24 Nov 12
Originally posted by SoothfastPrecisely the type of ideological drivel I expected. The difference between those ideas and yours is that they were new and revolutionary. Your ideas are old and proven - proven to fail.
Well, yeah, that is kind of what separates rational beings from animals. It's the wishers and dreamers who gave us the U.S. Constitution, which you profess to hold dear. It's the wishers and dreamers who ultimately compelled amendments to the Constitution which abolished slavery and gave women the vote. Such strivings to elevate the human condition abov ...[text shortened]... of endless growth and ever-increasing consumption. You are the real dreamer of fantasy.
If you want to see where your ideas take us, you need look only to Europe. It's crumbling. Why do you wish to repeat their failure here?
24 Nov 12
Originally posted by normbenignInstead of having masses of people unemployed around the world, it would be far preferable for agriculture to be smaller scale, less capital intensive and more labor intensive. Society would be much better off having more people working on farms than being unemployed. But our idiot economists tell us that it wouldn't be "efficient." The almost complete disconnect between the general populace and the growing of food has had enormous impacts on both society and the ecosystem, few of which are good.
Perhaps you'ld like to regress to the late 19th century when around 80% of the population was employed in agriculture, compared to about 2% these days.
Industrialized agriculture isn't the colossal disaster you portray. Sure there are problems, but more of them have been solved or improved that worsened.
Your assessment of industrialized agriculture is completely misinformed. I'll quote a few of the liabilities (from Wikipedia):
Economic liabilities for industrial agriculture include the dependence on finite non-renewable fossil fuel energy resources, as an input in farm mechanization (equipment, machinery), for food processing and transportation, and as an input in agricultural chemicals. A future increase in energy prices as projected by the International Energy Agency is therefore expected to result in increase in food prices; and there is therefore a need to 'de-couple' non-renewable energy usage from agricultural production. Other liabilities include peak phosphate as finite phosphate reserves are currently a key input into chemical fertilizer for industrial agriculture.
Industrial agriculture uses huge amounts of water, energy, and industrial chemicals; increasing pollution in the arable land, usable water and atmosphere. Herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers, and animal waste products are accumulating in ground and surface waters. "Many of the negative effects of industrial agriculture are remote from fields and farms. Nitrogen compounds from the Midwest, for example, travel down the Mississippi to degrade coastal fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico. But other adverse effects are showing up within agricultural production systems -- for example, the rapidly developing resistance among pests is rendering our arsenal of herbicides and insecticides increasingly ineffective." Chemicals used in industrial agriculture, as well as the practice of monoculture, have also been implicated in Colony Collapse Disorder which has led to a collapse in bee populations. Agricultural production is highly dependent on bee pollination to pollinate many varieties of plants, fruits and vegetables.
None of these things have been solved or are improving. None. They are all getting worse. Whether or not you believe it, it's only a matter of time before the system starts collapsing.
24 Nov 12
Originally posted by sasquatch672I don't see Europe as "crumbling," and anyway right-wingers should not be allowed free license to point to Europe as "crumbling," while at the same time holding the U.S. model up as superior somehow, and then, in the next breath, bemoan that the U.S. is "crumbling" also. The last two premises are in conflict, and the first factually false.
Precisely the type of ideological drivel I expected. The difference between those ideas and yours is that they were new and revolutionary. Your ideas are old and proven - proven to fail.
If you want to see where your ideas take us, you need look only to Europe. It's crumbling. Why do you wish to repeat their failure here?
24 Nov 12
Originally posted by SoothfastParts of Europe certainly are, and to the extent that the US seems dedicated to emulating Europe it could be argued that our demise will follow theirs.
I don't see Europe as "crumbling," and anyway right-wingers should not be allowed free license to point to Europe as "crumbling," while at the same time holding the U.S. model up as superior somehow, and then, in the next breath, bemoan that the U.S. is "crumbling" also. The last two premises are in conflict, and the first factually false.
24 Nov 12
Originally posted by sasquatch672Despite all your semi-coherent rambling, Europe and the US have almost identical systems. A globalized neo-liberal consumerist economy, with the same unsustainable agricultural systems. Your much ballyhooed differences between us and them are mere window dressing.
Precisely the type of ideological drivel I expected. The difference between those ideas and yours is that they were new and revolutionary. Your ideas are old and proven - proven to fail.
If you want to see where your ideas take us, you need look only to Europe. It's crumbling. Why do you wish to repeat their failure here?
24 Nov 12
Originally posted by normbenignThe infrastructure in the U.S. is "crumbling".
Parts of Europe certainly are, and to the extent that the US seems dedicated to emulating Europe it could be argued that our demise will follow theirs.
The voting system in the U.S. is "crumbling".
The housing market in the U.S. has "crumbled," with certain states of the U.S. in dire straits on a par with Greece or Spain.
