Daily Anarchist Forum

Questions And Challenges => Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism => Topic started by: assasin7 on June 29, 2012, 08:18:38 AM



Title: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: assasin7 on June 29, 2012, 08:18:38 AM
1. When goods are produced many of them are destroyed because they would drive down the price of goods. This means that companies run at a loss, so they have to constantly expand to new areas of production, or create artificial demand to justify increased supply (yes now its supply= demand)

2. Capitalism seeks infinite growth on a finite planet, imposible, someday t will have to die.

3. Increase mechanization to better exploit resources will destory the ability for products to be bought.


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: AutodidacticJoe on June 29, 2012, 09:42:15 AM
free market environmentalism. walter block, terry anderson. we would live in a far more sustainable world if we actually had capitalism.. Government is whats holding back concepts like the venus project.


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: braindead0 on June 29, 2012, 09:45:42 AM
(http://api.ning.com/files/N7OZ1nhsdWcq6EGwzylcmeVC0*wrlEWW8mKFLNQkpHtw9HoAXOcSXgyarsj5swBfZG6cFVIUNhwRkiiJcCWBfX8CguHK5r6a/Troll_fail.jpg)


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: AutodidacticJoe on June 29, 2012, 10:04:32 AM
Ownership of property encourages conservation by giving people the incentive to preserve what they own. If all dumps were on private land they would NOT be filling up with non-recyclable/biodegradable waste and the costs of processing waste would be higher for them leading to more producer goods being made with sustainable economical materials.  Free-market= Free minds. So to say in a "Capitalist System" we would devour our world is ignorant for even now free thinking individuals are trying to develop new concepts of sustainable living. The market will shift towards sustainability.

Who killed the electric car?   it wasn't the consumers.

Our would is being devoured by corporatism

Whats your solution to capitalism?



Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: AutodidacticJoe on June 29, 2012, 10:18:40 AM
in my opinion the closest thing we can get to "utopia" is Anarcho-capitalism.


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: AutodidacticJoe on June 29, 2012, 10:31:01 AM
And what about population? How do we keep that down? Again Free-market capitalism. End all welfare programs, real market prices on contraceptives (dirt cheap), Almost no unemployment. Poor people have more kids then rich and middle class and there would be far less poor.


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: assasin7 on June 29, 2012, 10:34:34 AM
Your missuderstanding me, I don't mean envirmental destruction. I mean production itself, you can't produce infinite goods on a finite planet. Eventually you crash. Right now most companies money comes from manfactured demand.


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: AutodidacticJoe on June 29, 2012, 11:16:32 AM
No i understood and answered you. if what we are doing is unsustainable we will shift our efforts into new methods. Captialism is not a system per se. its what happens when you leave people alone. Theres no capitalist police saying only 1 person can own a business or you must use this or that method to preserve the "system" haha we technically can still be capitalist and live in venus project style cities if we all voluntarily chose too.   As for manufactured demand your right. Id blame the lack of real education and corporatized media.


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: assasin7 on June 29, 2012, 12:31:37 PM
we're using 2 different definitions:

I mean: an economic system were money has sex with labor and material and has a baby of more money

you mean: free markets. Free markets would abolish property rights, without a state you can't have private property.


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: AutodidacticJoe on June 29, 2012, 12:51:19 PM
governments dont protect property now. Protection of property is a $huge$ demand. my guns and whoever provides that service is what protects my property.  Competition and consumers keep them in check. lack of taxes means trying to fund the formation of a government would be extremely difficult. And look how difficult it is for over 100,000 troops to fight "extremists" in the middle east. imagine fighting millions of armed citizens. Nothings perfect but saying only government can protect property is weak argument imo


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: AutodidacticJoe on June 29, 2012, 01:20:32 PM
I guess i shouldnt say citizens but people. i give up trying to understand you. if you want to be a communist go buy (because you cant just take and in the lack of property taxes) property and live "communisticly" just note that itl be a very primitive lifestyle. Ha



Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: braindead0 on June 29, 2012, 01:37:10 PM
we're using 2 different definitions:

I mean: an economic system were money has sex with labor and material and has a baby of more money

you mean: free markets. Free markets would abolish property rights, without a state you can't have private property.
The problem is that your 'definition' isn't a definition so much as it's a string of words tossed together with no concern for reality, relevance or logical association.


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: assasin7 on June 29, 2012, 01:57:44 PM
Money is used to make more money


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: MAM on June 29, 2012, 10:43:01 PM
1. When goods are produced many of them are destroyed because they would drive down the price of goods. This means that companies run at a loss, so they have to constantly expand to new areas of production, or create artificial demand to justify increased supply (yes now its supply= demand)

2. Capitalism seeks infinite growth on a finite planet, imposible, someday t will have to die.

3. Increase mechanization to better exploit resources will destory the ability for products to be bought.

1. This is false, basic economics shows us that supply and demand reach an equilibrium. Sellers want to charge as much as they can buyers want to pay the lowest price in this way the curves intersect creating the equilibrium price. Your entire statement is logically inconsistent.

2. One day the Sun will go supernova destroying the earth therefor any system we try on the earth will be destroyed. Your notion of sustainability is flawed.

3. What?


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: assasin7 on June 29, 2012, 11:01:15 PM
1. When goods are produced many of them are destroyed because they would drive down the price of goods. This means that companies run at a loss, so they have to constantly expand to new areas of production, or create artificial demand to justify increased supply (yes now its supply= demand)

2. Capitalism seeks infinite growth on a finite planet, imposible, someday t will have to die.

3. Increase mechanization to better exploit resources will destory the ability for products to be bought.

1. This is false, basic economics shows us that supply and demand reach an equilibrium. Sellers want to charge as much as they can buyers want to pay the lowest price in this way the curves intersect creating the equilibrium price. Your entire statement is logically inconsistent.

2. One day the Sun will go supernova destroying the earth therefor any system we try on the earth will be destroyed. Your notion of sustainability is flawed.

3. What?

1. That was true before mass advertising, I'll post the video for this later

2. What I mean is capitalism will get to efficient and run out of resources to be produced.

3. all producers will be replaced with machines, making it run out of money


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: Syock on June 30, 2012, 09:10:33 AM
I'm sorry assassin, but I haven't seen anything in this thread you have said that was based in reality.  Your initial statements were just flat out wrong, and trying to argue from incorrect statements just doesn't work.


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: assasin7 on June 30, 2012, 09:54:28 AM
Why was it wrong


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: Syock on June 30, 2012, 10:45:51 AM
The better question is where did you get this stuff?


1. When goods are produced many of them are destroyed because they would drive down the price of goods. This means that companies run at a loss, so they have to constantly expand to new areas of production, or create artificial demand to justify increased supply (yes now its supply= demand)

2. Capitalism seeks infinite growth on a finite planet, imposible, someday t will have to die.

3. Increase mechanization to better exploit resources will destory the ability for products to be bought.

1. Why would they just not produce less to start with, or sell higher volume at lower price?  Companies do not want to destroy goods that they spent money to create. 

How does this mean they run at a loss?  Companies that run at a loss go out of business.  Only the government can truly operate at a loss since they can cheat the system by making more money for themselves to keep operating.

How could a company create artificial demand?  Governments can create artificial demand by messing with markets, but all a company can do is provide goods and services if someone is willing to make an exchange with them. 

Companies do not have to justify increased supply.  They have to deal with the consequences of the market supply and demand.  If there is too much supply, they simply produce less, as it does no one any good to stockpile warehouses full of saddles when everyone wants a car. 

2. Capitalism seeks to produce profit, not infinite growth.  If that means they make 10 widgets a year because that is where they make the most profit, that is all they will make.  If it means they do something unprofitable like donating to feed the poor to increase the company image to make overall more profit, they will do that too.  They are not the cookie monster.

3. I am not sure I can even make sense of this one in order to refute it.  Do you mean that mechanization puts people out of jobs?  This one is as old as technology itself.  It actually has quite a different effect. 

Increased technology means one person can produce more.  Yeah, I don't need to hire an expensive cobbler to make my shoes anymore, but that also means I have more money to perhaps buy another pair of shoes, or something else to improve my life.  The cobbler can likely turn his leather-working skills to making something else, or pursue another career entirely.  Maybe his shoes are so amazing and better than factory shoes that he suddenly has less competition and can charge a small fortune for a now rare skill and unique product.

Obviously not everyone wants to change careers, or this argument would not exist.  However, due to the fact that everyone is able to save money on shoes, they have more to spend on other goods and services.  New goods and services are also being created, and will require a workforce as well. 

Do not mistake the rearranging of assets (money, labor, equipment) to be a loss or destruction of wealth and purchasing power. 


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: Hanzo on June 30, 2012, 11:08:25 AM
1. When goods are produced many of them are destroyed because they would drive down the price of goods. This means that companies run at a loss, so they have to constantly expand to new areas of production, or create artificial demand to justify increased supply (yes now its supply= demand)
What are you talking about? Companies destroy their own goods?

And you can't just rewrite the most basic law of economics because you feel like it. Supply does not equal demand in theory or reality. It could at equilibrium, but that is more
 hypothetical than actual.

Quote
2. Capitalism seeks infinite growth on a finite planet, imposible, someday t will have to die.
This is why we have something called prices, for economic calculation.

Wealth can be created infinitely. That is why today, with 6 billion people in the world, less and less people are starving. The standard of living for everyone in the world has increased.

See http://www.rationaloptimist.com/

Quote
3. Increase mechanization to better exploit resources will destroy increase the ability for products to be bought.
Fixed it for you. More productivity means lower prices and higher wages. Technology may cause unemployment for some low skill workers in the short run, but in the long run everybody is better off.

Or would you rather have the world's supply of corn picked by hand instead of with machines, causing the deaths of millions if not billions?


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: assasin7 on June 30, 2012, 02:47:30 PM
companies create demand via advertisements, often using the same tactics used by the military in psyops. When a company can bombard you with one way messages, your being brainwashed, and its making demand.



Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: Syock on June 30, 2012, 03:25:12 PM
How would you know it existed if they didn't tell you about it?   It is your choice to watch the ads.  It is your choice if you buy the product or not.  They are not creating demand, you do that by choosing to voluntarily make a mutually beneficial exchange with them.  


Seriously, where do you get this stuff?

If you buy everything you ever see ads for, I have some stuff I want to sell to you.  


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: assasin7 on July 05, 2012, 03:50:44 PM
How would you know it existed if they didn't tell you about it?   It is your choice to watch the ads.  It is your choice if you buy the product or not.  They are not creating demand, you do that by choosing to voluntarily make a mutually beneficial exchange with them.  


Seriously, where do you get this stuff?

If you buy everything you ever see ads for, I have some stuff I want to sell to you.  

Theirs a difference between adds hear and their and every possible place blasting them at you. What about the fact that advertisers use the same tactics used in psyop by the military, making it impossible to defend without a PHD in psychology.


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: MAM on July 05, 2012, 06:34:42 PM

Theirs a difference between adds hear and their and every possible place blasting them at you. There's a difference between hearing ads and having them blasted at you. What about the fact that advertisers use the same tactics used in psyop psyops by the military, making it impossible to defend without a PHD in psychology.

I fixed that first string that I will generously call a sentence. Let me explain the changes I made. First their is the possessive form of they so you used the wrong word, it is an easy mistake to make since there, their, and they're sound the same. There is an adverb, it is there  as opposed to here, lastly they're is a contraction of the words they and are. Second adds is the third person conjugation of the verb to add, id est "He adds x+y", while ad is short for advertisement, again you used the wrong word, an understandable mistake since the words sound identical. The last thing that I did was to create an actual coherent sentence expressing what I think you were trying to say. But I'm not a mind reader so I could be wrong.

The reason
Quote
psyop
needs to be pluralized is that the military engages in multiple psychological operations.



Now on to the refutation.

The purpose of an advertisement is to get people to notice something, one way to do that is to blast them at you. The point is there is not a an ethical difference between an ad that is run once and one that is ran a thousand times. There may be a difference in the effectiveness of the ads, but I think your sentence was meant to imply an ethical difference.

Next you said
Quote
What about the fact that advertisers use the same tactics used in psyop by the military, making it impossible to defend without a PHD in psychology.
Yes advertisers use the same tactics as military psyops, because they are in fact the same thing in different fields. So what? Who cares? The implication of the first part of your sentence is that the military is bad, and because it is bad everything it has used or created is bad. Which is a blatant falsehood. The internet was developed for military use and is still used by the military today does this mean that the internet is bad? No it does not. The second part of this sentence is
Quote
making it impossible to defend without a PHD in psychology
I find this claim to be dubious at best and is probably utter nonsense. I for example do not have a Ph.D in psychology and yet I am somehow able to resist buying items that I see ads for yet, have no desire for. Furthermore the claim that the military is infallible is just bullshit plain and simple. The idea that anyone without a Ph.D cannot resist psyops is just plain naive and stupid and is probably a logical fallacy. If this were the case the Afghan resistance movement would not have the support base that it does.


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: assasin7 on July 05, 2012, 09:51:06 PM
So soviet propaganda on every building was OK because you could look away? And don't say coercive and noncoercive, because advertisement is coercion.


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: Syock on July 05, 2012, 10:11:25 PM
And don't say coercive and noncoercive, because advertisement is coercion.

I think there is some confusion over what you are saying.  May I suggest this to aid you?  http://dictionary.reference.com/


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: MAM on July 05, 2012, 10:15:03 PM
So soviet propaganda on every building was OK because you could look away? And don't say coercive and noncoercive, because advertisement is coercion.

Your box of fail is growing quite nicely. Let's add this nonsense to the garbage heap.

There is nothing inherently wrong with propaganda. Propaganda is communication designed to alter the attitude of someone in some way. Whether it be the idea that "Mother Russia, and Stalin are Great" or "Our vacuum is the best". One must examine everything one hears to determine it's validity. You are responsible for yourself, if are not capable of logically deducing that pigs can't fly because you received a pamphlet saying they can, that only speaks to how poor your critical thinking skills are.

Quote
because advertisement is coercion
I would ask how, but I know you are going to copy and paste some more bullshit, so let's save a step and I'll just say. BULLSHIT. This is an unsubstantiated assertion the burden of proof is on you.


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on July 06, 2012, 12:02:17 AM
Let's add this nonsense to the garbage heap.
pile.add(new Garbage(g));
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Java heap space


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: BobRobertson on July 06, 2012, 10:31:26 AM
Free markets would abolish property rights, without a state you can't have private property.

Since having markets is defined by private property, you are stating a non-sequiter.

States violate private property.


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: assasin7 on July 09, 2012, 12:54:45 PM
Free markets would abolish property rights, without a state you can't have private property.

Since having markets is defined by private property, you are stating a non-sequiter.

States violate private property.

I meant Lockean property rights, instead it would be occupancy and use, so if I live in my house its mine, but I can't make money speculating on land.


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on July 09, 2012, 01:08:55 PM
Free markets would abolish property rights, without a state you can't have private property.

Since having markets is defined by private property, you are stating a non-sequiter.

States violate private property.

I meant Lockean property rights, instead it would be occupancy and use, so if I live in my house its mine, but I can't make money speculating on land.
Being able to speculate on land is important for using it efficiently. If we can't buy and hold, then we have an incentive to go and put up a shanty house, pay someone to live there, and wait until we have a more productive use for it. That's all dead-weight loss. Being able to own it and allow it to sit dormant prevents wasteful land grabs. Friedman's done some research on the Homestead Act. People would just go and farm it at a LOSS for YEARS, hoping the price would go up. People will find a way to speculate on it, so you might as well take away the incentive to waste resources at the same time.


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: BobRobertson on July 09, 2012, 01:12:07 PM
I meant Lockean property rights, instead it would be occupancy and use, so if I live in my house its mine, but I can't make money speculating on land.

"can't" is the operative word, and the non-sequiter.

"Not Allowed" would be more accurate to the position you are taking.

If I am not allowed to rent my property to another, that is a violation of my ownership of that property. If there is something I am not allowed to do, then I do not actually own it. If I may not rent someone else's property, be it paying interest on a loan, rent on a room, rent on an area of real estate, then my freedom is being violated and it is not a voluntary society.

This is why property-less "anarcho-" is not actually "anarcho-" at all. Someone must be in authority to determine what people are and are not allowed to do.


