Announcement

**chequita guevara** · August 31, 2008, 01:00

Originally posted by Darius871
I'm betting on the cheetah and you're betting on the sloth.

The only thing I'm betting on is that one way or another, capitalism will be history someday. Either it will destroy itself, and civilization along with it, or people will deliberately replace it with socialism.

**Darius871** · August 31, 2008, 01:08

Hell, even the most ardent capitalists would concede that it'll be "history someday." The only relevant question is when and how, and as things stand it seems far less likely to be "destroyed" than to simply fade away in the most mundane and uninteresting manner possible. They won't even make any movies out of it.

**Kidlicious** · August 31, 2008, 01:10

Originally posted by Darius871
Some argue that, but then some argued that over 100 years ago.

Most of the world was pre-industrial a that time. Perhaps they thought industrialization would progress faster, but it didn't. We are much closer now.

**Darius871** · August 31, 2008, 01:14

Originally posted by Kidicious
Most of the world was pre-industrial a that time. Perhaps they thought industrialization would progress faster, but it didn't. We are much closer now.

You hold on to that little dream, it's so cute.

**Kidlicious** · August 31, 2008, 01:18

Originally posted by Darius871

You hold on to that little dream, it's so cute.

It's a fact. What happened in the last 100 years? More of the worlds resources were exploited by the capitalist system. Less is left. What do you see as fantasy?

**Darius871** · August 31, 2008, 01:29

Originally posted by Kidicious
It's a fact. What happened in the last 100 years? More of the worlds resources were exploited by the capitalist system. Less is left. What do you see as fantasy?

The fantasy is total disregard for capitalism's repeated demonstrations of ability to adapt to changing circumstances, purely by market incentives. The resources in question were only exploited because they were the cheapest available and therefore the most profitable. As they become more scarce, their value increases, which gradually makes renewable alternatives more profitable, causing the capitalists to naturally invest in and develop those alternatives. It's just a natural step driven by forces inherent to the system, and it doesn't take a genius to recognize this. Why would they decline to capitalize on a profitable new market?

If you think resource scarcity of all things will be the demise of capitalism, you're dreaming. If anything, the economic boom associated with harnessing new alternatives will only serve to perpetuate capitalism even longer.

**Kidlicious** · August 31, 2008, 01:33

Originally posted by Darius871

The fantasy is total disregard for capitalism's repeated demonstrations of ability to adapt to changing circumstances, purely by market incentives. The resources in question were only exploited because they were the cheapest available and therefore the most profitable. As they become more scarce, their value increases, which gradually makes renewable alternatives more profitable, causing the capitalists to naturally invest in and develop those alternatives. It's just a natural step driven by forces inherent to the system, and it doesn't take a genius to recognize this.

If you think resource scarcity of all things will be the demise of capitalism, you're dreaming. If anything, the economic boom associated with harnessing new alternatives will only serve to perpetuate capitalism even longer.

Ah yes, alternatives like robots right. Back to the beginning.

A lot of alternatives are not profitable.

And reorganization of resources was always only the cause of a small amount of total profit generated in the system. Most profit was always generated by exploitation of more resources.

**Darius871** · August 31, 2008, 01:40

Originally posted by Kidicious

Ah yes, alternatives like robots right. Back to the beginning.

A lot of alternatives are not profitable.

And reorganization of resources was always only the cause of a small amount of total profit generated in the system. Most profit was always generated by exploitation of more resources.

What do robots have to do with dwindling resources? I presume you're talking primarily about fossil fuels, and for every dollar their prices increase, renewable alternatives become that much more competitive. Wind farms, tidal turbines, geothermal plants, hydroelectric dams, thermal depolymerization plants, biodiesel-precursor algae pools, solar arrays, etc. all require massive infusions of capital upfront, and guess where it's all going to come from? You guessed it, capitalists!

Do you really think anybody out to make a buck is unaware that fossil fuels are finite, and that there is potential for profit from that fact?

**Kidlicious** · August 31, 2008, 01:43

Originally posted by Darius871

What do robots have to do with dwindling resources? I presume you're talking primarily about fossil fuels, and for every dollar their prices increase, renewable alternatives become that much more competitive. Wind farms, tidal turbines, geothermal plants, hydroelectric dams, thermal depolymerization plants, biodiesel-precursor algae pools, solar arrays, etc. all require massive infusions of capital upfront, and guess where it's all going to come from? You guessed it, capitalists!

Energy is only one type of resource. There is labor and land also. All three are becoming scarce.

**Kidlicious** · August 31, 2008, 01:45

Originally posted by Darius871
Do you really think anybody out to make a buck is unaware that fossil fuels are finite, and that there is potential for profit from that fact?

Here's the thing though. They are already making a **** load of profit from energy right now. New alternatives to oil are just going to replace current generated profit, if that, and probably not even that.

**Darius871** · August 31, 2008, 01:49

Originally posted by Kidicious

Energy is only one type of resource. There is labor and land also. All three are becoming scarce.

You must be joking... if anything the condition of the third world proves there is more labor than needed, not less.

And land? Just because every piece of land is "owned" by some private citizen or sovereign, that doesn't mean it's running out in terms of usage. The day that Montana and Siberia start to look like Hong Kong, then you might be on to something.

But not really even then, when population of countries at the highest stage of development tends to stagnate if not decline, thereby decreasing the demand for land...

**Darius871** · August 31, 2008, 01:49

Originally posted by Kidicious

Here's the thing though. They are already making a **** load of profit from energy right now. New alternatives to oil are just going to replace current generated profit, if that, and probably not even that.

So what?

**rmsharpe** · August 31, 2008, 01:50

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles
If you believe that the way people are today is the way people have always been, then yes, you'd find your caricature of people under socialism difficult to believe. If you'd ever bothered to study history, you'd know that human nature is not permanent and fixed, but rather socially created, and thus changes with the times. If people are greedy and avaricious today, it's because it is the best way to survive in this particular society. We adapt. When people democratically collectively make their own decisions, they will adapt to that also.

One word: naive.

**Kidlicious** · August 31, 2008, 01:56

Originally posted by Darius871

You must be joking... if anything the condition of the third world proves there is more labor than needed, not less.

Yer not keepin' up with the times.

http://demographymatters.blogspot.co...-shortage.html

The problem seems to be that China - despite its enormous size - is chewing up its labour reserves faster than new labour market entrants are arriving, and this is happening in large part due to the structural population break which has been produced by several decades of one child per family policy.

It's gonna get a lot worse when their boomers start retiring.

And land? Just because every piece of land is "owned" by some private citizen or sovereign, that doesn't mean it's running out. The day that Montana and Siberia start to look like Hong Kong, then you might be on to something.

There aren't any people in Montana and Siberia. Who's going to do the work?

**Kidlicious** · August 31, 2008, 01:58

Originally posted by Darius871

So what?

So what?! Falling or stagnant profits means falling asset prices. I don't have to tell you what that means do I?

Announcement

The theoretical basis for the triumph of communism

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment