No, Capitalism Doesn’t Threaten Humanity

[UNI88]

No, Capitalism Doesn’t Threaten Humanity

Monbiot’s critique of capitalism is entirely unfounded. In the first place, it defies all empirical grounding, which is ironic because it’s my side of this debate that’s allegedly composed of unscientific “deniers.” Especially as formerly communist countries move towards freer markets, the world has seen dramatic improvements in living standards, while the relevant availability of “depletable” resources has increased; even climate-related deaths have plummeted over time.

But it gets even worse for Monbiot’s thesis. Even if we imagine a scenario—contrary to reality—where humanity did run into a crisis because of natural resource crunch, the best way to deal with the situation would be reliance on private property and market prices. To blame capitalism for the potential problems of a finite world is like blaming thermometers for the flu.
...
George Monbiot alleges that capitalism, left unchecked, will cause the literal extinction of humanity. His arguments ignore all of the evidence of capitalism’s benefits staring us in the face. Yet even on a theoretical level, private property and market prices help organize human activity so that we can deploy our scarce resources in the most efficient manner. Empirically, capitalism has allowed humanity to flourish with an ever-rising standard of living. But even in a catastrophic scenario where we hit a hard resource constraint, capitalism would still be an important tool in our defense, just as we would badly need math and science to help us cope with the emergency.

Capitalism is the engine that improves lives and raises standards of living. Capitalism is the engine that pays for the welfare programs in the Nordic countries. Capitalism isn't perfect but it has proven itself better than any alternative to date.

Kalm, Trip, Reek?

[Ivytalk]

Good find, 88!

Jearf scrambling to find progtard sources smearing the Mises Institute in 3-2-1...

[JohnStOnge]

No, Capitalism Doesn’t Threaten Humanity

Monbiot’s critique of capitalism is entirely unfounded. In the first place, it defies all empirical grounding, which is ironic because it’s my side of this debate that’s allegedly composed of unscientific “deniers.” Especially as formerly communist countries move towards freer markets, the world has seen dramatic improvements in living standards, while the relevant availability of “depletable” resources has increased; even climate-related deaths have plummeted over time.

But it gets even worse for Monbiot’s thesis. Even if we imagine a scenario—contrary to reality—where humanity did run into a crisis because of natural resource crunch, the best way to deal with the situation would be reliance on private property and market prices. To blame capitalism for the potential problems of a finite world is like blaming thermometers for the flu.
...
George Monbiot alleges that capitalism, left unchecked, will cause the literal extinction of humanity. His arguments ignore all of the evidence of capitalism’s benefits staring us in the face. Yet even on a theoretical level, private property and market prices help organize human activity so that we can deploy our scarce resources in the most efficient manner. Empirically, capitalism has allowed humanity to flourish with an ever-rising standard of living. But even in a catastrophic scenario where we hit a hard resource constraint, capitalism would still be an important tool in our defense, just as we would badly need math and science to help us cope with the emergency.

Capitalism is the engine that improves lives and raises standards of living. Capitalism is the engine that pays for the welfare programs in the Nordic countries. Capitalism isn't perfect but it has proven itself better than any alternative to date.

Kalm, Trip, Reek?

I'm not anti capitalist but I don't think the author did a very good job of arguing the case. He did not successfully rebut the argument that capitalism presumes potential for perpetual growth; which is not possible. He spends a lot of time appearing to argue that improvements in oil extraction technology leading to increases in what's defined as "proved reserves" means we are not dealing with a finite situation. But it IS a finite situation.

He finally allows that oil resources are finite but then sets about making an argument that makes no sense:

Yes, since there is a finite amount of crude oil, it must be the case that humanity will eventually have to switch to some other energy source. But humanity—especially in the modern age of relatively capitalistic institutions—has so far had no trouble maintaining consistent increases in total output, notwithstanding the “finite” resources on Earth (or the physical universe, for that matter).

Obviously, the increases in total output of recent years have been associated with having hydrocarbon fuels available. There is absolutely no guarantee that we will find something to carry on with when we hit the wall. The explosion in output has occurred over a very short time frame in historical terms. Our species has been around about 200,000 years. Capitalism has been around for about for about 500 years. That's about 3/10ths of 1 percent of the history of our species. It hasn't been around long enough to support using history to rebut the assertion that it is unsustainable.

