[Tnnaas]

Burn buildings, raise stock market.
Sounds like a plan that the United States should take advantage of. /sarcasm

[Limited]

Dear Greece, kindly fuck off out of the Eurozone please, you've done enough damage.

[Rainbow Dash]

Dear Greece, kindly fuck off out of the Eurozone please, you've done enough damage.

Limited, do you want to know why the world is so fucked up?

It's because people are encouraged to be divided so that they can't unite and threaten the financial elites who control everything. You have so many people saying, "My way or the highway", that nothing changes, and you have a lot of people wandering around the highway.

Kindly stop that attitude so we can work towards a better world :3

[DarkHalo003]

Yay for corruption!

[Limited]

Limited, do you want to know why the world is so fucked up?

It's because people are encouraged to be divided so that they can't unite and threaten the financial elites who control everything. You have so many people saying, "My way or the highway", that nothing changes, and you have a lot of people wandering around the highway.

Kindly stop that attitude so we can work towards a better world :3
I suggest you go and educate yourself about the Greek financial catastrophe before you give your input any more.

The €110 billion we bailed them out in 2010 only prolonged this issue, why should we pay any more out?

[Rainbow Dash]

I suggest you go and educate yourself about the Greek financial catastrophe before you give your input any more.

The €45 billion we bailed them out in 2010 only prolonged this issue, why should we pay any more out?

I'm afraid I can't find the part of my post where I told you that other countries, including your own, should continue to partake in the intentionally flawed monetary system.

This whole financial catastrophe is an intentional creation. It allows big banksters to walk in, plunder the country's resources, and force it's population into slave labour (hence the minimum wage cut, which will be cut further in the future).

The point I was trying to make is that is that you shouldn't separate yourself from the people there. The only way we're going to fight off these worthless bankers, stock traders, etc, who contribute literally NOTHING, and play with numbers all day, is if we the people can unite, instead of being divided for idiotic reasons, like the geographical location of someone's residence.

It doesn't matter what you believe is the solution, we all know what the problem is(even if we don't realize it, for instance, look at how uncontroversial it is to say x politician is corrupt, and then see how a lot of people will just shrug that off as business as usual), and we need to become one people, and eliminate that problem. Then we can decide how to fix it.

[Limited]

I dont think you know what the problem is. I dont think you know where the problem started initially. The people of Greece are right to be angry, they have been misled by their government. The financial situation in Greece is extreme.

Why Greece was allowed in the EU I have no idea.

Also Sel your an idiot for thinking the big bankers created this, they are the ones who are going to get fucked over. Debts have already been written off in some places. Germany only just got itself back on their feet (and well done I say so, all countries should look at what Germany has done) and now they are going to get screwed over by Greece.

I don't think you understand that the majority of the bailout money, is given to Greece to pay off debts of other countries.

[Rainbow Dash]

I dont think you know what the problem is. I dont think you know where the problem started initially. The people of Greece are right to be angry, they have been misled by their government. The financial situation in Greece is extreme.

Also Sel your an idiot for thinking the big bankers created this, they are the ones who are going to get fucked over. Debts have already been written off in some places. Germany only just got itself back on their feet (and well done I say so, all countries should look at what Germany has done) and now they are going to get screwed over by Greece.

I don't think you understand that the majority of the bailout money, is given to Greece to pay off debts of other countries.

No, I don't think you understand what the problem is.

Money does not exist, debt does not exist, money comes into existance already with debt built into it, and interest creates money out of nowhere.


Debt is something that is designed into the system. If all the money on the planet disappeared right now, there would STILL be a huge amount of money owed, that does not exist. The only reason the bankers are scared is because if Greece (or any other major country for that matter) goes under, then the system which benefits them immensely, while fucking over literally everyone else will fail too.

Also I never said the bankers were the sole cause of the global capitalism collapse, they are a part of it, along with the unnecessary politicians, stock traders, and so on.

What I am telling you, is that the PEOPLE need to get over petty differences and throw these worthless fucks off the face of the planet, and then rebuild society to create a better world for everyone.

[Limited]

No, I don't think you understand what the problem is.

Money does not exist, debt does not exist, money comes into existance already with debt built into it, and interest creates money out of nowhere.


Debt is something that is designed into the system. If all the money on the planet disappeared right now, there would STILL be a huge amount of money owed, that does not exist. The only reason the bankers are scared is because if Greece (or any other major country for that matter) goes under, then the system which benefits them immensely, while fucking over literally everyone else will fail too.

Also I never said the bankers were the sole cause of the global capitalism collapse, they are a part of it, along with the unnecessary politicians, stock traders, and so on.

What I am telling you, is that the PEOPLE need to get over petty differences and throw these worthless fucks off the face of the planet, and then rebuild society to create a better world for everyone.
You hate the system?
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAYL5H46QnQ)

Your not looking into the actual Greece situation. Currently their debt is 160% of their GDP. That's practically 'gone under' territory.

Petty differences? How is cutting 140,000 public sector jobs this year a petty difference?

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/53481000/gif/_53481387_eurozone_chart624.gif

Greece's private sector lenders will probably agree to a 50% write off in the amount they are owed, so yes they are losing out, there is not a single person in Greece that is going to benefit from this, everyone is being punished.

[TVTyrant]

Sel just went full communist lol. Can't wait for King to be up in this thread.

[Rainbow Dash]

I am so imprisoned I can only think in terms of the capitalist game's rules

Oh boo hoo some random numbers with no actual value are going to go up and down : ((((((((((((


Sel just went full communist lol. Can't wait for King to be up in this thread.

I am not, and never have been a communist. What I am is an anti capitalist. I can not blindly support a system which kills millions of people each year through poverty and inequality, ravages the planet's resources without regard for their ability to be replenished because it requires infinite growth to be possible in order to function, creates unprecedented amounts of waste through consumerism, and breeds disgusting corruption and greed.

I advocate Communism, Socialism, and Resource based economies, as potential solutions to the Capitalism problem because there are multiple solutions to it, and I don't have to just pick one.

[TVTyrant]

I agree in your hate of the rich. Fuck them.

[Rainbow Dash]

I agree in your hate of the rich. Fuck them.

I don't hate the rich, I don't hate anybody. People are simply products of their environment, and there is no way I can hate someone who is only a victim of a capitalist society which encourages and rewards shit behavior.

[Warsaw]

I think money should fuck right off and people should do whatever they do out of good will because somebody else is providing a different service out of good will.

:-3

[Rainbow Dash]

:3

[PopeAK49]

Everything (Capitalism, etc) is an idea with flaws. The world will be fucked up no matter what happens. As much as I would love a world in which equality is everywhere, it won't happen because of our human nature. Their will always be the asshole who can get around the system and take a massive amount of valuable resources.

[Rainbow Dash]

Everything (Capitalism, etc) is an idea with flaws.

I won't argue with this.



The world will be fucked up no matter what happens.

Prove it :3



As much as I would love a world in which equality is everywhere, it won't happen because of our human nature. Their will always be the asshole who can get around the system and take a massive amount of valuable resources.

There is no such thing as human nature. Humans are nothing more than products of their environment. If you were born in Germany in the time leading up to WW2, and all you saw was heil hitler, the jews are inferior, and you were never taught to question anything (like most of society is now), you would be a nazi. If human nature existed, and could not be changed, we would still be living in caves.

[TVTyrant]

There is no such thing as human nature. Humans are nothing more than products of their environment. If you were born in Germany in the time leading up to WW2, and all you saw was heil hitler, the jews are inferior, and you were never taught to question anything (like most of society is now), you would be a nazi. If human nature existed, and could not be changed, we would still be living in caves.
I agree with this, to an extent. As Parthounax says in Skyrim though (I know, great philosopher huh?), it is our instinct to dominate. The wealthy aren't mad about taxes because they actually care about paying the money. Its because it shows that they arent the dominant ones in the world around them. Even on these forums there are some members who are more dominant than others. To me, that is "human nature". It can be changed to an extent, but in the end its still around for a reason.

[Timo]

Photos of the riots: http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2012/02/athens-in-flames/100244/

[Rainbow Dash]

it is our instinct to dominate

I am a submissive gay boy who doesn't try to dominate anything, and I refute this statement.

:3

[Rainbow Dash]

Photos of the riots: http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2012/02/athens-in-flames/100244/

Breathtaking.

[TVTyrant]

The image at the Parthenon is amazing. Almost brought tears to my eyes tbh.

[PopeAK49]

Why do I have to prove it? I said every idea has a flaw. Even if we rebuild upon an idea that seems to be the best thing for humanity out of everything else, someone will expose any of the flaws and apply negativity out of it. People can't be 100% perfect, happy, and exactly the same all the time.


Humans are nothing more than products of their environment.

I support this quote. Mind if I use it? I like it a lot.

[Rainbow Dash]

Why do I have to prove it? I said every idea has a flaw. Even if we rebuild upon an idea that seems to be the best thing for humanity out of everything else, someone will expose any of the flaws and apply negativity out of it. People can't be 100% perfect, happy, and exactly the same all the time.

Ok so we build a world upon an idea that makes everything perfect, except that sometimes cars break down.

Is the world fucked up, no, does the idea that spawned the system have a flaw, yes.

[PopeAK49]

Ok so we build a world upon an idea that makes everything perfect, except that sometimes cars break down.

Is the world fucked up, no, does the idea that spawned the system have a flaw, yes.

That is my problem. Perfection can never be achieved and I stand by that.

[=sw=warlord]

Sounds like Sel found out about Causality.
People are the products of their personal experiences and genetic differences.
Question is, if the universe is determined by variables and equations does freewill even exist?

E:
Perfection is achieved by applying imperfection at desired placements resulting in the illusion of perfection.

[Rainbow Dash]

That is my problem. Perfection can never be achieved and I stand by that.

And I agreed with that, but just because we can never have a perfect world, does not mean things have to be fucked!

[PopeAK49]

Sounds like Sel found out about Causality.
People are the products of their personal experiences and genetic differences.
Question is, if the universe is determined by variables and equations does freewill even exist?

E:
Perfection is achieved by applying imperfection at desired placements resulting in the illusion of perfection.

I love you. You made everything much more easier for me.

Not only are people products of their environement(personel experience can fall under this) but also genetic differences.

I wanted to explain an actual persons physical flaws but I did not know how to word it.


And I agreed with that, but just because we can never have a perfect world, does not mean things have to be fucked!

That is true. I might have over-exaggerated on our 'actual' world.

[Higuy]

My homeland!! dont be so gay D:

[TVTyrant]

My homeland!! dont be so gay D:
Maryland?

[Higuy]

Maryland?

I live in MD, however, I'm Greek. :downs:

[=sw=warlord]

I love you. You made everything much more easier for me.

Not only are people products of their environement(personel experience can fall under this) but also genetic differences.

I wanted to explain an actual persons physical flaws but I did not know how to word it.




The problem with pre-determined characteristics is they're not always the the same as the actual outcome.
A typical adolescent will go through a period of rebelliousness and have major mood swings, I actually managed to avoid all that by being aware of how I was outwardly, The Greeks are rioting because for many of them they've only known of the over spending and now that is being threatened with realities wet fish slap they've found themselves confused, lost if you will.
When people go through times of grief they tend to follow a series of mood changes called the Kubler-Ross model.

They don't follow in the same pattern all the time but these are the typical stages:

Denial

Anger

bargaining

Depression

Acceptance.

Tell me, in your opinion which stage do you think the population is at and what stage their government is at?

[PopeAK49]

The problem with pre-determined characteristics is they're not always the the same as the actual outcome.
A typical adolescent will go through a period of rebelliousness and have major mood swings, I actually managed to avoid all that by being aware of how I was outwardly, The Greeks are rioting because for many of them they've only known of the over spending and now that is being threatened with realities wet fish slap they've found themselves confused, lost if you will.
When people go through times of grief they tend to follow a series of mood changes called the Kubler-Ross model.

They don't follow in the same pattern all the time but these are the typical stages:

Denial

Anger

bargaining

Depression

Acceptance.

Tell me, in your opinion which stage do you think the population is at and what stage their government is at?

That is very interesting.

[Warsaw]

Sel, you are engaging in a debate. A debate implies at least two parties, each having a different assertion to the other. That itself is an attempt to dominate something.

:|

[TVTyrant]

Sel, you are engaging in a debate. A debate implies at least two parties, each having a different assertion to the other. That itself is an attempt to dominate something.

:|
:parrot:

[king_nothing_]

Sel just went full communist lol. Can't wait for King to be up in this thread.
I'm seeing less and less reason to continue trying. Many people here are completely oblivious to, and/or would fervently dispute, centuries-old basic and unbroken economic laws. If pointing out such elementary things (which I've done) does not effect the person's thought process in the slightest, then nothing is going to; for many people, the only way a change could ever possibly come about in their mind is if they discover the necessary information for themselves. A lot of people here need to read, plain and simple, before sounding off about a topic with every breath in their body.

Here's one of the quotes in my signature which is relevant to this thread and pretty much every other thread on this site with any hint of economic discussion in it:

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance." - Murry Rothbard

One thing I'll say is I find it quite amazing that so many people vociferously condemn capitalism while at the same time being utterly surrounded by things which are made possible by nothing other than that very economic system. Very amazing. And no, a group of central planners, after having looted and pooled together the resources of the entire country, could not produce with any comparable efficiency or effectivity what millions of individual minds working freely and voluntarily are able to produce. Not only has this been undeniably proven (look up Mises's economic calculation problem for one example), but you should come to realize that the entire idea is preposterous on its face if you ever give it a good think.

There's one thing socialism can accomplish, though: it can bring about equality. The catch, though, is it brings about equality in poverty. Capitalism leads to income inequality, of course, but it also raises the standard of living of the entire country. Look at the average standard of living of someone in a (comparitively) economically free country who qualifies as being in poverty. Compare that to the average standard of living of someone living in poverty in an economically repressed country. Have you ever wondered why there's such a stark difference? I'll point, once again, to this (http://www.modacity.net/forums/showthread.php?23926-Occupy-Wall-Street&p=598263&viewfull=1#post598263) (which, funnily enough, almost everyone avoided responding to upon first posting it despite the high activity of that thread). There you have hard evidence staring you in the face, basically pointing out that you are unconsciously fighting for a lower standard of living.

Getting back to the equality of socialism...in reality, you wouldn't even get total equality in full socialism, because the central planners would undoubtedly end up enriching themselves at the expense of everyone else. So that's your choice: poverty and [near] equality, or wealth and inequality. If you're so envious of fellow human beings whose plight is better than yours that you would rather drag them and everyone else down to your level rather than let them use their wealth to raise the standard of living of the entire country or world, then go ahead and choose the former. I won't.

Maybe you misunderstand what free-market capitalism actually entails. It does not give everyone absolute free reign to do whatever they wish. You need theft laws. You need fraud laws. You need strong enforcement of contracts. You need a good judiciary. You need strong, unwavering respect for private property rights for all persons and in every respect. You also have the self-regulating mechanism of the market itself. If businesses have as much freedom to fail as they do to succeed, they must strive to act prudently or face the consequences of loss and failure (stop bailing them out and causing moral hazard, in other words). You stop writing regulations for them which favor the established companies and shuts out their competition. You stop subsidizing. You stop the zero-interest loans from the Federal Reserve. You stop the government-business corporatism by removing so much power from the government that they don't have much left to sell. That's what a free market is. What we have now is most certainly not that.

P.S. The "you"s contained in this post are not necessarily directed at the person whom I have quoted.

[TeeKup]

Its tragic that Athens is on fire....yet again.

[rossmum]

i do love being talked down to like i don't understand what i believe in.

do you really need five cars and a huge tv? i don't. i don't know anyone who actually needs any of that. i do know there are a lot of people who need food, shelter, healthcare and education. frankly i care more about everyone having what they need than myself or anyone else having what they want, because by nature i am not a particularly selfish person and am prone to looking out for others before i look out for myself. you clearly do not follow this philosophy and care more about some people having what they want at the expense of others having absolutely nothing. i seriously doubt i can persuade someone as stubborn as yourself to see otherwise and likewise it will be a cold fucking day in hell before you persuade me. i suggest we both stop trying, this is a fucking waste of time and energy.

ignorance is most certainly a two way street.

[king_nothing_]

i seriously doubt i can persuade someone as stubborn as yourself to see otherwise and likewise it will be a cold fucking day in hell before you persuade me. i suggest we both stop trying, this is a fucking waste of time and energy.
I think we could agree that we are both stubborn people and leave it at that. And no, I don't really expect to persuade you of anything. Truth be told, ~90% of debates I engage in on the internet are not for the purpose of trying to persuade the person I'm debating with, but rather for the silent onlookers who may be more receptive.

It's also worth noting that that was your first post in this thread, so I'm unsure as to why you're responding as if I was directly speaking to you. In a broad sense some of it pertains to you, but the posts contained herein are what compelled me to post.

[Rainbow Dash]

One thing I'll say is I find it quite amazing that so many people vociferously condemn capitalism while at the same time being utterly surrounded by things which are made possible by nothing other than that very economic system.

That's weird, I could have sworn what made our current lifestyles possible was the discovery of abundant hydrocarbon energy, and technological advancements. You seem to have this misconception that Capitalism is the only economic system which allows progress to be made in anything, which is absolutely fucking absurd.



There's one thing socialism can accomplish, though: it can bring about equality. The catch, though, is it brings about equality in poverty.


*looks at Canada*
*look at Norway*

Nope.



Capitalism leads to income inequality, of course, but it also raises the standard of living of the entire country.


Is that why the United States, which is one of the most capitalist societies in the world, is sitting at 23rd on the IHDI?



Look at the average standard of living of someone in a (comparitively) economically free country who qualifies as being in poverty. Compare that to the average standard of living of someone living in poverty in an economically repressed country. Have you ever wondered why there's such a stark difference? I'll point, once again, to this (http://www.modacity.net/forums/showthread.php?23926-Occupy-Wall-Street&p=598263&viewfull=1#post598263) (which, funnily enough, almost everyone avoided responding to upon first posting it despite the high activity of that thread). There you have hard evidence staring you in the face, basically pointing out that you are unconsciously fighting for a lower standard of living.


Here, now you have evidence staring you in the face basically pointing out that you are consciously fighting for a lower standard of living.

http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/images/drug-use.gif

http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/images/education.gif

http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/images/imprisonment.gif

http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/images/obesity.gif

http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/images/violence.gif

http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/images/mental-health.gif

http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/images/infant-mortality.gif

Now since we've already agreed that Capitalism can cause poverty, I'm not really sure how you can seriously suggest we shouldn't be designing a better economic system, and instead should just revert to old style Capitalism, which led us into this mess.

Poverty is the worst form of violence -Gandhi



Getting back to the equality of socialism...in reality, you wouldn't even get total equality in full socialism, because the central planners would undoubtedly end up enriching themselves at the expense of everyone else.


See the human behavior debate earlier in this thread, you obviously missed it.



If you're so envious of fellow human beings whose plight is better than yours that you would rather drag them and everyone else down to your level rather than let them use their wealth to raise the standard of living of the entire country or world, then go ahead and choose the former. I won't.


I can't find the part where anyone in this thread is saying they're envious of other people's standards of living. You seem to be making some fucking huge assumptions here, like most Capitalism apologists you seem to hold onto this idea that anyone who is against your flawed, broken system is actually just out to steal your stuff.

Also, you did an excellent job ignoring the flaws of Capitalism, some of which were brought up in this thread already, and going on another of your usual, "every other system leads to tyranny!!!" rants.

I'd really like to see you seriously argue that a system which requires constant growth in order to function, causes poverty, and encourages consumerism, is the best thing we can come up with as an economic system. If the alternatives we have available now are so awful, how about you stop pushing what you see as the least bad, and make an effort to contribute to the birth of a new and better one.

[rossmum]

fukken sick effortpost

addendum: if i was jealous of rich people i would surely save my money instead of giving friends a leg up when i know they've hit hard times?

[TVTyrant]

fukken sick effortpost

addendum: if i was jealous of rich people i would surely save my money instead of giving friends a leg up when i know they've hit hard times?
This. I'm not jealous of the money they inherited from their parents. I'm mad about how they tell teachers and people with real jobs who make our whole system work to fuck off.

[PopeAK49]

Capitalism was only a good idea when America is young. The fact of an expanding frontier provided benefits and huge economical growth because of all the possible resources. Now, capitalism is flawed by the fact that the frontier cannot be expanded and the amount of resources consumed cannot keep up with the population; causing the economy to hit a slow downfall.

[DarkHalo003]

I'm all for equality and everyone having their needs met, but:

a.) We're running out of space here, on Earth.
b.) Pollution is drastically increasing here, on Earth.
c.) We're running out of resources here, on Earth.

I know I sound like a complete asshole here. I know I also sound like a pessimist. As much as I would love to have a world where everyone was happy and could at least live knowing they'll have food in their stomachs at night, I realize it's simply not possible right now. Our planet needs to be cleaned before we can support another 200,000,000+ people. We're pushing past 7 billion. Think about that number of people. Can our planet even support that? If it can, then I don't see humanity succeeding in creating an alternative life style anytime in the future. Even if North America and Europe somehow decide to stop indulging and began to live on only what they needed, East Asia wouldn't stop and neither would Africa. We all should know why too. Basically, we're all talking ideology, but nothing can be accomplished until everything I just said is remedied. Once again, sorry for sounding like a prick everyone, but frankly we will doom us all if we try and save everyone right now.

TLDR: SPACE!

[Rainbow Dash]

This. I'm not jealous of the money they inherited from their parents. I'm mad about how they tell teachers and people with real jobs who make our whole system work to fuck off.

^^^



a.) We're running out of space here, on Earth.
b.) Pollution is drastically increasing here, on Earth.
c.) We're running out of resources here, on Earth.


a) No we're not. We have more than enough space to fit loads more people. If we didn't design our cities where every building is an afterthought and planned things out properly we would have no trouble providing housing for everyone. (think vertically too) You should check out The Venus Project, you'd probably find that pretty interesting.

b) I won't argue with this. Courtesy of behaviors encouraged by Capitalism, we have shit all over the environment, and are now facing serious environmental issues.

c) We're running out of oil and natural gas. We have the technology to switch all our energy needs to renewable sources, such as solar, geothermal, tidal, and wind, but yet again Capitalism stands in the way because the fact of the matter is that those methods are not profitable to build, or profitable over time. Oil and natural gas on the other hand, hey it might be destroying the planet, but fuck man that shit makes $$$ :].

Now I'm sure that in response to the last one king will walk in here and go hurr hurr markets as the reason why it's ok that we're still dependent on oil for pretty much fucking everything, but if you really think that abstract concept is a good enough reason to stop all progress then you're fucked mate.