So one could say that "parts of the U.S." are "certainly crumbling" also. WTF is your point? Other parts of Europe are doing fine and dandy, as are certain parts of the U.S. It's just the way reality works: not black, not white. Kaum zu glauben.
24 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by SoothfastYou're closer to the truth than you think. To the extent that America has an awful lot of people who want to drive us over the same cliff Europe is about to careen over, yes. We are the same. Lucky for America there are still people like me, normbenign, & sh76 out there beating Liberals about the head for their failure to see our future.
I don't see Europe as "crumbling," and anyway right-wingers should not be allowed free license to point to Europe as "crumbling," while at the same time holding the U.S. model up as superior somehow, and then, in the next breath, bemoan that the U.S. is "crumbling" also. The last two premises are in conflict, and the first factually false.
Don't you worry there, Libbos, we'll handle this. Once you guys see the error of your ways in 2014, you'll be begging us to take the country back.
24 Nov 12
Originally posted by sasquatch672Europe is crumbling? Thanks for the heads up, I'd better get out of here then.
Precisely the type of ideological drivel I expected. The difference between those ideas and yours is that they were new and revolutionary. Your ideas are old and proven - proven to fail.
If you want to see where your ideas take us, you need look only to Europe. It's crumbling. Why do you wish to repeat their failure here?
24 Nov 12
Originally posted by rwingettNo, actually it wouldn't. It is far better to simply pay people an unemployment wage than to pay them to do something so ridiculously inefficient. Your suggestion is equivalent to instead of paying the unemployed a subsistence allowance to live in cities, instead, ship them off to the most expensive place in the world, say Antarctica, and pay them enough to live there instead.
Society would be much better off having more people working on farms than being unemployed.
You are not proposing that more be produced by them. In fact you are proposing that they be essentially unproductive. But you make them unproductive in an expensive part of the world (rural areas). All because you don't have the political will to pay unemployment benefits, or even better, create productive jobs.
- Joined
- 06 Aug 07
- Moves
- 8299
24 Nov 12
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI don't think he's done a lot of traveling outside of the USA. If he did he would realize the it is the USA that is slowly deteriorating - due to the fact that we have been slowly turning away from true capitalism and have favored a crony capitalist system where some of the filthy rich have influenced the government to the extent where their interests have "trumped" the interests of the nation at large.
Europe is crumbling? Thanks for the heads up, I'd better get out of here then.
24 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by kbear1k"True" capitalism must inevitably lead to crony capitalism, because capital (and wealth in general) eventually becomes concentrated enough in the hands of an elite few to enable those few to effectively "buy" the government and use it as a tool to facilitate the accumulation of even more wealth and capital. This is one way government gets "big," another being the welfare state that people demand be put in place to attempt to rectify some of the wounds capitalism inflicts on the poor.
I don't think he's done a lot of traveling outside of the USA. If he did he would realize the it is the USA that is slowly deteriorating - due to the fact that we have been slowly turning away from true capitalism and have favored a crony capitalist system where some of the filthy rich have influenced the government to the extent where their interests have "trumped" the interests of the nation at large.
24 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadWould you rather have a society where 80% of the people work at 100% technological efficiency, with 20% of the people being paid for the lack of work, or a society where 100% of the people work at 80% technological efficiency? As long as each model produces an equal number of goods, I say the latter would result in a much healthier society, and therefore be greatly preferable.
No, actually it wouldn't. It is far better to simply pay people an unemployment wage than to pay them to do something so ridiculously inefficient. Your suggestion is equivalent to instead of paying the unemployed a subsistence allowance to live in cities, instead, ship them off to the most expensive place in the world, say Antarctica, and pay them enough have the political will to pay unemployment benefits, or even better, create productive jobs.
But of course it's an unnecessary choice. We could build a society where technology does not displace a percentage of the workforce. Our technological prowess could reduce the number of hours everybody needs to work, instead of reducing the number of workers needed. But because our means of production are privately owned, instead of being socially owned, we don't do that.
And as a sop to your cherished cities, we wouldn't even need people to go anywhere else at all. We could implement a program of vertical farming and rooftop farming within the cities themselves. Cities can provide a greater amount of the food they consume within the city itself. Havana, during Cuba's "special period" saw a boom in small scale urban farming that, I think, is a perfect example of a low tech, decentralized approach that I favor. And because they didn't have access to fossil fuels during that period, they were even de facto organic farms. What could be better?
24 Nov 12
Originally posted by SoothfastYou should pick up a newspaper sometime. I call mass civil unrest in one European capital, 25% unemployment in Europe's fourth-largest economy, and open discussion of the dissolution of the euro crumbling. So does the liberal-leaning Economist.
I don't see Europe as "crumbling," and anyway right-wingers should not be allowed free license to point to Europe as "crumbling," while at the same time holding the U.S. model up as superior somehow, and then, in the next breath, bemoan that the U.S. is "crumbling" also. The last two premises are in conflict, and the first factually false.