Conquer Club

joecoolfrog wrote:He doesn't know what totalitarian means does he

No, he doesn't, and he also can't spell "Keynesian".

flashleg8 wrote:What is your definition of "Capitalism"?

Capitalism has nothing to do with the current brand or shade of Government. It is the economic system used.
If you cannot see the "lassiez-faire" politics of the 19th century constitutional monarchy Britain as capitalist then you are mistaken. The industrial revolution was born in this system and sparked the capitalist world we live in today.
What about modern day Britain? Not a republic. Or the right wing juntas in South America? Not republics. Free market? What about Saudi Arabia or UAE. Cant get a freer market than that. You want to say to them they are not capitalist?
Wake up.

I've got a definition for irony:

Ernesto Che Guevara's image is under copyright...

GabonX wrote:

Rocketry wrote:Gordon Brown and I find "Third Way Economics" agreeable.

Rocket.

If Gordon Brown told me the Sun rises in the East I'd get up early to check..

What are these "Third Way Economics?"

It's an economy somewhere between the extremes of socialism and capitalism. Blairs famous phrase: "Equal competition of unequal positions in society" pretty much sums it up. Poor people are given a house and an education and then allowed to go ahead and make something of their life by themselves.

Its due to Third Way Economics that we have had an paralleled period of prosperity right across the globe. No more boom/bust...

Rocket.

Iz Man wrote:

flashleg8 wrote:What is your definition of "Capitalism"?

Capitalism has nothing to do with the current brand or shade of Government. It is the economic system used.
If you cannot see the "lassiez-faire" politics of the 19th century constitutional monarchy Britain as capitalist then you are mistaken. The industrial revolution was born in this system and sparked the capitalist world we live in today.
What about modern day Britain? Not a republic. Or the right wing juntas in South America? Not republics. Free market? What about Saudi Arabia or UAE. Cant get a freer market than that. You want to say to them they are not capitalist?
Wake up.

I've got a definition for irony:

Ernesto Che Guevara's image is under copyright...

As is the song "Happy Birthday", I hear Time Warner makes 1% of its revenues of that song alone.

ben79 wrote: Mines, forest, electricity, water, all of that should be property of the governement ( and by governement i mean democracy elected governement ) so that means good jobs for the people.and all the money they make should invested in the country

Without getting into the rest of your comment, i wanted to say that some sort of control of natural resources is necessary. The US shows why. There is a very good reason why there is now so much controversy over logging on the National Forests. Namely, because that is where most of the timber lies. This is a complicated history, for sure. A lot of that has been federal land from the beginning, held in reserve and only logged on a large scale after WWII and the impending need for timber resources to build houses for all the returning soldiers.

However, here is the thing. The profit margin on most timber land is often less than 2%. (that's an old figure, but I believe it still holds roughly true). Across millions of acres, that is a big enough profit to make many people rich. Other parts of the system inherently punish the small volume timber holder. They have historically been taxed every year a portion of the cut they could take -- whether they actually cut or not -- this means that people who hold timber and are not wealthy are essentially forced to cut in order to pay those taxes. Biologically, that has serious impacts. While some species need large tracts of land, others need strings of "islands" that essentially allow them to migrate and move across large territories, without necessitating huge tracts be left "unspoiled". (I am greatly simplifying here, but what I say is true)

Add in to that different biologies of various timber types. Out west, you have Dug fir, a "pioneer" species that regenerates (young grow), in wich seedling thrive best in open, cut land. Out east here, you have hradwoods that are both higher value AND a mixture of species that is not well suited to massive clear-cutting. The best economic benefit is gained by taking out first the largest timber, waiting and letting the remaining trees grow a bit, then harvesting them. Finally, a third and sometimes fourth entry are when the land is finally "cleared".. only on a FAR, FAR smaller scale than out west. (tens of acres, not hundreds)

The problem is that a minor economic swing is all it take to throw this into an unprofitable spiral. Entire segments of the industry have already collapsed out west because what could be cut readily has already been cut and what little remains has become biologically more important than the profit that would be gained by cutting it. For our country/the world as a whole, but NOT, of course for the timber companies. So, that is where the government has a legitimate purpose... to maintain and keep land going, keep it in forest until such a time in the future as it is needed, can be SUSTAINABLY harvested.

Understand, I am not saying there is NO logging out west or NO timber that should be cut. I am saying it has been vastly reduced because the profit motive caused, forced, timber companies to cut far more than the biology could allow. They cut in a manner that everyone (behind close doors, at least) acknowledges is simply unsustainable.

AND, no matter the "hew and cry" about lost timber jobs ... the reality is that even if the companies were allowed to go out, whole hog and log at rates seen in the past, it would, at best, add afew more years and ensure a COMPLETE collapse.. as opposed to the near complete collapse we are facing now.


Mining is another "special case". Our US laws regulating mining predominantly stem from the 1800's ... back when the idea was to go out and "develope" land, get as many minerals as possible to fuel industry and expansion. There are very, very few limits on how someone who owns those rights can extract them. Your house, your farm ... all you own is of no importance, legally compared to the "imperative" to get those minerals out! This makes little economic sense any longer and makes even less sense ecologically. Companies should, at the very least, be required to pay for every bit of damage they do to someone else's property. Further, they should have to pay US, the people royalties instead of the reverse. If it does not then, pay to take out those minerals... then it is best to wait until it does make economic sense, until either the technology OR economic need has shifted to make it profitable WITH all the required protections. Until then.. mining is nothing more than raping the land, stealing from the future for a little profit today.

Iz Man wrote:I've got a definition for irony:

Ernesto Che Guevara's image is under copyright...

No its not. If you are refering to the famous "Guerrillero Heroico" photograph by Korda then yes of course copyright exists on the photograph as it would on all others. As a lifelong communist and supporter of the revolution Korda did not claime payment for the photograph or royalties.

flashleg8 wrote: And as for your ridiculous assertion of the food production just take a look at what the rapid industrialisation and modernisation of agriculture achieved.

YES! Let's!

California, which for the past several decades has produced enough agriculture to rank, had it been an independent nation, fifth in the WORLD! Yet... drive up I-5 or even 101 and you see not the acres and acres of agriculture you used to see, but houses. Houses set on what was some of the best agricultural land in the WORLD! Drive around Sacramento, Lodi, Stockton... all over the old Delta and you see permanent levis and cannals in areas that used to flood every year. Floods that were often not welcomed, but that people also understood caused the fertility in the land.

Drive down south and you see more and more land desertified, now heavy with salts and unlikely to grow anything decent for a VERY long time .. unless very expensive measure are taken. Look at the water. Cadillac desert talked about one side of it. The people use. However, if you went back a few generations the methods that were used were not as productive in sheer raw yearly output, BUT they were sustainable. No one tried to grow tropical, water-loving plants in the desert. They grew desert plants in the desert! Of course, some of that his mute because much of that land is also covered with houses and subdivisions and neatly manicured golf courses.

Look at India. People were encouraged to buy hybrid seeds from seed companies. "Better production", they were told. It was even true... for a while. Of course, you had to also buy this expensive fertilizer, had to go into debt to buy it. AND, this was further enhanced by World Monetary fund policies in many cases. (not to mention a dose of corruption, etc. Before long, instead of being poor farmers who did not get rich, but who got by, they became poor, indebted people who could not get by at all. And, "of course" it was all their fault ,... they just "did not know how to farm".... never mind that they had persisted in the same way for generations.


ETC.

I will stop there, but the truth is I could go on about the midwest, the southern US, Mexico, Africa .... etc. Each has a slightly different tale, each slightly different reasons for failure. Yet, it all gets down to the same thing. Heavily industrialized, "modern" agriculture is just not sustainable. And agriculture is definitely NOT "just another industry".

Yes, let's look at the result of all this mechanization!

jonesthecurl wrote:Most countries have a mixed economy.
The question is, what should the state regulate/actually do, and what should be left mainly to "market forces".?
I think (prove me wrong, I'm sure someone will) that the modern state has a duty to protect its citizens from crime, from foreign aggression, and a duty to ensure that its citizens are adequately educated.
Anyone want to remove anything from that list?
Anyone think of any other non-controversial additions?

I would add another, as explained in my previous 2 posts, though I would hardly call it uncontroversial.

Specifically government HAS to have some control over land use. One widget is little different from another. You can, more or less, build a factory anywhere... providing you have access to resources (but "access" does not necessarily mean they have to be located nearby... there just has to be an economic transport system).

