• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

Political Ideologies

CannonFodder

Resistance is futile! If 0 ohm
Market Capitalism is less of a reason for the unequal distribution of food around the world. Trade barriers, corruption, war, bad infrastructure, and most importantly logistics are huge factors for such inefficiencies. It is simply a fallacy to leave the blame on market capitalism, when so many other factors are at play behind the scenes.
What about within our own country? Is there why children should go hungry at night within our own country when we produce so much food? You can't exactly blame trade barriers or such when it's within one's own country
 

Xolani

Member
Market Capitalism is less of a reason for the unequal distribution of food around the world. Trade barriers, corruption, war, bad infrastructure, and most importantly logistics are huge factors for such inefficiencies. It is simply a fallacy to leave the blame on market capitalism, when so many other factors are at play behind the scenes.

Yes, I am sure logistics is a problem, when a Liberian immigrant who sends money back to her barely subsisting family, working in supermarket waste disposal, finds perfectly edible fruit in the waste labelled "Produce of Liberia".

The fact of the matter is that much of the wasted food is actually imported from countries whose own populations suffer from food poverty. It's ridiculous. And it's driven by capitalism.
 

Aetius

It's Me Gordon, Barney from Black Mesa
What about within our own country? Is there why children should go hungry at night within our own country when we produce so much food? You can't exactly blame trade barriers or such when it's within one's own country

When you have a population of 330+ million people, there are going to be those in poverty. However, countries that focus on a healthy market system rather than a Command/communist system tend to see less people going hungry each night. Nothing will change the fact that there will be those in poverty, and eliminating complete poverty is a Utopia.
 

Xolani

Member
When you have a population of 330+ million people, there are going to be those in poverty.

No, relieve the pressure for people to conform to the need to comply with the capitalist directive to get a job that generates revenue for the rich and taxes for the government, and help communities to re-localise their own food production. Community farming is an easy solution to the vast majority of food poverty.
 

CannonFodder

Resistance is futile! If 0 ohm
When you have a population of 330+ million people, there are going to be those in poverty. However, countries that focus on a healthy market system rather than a Command/communist system tend to see less people going hungry each night. Nothing will change the fact that there will be those in poverty, and eliminating complete poverty is a Utopia.
Then explain to me why there's so many people in shelters and why so many people in the usa struggle to feed their family? If a capitalist economy is so good for us that explain to me why we had people digging in the trash for food, or are you blind to the reality you can see for yourself walking down the streets? Do you walk down a street and every time you see a homeless person go to yourself, "He's just a figment of my imagination"?
 

Aetius

It's Me Gordon, Barney from Black Mesa
Yes, I am sure logistics is a problem, when a Liberian immigrant who sends money back to her barely subsisting family, working in supermarket waste disposal, finds perfectly edible fruit in the waste labelled "Produce of Liberia".

The fact of the matter is that much of the wasted food is actually imported from countries whose own populations suffer from food poverty. It's ridiculous. And it's driven by capitalism.

A world without waste and inefficiency is essentially a utopia as I previously mentioned.
Concerning countries like say, Liberia, have very limited arable land and can only export a few amount of materials. An example would be that Liberia exports fruit like bananas. No you cannot have a population live on specialized fruit, so a country with small amounts of arable land mostly import their food. This is also kind of why countries with HUGE amounts of arable land (I.E. The USA), export tons of agricultural products to countries like liberia.(US is also a huge exporter of Agricultural products ($958.9 billion http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0848.pdf).

If anything, one could argue that international trade under a market system does much to help with the distribution of food.



No, relieve the pressure for people to conform to the need to comply with the capitalist directive to get a job that generates revenue for the rich and taxes for the government, and help communities to re-localise their own food production. Community farming is an easy solution to the vast majority of food poverty.

Community farming does not work on a large scale, nor does it deliver a large enough crop yield compared to the huge industrial farms. There is a reason why huge corporate farms took over the place of small community holdings. Bingo, they usually deliver a larger crop yield.

If you want to attempt community farming on a large scale, the 1920s-1980s kinda proved that it does not work on providing a large yield and surplus.

Then explain to me why there's so many people in shelters and why so many people in the usa struggle to feed their family? If a capitalist economy is so good for us that explain to me why we had people digging in the trash for food, or are you blind to the reality you can see for yourself walking down the streets? Do you walk down a street and every time you see a homeless person go to yourself, "He's just a figment of my imagination"?

