Fact It doesn't pay to help America...

[ileks]

I see poverty and inequality in the UK and the US that we should be tackling so we can set an example to the world of the type of society it is possible to build - and IMO we should fix those problems before we aggressively and violently export our way of life.

Says the bloke that only pays 15% tax or whatever it was (not having a dig)

edit- ok it was a little dig

 

[DaGaffer]

I don't remember other countries ramming the "fact" that they're the beacon of light and justice in the world, that what they're doing is right and that everyone else should be doing it their way (or we'll come over there and *make* you).

If you repeatedly proclaim yourselves as the "best country in the world" and don't live up to the standards that you say your country upholds much better than everyone else, don't be surprised when people have a pop...

You mean apart from Britain? And France.

 

[Raven]

...and Holland, and Belgium, and Spain, and Russia, and....

Everyone has done it at some point or another, especially empire builders. We were the best at it ofc!

 

[Scouse]

I disagree. No other country has been more active in foreign war than the US/UK (same country) for the past 100 years. Pointing towards history and saying "that's the way it's always been" doesn't make it any more excuseable.


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6oZuj3Hgb4

"shouldn't we consider in every nation major changes in the traditional way of doing things - fundamental restructuring of economic, political, social and religious institutions?"

In this day and age we know better and we understand that such action is ultimately down to our economic system. "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism" - yes, Lenin wrote it but I'd take Lenin to task over his marxist actions too, but it doesn't make him wrong.

Failure to criticise idiocy and to argue for the current obviously totally corrupt and broken system gets us nowhere and is tantamount to a woeful lack of imagination at best, intellectual cowardice at worst, IMO.

 

[Wij]

As for winning ww2 without the USA it's a bit more complicated than people are making out. Yes, soviet lives were doing the hardest work against the nazis and the nazis had assumed the fight would be easier than it was but the USA had been involved in the war indirectly (actually not that indirect at all) for a long time. You could run all kinds of what-if scenarios but imagine if the japs had entered the war but not against the USA but rather against British and soviets. If the USA had still kept out it might have been different. Hard to prove but it's no forgone conclusion. Anything other than what actually happened is speculation.

 

[Wij]

"Imperialism, the highest form of Capitalism" - yes, Lenin wrote it but I'd take Lenin to task over his marxist actions too, but it doesn't make him wrong...

neither does it make it right. Seriously, when you have to quote Lenin you know your argument has moved beyond facts into rhetoric.

 

[Scouse]

neither does it make it right. Seriously, when you have to quote Lenin you know your argument has moved beyond facts into rhetoric.

But it is tho.

Watch the video Wij, that's the crux of the argument I'm making (more important stuff towards the end but the whole video is about as good as it could be put).

Then tell me what's wrong with what he says - rather than pick up on the word "lenin" and make a nonsense emotional argument...

 

[Scouse]

Oooh, topical!

Growing inequality, environmental decline and "teetering" economies mean the world must change the way it does business, a UN report concludes.

The current economic model is "pushing us inexorably towards the limits of natural resources and planetary life support systems"

...

 

[Wij]

But it is tho.

Watch the video Wij, that's the crux of the argument I'm making (more important stuff towards the end but the whole video is about as good as it could be put).

Then tell me what's wrong with what he says - rather than pick up on the word "lenin" and make a nonsense emotional argument...

For fucks sake. That's not even an argument. The video is about the futility of nuclear war and weapons and an appeal to rethink things. The examples he gives though such as the abolition of slavery and women's rights all happened within their respective economic systems, mostly capitalist but some communist or misc, and arguably benefitted the systems. It has nothing to do with capitalism. That's just how you would like the fundamental change to occur.

D-

Needs to show more working out.
Puts arguments onto others without demonstrating original intent.
Retrofits facts to chosen theory.
Fails to consider alternative viewpoints.

 

[Wij]

Oooh, topical!

Growing inequality, environmental decline and "teetering" economies mean the world must change the way it does business, a UN report concludes.



...

Oooh, a selective quote.

Article summary: a UN talking shop recommends changes to the system to address inequality and environmental damage. UN talking shop does not recommend ripping whole system to bits and randomly killing 20 million people who aren't self.

 

[Raven]

There is nothing wrong with capitalism, the problem is the people that abuse power. Those same people exist in communism, except they get away with it overtly.

 

[DaGaffer]

I disagree. No other country has been more active in foreign war than the US/UK (same country) for the past 100 years. Pointing towards history and saying "that's the way it's always been" doesn't make it any more excuseable.