LAND, however is not exchangeable. The delta region of the San Joaduin is not the same as the Rocky Mountain Plateau. You cannot simply insulate a farm to ward off cold the way you can a building. You cannot simply dump fertilizer ad infinitum (people try ... and we now see it does not work well). One area is great for Dug Fir. Another better for Red Cherry. They are NOT the same, not equal. Attempting to make them "equal" just does not work.

Now, yes, you can use douglas fir for some of the same things you can use cherry for.. not necessarily well or the best way to use those things, but it can be done. However, there is a limit. You can certainly use high grade cherry to make timber framing. BUT, you cannot use Douglas fir to create lasting tables and chairs like you can with cherry.

I won't get into a whole bio/forestry/natural resource use lesson here, BUT the thing is that these needs and demands and uses are SET.. FOREVER. Allowing a timber stand to turn into a suburb is a permanent, essentially irreversable move. Those wonderful farmlands of the San Joaquin delta will NEVER (not for a VERY long time and/or with a LOT of expense, any way) become farmland again now that they are suburbs. Was that REALLY the best use of that land? REALLY?

Yet, when the "market" is allowed to decide, that is exactly what happens. People want to have nice gardens, so they will pay more for propery on nice fertile ground than out in dry, hardpacked red earth that has to be fertilized and tended. They don't want to drive far... but DO want those nice individual gardens (as opposed to an apartment) and kid's playgrounds.. so they buy in a nearby suburb, even if it was once the best producing tract of land in the area... perhaps the country. My grandmother spoke of seeing acres of wonderful vegetables and all sorts of crops. Now there are houses. Ironically, what were once nice, shiney new houses are now often run-down slums. That once "so badly needed" land for houses is not an "eyesore", "blight". Folks would like to see it gone, but it will NOT go back to being farm land.

THAT is where economics, capitalism and all these wonderful ideas about letting the market decide simply fail... flat out fail . And our failure to realize and accept that as fully as we ought are a big reason for the current collapse.

WE need a sustainable economy, not unlimited growth.

After reading this thread, it is apparant to me that the reason why we get terrible weather in the UK is because of capitalism.

flashleg8 wrote:

Iz Man wrote:I've got a definition for irony:
Ernesto Che Guevara's image is under copyright...

No its not. If you are refering to the famous "Guerrillero Heroico" photograph by Korda then yes of course copyright exists on the photograph as it would on all others. As a lifelong communist and supporter of the revolution Korda did not claime payment for the photograph or royalties.

Initially, no; but now yes.
It is the Korda image you (and I) refer to that made Che (in)famous...
That’s how Castro and his revolutionary regime wanted it. Castro was eager to use Che to project project an image of Cuba internationally. Fidel saw that the imagery inspired by Che and his martyrdom could be used to symbolize the Cuban revolution. Obviously discounting the fact he was basically an executioner...
So here comes the conflict:
For ideological reasons, the socialist regime did not want to "stoop" to embrace copyright or trademark law, an evil capitalist tool. So for several decades after the Cuban revolution, no artists there could avail themselves of copyright or trademark law. Now because Che’s image was freely available, anyone in the world could use it for their own purposes. Che became a public-domain revolutionary brand.
Then the Cold War ended, and Cuba saw virtues in joining the World Trade Organization and embracing its rules for intellectual property.
Enter the irony:
Korda sued companies for unauthorized uses of his photo of Che. In 2001, he won a judgment against the Lowe Lintas advertising agency, which had used the Che image in a Smirnoff vodka advertisement.
Now to be fair, he donated the proceeds of his victory to a Havana children’s hospital.
When Korda died, his daughter (Diana Diaz) inherited everything, including his trademarks.
Not only has she sued t-shirt companies, burger chains, and perfume makers; she has sold the rights to the Che image to foreign vendors of Che-themed merchandise. Resulting in new revenue streams.... LOTS of revenue...
How seriously can anyone take an image that is sold on millions of Zippo lighters, but is prohibited on posters protesting Cuba’s imprisonment of journalists. (Diaz shut down this use of the Che image by the nonprofit group, Reporters Without Frontiers.)

In the interest of full disclosure, I have paraphrased some of what I wrote above (italics) from an article written by a noted Massachusetts lefty "journalist"; but it gets the point across.
The point being that capitalism triumphed, after all. Che, the symbol for Latin Communism, has been reduced to a brand image, a kitschy icon for selling a product. An avatar, if you will...

