X-Message-Number: 28094
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 09:04:16 -0600
From: "Anthony ." <>
Subject: Re: economics

> Message #28091
> From: 
> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 00:20:37 EDT
> Subject: Re: Economics

> The US is not a democracy but a constitutional republic for exactly this
> reason.

Exactly what reason? It isn't clear what point you are addressing.

I'm aware that the U.S. is not a "typically" democratic system - which
is part of the problem in America: it is not democratic enough. This
much is obvious from the fact that so many Presidents come from
political dynasties.

> It has been observed that a democracy lasts exactly as long as it  takes
> the bottom 51% to figure out they can vote to steal the wealth of the top
> 49%.

Are you referring to historical events? I've never heard of such a
thing happening. I suppose you are invoking the libertarian bogey-man
of TAX.

> With the exception of fossil fuels, the depletion of natural resources is a
> foolish idea of people with a poor grasp of science.

Well, animal extinction is scientifically validated. Hell, or you need
do is know how to count. 3 species of tiger were wiped out in the 20th
century - are these tigers now merely "misplaced?"

> Everything we have ever  consumed is
> still in place or in a garbage dump.

The definition of pollution is that of an element which is out of
place. Petrol in your car is not pollution, petrol in your food is.
Simply saying that we've just shuffled things around, that certain
chemical changes are irrelevant, is hopelessly naive and not
scientific.

> So natural
> resources do not get "depleted", only rearranged.

I cut down 99 trees in a wood of 100 trees. I burn the wood. Was the
wood depleted (along with soil erosion, ecosystem destruction, loss of
wild-life, etc.), or is it still around, floating in the ash (along
with the soil and dead animals)?

> As for  mining, remember that

> beneath our feet are 4000 miles of ore, mainly iron and  aluminum and silicon.

As for energy, remember we have a big nuclear explosion we're floating around.
So what!? Until we actually use these resources in ways which doesn't
give us cancer, it doesn't matter.

> As for
> pollution, in the West it was decreased ten  or a hundred times since 1960,

You haven't been reading my exchange with John K Aubergine.

As for communists being big polluters - here, here. Their
technological dreams were often even more stupid and rapine than the
capitalists. Now let's bury Bush with Stalin.

> While I am aghast at the actions of Bush and company, and see examples of
> wretched excess on the part of rich and poor

How can the poor be involved in excess? By definition they have no
excess. I suppose you are referring to the lazy, unemployed
under-class that live in the bad part of your town rather than the
homeless and starving millions?

> I
> also see the progress of China since they adopted capitalistic practices.

Aided by flagrent disregarding for human rights. But at least they're
better to trade with now!

> I
> hear that they are very happy and have an optimistic view of their  future.

Did they send you a postcard? "We the 1.3 billion Chinese people wish
you were here. We are expecting the Singularity like you are, and we
all now have an iPod"

> It is not a bad thing when a billion people go from literal  starvation to a
> happy prosperity, and I think Anthony's attitude is too  pessimistic.

Perhaps. I'm certainly not keen to "go easy" on the status quo when it
has so many brave guardsmen, here on Cryonet.

> Note that
> the "inequitable" distribution of wealth was the fault of  the Chinese for
> following the insanity of the "Great Leap Forward," and now that  they are

> adopting capitalism they are getting their fair share.  Is there a  moral 
here?

Where you think I am too pessimistic about capitalism, I think you are
too optimistic about it. China suffers many problems, not least the
rich-poor gap, terrible pollution, possibly an over-heating economy.
Over half of mainland China's large state-owned enterprises are
inefficient and reporting losses.

Still, that is not to say their circumstances won't improve more. The
move to privatisation seems to have helped some people over all. To
reiterate - capitalism is not Satan - problems arise when power and
wealth become increasingly centralised, and when the pursuit of wealth
becomes more important than reality, than human rights, than the
environment that supports it all. A "green capitalism" is possible and
desirable.

> Yes
> -- capitalism brings prosperity and a people's future  is in their own hands.

For some. For others it brings total misery and abject poverty - which
could be altered for the better with a few hefty cheques. Or is it not
possible to spend all this extra wealth you laud on these problems?

> It is not America's fault that Africa is  kleptocratic and poor and other
> places are feudalistic and sad.

I do not believe you have a very thorough grasp of history. Start with
how Chris Columbus treated the Haitian natives and go from there,
through slavery and colonialism in Africa and other parts of the
world, and back to today's massive illegitimate debts and repressive
international laws. Then ask whether America might shoulder a little
blame.

Anthony

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=28094