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: Syock on July 09, 2012, 01:13:09 PM
@JSNTS  http://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,1451.msg10397.html#msg10397


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on July 09, 2012, 01:16:38 PM
@JSNTS  http://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,1451.msg10397.html#msg10397
Dammit. I let my guard down. He said he was going to shut up, and I believed him. I yield to your wisdom.


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: Syock on July 09, 2012, 01:18:40 PM
This is why property-less "anarcho-" is not actually "anarcho-" at all. Someone must be in authority to determine what people are and are not allowed to do.

I prefer consensus democracy 100% needed to pass, and you can also just stand aside and not agree, I'll link to it later

I still find that hilarious.


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: macsnafu on July 26, 2012, 12:00:04 PM
Money is used to make more money

Okay, let's grant that money is used to make more money.  What good is it for, then?  Can you eat money?  Make a house or a computer out of money? 

Obviously, money is not merely used to make more money, but to meet one's needs and desires, to buy goods and services that one wants. 

Scratch one mistaken idea.


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: braindead0 on July 26, 2012, 12:21:31 PM
Money is used to make more money

Okay, let's grant that money is used to make more money.  What good is it for, then?  Can you eat money?  Make a house or a computer out of money? 

Obviously, money is not merely used to make more money, but to meet one's needs and desires, to buy goods and services that one wants. 

Scratch one mistaken idea.

You can buy a printing press, print up a bunch of money and buy anything you want of course!!!  </sarcasm>


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: macsnafu on July 26, 2012, 12:35:35 PM
Money is used to make more money

Okay, let's grant that money is used to make more money.  What good is it for, then?  Can you eat money?  Make a house or a computer out of money?  

Obviously, money is not merely used to make more money, but to meet one's needs and desires, to buy goods and services that one wants.  

Scratch one mistaken idea.
Okay, that seems way too easy, so let's explore it from a different angle and see what's wrong with it.

As implied above, no one wants money merely for the sake of money itself.  People want money because they can use it to buy the goods and services that they really want, for consumption.  

But the other side of the coin is the production of goods and services.  Money is, in fact, NOT used to make more money, because money cannot be the natural resource that one uses to produce goods and services.  

So what we're really saying is that capital, not money, is used to produce goods and services, which are then sold to people for money.  

Money is mere the medium of exchange for goods and services.  People provide a good or service to make money, then use that money to buy the goods or services that they want.

Capital, however, is often necessary to get started in the production of goods and services, or to improve productivity, or expand a business.  Money is often referred to as capital, when, in fact, money merely refers to the resources or actual wealth that money can buy so that one can engage in the production of goods and services.  Money itself isn't really wealth, but merely represents wealth, which is, in fact, resources, goods, and services.  It is these actual resources, along with intermediate goods and services, that are necessary to produce consumer goods and services.  A car is made from metals, plastic, rubber, and other such resources that are converted into engines, chassis, tires, and other parts that are assembled to make a complete car that an individual can eventually buy for their own use.

And now we get to a point that is related to your initial post.  Like many, you assume that there is a finite amount of resources available to convert into consumer goods, and that, naturally, we will eventually run out of those resources.  The incentives of capitalism to increase production and more, importantly, productivity would seem to lead to running out of resources faster.  

But increased productivity requires a temporary reduction in consumption so that a better and more efficient way of producing goods can be implemented.  Or, to put it another way, increased productivity generally means making more with less.  If the same amount of resources are simply being put to better use to satisfy more people instead of less people, then there's no reason to think that increased productivity means running out faster.  


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: Amagi on July 26, 2012, 12:44:37 PM
Advertising is coercion....wtf?  I think he's just trolling. 


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: macsnafu on July 26, 2012, 05:07:00 PM
Advertising is coercion....wtf?  I think he's just trolling. 

Probably, considering the number of posts he's started.  But if it leads to interesting points of discussion, that's okay.


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: Kelvin_Silva on September 13, 2012, 08:56:08 PM
You dont need to keep population down.
If anything, properity goes hand in hand with population growth.

THe more people are living, more can contribute, though there needs to be more people to eat and drink- this is where competition and innovation come in.

Need more living space? No problem , the free market can have you live underground or high up in the sky, maybe even in space.

Need more food? No problem, innovations are always continuing and with enough competition, our farms will grow.

Need more water? No problem.



Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: BobRobertson on September 14, 2012, 08:09:56 AM
You dont need to keep population down.
If anything, properity goes hand in hand with population growth.

So long as people enjoy liberty in a market economy, that's exactly what happens.

I like to point out that government produces nothing. The remarkable productivity we're enjoying right now has some 50% or more of dead weight on it, "brains and hands" which produce nothing yet still consume resources.

Imagine if all those burdens were released, the productive were not required to support so many unproductive people, and all those unproductive people suddenly had to produce or starve. Real GDP would, at least, double over night without any technological changes at all.

And that's not including the quicksand of regulatory compliance that the productive have to wade through in order to be productive at all. Without the regulators, the regulations go away as well.


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: haxor on November 08, 2012, 10:34:29 PM
Their will always be a human with a competitive edge. He will produce a better product for either less or of higher quality. Because of human natures creativity technology will advance and advance so you need not worry of running out of resources. Our creative capabilities have surpassed expectations this far and will continue to do so.

Infinite? No something will come and make it obsolete. For instance the wagon builder wasnt happy with Henry Ford and Ford was known as an evil man beause he put a lot of people out of buisness. But in the end he produced even more oppurtunities and endless possbilities to advance the standard of living, especially in the market place and employment catagories. Far as running out of resources and materials. that will happen anyway. The sun will dwarf and destroy the planet anyway. Our job is to raise the standard of living and technology. Capitalism lets mankind do this without regulation. Therefore it answers the call of human competitive nature and answers the call of a better technology. As long as a man knows he can use his creative mind to creat wealth and achievement he will be out to better himself. When he betters himself, he betters the standard of lving for all around him. Humans have always answered the call to better technology and continue to do so, not just for wealth, but we are a creature of survival. We are made to survive and produce!

Far as property: you work hard, you bought it, it is yours.

Far as population, between humans, disease and a lot of other things this will not be a problem.

Supply and demand, competitiveness, and the want for a higher standard of living all fall under the nature and philosophy of capitalism, no ther economic system as ot it corelates with human nature.  yet...


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: 123Berc on February 13, 2013, 03:46:28 PM
Money is used to make more money

Money is actually used to lead people. Its just money. But its also a great resource to make ventures that will lead people (give them work). It also motivates entrepreneurs, the people that lead the world.

There is also nothing wrong with resources running out, in capitalism nothing is a problem. A problem means profit when you solve the problem. If resources mattered, we would all die when they run'd out, and they would run out if it wasn't for capitalism.

Also, money is limited, but wealth is not. If someone has a net worth of 100 million he might only have 5m$ cash. The rest of his wealth is in his property etc. If we had no property, we limit the amount of wealth someone can have, therefore we limit the GDP. If we limit the GDP, we limit innovation.

Someone said something about the sun dying. In anything other than capitalism its gonna be a day everyone dies. In capitalism its gonna be a day we solve a problem. Who is gonna do it? The people that want the useless resource - money.

Money is the best invention human kind has ever had.


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: MAM on February 13, 2013, 06:52:41 PM
Money is used to make more money

Money is actually used to lead people. Its just money. But its also a great resource to make ventures that will lead people (give them work). It also motivates entrepreneurs, the people that lead the world.

There is also nothing wrong with resources running out, in capitalism nothing is a problem. A problem means profit when you solve the problem. If resources mattered, we would all die when they run'd out, and they would run out if it wasn't for capitalism.

Also, money is limited, but wealth is not. If someone has a net worth of 100 million he might only have 5m$ cash. The rest of his wealth is in his property etc. If we had no property, we limit the amount of wealth someone can have, therefore we limit the GDP. If we limit the GDP, we limit innovation.

Someone said something about the sun dying. In anything other than capitalism its gonna be a day everyone dies. In capitalism its gonna be a day we solve a problem. Who is gonna do it? The people that want the useless resource - money.

Money is the best invention human kind has ever had.

I said that one day the sun would die, to show him how his idea of sustainability didn't allow for anything to be sustainable.


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: loveablenerd on February 21, 2014, 02:25:45 PM
free market environmentalism. walter block, terry anderson. we would live in a far more sustainable world if we actually had capitalism.. Government is whats holding back concepts like the venus project.
I'm quite familiar with the Venus Project and a huge fan. However, I think it is presented in a convoluted way that does more to hold it back than sell it effectively to the masses who aren't scifi nerds such as myself.

The futuristic designs and architecture are great, but it is the social aspect that has the most appeal. We could have a moneyless, resource-based or even simply a steady-state economy without needing to abandon the cities of the world or build these new futuristic cities. They look great but cast an air of impossibility that gets needlessly confounded with the more important economic reforms he presents that need to be discussed.

Or as you suggest we could build the cities now under the current endless-growth money/market model. Though I think the biggest block to that is Jacques Fresco is going to hold onto those blueprints until he is certain the technology is only implemented when society adopts the above economic reform. And as he is in his late 90's it probably isn't going to happen while he is still here.


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: MAM on February 21, 2014, 09:44:46 PM
Love, have you heard of Post Civ?


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: templariomaster on April 01, 2014, 08:06:22 AM
Money is used to make more money

Money is actually used to lead people. Its just money. But its also a great resource to make ventures that will lead people (give them work). It also motivates entrepreneurs, the people that lead the world.

There is also nothing wrong with resources running out, in capitalism nothing is a problem. A problem means profit when you solve the problem. If resources mattered, we would all die when they run'd out, and they would run out if it wasn't for capitalism.

Also, money is limited, but wealth is not. If someone has a net worth of 100 million he might only have 5m$ cash. The rest of his wealth is in his property etc. If we had no property, we limit the amount of wealth someone can have, therefore we limit the GDP. If we limit the GDP, we limit innovation.

Someone said something about the sun dying. In anything other than capitalism its gonna be a day everyone dies. In capitalism its gonna be a day we solve a problem. Who is gonna do it? The people that want the useless resource - money.

Money is the best invention human kind has ever had.

I said that one day the sun would die, to show him how his idea of sustainability didn't allow for anything to be sustainable.

Let me add something.

In free market capitalism, resources are measured in how much do they cost so if they're hard to find, hard to extract or scarce  his price will inevitably rise so its use will start to slow down, but... big enterprises arent stupid, if they extract resources they know better than no one how much are left and they  can predict easily if its going to run out or not.

 So they will have to put all their efforts to find a sustitute, and the more important is that resource is more investigated to find alternatives, all because their survival depends to find a subtitute BEFORE the resource becomes rarer.

 So you have rational self-regulation and strong impulse in I+D to solve the same problem. Goverment, will fix prices and use force to maintain the prices of those resources even if they become rarer to find, and when they cant maintain that lie prices explodes and everybody loses.


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: FreeBornAngel on March 21, 2015, 02:26:38 PM
How did I miss all those replies?

Anyway, if we continue to do the work that fills the shelves and don't pay at the register we eliminate the money masters but still have full shelves.

We have to have workers we don't have to have dollars.

We would need a way to insure that you have produced more than you have consumed.