As much as I would love to have a world where everyone was happy and could at least live knowing they'll have food in their stomachs at night, I realize it's simply not possible right now.

It is more than possible. The resources exist to feed all of Africa, give them treatment for HIV, and house them. The only thing standing in the way is money. It's time to trash this fucking stupid middleman.

[=sw=warlord]

The reason there's so many people starving isn't because of lack of resources it's because all the governments taking "their share" of the supplies.
If you gave a farmer one seed on which to begin crops that farmer would likely use that to gain more seeds for even more crops.
Ever year I laugh when I hear about "we're in a drought, we're running out of water.
We live on a planet which is 70% covered in water, some of which is literally miles deep.

On the part King mentioned about socialism having people at top enriching themselves.
If they did that then they are by no means socialist, that is capitalism pretending to be socialism.

[Rainbow Dash]

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/13/a-death-sentence-for-greece/


Instead of providing fiscal aid so Greece can meet its budget targets and can get back on its feet again, the troika (the European Commission, European Central Bank, and International Monetary Fund) is using the crisis to snatch vital state assets and deliver them to its corporate friends. The MOU is opening new avenues for exploitation and plunder.

ohhhhh boy, we haven't seen this a million times before.

[=sw=warlord]

Isn't this along the lines of what happened to Jamaica?

[Rainbow Dash]

Isn't this along the lines of what happened to Jamaica?

This is along the lines of what has happened for decades in loads of poor countries. The bankers give them huge loans at ultra high interest, and when they can't pay, they swoop in and set up sweatshops, plunder the resources, and fuck everything up, but it's ok, they make money!

[=sw=warlord]

It's stupid, paying of debt by borrowing from someone else which digs you into an even deeper debt.
Greece should have just not bothered and tried to renew itself by rebuilding.

[Ryx]

As for whoever said we weren't running out of resources, I would like to point you towards the brazillian rainforest.

We may not be literally "running out of resources", but at the rate we are taking resources we might as well be, because by the time conservative systems are implemented it will be close to/already too late.

[=sw=warlord]

Indeed, we also need to remember that the food chain is somewhat similar to a totem pole, we are not the only form of life and if the bottom of the food chain dies then so do we.

[ejburke]

Ah, political discussion on Modacity.
So cute. But terrifying. But cute.

[Limited]

It's stupid, paying of debt by borrowing from someone else which digs you into an even deeper debt.
Greece should have just not bothered and tried to renew itself by rebuilding.
The problem is Greek officials lied about the numbers, which is why they were granted loans and trade agreements. Then its come to life they lied and were in more deep of a mess than anyone imagined.

[Rainbow Dash]

Isn't this along the lines of what happened to Jamaica?

Also, this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EewGMBOB4Gg&feature=player_detailpage#t=2447s

[Rainbow Dash]

As for whoever said we weren't running out of resources, I would like to point you towards the brazillian rainforest.

We may not be literally "running out of resources", but at the rate we are taking resources we might as well be, because by the time conservative systems are implemented it will be close to/already too late.

You're right, I should have explained what I meant better. I was referring to things like oil, and natural gas, which could be replaced with renewable sources.

[TVTyrant]

We are running out of petroleum. Wood and water are essentially infinite. So is iron, since we essentially use 70% recycled steel now anyways.

[=sw=warlord]

Fossil fuels are renewable, only thing is we won't be around when the next batch arrives because we'll be the fossil fuel ourselves.

[Rainbow Dash]

We can play with the meaning of renewable energy all we want, but last I checked it generally refers to things that we have a constant supply of.


Renewable describes any energy source whose availability or supply will not be permanently depleted as a result of exploitation over a period of time that is meaningful to people. Fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas), which formed over millions of years of geological conditioning, are considered nonrenewable because their global supply will not be regenerated at a rate that is proportional to current and future uses. By contrast, solar power is in constant supply every day and will be for another several billion years (until the end of the Sun).

[king_nothing_]

That's weird, I could have sworn what made our current lifestyles possible was the discovery of abundant hydrocarbon energy, and technological advancements. You seem to have this misconception that Capitalism is the only economic system which allows progress to be made in anything, which is absolutely fucking absurd.
Technological advancement was part of it, of course. What do you think allowed for the mass production of the technological advancements?



*looks at Canada*
*look at Norway*

Nope.
Did you by any chance read any of the posts in separate threads where I had to ask a socialist/communist if they truly understood what socialism/communism was? It seems I now have to direct that question to you, though I'm afraid I am asking rhetorically this time. If you think Canada and Norway are socialist countries, you don't know what socialism is.

We're in here talking about capitalism vs. anti-capitalism, and you choose to point to two capitalist countries to prove your point? Huh?


Is that why the United States, which is one of the most capitalist societies in the world, is sitting at 23rd on the IHDI?
It's baffling to me why you would bring that up right after I linked you to a graph showing a very obvious correlation between economic freedom and the Human Development Index. If you may not be aware, nearly all of those countries which rank ahead of the US rank high in economic freedom, and are all capitalist, so if you're trying to use this to prove "socialism works, capitalism doesn't!", then suffice to say I'm puzzled. Of course you can't look at one data point, compare it to one other data point, and derive some profound conclusion from that. There are too many other variables which effect them. That's the point of plotting a good amount of data. You look at the trend.

And for the record, the US currently ranks 10th in economic freedom. One of the most capitalist, yes. Probably lower than you would expect, though.


Here, now you have evidence staring you in the face basically pointing out that you are consciously fighting for a lower standard of living.

[Graphs]
Few things here.

1) Sample size? Why are they limited to a handful of first-world countries?
2) The chosen measurements seem, at best, less significant than those which I offered. The Human Development Index alone (which is in the first graph of my post) is more telling than all the graphs you posted combined.


I can't find the part where anyone in this thread is saying they're envious of other people's standards of living. You seem to be making some fucking huge assumptions here, like most Capitalism apologists you seem to hold onto this idea that anyone who is against your flawed, broken system is actually just out to steal your stuff.
Perhaps you haven't. It was an assumption, and not directed at anyone. It's hard to believe it's not the case for at least a few people when a rant about how much someone despises rich people is a daily occurrence on this site. Nobody would ever admit such feelings, of course. Who would when they have perfectly believable altruistic motives?

[rossmum]

is it really so unbelievable that some people just don't give a shit about owning ten ferraris and would rather see everyone have what they need? i can't speak for everyone, but frankly i don't see any point in being rich as fuck when you're going to die regardless and you don't actually need any of it

[TVTyrant]

Even if it is jealousy like you are claiming King, that doesn't change how greedy they are. The fact that they are unwilling to pay taxes that woul;d help the people around them is literally insane. Its the most uncharitable thing you could possibly do.

[=sw=warlord]

What use does having more money than you could possibly spend in a life time without folding the bank whilst avoiding paying taxes serve anyone?
Let's look at this, recently Bankers in the UK are getting bonus' up to £5.7M, Considering the fact that some people live on as little as 10k per year, wouldn't such a bonus be better used to hire people looking for jobs who can then help the economy rather than it sitting in someones matchbox that's likely to be used to light their cigars?

[Rainbow Dash]

Technological advancement was part of it, of course. What do you think allowed for the mass production of the technological advancements?

So if these progressions were made in a Communist society would we then credit Communism? Your argument is absurd.



Did you by any chance read any of the posts in separate threads where I had to ask a socialist/communist if they truly understood what socialism/communism was? It seems I now have to direct that question to you, though I'm afraid I am asking rhetorically this time. If you think Canada and Norway are socialist countries, you don't know what socialism is.

We're in here talking about capitalism vs. anti-capitalism, and you choose to point to two capitalist countries to prove your point? Huh?


Considering for the moment the societies that claim to be socialist that we have so far, are either corrupt (at no fault of socialism), or have been actively prevented from progressing by Capitalist super powers, there aren't really many available examples, so yes, I am left with countries that employ hybrid systems.

Which luckily is totally valid if this statement is any indication.



Also, characterizing Sweden as "socialist" and the US as "not socialist" is disingenuous. Both are partially socialist and partially capitalist; both have mixed systems. Sweden just leans a bit more to the former.

Last I checked Norway, and Canada have far more socialism mixed in with their Capitalism than the USA does, and neither country seems to have anything even remotely resembling this, "equality through poverty" thing you keep bringing up.



It's baffling to me why you would bring that up right after I linked you to a graph showing a very obvious correlation between economic freedom and a high Human Development Index.

Do you know what baffles me? The fact that you're using this incredibly vague intangible concept of economic freedom, which could mean any number of things, as the sole cause of a high HDI.

Also I think you should look up the word correlation, because I don't think it means what you think it means.


A mutual relationship or connection between two or more things.

Let's look at your HDI chart.

http://www.creativeclass.com/creative_class/_wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/EFI_HumDev.jpg

Notice Iran?

They seem to score pretty low on your Economic freedom index, compared to other countries, yet they have a high HDI?

Russia, Ecquador, Argentina?

Also I like how Cuba and Venezuela score even lower than Iran on economic freedom (It's not even mentioned on your HDI chart), yet have an even higher HDI.

Considering too that the HDI makes ZERO consideration for "Economic Freedom" (Now while I'm sure you could make an argument for Income being tied to economic freedom, the two still do not go hand in hand), It's pretty fucking bold to try to push it as one of causes of a high HDI.

Also this chart is very impressive too.

http://www.creativeclass.com/creative_class/_wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/EFI_EconOutput.jpg
It seems to say Economic Freedom encourages Consumerism? Well shit, that's not a good thing at all!

http://www.creativeclass.com/creative_class/_wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/EFI_CreativeClass.jpg

This one is fucking beyond stupid. Economic Freedom has NOTHING to do with creativity. The scores here are based on how restrictive the societies are, and have fuck all to do with anything else. No shit Canada and the USA where there's more freedom of speech and expression have higher scores for creativity. They don't have to worry about getting their heads lobbed off because their work may have offended someone.

http://www.creativeclass.com/creative_class/_wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/EFI_Competitiveness.jpg

Again, totally fucking irrelevant. Not only could competition be made obsolete, and be replaced with collaboration, competition can be affected by any number of things.



If you may not be aware, nearly all of those countries which rank ahead of the US rank high in economic freedom, and are all capitalist, so if you're trying to use this to prove "socialism works, capitalism doesn't!", then suffice to say I'm puzzled.

You don't seem to understand what I advocate. I'm not saying socialism works, I'm saying Capitalism doesn't. That is all. I am not telling you that we need a socialist society. I don't think that's the best we can possibly do. I'm just acknowledging it as one of many alternatives to the Capitalist system which is unsustainable by design.

I personally think a Resource Based Economy is the best possible system (that I know of) we could implement, but that doesn't mean that it's the only one I'm open to.



And for the record, the US currently ranks 10th in economic freedom. One of the most capitalist, yes. Probably lower than you would expect, though.


Wait, so you mean a more socialist than the US country like Canada is beating the USA in terms of Economic freedom, well dayum son, glad we just disproved that ratio of capitalism to socialism is also irrelevant to the economic freedom status.



2) The chosen measurements seem, at best, less significant that those which I offered. The Human Development Index alone (which is in the first graph of my post) is more telling than all the graphs you posted combined.


Debunked this already.



Perhaps you haven't. It was an assumption, and not directed at anyone. It's hard to believe it's not the case for at least a few people when a rant about how much someone despises rich people is a daily occurrence on this site. Nobody would ever admit such feelings, of course. Who would when they have perfectly believable altruistic motives?