"Same country" Ooh, little bit of politics there ladies and gentlemen. Britain was playing the moral high ground card a long time before the Americans got in the act; its natural outcome of the application of "soft power", especially when one nation is demonstrably stronger than the rest. As for whether the US has been involved in more foreign wars over the last 100 years than anyone else, I'd hazard a guess that the Russians and the French could both give the Americans a run for their money, but so what? America's wars, with the exception of Iraq, are no more morally questionable than anyone else's.

In this day and age we know better and we understand that such action is ultimately down to our economic system. "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism" - yes, Lenin wrote it but I'd take Lenin to task over his marxist actions too, but it doesn't make him wrong.

Actually, he's flat out wrong. Imperialism is not the "highest stage" of capitalism. Apart from the fact the there's obviously no causal link between Capitalism and Imperialism (the Romans and the Mongols hadn't read The Wealth of Nations as far as I'm aware), Imperialism in capitalist economies is usually a sign that capitalism itself has gone bad; its a "regulatory response" to unfettered capitalism (e.g. the state taking direct control of India from the EIC after the Indian mutiny), but its a response, not the response.

What's clear and obvious to anyone with a brain is that capitalism has generally proven to be a more vigorous and successful system than any of the alternatives tried so far, but, what is also clear to anyone with a brain is that unfettered capitalism will get itself into trouble sooner or later, mainly because of the human element, so capitalism always needs regulation to stop it running away and destroying itself, but the skill is judging the right level of regulation required, which isn't fixed, either in time or by location, or by level of intervention.

Failure to criticise idiocy and to argue for the current obviously totally corrupt and broken system gets us nowhere and is tantamount to a woeful lack of imagination at best, intellectual cowardice at worst, IMO.

Its right and proper to criticise, but there's an element of RealPolitik you have to accept as well, the world isn't clean and moral, and never will be, and there's the old maxim that countries don't have friends, only assets.

 

[Scouse]

America's wars...are no more morally questionable than anyone else's.

True. They're all ghastly and morally abhorrent bags of sick.

there's obviously no causal link between Capitalism and Imperialism (the Romans and the Mongols hadn't read The Wealth of Nations as far as I'm aware

I disagree. Scarcity of resource and the overwhelming need for growth inevitably lead to wars of aggression (in our case over oil - the blood of our economy).

Also - you make a (common) mistake in thinking that the Romans and the Mongols ran a "capitalist" economy.

Imperialism in capitalist economies is usually a sign that capitalism itself has gone bad; its a "regulatory response" to unfettered capitalism (e.g. the state taking direct control of India from the EIC after the Indian mutiny), but its a response, not the response

Governments are facilitators of capitalism, not regulators. At this stage of our economies the collective self-interest of corporations is much more powerful than individual governments. Governments know this and act accordingly.

What's clear and obvious to anyone with a brain is that capitalism has generally proven to be a more vigorous and successful system than any of the alternatives tried so far

Having a brain this is a point I will not disagree with. However, I think the important part of that sentence is "any of the alternatives tried so far". We, as a society, are not trying alternatives and do not devote significant resources into finding alternatives to try - because in this capitalist economy the concentration of wealth and power means that your very next point illustrates is the systemic issue:

unfettered capitalism will get itself into trouble sooner or later, mainly because of the human element

Yes. The human element is the issue. And your next point is also very pertinent:

capitalism always needs regulation to stop it running away and destroying itself

Do you see the problem with this mildly circular issue?

The point I made - governments don't regulate. They botch and tinker with sticking plasters (response to the "financial crisis" anyone?) Like a HR department for a company governments are the HR department of the "capitalism corporation" - protecting the interests and property of the wealthy and powerful - who, because of their natural and understandable human nature, won't give up their wealth or power.

Its right and proper to criticise, but there's an element of RealPolitik you have to accept as well, the world isn't clean and moral, and never will be

I don't accept your defeatist view that we cannot design a system that takes the human out of the equation.

Humans will never be clean and moral, I accept that completely. The systems we run can be designed to mitigate that - but at the moment our systems facilitate and reward the exact opposite.

Opportunism, selfish greed, cynicism, short-term-ism, exploitation (of all things - human, environmental, finite resources etc) are rewarded and encouraged by our "best" system.

I don't think botched sticking plasters will work - fundamental reform of a corrupt and broken system is what is needed.

 

[rynnor]

There is nothing wrong with capitalism, the problem is the people that abuse power. Those same people exist in communism, except they get away with it overtly.