How that would be measured is open to debate.


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: macsnafu on April 26, 2015, 12:57:38 PM
How did I miss all those replies?

Anyway, if we continue to do the work that fills the shelves and don't pay at the register we eliminate the money masters but still have full shelves.

We have to have workers we don't have to have dollars.

We would need a way to insure that you have produced more than you have consumed.

How that would be measured is open to debate.


It's true that strictly speaking, we don't have to have a medium of exchange, i.e. dollars.  But what we really don't need are United States Federal Reserve Notes.  The private production of money is not only possible, but desirable to avoid government interference in the market economy. 

I realize you have some idea akin to mutual aid, wherein workers just produce a bunch of stuff anyway, and people are free to take what they need, but such charitable ventures don't really work on any large scale.  Being charitable to friends, neighbors and family is nice as long as you have the means to be charitable, but being charitable to strangers is a much more expensive and riskier option. 

Why should anyone want to work harder than they have to in order to supply their own needs?  It is here that a market comes into play.  People provide goods and services to other people because other people return the favor in goods and services.  Barter.  And yet, barter produces certain problems in the exchange of heterogeneous goods and services that limits exchanges and productivity.  A particular commodity used as a medium of exchange, i.e. money, solves these problems in barter, and allows more people to get what they need and want.  Money facilitates the development of the market so that greater production and distribution of goods and services can be achieved.  Money, or rather, money prices, help provide important decentralized information to tell producers what to produce and how much to produce, so that there is a more efficient allocation of resources, and what people truly want is better satisfied by the market. 

This is better than any democratic decision-making process, because on the market people "vote" with their own money, their own productivity--you don't have to worry about people consuming more than they produce unless you're specifically offering credit or loans to someone, and then it's your business to decide who is a good credit risk and who is not.

People can always *say* that they want such-and-such, but human desires are infinite, and greatly exceed our ability to meet them.  A soccer mom might want a Maserati, but even if she's not excited about her mini-van or SUV, she still appreciates its ability to efficiently move the kids and other stuff around when needed, something the Maserati can't do.


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: FreeBornAngel on April 27, 2015, 06:37:17 PM
It's true that strictly speaking, we don't have to have a medium of exchange, i.e. dollars.
Thank you very much, you wouldn't believe the amount of denial I have encountered to this simple fact.

Quote
The private production of money is not only possible, but desirable to avoid government interference in the market economy.
How is what you are advocating any different than the wage slavery we experience to the fed today?
The only difference that I see is that instead of the fed exploiting those that have no money it is you.
Does exchanging one central master of the world for a local master change the fact that the rich are still exploiting the poor?
What you advocate is merely the change from one global master to you being master locally. 
The only exploitation you end is the level above your's,....you leave intact the exploitation that benefits you.

Quote
Why should anyone want to work harder than they have to in order to supply their own needs?
My question exactly.
Your answer, to make ME rich.
Why should I have to work Saturdays so that you can drive a Mercedes?
As I said above, you only wish to change the master over you.
If I have no money then I am still your wage slave.

My proposal ends that, as it ends poverty, prostitution, human trafficking and drugs being pushed to children or any body else.

It also will end dirty energy. 
If your car spews noxious gas for me to breathe that is a personal attack on me.
Without profits to bribe the greedy thugs that prefer violently controlling his neighbors to legitimate production we can respond that attack in kind.

Quote
It is here that a market comes into play,....blah blah blah
When you take the time to read the modern anarchist authors (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/special/index) you will note that they are without exception anti-crapitalist.

Quote
People can always *say* that they want such-and-such, but human desires are infinite, and greatly exceed our ability to meet them.
Just as the demand for Iphones are met, so too will any demand for maseratis,...etc,....
Demand can easily be made up from the 1000's of unemployed managerial cogs of the crapitalists.
The secretaries, the accountants, the lawyers, and their support staffs will all be free to make whatever goods are in demand.
Without profits and crowd control to affect production I would assume that robots will be made to do most of the manufacturing/drudgery.

Please take the time to read some Kropotkin (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/search?query=Kropotkin), Goldman (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/search?query=goldman), and Bakunin (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/search?query=bakunin&title=&author=&year=&topic=&source=&notes=&complex_query=1).

Once you have read why anarchists are anti-crapitalists maybe you will join us in properly using the term.





Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: MAM on September 26, 2015, 12:03:12 PM
"How is what you are advocating any different than the wage slavery we experience to the fed today?"

You have to work, period. Wage slavery is flawed.


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: FreeBornAngel on September 27, 2015, 07:25:53 PM
We don't have to have dollars, we do have to have workers.

Money makes 0 pairs of shoes per hour, money loads ZERO trucks per hour, investment banksters live from a level of unawareness that is truly stupefying,.....do I need to continue?

I will if I have to,....

Hasn't anybody on this board read Proudhon or Kropotkin?

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/category/author


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: Syock on January 19, 2016, 08:23:29 PM
People can and do live without money at all.  Your belief that anyone is a wage slave is just ignorant.  People can choose to spend less money to the point that they begin to save money.

No one here is advocating some rich bank guy controlling the money supply.  Your insistence on that being our stance is just ignorant yet again.  This whole thread is full of ignorant comments that really can't be defended because they are not what we advocate anyway.   You are looking at the world as it is now, mixed economies, and assuming it is capitalism.  No one with a basic understanding of economics calls what we have capitalism.  Your biased ignorance leads to an unending argument when really you should be over at mises.org learning economics.   

... you have completely failed to read anything on this forum.  I would suggest you reconsider your stance against ancap because you have a completely fundamental misunderstanding of capitalism, and anarchy. 