I can't speak for everyone, but if you had read the thread you'd know that I don't personally hate rich people, or anyone else for that matter because I understand that people's behavior is a result of their environment. When they're put in a Capitalist environment that rewards a lot of shit behavior if it makes them money, then I can hardly hold them responsible for learning that shit behavior is what rewards them.

PS: You seemed to miss this part of my previous post :]


I can't find the part where anyone in this thread is saying they're envious of other people's standards of living. You seem to be making some fucking huge assumptions here, like most Capitalism apologists you seem to hold onto this idea that anyone who is against your flawed, broken system is actually just out to steal your stuff.

Also, you did an excellent job ignoring the flaws of Capitalism, some of which were brought up in this thread already, and going on another of your usual, "every other system leads to tyranny!!!" rants.

I'd really like to see you seriously argue that a system which requires constant growth in order to function, causes poverty, and encourages consumerism, is the best thing we can come up with as an economic system. If the alternatives we have available now are so awful, how about you stop pushing what you see as the least bad, and make an effort to contribute to the birth of a new and better one.

[Rainbow Dash]

As a bit of an addendum, let's say for the sake of argument that the progress we've made would have been impossible in any other system (despite the sheer ridiculousness of that idea). We are now in a position where Capitalism is now preventing us from eliminating poverty(despite us having the physical resources to feed, house, and clothe everyone now, and everyone in the future), transforming our society to make use of clean and environmentally responsible energy production, and is even preventing us from developing an accessible cure to cancer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGCEVy7OXuI&feature=player_embedded), because it is not profitable to solve these problems.

How can you seriously argue that a system which is clearly preventing human progress is worth maintaining, and the best we as a race can do.

[Rainbow Dash]

There's also a question I'd like to pose for everyone here to answer, in the hopes of finding at least one thing that unifies us, despite our different viewpoints.

Do you suggest your solutions because you'd like to see a better world for everyone, and everything on it?

I'm guessing no one here will seriously answer, "no", to that question.

While it's unlikely we'll ever come up with a solution we can completely agree on together, I'm sure that we can all agree that the system we have now, which is fucking over more and more people, needs to be replaced. The only way we're going to be able to stop it before it's too late is if we work together to reach the point where we can tear down what's obviously not working now, and get ourselves to the point where we're actually in a position to implement something different. Whether it's Free Market Capitalism like King suggests, Communism like Ross supports, or a Resource Based Economy, or some new system we have not even imagined yet, or anything else that we believe would result in a better world.

[Higuy]

Before you read my post please notice that I didn't actually read 90% of any of the posts in this topic, other than seeing "capitalism is bad".

Capitalism isn't bad, its just that the fact that its easy to manipulate the system and use it to your advantage in some ways (aka, monopolies, however there are policies (at least in US) in check to help counter them if needed), and not only that, as long as an individual is intelligent and competitive enough, they can get a decent job and be middle-class. Alot depends on your education nowadays, and thats something that your status in society ultimately comes down to...

I hope your not saying Capitalism is the worst system ever created in terms of government - because its a viable one, and through history, has proven to work. I'm not saying its the best however, but it works. If you want progress, go get a dictator that simply makes you do stuff in the name of hard science (Nazi party!).

I do not have any solutions to offer.

[Warsaw]

I actually think everything sucks because nobody has quite mastered a system that tricks everybody into thinking that they only have to worry about themselves but actually forces them to help each other out in the process.

Enlightened self-interest is the key idea to a better world.

[DarkHalo003]

^^^



a) No we're not. We have more than enough space to fit loads more people. If we didn't design our cities where every building is an afterthought and planned things out properly we would have no trouble providing housing for everyone. (think vertically too) You should check out The Venus Project, you'd probably find that pretty interesting.

b) I won't argue with this. Courtesy of behaviors encouraged by Capitalism, we have shit all over the environment, and are now facing serious environmental issues.

c) We're running out of oil and natural gas. We have the technology to switch all our energy needs to renewable sources, such as solar, geothermal, tidal, and wind, but yet again Capitalism stands in the way because the fact of the matter is that those methods are not profitable to build, or profitable over time. Oil and natural gas on the other hand, hey it might be destroying the planet, but fuck man that shit makes $$$ :].

Now I'm sure that in response to the last one king will walk in here and go hurr hurr markets as the reason why it's ok that we're still dependent on oil for pretty much fucking everything, but if you really think that abstract concept is a good enough reason to stop all progress then you're fucked mate.




It is more than possible. The resources exist to feed all of Africa, give them treatment for HIV, and house them. The only thing standing in the way is money. It's time to trash this fucking stupid middleman.
I can see an argument against C. However, A and B go hand in hand. We're running out of space because pollution is taking up more everyday. ALSO, I'm keeping the survival of other species in mind as well. Physically, there is enough space, but how long until the next ecosystem or biome is wiped out along with its exotic inhabitants? I can guarantee you that even if NA and EU decide to stop their expansion (somehow), then Asia will wipe out whatever is left in theirs.

[Higuy]

It's not just poullition that takes up more - have you guys even noticed that men are being born at an expotential rate? There are more people on the Earth every single day, probably bu the millions. You kind of need to be able to accomidate that. Heres a soultion - kill 2/3 of the worlds population :)

Or you know, we could just find a new one.

[PopeAK49]

Even in the most humaine conditions, doubling the population will be much more vulnerable to disease compared to now.

[rossmum]

few notes kids

first up, australia is currently stomping all over the us in terms of the economy. our dollar is stronger (again), our minimum wage is more than double (the first time I had someone in the us, texas more specifically, brag about their shitty 18k/year job i had to seriously ask him whether he lived in a third world shithole). sure living costs are higher, but even factoring that in, it's just ridiculous how much better quality of life is here. maybe we don't have the same level of wealth in the upper classes here as the us, but the middle class is way above yours and even the people sitting right on the poverty line are better off than a huge portion of the us population. this is a country where yes, there is a fair degree of "economic freedom" and it's pretty capitalist. on the other hand (and this is the legacy of being a british colony, not an american one) we have more socialism mixed in than the us does by far - the same socialism americans will often claim could not or does not work - and it helps improve things for everyone. not as much as i'd like, but it's a start. honestly, politics aside, the us could do wonderful things with socialism if it tried.

secondly, let's not forget that capitalism actually stifles innovation. capitalist countries with high creativity indices are due more to free speech laws than the economic system in place. it's been tried and proven in a scientific environment; if you give people a money incentive to solve a problem, they will do so in the least innovative way possible in order to obtain that money. why go outside the box if you can satisfy the conditions provided enough to net the cash without doing so? there are always outliers, usually smaller companies or individuals, but larger western companies routinely avoid true innovation in favour of economic security. see intel, locking down cores on their newer cpus because while they would be blisteringly fast, they might not be economically safe yet. look at the us gun industry, making endless ar-15/ar-18 clones in polymer rail-clad shells. military procurement is a good example too; in the west, one entrant gets selected over another, the winner takes the funding and the loser becomes a billion-dollar footnote in the history books and a pile of scrap. soviet, and modern russian, selection was a lot different. different ideas would be developed, and the winner would go on to enter full service. the loser, more often than not, would continue to be funded and developed. design bureaus would compete to prove their solution to be the best, not because the government dangled money in their faces. the result? look at all the really odd, but really clever designs they came up with. suppressed assault rifles? a concept still in its infancy in the west, mostly being pursued by smaller companies or suppressor manufacturers. underwater assault rifles? we have no counterpart. the an-94? again, no counterpart. money incentives stunt innovations every time.

not really throwing this in as an argument, more as something to think about. a lot of the stuff people credit capitalism for is actually nothing to do with it at all, kind of like how a universally poor living standard is nothing to do with socialism but more to do with having a bigger population than you can afford to sustain and putting most of your funding into trying to keep up with the us in terms of military development. the soviet union had the tech, and in several cases had far better tech, but they just couldn't afford to compete with a country that out-produced every other participant of ww2 combined. had the cold war not been a thing, and that money been put into something different, we likely would've seen a big difference in quality of life for the population. of course, what's done is done, but let's give credit where it's due (or blame, in this case).

[TVTyrant]

Don't forget that all of those Soviet systems are based on the works oh John Browning and Paul Mauser. Their factories were copies of Ford's factories, the steel process they used was copied off a then VERY capitalist British Empire, and their grand structures like the Moscow train station were based off the grand designs of other capitalist countries (London and New York). I am not saying what King says is true, that no innovation can come from Socialism. I am saying in the large point of view you are forgetting who invented planes, trains, cars, (for guns) cartridges, steamships, computers, and skyscrapers.

My point is the big things have all come from the West, and I havent seen an invention that affects me every day come from a communist country.

[rossmum]

actually the soviets also came up with a bunch of totally out there shit that could not really be said to be based on anything, like some of korobov's rifles, or some of their aviation developments (i forget the name now, but they had a helicopter in the vaguest sense of the word which was a massive, transport plane-like fuselage supported by twin sidebooms with mi-8 powertrains and rotors on). really, almost every invention is based on some level on the work of others, which can be said of jmb and mauser too. the soviets chose to take technologies based on that work to whole new areas, though, which the west has not. the reason those things have come from the west is because russia was extremely technologically backwards until well after many of those became things. the country had basically no industrial capacity until just before the second world war. in any case, they have managed to take western ideas that have been stagnated by capitalism and develop them into whole new things. here we tend to invent a thing and then either never improve it, or only incrementally improve it. it usually takes some kind of inventor-tinkerer visonary to come along and really shake things up, and you get those in every society, regardless of politics or economics.

[Warsaw]

The idea is that initial solutions will be barebones to get the initial money, but, in a natural competitive progression said competitors will come up with ways to do it better in order to stand out and get even more money.

There hasn't been a natural market in quite some time. Everybody has their dicks in the government to skew the market in their favour when possible. Patents, copyrights, bail-outs, cartels, rigged duopolies, associations like the AMA, silly legislation that hampers fundamental rights in the name of business...it's quite disgusting.

[TVTyrant]

My point with JMB is that, when you look at any firearm, if it is semi-automatic or automatic and has a rotating locking bolt, that is his design. If it is recoil operated, that is his design. If a pistol has a solid slide (like on a Beretta 92 or a Tokarev), that is his design. When you talk Mauser, if it uses a claw extractor, that is his design. If it has more than one locking lug (the Enfield, to my understanding, does not and thats what allows it to operate so quickly) it is in essence his design dating back to 1884 some. I am not saying that the Russians never made any advances in the design of weapons, I am simply saying that what they did was essentially irrelevant compared to the work of those two. In the era before the assault rifle, almost all great advances in weaponry were made by Americans or Germans (Hiram Maxim was born in New England in the 1840s).

Yes, in modern times America sucks at making true advances in rifles that actually matter. We have not created a military game changer since the M1 Garand. But if you look at SMC cartridges and other designs, we are still at the head of non-military advancement.

Finally I would like to see a reply to the other part of my post. I actually want to see your input on the matter.

[TVTyrant]

The idea is that initial solutions will be barebones to get the initial money, but, in a natural competitive progression said competitors will come up with ways to do it better in order to stand out and get even more money.

There hasn't been a natural market in quite some time. Everybody has their dicks in the government to skew the market in their favour when possible. Patents, copyrights, bail-outs, cartels, rigged duopolies, associations like the AMA, silly legislation that hampers fundamental rights in the name of business...it's quite disgusting.
This times a million. Not since Grant has the government here been so corrupt. It's not Obama's fault, its the fault of congress. The amount of lobbying and graft is simply abhorrent.

