Why not more Modern Fighting Men (and women!)? (5 Viewers)

[Canadian Samurai]

Why would our system be unable to adapt? What is your proposed alternative?
As has been pointed out earlier, democracy and capitalism have weathered far worse storms.
Being Canadian, wouldn't you be in favor of global warming? (sorry)

Capitalism, being a construct of the last three hundred years, has certainly never weathered anything like climate change or peak oil and I would argue democracy has not either. The rise of the modern standard of living in the last one hundred years, often ascribed to the merits of capitalism and democracy, has as much to do with humanity's discovery of millions of years worth of cheap solar energy locked away in oil, ready to be exploited for our benefit in an orgy of irresponsible wastefulness. Climate change is just a nasty by-product of this binge.

The converging crises of climate change, peak oil (and probably global pandemic) represent the greatest threats human civilization has ever faced. We have 6 billion people on the planet that depend on our agricultural system working flawlessly (just in time production in effect). If it falters, and it will if the climate shifts and we run low on the oil needed for farm machinery, pesticides, and global distribution, then a lot of the world is going to starve, even in rich countries, and the social order will break apart into anarchy. You can’t adapt to running out of food – not without massive population dieoff.

My proposed alternative is simply introducing capitalism to its ecological limits through a comprehensive suite of major policy tools ("cap and trade" quota systems, regulation and yes Ray, taxes). Yes, this means a lot more targeted government intervention in the market but it's in the interests of making us start to pay the full, true cost of our pollution, slow down our rate of fossil fuel depletion, and create markets for environmental protection so that entrepreneurs have an incentive to find innovative pollution reduction measures and alternative fuels. We also need to create an economy where most goods are made only when people request them rather than mass-producing them and trying to convince the public through advertising to buy things they don't need. And we need to start building a heck of a lot of nuclear power, quick.

Some sort of global environmental government is needed as well to bring some teeth to environmental enforcement to make sure single countries (be it China, India or the US) cannot free ride on the backs of others. Ray, the US is among the largest polluters in the world both in absolute terms and per capita (Canada and Australia are right up there too) so of course we will have the largest, but not necessarily most costly, reductions to make – that’s only fair to everyone else on earth who has not enjoyed the same standards of living as us for the last decades but who have also not polluted the atmosphere or depleted the oil all to heck. Regardless, we need to get over our nationalism and start working together on our little rock floating in space. On the space station do the astronauts bicker over the air because they’re Russian or American? No, they pull together because they’re all people of planet earth. Of course, a lot of these measures would actually reduce political friction in the world, by for example, getting America off foreign oil dependence.

Slowing and eventually stopping economic growth in favour of economic development (qualitative improvement of human well being) will require wrenching changes in a capitalist system founded on the assumption that the economy can continue to grow materially forever. But we have no alternative if we want to avert catastrophe. Measures like the ones I propose above will have a major effect on the economy - it won't ruin it, it will just change it into something that’s sustainable. But if our climate goes to heck and we burn through what's left of our oil overnight, then there won't be an economy anymore because everything we understand as "normal" economic conditions is based on affordable energy and a stable weather system.

Basically it means regarding these problems as seriously as we would mobilizing for war, except we have to gear down the economy instead of gearing it up. Yes, that means every citizen is going to have to make self-sacrifice and reduce their wasteful consumption of earth's remaining resources. No different than rationing during a war. Previous generations did it - why can't we?

Randy, a tax system need not be regressive. You use one tax to increase the price of oil at the pump and then you redistribute that income through lower income taxes on the bottom tax bracket. The effect is to discourage oil use while leaving the same amount of money in your pocket at the end of the day. Much of the transition in tax reform can be revenue neutral by taxing "bad" things (resource use, pollution) and reducing taxes on "good" things like income (including for the wealthy). You can also avoid this whole issue by giving everyone on earth a carbon budget separate from their income (google carbon credit cards - very interesting idea).

