Daily Anarchist Forum
August 18, 2019, 12:22:30 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Daily Anarchist Forum!
 
   Home   Help Search Members Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
  Print  
Author Topic: why capitalism is unsustainable  (Read 30286 times)
BobRobertson
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 495



View Profile
« Reply #30 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.
Logged
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #31 on: July 09, 2012, 01:13:09 PM »

@JSNTS  http://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,1451.msg10397.html#msg10397
Logged

JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: July 09, 2012, 01:16:38 PM »

Dammit. I let my guard down. He said he was going to shut up, and I believed him. I yield to your wisdom.
Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #33 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.
Logged

macsnafu
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 422


Situation Normal--all fouled up!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #34 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.
Logged

"I love mankind.  It's people I can't stand!"
braindead0
Guest
« Reply #35 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>
Logged
macsnafu
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 422


Situation Normal--all fouled up!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #36 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.  
« Last Edit: July 26, 2012, 12:37:57 PM by macsnafu » Logged

"I love mankind.  It's people I can't stand!"
Amagi
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 54



View Profile WWW
« Reply #37 on: July 26, 2012, 12:44:37 PM »

Advertising is coercion....wtf?  I think he's just trolling. 
Logged

Owner - Amagi Metals. Amagi Metals sells precious metals and advocates for free markets, financial responsibility, and gold as money. Now accepting Bitcoins.
macsnafu
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 422


Situation Normal--all fouled up!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #38 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.
Logged

"I love mankind.  It's people I can't stand!"
Kelvin_Silva
Newbie
*
Posts: 17


View Profile
« Reply #39 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.

Logged
BobRobertson
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 495



View Profile
« Reply #40 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.
Logged
haxor
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 65



View Profile WWW
« Reply #41 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...
Logged

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Ayn Rand
123Berc
Newbie
*
Posts: 11


View Profile
« Reply #42 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.
Logged
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #43 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.
Logged

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
loveablenerd
Newbie
*
Posts: 5


View Profile
« Reply #44 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.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2014, 02:27:20 PM by loveablenerd » Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!