The difference between communism and capitalism is that under capitalism its not against the law to criticise the system.

 

[Raven]

Actually in many cases it is, as per the crackdown on demonstrations. Put again, that's the people in power abusing the system.

 

[rynnor]

Opportunism, selfish greed, cynicism, short-term-ism, exploitation (of all things - human, environmental, finite resources etc) are rewarded and encouraged by our "best" system.

The alternative is to reward sloth, fecklessness and inaction like the communists did - that lead to a really corrupt system.

Whatever system you adopt elites will form and by their nature will have more power and influence than those outside the elite - this happens in every system.

What you need are a better breed of humans rather than a better system - any system will work if people look out for each other and behave decently but being greedy monkeys with a bit less hair they wont.

 

[rynnor]

Actually in many cases it is, as per the crackdown on demonstrations. Put again, that's the people in power abusing the system.

Semantics - those people dont end up in a nameless shallow grave in the woods or sentenced to life in a gulag.

 

[DaGaffer]

True. They're all ghastly and morally abhorrent bags of sick.

There are degrees of moral acceptance in warfare; Gulf War One was far more morally acceptable (a direct response to a hostile invasion engaged by a coalition with unanimous UN backing) than Iraq 2, (illegal war for oil based on lies about WMD). Simply saying "war is bad m'kay?" is childish.

I disagree. Scarcity of resource and the overwhelming need for growth inevitably lead to wars of aggression (in our case over oil - the blood of our economy).

Wars of Agression and Imperialism are not the same thing.

Also - you make a (common) mistake in thinking that the Romans and the Mongols ran a "capitalist" economy.

No, I explicitly didn't make that mistake by pointing out there's no causal link between imperialism and capitalism and then used the examples of two empires that clearly weren't capitalist to illustrate that. In reality there are very few capitalist/imperialist examples from history; the British, the Dutch and the Americans would be about your lot.

Governments are facilitators of capitalism, not regulators. At this stage of our economies the collective self-interest of corporations is much more powerful than individual governments. Governments know this and act accordingly.

Maybe I'm more positive about the ability of government to influence things than you are. I would agree there are plenty of governments lying supine in front of the corporate world and taking it up the arse on a daily basis (not least HMGov), but there are also plenty of examples of governments who do regulate, and regulate well; and once again we can look at Scandinavia for the best examples of that. I'd argue people get the governments they deserve personally, but I don't think the nation state is quite dead yet.

Having a brain this is a point I will not disagree with. However, I think the important part of that sentence is "any of the alternatives tried so far". We, as a society, are not trying alternatives and do not devote significant resources into finding alternatives to try - because in this capitalist economy the concentration of wealth and power means that your very next point illustrates is the systemic issue:

Actually we are trying alternatives, we tinker and modify and adjust economic thinking all the time, but I for one would prefer to experiment without killing millions of people via collectivisation or eugenics, or some other bit of "scientific" reasoning that kills real people (and yes I know you can say capitalism is killing people anyway, but the 20th century experience suggests the "devil you know" is a better way to manage the problem than wholesale ideological experimentation).

Do you see the problem with this mildly circular issue?

The point I made - governments don't regulate. They botch and plaster with sticking plasters (response to the "financial crisis" anyone?) Like a HR department for a company governments are the HR department of the "capitalism corporation" - protecting the interests and property of the wealthy and powerful.

It is a circular issue, but that's the point. Economic activity runs in cycles, and the regulatory response needs to accomodate that pattern; but it struggles to do so because capitalism is usually smarter and quicker to adapt than the the legal/regulatory process. That doesn't mean you give up trying. However, I think where we agree is that all the examples of laissez faire unregulated capitalism encouraged by neocons and free marketers eventually lead to disaster. Problem is that humans seem to struggle with the idea of balance (or at least us western types do), regulation doesn't mean over-regulation, and de-regulation doesn't mean no regulation. Balance in all things is the way forward.

I don't accept your defeatist view that we cannot design a system that takes the human out of the equation.

Humans will never be clean and moral, I accept that completely. The systems we run can be designed to mitigate that - but at the moment our systems facilitate and reward the exact opposite.

Opportunism, selfish greed, cynicism, short-term-ism, exploitation (of all things - human, environmental, finite resources etc) reign supreme.

I don't think botched sticking plasters will work - fundamental reform of a corrupt and broken system is what is needed.

