"Recovery!" WHAT Recovery??

[JihadJane]

That isn't a problem with capitalism, it's a problem of human life on earth. If you're worried about the earth, it was here before and will probably be here long after we're gone. Thus, the issue is really about sustainable, ecologically friendly growth, which doesn't threaten our life on earth, and which is in balance with a decent standard of living for everyone. If your position is that we need elites to dictate how and what we consume, then you will find no shortage of those who would tyrannically rule us under the auspices of conserving the earth.

If you're a critic of the system that causes us to buy houses and drive cars that we really can't afford, only to upgrade and replace them at whim, or to spend our money on technological baubles and trinkets, then I share your criticism. This is the result of a fiat money system that produces endless credit, causing malinvestment, recession, and depression. The key to sustainable economic growth lies in monetary reform. Ecologically sustainable growth is a political issue. Beware of charlatans who claim to be protectors of the environment, when all they really want is an excuse to rule over us.

Why do we need economic growth at all?

 

[Tippit]

Why do we need economic growth at all?

Because that's what makes us human. It's our nature to produce, to consume, to innovate. It's our nature to seek better lives for ourselves, and for those we care about. This isn't a bad thing. I presume you type your posts from a computer, sitting in a chair, at a desk, in a room, in the comfort of your home (or, perhaps in the comfort of an internet cafe I don't believe in "gaia", the earth is merely our current home, we are just stewards. Our standard of living, and preserving the earth as we know it are not mutually exclusive. We can do both. It merely requires innovation, which is not necesarily a friend of political power.

But the unsustainable growth, that is entirely a monetary phenomenon, I assure you.

 

[JihadJane]

Because that's what makes us human. It's our nature to produce, to consume, to innovate. It's our nature to seek better lives for ourselves, and for those we care about. This isn't a bad thing. I presume you type your posts from a computer, sitting in a chair, at a desk, in a room, in the comfort of your home (or, perhaps in the comfort of an internet cafe I don't believe in "gaia", the earth is merely our current home, we are just stewards. Our standard of living, and preserving the earth as we know it are not mutually exclusive. We can do both. It merely requires innovation, which is not necesarily a friend of political power.

But the unsustainable growth, that is entirely a monetary phenomenon, I assure you.

What other home is available to humans?

The history of humanity suggests that human nature is perfectly well adapted to steady state economies. Our current mini era of exponential growth is an example of biological overshoot - what happens when creatures come across a temporary abundance of food (the "food" being fossil fuels, in our case).

http://steadystate.org/discover/myths-and-reality/

 

[TraneWreck]

I was making a specific point that I believe free markets are useful but not morally superior. I will try to avoid the words "capitalist" and "communist" from now on since their meaning is not clear.

I got your argument confused with the one advanced by kevinquinnyo. You guys with your all lower case names.

My fault.

 

[lomiller]

I was observing the unfolding disaster wrought by capitalism, not proposing an "economical system".

Who knows what will emerge from the ashes?

Once again, “disaster” under our current system is still better then any other system has ever produced. In fact “disaster” under this system is still pretty darn comfy. You not knowing how good you have it is not cause for making a real economic disaster by gutting the system that works better then any other.

 

[stilicho]

What other home is available to humans?

The history of humanity suggests that human nature is perfectly well adapted to steady state economies. Our current mini era of exponential growth is an example of biological overshoot - what happens when creatures come across a temporary abundance of food (the "food" being fossil fuels, in our case).

http://steadystate.org/discover/myths-and-reality/

Here's part of the loony programme advanced by your heroes at "CASSE":

--------------
Fair Distribution

Since continuous growth and sustainable scale are incompatible, growth cannot be relied upon to alleviate poverty, as has been done (ineffectively) in the past. If the pie isn’t getting any bigger, we need to cut and distribute the pieces in a fair way. In addition, poor people who have trouble meeting basic needs tend not to care about sustainability, and excessively rich people tend to consume unsustainable quantities of resources. Fair distribution of wealth, therefore, is a critical part of sustainability and the steady state economy.

--------------

(Source: http://steadystate.org/discover/definition/ )

There's another word for that, JihadJane. It's called North Korea.

 

[TraneWreck]

Here's part of the loony programme advanced by your heroes at "CASSE":

--------------
Fair Distribution

Since continuous growth and sustainable scale are incompatible, growth cannot be relied upon to alleviate poverty, as has been done (ineffectively) in the past. If the pie isn’t getting any bigger, we need to cut and distribute the pieces in a fair way. In addition, poor people who have trouble meeting basic needs tend not to care about sustainability, and excessively rich people tend to consume unsustainable quantities of resources. Fair distribution of wealth, therefore, is a critical part of sustainability and the steady state economy.

--------------

(Source: http://steadystate.org/discover/definition/ )

There's another word for that, JihadJane. It's called North Korea.

Hmm, that seems like hyperbole.

Leave the distibution (which doesn't actually happen in N. Korea. Notice that the people suffering through famines aren't the ones dressed in the funny uniforms hanging out with lil' Kim), but eliminate the totalitarian dictatorship. That doesn't sound like such a bad place.

Now eliminate the "fair distribution" and keep the brutal dictatorship. Sounds kind of crappy.

Fair distribution sounds pretty rational.

 

[Earthborn]

From what I gather, Marxist communism ignored that fact that people are self-interested.

I don't think it ignored it. From what I gather, it sought to explain why they are self-interested and what can be done about it. Marxists tend to think that when people are primarily self-interested it is because they have to in order to survive. In a society where everyone has to compete for resources in order to survive they will try to get their necessities regardless of other's well being. According to theory, if everyone is assured a level of comfort where they no longer worry about their own well being, people will slowly stop being so selfish and start working out of altruism.

The reason why communism is so fiendishly difficult to implement successfully is a bit more subtle than the usual "it's against human nature" nonsense. The problem as I see it, is largely because the level of comfort that is necessary to get people to stop being selfish varies among individuals, and isn't constant ; it is possible to convince people through advertising that they need something they didn't think they needed before. Also, the old East Bloc economies were just not efficient enough to reach this level of comfort for a majority of people, so people continued to compete for their necessities resulting in extensive black markets for ordinary household items.

 

[ideogram]

There are moral questions concerning the consequences of capitalism

I would put it this way:

A hammer is not moral or immoral. If you want to drive in a nail, a hammer is better than a wrench.

What you use a hammer for may be moral or immoral.

I think we are in agreement. I probably just misunderstood your post.

Probably.

 

[kevinquinnyo]

You didn't really answer any of the challenges presented to you, you just reiterated your initial claim.

Is it moral for an insurance company to maximize their profits by denying coverage to a paying customer because they're able to find a pre-existing condition?

Like this: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/26/health/main6335430.shtml

Of course, that lazy baby hadn't paid into the system, and thus the insurance company was able to maximize that profit by refusing to cover the heart surgery.

This is disingenuous. That's a sad story. But you're blaming profit maximization on that baby's death. Why not blame the birth defect? Profit maximization DID NOT kill that baby. This is just offensive and gross.

How about the defense contractors who maximize their profits by sending cheap, substandard products to our troops overseas?

http://quitamteam.com/blog/military-contractor-fraud-triumvirate/

That ballistics testing is expensive. The company cannot maximize profit and test simultaneously. Thus, according to you, they chose ethically, endangering troops in order to save money.

LOL. Really? Think about what you just said, and the link you posted, and tell me you still stand by it.

Remember, you are arguing against "profit maximization." Your argument is that "profit maximization" is bad/wrong. Tell me specifically how that article backs up your claim.

 

[TraneWreck]

This is disingenuous. That's a sad story. But you're blaming profit maximization on that baby's death. Why not blame the birth defect? Profit maximization DID NOT kill that baby. This is just offensive and gross.

Please. It's exactly what happens all over this country all the time. Insurance companies are bound by law to maximize profit for their shareholders. Because the only way to innovate in the insurance industry is to develop new, clever ways of denying people the product they pay for, they have to figure out how to decline coverage.