[rossmum]

Finally I would like to see a reply to the other part of my post. I actually want to see your input on the matter.
which specifically, the part about skyscrapers, trains and whatnot? like i said, technologically backwards for the longest time. most of that stuff was invented or was at least under development before the soviets managed to get off the ground.

for things that affect your day to day life? i have little idea who designed what so i'm not really qualified to speak on that. innovation isn't just designing a new wheel, though.

[DarkHalo003]

Will Australia produce technology for us all then, rossmum? If you guys have the economics and apparently the superiority compared to everyone else, then why don't you, I don't know, be more productive? I want a list of what Australia has accomplished in the realm of production and technologies that will preserve our planet and resolve our growing pollution. I know this sounds very confrontational and considerably aggressive. I deeply apologize for it sounding that way. I can't think of another way to get my questions across at the moment though.

I also want to note that using arms production as a basis for your argument is a limited in scope. The world isn't fueled by AR-15's and AK-47's, whether they be original or renditions, correct me if I missed the concept there.

[Rainbow Dash]

I want a list of what Australia has accomplished in the realm of production and technologies

Euclideon for starts :]

[=sw=warlord]

I seem to remember alot of medical research being done in Australia due to all the venomous plants and fauna.
They also export alot of raw materials.

[king_nothing_]

So if these progressions were made in a Communist society would we then credit Communism? Your argument is absurd.
Such things could never happen in a communist society...that's kind of the entire point. If they did, then we could credit them, but they haven't, and they never will, so we won't.


Considering for the moment the societies that claim to be socialist that we have so far, are either corrupt (at no fault of socialism), or have been actively prevented from progressing by Capitalist super powers, there aren't really many available examples, so yes, I am left with countries that employ hybrid systems.
This is funny. Every country in history which actually used a socialist mode of production was a corrupt failure, but miraculously, it never had anything to do with the system itself. Time for another quote:

"Tyranny is the political corollary of socialism, as representative government is the political corollary of the market economy." - Ludwig von Mises

Have you never considered the possibility that the reason why every actual socialist country has been tyrannical is because of the framework of the system itself? You are giving absolute power over the economy to the government, and stripping an enormous amount of rights away from individuals. Absolute power. What's that quote about absolute power corrupting...? I'm sure you know how it goes. One more very, very relevant quote:

"If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action." - Ludwig von Mises

Or are government men a different, angelic, breed of men?


Last I checked Norway, and Canada have far more socialism mixed in with their Capitalism than the USA does, and neither country seems to have anything even remotely resembling this, "equality through poverty" thing you keep bringing up.
They all use a capitalist mode of production. When I said "equality through poverty", I was referring specifically to a society which has wholly done away with such a system, which, correct me if I'm wrong, is your suggestion.


Do you know what baffles me? The fact that you're using this incredibly vague intangible concept of economic freedom, which could mean any number of things, as the sole cause of a high HDI.
Vague and intangible? It's a published measurement (annually I believe) with a stated methodology. What are you talking about?


Also I think you should look up the word correlation, because I don't think it means what you think it means.
This accusation makes absolutely no sense, so I'm not sure what to say, or if to say anything. Nothing I've said suggests I don't understand the word; my usage of it demonstrates I do. The mere fact that you're making such an accusation makes me doubt your understanding of it.

Or was that just an "I disagree with your conclusion, so I'm going to accuse you of not understand the word for effect" type thing?


Notice Iran?

They seem to score pretty low on your Economic freedom index, compared to other countries, yet they have a high HDI?

Russia, Ecquador, Argentina?

Also I like how Cuba and Venezuela score even lower than Iran on economic freedom (It's not even mentioned on your HDI chart), yet have an even higher HDI.
Wow, lol. I'm just going to quote this from my previous post, because it is all that needs to be said in response:


Of course you can't look at one data point, compare it to one other data point, and derive some profound conclusion from that. There are too many other variables which effect them. That's the point of plotting a good amount of data. You look at the trend.


This one is fucking beyond stupid. Economic Freedom has NOTHING to do with creativity. The scores here are based on how restrictive the societies are, and have fuck all to do with anything else. No shit Canada and the USA where there's more freedom of speech and expression have higher scores for creativity. They don't have to worry about getting their heads lobbed off because their work may have offended someone.
So after giving you a plotting of 70-80 countries, showing a very obvious trend line, your response is "that's stupid, they have nothing to do with one another!" I mean, wow, how am I even supposed to respond to that? The entire point of the graph is it illustrates they DO have to do with one another. Of course there are other factors which effect the creative class as well. But when you measure the economic freedom and the creative class of a large sample size of countries using the exact same methodology, plot them, and the result shows an obvious correlation, you can't just ignore it because it doesn't fit into your presuppositions. The meaning of these graphs are either going completely over your head, or you're being intellectually dishonest.

[rossmum]

Will Australia produce technology for us all then, rossmum? If you guys have the economics and apparently the superiority compared to everyone else, then why don't you, I don't know, be more productive? I want a list of what Australia has accomplished in the realm of production and technologies that will preserve our planet and resolve our growing pollution. I know this sounds very confrontational and considerably aggressive. I deeply apologize for it sounding that way. I can't think of another way to get my questions across at the moment though.

I also want to note that using arms production as a basis for your argument is a limited in scope. The world isn't fueled by AR-15's and AK-47's, whether they be original or renditions, correct me if I missed the concept there.
you missed the concept of it being an example of the broader problem, just as intel's recent developments are. in every industry, game-changing things that aren't economically secure or which will not turn as much of a profit as a lesser alternative are either abandoned or scaled back. this is what happens when the incentive is money, not intellectual. i used the example of arms design because it is something i am familiar with. computer parts, game design, automotive - pick any industry, they're all stagnating because capitalism stifles innovative thinking.

australia has produced plenty, actually. i am not some national achievements rain man, but i can tell you that australia was one of the early pioneers of fibre optics and now has a large part in disease research. materials science is a big thing here too. i don't quite get your assertion but if you are even suggesting that the majority of the world's techonology was american then you are hilariously misguided. maybe if you were european you could justify your question - oh wait, but then you'd also be living in a country with a similar degree of socialism to australia (if not more) and your point would backfire.

[rossmum]

if you took my post as being "australia is better than anyone else", you took it very much the wrong way. it's more a case of "the us is socially and economically backwards and for all the talk of capitalism doing good things for the economy and socialism doing bad things, the us economy is absolutely atrocious and lower- and middle-class people from australia, canada, and the bulk of europe are far better off than their american counterparts".

i know americans hate to hear their country is all fucked up, but sorry, you're objectively worse off than any of us over here

[=sw=warlord]

Here's an interesting thought.
The Nazis, National Socialists were more advanced than the rest of the world at one point.
They were developing jet fighters and stealth materials to absorb and deflect Radar and this was long before the Cold war.
According to some historians they were also on the verge of developing nuclear energy as well.

[rossmum]

they also discovered the link between smoking and lung cancer, and began a campaign to discourage smoking

they were pieces of shit and the ends do not ever even begin to justify the means, but they were about comparable to modern central european countries in socialist terms. nationalism was their big ticket item

[Warsaw]

"Why don't you care where you'er goin'?"

"Because I believe how you get there is the worthier part."

[rossmum]

^^^ i suggest you reconsider that post, because if you think the murder of over six million people in industrialised death camps and the deaths of another 60-70 million are justified by a single goddamn thing, regardless of what that thing is, you are a horrible person. looking for sarcasm when there was none, i am a dumb


Such things could never happen in a communist society...that's kind of the entire point. If they did, then we could credit them, but they haven't, and they never will, so we won't.
the point is not to prevent advancement at all, it's to prevent advantage to one group, not advantage to everyone. if you think that communism is somehow incompatible with technological advancement then i really don't know what to say.

e/ let's not forget who won the space race, the rockets may have been from german tech but the germans sure as hell never put a man into orbit

[DarkHalo003]

you missed the concept of it being an example of the broader problem, just as intel's recent developments are. in every industry, game-changing things that aren't economically secure or which will not turn as much of a profit as a lesser alternative are either abandoned or scaled back. this is what happens when the incentive is money, not intellectual. i used the example of arms design because it is something i am familiar with. computer parts, game design, automotive - pick any industry, they're all stagnating because capitalism stifles innovative thinking.
I understand this point of your post now. Thank you for your explanation.



australia has produced plenty, actually. i am not some national achievements rain man, but i can tell you that australia was one of the early pioneers of fibre optics and now has a large part in disease research. materials science is a big thing here too. i don't quite get your assertion but if you are even suggesting that the majority of the world's techonology was american then you are hilariously misguided. maybe if you were european you could justify your question - oh wait, but then you'd also be living in a country with a similar degree of socialism to australia (if not more) and your point would backfire.
I was making no such assertion. You're posting assumptions and generalizations that sound like they're based off of the fact that I am from the U.S.

And I'm agreeing with King here in this debate of politics. Rossmum, you're acting like the U.S. had failed the Cold War out right. I'm pretty sure the Soviet Union crumbled in the end....

[rossmum]

then what was the point of your question? australia has made contributions to the world and continues to, just the same as the us, europe, and so on. the soviet union did during its time as well, mainly to science and military or space tech since that's where they poured all their funding. my argument isn't that capitalism prevents progress, it just slows it and heavily restricts it to what is profitable or at the very least, economically safe. western companies continuously release slightly improved versions of products, but you don't see many turning their industry on its head these days - even the companies that can afford to.

[DarkHalo003]

then what was the point of your question? australia has made contributions to the world and continues to, just the same as the us, europe, and so on. the soviet union did during its time as well, mainly to science and military or space tech since that's where they poured all their funding. my argument isn't that capitalism prevents progress, it just slows it and heavily restricts it to what is profitable or at the very least, economically safe. western companies continuously release slightly improved versions of products, but you don't see many turning their industry on its head these days - even the companies that can afford to.
The point of my question regarding Australia was exactly what I asked: Australia's achievements in the field of solving worldly turmoils, out of my own curiosity.

And I understand your argument against capitalism and for the socialist methodology. My only quarrel with that is that the current Global Market is too dangerous for any industry to take risks. The ones who could conceivably take those risks are probably staying safe to ensure a future for their companies. That's how I see it, at least.

[Warsaw]

Ross, slow down. What I said was agreeing with you. A translation would be "it doesn't matter if you cured cancer if you had to kill 8 million people to do it."

[rossmum]

the reference went over my head (really need to watch that show, nathan fillion owns) and i assumed sarcasm. sorry, my bad.

[rossmum]

The point of my question regarding Australia was exactly what I asked: Australia's achievements in the field of solving worldly turmoils, out of my own curiosity.

And I understand your argument against capitalism and for the socialist methodology. My only quarrel with that is that the current Global Market is too dangerous for any industry to take risks. The ones who could conceivably take those risks are probably staying safe to ensure a future for their companies. That's how I see it, at least.
again i'm no tech rain man but i do know australia is looking into alternative energy in a pretty big way, and even our major car manufacturers are looking at cleaner engines with similar (or better) performance, which is nice. lots into sustainable agriculture too. i hesitate to say 'sustainable mining' because a) hahah funny and b) mining companies have a habit of hiring people who can make them look like they're cleaning up when they're not.

