Global Warming - Fact or fiction?

[warmi]

I swear Sinbad has something against capitalism and I don't really get it.

Capitalism is GOOD for it is THE ONLY force that creates wealth - anything else ( "free" health-care, benefits, whatever ) is a way to spend the money that has been created in the first place by guess whom ...

What does it mean to be more ruthlessly capitalist ? You mean forgoing profits to keep someone employed , to spend more on benefits ?

Those things are "cool" but ultimately every $ spent on them is $ not spend on investing in the company ( consequently hiring new people, providing more jobs).
There is a reason why EU has chronically suffered from a higher unemployment levels than US and why US tends to draw the best and the brightest from around the world.

The role of a company or business is not to provide jobs and benefits but to generate profits.
If it doesn’t do that then nothing else matters.

“it's really not always about the money, in my experienceâ€

[syedhs]

On capitalism thingy.. you should ask yourself this question:

The way the world is leading to will produce more billionaires and more homeless too - do you want this to happen? Yes, I feel bad whenever the number of billionaires keep growing and growing. Maybe news like this will keep us pondering in the right direction.

Okay obviously OT, so unless if there is any new interesting point...

[CABAListic]

You know what the problem is with capitalism? - that it is mathematically unsound. Capitalism is the force which keeps telling us (here in Germany, anyway) that we need a *growing* economy to *keep* the jobs we have. Not create new jobs, no no. That would need even more growth. That's going so far that a growth of about 1% is already considered weak.
Mow mind you, a 1% growth still represents exponential growth, and you know where that leads, don't you. Problem is, we live in a closed environment, so this is a no go. Ergo, a stable economy would need to have exactly 0% growth - with some fluctuation of course, old businesses die, new ones arrive.

But that's the thing capitalism cannot provide. It's that driving force which deems a business unprofitable if it doesn't produce a certain profit margin. Doesn't a business where cost and profit match do its job? It keeps its employees fed and it fills a certain need of its customers.

You know, my single biggest problem with capitalism (and in my view the cause of much of the above mentioned problems) is the fact that money of itself can produce money. Money stored in a bank yields interests (again, exponentially...). Even more so do speculations on the stock market. Well, of course it's not *that* easy, but it's still a major misconception in my eyes that the more money you have, the more you can get just with investing money.

[warmi]

"The way the world is leading to will produce more billionaires and more homeless too"

Really ? So being rich automatically means being an asshole?


Capitalism equals freedom for being free basically means being able to own stuff and being able to do whatever one wants to do it.
For some it is flaunting their riches and living idiotically empty lives , for others it means being able to invest all these riches in whatever cause they deem fulfilling and noble.

Of course, living in a society we do obey by a social contract, which stipulates the rules by which people advance and generally live their lives.
As long as we don't break these rules - it doesn't bother me at all how rich some of us get because it is not a zero-sum game.

"Ergo, a stable economy would need to have exactly 0% growth - with some fluctuation of course, old businesses die, new ones arrive.
"
A stable human being would need to have exactly 0% growth- that is a great recipe to go thru ones life.
Never learn anything, don't grow , just get the bare minimum to get by and you are set.
What a wonderfull world.

[CaseyB]

I don't doubt that the climate is changing. What I do take objection to is the notion that this is somehow unnatural! Think of what science says the planet was like when dinosaurs roamed. Then there was the Ice Age, then things started warming up. Eventually it will cool down again, it's a cycle! I think the problem is that we just started watching it too closely!

[CABAListic]

As long as we don't break these rules - it doesn't bother me at all how rich some of us get because it is not a zero-sum game.

Of course it is - well, not exactly zero, but constant nonetheless. Money represents a certain wealth. But it can only do so if it is matched by some sort of material wealth, because otherwise the whole thing would be meaningless. Yet, there's only so much material wealth on this planet, ergo the amount of money *is* physically limited. And if it does overstep its limits, well, that's inflation. Money's value reduces accordingly.

So, for someone to become rich, the same amount must be missing somewhere else, otherwise his wealth wouldn't be worth anything whatsoever.

A stable human being would need to have exactly 0% growth- that is a great recipe to go thru ones life.
Never learn anything, don't grow , just get the bare minimum to get by and you are set.
What a wonderfull world.

Good point - but I'm not talking about stagnation. World changes (that's what this topic is about, after all, isn't it?), and so do human needs. We all have to adapt, and so does economy. The point is that obviously new markets will render old ones obsolete, and one way or another, this must ultimately match each other.

[warmi]

"So, for someone to become rich, the same amount must be missing somewhere else, otherwise his wealth wouldn't be worth anything whatsoever."