The idea of humans being completely out of the loop terrifies me, but at the same time I can see your point. I just personally think there are a bunch of ways we can be a lot smarter and long-term in our thinking, without throwing capitalism out of the window completely.

 

[Scouse]

On systems:

The idea of humans being completely out of the loop terrifies me

The idea of keeping us in there is the scariest thing imaginable and, IMO, keeping "evolved life" in the loop is probably the reason why we've not found a single signal from sentient life elsewhere in the entire universe.


This is a really interesting watch. It's a maths lecture about population growth (in 8 parts). Well worth about an hour of your life. Quality is bad for some but bear with - it gets better as it goes along.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8

I put it up as an example of why I think we need to take the human out of the process if we intend to survive as a species and why a permanent growth economy is impossible.

Edit: Ignore the fanboy title to the video. It's purely maths.

 

[rynnor]

I put it up as an example of why I think we need to take the human out of the process if we intend to survive as a species and why a permanent growth economy is impossible.

Population studies mask the fact that we all demand more so even if population was frozen we will still wreck the planet. As to permanent growth - its possible until you run out of resources - we arent there yet so you could run on the basis of growth for a few more lifetimes (by which time we may have discovered new energy resources or cheap lunar mining or x).

The big problem with population control is that it would be administered by the same elites people already distrust and would be as corrupt as any other system.

 

[Scouse]

Lol

As to permanent growth - its possible until you run out of resources

So, it's not possible then, right?

That video is much more than a simple population study. Watch it. Well worth it.

 

[rynnor]

Lol



So, it's not possible then, right?

That video is much more than a simple population study. Watch it. Well worth it.

I watched the last section - he echoes my point. Infinite growth isnt possible but the finite growth could be millions of years due to x.

I'm using X to represent all the things we cannot yet dream about that come to pass - Malthusian studies always leave out X and thus fail in the real world.

Black Swan's is another term for them - quite an ok book of the same name though the guy is rather full of himself for putting a name to something obvious.

 

[Scouse]

Watch the whole video and he will refute your point...

 

[rynnor]

Watch the whole video and he will refute your point...

Lol - what sort of rebuttal is that

My threadwinning arguement is in the internetz - go read it

 

[Scouse]

The rebuttal is that you cba to watch the thing I posted, a complex argument made really well in an 80 minute video that already answers the argument you made after I posted it.

I'm sorry I can't distill it down to a couple of sentences to fit in better with your lifestyle. I'm sorry you only want simple two-minute arguments and cba to enter the debate fully...

 

[Wij]

Lol scouse you muppet. Is this your new debating tactic. I bother to watch your last link and find it doesn't support your argument so you post an 80 minute one we have to watch to stay in the debate. What happens if one of us watches it and finds that doesn't support your argument either? You post a 15 hour video?

 

[ileks]

I watched the first part and skimmed the next/last couple. He is explaining exponential growth... Do people really not understand it to the extent he is saying? I find that hard to believe.

 

[Scouse]

(I) find it doesn't support your argument

I posted the videos in response to DaGaffer's argument that having humans out of the loop scared the bjeesus out of him - and I said having us IN the loop scares the b'jeesus out of me - and I think the video is a good supporting argument for that, for obvious reasons.

Secondarily to that, I made the point, to rynnor that it refutes rynnor's points - which it does.


(Not being an arse here) - I'm not sure which argument I'm making that you say it doesn't support, Wij...? Or are you mistaken in you think that I posted it in support of a different argument?


Edit: Ah, I misread your post. The video refutes rynnor's points. I can't put the argument in any better terms any more succinctly than that (and frankly, have no interest in doing so). If you think that's an "argument tactic" then fair enough. I don't care - I just thought it was a really interesting video...

 

[rynnor]

I posted the videos in response to DaGaffer's argument that having humans out of the loop scared the bjeesus out of him - and I said having us IN the loop scares the b'jeesus out of me - and I think the video is a good supporting argument for that, for obvious reasons.

Secondarily to that, I made the point, to rynnor that it refutes rynnor's points - which it does.


(Not being an arse here) - I'm not sure which argument I'm making that you say it doesn't support, Wij...? Or are you mistaken in you think that I posted it in support of a different argument?

I dont think you are making any sort of coherent arguement tbh - are you channeling Toht or something?

 

[Scouse]

I dont think you are making any sort of coherent arguement tbh - are you channeling Toht or something?

I'd misread Wij's post - and was fessing up to that (the edit) as you posted this

But I'm still bemused by your "permanent" growth that isn't permanent and faith in magic happening that will keep everything going swimmingly...