If you read my post, you would have realized that I did not say "Poverty does not exist". You are going to have poverty anyway, but it tends to be on the lower side compared to economies running on the command system. (I.E The former Peoples Republic of Poland)

(I got work, so Ill be back in about 3 hours tops)
 

Xolani

Member
A world without waste and inefficiency is essentially a utopia as I previously mentioned.
Concerning countries like say, Liberia, have very limited arable land and can only export a few amount of materials.

Did you pull that fact out of your arse or is based on any actual facts? 3.4% of land in Liberia is used as arable land, but more is capable of being used. Soil erosion is causing a creeping crisis for farming in Liberia, due to deforestation, another problem with the much vaunted market capitalist system. Prior to the civil war, agriculture was the primary industry in Liberia, where subsistence crops were commonly produced.

An example would be that Liberia exports fruit like bananas. No you cannot have a population live on specialized fruit, so a country with small amounts of arable land mostly import their food.

By market value, Liberia exports more sugarcane, coffee and palm oil than it does bananas. It would help if you did the most basic research about a country's economy before commenting on it. This land can, and has previously, been used for subsistence food production. It is only because of market economics that it is now used for export purposes, rather than feeding the local communities.

If anything, one could argue that international trade under a market system does much to help with the distribution of food.

No, it introduces the inefficiency of encouraging farmers etc. to produce crops for profit (which usually ends up primarily in the hands of foreign investors, rather than the local economy, in cases like Liberia), rather than producing food for the local community.

Community farming does not work on a large scale, nor does it deliver a large enough crop yield compared to the huge industrial farms.

It's not supposed to be a large-scale project. It's a local project.

There is a reason why huge corporate farms took over the place of small community holdings. Bingo, they usually deliver a larger crop yield.

No, division of labour is the principle cause. Industrial farms also provide fewer jobs per unit of food produced, compared with community farming or even just small business farming. Hardly something you can call a victory in an economic climate like this.

If you want to attempt community farming on a large scale, the 1920s-1980s kinda proved that it does not work on providing a large yield and surplus.

Can you show me any evidence that what could be called "community farming" was 1) practiced on a large scale during that time, and 2) that it was phased out due to inefficiency?

If you read my post, you would have realized that I did not say "Poverty does not exist". You are going to have poverty anyway, but it tends to be on the lower side compared to economies running on the command system. (I.E The former Peoples Republic of Poland)

The fact that you keep calling it a "Command system" tells me how much you actually know about economics, as what you are referring to is called a planned economy. Unless you are referring to genuine command economies, in which case you're introducing a false dichotomy and I'm equally going to disregard that.
 
Last edited:

Aetius

It's Me Gordon, Barney from Black Mesa
Did you pull that fact out of your arse or is based on any actual facts? 3.4% of land in Liberia is used as arable land, but more is capable of being used. Soil erosion is causing a creeping crisis for farming in Liberia, due to deforestation, another problem with the much vaunted market capitalist system. Prior to the civil war, agriculture was the primary industry in Liberia, where subsistence crops were commonly produced.
3.4% of arable land, considering Liberia's small geographic size and their growing young population, isn't currently meeting local food needs. The Liberians at the moment are specializing their land in luxury/commodity agriculture and would have much much to gain in their terms of trade than producing just food for local needs. At this moment, Liberia is importing more of its foodstuffs.

By market value, Liberia exports more sugarcane, coffee and palm oil than it does bananas. It would help if you did the most basic research about a country's economy before commenting on it. This land can, and has previously, been used for subsistence food production. It is only because of market economics that it is now used for export purposes, rather than feeding the local communities.

I'm sorry that I used a random luxury/commodity agricultural resource as a random example, and lo and behold, Liberia exports luxury/commodity agricultural resources. There is no reason to try to act smug about it. Concerning why the farmers and companies in Liberia choose to export these products, it is because Liberia would have much more of a gain in their terms of trade from exporting those resources than just farming agricultural foodstuffs for a domestic market. Now as another example, lets say more of the land that is being used for the export market is used for domestic agricultural foodstuff. THIS WOULD BE A VERY VERY BAD THING FOR LIBERIA'S TERMS OF TRADE AND PISS OFF LOTS OF FARMERS IN THAT INDUSTRY. Liberia's exports would decrease, and put them in an even worse position.