As for democracy, whatever alternative is proposed I think needs to ensure our leaders are properly qualified for the position they hold (meritocracy rather than our current trend toward aristocracy), that they have an incentive to think over the long term and not just the next election cycle, and that the public re-engages itself in the business of running society a lot more than just checking a box every four years between two candidates who stand for exactly the same crazy system that is causing the problems in the first place. I mean, everybody here should be on top of this very serious issue but we're not because our system encourages disengagement and laziness from current events as long as it doesn't affect our pocketbooks (which is why only economic measures that hit people there will be able to solve this crisis).

Tex, you're right, Canada will be one of the few countries to likely benefit on a whole from global warming (it will still devastate some provinces like Alberta). But I'm a citizen of the world as well, and Canada is supposed to be a moral leader which means doing our part for the rest of humanity. Right now of course our present government is towing the Bush (and former Australian) line that we, the richest countries on earth, cannot “afford” to reduce our emissions. It’s a joke really and we're letting them get away with it. Considering the links that Bush and Harper (my prime minister) have to the oil industry, they basically have a vested interest in ensuring we burn as much as possible until it is too late…

P.S. Ray, chaos theory makes predicting short term weather more difficult than medium term climate variation. For example, I can tell you New Mexico is going to start running out of water soon which will make it very difficult to live there. Same for most of the south-eastern and south-western US. As for proof, by the time we have 100% proof the catastrophes will already be happening, and climate change and oil depletion are irreversible which means we can’t reverse things to the way they were. That's why the only prudent and responsible thing to do is act now to minimize our potential maximum losses. There's a little youtube video going around that makes this point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
We’re already running on borrowed time – at most we have ten years more before it’s too late to prevent some major social and economic breakdowns (and even then, we should still take as much action as possible to minimize the effects of those).

This is the greatest challenge human kind has ever faced - but it also finally gives our generation a special purpose beyond just the mindless everyday boredom of modern consumerism.

 

[Rutledge]

Capitalism, being a construct of the last three hundred years, has certainly never weathered anything like climate change or peak oil and I would argue democracy has not either. The rise of the modern standard of living in the last one hundred years, often ascribed to the merits of capitalism and democracy, has as much to do with humanity's discovery of millions of years worth of cheap solar energy locked away in oil, ready to be exploited for our benefit in an orgy of irresponsible wastefulness. Climate change is just a nasty by-product of this binge........

Holy cow. After the collapse of the USSR, I never imagined someone would seriously argue for the imposition of the same centrally planned/communist system in the USA. Hasn’t it been less than 20 years since the Wall fell? I guess as the saying goes, “if one lives long enough….”

The converging crises of climate change, peak oil (and probably global pandemic) represent the greatest threats human civilization has ever faced.

Such hyperbole boggles the mind. How about that litte known event called WWII, in which over 70 million died? Regardless, anyone making such dire predictions is surely not spending time on a website devoted to that most “wasteful” of pursuits: toy soldier collecting!

We also need to create an economy where most goods are made only when people request them rather than mass-producing them and trying to convince the public through advertising to buy things they don't need.

I am completely perplexed by the above comment, and truly have no idea how to respond. Anyone? Bueller….Bueller….Bueller…..? However, Im sure Mr. John Gamble Will Support the Idea of a “Request-Based” System. Andy, Beware!

...chaos theory makes predicting short term weather more difficult than medium term climate variation.

The above also caused me great consternation. Maybe I’m just not smart enough. Please, what happens when the medium term climate variation is close enough to be a short term weather prediction?

You can also avoid this whole issue by giving everyone on earth a carbon budget separate from their income (google carbon credit cards - very interesting idea).

So a “personal carbon allowance”? Gonna be bad for sales of black bean soup!

