Question for the more pro capitalist posters

N.Beltov wrote:

The following may be of interest to those reading this thread.

 

Rebecca Clauson wrote:

As John Bellamy Foster explained in "The Ecology of Destruction" (Monthly Review, February 2007), Marx explored the ecological contradictions of capitalist society as they were revealed in the nineteenth century with the help of the two concepts of metabolic rift and metabolic restoration. The metabolic rift describes how the logic of accumulation severs basic processes of natural reproduction leading to the deterioration of ecological sustainability. Moreover, "by destroying the circumstances surrounding that metabolism," Marx went on to argue, "it [capitalist production] compels its systematic restoration as a regulating law of social reproduction"-a restoration, however, that can only be fully achieved outside of capitalist relations of production.1

Recent developments in Cuban agroecology offer concrete examples of how the rift can be healed, not simply with different techniques but with a transformation of the socio-metabolic relations of food production ...

Metabolic Restoration in Cuban Agriculture

Sorry, but the reality is that Cuba's agricultral system is woefully unproductive. Farm plots are largely underutilized, and the country imports 80% of the food it rations. The truth is that if the world switched to the Cuban system of agriculture we would starve. Raul Castro has started to go about reforming the system himself.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/04/16/cuba.farming/index.html or here...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090726/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_cuba_revolution_day or here.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111046663&ft=1&f=1004

 

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

Quote:

Well, I did provide an, albeit brief, alternative explanation of the crash of 1929.

Did you think that ideological drivel had some resemblance to a logical explanation?

Your academic integrity, and general sense of decency in discourse is unmatched, sir. I take my hat off to you and wish you well.

N.Beltov wrote:

1a. Sunny C: If you're going to adopt the Thatcherite ideological view that society does not exist (her exact words, more or less; an "undefined, intangible entity" - your words) then, of course, by definition, any social goals are illogical since something that does not exist cannot have a goal.But then you're just playing with words. Global problems, especially species extinction problems, deserve more seriousness.

I agree. They certainly do deserve more serious attention. My point however, was that the only justifiably sensible--in my opinion--course to achieve that level of serious attention is through education. Personally, I recognize no right of anyone to dictate "truth" to me. Accordingly, I do a considerable amount of reading in a variety of scientific journals - and where necessary - seek additional education to understand, at the very least, the conclusions. The result of my investigation - is I attempt to live, and through acts of volition, make consumer decisions that work towards the goals to which I've identified as necessary... which, from an environmental position... appear to be consistent with yours. I am however loathe to use the government monopoloy on "force" to make other individuals adhere to something they don't accept (as evidenced by their buying decisions...). I am no dictator.

N.Beltov wrote:

1b. If you're genuinely interested in some discussion of Cuban Agriculture, do a Google search through MonthlyReview using agriculture and Cuba as keywords, and there should be plenty there for you to have a look at. The last few issues have had several articles about innovative Cuban agriculture. I'm sure there are other sources ... but MR is readily available.

My short response to your previous post on Cuban agriculture was merciful - as it's not my area of expertise or researched knowledge. The information I pulled was taken directly from a Google link. Further, another poster (I think a couple up...) has illuminated the actual productivity issues with Cuban agriculture. It's certainly "sustainable" - just woefully insufficient. I stand by the notion that merely "not-dying (ie: surviving)" is not the equivalent of living.

N.Boltov wrote:

1c. It's amusing to read your remarks to the effect that it was "government intervention in the marketplace" (there's that idolatry I wrote about earlier) that was the cause, or main cause, of this most recent capitalist depression. The financialization, or at least the excesses in subprime mortgages, etc., for those with short memories was, in fact, the REMEDY to the 2000 stock market crash and the 2001 recession. The CAUSES of these downturns lie deeper.

I'm always pleased I can amuse and entertain. Though the fact that freddie mac and fannie mae, backing trillions of dollars in mortgages, were both government regulated (controlled, influenced) institutions that failed, precipitating a perilous crash in secondary financial markets, is not so amusing. I make no apologies for the perverse "cronies" you refer to as "capitalists" that chose to adopt greed and contribute to the sinking ship the government set sail... I just prefer to look at all aspects of the equation instead of just one.

 

And I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on the causes of the 1929 crash. Disagreements do happen in dialogue and debate.

N.Boltov wrote:

It's also amusing because most sober observers aknowledge that it was the war spending, that is, GOVERNMENT spending, which brought the US economy out of the huge trough of the depression that began in 1929.

I didn't deny that. I actually acknowledged that. A government institution that gave direct control of money supply to crooks (for all intents and purposes)... an insitutiton and opportunity that wouldn't be possible without the government... set the stage for the worst economic crash of the times. The solution - as we've now both pointed out - was not prudent, sober, self-examination -- it was more government intervention vis a vis massive social welfare and infrastructure spending. I'm not debating that. I'm just pointing out the amusing coincidence that government intervention was believed to be the solution to the failure of ... government intervention. That's all.

N.Boltov wrote:

1d. The egg on the face of people like U of Chicago orthodox economics zombie Robert Lucas, who claimed that the "central problem of depression-prevention has been solved, for all practical purposes" is only matched by the stupid grin on the face of Ben Bernake, with his "Great Moderation", something that the late, great John K. Galbraith called "The Economics of Innocent Fraud".

In a way, we might be agreed on something here. Again, I see the Federal Reserve as a government institution - controlled by crooks since inception - that should be abolished. Clearly those individuals who stand to gain the most from an institution like that will commit whatever fraud necessary to keep it running and operating within the scope of "public acceptance".

 

The difference in our opinions however, is that you see the solution as requiring "more control" - "tigher regulation"... I see the solution as requiring the elimination of institutions, like the FedRes, that make "real control" and manipulation possible.

N.Boltov wrote:

It's a radical rupture from capitalism to wrest the control of social life towards the common good and away from the anarchy of the market. The solution of ecological and global problems are, I think, inextricably tied together with questions of the nature of the transition from capitalism to (shall we say) "post-capitalism". A whole range of social contradictions have to, it seems, be solved at once, in order to solve any one of them. And, of course, that makes preserving the current system easier. The riddle needs solving. Fast.

Whenever anyone, on any forum, or in any conversation, quotes the "common good" - I'm invariably required to ask "who's common good"? Who, as you see it, will be responsible for making decisions about my happiness... as the advocation for the abolishment of capitalism presupposes that individuals are incapable of making decisions for themselves.

 

As to social contradictions - I'm curious how the issue of one's human right to life (which by extension includes making choices for the good of one's life) is reconciled against the future socialized economic solution that seeks to make decisions for individuals - in pursuit of the "common good". Thoughts?

 

 

[/quote]

I will admit that I was craving a 5-screen screed of Ayn-Randian mental gymnastics.

But hey - what's the use of having a banned troll return if he won't dance for you?

Quote:

And I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on the causes of the 1929 crash.

Much easier to 'agree to disagree' than it is to try to justify your ridiculous drivel. eh?

Fidel wrote:

Kapitalism is a monstrous ideology - a monumental failure.

That's crazy Fidel. Canada, the US, Europe, Australia et. al. are pretty good good places to live for the vast majority it's people.  That's a better track record than whatever other idealogy you are proposing.  That does not mean that 'Kapitaism" it is without flaws. I marvel at how rich our life is now compared to just 50 years ago but, but I have felt robbed more than once.

Last year I visited Armenia.  Saw the empty factories and the fields where they buired the unsold production.

The system needs correcting now, not replacement. Maybe this needed correction is happening, maybe not. But the fact that we are dicussing this topic in this forum with this audience is testimony to how enriched our lives have becone over the last 50 years.

The world can produce enough food to feed itself.  Poliitics and greed get in the way. Those are the sins of capitalism, not the motivation.

N.Beltov wrote:

Maybe Sunny Canuck can tell us about his views on the "discount rate". It measures the value that one places on future generations. That should reveal a great deal.

Sorry, I don't quite follow. Can you add a little more? How does this relate to your topic? Are you asking me to comment on the time value of money theory?

Ah. Thanks for the clarification - I hadn't come across such an "esoteric" concept before.

 

Prediction into the future, whether from a strange economist, or climate change modellers - generally any science - suffers from an exponentially increasing error rate the further you get away from the present. Personally speaking, they waste everyone's time - as when an error rate in prediction gets so large - what's the point?

