23 Mar 11
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNevermind the fact that Chavez is a complete whack job that no one would ever take seriously... But's he's completely wrong.
Capitalism may be to blame for the lack of life on Mars, Venezuela's socialist president Hugo Chavez says.
"I have always said, heard, that it would not be strange that there had been civilisation on Mars, but maybe capitalism arrived there, imperialism arrived and finished off the planet," Mr Chavez said in a speech to mark World Water Day.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/23/3171019.htm
Thoughts?
1) There's nothing inherently wasteful about about capitalism. If people want conservation then thats what capitalism provides. The markets are only a reflection of the people. If people want to waste they'll do it under any economic system.
2) There's built in methods to prevent running out of resources in capitalism. When the supply goes down prices go up and people buy less- thus conserving the resources. There's nothing like that in socialism where everything could just get used up without anyone noticing.
3) Centrally planned economies have human error because they are dependent on people making decisions. Capitalism doesnt have that problem.
4) Most likely if a society died out like that it wold be because they were socialist and either couldnt produce enough to survive or because they regressed technologically and couldnt deal with a disaster or an outside threat.
5) Am I the only person who thinks its funny that he's trying to make the fact that socialist countries cant produce enough food and water into a good thing?
As far as imperialism thats just absurd. Why does a capitalist country have to be imperialist and when has that actually happened in the real world? In reality, its socialist countries that have to overthrow the capitalist ones because they cant compete with them on a level playing field.
23 Mar 11
Originally posted by savage4731When a natural resource like water is in short supply in a country, who gets the best access to it - the people with money or the people without money? If it's the latter, do you think it's acceptable that people who already have so little then find themselves with too little water too. Is it kind of 'their own fault'? How can poor people who don't have enough water, buy less? Is there something inherent in wealthy humans that means they should have more water than poor humans?
There's built in methods to prevent running out of resources in capitalism. When the supply goes down prices go up and people buy less- thus conserving the resources.
23 Mar 11
Originally posted by FMFYeah, shortage of resources like water is a real problem. But, ecnomically speaking there's only two alternatives:
When a natural resource like water is in short supply in a country, who gets the best access to it - the people with money or the people without money? If it's the latter, do you think it's acceptable that people who already have so little then find themselves with too little water too. Is it kind of 'their own fault'? How can poor people who don't have enough w ...[text shortened]... mething inherent in wealthy humans that means they should have more water than poor humans?
Alternative #1: is a centrally planned economy. The government controls all of the water and will give it out "fairly". The only problem is that it may take awhile. People making decisions can sometimes take years to make adjustments that markets could make instantly. The people in charge will also make sure they're well taken care of as well as their friends and family amd political allies. There's also the fact that there's no mechanism for slowing it down so you could just wake up one day and not have any water. And just hope the central planner doesnt make any mistakes...
Alternative #2- is a market economy. The problems will occur more gradually because of the price increases and that will allow more time for solutions. It will also prevent hoarding to some extent. Everyone will have access to water not just the select few leaders who control lt in a planned economy. Furthermore, higher prices mean higher profits which means 1) water will be quickly distributed to the areas that need it because thats where the profits will be and 2) the high profits will encourage investment in other solutions such as desalination, purification and even getting water from other planets which means over the long term the problem could be solved.
Which sounds better to you?
Yes, the poor get the short end of the stick in both cases, but they're better off in the 2nd one. Everyone has access to the water in the market economy while only the people who are friends of politicians or are capable of influencing them do in the planned economy. The market will make instantaneous adjustments to distribute the water in the market economy while the planned economy will always lag behind as bureaucrats try to figure out whats going on. There's no mechanism to prevent us from running out in the planned economy. And lastly, there can be real solutions in the market economy because people willl work like crazy to find the solutions. There's no incentive in the centrally planned economy so the people won't ever come up with solutions as quickly. I would even add that charity is more likely in the 2nd case because its the people that control the water and not the government. And who's to say the government doesnt use the water as means to control people and/or wage wars?
23 Mar 11
1 edit
Originally posted by savage4731I'm in favour of a market economy, with certain basic protections and contingencies for market failures monitored and maintained by the mechanism of social democracy. I believe water should be a publicly owned utility because I think access to water is a right for every citizen even if they have absolutely no money at all.
Yeah, shortage of resources like water is a real problem. But, ecnomically speaking there's only two alternatives:
Alternative #1: is a centrally planned economy. The government controls all of the water and will give it out "fairly". The only problem is that it may take awhile. People making decisions can sometimes take years to make adjustments that say the government doesnt use the water as means to control people and/or wage wars?
23 Mar 11
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWell according to savage4731, economically speaking, there's ONLY two alternatives: Alternative #1: is a centrally planned economy. And Alternative #2- is a market economy.
For example, what type of society would thrive best on Mars?
23 Mar 11
Originally posted by FMFA more nuanced response can be found in Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy. Capitalism takes people to Mars; on Mars they get cured of capitalism and society becomes more 'Minoan' ...
Well according to savage4731, economically speaking, there's ONLY two alternatives: Alternative #1: is a centrally planned economy. And Alternative #2- is a market economy.
23 Mar 11
Originally posted by Bosse de NageRobert Heinlein is a SF author with a libertarian/freedom leaning, I think it was a story set on Mars he dealt with the private ownership of air.
A more nuanced response can be found in Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy. Capitalism takes people to Mars; on Mars they get cured of capitalism and society becomes more 'Minoan' ...
23 Mar 11
Originally posted by WajomaWhich reminds me of my favorite Heilein quote, and since this thread isn't going anywhere here it is:
Robert Heinlein is a SF author with a libertarian/freedom leaning, I think it was a story set on Mars he dealt with the private ownership of air.
"Love is that condition in which the happiness of another person is essential to your own..."
Yep, romantic love is as selfish as it gets.