Intellectual property, copyright and patents in general are, at least in their current form, extremely damaging to the economy as a whole, prevent innovation and curtail the rights of the individual.

MeDeFe wrote:Intellectual property, copyright and patents in general are, at least in their current form, extremely damaging to the economy as a whole, prevent innovation and curtail the rights of the individual.

yet when they arent followed, they end up manifesting as real problems both economically and in terms of foreign policy as many western mulitnationals are finding out in their dealings with Asian countries.

captain.crazy wrote:

Neoteny wrote:

captain.crazy wrote:Individualism sparks creativity, and a far more beautiful world. In a collective society, you are simply a cog, and indispensable.

Beautiful for the more creative, and f*ck the less fortunate?

You make conservative capitalists out to be heartless. In fact, they are more charitable with the money that they earn than are liberals, at least, that has been my experience.

Why are they?

for what its worth, there are a few different metrics for how charitable a country is, and in some of them the US performs very well, in others not as impressive. Either way one would expect that the wealthy of the US would have the opportunity to be very charitable considering they wealthy of the US are obviously amongst the very top of the affluent in the world.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

flashleg8 wrote: And as for your ridiculous assertion of the food production just take a look at what the rapid industrialisation and modernisation of agriculture achieved.

YES! Let's!

[...]

ETC.

I will stop there, but the truth is I could go on about the midwest, the southern US, Mexico, Africa .... etc. Each has a slightly different tale, each slightly different reasons for failure. Yet, it all gets down to the same thing. Heavily industrialized, "modern" agriculture is just not sustainable. And agriculture is definitely NOT "just another industry".

Yes, let's look at the result of all this mechanization!

I don't actually disagree with your post. Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I meant that the modernisation of agriculture in the Soviet Union vastly increased food production from the previous serf agriculture. I do agree with you that some modern agricultural methods have been detrimental to the environment and your Indian example was a good one of how modernisation must be planned and controlled to benift not just the economy and production levels but the farmers and the environment.

Light socialism with full democracy intact could be good, but it will only work once humanity becomes less dependant on money and gets an abundance of resources and energy.
We need to use capitalism as a vehicle to get to the level where a slight libertarian and fully realised democratic socialism is realistic. (even non-democratic China´s current policy is admitting that capitalism is the vehicle needed for advancing socialism)
First up is space solar energy http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/552.pdf
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/550.pdf
then we need to start mining and get water from near earth asteroids and of course find a cheap way to desalinate water on earth.
Almost half of the people of my liliput country votes for parties based on socialist ideas.. I´m not one of them (slightly to the right) but ask me in 200 years and I might be a 100% convinced socialist. The reason a democratic socialism light kind of worked in Sweden for such a long time is because we had a strong industry, plenty of resources and an abundance of clean water.

in other words: Capitalism and science is the proper road to socialism.

..arguing about the history of socialism and capitalism and how they have failed instead of why is a hole in the head.

snufkin wrote:Light socialism with full democracy intact could be good, but it will only work once humanity becomes less dependant on money and gets an abundance of resources and energy.
We need to use capitalism as a vehicle to get to the level where a slight libertarian and fully realised democratic socialism is realistic. (even non-democratic China´s current policy is admitting that capitalism is the vehicle needed for advancing socialism)
First up is space solar energy http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/552.pdf
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/550.pdf
then we need to start mining and get water from near earth asteroids and of course find a cheap way to desalinate water on earth.
Almost half of the people of my liliput country votes for parties based on socialist ideas.. I´m not one of them (slightly to the right) but ask me in 200 years and I might be a 100% convinced socialist. The reason a democratic socialism light kind of worked in Sweden for such a long time is because we had a strong industry, plenty of resources and an abundance of clean water.

in other words: Capitalism and science is the proper road to socialism.

..arguing about the history of socialism and capitalism and how they have failed instead of why is a hole in the head.

Wait a minute!

Capitalism INCREASES resources? You will have to explain that one!

That is true only when there are resources "out there" ready to exploit. That has been the case for much of US history, but is no longer very true.

Your ideas of getting things from space might work .. eventually. However, unless we find another planet with life, we won't find the most basic resource we need right now... oil. Until we have a viable alternative to petroleum, we won't go far. Bush neatly curtailed a lot of serious research into energy alternatives.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Capitalism INCREASES resources? You will have to explain that one!

That is true only when there are resources "out there" ready to exploit. That has been the case for much of US history, but is no longer very true.

