Joined: Dec 02, 2005 Posts: 6430 Location: Oil-addicted Southern Californucopia
Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 11:19 am Post subject: Re: Global Economy Max. Danger Warning . . .
Snowrunner wrote:
...But yes, the outcome of what Marx envisioned and the reality were two different things, which isn't too surprising really as he wrote it as an ideal solution not counting on the human condition.
Yeah, minor detail that derails all Utopian schemes: Basic human nature.
If it wasn't for people being involved, socialism and communism might have a chance to work!
Oh, wait... _________________ "Thank you for attending the oil age. We're going to scrape what we can out of these tar pits in Alberta and then shut down the machines and turn out the lights. Goodnight." - seldom_seen
Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 1:24 pm Post subject: Re: Global Economy Max. Danger Warning . . .
Zardoz wrote:
Snowrunner wrote:
...But yes, the outcome of what Marx envisioned and the reality were two different things, which isn't too surprising really as he wrote it as an ideal solution not counting on the human condition.
Yeah, minor detail that derails all Utopian schemes: Basic human nature.
If it wasn't for people being involved, socialism and communism might have a chance to work!
Oh, wait...
i have a tiny bone to pick. it isn't necessarily basic human nature; it's the nature of people who have been born and raised within our current western-influenced world-culture. if, for example, you jump back in time to certain native american tribes, you'll find that communal systems CAN operate and that the tragedy of the commons can be avoided.
on the other hand, i completely agree with you that utopian schemes are highly flawed... including adam smith's version.
Joined: Jul 02, 2008 Posts: 437 Location: Espinho, Porto, Portugal
Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 1:55 pm Post subject: Re: Global Economy Max. Danger Warning . . .
nobodypanic wrote:
i have a tiny bone to pick. it isn't necessarily basic human nature; it's the nature of people who have been born and raised within our current western-influenced world-culture. if, for example, you jump back in time to certain native american tribes, you'll find that communal systems CAN operate and that the tragedy of the commons can be avoided.
Indeed. If you've read Jarod Diamond's Collapse, you'll remember the inhabitants of New Guinea, who kept a stable population and developed their standard of living enough to be around for a long long time - a few thousand years, if I remember - without totalling their environment. _________________ Give anyone a lever long enough and they can change the world. It's unreliable levers that are the problem.
Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 3:06 pm Post subject: Re: Global Economy Max. Danger Warning . . .
Zardoz wrote:
Snowrunner wrote:
...But yes, the outcome of what Marx envisioned and the reality were two different things, which isn't too surprising really as he wrote it as an ideal solution not counting on the human condition.
Yeah, minor detail that derails all Utopian schemes: Basic human nature.
If it wasn't for people being involved, socialism and communism might have a chance to work! Oh, wait...
Or Capitalism etc. doesn't matter which economic or political system you pick, they all fail on the human condition. What allowed us as a species to claw our way to the top of the food chain will eventually also be our down fall.
EDIT: I should point out here that systems that have grown out of a constraint (e.g. Island Nations) are probably less inclined to destroy their habitat. The "tragedy for the world" is that the Europeans had figured out how to eliminate the "Island Effect" and bring goods and raw materials that they had or were running out of home. This "wisdom" was carried forward into the new world and found it's culmination in "Globalization". The End result of that being that instead of one tribe going bust it now can (and will) affect a much larger portion of the world population.
Last edited by Snowrunner on Tue Jul 22, 2008 3:11 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: Aug 03, 2007 Posts: 3771 Location: Boston Suburbs
Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 3:10 pm Post subject: Re: Global Economy Max. Danger Warning . . .
Snowrunner wrote:
As for "held together by Force". What do you make then of the current American Empire? The US has troops in more places these days than the USSR ever had at the height of their empire.
If the US were a true empire then all US allies would be converted into part of the united states and forced to live under the our laws.
The only sense that the US is an empire is through international commerce. And the US is not the only country that has created multinational corporations. A fair amount of the US is being bought up by foreign countries. _________________ Paranoia is demonstrated to be an infectious disease, and stupidity plus the internet its major vector.
Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 3:42 pm Post subject: Re: Global Economy Max. Danger Warning . . .
mos6507 wrote:
Snowrunner wrote:
As for "held together by Force". What do you make then of the current American Empire? The US has troops in more places these days than the USSR ever had at the height of their empire.
If the US were a true empire then all US allies would be converted into part of the united states and forced to live under the our laws.
That's your definition of an empire.
Quote:
The only sense that the US is an empire is through international commerce. And the US is not the only country that has created multinational corporations. A fair amount of the US is being bought up by foreign countries.
I am not even factoring Corporations into this one, completely different topic. But let's see about the US Empire:
- Dominant Culture - check (large parts of the world anyway, for now)
- Military bases around the world - check
- control over financial markets in far away places - check (all these jitters whenever the US sneezes....)
You can have an empire either by offering sugar or by offering the whip. The US Empire is (largely) build on sugar, but that doesn't mean it isn't an empire.
Also the way in which the US acts in the Security Council, not to mention the way the US goes to war is pretty much in line with what an Empire does.
Joined: Dec 07, 2005 Posts: 1870 Location: Australia
Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 6:42 pm Post subject: Re: Global Economy Max. Danger Warning . . .
CarlosFerreira wrote:
Can I ask why Europe before Asia? Just curious, no idea which would go down first.
Simply because much of Asia has better fundamentals.