 

[nmrocks]

Yes, the USSR was the first thing I thought of as well reading CS. The problem with these Utopian societies or perfect systems is they all have to be run by imperfect beings, Us, and as the quote goes "absolute power Corrupts Absolutely". I refer back to the United Nations, an institution designed for the betterment of all nations and it is one of the most corrupt and ineffective bodies ever seen.
One other thing I might add is that I believen the Capitalist system is the only hope to resolve this problem. All, and I mean All the greatest advances in technology and problem solving come from the capitalist system. If there is a fortune to be made someone will come up with it. There is a fortune to be made in alternative energy, and I in my "Unrealistic" optomism believe these technoligies will be discovered. petroleum products are a finite but plentiful resource and there is I believe no way we can pump enough oil out of the ground to meet the energy needs of the world 20 years from now with the explosion of affluence in places like China and India. Alternatives must be found and they are not here yet.
It might suprise you, but I would be in favor of a .20 cent Tax per gallon of Gas or diesel to subsidise solar energy systems installed on every home in America. For 5 years put this tax in place and any approved renewable energy system installed 80% of the cost could be taken right of the top of your taxes. That kind of injection of capital into the renewable energy sector would cause a boom that would bring the cost and availability of renewable systems way down and efficency and innovation over the top.
Ray

 

[Canadian Samurai]

I'm not even going to respond to Rutledge anymore. I'm still waiting for him to tell me when the free market by itself has solved the water shortage crisis in Atlanta (capitalism, after all, created the shortage in the first place).

Ray, I seriously don't see what is utopian about what I wrote. It's actually being depressingly realistic about our present situation because if we don't do something similar our society WILL collapse due to climate change and running out of fossil fuels. Notice I didn't say we should throw out capitalism, just that we need to make some major improvements to it, the same way Roosevelt did when it failed so spectacularly only 70 years ago during the Great Depression. When everything starts to break down the public will be screaming for changes, just like they did back in the '30s, but it would be much easier and less economically costly to implement changes now, ahead of time, before things get that bad again.

I think we're in agreement Ray re: solar panels (though we are dependent on oil for a lot more than just home electricity/heating). A tax on gasoline as you advocate has three positive effects: it generates income for the government that can be used to subsidize alternative energy or plant trees etc., it reduces demand which saves oil and cuts down on pollution, and it raises the price of oil which makes existing alternatives more competitive and it gives a price signal to the market to research more alternatives. For the market to provide something new, prices have to be right to signal a scarcity. Unfortunately oil prices are kept artificially low (and likely will be until it is too late to implement an alternative) because the government subsidizes every stage of the industry. The market also cannot provide environmental goods (clean air or a stable climate) by itself because there is no way to capture the profits from doing so (they are non-excludable, non-rival goods).

I also don't have the same absurd faith that we can simply invent something every time out of thin air to replace oil or even more absurdly, a hospitable climate. We need to be more cautious and wise than to play Russian Roulette like that. Scientists tried to create a technological bubble for humans to live in with no natural inputs called "Biosphere 2" and it failed miserably, almost killing some people. It's human arrogance to think our technology has made us into gods that can escape the limits imposed by the earth. In fact, technology usually creates two problems for every one it solves, as we are now finding out. Inventing the automobile a hundred years ago has put us in our present situation between a rock and a hard place, where our cities are all built in extremely wasteful ways that will have trouble continuing when the oil runs out. Along with inventing new sources of supply and managing the environment, we need to start thinking about managing human demand by using carrots and sticks to keep consumption within natural limits.

Finally, it’s not entirely true that ALL the greatest “advances” of modern times came from capitalism (I’m not convinced many technologies really constitute progress at all). Many like nuclear power came about during war time when the government was prepared to inject massive funding into projects that no profit-driven capitalist ever could or would. Nazi Germany (a pseudo capitalist-fascist state) gave us jet aircraft and rocket technology, to name a few. The first satellite was put up by the Soviets. The internet was invented by the military and universities. The list goes on. The market is a brilliant idea but it works best when there's perfect competition, not a few robber-barons skimming most of the profits off the top as we increasingly have now with the giant multinational corporations. That is a far more corrupt system than the U.N.

