Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 31 of 31

Thread: A good fortune for one man, means less for some

  1. #21
    Council Member AmericanPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    "Turn left at Greenland." - Ringo Starr
    Posts
    965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan
    Most of us here are participants in a nominally capitalist economic system...
    Participation in a capitalist economy does not make anyone a capitalist anymore than going to church makes someone Christ. Unless you own the means of production, you are not a capitalist.

    I've seen no such qualification in your previous references to capitalism.
    There are specified and implied statements. Not everything meant is specifically stated. The content of my criticisms of capitalism imply my disagreements with the practices of finance capitalism.
    When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot

  2. #22
    Council Member AmericanPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    "Turn left at Greenland." - Ringo Starr
    Posts
    965

    Default

    Firn,

    I don't see a dramatic or apocalyptic end to the age of oil for humanity in general, though it may more difficult for some states to manage than others. Estimates vary, though I think it's safe to conclude that there's enough recoverable oil to supply the global economy for about a half century or so. States and corporations are already posturing themselves for transition by exploring alternative (and renewable) energy resources. The end of the oil age may mark the end of the current global regime (at least as how we know it), depending on what emerges to replace it and who is best positioned to exploit it. Natural gas seems to be an obvious answer, but it's little more than extension, since consumption-wise, there's plenty of uncertainty and most estimates point to a longevity similar to that of oil. So, a transition is underway, slowly and surely, but without a clear end in sight, nor a clear picture of the winners and losers in the potential outcomes.
    When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot

  3. #23
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default

    If you let this discussion degenerate to discussions on oil it will turn into spin pieces published by those who have the money to buy the research results they want to project, no different than global warming. The truth on these topics are hidden behind a think veneer of spin.

    There are plenty of other commodities where secure access to will become increasingly competitive and potentially lead to conflict such as water, farm land, fishing areas, access to precious metals, food, etc. We're seeing chest bumping over fossil fuels in the Asia-Pacific, but we're seeing more aggressive chest bumping over access to fishing rights. Having to pay $5.00/gal for gas is one thing, not being able to put on the table is another.

    Watching the demographics in certain countries like China, there will soon be a lot lusting young men and a serious shortage of women. No telling how that will play out, perhaps women from economically deprived areas will migrate to China (assuming their economic growth continues), perhaps illegal human trade will increase, etc. The bottom line is we have no idea what tomorrow will look like, but we can identify "potential" points of conflict now.

    Additionally it isn't all about state versus state, but about one the gravest security concerns globally and that is the increasing economic disparity between classes. Combine that with increasing awareness due to information technology and the ability to mobilize identity groups through social media you have the ingredients for some interesting times.

  4. #24
    Council Member AmericanPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    "Turn left at Greenland." - Ringo Starr
    Posts
    965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore
    Additionally it isn't all about state versus state, but about one the gravest security concerns globally and that is the increasing economic disparity between classes. Combine that with increasing awareness due to information technology and the ability to mobilize identity groups through social media you have the ingredients for some interesting times.
    It is interesting you say that, since globalism, the war on terrorism, and now the economic crisis has seemed to spawn at least a noticeable movement towards some kind of international class consciousness, even if it's identity is really only defined at this point by opposition to the establishment. Historically, this kind of class consciousness has been torn apart by nationalist and ethnic bitterness (i.e. the US south). That challenge definitely remains but I think the way social media tools helped enable the Arab Spring may provide some insight into how overcome traditional barriers to class mobilization. Will we see the re-emergence of prominent roles for international political parties? Will it be introduced to the United States? Will such a development fuel insecurity or instability?
    When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot

  5. #25
    Council Member Surferbeetle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,111

    Default

    AP,

    This one is for you...


    Self-interest, without morals, leads to capitalism’s self-destruction, by Dr. Jeffery Sachs, 18 Jan, 2012, The A-List, Financial Times

    Capitalism earns its keep through Adam Smith’s famous paradox of the invisible hand: self-interest, operating through markets, leads to the common good. Yet the paradox of self-interest breaks down when stretched too far. This is our global predicament today.

    Self-interest promotes competition, the division of labor, and innovation, but fails to support the common good in four ways.
    First, it fails when market competition breaks down, whether because of natural monopolies (in infrastructure), externalities (often related to the environment), public goods (such as basic scientific knowledge), or asymmetric information (in financial fraud, for example).

    Second, it can easily turn into unacceptable inequality. The reasons are legion: luck; aptitude; inheritance; winner-takes-all-markets; fraud; and perhaps most insidiously, the conversion of wealth into power, in order to gain even greater wealth.

    Third, self-interest leaves future generations at the mercy of today’s generation. Environmental unsustainability is a gross inequality of wellbeing across generations rather than across social classes.
    Fourth, self-interest leaves our fragile mental apparatus, evolved for the African savannah, at the mercy of Madison Avenue. To put it more bluntly, our sense of self-interest, unless part of a large value system, is easily transmuted into a hopelessly addictive form of consumerism.