No, it introduces the inefficiency of encouraging farmers etc. to produce crops for profit (which usually ends up primarily in the hands of foreign investors, rather than the local economy, in cases like Liberia), rather than producing food for the local community.

If you read my previous post, you would have known that farmers will not grow jack shit worth of surplus if they did not have any incentive to grow that surplus. Here is a rather historical example.


No, division of labour is the principle cause. Industrial farms also provide fewer jobs per unit of food produced, compared with community farming or even just small business farming. Hardly something you can call a victory in an economic climate like this.

If you look at it from an unemotional, evil capitalist like me. It is usually a better thing that there are less jobs per unit of food created on the part of the consumer. This allows a company to GREATLY cut costs and allows the company to be able to sell a product at a much lower market value at the same time making a profit. This also allows more efficiency, as if you have too much unneeded labor, the law of diminishing returns will kick in.

Can you show me any evidence that what could be called "community farming" was 1) practiced on a large scale during that time, and 2) that it was phased out due to inefficiency?

Enjoy.

The fact that you keep calling it a "Command system" tells me how much you actually know about economics, as what you are referring to is called a planned economy. Unless you are referring to genuine command economies, in which case you're introducing a false dichotomy and I'm equally going to disregard that.

Maybe because this whole time I have been defending the Market capitalist system, which is 95.55% of what all countries in the world currently engage in. The only real alternative to the main system that we use would be a command system. I feel that comparing both a country from a market capitalist system and another from a command system is a fair assessment.

The fact that you keep calling it a "Command system" tells me how much you actually know about economics

Really?
Sorry that for 3 years economics has been my field, I obviously don't know anything about it.
You really do not need to stoop down to that level.
 

Grimfang999

Member
Just going to say, Im glad this thread has formed into proper debate now, I was a bit concerned when most of the first page or two was fairly stunted in simply saying "I support this".

Market Capitalism is less of a reason for the unequal distribution of food around the world. Trade barriers, corruption, war, bad infrastructure, and most importantly logistics are huge factors for such inefficiencies. It is simply a fallacy to leave the blame on market capitalism, when so many other factors are at play behind the scenes.

Its a pretty big issue. Sure those are other issues but there are places not in war that have on mass poverty, such as India, which also has rapidly developing business. Im not entirely sure how trade barriers are seperate from capitalism, and surely bad infrastructure is something capitalism promises to change? Poverty persists in India primarilly due to wage exploitation.

In Africa, corruption and war are indeed major issues however, but often wars are derived from need.

Its a shame that late 1910s-early 20s Soviet Russia proved this idea meaningless, as many farmers would opt to create a surplus when there is financial incentive, rather than out of the goodness of their heart. Even lenin saw this and created the NEP (Where farmers could sell some crops for profit for a higher yield).
Well there were two main reasons for this:

1) The farming regions were communal, based on trade, they had no interest in the affairs outside of their isolated communes. Leading on from that...
2) They did not consent to communism, or rather, "communism".

As such, they were isolated communities built on trade who did not agree with the actions the cities took, even taking the side of the whites in the civil war just after the revolution. Yes, money incentives were a major thing, but the reason why they didnt change was primarilly due to their lack of consent to the revolution. I may be a communist at heart, but I recognise that in order for revolution to succeed there must be consent by the people, especially by the people controling the food source.

And yes, I do believe Lenin had the right intentions, and the NEP allowed for a massive shockresistor while culture was being transitioned. However after his death the appropriate steps were not taken due to the power struggles and lack of direction in the politburo, ultimately allowing people to get too comfortable and setting the foundations for Stalins slave regime.

When you have a population of 330+ million people, there are going to be those in poverty. However, countries that focus on a healthy market system rather than a Command/communist system tend to see less people going hungry each night. Nothing will change the fact that there will be those in poverty, and eliminating complete poverty is a Utopia.
I would agree in regards to real world examples, but there are no real world examples of real communism, and I believe the times of revolution for places like China were premature, and in their country famine came about through their own encouragement of mass reproduction, which caused the overpopulation we see today. Had they allowed for better research before expanding their population (and actually properly distributing the produce), it probably could have worked.

Yes, there would still be poverty, but there would be far less under a redistributionary system, especially today where food is in excess.

Community farming does not work on a large scale, nor does it deliver a large enough crop yield compared to the huge industrial farms. There is a reason why huge corporate farms took over the place of small community holdings. Bingo, they usually deliver a larger crop yield.

Here you seem to be confusing capitalism with industrialism. a socialist and communist society can also industrialise, market forces do not need to be at play to allow for industrialism to take place, only access to resources and technology truly influence how much a country can industrialise.

If you want to attempt community farming on a large scale, the 1920s-1980s kinda proved that it does not work on providing a large yield and surplus.

Xolani already touched on this, what it would do is relieve some pressure on industrial farms, especially considering agriculture and cattle farming are also the major causes of deforestation.
 
Last edited:

Aetius

It's Me Gordon, Barney from Black Mesa
Well there were two main reasons for this:

1) The farming regions were communal, based on trade, they had no interest in the affairs outside of their isolated communes. Leading on from that...
2) They did not consent to communism, or rather, "communism".

As such, they were isolated communities built on trade who did not agree with the actions the cities took, even taking the side of the whites in the civil war just after the revolution. Yes, money incentives were a major thing, but the reason why they didnt change was primarilly due to their lack of consent to the revolution. I may be a communist at heart, but I recognise that in order for revolution to succeed there must be consent by the people, especially by the people controling the food source.

And yes, I do believe Lenin had the right intentions, and the NEP allowed for a massive shockresistor while culture was being transitioned. However after his death the appropriate steps were not taken due to the power struggles and lack of direction in the politburo, ultimately allowing people to get too comfortable and setting the foundations for Stalins slave regime.
The problem with collective/communal farming is that not all workers will consent to it and many of them will not choose to only produce "To their needs". Some are going want to create a surplus to make some extra bucks. What will you do if these farmers will not become communal on a large scale, and refuse to? Kinda defeats the purpose of creating a large scale communal farming plan if so many farmers may be unwilling to accept it.

I would agree in regards to real world examples, but there are no real world examples of real communism, and I believe the times of revolution for places like China were premature, and in their country famine came about through their own encouragement of mass reproduction, which caused the overpopulation we see today. Had they allowed for better research before expanding their population (and actually properly distributing the produce), it probably could have worked.

Yes, there would still be poverty, but there would be far less under a redistributionary system, especially today where food is in excess.

I would rather put my faith in an economic system that (Somewhat) works. Communism on a large, international scale is really nothing that can be ever achieved through consent (Human error mostly). The tragedy of the commons is one thing that I may not like about the market system, on of the errors that the system faces. But the market system has proved itself through history.

Here you seem to be confusing capitalism with industrialism. a socialist and communist society can also industrialise, market forces do not need to be at play to allow for industrialism to take place, only access to resources and technology truly influence how much a country can industrialise.

The problem with industrialization under communist countries took place under central planning, a rather terrible economic alternative to the market system. This is the case, because practice has shown that the Govt cannot predict future consumer behavior in regards to creating future output for the citizenry.

Xolani already touched on this, what it would do is relieve some pressure on industrial farms, especially considering agriculture and cattle farming are also the major causes of deforestation.

The tragedy of the commons is a shame, and can be one considered one of the few negative effects of a market system.
 

ADF

Member
Food quality is going to become more of an issue in the future than quantity. You cannot intensively farm the same piece of land year in year out and expect the food it produces to be full of the vitamins and minerals your body needs.

Petroleum based NPK fertilisers will make dead soil produce a crop, but that crop is nutritionally inferior to what we were eating 50 years ago. Commercial farming produces more weight in food, but not more nutrition. This is going to become an increasing problem in the future as factory farmed land produces increasingly nutritionally depleted crops. GMOs apparently only make these problems even worse; as apparently drowning plants in RoundUp isn't good for them...

Lower intensity, more quality focused farming is going to become necessary going into the future. The alternative of staying the course won't keep the world from going hungry, it will just mean they'll die of nutrition related diseases with a full stomach.
 

CannonFodder

Resistance is futile! If 0 ohm
Food quality is going to become more of an issue in the future than quantity. You cannot intensively farm the same piece of land year in year out and expect the food it produces to be full of the vitamins and minerals your body needs.

Petroleum based NPK fertilisers will make dead soil produce a crop, but that crop is nutritionally inferior to what we were eating 50 years ago. Commercial farming produces more weight in food, but not more nutrition. This is going to become an increasing problem in the future as factory farmed land produces increasingly nutritionally depleted crops. GMOs apparently only make these problems even worse; as apparently drowning plants in RoundUp isn't good for them...

