This is true. Which is why we must be vigilant in participating in our govt. Because it's also a nicely packaged infrastructure of power and control ready and waiting to protect our freedoms. Its centralized power is corruptable, but also accountable to the people -- all the people -- regardless of their race, income, gender, religion, etc. Something no private institution is.

it is also worth noting that this capatilism without interference by government is unsustainable, in this case as regards cows. people eat way too many cows, it is really bad for the environment because it takes up space, the cows poops that pollute rivers and it is very energy intensive, oh and also uses up a lot of water and our water resources in the world are diminsihing. that would also be pretty bad if because of capatalisism without direction from society, we used up all of our water resources.

Water. When the production of food and fiber degrades the natural resource base, the ability of future generations to produce and flourish decreases. The decline of ancient civilizations in Mesopotamia, the Mediterranean region, Pre-Columbian southwest U.S. and Central America is believed to have been strongly influenced by natural resource degradation from non-sustainable farming and forestry practices. Water is the principal resource that has helped agriculture and society to prosper, and it has been a major limiting factor when mismanaged.
http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/Concept.htm

but governemnt is just one form in which a monopoly power can emerge. a few people with a lot of money also has a lot of power and will consolidate and use it. it doesn't happen in the US so much because the government is strong, but in other countries where the government is less storng, private interests with a lot of money manage the country, use their money to stage coups, etc. Government, or powerful business interests (formed with unfettered capatilism) - same thing

No it isn't.

Yes they are.

"When you say something like "(Capitalism) has no regard for limited resources or the collective good" you let everyone know right away you are totally uninformed.

Do you care if the companies you purchase goods from serve the collective good? If so, then capitalism cares--at least to SOME extent--about the public good. Hell, I care about the collective good and I'm apparently some immoral capitalist."

What if people are very self interested, and don't care if the companies they buy goods from are good for humanity as a whole? Let's say i'm more focused with having a nice life the next couple of years, about eating a good dinner and for that i will buy cheaper oil that polutes the entire world than more expensive clean energy. what if basic human nature is inherently flawed, and when we have the power (as humans do now like never before), we destroy ourselves? then unregulated capatilsim could be a big problem.

How was Fuedelism not capatilism?

What if gorillas learn to use machine guns and take over central Africa? then not killing all the gorillas could be a big problem.

i dont unerstand what is your point

Umm, this is a hypotheitcal about logging. The contention is that a company will exploit forests at an unsustainable rate, causing forests to rapidly be diminished and not be regrown. If it takes 100 years for a company to log all of its land at this "unsustainable rate", then consider me unimpressed. Vast parts of the US were logged at a rate much much faster than that in the 19th century. Guess what? The forests grew back.

This whole logging analogy is totally absurd. There are tons of major, private timber plantations around the country and world. According to this argument, they would have totally destroyed themselves if not for government regulation.

Thank God farmers have government to keep them from salting their own land.

in the 19th century , the US was very rich in resources and underpopulated. what happens in an overpopulated world... and don't forget that some places of the world aren't as easy for people to live in as the US... in many places of the world it is a constant struggle to survive and they have to make efficient use of everything they have.

The bolded statements are either meaningless, speculative, or unsupported.


I'm glad 2p2 has reached an era where you can't just go around spouting whatever arguments sound reasonable without offering a shred of evidence.

You seem to have two arguments for how capitalism is destroying the working class: productivity gains and offshoring. productivity gains are fundamental to a division of labor and working class as a whole, and the latter is simply distributing the wealth globally (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newly_i...alized_country).

And this relates to capitalism and logging how?

There are examples of countries that have totally depleted their timber resources--Haiti is probably the best example. Unfortunately for you, it's not a great example of a capitalist society.

So have trees.

[x] I came

We live in a world of finite resources that have an infinite number of possible uses. We, as a people, must somehow allocate these resources most efficiently to those who will best use them to benefit us all. Free markets, everywhere and always, will achieve this desired result better than any other possible mechanism. We all gain when markets are freed.

what was the life expectancy and quality of life for this anarchosocialist society you are talking about?

This is what happens when you learn what free market capitalism is from socialists/marxists.

Put down your chomsky book and pick up "naked economics".

According to be the bible it was 900+ years.

case closed... let's go back to anarchosocialism

because consumers in the capitalist system weigh many factors when making their trading decisions

How many people refuse to buy products from certain companies due to where the clothes are made, the working conditions, etc?

This happens over and over

How many Americans buy American?

Why do people buy the Prius?

the list goes on and on

That's my point. A very, very, very, small percentage.

I'm arguing one side now, I was going to argue the other side but Boro did it for me. The next step is finding a solution. AC is not the solution (this is my opinion, I'm allowed to have one).

And then impose it on everyone and kill them if they resist.

I.e. the state. Wahoo! What a solution!

No, don't kill them. That's a bit harsh. If someone refuses to either follow the house rules or leave the premises, the punishment should fit the crime.

Good lord, OP, just read Wealth of Nations which will tell you why you're wrong etc.