Capitalists, help me understand something? - Page 5 - Economics -- Two Plus Two Poker Forums

Fermion5 · 12-09-2011, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by heehaww

Hey, so I've been thinking again.

Before I reached an agreement with you all: that the economy isn't zero-sum. My (and others') reasoning was that resources can increase/decrease.

Unfortunately, I'm starting to think we'd be better off if it WERE zero-sum.

From the beginning of civilization to not long ago, mankind has been gaining resources. But more recently, we've begun to LOSE resources. Also, we're increasing in population, so we're losing per-capita resources even faster. This math professor's lecture drives home this point very well -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA...1FD147A45EF50D

I was aware before that we're rapidly losing resources, but didn't mention it because I wasn't sure if capitalism was to blame.

But I'm starting to think it is related to capitalism. The energy companies are depleting our resources in order to gain maximum profit in the short-term; they don't care about the future, when there will be nothing left for them to buy with their billions. The big agriculture companies are also depleting our resources, again for selfish short-term reason of monetary profit.

If it weren't for capitalism, there wouldn't be a motivation to ruin the future. There would be no, "I'll be dead by then, so I might as well get rich now."

Or am I wrong again?

Quote:

So what does this have to do with fossil fuels? If humans are “eating up our energy source as fast as we can”, then the supply will fall, causing the price to rise. The higher price will discourage consumption and provide incentives for people to increase the supply — either through conserving the resource, discovering new supply, inventing new technology, or by substituting different resources. Even though humans are using up resources, the price system — manifested in human action — automatically responds to a shortage by creating incentives for people to increase the supply. Scarcity creates incentives for abundance. Humans will not use up all their resources and experience a die-off because, through the marvel of the price system, resources are allocated to reflect supply and demand.

Source article, it's short and worth a read.

TomCollins · 12-10-2011, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by heehaww

Energy companies wouldn't have a reason to deliberately lie about how long the coal and oil reserves will last.

As the video I linked to shows, every time they say "This will last for 500-1000 years", it's a gross lie.

Also, aggro companies would diversify their crops and I'm pretty sure if not for capitalism, they wouldn't have a reason to feed corn to cows. Agriculture *should* be the easiest thing to sustain, because all it requires is the sun and cyclical processes. Instead we turned it into something highly unsustainable, because there's more money to be made that way.

Everyone assumes, without reason or evidence, that the problems will magically solve themselves at the last minute ("by then I'm sure we'll have come up with something"). And we also assume the last minute is a long time away, when really it's not. It's basically 1 generation away.

They don't solve themselves at the last minute. The market drives things to adjust and account for future supplies by making profit opportunities to hold resources for future use (if you expect them to be scarce in the future). This moves the problems forwards and smooths out problems.

Welcome back, Jiggs.

coffee_monster · 12-10-2011, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomCollins

They don't solve themselves at the last minute. The market drives things to adjust and account for future supplies by making profit opportunities to hold resources for future use (if you expect them to be scarce in the future). This moves the problems forwards and smooths out problems.

Welcome back, Jiggs.

Can't be Jiggs--heehaw changed his position ITT (about zero-sum) and actually admitted it.

Monkey Banana · 12-11-2011, 05:24 AM

The OP was effectively correct and capitalism only survives by pretending to be creative.

Janabis · 12-11-2011, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monkey Banana

The OP was effectively correct and capitalism only survives by pretending to be creative.

Did you pretend to write that post on a pretend computer on the pretend internet?

Monkey Banana · 12-11-2011, 04:47 PM

The capitalists who made this computer did not create anything.

TimM · 12-11-2011, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monkey Banana

The capitalists who made this computer did not create anything.

An enormous number of people cooperated to create that computer. Capitalism made that possible.

An enormous number of people cooperate just to create an ordinary pencil:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/I,_Pencil

http://fee.org/wp-content/uploads/au...encil-Full.mp3

heehaww · 12-12-2011, 03:06 PM

@Fermion -- You might have a point, I forgot to consider supply&demand, I'll have to think about it.