:D

But you have to admit, it was complex and witty, in that very Wilde-esque sort of way, with just the right undercurrent of absurdity to play off the unflinching insult underneath.

That, or remind just laughs at everything LTJ says like she's the ghost of Ed McMahon.

What a fun thread.

Excluding snert's, latest,  he is just plain Confused.

N.Beltov wrote:

I would have thought that devaluing future generations would appeal to an ideologically radical individualist. You guys are so weird. Maybe go back to your home ... planet. Earth is full.

You apparently did think that - and I've told you that you're wrong to assume that quack science--insofar as far flung future predictions and "valuing" whole societies--would hold any interest or appeal to me.

 

Tell me N.Boltov - when you first requested "pro-capitalist" perspective on your OP, were you in any way even remotely sincere?

While I certainly don't consider myself pro-capitalist, I suppose I am relative to the posters on Rabble.

Now, we all know that only one nation in the world has an environmentally sustainable footprint, and gives its citizens a decent standard of life - and that nation is Cuba. Cuba is unique in the sense that it has a lot of education, and technology but needs to be self-reliant. Every acre of land is used, and it seems that in ten adjacent acres of land, you will have nine different crops. I'm not sure that this model will work for everyone, nor am I sure that this would even work for Cuba if the trade were opened up.

There are a few villains in the accelerated destuction of our planet, and I am not sure that capitalism is one of them, although it is certainly closely linked with them.

1) Growth: Economists always measure success in terms of growth. Our GDP has to grow or we are said to be economic failures. We need to change the goal line so that the target is sustainability and better quality of life, with the same environmental footprint. One other problem, is that many people wish to be paid more for doing the same job - which then drives up inflation and creates a need for growth. In order to maintain, we need people to accept the same wage for doing the same job, under a zero-inflation model.

2) Globalization: The availability of products produced all over the world, as well as the cost benefits of importing certain products from other regions makes sense to economists. But they don't seem to factor in, the damage caused by all the fuels involved in the transportation of those goods. Until that is factored into the equation, we will continue to see rising rates of pollution caused by global trade.

3) Population: While urban populations have hit a peak, populations in rural areas continue to increase, and the Earth can simply not prdouce enough effectively for the increasing populations. Much of this growth can be reduced by structuring government programs, pensions etc in such a way that people are not dependent on their children to survive once they reach old age.

4) The BRIC and the poor model set by the industrialized nations. As China and India succeed economically, they represent a huge demand for harmful goods and services. As the number of autos and factories increase, pollution will skyrocket. Sadly, the UK, Canada and the US really have no business telling them what they can't do, because we've already eaten up our share of the global pollution, and we continue to do so. Until the historic polluters agree to curtail their pollution and pay compensation for all the damage we've already done, this trend will continue.

 

Sunny Canuck wrote:

Tell me N.Boltov - when you first requested "pro-capitalist" perspective on your OP, were you in any way even remotely sincere?

You might note that his request was for existing posters, rather than for lurking trolls.

Have I somehow acted outside the spirit of the terms of use that I was required to read through before joining this forum? I didn't expect that having some pro-capitalist opinions would lead to such hateful and vile comments. Do you honestly prefer to engage in discussion with individuals who stroke your own perspective? Personally, I find disagreement and debate stimulating.

Fidel wrote:

And if you LOVE us and respect our opinions, then you will make some attempt to address Beltov's question: Are  capitalist Draculas and saving the planet from capitalist Draculas a kind of direct and obvious conflict of interests, iyo?

I see that my first post wasn't specific to the OP - and could easily be misconstrued as an attempt to hijack/troll. Forgive my transgression.

 

I do stand by the subsequent posts though - specifically with respect to the inventive, creative capacity that capitalism has demonstrated in every industry it touches. Industrial power, for instance--should global environmental catastrophe ever be realized--will be more important than ever. I would think that encouraging competition in power generation would be the best and most efficient avenue to affordable and sustainable power in the future--on the scales we've become accustomed to today. Further, we have no way of even hypothesizing where new discoveries in theoretical and applied science might be. As an economic system of organization - capitalism has demonstrated a remarkable ability to stimulate invention as a way to meet changing demands.

 

It's entirely possible I'm just unfamiliar with how a centrally planned economy/society encourages technological inventiveness--which I see as critical to future sustainability and adaptability to new, unforseen circumstance. I'm certainly open to links and new information.

 

Stephen, I would hope that workers would have the freedom to decide collectively to stop new tar sands projects given the advice of climate scientists today. This probably wouldnt have been possible in the former USSR under state socialism. The socialism I'm meaning is the kind where workers actually own the means of production, and similar to that of the former Yugoslavia before dissolution of the USSR, Yugoslavia's largest trading partner.

Right now these kinds of decisions are owned by Exxon-Imperial and friends in the oil industry, and mostly in corporate board rooms in America. Their bought and paid-for governments in Canada, and especially this one with 22% of registered voter support under them,  would not dream of saying no to them.

Fidel wrote:

The history of the roaring 20's bear similarites to the roaring 90's. Thousands of banks collapsed in the states due to conflicted interests, insider trading, lack of regulation etc. Banks then were allowed to do business in other pillars of finance, insurance, stocks, real estate, utilities, and commercial banking. FDR created firewalls of regulation to prevent the crisis from causing the rest of the economy collapsing entirely.

I agree that both the 20s and the 90s experienced unrealistic "roaring" periods - however I can't ignore the fact the manipulation of money supply, by crooks, using a government interventionist mechanism, made so much of the triggering events possible in the 20s... and federal institutions in the 90s creating false demand and a hyperbubble. Without those government institutions intervening in those markets - such mechanisms wouldn't have existed to perpetrate the pervasive issues experienced in both periods.

 

I do agree that more, not less, regulation is required - but regulation distinct from control in an interventionist sort of way. I see governments role domestically as including a comprehensive protection of our rights from all potential violations - especailly corporate cronyism/collusion. Whatever the cost - domestic defence of our rights should mirror, and in this day and age, exceed foreign defence costs - as the multi-nationals appear to operate with complete impunity.

Fidel wrote:

In Canada the CCF and civil society groups pushed and prodded the Liberals to nationalise the Bank of Canada and produce government-cr4eated money for spending on war effort, infrastructure and new social programs, from 1938 to 1974. In 1970 there were no homeless shelters in Canada, and food banks were unheard of. Not that these things could have been useful then, but Canadians preferred full-time work to UI and welfare then with unemployment rates about 4% by 1973 or so. The problem was that, even though things were working fairly well, neoliberals convinced even the centrists and some on the left than Friedmanite economics would make world economies more efficient and more prosperous. And after 30 years, the results are in around the western world.

Up until very recently, I thought unemployment rates in Canada, on average, were fairly stable at about 5% - and that's after a rather dramatic change in demographics, population and the general socio-economic landscape. Do you have a few good links to studies on poverty rates, quality of life metrics from 1930s to present? I know real wages have been on the decline for labour wages in Canada - which doesn't bode well for the future if nothing changes - but I'm certainly interested in additional information you have to offer.

Fidel wrote:

And the world would likely be enslaved by now - millions worked to death for corporations like IG Farben, Krupp's, IBM, Ford, General Motors, etc Capitalist crises have historically led to war, and the larger the crisis the bigger the war.

I, nor many capitalist leaning supporters, would disagree with you here. What I do disagree with is the scapegoating of capitalism as the source of the problem. If our rights in those time periods had been violated by massive organized crime syndicates... we would have blamed the government for lack of police protection from physical harm. However, since it was perprated by white-collars, against blue collars... a comparable violation of individual rights... we responded by curtailing capitalism instead of ferociously punishing the organizations and individuals responsible - as we would had it been a Hell's Angel in the physical sense.

 

 

 

N.Beltov wrote:

Maybe we could start with ending the brainwashing of children with advertising for fast food. That should be easy in comparison.

I would think fast food is, like cigarettes, an edangered species... no? Again - if we spent even half of what fast food behemoths spent on advertising their schlup to us, on educating children (and adults!) to the serious health ramifications of what that food does to them... we could probably stamp out the problem inside of a generation.