They declined coverage on that child, and thus didn't allow the surgery. Anyone with an IQ over 60 can suss out the causal chain in that one. Intervening causes are well accepted in legal discourse, which has a significantly higher burden of proof than common sense.

But the amusing part is that your fit of glib sanctimony led you to miss this little fact:

Houston had life-saving surgery at Cook's Children's Medical Center in Fort Worth shortly after being born.

The kid didn't die. The surgery saved his life. The insurance company just decided to let the family go into debt instead of covering the child. What was their reason for so doing save profit motive?

LOL. Really? Think about what you just said, and the link you posted, and tell me you still stand by it.

Remember, you are arguing against "profit maximization." Your argument is that "profit maximization" is bad/wrong. Tell me specifically how that article backs up your claim.

Defense contractors, in order to save money and maximize profit, substituted sub-standard equipment that they didn't test. They were caught and fined, but plenty of that faulty gear made it over seas before the defect was noticed. The fact that every defense contractor used by the United States has been fined and found guilty of fraud dozens of times tells you that the punishment isn't adequate.

Their effort to maximize profit has led to economic breaches: they make more money by sending crappy gear to our troops and getting fined than they do providing a superior product.

Once again, your child-like incredulity is not an argument against the points raised. You can say, "Come on, no seriously, COME ON," all you want, but the examples are literally endless.

The moral choice would have been to extend coverage to the baby because that same insurer covered the couple's other children. The profit-maximization choice was the one they made: deny coverage, don't pay for the surgery.

They aren't the same.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

'The big crash – America plunges into Depression

Alexander Cockburn: Young Americans have given up watching the news. It’s too depressing'

 

[kevinquinnyo]

Please. It's exactly what happens all over this country all the time. Insurance companies are bound by law to maximize profit for their shareholders. Because the only way to innovate in the insurance industry is to develop new, clever ways of denying people the product they pay for, they have to figure out how to decline coverage.

They are bound by law to maximize profit?

They declined coverage on that child, and thus didn't allow the surgery. Anyone with an IQ over 60 can suss out the causal chain in that one. Intervening causes are well accepted in legal discourse, which has a significantly higher burden of proof than common sense.

blah blah, that's just a bunch of talk.

How did profit maximization result in a child's death here? Seriously, no lofty nonsense.

Defense contractors, in order to save money and maximize profit, substituted sub-standard equipment that they didn't test. They were caught and fined, but plenty of that faulty gear made it over seas before the defect was noticed. The fact that every defense contractor used by the United States has been fined and found guilty of fraud dozens of times tells you that the punishment isn't adequate.

So is the punishment not adequate enough? Is that the problem then? I thought you said "profit maximization" was the problem?

Their effort to maximize profit has led to economic breaches: they make more money by sending crappy gear to our troops and getting fined than they do providing a superior product.

LOL. If I put sequins on a turd and called it a prom dress, would you pay $1,000 for it? How about a billion? I can really maximize profit that way, according to your idioitic interpretation of profit maximization.

Do you honestly think that you can use a government contract for WAR as an example of profit maximization = evil?

Once again, your child-like incredulity is not an argument against the points raised. You can say, "Come on, no seriously, COME ON," all you want, but the examples are literally endless.

The examples are "literally endless?"

I won't press you to show me your infinite list, but I've yet to see a single example of profit maximization being unethical or non-utilitarian.

Let's just see one example.

 

[TraneWreck]

They are bound by law to maximize profit?

Uh, yes. You should try reading the law some time. The dominant legal requirement of companies in the United States is to satisfy their fiduciary obligations to share holders. It wasn't always this way, but the law requires them to maximize profit.

blah blah, that's just a bunch of talk.

How did profit maximization result in a child's death here? Seriously, no lofty nonsense.

Alright, you're just trolling. Describing the only other alternative would lead to a banning.

The child didn't die, so I don't know what to tell you. The profit motive led a company to make a very immoral decision: deny coverage to a customer in desperate need of surgery because of a contractual loophole.

So is the punishment not adequate enough? Is that the problem then? I thought you said "profit maximization" was the problem?

Seriously, can you not order this in your mind?