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: macsnafu on January 22, 2016, 12:17:41 PM
We don't have to have dollars, we do have to have workers.

Money makes 0 pairs of shoes per hour, money loads ZERO trucks per hour, investment banksters live from a level of unawareness that is truly stupefying,.....do I need to continue?

I will if I have to,....

Hasn't anybody on this board read Proudhon or Kropotkin?

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/category/author

I've tried to explain money to you, but you don't seem to get it.  Without a halfway decent understanding of what money is, you're doomed to continue with your economic fallacies.  In itself, there's nothing bad about money; no inherent slavery or coercion is involved.  It's only when the government decides to monopolize the production of money that it becomes a problem. 

You need to read more about money.  The current Wikipedia article actually isn't too bad as a starting point, although I'll see if I can find a more authoritative source to refer to as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money



Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: macsnafu on January 22, 2016, 01:58:54 PM
Here's some more links on money.  Concentrate on the basics of what money is, don't worry too much about M1, M2, and other technical crap. 

http://www.shmoop.com/money-banking/economic-definition.html

http://www.economicswebinstitute.org/glossary/money.htm

http://economics.about.com/cs/studentresources/f/money.htm

I drew from multiple sources so you wouldn't think I was selecting for bias, but as you can see, the basic definitions of money are pretty well agreed upon:  medium of exchange, medium of account, store of value.

Some talk about barter and the double coincidence of wants problem, which money solved.  The Wiki article also notes that historically, money is an 'emergent market phenomenon'.  In other words, governments didn't create money; it was created by people voluntarily agreeing to use some commodity as a medium of indirect exchange.  This is obvious when you see that a wide variety of things were used as money: eggs, seashells, etc.  Nobody forced people to accept the idea of money in general; it made market transactions easier for everyone.  But the features that make a better money eventually led to the use of precious metals like gold and silver as a preferable form of money for most people.  The development of money substitutes like a gold certificate, where instead of gold, you got a piece of paper that represented some amount of gold, was a banking development. 

Here's an article that talks about Ludwig von Mises' view on money:

https://mises.org/library/mises-basics-money

Still basic, but quite interesting.  It included references that can be followed up on.  Mises was always concerned with the bigger picture, how things fit together. 

I'm going to look up Proudhon and Kropotkin on money to see if I can address those issues, as well.


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: macsnafu on January 22, 2016, 02:18:19 PM
As near as I can make out, and correct me if I'm wrong, but Proudhon basically just wanted to replace current money with another form of money, "labor money" or "labor notes". 

http://libcom.org/forums/theory/proudhons-labour-money-05122009

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29

Naturally, if that's the case, he would not really have gotten rid of money, just changed its form.

Found an interesting debate between Proudhon and Bastiat:

https://bastiatinstitute.liberty.me/bastiat-debates-proudhon-14-paper-money/

http://praxeology.net/FB-PJP-DOI-Appx.htm

They provide interesting, technical issues to consider, although well above the basics of money.  Primarily the argument seems to have been about interest.





Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: macsnafu on January 25, 2016, 03:26:31 PM
I couldn't find anything short and specific on Kropotkin and money, so I've been forced to take a broader look at his work and views.  But geez, why could he not write something short and to the point?  He actually says several things that an ancap can agree with, although he ultimately comes to some mistaken conclusions that are startlingly similar to modern liberals and leftists.

I'll follow up with another reply after I've done more research.


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: macsnafu on January 25, 2016, 09:07:02 PM
As I said, I had trouble finding anything too specific about Kropotkin and money.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but in addition to abolishing the state, he apparently wanted to abolish private property, and he fully supported mutual aid.  His work, Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (1902) had some interesting things in it.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/kropotkin-peter/1902/mutual-aid/index.htm

It was primarily intended to be a response to the Social Darwinists of the time who mis-used Darwin's theory of evolution to justify the political and economic status quo of their time.  And I do mean "mis-used", because it was an improper application of a scientific theory on the development of life to the socio-political structures of mankind.  Kropotkin didn't try to argue against it in that way, however.  Instead, he thought that undue attention had been given to competition (not that he thought it was entirely wrong), at the expense of the cooperative aspects of life.  "Mutual aid" was, in this book, primarily a generic term for cooperative behavior among men. 

While he was certainly right about this, what he may not have seen is how much cooperative behavior exists in capitalism, as well.  It is perhaps, not given enough stress, but whenever someone talks about division of labor and voluntary exchange, they are certainly talking about cooperative behavior, as well. Finished goods don't just appear on store shelves by magic.  It takes many people cooperating, from the people who gather the raw resources, to people who develop and provide the tools for working those resources, to people who distribute them to retail outlets, not to mention the people who transport the resources and goods at the various stages to the necessary locations.  Leonard Read's essay, "I, Pencil" http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html, attests to the extensive cooperation necessary to produce a pencil. 

Kropotkin spends a lot of time showing examples of mutual aid throughout the history of mankind, to show that without the State, people still organize spontaneously to solve various social problems and provide certain social functions.  But Frederich Hayek also talks much about spontaneous order, arguing that market economies *are* a spontaneous order. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_order

Most ancaps take it as a given that without a State, people would still find ways to voluntarily organize and deal with various social functions. 

Kropotkin's examples of mutual aid tend to be matters of common or customary behaviors and habits, even specifying examples of medieval common or customary law.  He mentions Iceland and its medieval legal system at one point, as an example.  David Friedman wrote much more extensively about Medieval Iceland and its legal system in the essay: PRIVATE CREATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF LAW: A HISTORICAL CASE.

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html

Certainly, as an ancap, I think it is inevitable that without the State, society would switch to some form of common or customary law.  Furthermore, I don't think that this conflicts with capitalism as I know it.  With examples like Merchant Law and modern private arbitration and mediation services existing smack dab in the middle of businesses and business operations, it seems to me that "mutual aid" as Kropotkin called it, is really complementary to capitalism, not hostile towards it.  Private Defense Agencies, or PDA's as many ancaps refer to them, may well be for-profit businesses, but they would have to rely extensively upon common or customary legal procedures to successfully operate their businesses. 

Charles Rembar is no libertarian, as far as I know, but his book "The Law of the Land", http://www.amazon.com/The-Law-Land-Evolution-System/dp/0671243225, is an interesting history of the Anglo-American legal system, and spends some time on common law, and how the "King's Law" was greatly increased at the expense of common law as part of the monarchy's power struggles with English barons. 

Bruce Benson's, "The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without the State", http://www.amazon.com/The-Enterprise-Law-Justice-Without/dp/1598130447, is, in my opinion, an excellent book that details how private common and customary institutions can provide law without the state, and contrasts it with the current authorian legal system and how it works.  He has much to say about incentives, institutions, and customary legal systems.

Another thing Kropotkin may not have seen is that money itself is a good example of spontaneous order and mutual aid.  Money, a medium of exchange, resolved the problems of barter, allowed for greater trade among people, and also provided other social functions as a means of accounting and a store of value.  The State didn't create money; it merely appropriated its social functions as it did the other social functions that mutual aid had been providing, as Kropotkin pointed out. 

So you can see that there are several things that ancaps can agree with Kropotkin about, and hopefully you can see where Kropotkin's own statements and arguments can be used to defend capitalism, even if he couldn't. 

What I haven't found yet in Kropotkin's works is why he was anti-capitalist, although I may eventually come across it.  I certainly hope it's more than simply mistaking the existing government-manipulated, mixed socialist/crony-capitalist system as being "capitalism".  Many leftists think that capitalism can't work without government, but as you *should* already know, ancaps tend to argue that capitalism would work better (that is, for the betterment of humanity) without government interference. 

One problem I see with mutual aid, and why I think it is complementary to capitalism, is that it seems limited in how much it can do.  Can we agree that people willingly help other people in times of need or distress, especially if they are people we know, like family, friends, neighbors, co-workers and the like? If so, we can then ask questions that relate to the limitations of mutual aid.  How willing are people to help complete strangers, even strangers in distress, people that they know little or nothing about?  As a modern example, look at the current backlash against Syrian refugees, a backlash that is occurring not just in the U.S., but in many countries. 

A second question is this: if mutual aid is primarily to help people in extreme or uncommon situations, how much help are people willing to provide in the more ordinary or common situations?  Perhaps you have had the experience of a friend or relative who lost their home or job and needed a place to stay, "just temporarily".  You may have been glad to let them stay at first, but if the days turn into weeks or months, and they still haven't gotten back on their feet, how long are you willing to put with them being freeloaders, contributing little or nothing to your household? At what point do you say you can't help them any more?

Finally, mutual aid doesn't really seem to be an economic system of its own, as it provides little guidance for resource allocation, determining where goods and services are most urgently needed or desired.  This is, on the other hand, one of the things that capitalistic markets are good at doing.  Voluntary exchange is, of course, non-coercive, and therefore non-oppressive.  Division of labor creates an interconnecting network of voluntary exchanges, even among complete strangers, allowing people to help other people be more productive (mutual aid).  Concentration of capital allows us to invest in ways to make people even more productive.  Financial institutions provide better ways of managing exchanges and to borrow capital so that it can be reinvested in improving productivity.

So as I see it, there's not really too much overlap between Kropotkin's mutual aid and capitalism as I see it; they are complementary, each working in areas where the other doesn't work very well.  Kropotkin should have been an anarcho-capitalist, not an anarcho-communist.    :P


Title: Re: why capitalism is unsustainable
Post by: macsnafu on January 28, 2016, 04:55:25 PM

And yet if societies knew only this principle of equality; if each man practiced merely the equity of a trader, taking care all day long not to give others anything more than he was receiving from them, society would die of it. The very principle of equality itself would disappear from our relations. For, if it is to be maintained, something grander, more lovely, more vigorous than mere equity must perpetually find a place in life. And this greater than justice is here.

Kropotkin, from Anarchist Morality (1897)


It's hard to see why Kropotkin would be hostile towards trades of equal value, but more importantly, it shows a mistake or misunderstanding that Kropotkin has made about trade.  To illustrate, suppose that I had a Hank Aaron baseball card and you had a Roger Staubach football card (I suppose that's showing my age, but bear with me).  If you and I decide to trade cards, it might seem like an even trade, especially to non-sports fans, a sports card for a sports card.

But Austrian economics and the concept of subjective value show that this is *not* an even trade.  If I liked the Hank Aaron card equally as much as I liked the Roger Staubach card, I would have a hard time deciding to go ahead with the trade, as there would be no benefit to me for doing so.  However, if I like the Roger Staubach card MORE than I like the Hank Aaron card, then it's obvious that I would want to trade.  I would be gaining a greater value than I would be giving away, at least from my subjective viewpoint.

But it takes two to trade, and you would only agree to trade if you value the Hank Aaron card more than you value the Roger Staubach card.  So while it might seem like an even trade, in fact it is not, because we each value what the other person has more than what we have; we each benefit from the trade.  If we did not, then we would not make the trade.

So Kropotkin's view that trade makes people no better off than they were is clearly fallacious.