One more point: using the USSR is a straw-man argument against government intervention. First of all Russia has historically had an authoritarian tradition so as you had a dictatorship in the communist system, today you have a dictatorship in the free-market system, first under the oligarchies and now under Putin. They're not comparable to the West. Second, communism under the USSR and capitalism are actually very similar in that they are both obsessed with the goal of economic growth no matter the ecological consequences. For that reason both systems are fundamentally flawed. Finally, anyone who cares about saving the market, like I do, should be in favour of putting the breaks on our current system. Otherwise, if things break down, the public will go along with any command-and-control approach that promises salvation. Already governments are talking about banning incandescent light bulbs and then they will start wanting to ban SUVs and a whole host of other products. I'm not in favour of banning anything (except maybe carcinogenic chemicals), but I do think if people want to own them they should have to pay the full cost to society in terms of pollution, resource consumption etc. The reason we have a market system is because of its efficiency benefits, and paying the full cost of your actions is fully compatible with the idea of efficiency - in fact it's required.

 

[Tex]

CS, I understand your basic point and I agree to a limited extent on a few aspects--the need to decrease dependence on foreign oil--but I disagree with the belief that the kind of drastic political, social, and economic changes you prescribe are necessary. You also stated that in the great depression, capitalism "failed." The economic system prior to the depression was far from perfect or stable and the depression was a terrible and painful occurence, but it was not an illustration of the failure of capitalism--it recovered and continued in much the same way it had existed before, but with safety nets. There is a vital difference between a government safety net and the government controlling every aspect of a citizens daily life. As to the idea of capitalism being a failed system, to me, a failed system would be one that has proven its inviablility and collapsed and gone extinct, like Russian Communism (though the totalitarian aspect survives), not one that has the ability to adapt and survive.

The market is a brilliant idea but it works best when there's perfect competition, not a few robber-barons skimming most of the profits off the top as we increasingly have now with the giant multinational corporations.

I do not intend this to be rude, but There will never, ever be perfect competition. That does not exist in any form in any aspect of anything I can think of. An example would be a classroom. There are slow students, mediocre students, and smart students. The slow get Fs, the Mediocre get Cs and the smart get As. This is not perfect competition--the A students are the robber barons messing up the curve for the others. So why not drop the A students to a C and raise the F students to a C? That way, everyone has just what they need to get by, and you have leveled the playing field. This is clearly ridiculous. The market only functions because the competition is imperfect. I am not saying that I am an advocate of monopolies, but there will always be companies that out-perform others. That goal is why companies are even founded--to generate the maximum profit. If all companies were the same in terms of ingenuity, productivity, quality, etc, than why would there even be multiple companies? Why not have one company per product? Or one company that makes all the products? It seems that this concept of "prefect competition" isn't all that far from communism--keep the stragglers up to pace and make the front runners slow down. But perhaps you have a different definition of "perfect competition" and I am misinterpreting it. If so, please clarify.

Also, it has been asserted that capitalism is only 3 or 400 years old. I think perhaps you are confusing it with the system of mercantilism. I would argue that the concept of capitalism has existed in its basic form since pre-history--I would say capitalism is not modern but ancient. The concept of providing goods or services to make a profit and trying to maximize that profit are certainly ancient concepts. One of the newer aspects of capitalism, the modern concept of stock trading, has its roots in the Battle of Agincourt.

 

[Tex]

Also, in the interest of preventing this discussion from being removed from the board, I think we should all try to maintain a repectful tone, even if we are totally enraged by someone's thoughts. On the same note, it would probably be a good idea not to state anything in a purposely inflamatory way.

 

[Canadian Samurai]

Hi Tex,

Communism and its mild cousin Socialism are still around today in Cuba, South America, Africa, parts of Europe and arguably China. Aspects of communal ownership and government intervention carry on in every capitalist country. Unfortunately no country in the world yet has an economic system that fully incorporates ecological costs into its economy. Europe is furthest along with this with its carbon trading market and selected eco-taxes but it still has a ways to go. As for the adaptability of capitalism, there is evidence that it is adaptable but it has never been truly tested, given how recent an invention it is. We almost lost democracy and the market in the 1930s as fascism swept the world when capitalism failed (it did not necessarily collapse, but it broke down spectacularly). Without a few key individuals like Keynes and Roosevelt, we might have lost democracy and the market.