Lower intensity, more quality focused farming is going to become necessary going into the future. The alternative of staying the course won't keep the world from going hungry, it will just mean they'll die of nutrition related diseases with a full stomach.
Reminds me of my cousin in law, he's the world's biggest manchild and eats nothing but McDonalds. Even though he's so big that you can use him as a floatation device he's malnourished.




Not to mention that the chemicals in fertilizer are bad for plankten when they inevitably reach the ocean so we're kind of double fucking ourselves.
 
Last edited:

ADF

Member
Reminds me of my cousin in law, he's the world's biggest manchild and eats nothing but McDonalds. Even though he's so big that you can use him as a floatation device he's malnourished.

Not to mention that the chemicals in fertilizer are bad for plankten when they inevitably reach the ocean so we're kind of double fucking ourselves.

People forget or don't realise that most of the nutrients absorbed through plants roots have to be first digested by micro organisms. There is in fact types of fungi that have a symbiotic relationship with plant roots and help them absorb substantially more than the roots could on their own (e.g mycorrhizal fungi). If you wipe out the soils micro organisms by pumping it full of chemicals, you're substantially reducing the availability of naturally occurring nutrients in the soil to the plant. Some natural fertilisers that are not derived from petroleum like blood fish & bone can take three months to fully break down in the soil 'with' micro organisms, without them the nutrients are inaccessible to the plant.

So the plant is reliant almost entirely on water soluble fertilisers as feed, the NPK limited diet. Which is very much like raising the plant on McDonalds, it being able to grow but is seriously deficient in the full spectrum of minerals and trace elements that it needs to be healthy. Some fertilisers try to include trace elements, but again they're damaging the soils biology. That and it's very difficult to include the full spectrum in a commercially viable product, companies don't want to wait years for rock particles to break down into usable elements.

Some fields are so damaged after Monsanto is done with them that nothing will grow there any more 'but' their GMOs... because the soil is saturated with glyphosate based herbicide (RoundUp); which only Monsanto GMO seeds are designed to tolerate. So there is a business practice that is actually destroying ground viable for crops in a malicious effort to monopolise the market.
 

Azure

100% organic vegan hubbas
Except you know, being able to understandthe stock markets, be a banker, stock-broker, politician and so forth.

It depends on what you want to do with your life. If you want to make money, well then its there. If you want to do something which will actually get something done which can help others however, unless you go into the field of political-economics it probably wont help.

Unless your point was all university degrees are useless. which depends on what you plan to do.
nah, the entire idea and the way economics is taught at the college level is useless. look at all that fancy shit stock brokers, bankers, and politicians are doing. does it look like the work of somebody who understands economics? MATH maybe, but ECONOMICS? what a crock.
 

Inciatus

In the land of bipolar weather
No, it introduces the inefficiency of encouraging farmers etc. to produce crops for profit (which usually ends up primarily in the hands of foreign investors, rather than the local economy, in cases like Liberia), rather than producing food for the local community.
Having a greater output for a same or lesser input would seem to indicate an increase in efficiency rather than a decrease.
Xolani said:
No, division of labour is the principle cause. Industrial farms also provide fewer jobs per unit of food produced, compared with community farming or even just small business farming. Hardly something you can call a victory in an economic climate like this.
That also means they produce more food per job. This means it can be cheaper, and more food can be produced. People like cheaper food and people like more food.
 

CannonFodder

Resistance is futile! If 0 ohm
People forget or don't realise that most of the nutrients absorbed through plants roots have to be first digested by micro organisms. There is in fact types of fungi that have a symbiotic relationship with plant roots and help them absorb substantially more than the roots could on their own (e.g mycorrhizal fungi). If you wipe out the soils micro organisms by pumping it full of chemicals, you're substantially reducing the availability of naturally occurring nutrients in the soil to the plant. Some natural fertilisers that are not derived from petroleum like blood fish & bone can take three months to fully break down in the soil 'with' micro organisms, without them the nutrients are inaccessible to the plant.

So the plant is reliant almost entirely on water soluble fertilisers as feed, the NPK limited diet. Which is very much like raising the plant on McDonalds, it being able to grow but is seriously deficient in the full spectrum of minerals and trace elements that it needs to be healthy. Some fertilisers try to include trace elements, but again they're damaging the soils biology. That and it's very difficult to include the full spectrum in a commercially viable product, companies don't want to wait years for rock particles to break down into usable elements.