[css75]

No, Capitalism Doesn’t Threaten Humanity



Capitalism is the engine that improves lives and raises standards of living. Capitalism is the engine that pays for the welfare programs in the Nordic countries. Capitalism isn't perfect but it has proven itself better than any alternative to date.

Kalm, Trip, Reek?

I'm not anti capitalist but I don't think the author did a very good job of arguing the case. He did not successfully rebut the argument that capitalism presumes potential for perpetual growth; which is not possible. He spends a lot of time appearing to argue that improvements in oil extraction technology leading to increases in what's defined as "proved reserves" means we are not dealing with a finite situation. But it IS a finite situation.

He finally allows that oil resources are finite but then sets about making an argument that makes no sense:

Yes, since there is a finite amount of crude oil, it must be the case that humanity will eventually have to switch to some other energy source. But humanity—especially in the modern age of relatively capitalistic institutions—has so far had no trouble maintaining consistent increases in total output, notwithstanding the “finite” resources on Earth (or the physical universe, for that matter).

Obviously, the increases in total output of recent years have been associated with having hydrocarbon fuels available. There is absolutely no guarantee that we will find something to carry on with when we hit the wall. The explosion in output has occurred over a very short time frame in historical terms. Our species has been around about 200,000 years. Capitalism has been around for about for about 500 years. That's about 3/10ths of 1 percent of the history of our species. It hasn't been around long enough to support using history to rebut the assertion that it is unsustainable.

Please do not say you are a conservative anymore.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

I'm not anti capitalist but I don't think the author did a very good job of arguing the case. He did not successfully rebut the argument that capitalism presumes potential for perpetual growth; which is not possible. He spends a lot of time appearing to argue that improvements in oil extraction technology leading to increases in what's defined as "proved reserves" means we are not dealing with a finite situation. But it IS a finite situation.

He finally allows that oil resources are finite but then sets about making an argument that makes no sense:



Obviously, the increases in total output of recent years have been associated with having hydrocarbon fuels available. There is absolutely no guarantee that we will find something to carry on with when we hit the wall. The explosion in output has occurred over a very short time frame in historical terms. Our species has been around about 200,000 years. Capitalism has been around for about for about 500 years. That's about 3/10ths of 1 percent of the history of our species. It hasn't been around long enough to support using history to rebut the assertion that it is unsustainable.

Please do not say you are a conservative anymore.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I am a conservative. But one thing I've always had a problem with pertaining to economic theory is the implied assumption that infinite growth is possible. It is not. Common sense should tell anyone that.

Fossil fuel supplies are indeed finite. A lot of what's been happening over the past 200 years...and really more like just the past 130 years or so...has been fueled by fossil fuels. 130 years is a blink of an eye in the context of the history of our species and much less than that in the context of geologic time. The argument that it's going to be fine indefinitely because it's been fine so far is specious.

The argument incorporating the graph of climate related deaths over time is pretty bad too. Obviously, there are many factors associated with that. It does not at all refute the idea that, for the long term, climate change could be very damaging. There may be other arguments. But the climate related deaths thing is pretty bad.

[UNI88]

Please do not say you are a conservative anymore.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I am a conservative. But one thing I've always had a problem with pertaining to economic theory is the implied assumption that infinite growth is possible. It is not. Common sense should tell anyone that.

Fossil fuel supplies are indeed finite. A lot of what's been happening over the past 200 years...and really more like just the past 130 years or so...has been fueled by fossil fuels. 130 years is a blink of an eye in the context of the history of our species and much less than that in the context of geologic time. The argument that it's going to be fine indefinitely because it's been fine so far is specious.

The argument incorporating the graph of climate related deaths over time is pretty bad too. Obviously, there are many factors associated with that. It does not at all refute the idea that, for the long term, climate change could be very damaging. There may be other arguments. But the climate related deaths thing is pretty bad.

John, you make good points but your hatred for all things Trump has blinded you and you are far too biased to be considered a conservative.

[JohnStOnge]

Another thing: If the author wanted to make the case on energy availability he should have cited some government entity or something instead of citing the Institute for Energy Research. See https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/I ... y_Research.

Do a Google search on "Institute for Energy Research" and you will see that there are lots of questions about it. One could argue that the questions are unwarranted, I suppose. But it would be better to just choose a source that's not associated with such questions of reliability and objectivity.