The earth was pretty much the same 10 000 years ago .... Yet today we have advanced technology, medicine and are able to do things that would be considered pure magic by our ancestors.

What you are suggesting is true but only for societies that live of off crude and unprocessed resources ...

Humans have evolved and in the process have acquired useful and advanced brains which allow us to advance our way of living by constantly reinventing new ways to process resources which are available to us.
Someone somewhere, who is among other things driven to better his own economic outlook ,is right now working on something that will make life easier for millions of others – something that was not considered possible before.
In other words, he or she is in the process of creating wealth.

[CaseyB]

On the issue of capitalism, it is a self balancing ideal. The concept of supply vs demand and how that effects the cost of a good or service. In the US it is all about the money, but if you look at our levels of unemployment and poverty you will see they are not outrageous which would be the case if the system were as capable of spinning out of control as has been mentioned. I think that it works better here than it does in other places because it is so fully embraced, it's not the type of system that you can half-ass and wonder why it went wrong!

The reason capitalism is so strongly embraced in the US is because it plays to our sense of (and need for) personal liberty. It's the whole American Dream! That anyone, with enough work and dedication, can become wealthy and live at any level they please!

[betajaen]

It seems to me, that capitalism just creates a bigger divide between the richest and poorest class, and your born into either class and that's it. Unless your a genius or a crook, you cannot move between them.

And for the record you can have universal health-care, happiness, and a positive life - you just need cooperation. Capitalism is just a greedy shortcut.

[syedhs]

Really ? So being rich automatically means being an asshole?

I think you dont quite get the meaning I try to project - it is really the bigger picture. Hard-working people should be rewarded either in job satisfaction or wealth - make no mistake on that. But I tend to see it this way: certain people who is already rich want to be richer and richer regardless whatever and in the end, neglects the actual service rendered to the society. I am very fond of Mr Henry Ford running the business as depicted in this link. Or shall I quote the actual para:-

"I'm going to democratize the automobile," Henry Ford had said in 1909. "When I'm through, everybody will be able to afford one, and about everybody will have one." The means to this end was a continuous reduction in price. When it sold for $575 in 1912, the Model T for the first time cost less than the prevailing average annual wage in the United States. Ignoring conventional wisdom, Ford continually sacrificed profit margins to increase sales. In fact, profits per car did fall as he slashed prices from $220 in 1909 to $99 in 1914. But sales exploded, rising to 248,000 in 1913. Moreover, Ford demonstrated that a strategic, systematic lowering of prices could boost profits, as net income rose from $3 million in 1909 to $25 million in 1914. As Ford's U.S. market share rose from a respectable 9.4 percent in 1908 to a formidable 48 percent in 1914, the Model T dominated the world's leading market.

Having said that, I am soooo off topic.

Edit: Looks like everyone is 'on the same track' too, I will explain further:-

If you only care for money, then please open up a gambling centre. You will definitely see your wealth grows astronomically while the people gabbling inside are only getting poorer and poorer. The key thing is balance, and I dont see it getting better when the number of billionaires are increasing every year.

[warmi]

It seems to me, that capitalism just creates a bigger divide between the richest and poorest class, and your born into either class and that's it. Unless your a genius or a crook, you cannot move between them.

And that's probably why the percentage of first generation-millionaires ( people who came to their riches on their own ) is much higher in US than it is in Europe

Sorry but what you are suggesting is pure nonsense. Great majority of rich people ( at last in US) came to their riches from nothing - this is a verifiable fact.


You can’t change human nature – majority of people do their best when motivated by greed and that’s why capitalistic societies generally always end up on the top of evolutionary ladder.

“And for the record you can have universal health-care, happiness, and a positive life - you just need cooperation. Capitalism is just a greedy shortcut.â€

[CABAListic]

The earth was pretty much the same 10 000 years ago .... Yet today we have advanced technology, medicine and are able to do things that would be considered pure magic by our ancestors.

Yes, you are right there, and indeed I have a misconception in my previous posts in so far that while physical resources are limited, this is only a problem if we hit the limit. For example, our brain capacity isn't limited - or at least not at any limit we are likely to reach during our live.

Anyway, regarding your example, you must keep in mind human popularity which was way lower back then. Therefore, they were not hitting the limit. And where you don't hit the limit, there can be growth.

Nowadays, though, we do hit certain limits. Oil and uranium are the most perceptible, I suppose, and therefore they need to replaced by other means. Fusion reaction, hybrid motors etc. all come to mind. However, those things cannot really add to growth because at the same time the old technology is dying when it is replaced. So I guess the question is whether you can find new things which do not touch existing branches. And I think this will become increasingly more difficult, though certainly not impossible.