Some fields are so damaged after Monsanto is done with them that nothing will grow there any more 'but' their GMOs... because the soil is saturated with glyphosate based herbicide (RoundUp); which only Monsanto GMO seeds are designed to tolerate. So there is a business practice that is actually destroying ground viable for crops in a malicious effort to monopolise the market.
So basically we're double fucking ourselves in the end?
 

Grimfang999

Member
The problem with collective/communal farming is that not all workers will consent to it and many of them will not choose to only produce "To their needs". Some are going want to create a surplus to make some extra bucks. What will you do if these farmers will not become communal on a large scale, and refuse to? Kinda defeats the purpose of creating a large scale communal farming plan if so many farmers may be unwilling to accept it.

Oh Im not saying it should be done. In many ways self-sufficiency is better. But "making some extra bucks" is a capitalist concept, why would there be money in a communist system? Its everyone working for each other.

However this is why its a theoretical system, it is a difficult process to achieve, thus why Im not a revolutionary, I believe in using socialism at first as a means to regulating capitalism through its own rules, and MAYBE phasing out capitalism when the government reaches a point of much better democracy where the people actually have a say (That should prevent them from restraining peoples rights or freedoms, leaving their only method being brute force, but whats a government without a consenting population?)

I would rather put my faith in an economic system that (Somewhat) works. Communism on a large, international scale is really nothing that can be ever achieved through consent (Human error mostly). The tragedy of the commons is one thing that I may not like about the market system, on of the errors that the system faces. But the market system has proved itself through history.
You mean like that one time that lasted about 200 years where the streets of London were in a permanent smog, disease was rampant, people had to live in workhouses, and homelessness was rife? I think you should provide a specific example, Marx was a product of his time for a reason.

The problem with industrialization under communist countries took place under central planning, a rather terrible economic alternative to the market system. This is the case, because practice has shown that the Govt cannot predict future consumer behavior in regards to creating future output for the citizenry.

The problem was not central planning but corrupted dictators taking control of the government, while accelerated by the fears of western countries invading them while they were unprepared. That was partially the motive for Stalins Five Year Plans, to force the USSRs industry to be able to compete at a level against the west in the event of an invasion. Industry there wasnt successful due to the force put onto the people to follow it and the work conditions were horrendous. For China, well I admit I do not have much experience with Chinese history, but their industry seems to be doing alright, though like Russa they are hardly communist.

The tragedy of the commons is a shame, and can be one considered one of the few negative effects of a market system.

Personally would say there are more than a few things than just the tragedy of the commons, which in itself includes several massive problems (Finite resources, growing contribution of climate change, etc), and those will only contribute to even more problems.

Other problems include:
-Increasing stress or depression related illnesses and deaths within western societies
-Increasing divorce rates (As shown through Indias divorce rates rapidly increasing in relation to its industrialisation http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12094360)
-Increasing individualism (Causing greater isolation and also disregard for others)
-Greater obesity rates
-Ecological destruction and extinction of species (Although this isnt as important for some)
--This can be split into two catagories, those being overconsumed such as fish, or those recieving collateral damage such as the many unknown species within the rainforests being deforested for cattle ranching.
-Increasing relative poverty (Although in fairness absolute poverty is supposedly decreasing)
-High barriers to entry for small businesses.

These are just things off the top of my head, and things which are happening under a REGULATED market system. Lets take away the monopoly and minimum wage regulations for a moment. We will likely get:

-Increased "tragedy of the commons"
-Lack of minimum wage laws would allow for greater exploitation of wages (coupled with clever methods of hiding such)
-Monopolisation or at the very least small oligopolies which would have two key effects:
1) Extremely high barriers to entry, nearly completely disallowing small businesses to even start cometing, considering how most small businesses start off aided by the government
2) Economic power leading to political power in the hands of a few companies. If governments are (even more) useless in this theoretical universe, laws are decided by the markets and with their monetary power they can pretty much do anything, bribing the authorities, hiring personal armies (Such happened with the East India trading company), and pretty much have absolute control of the world. One can argue that they are still human at the end of the day so maybe they would still care for the people they hire? Unlikely, as they become intertwined in a seperate culture, where the interests of their workers are alien to them. It has happened too many times in history to even need to give an example.