If I can make $1 million doing something illegal, when I can only make $500,000 doing it legally, any fine less than $500,000 will mean that it's in my economic best interest to behave illegally.

Maximizing profit is what motivates those contractors to provide sub-standard products.

LOL. If I put sequins on a turd and called it a prom dress, would you pay $1,000 for it? How about a billion? I can really maximize profit that way, according to your idioitic interpretation of profit maximization.

Well, that example fairly accurately describes the quality of your posting--minus the sequins.

Do you honestly think that you can use a government contract for WAR as an example of profit maximization = evil?

So money that comes from the government isn't money? Interesting new theory.

Yes, companies that contract with the government are motivated by profit.

The examples are "literally endless?"

I won't press you to show me your infinite list, but I've yet to see a single example of profit maximization being unethical or non-utilitarian.

Let's see it.

Given your complete inability to grasp the simple ones, I hardly think more detailed discussion of exotic financial instruments and people on Wall Street gambling away money because the government will bail them out will make much of an impact on you.

You can't even command the basics.

 

[BadBoy]

Once again, “disaster” under our current system is still better then any other system has ever produced. In fact “disaster” under this system is still pretty darn comfy. You not knowing how good you have it is not cause for making a real economic disaster by gutting the system that works better then any other.

hmm, speak for yourself. I think "darn comfy" depends on who you are and your situation. One of the issues with western lifestyles is that the part of population that is living in poverty is not sufficiently acknowledged by the rest of us. Most of the time they are ignored.

Sometimes I think living in a longhouse in the Amazon would be better than Western lifestyle. Nothing to worry about apart from hunting with your mates every week. (and catching some infection that requires antibiotics), making it up with your missis, kicking back and generally messing about in the trees.

I love and hate the film American Beauty. To me it represents everything that F&*ed up where I live.

 

[JihadJane]

Once again, “disaster” under our current system is still better then any other system has ever produced. In fact “disaster” under this system is still pretty darn comfy. You not knowing how good you have it is not cause for making a real economic disaster by gutting the system that works better then any other.

You write as if the current financial/economic and climate disasters have already completed their evolution. Both disasters are still unfolding.

Industrial civilization's impact on the environment is unprecedented. No other creature or human economic system has produced a mass extinction event.

Meanwhile, today, over a billion humans are starving - "pretty darn comfy".

 

[BadBoy]

The child didn't die, so I don't know what to tell you. The profit motive led a company to make a very immoral decision: deny coverage to a customer in desperate need of surgery because of a contractual loophole.

Sounds pretty straight forward to me, I dont know why he's finding it so difficult to understand your points. Thats why in the UK we try to keep healthcare a public service.

If I can make $1 million doing something illegal, when I can only make $500,000 doing it legally, any fine less than $500,000 will mean that it's in my economic best interest to behave illegally.

Hasn't there been cases in the auto industry where a recall looked much more expensive than the possible lawsuit caused by the predicted number of deaths caused by the cars design failure. Or was that just Hollywood?

Well, that example fairly accurately describes the quality of your posting--minus the sequins.

That made me laugh for the first time today, thanks

 

[timhau]

hmm, speak for yourself. I think "darn comfy" depends on who you are and your situation. One of the issues with western lifestyles is that the part of population that is living in poverty is not sufficiently acknowledged by the rest of us. Most of the time they are ignored.

Most of current Western poverty is still darn comfy when compared to anything except current Western middle-class and above. In terms of the history of this planet, that's almost everybody that ever lived.

 

[ideogram]

Most of current Western poverty is still darn comfy when compared to anything except current Western middle-class and above. In terms of the history of this planet, that's almost everybody that ever lived.

But you know, it's not the absolute level that counts, it's keeping up with the Joneses. (I am only half-joking.)

 

[drkitten]

Most of current Western poverty is still darn comfy when compared to anything except current Western middle-class and above. In terms of the history of this planet, that's almost everybody that ever lived.

Exactly. One of the major health problems that faces "current Western poverty," for example, is obesity.

That's right. Poor people in America and Western Europe eat too much food.

Sounds "darn comfy" to me in comparison to the starving, disease-ravaged hordes of even 19th century London.