[DarkHalo003]

again i'm no tech rain man but i do know australia is looking into alternative energy in a pretty big way, and even our major car manufacturers are looking at cleaner engines with similar (or better) performance, which is nice. lots into sustainable agriculture too. i hesitate to say 'sustainable mining' because a) hahah funny and b) mining companies have a habit of hiring people who can make them look like they're cleaning up when they're not.
Ah, okay. Thank you for the bit of info you could offer.

[rossmum]

keep in mind as well that commercial stuff is gonna be more stagnated than Things The Government Wants, because it's less a case of "is this commercially viable" and more a case of "is this commercially viable AND likely to win us future contracts"

[DarkHalo003]

keep in mind as well that commercial stuff is gonna be more stagnated than Things The Government Wants, because it's less a case of "is this commercially viable" and more a case of "is this commercially viable AND likely to win us future contracts"
That could (or rather used to) work in the capitalistic system utilized by the U.S. The current problem with that is simply that our recent administration has given away that exclusive funding; companies that did good were given more funding for advancement after WWII ended, but upon Vietnam the government became more liberal (ironic right?) with funding, especially for national defense industries.

[rossmum]

frankly i'm a fan of the soviet/russian system, look at all the cool shit they have weapons- and aircraft-wise.

FUCKIN' EKRANOPLANS, MAN.

e/ the mil/kamov rivalry is a good example of why it works. two design bureaus, following two radically different ideas of how to achieve the same goal. it's a good thing they have going on, and the russians have benefitted greatly from it.

[Rainbow Dash]

Such things could never happen in a communist society...that's kind of the entire point. If they did, then we could credit them, but they haven't, and they never will, so we won't.


You obviously missed the point. Going, "oh but they didn't", doesn't do anything to counteract anything I said.



This is funny. Every country in history which actually used a socialist mode of production was a corrupt failure, but miraculously, it never had anything to do with the system itself. Time for another quote:


For someone complaining about small sample sizes it's pretty amazing that you would suddenly turn around and come back at me with, "Every socialist country has been a corrupt failure", especially when there are very few current Socialist countries,very few former ones that lasted more than a few years, and very few that ever existed. Making the argument that because a lot of Socialist countries were corrupt therefore they must all be corrupt is fucking ludicrous. It's like arguing that because all the cars you have ever seen are painted green, they must all be painted green.

Ever heard of Plato's Allegory of the Cave? You really resemble one of the cave dwellers. So used to the system you see you refuse to believe anything else could ever work for the sole reason that you haven't seen it work yet.



"Tyranny is the political corollary of socialism, as representative government is the political corollary of the market economy." - Ludwig von Mises

Oh look, a Market Economist with a huge interest in propagating the system that benefited him immensely and he helped contribute to saying that another system is just evil! Sorry, that doesn't help your argument at all.



Have you never considered the possibility that the reason why every actual socialist country has been tyrannical is because of the framework of the system itself? You are giving absolute power over the economy to the government, and stripping an enormous amount of rights away from individuals. Absolute power. What's that quote about absolute power corrupting...? I'm sure you know how it goes.


Here's the thing though, while I agree with everything you say here except for stripping away an enormous amount of rights, and all socialist countries being tyranical (I can't find the part of socialist theory where it says, "MUST BE RUN DICTATORIAL STYLE"), this is true just as much of the capitalist society that you promote. Capitalism eventually evolved into the system it is today for the same reason you're saying Socialism can never work. Corrupt people who were given power.

You claim the reason Socialist countries turn to shit is because corrupt people can get access to the reins, while the same is true, word for word, of Capitalism. That's the exact reason we have the Corrupt Capitalism we have now. By your logic then, if a Socialist country's leadership wasn't corrupt then the system could have the potential to not be a failure (in direct contradiction of your, "it can never work", mentality). The same, is again, totally true for Capitalism. The question we should be solving is not whether x system is better than x system, it's how we devise a new system that can withstand corruption.

There's a very interesting man by the name of Jacque Fresco, who is a brilliant engineer, and he often uses the example of the amount of deaths from car accidents, versus the amount of deaths from people riding elevators. Both are methods of transporting yourself from point A, to point B, but one kills next to no one each year, while the other kills millions. He proposes that instead of just accepting the huge death toll from car accidents, we should devise an entirely new method of transporting people that fulfills the same task as automobiles, that is more resistant to errors which cause death.

That is essentially what I am proposing to you. All the systems we discuss, with the exception of a Resource Based Economy, are all highly susceptible to corruption, be it Capitalism, Communism, or Socialism. I have no doubt you can agree with me here, that if any of these systems were devoid of corrupt people, they would all have a pretty good chance of working out.



One more very, very relevant quote:

"If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action." - Ludwig von Mises


I see where he's coming from, but again this falls under the system's susceptibility to corruption debate. What if we devised a system that was highly resistant, or immune to corruption, and moral weakness, or even had a system run by computers that weren't susceptible to corruption, are obviously immune to man's fallibility, and either had no morality to speak of, or had their decision making process based on moral rules that can be, more or less, globally agreed on.

The quote doesn't address, or have any real relevance to those possiblities.



This accusation makes absolutely no sense, so I'm not sure what to say, or if to say anything. Nothing I've said suggests I don't understand the word; my usage of it demonstrates I do. The mere fact that you're making such an accusation makes me doubt your understanding of it.


Let me explain it to you.


A mutual relationship or connection between two or more things


The process of establishing a relationship or connection between two or more measures


a statistical relation between two or more variables such that systematic changes in the value of one variable are accompanied by systematic changes in the other

The word means there is a connection between the two, which I proved did not exist.

This is how the HDI is calculated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index#New_methodology_for_2011_d ata_onwards


In its 2010 Human Development Report (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Human_Development_Report) the UNDP began using a new method of calculating the HDI. The following three indices are used:
1. Life Expectancy Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Expectancy_Index) (LEI) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/4/5/7/457a8edcbc6451879d026cf62f93487f.png
2. Education Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Index) (EI) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/c/3/9/c39dd2ada89843084cdcf30304fb04e0.png
2.1 Mean Years of Schooling Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mean_Years_of_Schooling_Index&action=edit&redlink=1) (MYSI) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/c/7/8/c78dfc65b2b65d785e667b4354136653.png[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index#cite_note-2)
2.2 Expected Years of Schooling Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Expected_Years_of_Schooling_Index&action=edit&redlink=1) (EYSI) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/4/0/0/400b79562cce418d645c8ff4edfd9d66.png[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index#cite_note-3)
3. Income Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Income_Index&action=edit&redlink=1) (II) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/5/a/9/5a92051ba7cb97c2f39170d1a45ac083.png
Finally, the HDI is the geometric mean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_mean) of the previous three normalized indices:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/3/c/b/3cb520e370fb8d0c25edd0e5a1731218.png



There is zero consideration for "Economic Freedom", therefore it has zero effect on the HDI score. You may as well put a graph plotting apples eaten per capita, and HDI score, and say that a higher amount of apples eaten correlates to a higher HDI (You'd probably get a similar result for some reason along the lines of there's more apples, which everyone loves to eat, available in developed countries, and thus more access to them). You'd be just as wrong as you are now.

Let me illustrate this further. If you had a Society which had abolished money, that was developed enough to have a proper medical system to ensure people we're always cared for, thus increasing their LEI. Meanwhile having an education system of top notch quality which was accessible to everyone, thus maxing out the EI, and MYSI, and having a positive effect on their EYSI. In addition to having all their needs for goods met. Economic freedom would have no ability to be measured in this society, yet this society would have an astounding HDI.

If economic freedom had a relationship to HDI, then anomalies like Cuba, Iran, and Venezuela would not occur, and a high HDI would be impossible to achieve unless you also had a high economic freedom rating, which is obviously not the case. What's so difficult about this?

As an addendum, here is an example of correlation.


http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3332789/misc/pressure_altitude.jpg



So after giving you a plotting of 70-80 countries, showing a very obvious trend line, your response is "that's stupid, they have nothing to do with one another!" I mean, wow, how am I even supposed to respond to that? The entire point of the graph is it illustrates they DO have to do with one another.

You can plot two things on a graph and find patterns all you want, it doesn't mean they have any correlation or causation, sorry.

Also again you've done nothing to address 60% of the things I've posted, done nothing to address the flaws of Capitalism that make it unsustainable, and have gone on and on about how one possible system we could use, that I don't even throw much support behind because there are better alternatives, is awful.

As I said earlier.


I'd really like to see you seriously argue that a system which requires constant growth in order to function, causes poverty, and encourages consumerism, is the best thing we can come up with as an economic system. If the alternatives we have available now are so awful, how about you stop pushing what you see as the least bad, and make an effort to contribute to the birth of a new and better one.

[EX12693]

Effortpost+rep

[neuro]

what stuns me most about this thread, is that there's actually a decent civilised discussion without flaming and puking upon eachother.

this really IS the end of society..

[TVTyrant]

what stuns me most about this thread, is that there's actually a decent civilised discussion without flaming and puking upon eachother.

this really IS the end of society..
I know right? Maybe its because its just Greece, so if it burns to the ground it will only effect Higuy.

BTW thats supposed to be a joke...

[Rainbow Dash]

Forgive the memes.

http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net/photo/2681884_700b.jpg

[DarkHalo003]

Spoiler tags maybe?

@Neuro: THIS SITE IS A SOCIETY?

[neuro]

@faghalo<numbers>

no

[DarkHalo003]

@faghalo<numbers>

no
:iamafag:

[Tnnaas]

Forgive the memes.
-holy shit snip-
Uh, longpost tags?

[TVTyrant]

The part with the police was appalling. A fucking Greek hero, being maced in the streets?

For god's sakes someone get these people some guns so they can revolt properly. Greece's government is so damn corrupt it unreal. IDC if true revolution will only lead to a blood bath, men should only have to take so much. The conditions there are fucking ridiculous, and they shouldn't have to stand around while a fucking dictatorship drivers their country into a fucking sinkhole.

[Rainbow Dash]

Greece is turning into America. At least they know when things have turned to bad. We are just brainwashed and conditioned. The experiment worked.

Mutleytech (http://www.youtube.com/user/Mutleytech) 3 hours ago 26 http://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/pixel-vfl3z5WfW.gif




:lmao:

[Rainbow Dash]

4O67AZfUMXw

Excellent interview that helps explain why our Capitalist system is falling apart, and why people like king are so afraid of change .

[Jelly]

haha, i dont know what this thread is about, but EPIC rage comic on the previous page haha! keep up the good work

[rossmum]

Uh, longpost tags?
no, because everyone should be reading it

greece is being fucked nine ways to sunday and the assumptions that it is the peoples' own doing and that it can't happen in the us, or the uk, or canada or australia or wherever is a severely misguided one

[Rainbow Dash]

no, because everyone should be reading it


^^

That's more or less the reason I didn't spoiler it. It's too important to be made easily glazed over.

[TVTyrant]

^^

That's more or less the reason I didn't spoiler it. It's too important to be made easily glazed over.
Seriously. That shit about the old man pissed me off. A national fucking hero, maced by a bunch of power tripping hooligans. Ridiculous.

[rossmum]

this throwing plainclothes police into protest crowds to create an excuse for use of force isn't new, by the way, and has been used in our own countries to shut down things the government doesn't like for decades now

[TVTyrant]

this throwing plainclothes police into protest crowds to create an excuse for use of force isn't new, by the way, and has been used in our own countries to shut down things the government doesn't like for decades now
I didn't see that in the post, but fuck thats disgusting. Goddammit this is making me mad.

[rossmum]

it should be. get mad. people getting mad is the first step towards this shit being overturned.