I would hardly say there are a "few" problems with the market system. Im pretty sure there were many I didnt even touch on. Regardless, unless you have a good retort to these, it seems to me that capitalism does a lot of harm, especially when unregulated.
 

Inciatus

In the land of bipolar weather
-Increasing stress or depression related illnesses and deaths within western societies
Those actually increased by quite a lot in "communist" countries as well.
-Increasing divorce rates (As shown through Indias divorce rates rapidly increasing in relation to its industrialisation http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12094360)
I don't see this to be relevant solely to capitalism
-Increasing individualism (Causing greater isolation and also disregard for others)
I don't see this as bad.
-Greater obesity rates
because having enough food to be overweight is terrible
-Ecological destruction and extinction of species (Although this isnt as important for some)
That will happen in any case of industrialization regardless of system
-High barriers to entry for small businesses.
There are no small businesses in your system so this point would seem irrelevant. Also there aren't really many barriers to making a small business.
These are just things off the top of my head, and things which are happening under a REGULATED market system. Lets take away the monopoly and minimum wage regulations for a moment. We will likely get:

-Increased "tragedy of the commons"
-Lack of minimum wage laws would allow for greater exploitation of wages (coupled with clever methods of hiding such)
-Monopolisation or at the very least small oligopolies which would have two key effects:
There is a reason we have those certain regulations. If an industry in monopolized then the market system in that market, it can't function as it is supposed to.
I would hardly say there are a "few" problems with the market system. Im pretty sure there were many I didnt even touch on. Regardless, unless you have a good retort to these, it seems to me that capitalism does a lot of harm, especially when unregulated.
Again, noone said it was a perfect system, and noone said it wouldn't do some harm, especially when unregulated. However quite a bit of the things we have today come as a result of capitalism and competing entities. One entity on its own can create something but when those two entities are fighting to survive they need to make their product better than the other so they get your money and survive. Also, capitalism provides a good way of telling us what products are successful and they provide a good method for the distribution of those goods. Many things would probably have still been made but they likely would not have taken off in the development as they did.
considering how most small businesses start off aided by the government

There are funds available you can get (though for a lot of them you have to fit some sort of demographic) but a lot of small businesses don't get government support (at least here). About the closest thing you could say is that the government sometimes demands a certain percentage of a thing they are buying be made by small businesses.
 

Grimfang999

Member
Those actually increased by quite a lot in "communist" countries as well.
But again I dont support "communism", "communism" sucks.

I don't see this to be relevant solely to capitalism
It is again due to stress rates. The intense life required in a capitalist system (Needing the money, extensive work days, etc) causes heightened levels of stress and that causes domestic issues.
I don't see this as bad.
In some ways individualism isnt. I personally think intelectually people should have their own minds and personallity, but then there is increasing social, economic and political individualism, the first causing isolation (which is harmful for a social species), the second increasing disregard for those worse off (For example not willing to give money to the homeless), and the third people dont even care about voting in the government yet complain when the government does things. I probably could be more elaborate with this but my brain isnt working at full capacity today.

because having enough food to be overweight is terrible
I should have expanded on this. There are two main issues here, first is that there is greater obesity than malnutrition on the world (5% more), which shows we have excess food but terrible distribution, and the second is not a matter of access but health risks. Have massive access to food is good but then fatty and sugary foods are promoted more than healthier alternatives, which leads to obesity and diabetes, coupled with further health risks.

That will happen in any case of industrialization regardless of system
Not to the same extent. Deforestation is primarilly the cause of ecological destruction, and a massive majority of that is for cattle ranching, which is where 60% of consumable grain is used, while our meat consumption is more than we need as well. It is due to there being many franchises being based on meat (Such as mcdonalds, burger king, etc) while most meals we have now contain meat, which has been promoted into our culture.

There are no small businesses in your system so this point would seem irrelevant. Also there aren't really many barriers to making a small business.
I am discussing small business here to work within the same paradigm as capitalism. It is based upon and buts emphasis competition to allow for efficiency and consumer choice, but it evidentially works in the exact opposite way. Yes, In communism there isnt small business per se, but that isnt the point I was making.

