BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 17,114
Any chance of a link for your graph?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Capitalism - for better? Or worse?
- Thread starter Withdean and I
- Start date
Any chance of a link for your graph?
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 17,114
I wonder if you got the two sides working together, would they manage to come up with a better system?
I don't really see how the left V right, Blue V Red paradigm gives us the best outcomes. It appears to serve the blues and the reds pretty well but not really sure who else.
That doesn't really answer the question. How should they be funded?
dingodan
New member
- Feb 16, 2011
- 10,080
dingodan
New member
- Feb 16, 2011
- 10,080
That a) poverty is falling, and b) it is a consequence of capitalism, are not controversial statements.
That it could not have happened under any other model is perhaps controversial for some people, but we are yet to see any economic or social model which increases living standards at the rate and to the degree that free markets and capitalism do. I'm fairly comfortable I'm on safe ground there.
I actually don't see how this is hard to understand. Capitalism is the only system which motivates people to try to be as useful as they possibly can to as many other people as possible.
stewart_weir
Well-known member
- Mar 19, 2017
- 1,000
Fact is that Capitalism requires consumerism BUT the planet cannot sustain the present consumption let alone an ever increasing population. Something has to give and I don't think it will be humanity. Fast forward 20/30 years I think nature will have the final say. Humanity either learns to live within it's means and stop consuming and reduce or nature will reduce humans.
Shirley Communism was also a relentless devourer of natural resources, with the means of production very much including raw materials and energy? The Eastern Bloc was a sea of polluting factories, deforestation and coal mines.
The way forward championed by the likes of Green Party, is inherently a rejection of both economic models on the resources side.
stewart_weir
Well-known member
- Mar 19, 2017
- 1,000
The problem is a human one that cannot be solved by politics because all political variations require consumption. Democracy gives the population the ability to vote for the party of their choice and they certainly won't vote for a reduction in their luxuries.. in fact they want more luxury. No political party that requires the population to consume less will ever get into power UNTIL the population realises en masse that their future depends on it. Personally I don't see this ending well for us within a few decades. When nature really does go insane perhaps the masses will realise. Mass population movements, lack of water, diseases and food shortages may concentrate our desire to consume. The only economic model that allows humanity to survive is the one where the individual voluntarily refuses materialism.
Have you heard of Earth Overshoot day? Its when we consumed all the resources the planet can supply.. and every year we consume sooner and sooner. Earth overshoot day last year happened on 1st August.
https://www.overshootday.org/newsroom/press-release-july-2018-english/
dingodan
New member
- Feb 16, 2011
- 10,080
It isn't a wild guess.
What kind of system do you imagine would have any chance of producing any prosperity, other than a free market system?
For us to have anything we need, someone somewhere needs to produce it. What other system could provide an incentive for the farmer to grow their crops and milk their cows? Or the machine worker to run their machines? or the electrician to keep the lights on?
stewart_weir
Well-known member
- Mar 19, 2017
- 1,000
A completely new way has to be found. Its not capitalism or communism or democratic socialism. I think its about living in harmony with nature, not taking more than it can provide and producing goods that don't have a negative impact. Its all about taking no more than the planet can give. It requires a completely new mind set to the one we have now. For that to happen though humanity has to learn a lesson and that's going to have to happen so the populations move away from materialism.
The earth’s finite resources necessarily aren’t going to last forever, especially with exponential population growth. So ultimately, you are correct. Unfortunately, it will only when it reaches a crisis, that real actions might be taken.
In the mean time, all the hypocrite consumers such as myself, will continue to drive a car, buy food in wrapping, heat a home when not wearing thick clothing, consume, fly on holidays.
I do recycle almost everything possible above and beyond the BHCC wheelie bin stuff and create mini wildlife havens, but it isn’t enough.
stewart_weir
Well-known member
- Mar 19, 2017
- 1,000
The planets resources for last year was reached on August 1st. In 2004 it was September and in 1979 it was November. Compare population and factor in the rise of China and India and the overshoot day will get reached far sooner every year now I think. Its that dilemma of spend everything you have now and have some fun or save it and stay in with no fun. Humans are wired to consume.
Hastings gull
Well-known member
- Nov 23, 2013
- 4,635
Depends on what you mean by global. Communism was/is alive and not well in many countries, and I think I am right in that all have moved away either partially or totally from this. Communism is surely something you can compare capitalism with, and quite frankly, history teaches us that when people living under communism have a free vote, they reject it! My generation is the first in history ( I am in my 60s) where the majority is not poor ( I won't say wealthy) and this is thanks to capitalism, whether one likes it or not.
D
Deleted member 22389
Guest
It's the way it is and it will never change.
Hastings gull
Well-known member
- Nov 23, 2013
- 4,635
Buy you accuse Dingodan of wild guesses - is this not what you have just come with; a wild statement? Of course there are areas of the world where there is much to do to reduce poverty, but to say there are huge areas is not true.
- Jan 3, 2012
- 16,589
If they had started some sort of process two years ago or more - in other words soon after the referendum - they could well with the right approach and right attitude come to an agreement that would be acceptable to enough people to work.
If they had consulted widely to try and ascertain what the people wanted, and tried to deliver on that....... but it's consultation and conversation rather than shouting at each other from the sidelines..
- Jan 3, 2012
- 16,589
Hip exercises you say? Tantric marimba? Microbrew pilates?
Nothing so exciting, I am afraid! I do like the sound of Microbrew Pilates.
KZNSeagull
Well-known member
Have a look out for a book called Factfulness by Hans Rosling. Subtitle is "10 reasons we're wrong about the world and why things are better than you think". There is a lot of very interesting info in there.
For example, In 1966 50% of the world lived in exteme poverty (income < $2 a day). In 2017 it was 9% (adjusted for inflation and price differences). As a result of that (and better access to basic medicine and education), the global average birth rate per woman is down to it's lowest level ever (just over 2.5 babies per woman). In 1965 that figure was 5 babies per woman. As a result of that, the world population by 2100 is predicted to get to 10 billion, but the number of babies being born is not expected to rise - the extra population comes from people living longer and more people surviving childhood in poorer regions.
They also use 4 levels of income (<$2 a day, <$8 a day, <$32 a day and >$32 a day). At the moment (well 2017), the highest proportion of people in the world live on Level 2 - by 2040 that is expected to change to level 3. The numbers on level 1 are also expected to reduce by nearly a half by 2040.
It's all done on averages, so it can only really be used as a guide but the figures come from the UN and other reputable sources.
I found it very interesting and worth a read.