This is why capitalism sucks

[tomsnowman123]

I disagree, but fair enough. You know I appreciate your veiws. I agree with alot of your feelings, I just wish more people (especially in certain areas of the world) felt like you.

Btw, I think TV has its uses. I understand your anti-consumerism stand though.

Thank you for respecting my views, I will continue to respect yours.

 

[ainwood]

Yes these people are poor and every new drug depends on the profit from the last?

You can't justify this position this is a very rich drug complany trying to exploit it's customers. Because avastin hasn't and wont be tested it will dissapear unless their patent of it runs out and they allow others to manufacture it. The question is why didn't they test avastin, because some morally dead ****** decided he wanted to make a fast buck and gradually withdraw one product in favour of another one, thus dooming second world countries to blindness and filling his coffers in the process.

So what? Are you saying that they're only allowed to recoup costs on successful drugs? What about all the research that ends-up at a dead-end? They certainly don't get returns from drugs that end-up in the incinerator.

How are they exploiting the customers? Are they causing the blindness?

Sorry - but this argument basically boils down to "Oh my god! People are making money by curing disease!"

 

[mdwh]

A village of 2,000 could easily produce enough computers to provide for a few other villages of 50-150, and so on. You don't need monstrous cities to survive as a species, and this wouldn't be a return to the stoneage.

Sorry, that's absurd. When you're talking about making everything yourself, there is no way 2,000 people could design and construct computers from scratch, and write all the necessary software. Or anything they did produce would be decades behind today's computing, due to only a fraction of the people working on it.

Not to mention that only a small minority of that 2,000 would be available. Even if you dedicate 10% of your resources to it, that's 200. That's the sort of scale for one or two single software products, nevermind trying to reinvent an entire computer industry!!

The population thing is a difficult question, but there is a lot of space on this planet, and we would be living with the enviroment, not against it, so spreading out wouldn't be a bad thing. However, I would never wish the death of people to see my goals through.

What does "living with the enviroment, not against it" mean, and how will it mean we can produce food as efficiently as we can now? I want answers, not assertions like "Everything will be much better because I say so".

 

[mdwh]

Here's my answer to your first question: Capitalism: Contadicting

Laissez-faire just means the Government doesn't interfere with the market, though there may still be laws enforcing property rights, whether it's for companies or individuals (would you like an organisation stealing your property with no police to stop them? That's what'd happen in anarchy).

Capitalsim an economic or socioeconomic system in which the means of production are predominantly privately owned and operated for profit, not production to meet the needs of society.

Anarchy would allow people to have freedom from any authority or orginization of power.

And these are separate non-mutually exclusive concepts. You could have an anarchy which was capitalist. Indeed, I suspect this is quite likely - if you have no government to enforce something like communism, people are naturally going to trade labour and products. Or are you saying they should not have that freedom?

We are talking about small villages producing simply what they need, they don't need to distribute around the world or anything. Secondly, we really don't need all of the technology we have these days, we should focus more on "appropriate technology."

So what are you still doing here using a computer and the Internet?

 

[tomsnowman123]

Sorry, that's absurd. When you're talking about making everything yourself, there is no way 2,000 people could design and construct computers from scratch, and write all the necessary software. Or anything they did produce would be decades behind today's computing, due to only a fraction of the people working on it.

Not to mention that only a small minority of that 2,000 would be available. Even if you dedicate 10% of your resources to it, that's 200. That's the sort of scale for one or two single software products, nevermind trying to reinvent an entire computer industry!!

What does "living with the enviroment, not against it" mean, and how will it mean we can produce food as efficiently as we can now? I want answers, not assertions like "Everything will be much better because I say so".

Use the other villages as support, or create a network between them if necessary. And I am not trying to reinvent the computer industry.

I gave my description of appropriate technology earlier, that should help. Organic farming, permaculture, co-housing, local purchasing, production, and distribution, are other possibilities that would lower our enviromental damage and demand.

Edit:

So what are you still doing here using a computer and the Internet?

I've stated before that I believe computers and the internet are forms of appropriate technology, they can help reduce an individuals carbon footprint.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Sorry, that's absurd. When you're talking about making everything yourself, there is no way 2,000 people could design and construct computers from scratch, and write all the necessary software. Or anything they did produce would be decades behind today's computing, due to only a fraction of the people working on it.

Not to mention that only a small minority of that 2,000 would be available. Even if you dedicate 10% of your resources to it, that's 200. That's the sort of scale for one or two single software products, nevermind trying to reinvent an entire computer industry!!

What does "living with the enviroment, not against it" mean, and how will it mean we can produce food as efficiently as we can now? I want answers, not assertions like "Everything will be much better because I say so".

hey now, why dont you lay off him alright? Theres a way to get his idea from him without being an asshat about it

 

[Tulkas12]

Classical Hero: I thought that Microsoft was owned more or less by bill Gates alone? Or am I gravely mistaken?

Since it wasn't answered, I will answer this. You are gravely mistaken http://www.microsoft.com/msft/stock.mspx, he has many shareholders to answer to, and I'm sure some of its shareholders are agianst these give-aways.

Most large corporations have huge give-aways. Whether they have overall positiove or negative effects is a totally different question.


As a side note, I was going to become a pharmacologist. I changed my career choice because I felt that the industry had started creating markets. There are alot of morality questions regarding healthcare adnI trust governments kleast of all to handle such concerns. Socialist's free healthcare is fine and dandy till they start controlling your day to day life. Its coming trust me.

 

[tomsnowman123]

And these are separate non-mutually exclusive concepts. You could have an anarchy which was capitalist. Indeed, I suspect this is quite likely - if you have no government to enforce something like communism, people are naturally going to trade labour and products. Or are you saying they should not have that freedom?

The production would help meet the needs of society, and not privatise certain things that should be available to all humans. Again, I believe the enforcement of property in land and exclusive rights to natural resources is unjustly enclosing upon what should be owned by all, forcing those without property to sell their labor to capitalists and landlords in a market favorable to the latter, which then forces them to accept low wages in order to survive. Patents and copyrights also are coercive against those with few prior resources, these regulations discourage the sharing of ideas, and encourage nonproductive rent seeking behavior.

A economy based on helping the greater good, and keeping the planet healthy for the greater good is better. Also, not all anarchy falls under the same label. I support a green/eco-anarchy, in which fair trade would take place, not free trade.

Edited a typo

 

[Chaos_BF1942]

I would have to agree with ainwood on this, the drug complany didn't cause the blindness, and giving a cure, they should make money.

BTW Tomsnowman, in your anarchist world of green villages, what do you do about the people who don't follow your green way of life, and start raiding the green villages?

 

[tomsnowman123]

BTW Tomsnowman, in your anarchist world of green villages, what do you do about the people who don't follow your green way of life, and start raiding the green villages?

Well, I would hope they never raid. If they were violent, I guess they would have to be detained or something. If all they are doing is speaking out against green-anarchy, then that's fine.

 

[Chaos_BF1942]

Well, I would hope they never raid. If they were violent, I guess they would have to be detained or something. If all they are doing is speaking out against green-anarchy, then that's fine.

Well I mean a faction that was formed by someone who saw that you don't have any military arms, and the guy wanted to take over; and found some weapons (or just didn't turn them in).

In a prefect world it would work, but the world from prefect, and there would be someone who would ruin it if it does become prefect.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Well I mean a faction that was formed by someone who saw that you don't have any military arms, and the guy wanted to take over; and found some weapons (or just didn't turn them in).

In a prefect world it would work, but the world from prefect, and there would be someone who would ruin it if it does become prefect.

Thw world will never be perfect, as it isn't now, and there will always be people that disagree with me (just about everybody, right now). There would possibly be a minor system of emergency defense in each village, one that could also be used for disaster need, where they could possibly detain/arrest those who were commiting violent acts. Much of it would depend on what exactly these people would be doing.

 

[mdwh]

hey now, why dont you lay off him alright? Theres a way to get his idea from him without being an asshat about it

I don't see where I'm being an asshat - at least I'm not the one throwing insults...

This is a debate. If someone doesn't want to take part, they don't have to. In a thread labelled "This is why capitalism sucks", I don't see it's unreasonable to argue against that claim.

 

[mdwh]

Use the other villages as support, or create a network between them if necessary. And I am not trying to reinvent the computer industry.

So... you have people working together in larger numbers, and then serving other villages - in other words not being self-sufficient at all.

On the one hand you say that every village of 2,000 people is self-sustained with everything from computer industry to police and army, and on the other hand, you describe something which is basically what we have now in our society.

The main difference as I see it is a political one, not an economic one - that decisions would be made on a smaller more local scale. That's fine with me - I just don't see this as a concept that competes with capitalism.