Sunny Canuck wrote:

I agree that both the 20s and the 90s experienced unrealistic "roaring" periods - however I can't ignore the fact the manipulation of money supply, by crooks, using a government interventionist mechanism, made so much of the triggering events possible in the 20s... and federal institutions in the 90s creating false demand and a hyperbubble. Without those government institutions intervening in those markets - such mechanisms wouldn't have existed to perpetrate the pervasive issues experienced in both periods.

You make it sound as if governments from Reagan to Clinton were solely responsible for deregulation. But they were only listening to the high pressure lobbyists on Wall Street who still have revolving door access to the halls of power in Washington. The ones responsible for creating this deregulated mess were put in charge of fixing it. Socialism is now the preferred method for bailing out financial capitalists for their losses and bad decisions. Wall St has lost more money in the last two years than it created in the last 25. This may not be a problem with the idea for utopian capitalism as much as it has to do with dollar democracy and fascism. It was said that FDR saved the US from socialism. The truth is that FDR saved them from fascism if only temporarily. And the US has used socialist methods time and again since FDR. In some ways.  the US has been even more socialist than Canada. In America, there are social programs for everyone but the poor. And theyve even done some things better for the poor than here since the 1980s, believe it or not. 

Sunny Canuck wrote:

Up until very recently, I thought unemployment rates in Canada, on average, were fairly stable at about 5% - and that's after a rather dramatic change in demographics, population and the general socio-economic landscape. Do you have a few good links to studies on poverty rates, quality of life metrics from 1930s to present? I know real wages have been on the decline for labour wages in Canada - which doesn't bode well for the future if nothing changes - but I'm certainly interested in additional information you have to offer.

I think the best rates in Canada were hovering around 6 percent, but I could be wrong. US government U rates have been even lower in the good times, but some say their methods of reporting are somewhat less accurate than OECD and Canadian rates. However, since the Fed abandoned tight money in 1982 after two years of Friedman's monetarist monetarism, theyve generally targeted inflation at around 3-4% with inflation allowed to run as high as 4-4.5% at times. 

Here in Canada, central bankers abandoned the BIS' looney advice of the late 1980's for zero inflation and aimed for 2% inflation as a midway target between one and three. Tighter money policies here, according to what I've read, have necessarily led to slightly higher unemployment rates. If we have a booming economy in Alberta and BC, fear of inflation rises and the hammer drops with higher bank rates, and the rest of the country pays. The feds/BoC have managed inflation and unemployment before using a wider array of tools at their disposal than now, and the left says Ottawa can do it again if the political will existed. The problem is thast Canada has our lobbysists, too. We have rightwing think tanks which the feds once considered rightwing think tanks 20-25 years ago. Today theyre bending the ears of government ministers and senators alike with the power to set the agendas.

 

I'm sorry, but you're confused: Are you proposing individual moderation and self-control, or government bans and rationing?

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

I'm sorry, but you're confused: Are you proposing individual moderation and self-control, or government bans and rationing?

Sorry if I was unclear. I was arguing for individual moderation and self-control--achieved through education (from an earlier post)--instead of government bans and rationing.

Sunny Canuck wrote:

...the issue of lobbyists and pressure groups seeking their own agenda's would exist under any system of government (or economic organization) that includes in its mandate, the ability to influence how individuals create, manage, produce and distribute wealth (goods and services).

I don't see how you would remove that element in a more socialist driven, centrally planned economy. Rather, I imagine it to be even worse - as the power of individuals in government in that system dramatically exceeds the power under the current statist (mixed economic) regime. No?

Why? I would agree the same potential exists, but I don't understand why you would think it would become any more prevalent - unless you believe that all socialism inherently tends towards an undemocratic Soviet system.

I argued that lobbyists ability and motivation to influence is directly proportional to the scope and pervasive power government wields in a democratic society. In our current mixed economic model - government exercises all kinds of power - however, it is, in many ways, still very limited. As I understand a centrally planned economy - the government is supreme in it's ability (power) to influence every facet of the socio-economic landscape. Accordingly - I imagine that the influence of lobbyists would rise. The lobbyists may change form - from formal pressure groups to something less obvious - but the incentive to pressure the supreme government planners would be immense.