quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Necessity is the mother of invention pk. We don't have a real necessity for alternatives to oil and natural gas yet.. Once supply starts to dry up and prices soar in response, you can bet those evil capitalists will start churning out alternate technology.

I have a feeling you underestimate the speed of exponential growth. In the book I cited there's a nice example about that:
Imagine you have a pond and there's a small water lily growing in it. Now the lily doubles it's size every day and you don't want it to spread over the entire pond, because that'll kill all your fish or whatever. What you're saying sounds like "I'll take care of the lily when it covers more than half of the lake, no need to address a minor problem earlier. After all it's only a very tiny lily for the first couple of weeks." But that means you have only one day to react, because it'll double the next one.
Now coming back to oil and energy, waiting until supplies end is waiting too long, because the growth of its usage is fast. The solution to this particular subproblem (oil, fuel) must be ready and running before we see the first hint of a problem with oil supplies, or else shit will get pretty wild imho.
It is by the way this very way of thinking and underestimating population- and consumption growth that makes me quite pessimistic. Reacting fast and timely hasn't exactly been a strength of politics so far.

___________________

Then stop coloring and visit Meat187's mix archive!

population growth = 1-2% a year. There won't be a catastrophe that suddenly rushes up on us. We will have plenty of time to see it coming and adjust. Relax buddy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthus

quote:

Originally posted by Meat187 I have a feeling you underestimate the speed of exponential growth. In the book I cited there's a nice example about that: Imagine you have a pond and there's a small water lily growing in it. Now the lily doubles it's size every day and you don't want it to spread over the entire pond, because that'll kill all your fish or whatever. What you're saying sounds like "I'll take care of the lily when it covers more than half of the lake, no need to address a minor problem earlier. After all it's only a very tiny lily for the first couple of weeks." But that means you have only one day to react, because it'll double the next one. Now coming back to oil and energy, waiting until supplies end is waiting too long, because the growth of its usage is fast. The solution to this particular subproblem (oil, fuel) must be ready and running before we see the first hint of a problem with oil supplies, or else shit will get pretty wild imho. It is by the way this very way of thinking and underestimating population- and consumption growth that makes me quite pessimistic. Reacting fast and timely hasn't exactly been a strength of politics so far.

But that would be communism!!1

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ******** there also needs to be a seperation of bank and state. Let trade regulate itself.. but that will never happen in the US. Because one of the purposes arguably the largest purpose of the US is to regulate commerce and trade. IMO though this is overstepping the ideal role of government, as a protector of the individuals rights by insuring liberty.

right. so you think banks should remain regulation-free in order to be free to cause global economic collapses then?

___________________

quote:

Sort of.. I think values will be set by people anyway. Fact is though when only a handful of people control the prices because they are ultrarich and supply all the main goods

Lol, you’ve got to grow out of your conspiratorial mindset about how the world works. Yes, there are cases of what you describe, but they are hardly emblematic of the system as a whole. prices are determined by lots of factors, not the least of which is the activity of the consumer.

___________________

Advocating no regulations for "Wall Street", i.e. banks, is like advocating no traffic laws for the roads. After all, we need "free traffic".

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ******** but I think people should be able to set their own prices, set up monopolies, or say how much a dollar is worth.

um, people ARE able to set their own prices or say how much a dollar is worth

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ******** exactly! Makes for better drivers.. makes for a better economy.

Makes for lots of dead people and an oligarchy of an economy.

quote:

I do think there should be regulating laws to protect society from abuse. Eg. Things like fraud would still be illegal, much like dumping a barrel of toxic waste in the water supply would be illegal.

How about a financial institution becoming so big that its failure would destroy the financial system?

quote:

but I think people should be able to set their own prices, or say how much a dollar is worth.

Isn't that what the market does?

quote:

set up monopolies,

Which is the natural outcome of unrestrained capitalism, or rather, coercive monopolies. I have a feeling you really don't truly know the results of a coercive monopoly, otherwise you wouldn't be okay with their existence. Luckily, countries in the EU and USA, have anti-trust laws to prevent such exploitation.

quote:

People who trust someone with their money and then that person gives it to someone else should realize there is risk involved, not come crying to the government when they don't get it back. The least it would be is fruad or someone who knowingly took a risk and lost. Government shouldn't be there to bail these people out. And I personally know people who lost a lot due to the market collapse. So I know how hard it hits them and how it effects not only their lives now but their future. Fact is though the government really doesn't do anything to help, on the contrary it gives grounds for some of these banks to comit what would otherwise be fraud, and that isn't right. While I think they should be able to operate freely where not criminal..

Would be true for the average Joe or even a millionaire, but when an institution with over $1 trillion in assets and liabilities is about to go insolvent, yes they cry to the government, and yes we better bail them out because basically they have a financial gun pointed to our head. The remedy to this situation isn't to get rid of all the rules.

quote:

I don't think there is a need to regulate these industries beyond the law of the citizen equal and free in equality.

Obviously this is nonsense, a form of anarcho-capitalism. No less idealistic than Stalinist communism.

quote:

All men are created equal and so should their businesses.

This is a fundamental problem of capitalism. Corporations are viewed by law as "people". "People" with far more wealth, of which can buy influence, than any one real person could ever have. It just simply isn't fair, and results in a government beholden to corporations rather than the electorate.

___________________

I love how people who complain about monopolies always have a solution that involves giving more power and influence to the ultimate monopoly..the only entity with a true legal right to use coercion, force, fraud, and physical violence.

So apparently, you have no problem with coercive monopolies?

___________________

coercion implies the threat of violence krypt. What institution has the legal monopoly on this? Market monopolies don't become coercive until they buy politicians. Your anger should be focused on a government that can be bought...a government big enough to grant favors and subsidies to some groups at the expense of others. If politicians were tied and bound with the chains of the constitution, there would be little point in companies trying to buy them would there?

Last edited by Capitalizt on Oct-27-2009 at 19:54