[TVTyrant]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGIY5Vyj4YM

Should be a manifesto for the times we live in.

[Rainbow Dash]

[video=youtube;rGIY5Vyj4YM]
Should be a manifesto for the times we live in.

Blocked due to copyright does make me pretty angry!

j-rxe9Ayb8c&

ELEwjVRxxGE

[=sw=warlord]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt6iTwVIiMM

[TVTyrant]

^ That was awesome lol.

[king_nothing_]

You obviously missed the point. Going, "oh but they didn't", doesn't do anything to counteract anything I said.
I didn't miss it. I said right there in the portion you just quoted that if such progressions were made in a communist society, then we could credit them. I'm not sure why you think pointing out some purely hypothetical scenario involving communist mass production is going to invalidate my pointing out of the fact that capitalism did achieve such production.


Making the argument that because a lot of Socialist countries were corrupt therefore they must all be corrupt is fucking ludicrous. It's like arguing that because all the cars you have ever seen are painted green, they must all be painted green.
I'm not trying to prove they must all be corrupt based entirely on the fact that the handful which have existed were corrupt. You're putting words in my mouth. I was merely using that fact to make you (or anyone else reading) think about it. You realize if there were zero examples of socialist countries in history, I would still be arguing vehemently against it, right? That's basically the case with communism; no real-world examples, but I still argue against it.


Ever heard of Plato's Allegory of the Cave? You really resemble one of the cave dwellers. So used to the system you see you refuse to believe anything else could ever work for the sole reason that you haven't seen it work yet.
This is not the case at all. As I said above, I came to the conclusion that it will not work based on studying the idea and the critiques against it, not the real-world examples (or lack thereof) of it.


Oh look, a Market Economist with a huge interest in propagating the system that benefited him immensely and he helped contribute to saying that another system is just evil! Sorry, that doesn't help your argument at all.
...and comitting an obvious logical fallacy isn't helping your response.


Here's the thing though, while I agree with everything you say here except for stripping away an enormous amount of rights,
How can you not see it as stripping rights away...? Individual/private group A wants to sell something to individual/private group B. Woops, can't do that, the socialist government has completely nationalized the economy and abolished the private sector. Do you seriously not see voluntary exchange as a basic right?


and all socialist countries being tyranical (I can't find the part of socialist theory where it says, "MUST BE RUN DICTATORIAL STYLE"),
Then you must not be thinking about it very hard. It absolutely says "must be run dictatorial style" in economic terms.


this is true just as much of the capitalist society that you promote. Capitalism eventually evolved into the system it is today for the same reason you're saying Socialism can never work. Corrupt people who were given power.

You claim the reason Socialist countries turn to shit is because corrupt people can get access to the reins, while the same is true, word for word, of Capitalism. That's the exact reason we have the Corrupt Capitalism we have now. By your logic then, if a Socialist country's leadership wasn't corrupt then the system could have the potential to not be a failure (in direct contradiction of your, "it can never work", mentality). The same, is again, totally true for Capitalism. The question we should be solving is not whether x system is better than x system, it's how we devise a new system that can withstand corruption.
Yes, there are corrupt people whether you have a capitalist system or a socialist system. There is a very huge difference, though. There is no group or person with absolute power over the economy in a capitalist system, but there is in a socialist system. Nobody is "given power" over the economy in an actual free market. There is nobody with absolute power to corrupt absolutely, which would appease Lord Acton.


I see where he's coming from, but again this falls under the system's susceptibility to corruption debate. What if we devised a system that was highly resistant, or immune to corruption, and moral weakness, or even had a system run by computers that weren't susceptible to corruption, are obviously immune to man's fallibility, and either had no morality to speak of, or had their decision making process based on moral rules that can be, more or less, globally agreed on.
My argument is that a free market is resistant to it (and just to be clear -- bailouts, subsidies, corporatism, etc. are not free market things). You're never going to devise anything that's immune to it. The best you can do is not grant any group or person any power over it, because as I've already said, power is what corrupts. When millions of individuals and groups acting voluntarily are what make up the constituent parts of the economic system, there isn't any "absolute power" to speak of.


The word means there is a connection between the two, which I proved did not exist.
Um, when did this happen?


This is how the HDI is calculated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index#New_methodology_for_2011_d ata_onwards

There is zero consideration for "Economic Freedom", therefore it has zero effect on the HDI score.
Wow.

If economic freedom was considered in the HDI, it would make absolutely no sense to create a scatter plot using HDI AND economic freedom as the two variables. That would render it utterly pointless. The whole point of it is to use two variables which are independent of one another, and then see if there is any resulting degree of correlation to speak of.


Let me illustrate this further. If you had a Society which had abolished money, that was developed enough to have a proper medical system to ensure people we're always cared for, thus increasing their LEI. Meanwhile having an education system of top notch quality which was accessible to everyone, thus maxing out the EI, and MYSI, and having a positive effect on their EYSI. In addition to having all their needs for goods met. Economic freedom would have no ability to be measured in this society, yet this society would have an astounding HDI.
If, if, if. Let me know when these fantastical, moneyless events occur, then we can talk about them. In the meantime, I'll point you once again to Mises's economic calculation problem. I'm not going to spend my time talking about fantastic hypotheticals.


If economic freedom had a relationship to HDI, then anomalies like Cuba, Iran, and Venezuela would not occur, and a high HDI would be impossible to achieve unless you also had a high economic freedom rating, which is obviously not the case. What's so difficult about this?
A few anomalies do not render the entire graph meaningless. That's ridiculous. A few anomalies are to be expected in a large amount of data.


Also again you've done nothing to address 60% of the things I've posted,
I think 60% is a pretty healthy exaggeration, lol.


done nothing to address the flaws of Capitalism that make it unsustainable,
Such as? Am I expected to build straw men to argue with? I haven't seen much in the way of specific criticisms posted that I could possibly respond to.


and have gone on and on about how one possible system we could use, that I don't even throw much support behind because there are better alternatives, is awful.
I'm responding to what is being said. Given that about 98% of your posts have been about socialism and communism, I'm not sure what else you expect me to talk about. Have you said anything about any other system besides the utterance of the phrase "resource based economy"?


As I said earlier.

I'd really like to see you seriously argue that a system which requires constant growth in order to function,
If we didn't have the ridiculous monetary system we currently have, do you have any reasoning as to why it couldn't? As long as human ingenuity has room for growth, I would say a free market economy does as well. Now, if you want to criticize the fact that money is debt in our current system, and requires a constant growth of debt, then be my guest. I'll join you.


causes poverty,
This is ridiculous. Capitalism produces food, does it not? It produces wealth, does it not? There is this oft repeated idea that successful capitalists are necessarily the cause of someone else's poverty; as if there is a fixed pie, and one person can only prosper at the expense of someone else. It's simply not the case. Wealth is created. A capitalist only prospers if they succeed in supplying the consumers with what they want, and the better they do that, the more they prosper. Capitalism alleviates poverty.


and encourages consumerism,
Well, yeah. Humans like to have things. This is akin to criticizing civil liberties because it encourages sexual deviancy, or something. You can't have one without the other. Sure, you can stamp out consumerism by dictatorial means...abolishing voluntary exchange. I like freedom though, thanks.


If the alternatives we have available now are so awful, how about you stop pushing what you see as the least bad, and make an effort to contribute to the birth of a new and better one.
Just to be clear, I'm not in any way giving a seal of approval and full endorsement of our economic system. I'm pushing what I see as being much better than what we currently have. It just happens to be in the exact opposite direction that you're pushing.

[TVTyrant]

The food thing is semi-debatable. Most farms are subsidized in order to stay open at all. That's pretty socialist.

[Rainbow Dash]

Do you seriously not see voluntary exchange as a basic right?


In a radically different sense than what you see it as.



Such as? Am I expected to build straw men to argue with? I haven't seen much in the way of specific criticisms posted that I could possibly respond to.

The infinite growth paradigm (which has been brought up multiple times) would be a good place to start.



I'm responding to what is being said. Given that about 98% of your posts have been about socialism and communism, I'm not sure what else you expect me to talk about. Have you said anything about any other system besides the utterance of the phrase "resource based economy"?

My posts that were in response to your posts, sure where Socialism and Communism are all you seem to want to discuss. Otherwise, unless meeting everyone's needs, not one human being excluded, and removing socially pointless jobs, are strictly socialist/communist values, which they're not, despite how many people try to put that label on them(in order to inspire fear usually), then that's not really what I'm doing.

As for a resource based economy (It's exactly what it sounds like, an economy based on resources, instead of money), since apparently you didn't research it at all, here's a 20 minute clip to help explain it to you. I really hope you will find it interesting.

4mkRFCtl2MI



Just to be clear, I'm not in any way giving a seal of approval and full endorsement of our economic system. I'm pushing what I see as being much better than what we currently have. It just happens to be in the exact opposite direction that you're pushing.

I'm unsure why you say we're both going in the opposite direction. The way I see it, we both want to move in the same direction, forward towards progress, the only difference is how far we want to go.


Anyway, we could argue rhetoric all day, but to be quite honest I'm tired of writing huge essays every day. I really hope you will do some further research, beyond that video, into a Resource Based Economy, while trying to put all the intangible Capitalist rules that are totally meaningless in any other system, out of your mind.

[DarkHalo003]

Sel, just because it's ideal doesn't mean it will work that way. We all want an economic system that doesn't suck; unfortunately, people make it suck anyways. I've learned to deal with that fact, even if there is a lot of bullshit.

[Rainbow Dash]

Sel, just because it's ideal doesn't mean it will work that way. We all want an economic system that doesn't suck; unfortunately, people make it suck anyways. I've learned to deal with that fact, even if there is a lot of bullshit.

urgh


Why is it that we must choose an economic system that undermines the most decent aspects of our nature and strengthens the most inhuman? Because, we’re told, that’s just the way people are. What evidence is there of that? Look around, we’re told, at how people behave. Everywhere we look, we see greed and the pursuit of self-interest. So, the proof that these greedy, self-interested aspects of our nature are dominant is that, when forced into a system that rewards greed and self-interested behavior, people often act that way. Doesn’t that seem just a bit circular?

[Warsaw]

Keep in mind that I'm just a spectator in this awesome debate, but I feel this needs reiterating:

Earlier, there was an assertion that human nature is the will and desire to dominate.You, Sel, refuted this by claiming that you are passive and do not attempt to dominate anything. Unfortunately for your argument on this particular point, you have made every effort to dominate this discussion and have succeeded in doing so, whether by conscious intent or not. This isn't a case of "we are told humans are this way," this is an example demonstrating that they are.

On some level, all humans display this will to dominate. As a token thought, though, I'm not sure calling it "human nature" is accurate. It could be that this is simple animal nature, but other animals don't display it to the degree that we do because us getting here "first" has prevented them from doing so.

[Rainbow Dash]

dom·i·nate

verb (used with object) to rule over; govern; control (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/control)

verb (used without object) to rule; exercise control; predominate.



I can see how you're interpreting the definitions, but the way I see it, if my goal was to dominate, I wouldn't be explaining anything or debating, I'd just be saying things and expecting that everyone just accepts them.

