I am under the impression that a time will come when the human species shall no longer rule this planet, be it from us following the ways of the dinosaurs or the forces of nature becoming overwhelming for our existance.
Now between now and then is there an ideal system that may ensure that the resources are distributed equally, knowledge is dispersed indiscriminately , human life( and animals and fauna, for that matter) span is prolonged (not only for those who are in countries that are more scientifically progressed). What are your take on capitalism, has it failed or has it been abused? Do humans have a better system? Or is this the beginning of the end of the great Homo Sapiens? Should we just embrace what we have and enjoy this life knowing that in a few generations after us there shall be no human life in this planet?
To those who are in the field of science: Is there any hope of human survival even after some great nature disasters that are emminent in the future?
You seem to be forgetting your Darwin. True, the system in which we're discussing is entirely artificial, but it does spring from the minds of mammals. You're only familiar with the unregulated greed that we have experienced as Americans. Norway has recently passed a law that restricts a CEO's maximum yearly income from being more than 19 times more than his lowest paid employee. In America that number is on average around 430 times the lowest paid employee. I'd suggest putting the limit at around 30-40 times, so as to allow for large gains, but not so large that they siphon off wealth from the poor.
Mike, I agree that early America's unregulated capitalism, which let the unemployed starve to death, was poison. However, you limited yourself to the two extremes.
Capitalism can range from an entirely investor-owned form to an entirely employee-owned form. There are several variations between these two.
Socialism can range from an entirely employee-owned form to an entirely public-owned form. There are several variations between these two.
In all of those forms the owners decide what goods and/or services their companies sell. Their decisions and the speed with which they make them will determine how long they remain owners.
Disagree. We're going that way, but thankfully we haven't got there yet.
This is one of the more untrue statements I've read here in a long time. We are in fact headed away from free enterprise and have been for decades. The sheer volume of regulations on business is growing by leaps and bounds, and so is the percentage of money going to government in taxes, and so is the percentage of money being spent by government. There may be temporary reversals of any one of these trends but they have all been, on the whole, in favor of more actual government (sheer numbers of employees and resources commanded), or more of its effects being felt via regulation. The fact that more and more of these regulations benefit larger corporations (or hurt them less than smaller companies are hurt) doesn't make it "free enterprise."
Capitalism means free enterprise. Socialism means regulated enterprise. Can't have it both ways.
This is true.
Now before you jump on me, this is not to say that businessmen don't have a lot of influence on what is going on, but that does not make it a free enterprise system. A free enterprise system is the absence of regulation other than laws against murder, theft or fraud.
It's not just government being hostile to your particular business enterprise that is not free enterprise, it's also not free enterprise when the government does your business a favor. And of course if the favor consists of passing some regulation or law that will make it difficult for a startup to compete with you, though you are big enough to be able to afford to comply, then clearly it's a mixture; it helps your business and hurts someone else's. It's evil in all three cases. But in none of these cases is it free enterprise. You're laying the blame for all the crony-ist bullshit we are seeing today on the wrong system. If the government didn't regulate, businessmen would have no need to bribe politicians; instead they either revel in the process--getting favors and subsidies from the government is part of the plan, part of the reason they went into business in the first place--or they simply find that they have to do so out of self-defense if nothing else. ("If I don't bribe senator Batson D. Belfry more than my competitor, my competitor will use him to crush me.")
We don't have free enterprise in this country, we are heading towards a system where certain people get to "own" enterprises but the government exercises great control over them, and government employees and politicians get paid protection money to leave certain individuals alone. That would be fascism.
"This is one of the more untrue statements I've read here in a long time."
Interesting! Several here have said unequivocally that we're living under clear capitalism. You don't attack THEM but you attack me when I say, "not yet". Bit of a credibility gap there?
The rest of your post makes it clear you're living in the bad-shit crazy information-free bubble called Tea Party and does not warrant a response.
Nah, yours is just the one I happened to notice.
And again, if we are living under "clear capitalism" then obviously we are using different definitions of the term. Try starting a business and see how much regulatory bullshit lands on your neck.
Fascism is against new, small business. The goal of Fascism, or pure capitalism is to get to the top of the ladder above all else, consequences be damned. Big corporations like walmart, monsanto, and wells fargo don't want more competition to themselves, they want less competition. which is one of the reasons why they pay congressmen and presidents to shuffle the deck in their favor. That's why Glass Stegal was repealed, thats why the estate tax was gutted, that's why the AHC act is under attack right now. because these things evened the playing field.
"The sheer volume of regulations"
Typical right-wing distortion. I'm sure you know (but simply choose to ignore) the fact that, when regulations are removed, they do NOT simply turn their pencil over and erase the old law - they pass NEW regulations superseding the old ones. BOTH are still "on the books". The "sheer volume" of regulations has always and WILL always grow.
H3xx, I minored in economics long ago and I like your analysis more than anything I recall from those years.
I have a minor quibble. Absolute power corrupts absolutely is a myth, a cliche, much liked in academia.
Absolute power is a myth because wanna-be-absolute rulers have to share power with the armed guards who protect them from assassins.
You could have extended your political analysis to the economy, where, briefly,
1) democracy means employee ownership in which the employees share the surplus value they create, and
2) monarchy means investor ownership in which the investors share the surplus value.
It's not a myth, it's a proverb. And it rings true more often than not, as a look throughout history will show.
Democratic corporations do exist, they're called Cooperatives, and they tend to prosper and grow quite quickly, because the majority of it's growing profits gets pushed into it's expansion, rather than a CEO's pocket.
I did see that extended definition, but I prefer to have simplified terms, where one key word means only one thing. It's too easy to get lost in a logical maze when you have multiple definitions for one word in one contextual situation.
And I seem to remember, I think it was Germany, where the labor unions are actively involved in hiring and firing the board of directors for their company. This could also be viewed as a democratic corporation, that has a monarchical structure.
"The single worst problem on the planet today, by far, is overpopulation."
A wee digression. I've repeatedly proposed a regime for achieving potentially dramatic reductions in birth rates, but I get no bites - no one willing to discuss it.
I think governments (especially ones with giant population problems) should start paying people for getting voluntary sterilizations. There are MILLIONS of people who never WANT kids and who would jump at the opportunity for some instant cash. I vaguely remember this being trialed in India, but I've heard nothing more about it.
Surely this is both the cheapest (considering the cost to the society of unwanted children) and most sure-fire method of long-term population control. I don't see how this violates any human rights.
What is your opinion?
Mike, what is there to discuss?
What evidence supports a conclusion that your regime will reduce birth rates more effectively than existing methods?
What are your regime's estimated costs? Who will pay those costs?