But I wonder why the prices aren't already skyrocketing. Yes they're higher than a few years ago but not high enough to really discourage anyone.

And we won't ever be able to just stop using energy, unless we all stop driving to work and stop using electricity and start living an Amish or Native American lifestyle all of a sudden (and I guess the poor would be the first ones forced to do that, they'd literally be surfs just like the old days). We're talking about a very basic thing, not ipods. So I'm not sure if the supply/demand dynamic models energy consumption quite as well as it models ipod purchasing.

I figure it's wiser to start really looking for alternative sources NOW, because it will probably be harder to develop new technologies while we're living in teepees. You don't see bushmen developing cold fusion, do you?

TimM · 12-12-2011, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by heehaww

But I wonder why the prices aren't already skyrocketing. Yes they're higher than a few years ago but not high enough to really discourage anyone.

Why should the prices skyrocket? There is still oil for now. Those who have it, whether they be individuals, corporations, or governments, need to get something for it, if only to pay expenses and salaries required to produce it. If they hoard the rest it in anticipation of future shortages, they would need to forgo some of their own present consumption.

heehaww · 12-12-2011, 04:52 PM

No, there really ISN'T oil. We are still exponentially using it all up, just like the yeast in Fermion's link. The market forces have yet to break us off our exponential curve. We only have 50-100 years of oil left. And I'm saying the market shouldn't wait until we only have 5 years left to start skyrocketing the prices.

TimM · 12-12-2011, 06:36 PM

No, but 50-100 years is beyond most peoples' time horizons. Would you rather have a million dollars now, or 50 million in 50 years (assuming no risk).

heehaww · 12-12-2011, 07:25 PM

Right, that's exactly why I considered the topic of resource consumption relevant to capitalism. Capitalism seems to lead to selfishness. A corporation only cares about its bottom line; not about the good of mankind or whether the non-zero-sum economy and set of resources is tending toward a positive or negative sum.
(Also, does nobody care about their kids' or grandkids' time horizons?)

And by "resources" I'm also including basic necessities like water. The more water we pollute, the less available for us to drink and water our crops with. Of course we can start distilling all our water, but that requires energy.

Food (actual food) is already very low in supply thanks to capitalism. Food is probably the best example, because without capitalism there would be absolutely no reason for any of the current ass-backwards agriculture practices (for instance, feeding corn to cows), and we'd have an abundant supply of real food. (On the other hand, our supply of pharmaceutical drugs would be much less abundant, because we wouldn't have all the illnesses caused by our malnutrition.)

TomCollins · 12-12-2011, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by heehaww

Right, that's exactly why I considered the topic of resource consumption relevant to capitalism. Capitalism seems to lead to selfishness. A corporation only cares about its bottom line; not about the good of mankind or whether the non-zero-sum economy and set of resources is tending toward a positive or negative sum.
(Also, does nobody care about their kids' or grandkids' time horizons?)

And by "resources" I'm also including basic necessities like water. The more water we pollute, the less available for us to drink and water our crops with. Of course we can start distilling all our water, but that requires energy.

Food (actual food) is already very low in supply thanks to capitalism. Food is probably the best example, because without capitalism there would be absolutely no reason for any of the current ass-backwards agriculture practices (for instance, feeding corn to cows), and we'd have an abundant supply of real food. (On the other hand, our supply of pharmaceutical drugs would be much less abundant, because we wouldn't have all the illnesses caused by our malnutrition.)

We would have an abundant supply of food because there would be more people dying off of other problems.

But food today is cheaper now than it has been in any time in history. You are vastly mistaken if you think that there is a shortage now of food thanks to capitalism.

heehaww · 12-12-2011, 11:50 PM

I said in parentheses, "actual food".

Find something in your grocery store that you can justifiably call food, then maybe I'll agree there's no shortage of food.

TimM · 12-13-2011, 12:20 AM

heehaww,

What social system would you advocate?