There is a reason we have those certain regulations. If an industry in monopolized then the market system in that market, it can't function as it is supposed to.
Again, noone said it was a perfect system, and noone said it wouldn't do some harm, especially when unregulated. However quite a bit of the things we have today come as a result of capitalism and competing entities. One entity on its own can create something but when those two entities are fighting to survive they need to make their product better than the other so they get your money and survive. Also, capitalism provides a good way of telling us what products are successful and they provide a good method for the distribution of those goods. Many things would probably have still been made but they likely would not have taken off in the development as they did.
I know, however there are people that argue for unregulated capitalism, which is where it is dangerous. And to be fair I will admit capitalism is good for tchnological progress. I am not actually wholely against capitalism for that reason alone. However my point is there are better methods of distribution of goods than monetary, where many are left deprived through no fault of their own. It is why I believe that certain necessaities should be distributed by the government such as food health and education (Though the latter two usually are nowadays).
 

Aleu

Deuces
Why is it that people still think that more food eaten = obese person?

It's not how much food you've consumed, it's what you are consuming. If you consume only fatty foods YOU ARE GOING TO BE FAT. Not only that but severely malnourished.

This retarded idea that more food = more fat just shows how little people understand how food and the body works. It's what fucked up conservatives comment on obese people on welfare. "Oh they get enough food. CUT THE FOOD BENEFITS". NO, the only reason these people are obese is because they're limited to the cheap things which are *shock* FATTY.
 

ADF

Member
On the subject of ideology...

Defending capitalism has been difficult the last few years, because despite a better system not being available; the rampant destruction is indisputable. Regardless of where you are on the political spectrum, fraud is fraud. Investment bankers selling financial products they know with 100% certainty that they're going to blow up, as well as the insurance protecting against such a scenario doesn't work, is criminal. Yet none of them went to jail, they all got bonuses and partied with the money they extort out of the government by threatening financial Armageddon if they didn't hand it over. The whole financial services sector is indefensible, the means are irrelevant; all that matters is the profit and this has infected everything.

But this is all old news, so where am I going with this?

I came across a rather disturbing video today. Ignore Peter Schiff because what he's saying isn't new, what concerns me is the attitude of the other guy.

He's saying that he recognises that this is a false recovery for America. He recognises the Fed funny money is the only thing pumping up the markets, he's recognising that this is going to end in a colossal disaster. He just doesn't care. All that matters is that the numbers in the stock market are going up, the numbers in people's bank accounts are going up, therefore who gives a toss if all this is unsustainable and destructive? Who cares if the countries economy blows up tomorrow, there is money to be made today. We'll worry about tomorrow tomorrow...

Printing money has destroyed every currency in history, but it's making them richer as of this particular moment; so who cares. Like who cares if the CDOs blows up? Or the credit default swaps? What matters is instant gratification in the form of quick profit, now it's someone else's problem... Have they really learned nothing since 2008? They couldn't care less what's going on in the real economy, the numbers in wall street are going up. So long as that continues the real economy can rot for all they care.

Regardless of political ideology, the system is broken to such an extreme extent that a disaster is inevitable. Money is so cheap that the economy is based on gambling on the stock market, with actual physical products and services taking the back seat. Even when the inevitable collapse comes you can be sure that someone will have arranged a bet to profit from the destruction.

Is suicidal capitalism the new standard? Standing in a collapsing building and placing bets, last to die takes all...
 

Grimfang999

Member
Ugh... yeah I think what we need, regardless of which system replaces it, even if its capitalism again, lets just leave the banks to commit Harakiri for their own sexual pleasure. Despite everything Ive said here, I dont hate capitalism if it is done right, I hate what it can become if it is unregulated and what it is right now. Unfortunately our governments are dumbfucks.


In fact, if you ever get the time, I recommend watching this.
 

ADF

Member
Ugh... yeah I think what we need, regardless of which system replaces it, even if its capitalism again, lets just leave the banks to commit Harakiri for their own sexual pleasure. Despite everything Ive said here, I dont hate capitalism if it is done right, I hate what it can become if it is unregulated and what it is right now. Unfortunately our governments are dumbfucks.


In fact, if you ever get the time, I recommend watching this.

Sadly living in the UK we're in ground zero. When the banks finally do implode, we will feel it the most because our political class in their wisdom; decided to base most of the UK economy on financial services. Thatchers big bang... We are the global leader in financial fraud, most of the financial crimes in the world can be traced back to London. They've stuck all their eggs in the city, and you can see that when we're the only country in the whole of Europe who are fighting against the EU's new regulations and taxes on financial transactions.

We're wholly owned by the banking system and are the worst positioned to weather any fallout in that sector... (will check vid tomorrow)
 
Top