With that being said, I'm not convinced that capitalism is actually an ideal force to drive changes. That is, because to my perception capitalism drives to maximise profits *in the present*, not in the long run. Oil is an ideal example. We all know that it's going to be gone at some time, even though the actual time frame may vary quite a bit depending on the predictions. Yet we continue burning it at insane rates in cars, and the automobile industry is far behind in producing cars which need less fuel or use alternate means. Simply because it's not as profitable *at the moment*. Yet, oil is used for so much more than fuel. Plastic is all around us, we are short on any material which could replace it, but plastic is made of oil - in the long run it would be wise in every aspect to save oil. Why, then, isn't it?

(Ok, sorry, I guess this has to do now, after all, the topic's still about global warming.)

Edit: Oh one thing, warmi. I think you also have a misconception there - communism is *not* the opposite of capitalism, communism is the opposite of free enterprise economy. And while I do argue capitalism, I don't argue enterprise. Criticising capitalism doesn't make you communist

[CaseyB]

But I tend to see it this way: certain people who is already rich want to be richer and richer regardless whatever and in the end, neglects the actual service rendered to the society.

This is where capitalism Flourishes! If the individual is neglecting the service rendered or offering an increasingly inferior product you can go to his competition! This will cause the first guy to lose money and then either clean up his act or go out of business!

[warmi]

Anyway, regarding your example, you must keep in mind human popularity which was way lower back then. Therefore, they were not hitting the limit. And where you don't hit the limit, there can be growth.

What do you consider to be this mythical limit ? Free economy tends to balance these things by the virtue that the more scare a resource becomes the more expensive it is to use it.
That’s where capitalism comes in – at some point it will be cheaper to invest in a new technology or a new way of acquiring the same result than it will be to purchase the existing resource.
It always works that way.

That is, because to my perception capitalism drives to maximize profits *in the present*, not in the long run.

That’s right. If the only way to maximize profits is to come up with something cheaper and more efficient then there will be plenty of people willing to risk it.
Right now, the cost of oil is still way to low for that but eventually it won’t be.

Criticizing capitalism doesn't make you communist

Free enterprise economy is capitalism. You are either able to own things and maximize your profits or you are not.
Of course, there are certain things you cannot do , things that are considered uncivilized in a decent society but as long as you are following the rules, in a free society , it doesn’t matter how obscenely rich you get. If it does , then it is not a free society - it is as simple as that.

In any way , I was responding to a post where a guy was claiming that cooperation is better than capitalism. First of all, these are unrelated terms for cooperation is very much possible , regardless of economic system – people do cooperate as part of a typical corporation after all.
What he was suggesting ( I think) is that cooperation for the purpose of a some “greater goodâ€

[jjp]

I think it doesn't make any difference if global warming is caused by the human population or not. Or if it even doesn't exist at all (well, thanks to the sun aging in the very long run it's gonna get hot on earth). It's a nice and understandable story in any case that helps to make people lead their life with sustainability in mind.

Pollution has lots of effects that influence the quality and length of our lifes directly. Water and air quality come to mind, which both again influence nearly everything.

[warmi]

I think it doesn't make any difference if global warming is caused by the human population or not. Or if it even doesn't exist at all (well, thanks to the sun aging in the very long run it's gonna get hot on earth). It's a nice and understandable story in any case that helps to make people lead their life with sustainability in mind.

See, I told you guys - that sounded like a definition of a typical religion

[jjp]

See, I told you guys - that sounded like a definition of a typical religion

Well, it is not a definition of religion but a definition of something based on belief. The tooth fairy, justice, money, the stock market or mathematics are all concepts that work because we believe in them

[syedhs]

But I tend to see it this way: certain people who is already rich want to be richer and richer regardless whatever and in the end, neglects the actual service rendered to the society.

This is where capitalism Flourishes! If the individual is neglecting the service rendered or offering an increasingly inferior product you can go to his competition! This will cause the first guy to lose money and then either clean up his act or go out of business!

Actually I dont think that is capitalism - it is just pure competitiveness. I think the definition of capitalism is narrower and more specific. I am still educating myself on capitalism, but lets talk about this one scenario:

You open up a private hospital and you end up very very rich after maybe a few years of operation. So one day, an old man was brought in the ER because he suffers from stroke - something has to be done (otherwise he may be paralyze, unable to speak due to brain damage etc etc, unfortunately he doesn't have any money. So
1) would you let this poor man in?
2) And would you let 10 other similar ill-fated people in too?
3) And would you let many other poor people come in, be treated with no fee or fee which will barely cover the cost? (of course with some control)

Bare in mind, you still earn lots of money from many other finance-able patients.