In terms of competition and your analogy, I think the "A" students are generally the small business entrepreneurs - lean, smart, innovative, whereas the "C" students are the big, slow, stupid lazy companies who make excuses for their shoddy work and bully the "A" students because they're jealous. So yeah, I think we should fail the "C"s in the system. I'm not sure why you would possibly be against perfect competition - it is the system advocated by all free market economists from every political stripe (Milton Friedman anyone?) because it is the most efficient system for maximizing consumer and societal welfare.

I respectfully disagree that capitalism is anything but a modern construct. Agincourt 1415 is hardly ancient. Capitalism is founded on modern science (social darwinism, reductionism), modern economics, the modern belief in the virtue of "progress", the modern belief in the supremacy of the individual over the community, the modern belief in usury (lending for interest) and the modern belief that greed is a virtue. All of these are fundamentally values and ideas that did not exist, or were not seen as virtues, prior to the 1600s. Before then in the majority of societies on earth, greed was a sin (as the bible repeats again and again), people could not lend for money, communal values were given priority over individuals, and the objective of people in society was to retain the traditions and values of their ancestors rather than "progress". They were also cautious and respectful of nature and the supernatural (whereas today, we try to predict and control them through modern science). The cornerstones of capitalism: Profit, greed, progress and the supremacy of the individual (private property) - these are all very recently institutionalized values of the human race. People alive today are part of a grand social experiment to see if this is a successful and sustainable combination of values, and we will enjoy the great benefits, or pay the terrible costs, depending on how this experiment unfolds. The question is, how lucky do we feel?

 

[Rutledge]

I'm still waiting for him to tell me when the free market by itself has solved the water shortage crisis in Atlanta (capitalism, after all, created the shortage in the first place).

I am trying, really I am, to be respectful. It’s just hard with comments like the above.

Please check your weather reports CS. I am sure you wont believe me, but it rained cats and dogs in Atlanta today. Major rain. So maybe we will last a few more days - sorry to disappoint. But didn’t you hear? We’ve created a water making system. Its called “Mother Nature”.

So please, how did capitalism actually CREATE the water “crisis” in Atlanta? Ive never heard anyone make such a claim, even from the most ardent environmentalist. You must have scientific evidence connecting…. SUV driving with….location specific weather control? Need I remind, one of the key tenets of statistics is: correlation does not mean causation.

You can claim it all day long, CS. But there is no proof. None. Do let me know when a scientific journal prints proof of your claim that, to quote: “Capitalism created the water shortage crisis in Atlanta.”

 

[Louis Badolato]

Guys, how the heck did a thread about whether K&C, Figarti and the other companies should make more modern toy soldiers turn into Macro-economics 101? Capitalism, Communism, Socialism . . . never did like "isms" . . . I like toy soldiers. Lets talk toy soldiers. Have you seen the Honour Bound Tiger?

 

[damian]

I would agree with Louis
We shoud be talking toy soldiers here. Since we are on this topic I would just like to make a few observations. The old addage of if you are not making progress you should improve your argument not raise your voice is a good one. If we want to co-exist on this forum we should discuss things dispassionatley. When Conrad raises some concerns abnout the world economic system he is echoing a huge body of work by many sholars. There are others who disagree with these findings. That is fine. We have reached a stage of globalizatioon where the only progress is going to be made by honest discussion. We must discuss not shout. Accusing CS of being a Stalinist is unfair. I have seen posts where people get upset because certain American and British politicians have been called war criminals and fascists. Some members of this forum felt this was unfair and uncalled for. Similarly accusing a guy who has concerns about global warming of being a Stalinist is a bit off the mark. We should play the ball and not the man if we are going to have these sort of discussions.
Regards
Damian Clarke

 

[nmrocks]

Sorry guys, I felt this was a pretty civil discussion, carried on in a small corner of a large forum. i mean no disrespect to CS, I respect his opinions and enjoy hearing them. At the end of the day I'll buy him a beer or his beverage of choice, sit and talk about some other mundane topic of life.
Frankly CS is one of the most informed members of the forum as relateted to many historical aspects of WWII and I enjoy his input into the forum on nearly all his topics. Yes this thread has gotten off on a tangent, but frankly SO WHAT? It's like a conversation at a party, you can listen in if you like, if you have something to add fine if not, WALK AWAY, no harm, no foul.
Ray