The production would help meet the needs of society, and not privatise certain things that should be available to all humans. Again, I believe the enforcement of property in land and exclusive rights to natural resources is unjustly enclosing upon what should be owned by all, forcing those without property to sell their labor to capitalists and landlords in a market favorable to the latter, which then forces them to accept low wages in order to survive.

But even if you share out land, there's more to property than land. If I make something, I may wish to trade that with something someone else has. I may choose (not be forced) to work in exchange for goods. That's laissez-faire capitalism in action, unless you've got a centralised state/power which takes control of these property and means of production - in which case, you're describing something like communism, not a government-less system like anarchy.

Patents and copyrights also are coercive against those with few prior resources, these regulations discourage the sharing of ideas, and encourage nonproductive rent seeking behavior.

Patents and copyrights are a product of Government intervention, and the current systems suck, I agree. Not an issue with capitalism though.

A economy based on helping the greater good, and keeping the planet healthy for the greater good is better. Also, not all anarchy falls under the same label. I support a green/eco-anarchy, in which fair trade would take place, not free trade.

And I support a green/eco-capitalism too, which is based on helping the greater good, and keeping the planet healthy for the greater good is better. Of course, whether that happens in practice is another matter, but we can work towards it just as much as in another system like anarchy.

 

[tomsnowman123]

So... you have people working together in larger numbers, and then serving other villages - in other words not being self-sufficient at all.

On the one hand you say that every village of 2,000 people is self-sustained with everything from computer industry to police and army, and on the other hand, you describe something which is basically what we have now in our society.

And I support a green/eco-capitalism too, which is based on helping the greater good, and keeping the planet healthy for the greater good is better. Of course, whether that happens in practice is another matter, but we can work towards it just as much as in another system like anarchy.

Each village is self-sustainable. For large projects though, a network may be necessary. Each village could produce the food they need (or gather it, if you want to go hunter gatherer style, a possible positive path). Each village could survive on its own, but again, a large project may require some co-operation.

No army, no army at all. No police really either. Maybe just a voluntary group of people who would be available in times of emergency, like an attack.

As for your support of a green/eco-capitalism, your halfway there. Now, just remove the word capitalism and...

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Thw world will never be perfect, as it isn't now, and there will always be people that disagree with me (just about everybody, right now). There would possibly be a minor system of emergency defense in each village, one that could also be used for disaster need, where they could possibly detain/arrest those who were commiting violent acts. Much of it would depend on what exactly these people would be doing.

you could pull a "The Day the Earth Stood Still" and make superpowerful but benevolent robot-cops to patrol the world and keep the peace

 

[tomsnowman123]

you could pull a "The Day the Earth Stood Still" and make superpowerful but benevolent robot-cops to patrol the world and keep the peace

Heh, seems a little too controlling. Although, you have piqued my interest in that movie, I might have to see it (a rare occurance indeed).

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

Heh, seems a little too controlling. Although, you have piqued my interest in that movie, I might have to see it (a rare occurance indeed).

But by watching that movie aren't you promoting consumerism?

 

[tomsnowman123]

But by watching that movie aren't you promoting consumerism?

Not really, if my friend (a big movie buff) has already purchased it. I admit, I rarely see movies in theatres (havn't seen one in years), and never on TV, but on a rare occasion I watch one at my friends house, although, I still feel a little guilty. Maybe you could tie the two togehter, because it is a product from a huge corporation, and the product has little need in society, (but at his house I watch it on the computer, since his monitor is about as big as his TV) but it's not too bad. I can't be perfect.

 

[Alex the Great]

you could pull a "The Day the Earth Stood Still" and make superpowerful but benevolent robot-cops to patrol the world and keep the peace

No, no, no, you're thinking of Robocop!

Tomsnowman, all I can say to you is hold onto that eco-dream of yours. This world needs idealists of all types.

For the issue at hand, Genentech is doing the right thing. It's their drug and if someone found a new use, "hey, free R&D". If they found the doctor who first used the drug for (glaucoma was it?), they should give him a check or something. Otherwise, that issue involves intellectual property and I don't know much about that!

There also seems to be that larger discussion of capitalism that sort of died down. Socialism does have a few valid points, but it's a very slippery slope of regulation and it seems to be hell for the economy. The US has a more open economy than Europe (companies here can fire rather freely than in France, for example) and like CIVPhilzilla brought up, it shows.

Davo brought up life expectancies being higher in socialist countries. Really, I have to ask would you rather live a few more years as an old person or have a growing economy with Cheez-whiz and MTV? I'd take the latter. Capitalism may not be morally perfect, but it's way more fun than socialism!