[Jabberwocky]

It never ceases to amaze me, the human arrogance that allows us to believe that we can have this significant an impact on the Earth, especially in the cosmically insignificant timespan of 100 years...

I couldn't disagree with this more.

Look at humankind's impact on the ecology of the world in the last 100 years, in terms of extinct species, decimation of rainforest and other natural habitat, and pollution levels which are now measurable everywhere, from our rain to our air, to our oceans. These sorts of measurements are pretty much an exact science, whether you agree to their exact cause or not.

The argument was made that clean air is a good thing, regardless of global warming, and I agree with that point. The incidence of several human diseases (asthma is one example) have noticeably increased over recent years, and it's hard not to be suspicious of environmental causes since the gene pool hasn't radically changed. Some species of animals, frogs for example, are mysteriously dying in vast quantities - again environmental causes are hard to discount.

Humans' affect on the ecology of the world is blatant. Why then is it arrogant to believe this effect could extend to the climate of the world? Life on our planet is a very delicate web, and I think it's folly to not be concerned about the obvious impact we've had on the planet, with the rate of human population growth and continuing industrial development of vast portions of this growing population.

[Kencho]

Warmi, I'll put this simple. Capitalism creates wealth... for the richer. On the other side it makes poor people poorer. One of your loved US companies (it's mostly the same here in Europe) is having a growing benefit every year. Why? Most probably because instead of performing production in its homeland, it's employing 3rd world people to do the job, paying them far less. And the same goes for the materials. Do you really get 1 ton of aluminium costs the same in the US and Africa or South America?

So, that company is creating wealth in its homeland by taking it from the 3rd world. But wait. People is needed for the production pipeline, but they're employed outside so... what happens to the workers at its homeland? Unemployment! That is, a company is creating wealth for its owners, and taking it from everywhere else.

Don't be wrong. Capitalism just concentrates all the world's wealth around a small number of people. If you defend it so vehemently, I assume which side you are in.

About communism, it's bases are the most close to a perfect society than any other. Why does it fail? Because the rulers that have used it in their countries just use it to take more money for themselves. Capitalism != freedom, and communism either. Freedom is there, unless someone (read, a person) is there to take it away from you.

Now, onto the original topic, please.

[syedhs]

The more I look at Xavier's post, the more I am convinced beaugard is right, Xavier is running a test on us Hey Xavier, if you are not, please come down and defend your first posting.

[beaugard]

See, I told you guys - that sounded like a definition of a typical religion Smile

Actually the American brand of capitalism has a lot in common with religion. The promise of a wealthy (after) life for the masses realized by very few. The US actually has quite bad social-class mobility, at least compared to a country like Sweden, which is much less "capitalist" - almost no private education, healthcare. Still US citizens are very strong believers in social mobility.

About communism, it's bases are the most close to a perfect society than any other. Why does it fail? Because the rulers that have used it in their countries just use it to take more money for themselves.

hm. I think some aspects of human nature (not only in the rulers) also get in the way... You just can not make people work and be happy without giving some concrete reward.

[Kencho]

hm. I think some aspects of human nature (not only in the rulers) also get in the way... You just can not make people work and be happy without giving some concrete reward.

Yes, of course! There are things that won't ever change. An utopia is just... an utopia. Just saying that sharing, being responsible and having a strong commitment spirit are key for such a society to live (the same as anarchy). But when used in practice... well, you know, only the strong get to the top (by stepping on others' backs)

[beaugard]

Right. And IMO capitalism as described by the overly enthousiastic is also mostly a utopic vision.

[warmi]

Life on our planet is a very delicate web, and I think it's folly to not be concerned about the obvious impact we've had on the planet, with the rate of human population growth and continuing industrial development of vast portions of this growing population.

One could be concerned .. reasonably, without panicking and calling people to stop using toilet paper because rain forests are dying.
Or blindly agitating against genetically modified crops which have a potential to feed millions currently starving people.

Most probably because instead of performing production in its homeland, it's employing 3rd world people to do the job, paying them far less

So you would rather not move that production over there and have these people starve to death ?

So, that company is creating wealth in its homeland by taking it from the 3rd world.

No that company is providing jobs which otherwise were not available in these parts of the world.
For many of these people, the choice is between working for $2 a day for Nike or not working at all and starving.
You would rather have these people starve than suffer consequences of being “exploitedâ€