[Warsaw]

It seems as if you're dressing up the definition in semantics within your head. You desire to make your point and you desire to get others to embrace it, and that is a form of dominance. It's dominance of the mind, dominance of somebody else's self-formulated opinion. If you can get them to understand and switch sides, you have just controlled them. Not only that, but so long as you try to hold an individual's attention, you are attempting to dominate them with respect to what they deem important to act on right that moment. It may not seem as tyrannical as the definition makes it look (because it's not necessarily so bad), but rest assured that it is the same. I'm doing it right now, same as you. I want you to see my point. Unless you just skipped over this (I suspect you won't, because you are curious of my response), I've actively held your attention.

Just so you know, I mostly agree with your side. I just don't believe you can get humanity to consciously work together like that, as nice as it would be. Not at first, anyways.

[Rainbow Dash]

It may not seem as tyrannical as the definition makes it look (because it's not necessarily so bad)

Ah. I see what you mean now.

It seems at present we don't really have any means in our language for describing the level of domination we're referring to?

[rossmum]

Sel, just because it's ideal doesn't mean it will work that way. We all want an economic system that doesn't suck; unfortunately, people make it suck anyways. I've learned to deal with that fact, even if there is a lot of bullshit.
not to call you out on this personally, but the fact that so many people are willing to just write things off as "human nature, nope not changeable" renders it exactly so. nobody wants to change it because they don't think they can, or they think it's too hard.

look at all the things humanity has achieved that were once thought impossible, just through believing that to be wrong - yes, it is hard to make such things work, but it's not actually impossible. people can be shit at times, but that's no reason to write off everybody.

if you want things to improve, you ought to start by actually believing that they can, and spreading that belief to those around you.

[Bodzilla]

imagine theres no heaven.
it's easy if you try
no hell below us
above us only sky.

imagine all the people
living for today.

[Warsaw]

Ah. I see what you mean now.

It seems at present we don't really have any means in our language for describing the level of domination we're referring to?

Something like that, yeah. Silly linguistic limitations, we should all communicate in binary combinations!

[=sw=warlord]

Something like that, yeah. Silly linguistic limitations, we should all communicate in binary combinations!
We already are, it's just the computer interprets and converts our language for us so we never see it :p

[Warsaw]

Ok, DIRECT binary data exchange. Sharing of thoughts, if you will.

:p

[DarkHalo003]

not to call you out on this personally, but the fact that so many people are willing to just write things off as "human nature, nope not changeable" renders it exactly so. nobody wants to change it because they don't think they can, or they think it's too hard.

look at all the things humanity has achieved that were once thought impossible, just through believing that to be wrong - yes, it is hard to make such things work, but it's not actually impossible. people can be shit at times, but that's no reason to write off everybody.

if you want things to improve, you ought to start by actually believing that they can, and spreading that belief to those around you.
I agree with you. I'm just going by the likelihood of things. Honestly, I've tried on multiple occasions to change a pessimistic view, but ultimately I'm forced to retire from such a vigorous headache.

[TVTyrant]

I agree with you. I'm just going by the likelihood of things. Honestly, I've tried on multiple occasions to change a pessimistic view, but ultimately I'm forced to retire from such a vigorous headache.
.

[Warsaw]

And that's why I think you have to trick people into helping the world by making them think they are only helping themselves to start off the chain of enlightenment.

[=sw=warlord]

But who will watch the watchmen?

[TVTyrant]

But who will watch the watchmen?
The Comedian?

[DarkHalo003]

EDIT: Meh, not the best thread to be snarky in. There have been some nice discussions and arguments.

Does anyone else hate that these horrid events in our history bring the best debates and discussions? It's kind of dsturbing if you think about it.

[Rainbow Dash]

Infinite growth paradigms, confounding capitalists since Capitalism's conception ^_________________^

Also

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwS_6lAGIG4&feature=player_detailpage#t=881s

More refuting of the silly argument that reverting to laissez faire Capitalism would actually fix something

[DarkHalo003]

Well Selentic, if it bothers you this much, why not do something about it besides posting on an internet forum? I'm saying this from a neutral stand point now; preaching your convictions here really does nothing because either people here will agree or disagree with you in a manner akin to making noise in a vacuum.

[Rainbow Dash]

Well Selentic, if it bothers you this much, why not do something about it besides posting on an internet forum?

Maybe it's because, and this should be obvious, educating people here is infinitely more productive, than me going out in subzero weather, busing downtown, and asking random people on the street if they want to chat.



I'm saying this from a neutral stand point now; preaching your convictions here really does nothing because either people here will agree or disagree with you in a manner akin to making noise in a vacuum.

It's pretty odd that for someone claiming to take a neutral standpoint, that you immediately follow that up with marginalizing my posts by insinuating that everything I say is just a belief or opinion I hold without any factual backing.

[DarkHalo003]

Maybe it's because, and this should be obvious, educating people here is infinitely more productive, than me going out in subzero weather, busing downtown, and asking random people on the street if they want to chat.



It's pretty odd that for someone claiming to take a neutral standpoint, that you immediately follow that up with marginalizing my posts by insinuating that everything I say is just a belief or opinion I hold without any factual backing.
You're being a bit silly. If that's the assumption you gained from my metaphor, then I'm sorry you won't reflect on your gargle pertaining to an economic style of your choice. Yes we understand your feelings regarding the matter. We've seen the graphs and stats that you have presented to us. That's nice and all, but do you think any of US will utilize your knowledge that you've pieced together and plotted throughout these forums? No, a better option would actually be going out in the real world even in the harshest conditions to talk with others about your opinion and your ideas, quite contrary to your current method of telling your ideas to the same people who understand your perspective and choose to either agree or disagree.

[Rainbow Dash]

That's nice and all, but do you think any of US will utilize your knowledge that you've pieced together and plotted throughout these forums?

If you have such a strong aversion to learn new information then that's your problem, luckily, not everyone on this forum is like you, and most are willing to learn new things :]

[DarkHalo003]

If you have such a strong aversion to learn new information then that's your problem, luckily, not everyone on this forum is like you, and most are willing to learn new things :]
Nothing you're telling me is new. I have no concept to learn from you because you keep throwing out the same thing. And by a vote of hands, who from this forum will actually do something to better this world in the methods Sel is enlightening us all on? You're averting my point.

[Rainbow Dash]

Nothing you're telling me is new.

That's great, I'm glad you already know this stuff, but if you're that smart, you should know that not everyone knows what you know, and there are plenty of other people here who have zero understanding of what is being talked about here.



I have no concept to learn from you because you keep throwing out the same thing.

Wait really? I could have sworn Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, and a Resource Based Economy were all different things???


Also, if you understood anything here, you wouldn't be accusing me of spewing opinions and beliefs, since you would understand that facts =/= opinions/beliefs~~

[DarkHalo003]

That's great, I'm glad you already know this stuff, but if you're that smart, you should know that not everyone knows what you know, and there are plenty of other people here who have zero understanding of what is being talked about here.



Wait really? I could have sworn Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, and a Resource Based Economy were all different things???


Also, if you understood anything here, you wouldn't be accusing me of spewing opinions and beliefs, since you would understand that facts =/= opinions/beliefs~~
Opinions are preferences no? My point is not that I personally know this, but that you persist in "educating" a forum who has already heard your preference in economic organization and ideology. I am also suggesting, if you have not already, you go about elsewhere to further expand this knowledge of yours to educate more individuals and not telling the same community the same information in different circumstances. That is all I am saying. Take it as you will.

[TVTyrant]

Bring back command economy!!

That is all.

[Rainbow Dash]

Opinions are preferences no?

If you think that the only things being presented in this thread are opinions, you missed 99% of the content.

[Rainbow Dash]

hlWNeqBaFf8

fuck capitalism

fuck bankers

[Roostervier]

Just out of curiosity, do you have any ideas at all of what you'd prefer to see rather than capitalism, Selentic (or anyone else that agrees with him, for that matter)? I don't mean for you to simply say, "socialism," or "communism," or even, "anything but capitalism." What I want to know is if you have anything specific in mind. You know, ideas of your own of how we can fix the problem. As it is, nothing much is accomplished by simply complaining about what we've got. What's the point of a revolution if there isn't a plan for what to do after victory? Not even just any plan, but a good one; a plan that will work. The whole situation makes me think of the trading of dictators you see in countries in Africa and South America. Yeah, you overthrew the old dictator and instated a new one--meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

I'm not saying I disagree with you by the way. I just believe that complaining isn't very productive on its own.

[Rainbow Dash]

http://www.modacity.net/forums/showthread.php?24307-Athens-buildings-burn-down-Athens-stock-index-goes-up!&p=612437&viewfull=1#post612437

http://www.thevenusproject.com/

I'll probably make a thread discussing certain Resource Based Economy elements later on.

[rossmum]

regulate the absolute shit out of corporations for a start. limit their ability to grow to the point where they can actually influence anything. the worst problems we face all stem from the amount of clout that private business, the church, and various other interest groups with some bank behind them are able to exert upon lawmaking. it's not even something you would need a revolution for, you just need to swing the balance of power against the interest groups and their pawns and then start purging the shit out of the government. fire anyone who accepts kickbacks, fancy dinners, makes life easier for their own friends and relatives, etc.

i'd prefer things to go a lot further than that, but as far as a starting point goes, it's really not that impossible and it would certanly do a lot of good in a very short time span.

it also buys time to further discuss what path we want to take in general.

[Rainbow Dash]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/06/17/greece-election.html

I guess that there's still people in Greece dumb enough to buy into the idea that austerity will solve their problems!

[Bobblehob]

Oh lord, here we go again x3

[rossmum]

stockholm syndrome?

[DarkHalo003]

Greece needs to become awesome again....like with more art and shit.

[TVTyrant]

lewl

[CN3089]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/06/17/greece-election.html

I guess that there's still people in Greece dumb enough to buy into the idea that austerity will solve their problems!

or people that think a total economic collapse would result in even lower standards of living than austerity

[DarkHalo003]

or people that think a total economic collapse would result in even lower standards of living than austerity
Lol.

[Rainbow Dash]

or people that think a total economic collapse would result in even lower standards of living than austerity

Good thing there won't be an economic collapse almost regardless of what happens in finance!

All we're facing right now is a monetary collapse, which is a completely different thing, not to mention totally fictional :]

[CN3089]

Good thing there won't be an economic collapse almost regardless of what happens in finance!

All we're facing right now is a monetary collapse, which is a completely different thing, not to mention totally fictional :]

cool great enjoy living in your pony fantasy world

[Higuy]

cool great enjoy living in your pony fantasy world

:like:

[DarkHalo003]

cool great enjoy living in your pony fantasy world
Must spread rep. Oh wait.

[Rainbow Dash]

*implying my post is wrong*

iceland

boom

[Rainbow Dash]

also a party with this as their flag got 18 seats.

http://static8.businessinsider.com/image/4f9e5f966bb3f79208000001/golden-dawn.jpg

[Warsaw]

P cool flag. Too bad Greece is absolutely no threat to the world, they can't capitalize and take over most of Europe to make it truly strike fear into the hearts of men.

[TVTyrant]

iceland

boom
Yes, a country that's ranked 232nd in world population density is totes a great image of the way Socialism will conquer all!

I would have said Canada before Iceland. Or England.

[Rainbow Dash]

Yes, a country that's ranked 232nd in world population density is totes a great image of the way Socialism will conquer all!

I would have said Canada before Iceland. Or England.

Here, since you obviously have no idea what I'm talking about.

64eI831eKY8

[TVTyrant]

Ahh I thought you were referring to their use of geothermal energy and other social services, which I believe are brilliant and should be used in Canada and the US since our population densities are so low. Socialism is a great idea here.

As far as attacking the banks like that, I have been on that side the whole time.