    For these reasons, successful capitalism has never rested on a moral base of self-interest, but rather on the practice of self-interest embedded in a larger set of values. Max Weber explained that Europe’s original modern capitalists, the Calvinists, pursued profits in the search for proof of salvation. They saved ascetically to accumulate wealth to prove God’s grace, not to sate their consumer appetites.
    Dr. Jeffery Sachs, bio by Wikipedia

    Jeffrey David Sachs (pronounced /ˈsæks/; born November 5, 1954, in Detroit, Michigan) is an American economist and Director of The Earth Institute at Columbia University. One of the youngest economics professors in the history of Harvard University, Sachs became known for his role as an adviser to Eastern European and developing country governments in the implementation of so-called economic shock therapy during the transition from communism to a market system or during periods of economic crisis. Some of his recommendations have been considered controversial. Subsequently he has been known for his work on the challenges of economic development, environmental sustainability, poverty alleviation, debt cancellation, and globalization.

    Sachs is the Quetelet Professor of Sustainable Development at Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs and a Professor of Health Policy and Management at Columbia's School of Public Health. He is Special Adviser to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, and the founder and co-President of the Millennium Promise Alliance, a nonprofit organization dedicated to ending extreme poverty and hunger. From 2002 to 2006, he was Director of the United Nations Millennium Project's work on the Millennium Development Goals, eight internationally sanctioned objectives to reduce extreme poverty, hunger, and disease by the year 2015. Since 2010 he has also served as a Commissioner for the Broadband Commission for Digital Development, which leverages broadband technologies as a key enabler for social and economic development.[3] He is a member of the scientific committee of the Fundacion IDEAS, Spain's Socialist Party's think tank.

    Sachs has written several books, including The End of Poverty and Common Wealth, both New York Times bestsellers, and his latest one, The Price of Civilization, released on October 4, 2011. He has been named one of Time Magazine's "100 Most Influential People in the World" twice, in 2004 and 2005.
    The End of Poverty, by Dr. Sachs

    In order to address and remedy the specific economic stumbling blocks of various countries, Sachs espouses the use of what he terms "clinical economics", by analogy to medicine. Sachs explains that countries, like patients, are complex systems, requiring differential diagnosis, an understanding of context, monitoring and evaluation, and professional standards of ethics.[1] Clinical economics requires a methodic analysis and "differential diagnosis" of a country's economic problems, followed by a specifically tailored prescription. Many factors can affect a country's ability to enter the world market, including government corruption; legal and social disparities based on gender, ethnicity, or caste; diseases such as AIDS and malaria; lack of infrastructure (including transportation, communications, health, and trade), unstable political landscapes; protectionism; and geographic barriers. Sachs discusses each factor, and its potential remedies, in turn.

    In order to illustrate the use of clinical economics, Sachs presents case studies on Bolivia, Poland, and Russia, and discusses the solutions he presented to those countries, and their effects. The book also discusses the economies of Malawi, India, China, and Bangladesh as representative of various stages of economic development.
    Sapere Aude

  6. #26
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    We've also talked about shared prosperity, and the principles that when a state, tribe, or even a culture enjoy increased prosperity, we all stand to benefit and some of the factors that cause small wars recede. Is this general premise true though, across the long term, and where is the tipping point?
    I don't think it's true at all. There's this belief by many Americans that prosperity and democracy bring peace and IMO, such beliefs are dangerous.

    If we work to increase prosperity around the world, how can we do it in a fashion that does not increase the demand for resources to such a degree that conflict ensues? Whether it's water, arable land, oil, or access to minerals and metals, as tribes and states prosper, consumption increases and the realist in me tells me that conflict is inevitable. In logical terms, it seems counter-productive to try to reduce the number of have-nots in the world.
    Who is the "we" you're talking about?

    I think we (the American people and by extension, the American military) need a bit more humility when it comes to what we think we can do. Look at Afghanistan. We went there in the 1950's, built some great projects, did a lot of nation and capacity building. That worked for a while and Afghanistan even became a hippy mecca in the 1960's. Now those agricultural projects from the 1950's are the reason we've spilled so much blood in Helmand and that green zone is used for a very different purpose than originally envisioned - what if, for example, the Helmand river valley project was never built?

    The point is that we cannot control the future and we should realize that our attempts to improve the lot of others are limited. We should take, at maximum, a "help people to help themselves" approach assuming we need to get involved at all.
    Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.

  7. #27
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    Participation in a capitalist economy does not make anyone a capitalist anymore than going to church makes someone Christ. Unless you own the means of production, you are not a capitalist.
    By that definition there are a ton of capitalists in the US.
    Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.

  8. #28
    Council Member tequila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,665

    Default

    Ken Rogoff - Rethinking the Growth Imperative

    Modern macroeconomics often seems to treat rapid and stable economic growth as the be-all and end-all of policy. That message is echoed in political debates, central-bank boardrooms, and front-page headlines. But does it really make sense to take growth as the main social objective in perpetuity, as economics textbooks implicitly assume?

