[cube]

I find it funny that for most people it seems to be either Communism or Capitalism, with Socalism sneered at by the Capitalistic folks as "the road to hell."

It baffles me a bit really, if you look at the "Baby Boomers" and their prosperity, their accomplishments etc. They were all done in something (even in the US) that essentially was Socialism, it allowed society as a whole to prosper.
....

I lost count how many times I've heard this argument before.
It seems that everybody likes to *claim* that it was their "insert your favorite economic/political ideology" that was the ultimate true reason for the wealth and prosperity we're enjoying right now.
Which BTW is the highest that humanity has ever known.
What does a liberal and a conservative have in common?
They both like to claim that it was their political ideology that gave us prosperity.
I have a different theory.

Maybe it was cheap energy that made it all possible?
I believe that once PO hits no amount of socialism, capitalism, or whatever "-ism" you wish to subscribe to will prevent humanity from taking a step back 100 years in standard of living.

[Ludi]

To me, that place is like a black hole that sucks in good people and destroys them.

However, it's good to know that at least one person has gone in and come out on the other side.

Thanks. My experience has been very different, as has my husband's. He moved there from Florida with a few of his friends, who have mostly been quite successful and not become drug addicts. Of course we knew some drug addicts, but the majority of folks I worked with probably were not, and have to my knowledge continued working as I frequently see their names in the credits.

Not saying it isn't a tough place to work. Eventually I couldn't take the stress and had to start my own business and work at home.

[AlexdeLarge]

I'd rather have anarchy than live under the boot of a communist.

I'm actually agreeing with Little Alex!

Don't let becoming a "neomaster" make you lose your charm!

[Dukkha]

Americans are generally brought up to believe there are only two ways to organize a society; Capitalism or Communism (Socialism being a form of watered-down Communism).

Quite. And further, it seems that Communism is exhaustively described by Marxist-Leninism, or better Stalinism and, perhaps for the very educated, Maoism. There is rather more to it than that (anarcho-syndicalism, for example), just as there are rather more flavours of capitalism than the American version. The Scandinavian model, which I wouldn't call socialist at all (though I realise that for a great number of Americans, it's just the ante-chamber to a Stalinist gulag) is clearly very different to the uber-capitalist dog-eat-dog and devil-take-the-hindmost hell of America. And the fact that so many people live in such pathologically unbalanced societies perhaps helps to explain the peculiar prevalence of the idea that capitalism reflects some kind of natural order. Not so long ago this might have been a divinely ordained order; now the immutable laws of nature aren't inscribed in tablets of stone but the rather more earthly DNA, though, to many, they're no less immutable for that. This has always seemed an immediately self-defeating proposition. If, as is clear, capitalism arose in a particularly dreary corner of northern Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries, how can it be remotely sensible to claim that it reflects some underlying, unchanging aspect of human nature? Was human nature having a lie in, drinking coffee in bed, and catching up with the weekend papers for the preceding tens of thousands of years? No. Capitalism is a transient set of social and economic relations; as sure as day follows night, the conditions that gave rise to it will change and capitalism will alter, mutate, and disappear from view.

[Snowrunner]

I lost count how many times I've heard this argument before.

Guess we are both mathematically challenged

It seems that everybody likes to *claim* that it was their "insert your favorite economic/political ideology" that was the ultimate true reason for the wealth and prosperity we're enjoying right now.
Which BTW is the highest that humanity has ever known.
What does a liberal and a conservative have in common?
They both like to claim that it was their political ideology that gave us prosperity.

Of course, I am waiting for people to line up to take the blame :D

I have a different theory.

Maybe it was cheap energy that made it all possible?
I believe that once PO hits no amount of socialism, capitalism, or whatever "-ism" you wish to subscribe to will prevent humanity from taking a step back 100 years in standard of living.

It was a combination of factors (see, stable base in my OP), sure, cheap energy helped too, but it wasn't the only thing.

Either way, we're "done" either way, and it's really more about mitigation than anything else.

[Quinny]

Never thought I'd say this, as most of what he says is wrong, but I'm with cube on this (he won't know because I'm on his ignore list).

When first introduced to Keynes, I said yeah but... what about resource constraint. The only answer was 'something else' will come up!

It's fairly obvious that Marxist analysis as regards surplus value is pretty spot on, but I still don't see how it can help us through the problems we now face. If 6bn people own the means of production to support 2bn which 4bn lose out?