 

[Canadian Samurai]

First off, Rutledge, I don't see what's hard to understand about the connection. Capitalism is the economic system in place in North America. Atlanta is apparently in North America. Therefore the water shortage is occurring on capitalism's watch. If capitalism rightly claims credit for the incredibly high standard of living we enjoy (on the backs of the future, but that's another matter), then it should be held accountable when things go wrong too. If you can't see how capitalism, an ideology fundamentally founded on unending growth of populations, urban sprawl, and exploitation of natural resources, might somehow be linked to depleting a finite water source, then sorry, I can't help make it any clearer. And that's all before climate change caused by the SUVs you mention really kicks in, which is gonna make things a whole lot worse down there. And let me repeat, Soviet-style communism would be no better - look what it did to the Aral sea.

Second, I agree with Ray - I'd love to sit down with a beer and shoot the breeze with you guys. These forums make everyone sound like arrogant know-it-alls (me in particular probably) when in person I bet we're all pretty darn cool, down-to-earth guys. Why else would we be interested in this awesome hobby?

The reason I'm harping on about this issue in particular is I think it trumps pretty much EVERYTHING else out there. This isn't my personal little crusade about saving group xyz from poverty or stopping some war or feeding the hungry hippos. None of the rest of that matters too much compared to this. If what I'm mumbling about comes to pass then there won't BE much of a toy soldier hobby left in 40 years, because we'll all be too busy trying to escape the rising flood waters, feed and heat ourselves, avoid catching the plague and keeping our stuff from getting stolen by our thirsty neighbours. So there is a strong connection. Let me phrase it another way - if you got into a time machine and saw the future, and it looked as nasty as it's predicted to be unless we change the course of our economy, then wouldn't you came back to the present and feel duty-bound to warn like basically everyone you met, including your buddies in the hobby you like? Could you live with yourself talking about toy soldiers all the time and not say anything about it? I'm not saying I can predict the future at all, but most of the major associations of scientists and scholars in the world are saying the same things I am. The fact the mainstream media hasn't picked up on that is unfortunate. If the muck hits the fan as its expected to, everyone will ask "why weren't we talking about this earlier when we had a chance to do something?" Sure, there's better forums for this, but I'm sure that's like preaching to the choir.

At the end of the day, given the severity of these issues, they really should be being discussed right now in every hobby and social forum, every city hall, every church, every school, every workplace and every street corner in the world. The future standard of living of the whole freakin' human race is at stake here, so let's not sweep it under the rug. I'm sorry it creates controversy but this is serious enough to warrant it I think. I'm not saying I have all the answers, and that's why discussions like these are so important - I do enjoy hearing different points of view. Our politicians sure aren't doing anything about this so it's up to regular citizens to hash out a solution. Louis, this is the "modern" thread so why not talk about the biggest issue of the modern age? Even talking about the HB tiger you can't avoid these issues because it's rising oil and commodity prices that have forced HB to change their business practices to the "make by request system" that Rutledge so disparages. Sooner or later every other toy soldier company is going to start feeling the pinch too, even K&C.

As Ray says, does it matter that much if a little corner of this big forum gets taken up by this discussion as long as we remain civil?

Cheers mates.

 

[OzDigger]

I feel it's into the political no go area myself but I have to admit I have found the discussion interesting.

There will always be people that want more out of life than others and are prepared to go the extra yards to get it. Some may call that greed, I just call it survival which has been around as long as human beings.

The diminished oppression of the various monarchies, religious organisations etc over recent centuries has allowed the common people to obtain a more aquitable share. However there will always be the approximate 20% of the population that achieve the success they desire with the remaining 80% less well off.

Therefore to achieve a fair and long term society it is best to have a balance of so called capitalism and socialism to ensure the more adaptable are able to achieve their goals whilst providing a decent life for the less fit.

 

[Harrytheheid]

I also have been following this one with some interest Oz.
I'm not going to comment other than to say that I personally go along with Damian and Ray's latest posts here.
Cheers
H

 

[Rutledge]

This discussion has definitely gone beyond where it was intended. In starting the thread, it was not my goal to engender a philosophical brouhaha. However, when the very basic tenets and beliefs that are the foundation of our society are attacked as horrifically unsound, it is hard for me not to respond. Presumably others feel the same way.

Hmmmm, perhaps the next K&C figure line-up could be that of us cyber warriors typing away furiously at our computers????? (that was meant as a joke at all of our expenses -- sorry, I cant help making these kind of comments...)

Yes CS, Atlanta has grown quite large and prosperous over the years. Some would argue its water resources were and are poorly managed -- by government officials. There is today a front page story about that in the Atlanta Journal Constitution. Regardless, the reason water is in short supply here is that we are suffering a drought. Last time I checked this was a natural phenemonen that occurrs regularly in human history. If you now possess direct evidence that Atlanta's LACK OF RAIN is being caused by human activity, capitalism specifically, please do present it.

Of course any system has its flaws, holes and imperfections, experiences wild misalignments, hurts people, runs amok on occassion, and so on. No one with any sense would ever argue otherwise. I believe even Churchill said (paraphrased) that democracy is the worst system there is...except for all others.

And of course capitalism is not a thing. Rather it is a TOOL, used by PEOPLE, to maximize their abilities, hard work, good fortune, and so on. This TOOL has allowed humanity to make unbelievable strides over the past 300 years (longer life spans, disease fighting drugs, ease of transportation, tremendous communication abilities, and so on). So yes, PEOPLE are responsible for every advancement, but it is the "tool of capitalism" that has allowed us/them to take full advantage of all the fruits of our labor. In fact this very forum is a great example. While the internet was founded by a government, which was funded by capitalism, it was people, utilizing capitalism, that enabled it to become the mind blowing apparatus that it is today.

It was the US government that sent a man to the moon --- but that government was funded by capitalists (via taxes), working in their own best interest. For a government to have such capacity and resources, there must be a steady and thunderous horde of cash. The capitalist system supplies that to the US government (not without some grumbling, admittedly, and lots of waste). Again, the tool of capitalism benefits not just its adherents, but also those who "live on its back".

As Ive said many times, capitalism has some tremendous flaws. But so does every other system. So its really a matter of which system has the least number of egregious flaws. I think its pretty obvious that almost all the innovation in the world comes from systems that are open to change, and then reward and encourage it. Yes, there are lots of failure made by well meaning entrepreneurs. Some might call this "wasteful". I see it as a natural by-product of the human condition. Sometimes, you just dont know if something will work until you try it.

I have to take umbrage with the positioning of large companies as "big, slow, stupid lazy". Its grossly unfair to categorize the millions of people who work hard every day in their jobs as personifying this. Of course every large company was once small, and only got large by being highly effective. This culture usually (but not always certainly) carries on. Big companies that fit your description go the way of the dodo bird -- another side benefit of capitalism. Note that centrally planned systems have historically done a very poor job of weeding out inefficiencies. I have worked for quite a few large companies, and let me assure you that, while very much imperfect, they are not inhernetly lazy or stupid. In fact, they attract some of the brightest minds, just like large law firms, medical practices or universities. Capitalism, the TOOL, is used to bring the collective wisdom of lots of smart people to bear down on behalf of a common cause or goal. The product of their work is then immediately vetted by the marketplace (via sales). That is the essence of a capitalism.

The demand based system you champion is a great idea --- for those that can afford it.

Imagine a restuarant that had no set menu, but served whatever anyone asked. Does that strike you as an efficient way of doing business? Of course not. But capitalism allows for such in just about every industry. One can buy new floor tile based on his/her specific "needs" or desires --- or get it from Home Depot stock. Tell us, which way is the most efficient for the largest number of customers?

I suspect what you are really advocating is a base product made for the masses, with some limited customization features. This is how most businesses operate now -- i.e., give me a big mac, but hold the ketchup. (Honour Bound will function similarly. My sense is that, rather than blaming the change in their business model on rising oil and commodity prices, its more about labor costs. Working out of South America, they just cant compete with the incredibly low wages that K&C has access to via China.) So Im not sure how what you are proposing offers an advantage.