You are pretty much answering your own question.. there are resources out there to exploit and it will be technologically and economically feasible (as in possible to make a profit from) - I mentioned SSP (starting in 50-70 years perhaps earlier?) and mining near earth asteroids (in a 100 years?) as early steps.. we just need the technology and lack of technological advancement is NOT one of the major problems of western world capitalism.

Your ideas of getting things from space might work .. eventually. However, unless we find another planet with life, we won't find the most basic resource we need right now... oil.

I´m not talking about right now.. oil wont be an option in a hundred years anyway, and mining planets is too far away into the future. Water is certainly a more basic resource.. It can even be used for travelling in space, the big problem with space travel is getting off planets. We need a carbon nanotube beanstalk for that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator

http://spacesolarpower.wordpress.com/20 ... lar-power/

Americans should urge Obama to invest in SSP even if the secret motive isn´t socialism

snufkin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Capitalism INCREASES resources? You will have to explain that one!

That is true only when there are resources "out there" ready to exploit. That has been the case for much of US history, but is no longer very true.

You are pretty much answering your own question.. there are resources out there to exploit and it will be technologically and economically feasible (as in possible to make a profit from) - I mentioned SSP (starting in 50-70 years perhaps earlier?) and mining near earth asteroids (in a 100 years?) as early steps.. we just need the technology and lack of technological advancement is NOT one of the major problems of western world capitalism.

Your ideas of getting things from space might work .. eventually. However, unless we find another planet with life, we won't find the most basic resource we need right now... oil.

I´m not talking about right now.. oil wont be an option in a hundred years anyway, and mining planets is too far away into the future. Water is certainly a more basic resource.. It can even be used for travelling in space, the big problem with space travel is getting off planets. We need a carbon nanotube beanstalk for that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator

http://spacesolarpower.wordpress.com/20 ... lar-power/

Americans should urge Obama to invest in SSP even if the secret motive isn´t socialism

Sorry, but water is a limited resource, too. Just because it seems to sit there doesn't mean its useless. Ask any fisherman, any farmer ... etc.
And water alone is not yet fuel and won't be for a very long time.


You forget two VERY big factors in this whole "throw money at it and it will get fixed" scenarios.

#1 EDUCATION.. particularly science wich is very neatly being eroded as we speak.

#2 RESOURCES ..which are not, here on earth in unlimited supply and readily accessible to all now. Where they are means huge expense.. not just money, but ecological and economic (as in damaging to those living and working in those areas who will be effectively displaced with little or no compensation .. or wish they were displaced).

captain.crazy wrote:

Neoteny wrote:

captain.crazy wrote:Individualism sparks creativity, and a far more beautiful world. In a collective society, you are simply a cog, and indispensable.

Beautiful for the more creative, and f*ck the less fortunate?

You make conservative capitalists out to be heartless. In fact, they are more charitable with the money that they earn than are liberals, at least, that has been my experience.

Funny, my experience is just the opposite. In fact, most of the liberals I knew growing up were pretty darned wealthy... and they were the ones passing out scholarships, donating various things.

Only ... you might not know it, because THEY did it "behind the scenes", quietly. Locals all knew.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

captain.crazy wrote:

Neoteny wrote:

captain.crazy wrote:Individualism sparks creativity, and a far more beautiful world. In a collective society, you are simply a cog, and indispensable.

Beautiful for the more creative, and f*ck the less fortunate?

You make conservative capitalists out to be heartless. In fact, they are more charitable with the money that they earn than are liberals, at least, that has been my experience.

Funny, my experience is just the opposite. In fact, most of the liberals I knew growing up were pretty darned wealthy... and they were the ones passing out scholarships, donating various things.

Only ... you might not know it, because THEY did it "behind the scenes", quietly. Locals all knew.

In my experiences, it is that of captain. crazy's. The liberals I have seen turn their noses up at donation boxes (money, canned food, etc) and tell conservatives that they are idiots or bigoted. The conservatives actually contribute to donation boxes, fund scholarships, and donate(d) to causes and hospitals.

Well, in my anecdote, conservatives are assholes.

Sorry it is a scientific fact that radical liberals have more joyful sex, give more time and money to community work, are devoted to their families more determinedly than others, and love their country more than any other group.

It's true. I can orgasm for at least eight hours. That's how liberal I am.

Yes, and our partners go many more times than that.