It would be easy to find information from a relatively neutral source. For example:

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=38&t=6

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) International Energy Outlook 2019 (IEO2019), the global supply of crude oil, other liquid hydrocarbons, and biofuels is expected to be adequate to meet the world's demand for liquid fuels through 2050.

Notice, though, that's that's not nearly as optimistic as the analysis cited by the author we're talking about. And there's this:

An often cited, but misleading, measurement of future resource availability is the reserves-to-production ratio, which is calculated by dividing the volume of total proved reserves by the volume of current annual consumption. Proved reserves are an accounting concept that is based on known projects, and it is not an appropriate measure for judging total resource availability in the long term.

It is indeed possible to be a conservative and not drink the Kook Aid that's routinely being spewed by conservative media entities and think tanks nowadays. A true conservative should be willing to call his own side out when his own side is trying to bullshit people. And I am a true conservative. If conservatism is going to win, it needs to win with the truth and not this constant barrage of misinformation that's been coming from the conservative side lately.

[AZGrizFan]

Please do not say you are a conservative anymore.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I am a conservative. But one thing I've always had a problem with pertaining to economic theory is the implied assumption that infinite growth is possible. It is not. Common sense should tell anyone that.

Fossil fuel supplies are indeed finite. A lot of what's been happening over the past 200 years...and really more like just the past 130 years or so...has been fueled by fossil fuels. 130 years is a blink of an eye in the context of the history of our species and much less than that in the context of geologic time. The argument that it's going to be fine indefinitely because it's been fine so far is specious.

The argument incorporating the graph of climate related deaths over time is pretty bad too. Obviously, there are many factors associated with that. It does not at all refute the idea that, for the long term, climate change could be very damaging. There may be other arguments. But the climate related deaths thing is pretty bad.

You should just stop trying to talk economics. You have waaay more than “one problem” when it comes to economic theory.

[UNI88]

Good find, 88!

Jearf scrambling to find progtard sources smearing the Mises Institute in 3-2-1...

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

A 2000 "Intelligence Report" by the Southern Poverty Law Center, categorized the Institute as Neo-Confederate, "devoted to a radical libertarian view of government and economics

The Mises Institute has been criticized by some libertarians for the incorporation of paleolibertarian and right-wing cultural views, including the positions taken by some of its leading figures on topics such as race, immigration, and the presidential campaign of Donald Trump

You guys just can't help yourselves.

Nice prediction Ivy.

We can use Wiki as a source? Cool!

Controversies regarding hate group and extremist designations

The SPLC's identification and listings of hate groups and extremists has been the subject of controversy. Critics of the SPLC say that it chooses its causes with funding and donations in mind, and argue that people and groups designated as 'hate groups' are targeted by protests or violence that prevent them from speaking. The SPLC sometimes responds by reviewing its actions and removing people from its hate listings; however, it has stood behind the vast majority of its listings. In 2018, David A. Graham wrote in The Atlantic that while criticism of the SPLC had long existed, the sources of such criticism have expanded recently to include "sympathetic observers and fellow researchers on hate groups" concerned about the organization "mixing its research and activist strains."

Laird Wilcox, an analyst of political fringe movements, has said the SPLC had taken an incautious approach to assigning the labels "hate group" and "extremist". Mark Potok of Southern Poverty Law Center said Wilcox "had an ax to grind for a great many years" and engaged in name calling against others doing anti-racist work.

Do you have any criticism of Mises from a credible source?

[CID1990]

The SPLC has become less credible over the last ten years in that they have accurately identified all the actual hate groups and now must “create” them

[UNI88]

The SPLC has become less credible over the last ten years in that they have accurately identified all the actual hate groups and now must “create” them

Another problem is that they focus on right-wing hate groups.

The SPLC did some good work way back when.

[CID1990]

The SPLC has become less credible over the last ten years in that they have accurately identified all the actual hate groups and now must “create” them

Another problem is that they focus on right-wing hate groups.

The SPLC did some good work way back when.

Generally speaking, unless it is about actual Klukkers or Nazis, when someone links to the SPLC I give it the same treatment as someone linking to InfoWars

[kalm]

I'm not anti capitalist but I don't think the author did a very good job of arguing the case. He did not successfully rebut the argument that capitalism presumes potential for perpetual growth; which is not possible. He spends a lot of time appearing to argue that improvements in oil extraction technology leading to increases in what's defined as "proved reserves" means we are not dealing with a finite situation. But it IS a finite situation.