High savings rates. Not so much property boom.
Room to strengthen currencies which in some cases can boost internal spending. _________________ Lets take a ride, and run with the dogs tonight
In suburbia
You cant hide, run with the dogs tonight
In suburbia
- Pet Shop Boys
Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 7:17 pm Post subject: Re: Global Economy Max. Danger Warning . . .
Should the United States turn inward, I suspect China will make short work of the Middle East. Russia and China will lock horns. Russia has the edge in weapon technology China has the edge in people. China may invade Russia much in the same way Mexico has invaded the United States one bracero at a time or it may opt for a military invasion.
China invaded Vietnam after the Americans left and got spanked. That generation has passed and a new more militaristic mind set may take hold. The bad news is Russia, the Middle East and all of Europe is within walking distance of the Red Army
Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:14 pm Post subject: Re: Global Economy Max. Danger Warning . . .
Cloud9 wrote:
Should the United States turn inward, I suspect China will make short work of the Middle East. Russia and China will lock horns. Russia has the edge in weapon technology China has the edge in people. China may invade Russia much in the same way Mexico has invaded the United States one bracero at a time or it may opt for a military invasion.
Eastern Russia is already rather deserted. There have been several reports of entire stretches of Forest being taken out and brought back to China to feed The Machine(TM).
I don't think China is interested in a war with Russia though, war really is not good in the long term as pacifying a region is hard work (outside of completely wiping out 100% of the former inhabitants) and trading could be a way better strategy,
Then there is the little notion that Russia sits snugely between Europe and China, a fact all three have recognized as the new agreement of building a high-speed freight rail line between China, Russia an Germany has shown.
I think we will see Russia as a "middle power", brokering between China and Europe and selling raw materials to both sides, the investment in new military Hardware lately by the Kremel seems to support the point that they want to be able to make a point.
Even if the US would want to intervene, I cannot see a way in which they could stop either of the three powers doing that.
A "worst case" scenario would be an attempt by China to take eastern Russia, but considering the vast distances even for a country like China this may not be feasble, others have tried and failed miserably.
Quote:
China invaded Vietnam after the Americans left and got spanked. That generation has passed and a new more militaristic mind set may take hold. The bad news is Russia, the Middle East and all of Europe is within walking distance of the Red Army
Yes, but traditionally China hasn't "conquered" other places, and it really makes little sense for them. Siberia may be a lucrative target, but taking over the rest of Russia / Europe? It would not make any sense. Cultural Imperialism (as done by the US of A for the past 50 years) makes way more sense, and the Chinese thinking is a lot longer term than in Western Culture. The Chinese empire (which in a way already exists) will be an invisible one for a long time to come.
Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:08 am Post subject: Re: Global Economy Max. Danger Warning . . .
Snowrunner wrote:
Yes, but traditionally China hasn't "conquered" other places,
Except for Tibet. _________________ "Who knows what the Second Law of Thermodynamics will be like in a hundred years?" - Economist speaking during planning for World Population Conference in early 1970s
Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:40 am Post subject: Re: Global Economy Max. Danger Warning . . .
CrudeAwakening wrote:
Snowrunner wrote:
Yes, but traditionally China hasn't "conquered" other places,
Except for Tibet.
I have said for years that I expect China to eventually annex N. Korea and Myanmar under the guise of humanitarian intervention in failed political states on its own borders. Taiwan is just a matter of time.
I also expect the Chinese to colonize central Asia starting with the block of land in and around Vladivostock, until there is a significant Chinese diaspora living there. This is already happening as Chinese merchants move into these areas to do import-export business. And it makes sense as the population of Russia is declining, while China needs more land and more resources for their rapid economic development.
Once there is a sizeable local Chinese population the Chinese would intervene politically and then militarily if necessary if they felt the local Chinese were under threat. Much like Russia uses the pretence of Russians living on its borders as an excuse to meddle in the politics of its neighbors or deploy troops along their borders. Give it another 30-50 years. Who is going to oppose them?
UPDATE: a worker's paradise where profits do not matter
Quote:
Chinese ownership of the mine has fueled years of conflict in San Juan de Marcona, says Mayor Joel Rosales. Shougang's offices burned down on April 12, 2007, as hundreds of people protested the firing of seven workers.
Shougang supplies drinking water to the town, and it provides it for just four hours a day. Company executives get water around the clock, Rosales says. Raul Vera, Shougang's adjunct general manager, says the company doesn't have more water for the town because the area is a desert.
``They don't invest in this community or even their mine,'' Rosales says. ``They take all our natural riches to China and do nothing for us.''
Joined: Jul 02, 2008 Posts: 437 Location: Espinho, Porto, Portugal
Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 7:05 am Post subject: Re: Global Economy Max. Danger Warning . . .
Mmmm... question: if there are wars in order to invade and maintain land in the future (the if regards the fact that war demands large amounts of capital and fuel, both of which I'm supposing won't be so available in the future as they are today), it makes sense the chinese invade Russia: they have more people, and wars will probably be strongly based on the sizes of armies, and because of the larger population, need places where they can send overpopulation as emigrants.
Without US assistance, if Taiwan goes, I am supposing South Korea may fall as well.
So, this happens on the other side of Russia. What about the western side. Do you suppose EU might go for it? There are interesting resources there. _________________ Give anyone a lever long enough and they can change the world. It's unreliable levers that are the problem.
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4Next
Page 3 of 4
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