Finally, doom and gloom predictions about the end of the world are not new. If we are still here 40 years from now, no doubt you will be saying the end is just another 20 years hence. So its clearly pointless to argue about the future because ---ITS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYONE TO KNOW IT, OR PREDICT WITH ACCURACY.

Humans possess amazing adaptability. That is why we are on top of the food chain. Will it always be a smooth ride? Of course not. Never has been. Commodity prices will rise and fall. Guaranteed. But as challenges present, humans have and will come up with solutions. I prefer we take them at face value, and deal with them as they come. Trying to forcibly bring about great upheavel and change in human behavior today, in order to hopefully, maybe stop ONE possible outcome from happening many years from now, seems the height of folly and arrogance. NOTE: To be clear, I fully support humans, acting in their own interest, or in the perceived interests of others, creating new technologies, new methods for facing potential or ongoing challenges. Those that get it right will no doubt be well rewarded, as they should be. What I am virulently opposed to is a government, or other body telling us what is "acceptable behavior" based on a particular and single minded view of how people "should" live, and what is "right" and does not "exploit our natural resources". Those who believe taxing things is a great way to modify behavior, consider how cigarette taxes have worked, and just be aware that a "penalty" tax will affect most those least able to afford it. And getting around it by taking taxes from some people and giving them to others is just more wealth redistribution masquerading as "fairness". To support this is to support totalitaranism.

PS: CS' says "the modern belief in usury (lending for interest)". I believe this is primarily an islamic perspective, that lending money is inherently "bad" or against "good principles". Clearly, my views will never align with such thinking.

 

[damian]

It is obvious that some of us are right wing free marketeers and others are not. I think ever more strident posts don't really take us forward. Our local toy soldier club broke down over a similar issue. Whenever we met some members kept saying things like ever since the ANC took over things are going to the dogs. Eventually it got downright depressing. If I want to be depressed I can watch the news. I cannot quite see the point of further discussion. Perhaps our host should simply close down this thread. Personally I think CS is fairly mainstream in what he says, but that is my personal opinion.
Regards
Damian Clarke

 

[jazzeum]

It seems that this thread has gotten a bit farther than where it should go so can please we tone it down just a bit, although it seems to have been fairly amicable and not terribly contentious so far.

 

[Tex]

I would say that it seems amicable.

Personally I think CS is fairly mainstream in what he says, but that is my personal opinion.

I disagree. Perhaps this is mainstream elsewhere, but I seldom hear predictions as negative. Granted, I always hear about climate change and potential issues involved, but, with all due respect to CS, his views are not very mainstream at all--at least not where I travel.

(One could point out that I live in Texas and then make disparaging remarks about my state, but I have lived elsewhere and spend a lot of time outside the state and Texas is more cosmopolitan than the stereotype hints. The Media tries to marginalize Texans and make them look stupid, I think.)

 

[damian]

Tex
Global warming seems to be a mainstream concern. There is currently a huge meeting in Bali where all the world's nations are trying to come to some sort of agreement. AL Gore has won a Nobel Prize for his work on this topic.The Australian public have just voted in a new Prime Minister who has made it his priority to sign up to Kyoto. When I was in New Zealand a couple of years ago there was a lot of concern about the hole in the Ozone layer above NZ.
Regards
Damian Clarke

 

[Canadian Samurai]

I can tell you guys my views will be tame and mainstream in as little as 10-15 years when the public is going to start to panic and the government unfortunately responds by banning things left, right and centre. Anyway, gentlemen, you get my point so I'll leave it at this unless anyone wants to continue with some aspect. Just consider yourselves forewarned and I've done my job here. Now I'll shut up, sit back and watch as the whole sorry mess plays out. Knowledge of this potential future makes me appreciate the time I can spend with this and my other hobbies all the more. We really are blessed to have such a luxurious lifetsyle and it's a shame our children may not be able to because of the depleted world we leave them.