Math's can be brutal at times!

[cube]

...
Either way, we're "done" either way, and it's really more about mitigation than anything else.

I think the word power-down or die-off is the more appropriate word.
Besides it really is a mute point.
PO = the end of social welfare liberalism. That's an absolute guarantee.

[Snowrunner]

PO = the end of social welfare liberalism. That's an absolute guarantee.

Dog eat dog then?

Dunno, we had community driven efforts before and from what I have read the numbers of "slackers" that essentially smooch of the State are far less than the popular opinion claims.

But who knows, it won't be pretty, how many people lived in the developed world during the great depression? How many now? I guess we can assume a large part of the difference will not make it.

[cube]

Dog eat dog then?

hmm? That's kinda funny. That's what I always thought of liberals.

Dunno, we had community driven efforts before and from what I have read the numbers of "slackers" that essentially smooch of the State are far less than the popular opinion claims.

Lets not get coy here. There's a difference between community driven efforts and government effort. You know what I'm talking about. You're just uncomfortable with the fact that your political ideology (that you believe in so dearly) will get thrown in the trash and there's nothing that can stop it.

But who knows, it won't be pretty, how many people lived in the developed world during the great depression? How many now?

I'm not sure what your getting at here?

I guess we can assume a large part of the difference will not make it.

80% die-off. That's what my crystal ball tells me

[nobodypanic]

Americans are generally brought up to believe there are only two ways to organize a society; Capitalism or Communism (Socialism being a form of watered-down Communism).

Quite. And further, it seems that Communism is exhaustively described by Marxist-Leninism, or better Stalinism and, perhaps for the very educated, Maoism. There is rather more to it than that (anarcho-syndicalism, for example), just as there are rather more flavours of capitalism than the American version. The Scandinavian model, which I wouldn't call socialist at all (though I realise that for a great number of Americans, it's just the ante-chamber to a Stalinist gulag) is clearly very different to the uber-capitalist dog-eat-dog and devil-take-the-hindmost hell of America. And the fact that so many people live in such pathologically unbalanced societies perhaps helps to explain the peculiar prevalence of the idea that capitalism reflects some kind of natural order. Not so long ago this might have been a divinely ordained order; now the immutable laws of nature aren't inscribed in tablets of stone but the rather more earthly DNA, though, to many, they're no less immutable for that. This has always seemed an immediately self-defeating proposition. If, as is clear, capitalism arose in a particularly dreary corner of northern Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries, how can it be remotely sensible to claim that it reflects some underlying, unchanging aspect of human nature? Was human nature having a lie in, drinking coffee in bed, and catching up with the weekend papers for the preceding tens of thousands of years? No. Capitalism is a transient set of social and economic relations; as sure as day follows night, the conditions that gave rise to it will change and capitalism will alter, mutate, and disappear from view.

what an excellent damn post. i've been trying to say the same thing for some time now, but you have done it far far better than i could.

[Cid_Yama]

All you people against social welfare; when the poor no longer are able to afford food, they will be climbing in your windows looking for something to eat or sell.

Wouldn't you rather the Govt. give them a basic minimum to lessen the chance of that happening?

And all you macho dudes out there thinking just let them try, they have guns too.

[cube]

All you people against social welfare; when the poor no longer are able to afford food, they will be climbing in your windows looking for something to eat or sell.

Wouldn't you rather the Govt. give them a basic minimum to lessen the chance of that happening?

And all you macho dudes out there thinking just let them try, they have guns too.

Why thank you Cid_Yama.
I am glad you're willing to admit to the obvious, I respect that regardless of a person's ideology .
Snowrunner back there is having trouble seeing the elephant in the living room and that is (social welfare will go the way of the Dodo bird).

As for the hungry zombies that will try to climb up to my window.
I believe this is a problem beyond the reach of government.
The only thing government is capable of doing is to take money from person A (who has money) and give it to person B (who doesn't have it).
PO will reduce the number of people A and of course increase the number of people B.
It is a recipe for failure.

[emeraldg40]

All you people against social welfare; when the poor no longer are able to afford food, they will be climbing in your windows looking for something to eat or sell.

Wouldn't you rather the Govt. give them a basic minimum to lessen the chance of that happening?

And all you macho dudes out there thinking just let them try, they have guns too.

Why thank you Cid_Yama.
I am glad you're willing to admit to the obvious, I respect that regardless of a person's ideology .
Snowrunner back there is having trouble seeing the elephant in the living room and that is (social welfare will go the way of the Dodo bird).

As for the hungry zombies that will try to climb up to my window.
I believe this is a problem beyond the reach of government.
The only thing government is capable of doing is to take money from person A (who has money) and give it to person B (who doesn't have it).
PO will reduce the number of people A and of course increase the number of people B.
It is a recipe for failure.

>when the poor no longer are able to afford food, they will be climbing in your windows looking for something to eat or sell.

A. Please define poor.
B. If they are poor now, they already cant afford food.
C. The poor in the USA can drive Mercedes, go to the Dr. for free, claim they cant speak English and cant read their bill so they dont pay it....I could go on but I wish someone would tell the truth about the "Poor" in the USA. Its called working the system and millions do it everyday.....poor does not equal dumb.....
D. We are just as Socialist as Canada....believe it
B.

[Ludi]

C. The poor in the USA can drive Mercedes, go to the Dr. for free, claim they cant speak English and cant read their bill so they dont pay it....I could go on but I wish someone would tell the truth about the "Poor" in the USA.

Hey, sounds like we should all be "poor." Why do you work so hard when you can get this great stuff for free just by being poor?

[Snowrunner]

Dog eat dog then?

hmm? That's kinda funny. That's what I always thought of liberals.

In what sense?

Dunno, we had community driven efforts before and from what I have read the numbers of "slackers" that essentially smooch of the State are far less than the popular opinion claims.

Lets not get coy here. There's a difference between community driven efforts and government effort. You know what I'm talking about. You're just uncomfortable with the fact that your political ideology (that you believe in so dearly) will get thrown in the trash and there's nothing that can stop it.[/quote]

You're jumping over quite a few walls here to get to your conclusion.

I do not have an ideology per-se, I do have certain parameters in which I would like the world to go, but that is a mix of a variety of political ideologies.

Simply put: Ideologies don't work, they would require that everybody has the same ideology and that will never be the case, as such all we can strive for is an approximation.

I AM for "Government Handouts" to people because someone who is fed is less likely to try and steal from me to eat. This doesn't mean though that I don't think we need checks and balances, my opinion is complicated and as I am cooking right now I really don't have the time or muse to actually type it all out (besides, this would be a long thing).

But who knows, it won't be pretty, how many people lived in the developed world during the great depression? How many now?

I'm not sure what your getting at here?

The point is that any comparison to how people coped during the Great Depression (or even the Recession back in the 70s) and how this will be "overcome" in a similar fashion is most likely flawed, the world is different (much different) than it was even 30 years ago. We are entering uncertain times and I do think that we do require someone in Leadership that has the will and the guts to make decisions that aren't popular and go "against the grain". And yes, that could mean things like Roosevelts New Deal for the US.

If that fails, then these leaders will rise locally and that would for certain mean the end of world as we know it.

I guess we can assume a large part of the difference will not make it.

80% die-off. That's what my crystal ball tells me

Quite possible, the question is in what time frame and where. China and India are good starting points, but I think North America and Europe will pay dearly as well, the first one probably more so, simply on how spread out society is and how JIT reliant.

[Cid_Yama]

The poor I refer to are the malnourished, the hungry, the parents of starving children they cannot feed.

Screw your re-definition of poor in America. That is total nonsense. Whether you want to believe it or not, there are Americans going hungry, American children going hungry, and parents ready to do whatever it takes to feed their children.

Feed them or suffer the consequences.

[Snowrunner]

Snowrunner back there is having trouble seeing the elephant in the living room and that is (social welfare will go the way of the Dodo bird).

If we do not "afford" to feed the masses then we will have an outright war on our hands, like it or not.

There have been enough examples in history, and always remember, those who have nothing to lose have no fear either.

[Snowrunner]

Feed them or suffer the consequences.

+1

But that's what most "I made it!!!!!!1111" crowd doesn't see.

[emeraldg40]

C. The poor in the USA can drive Mercedes, go to the Dr. for free, claim they cant speak English and cant read their bill so they dont pay it....I could go on but I wish someone would tell the truth about the "Poor" in the USA.

Hey, sounds like we should all be "poor." Why do you work so hard when you can get this great stuff for free just by being poor?

>I dont think I would fit the profile.