He finally allows that oil resources are finite but then sets about making an argument that makes no sense:



Obviously, the increases in total output of recent years have been associated with having hydrocarbon fuels available. There is absolutely no guarantee that we will find something to carry on with when we hit the wall. The explosion in output has occurred over a very short time frame in historical terms. Our species has been around about 200,000 years. Capitalism has been around for about for about 500 years. That's about 3/10ths of 1 percent of the history of our species. It hasn't been around long enough to support using history to rebut the assertion that it is unsustainable.

Please do not say you are a conservative anymore.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

What about his post do you disagree with?

[kalm]

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

A 2000 "Intelligence Report" by the Southern Poverty Law Center, categorized the Institute as Neo-Confederate, "devoted to a radical libertarian view of government and economics

The Mises Institute has been criticized by some libertarians for the incorporation of paleolibertarian and right-wing cultural views, including the positions taken by some of its leading figures on topics such as race, immigration, and the presidential campaign of Donald Trump

You guys just can't help yourselves.

Nice prediction Ivy.

We can use Wiki as a source? Cool!

Controversies regarding hate group and extremist designations

The SPLC's identification and listings of hate groups and extremists has been the subject of controversy. Critics of the SPLC say that it chooses its causes with funding and donations in mind, and argue that people and groups designated as 'hate groups' are targeted by protests or violence that prevent them from speaking. The SPLC sometimes responds by reviewing its actions and removing people from its hate listings; however, it has stood behind the vast majority of its listings. In 2018, David A. Graham wrote in The Atlantic that while criticism of the SPLC had long existed, the sources of such criticism have expanded recently to include "sympathetic observers and fellow researchers on hate groups" concerned about the organization "mixing its research and activist strains."

Laird Wilcox, an analyst of political fringe movements, has said the SPLC had taken an incautious approach to assigning the labels "hate group" and "extremist". Mark Potok of Southern Poverty Law Center said Wilcox "had an ax to grind for a great many years" and engaged in name calling against others doing anti-racist work.

Do you have any criticism of Mises from a credible source?

No need. The Mises Institute is a self proclaimed conservative source...which is fine.

I find it interesting that the author left perhaps the strongest argument for capitalism, competition, in the quiver.

Both true free market capitalism and government monopoly can crush competition. The argument is the degree to which regulation is necessary.

Both authors have holes in their theories.

[Ivytalk]

Nice prediction Ivy.

We can use Wiki as a source? Cool!

Controversies regarding hate group and extremist designations



Do you have any criticism of Mises from a credible source?

No need. The Mises Institute is a self proclaimed conservative source...which is fine.

I find it interesting that the author left perhaps the strongest argument for capitalism, competition, in the quiver.

Both true free market capitalism and government monopoly can crush competition. The argument is the degree to which regulation is necessary.

Both authors have holes in their theories.

To what degree is regulation necessary?

[kalm]

No need. The Mises Institute is a self proclaimed conservative source...which is fine.

I find it interesting that the author left perhaps the strongest argument for capitalism, competition, in the quiver.

Both true free market capitalism and government monopoly can crush competition. The argument is the degree to which regulation is necessary.

Both authors have holes in their theories.

To what degree is regulation necessary?

Thats the question.

I'd say the level that most benefits kalm and crushes kalm's competition.

[Ivytalk]

To what degree is regulation necessary?

Thats the question.

I'd say the level that most benefits kalm and crushes kalm's competition.

Where I come from, that’s called crony capitalism.

[kalm]

Thats the question.

I'd say the level that most benefits kalm and crushes kalm's competition.

Where I come from, that’s called crony capitalism.

Actually, I suck at it. I’m not what exactly you’d call a “glad-hander” and I hate politicians in general.

[JohnStOnge]

I am a conservative. But one thing I've always had a problem with pertaining to economic theory is the implied assumption that infinite growth is possible. It is not. Common sense should tell anyone that.

Fossil fuel supplies are indeed finite. A lot of what's been happening over the past 200 years...and really more like just the past 130 years or so...has been fueled by fossil fuels. 130 years is a blink of an eye in the context of the history of our species and much less than that in the context of geologic time. The argument that it's going to be fine indefinitely because it's been fine so far is specious.

The argument incorporating the graph of climate related deaths over time is pretty bad too. Obviously, there are many factors associated with that. It does not at all refute the idea that, for the long term, climate change could be very damaging. There may be other arguments. But the climate related deaths thing is pretty bad.

You should just stop trying to talk economics. You have waaay more than “one problem” when it comes to economic theory.

So do you think infinite growth is possible? Do you think fossil fuel supplies are infinite?

[AZGrizFan]

You should just stop trying to talk economics. You have waaay more than “one problem” when it comes to economic theory.

Do do you think infinite growth is possible? Do you think fossil fuel supplies are infinite?

No. I think growth (and I’m assuming you mean human population growth) will self-regulate at some point (and somewhat already does), and fossil fuel supplies are not infinite, nor is the elimination of fossil fuels a threat to humanity.

[CID1990]

You should just stop trying to talk economics. You have waaay more than “one problem” when it comes to economic theory.

So do you think infinite growth is possible? Do you think fossil fuel supplies are infinite?

I think that if we live long enough we will perfect renewable energy technologies to the point that fossil fuels will no longer be necessary. I think that is inevitable.

So the idea that fossil fuels being finite as controlling on growth ignores tech progression.

I think that we will solve our fossil fuel problems long before we will solve what I think is the real limit on growth, which is population. We cannot continue to multiply at the rates we currently are. Some of this will be self limiting because the highest fertility rates in the world tend to be in the poorest places, and therefore prone to conflict and famine. So those are self limiting to a degree. But ultimately the limit on global economic growth will be overpopulation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[89Hen]

I am a conservative. But one thing I've always had a problem with pertaining to economic theory is the implied assumption that infinite growth is possible. It is not. Common sense should tell anyone that.

Fossil fuel supplies are indeed finite. A lot of what's been happening over the past 200 years...and really more like just the past 130 years or so...has been fueled by fossil fuels. 130 years is a blink of an eye in the context of the history of our species and much less than that in the context of geologic time. The argument that it's going to be fine indefinitely because it's been fine so far is specious.

The argument incorporating the graph of climate related deaths over time is pretty bad too. Obviously, there are many factors associated with that. It does not at all refute the idea that, for the long term, climate change could be very damaging. There may be other arguments. But the climate related deaths thing is pretty bad.

John, you make good points but your hatred for all things Trump has blinded you and you are far too biased to be considered a conservative.

[GannonFan]

So do you think infinite growth is possible? Do you think fossil fuel supplies are infinite?

I think that if we live long enough we will perfect renewable energy technologies to the point that fossil fuels will no longer be necessary. I think that is inevitable.

So the idea that fossil fuels being finite as controlling on growth ignores tech progression.

I think that we will solve our fossil fuel problems long before we will solve what I think is the real limit on growth, which is population. We cannot continue to multiply at the rates we currently are. Some of this will be self limiting because the highest fertility rates in the world tend to be in the poorest places, and therefore prone to conflict and famine. So those are self limiting to a degree. But ultimately the limit on global economic growth will be overpopulation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed, we'll likely see the solution for fossil fuels in our lifetimes. I'm not worried about energy production as an issue, technology will take care of that.

[Pwns]

Renewables will never be viable until a time when the world population is significantly less than it is now. You can't make a square foot of sunlight or air moving at a certain speed contain more power than it already does, you can't control the weather, and every new acre used is going to have diminishing returns because some place is better than others.

Ultimately the goal should be moving towards something like Thorium which would be a fuel source it would take a very long time to exhaust or maybe towards using fusion power fed by electrolysis of water.

[JohnStOnge]

I am a conservative. But one thing I've always had a problem with pertaining to economic theory is the implied assumption that infinite growth is possible. It is not. Common sense should tell anyone that.

Fossil fuel supplies are indeed finite. A lot of what's been happening over the past 200 years...and really more like just the past 130 years or so...has been fueled by fossil fuels. 130 years is a blink of an eye in the context of the history of our species and much less than that in the context of geologic time. The argument that it's going to be fine indefinitely because it's been fine so far is specious.

The argument incorporating the graph of climate related deaths over time is pretty bad too. Obviously, there are many factors associated with that. It does not at all refute the idea that, for the long term, climate change could be very damaging. There may be other arguments. But the climate related deaths thing is pretty bad.

John, you make good points but your hatred for all things Trump has blinded you and you are far too biased to be considered a conservative.

I know it's rare when we have political discussions nowadays but we were not even talking about Trump. I know I write about Trump a lot and I think that's appropriate because he represents a real problem for our country. But I was not even thinking about Trump in this case.