  9. #29
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanPride View Post
    Participation in a capitalist economy does not make anyone a capitalist anymore than going to church makes someone Christ. Unless you own the means of production, you are not a capitalist.
    If you have a pension plan, you own a piece of the means of production, albeit a fractional one. in any event, the question of who is or is not specifically "a capitalist" seems exceedingly peripheral to this discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanPride View Post
    There are specified and implied statements. Not everything meant is specifically stated. The content of my criticisms of capitalism imply my disagreements with the practices of finance capitalism.
    That implication seems rather obscure, and I can't see how anyone could have deduced it from your statements.

    It is interesting you say that, since globalism, the war on terrorism, and now the economic crisis has seemed to spawn at least a noticeable movement towards some kind of international class consciousness, even if it's identity is really only defined at this point by opposition to the establishment. Historically, this kind of class consciousness has been torn apart by nationalist and ethnic bitterness (i.e. the US south). That challenge definitely remains but I think the way social media tools helped enable the Arab Spring may provide some insight into how overcome traditional barriers to class mobilization. Will we see the re-emergence of prominent roles for international political parties? Will it be introduced to the United States? Will such a development fuel insecurity or instability?
    That sort of "international class consciousness" has been waxing and waning for generations, and I don't really see anything new about it. Typically it sparks up during economic downturns and retreats in periods of greater prosperity. When you get beyond the loud voices, the extent of "opposition to the establishment" is not really that clear.

    Ironically, "opposition to the establishment" is at its lowest point when the establishment is doing its greatest damage, i.e. when bubbles are growing.

    The extent to which "social media tools" helped "enable the Arab Spring" is I think vastly overrated by those seeking a bandwagon to jump on. Of course these movements will use whatever tools are available to them, but if those tools weren't available they'd just use other ones.
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

    H.L. Mencken

  10. #30
    Council Member Uboat509's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    Agree that the AIDS work is less about saving Africans than about Americans feeling good about themselves...
    I would have to disagree with the second part of your statement there. That is an awful lot of money to feel good about ourselves. That kind of money has an ulterior motive attached to it. Someone more cynical than me might suspect an attempt by a Republican president to curry favor with centrist voters but I believe that it is more about trying to gain some control of the narrative in Africa. China is increasingly visible in Africa, often at our expense. Combating AIDS is a fairly low risk investment to rebuild our political capital in Africa. Compared to economic development or conflict resolution it is relatively straight forward and uncontroversial with little chance that we will find ourselves on the wrong side of an issue. Whether we are getting a good return on our investment is debatable but, based on my experience in Africa, we are at least getting some return.

    As to the question of whether combating AIDS is worsening things by increasing the demand for limited resources, I would have to say no. I would even say that it is probably reducing it. More and more countries are lowering population growth rates to the "replacement" rate of about 2.1 births. It is paradoxically the poorest states that have the highest fertility rates. HIV/AIDS has been hypothesized to have contributed directly to higher fertility rates as a means to counterbalance the high infant mortality rates. It is not, by far, the only or even the greatest cause of higher fertility rates in poor countries but it is a significant one and lowering the rate of infection will have a positive effect on fertility both directly as infant mortality rates secondary to HIV/AIDS fall and indirectly as the reduction or eradication of infection in a given region will likely have some positive effects on prosperity.
    “Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.”

    Terry Pratchett

  11. #31
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uboat509 View Post
    I would have to disagree with the second part of your statement there. That is an awful lot of money to feel good about ourselves.
    Why do you think that the money we spend on AIDS gets so much more attention than, say, money spent on controlling malaria? Is that not because AIDS is an issue and a problem with greater resonance for Americans?

    Quote Originally Posted by Uboat509 View Post
    That kind of money has an ulterior motive attached to it. Someone more cynical than me might suspect an attempt by a Republican president to curry favor with centrist voters but I believe that it is more about trying to gain some control of the narrative in Africa. China is increasingly visible in Africa, often at our expense. Combating AIDS is a fairly low risk investment to rebuild our political capital in Africa. Compared to economic development or conflict resolution it is relatively straight forward and uncontroversial with little chance that we will find ourselves on the wrong side of an issue. Whether we are getting a good return on our investment is debatable but, based on my experience in Africa, we are at least getting some return.
    If that's the goal I suspect we'll be disappointed. Aid of any sort will never bring the kind of influence or favor that investment brings, and I don't think anything we do about AIDS will give us real political capital in Africa or "gain some control of the narrative in Africa".
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

    H.L. Mencken

Similar Threads

  1. War is War is Clausewitz
    By Michael C in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 421
    Last Post: 07-25-2012, 12:41 PM
  2. An alternative to the GCC as means to implement Grand Strategy?
    By Rob Thornton in forum US Policy, Interest, and Endgame
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-19-2008, 01:40 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •