I Think Greed Has Done A Lot of Good For Us

[Wonko The Sane]

You know what? I think Greed's done a lot of good for us...I really do! And if you don't think greed has done a lot of good for us, do me a favor and go home tonight and take all those products and medicinal drugs that have enhanced your lives over the years and burn'em! 'Cause you know what? The businessmen who provided those products and medicinal drugs........rreeeeeaaaaaallllllllllllllyyyyyyyyyy y fucking greedy.


a c a t a l y s t r e v e a l e d .
a catalyst for change, growth and enhanced quality of life.
i n c e n t i v e.
Sometimes love is just not enough.
sad story = reality.

[Artistic Sickness]

...

[Rissen]

You know what? I think Greed's done a lot of good for us...I really do! And if you don't think greed has done a lot of good for us, do me a favor and go home tonight and take all those products and medicinal drugs that have enhanced your lives over the years and burn'em! 'Cause you know what? The businessmen who provided those products and medicinal drugs........rreeeeeaaaaaallllllllllllllyyyyyyyyyy y fucking greedy.


a c a t a l y s t r e v e a l e d .
a catalyst for change, growth and enhanced quality of life.
i n c e n t i v e.
Sometimes love is just not enough.
sad story = reality.

Greed's done far more bad than good in the world.

[Harry Manback]

Shut up.

[His_Royal_Dudeness]

This is crappy bullshit. Creativity is the source (and initial incentive) of everything (including all products and artefacts we have...), not greed.

Greed is a negative side effect of the system and without doubt part of the human condition....but please don't make the wrong conclusion that Greed is the 'ultimate cause' that builds our world...

[Amethyst Believer]

No. Greed is a driving force behind a lot of human development. Read some Adam Smith.

He's wrong, but not that wrong.



Word, Wonko.

[fulmination]

You're all just talking about Western Society right? 'Cause, you know, beyond Western Society, greed and capital have fucked things up on a pretty royal scale.

Like the song says: "Don't these talking monkeys know that Eden has enough to go around?"

Either we don't or we're inhenrently greedy - and this is not good in my opinion... Just take a look beyond our borders at the rest of the world: right in two.

[Kedzie_Matthews]

I don't know which is worse - the original post or the poeple who took it seriously

[Wonko The Sane]

Like the song says: "Don't these talking monkeys know that Eden has enough to go around?"

Either we don't or we're inhenrently greedy - and this is not good in my opinion... Just take a look beyond our borders at the rest of the world: right in two.

Eden does not have enough to go around. Resources and the Human Population are distributed over this earth unevenly. You know...that whole Scarcity thing...

[Wonko The Sane]

This is crappy bullshit. Creativity is the source (and initial incentive) of everything (including all products and artefacts we have...), not greed.

Greed is a negative side effect of the system and without doubt part of the human condition....but please don't make the wrong conclusion that Greed is the 'ultimate cause' that builds our world...

I wasn't suggesting that Greed is the "ultimate cause" that builds our world. I'm suggesting it's one of many "causes". A very significant one. In some cases, yes, Creativity is the source of an invention or innovation. Sometimes it's purely out of intellectual curiousity or a desire to help mankind. And often times the initial incentive is greed, which inspires the individual to apply creativity and ingenuity in solving a problem. I don't think that's a bad thing. It's bad when you step on other people or hurt other people in the name of Greed. But, greed can be very positive when it is the quality of an honest, ethical and compassionate human being.

[fulmination]

Eden does not have enough to go around. Resources and the Human Population are distributed over this earth unevenly. You know...that whole Scarcity thing...
Ah, but that depends on how certain resources are used, what they are used for and what value the market places on them because of this. Eg: what's more important - oil or food? Answer: depends on the market... It's the system that invents these values and scarcity that's unfair, not the fact that population and resources are distrubuted unevenly. You're confusing the fact that resources are naturally distrubuted unevenly over the earth with the fact that when we utilise these resources, WE distribute them unevenly. We could just as easily distribute them evenly, but greed wins out with those who control the distribution of resources.

How do you think animals and plants have survived all this time? You don't hear Penguins complaining it's too cold and there ain't enough to eat where they live or Cacti exclaiming that it's too hot and there ain't enough water (if they could). Eden does have enough to go around, but humans have chosen through their faculty of reason to create systems of dealing with Eden that have created scarcity, unfair DISTRIBUTION of resources and of course greed.

But hey, greed is good, right?

[fulmination]

It's bad when you step on other people or hurt other people in the name of Greed. But, greed can be very positive when it is the quality of an honest, ethical and compassionate human being.
Good point, I do agree with you on that.

[win]

You know what? I think Greed's done a lot of good for us...I really do! And if you don't think greed has done a lot of good for us, do me a favor and go home tonight and take all those products and medicinal drugs that have enhanced your lives over the years and burn'em! 'Cause you know what? The businessmen who provided those products and medicinal drugs........rreeeeeaaaaaallllllllllllllyyyyyyyyyy y fucking greedy.


a c a t a l y s t r e v e a l e d .
a catalyst for change, growth and enhanced quality of life.
i n c e n t i v e.
Sometimes love is just not enough.
sad story = reality.

This assumes that we are evaluating greed functionally. If we look at it intrisnicly it is an appaullying value that assterts aggressiveness, and hyperindividualism. It negates empathy alturism and all the values that pull humans together.

With that said, even functionally I don't like greed (it is a value and thus all we can do is have an opinion- there is no real evaluation of it). Greed has turned the world in to an economic free for all that rewards exploitation, and continues to increase the poor rich gap in the world. World poverty and world hunger are massive problems that billions suffer from. The tragedy of the commons is realized because of the value of greed and the current economy rewards it as an important value reifying it in society. I know nothing I would enjoy than the erasing of the very concept from our minds.

[Wonko The Sane]

You're confusing the fact that resources are naturally distrubuted unevenly over the earth with the fact that when we utilise these resources, WE distribute them unevenly.
Good call. I concur.
We could just as easily distribute them evenly, but greed wins out with those who control the distribution of resources.
This I disagree with. I don't think that we could just as easily distribute them evenly. I think that the success of Capitalism and the failure of Socialistic economic systems is evidence of this. Capitalism is an economic system which plays on human nature. i.e majority of humans needing somekind of incentive (mainly monetary) to distribute resources somewhat evenly. Socialism plays on an unrealistic, fanciful misunderstanding of human nature. I'm in no way suggesting that Capitalism is perfect. It is inherently unfair in that it requires a certain amount of unemployment and poverty to function properly. But, countries which utilize Capitalistic systems have the lowest amount of people who are starving to death, homeless and/or living in squalor. I think a perfect system would be one in which there was no one starving to death or living in squalor. I don't think a perfect system would be one where all resources are distributed evenly. I think it is fair that the man working in the field, harvesting his potatoes has more potatoes than the guy who sits under the tree all day napping in the shade, making no contribution.

How do you think animals and plants have survived all this time? You don't hear Penguins complaining it's too cold and there ain't enough to eat where they live or Cacti exclaiming that it's too hot and there ain't enough water (if they could).
For a moment consider a dense forest. If you walk out in to that forest and look up you will notice many large trees growing tall, growing up and toward the sunlight. You will notice their branches growing out and up toward the sunlight as well. You may notice that in growing tall and wide reaching for the sun, these trees have blocked the sunlight from other, smaller (weaker) trees. You will notice that some of these smaller trees, being deprived of sunlight, have withered. You will notice that some have even died. Trees are very aggressive, filled with avarice. They are constantly growing, spreading outward, colonizing new lands. Taking as much territory and resources as possible. These are qualites of all life.

But hey, greed is good, right?
I am suggesting greed is niether good nor bad. It is an undeniable quality of all lifeforms that begets a supremely complicated network/web of positives and negatives.

[fulmination]

But, countries which utilize Capitalistic systems have the lowest amount of people who are starving to death, homeless and/or living in squalor. I think a perfect system would be one in which there was no one starving to death or living in squalor.
Yes, that may be, but that is because it relies on stepping on other countries who do have a huge amount of people starving to death - the nature of capital and greed is exploitation, plain and simple. You think countries like yours, the USA and mine, Australia would be so rich and prosperous if it weren't for the fact that we screw the hell out of other, poorer and less powerful nations? Of course not. Capitalism has done just as much material and social damage as socialism which is also a bullshit philosophical and practical nightmare.

A way foward? I don't know about that. I think the whole meaning of this song highlights that fact. "This is what they choose"... Humans as a species have chosen this road through the use of their freedom and one way or another, we will destroy ourselves because of our stupidity and greed. It's just a matter of what does it first: nukes? global warming? non-stop war? disease? hunger? Take your pick, but notice what these have all been a result of directly or indirectly: greed (among other things of course). So how can greed be a good thing in a strict sense?

They are constantly growing, spreading outward, colonizing new lands. Taking as much territory and resources as possible. These are qualites of all life.
Again, not a bad point, but I think you're confusing all life with human life - the difference between trees and us is that we have reason, which is what I pointed out in my previous post contrasting us with penguins and cacti. Another fundamental difference is that beyond the natural ecosystem of that forest, the tree cannot and will not survive, whereas because of our reason and innovation, we could survive in the forest as well as other places. Thus, whilst "taking as much territory and resources as possible" may be a natural process for many other species, it is lost on humans because of the ability to reflect on and reason about one's own stance and actions which renders "natural greed" as a useless justification for HUMAN greed and therefore it cannot be inherently good.

I am suggesting greed is niether good nor bad. It is an undeniable quality of all lifeforms that begets a supremely complicated network/web of positives and negatives.
I think that this conclusion is a flawed because of what I've pointed out above. Of course, it is an undeniable quality of all lifeforms - yes, but the ability to reflect on it and give it a value judgment makes it one that we can choose to embrace and enact resulting in the mostly negative consequences that we see around us everyday (as the song laments) or choose to reject and replace with something less destructive - which, unfortunately, it may be already too late to do given the mess we're in. Besides, saying that it is neither "good" nor "bad" and then in the next sentence giving it a value judgment by attaching a network web of "positives" and "negatives" to it is an outright contradiction and one that only proves my point that you, as a human, cannot escape reasoning about it in this manner and not "naturally" embracing it in the same way as a tree may do so.

PS: Criticising capitalism does not automatically make someone a socialist.

[Liquid Vision]

Tool would know a lot about greed. Think Maynard will send me some of his wine?

[CCD]

If the war in Iraq was about cheap oil, how come gas is three bux a gallon?





'splain.

[rembrandt_q_einstein]

Tool would know a lot about greed. Think Maynard will send me some of his wine?

yea, screw maynard for selling wine... wtf... POINT THAT FUCKING FINGER UP YOUR ASS

[CCD]

Capitalism does not necessarily equal greed, just as being a gun owner doesn't necessarily make you a murderer. It's just that a few bad apples spoil the bunch......

[Wonko The Sane]

Yes, that may be, but that is because it relies on stepping on other countries who do have a huge amount of people starving to death - the nature of capital and greed is exploitation, plain and simple. You think countries like yours, the USA and mine, Australia would be so rich and prosperous if it weren't for the fact that we screw the hell out of other, poorer and less powerful nations? Of course not. Capitalism has done just as much material and social damage as socialism which is also a bullshit philosophical and practical nightmare.
I certainly agree with this to an extent. Capitalistic countries have certainly exploited smaller, less economically developed nations. But, they have also benefited many as well. Post WWII Japan is a good example. The recent boom in India's economy is also another example. The exportation of labor to India has provided many Indians with a good job. Not with a good job in comparison to a job in the US or Australia, but a good job in relation to other jobs available in India.


A way foward? I don't know about that. I think the whole meaning of this song highlights that fact. "This is what they choose"... Humans as a species have chosen this road through the use of their freedom and one way or another, we will destroy ourselves because of our stupidity and greed. It's just a matter of what does it first: nukes? global warming? non-stop war? disease? hunger? Take your pick, but notice what these have all been a result of directly or indirectly: greed (among other things of course). So how can greed be a good thing in a strict sense?
Absolutely, I wasn't trying to suggest that greed is a good thing in a strict sense. Let me use Drug companies as an example. Drug companies are notoriously greedy and generally loathed by many. There is tons of money to be made in the Pharmaceutical industry, which serves as an incentive for drug companies to enter the industry and supply drugs. It also serves as an incentive for drug companies to pour millions of dollars into researching new more beneficial and powerful drugs. These drugs have saved and improved millions of lives and will continue to do so as long as there is profit to be made in the pharmaceutical industry. I don't think that pharmaceuticals would be as advanced as they currently are if not for the monetary incentive. Now, on the other hand, the greed of these companies (and poor health care systems, specifically the US) also hurts the very people that it benefits. By this I mean they charge ridiculously high prices for their drugs which make it impossible for some to afford or makes purchasing the drugs extremely cumbersome for others. I find the topic of greed interesting because of this. It's a nearly unparalled motivator/incentive for some very positive things and is simultaneously one of the most intensely damaging scourges of humanity.
[/QUOTE]


Again, not a bad point, but I think you're confusing all life with human life - the difference between trees and us is that we have reason, which is what I pointed out in my previous post contrasting us with penguins and cacti.I think that this conclusion is a flawed because of what I've pointed out above. Of course, it is an undeniable quality of all lifeforms - yes, but the ability to reflect on it and give it a value judgment makes it one that we can choose to embrace and enact resulting in the mostly negative consequences that we see around us everyday (as the song laments) or choose to reject and replace with something less destructive - which, unfortunately, it may be already too late to do given the mess we're in. .
Well said. Great point. I couldn't agree more. It is interesting that avarice is a characteristic of life. But, yes, humans are much different because we are aware of greed. Aware of the effect of our actions on others.


Besides, saying that it is neither "good" nor "bad" and then in the next sentence giving it a value judgment by attaching a network web of "positives" and "negatives" to it is an outright contradiction and one that only proves my point that you, as a human, cannot escape reasoning about it in this manner and not "naturally" embracing it in the same way as a tree may do so.

*lol* yes, good point. My vanity is hesitant to accept that I did actually write that. What I meant was is that I find it difficult to look at avarice and assign to it an unequivical "GOOD" or "BAD" value. Simply because of the complex web of positives and negatives that it begets. Looking at the horrific effects of avarice; as in starvation and poverty and exploitation. And then looking at some of the positive effects; as in the pharmaceutical example. It's just a very curious thing to me.

PS: Criticising capitalism does not automatically make someone a socialist.
You're certainly right. I wasn't trying to create a False Dilemma. Socialism was just an obvious and easy target to contrast.

[Wonko The Sane]

Capitalism does not necessarily equal greed, just as being a gun owner doesn't necessarily make you a murderer. It's just that a few bad apples spoil the bunch......

I agree. Consider a typical small business owner in the U.S. My dad owns a roof truss company in Oregon. I think he's a good example. I would consider avarice a definite characteristic of him. He desires very strongly to be as profitible as possible in his business venture. He wants to make a lot of money. He wants to have nice things. He wants to retire as early as possible and to travel. But he's also a very honest, decent person. He doesn't cheat anyone, he pays fair wages. He doesn't stomp on anyone. He chases his dollar while taking care not to step on anyone in the process. Nothing wrong with that at all.

[Wonko The Sane]

If the war in Iraq was about cheap oil, how come gas is three bux a gallon?


I have no idea, but let me say something else. Perhaps expensive gasoline is the key to weening us off of our oil dependency. As the price of oil has been climbing in recent years there has definately been more of a push for renewable energy. Why? Because people like money, and they don't want to spend it all on gasoline. As the price of oil continues to increase more and more money and energy and scientific talent will be put into finding new sources of renewable energy. Why now? Because the incentive is there. The greed nerve has been hit and it will result in new technologies and less oil dependency. This is another example of greed's positive effect on humany. Again though, I'm not trying to diminish it's negative effects on humanity.

[fulmination]

If the war in Iraq was about cheap oil, how come gas is three bux a gallon?
Simple... It's running out - all the world's major oil wells have been discovered. Besides, Iraq isn't exactly a stable place at the moment, nor is the Middle East in general a stable place. If companies are to obtain oil from these places or import it from them, it is incredibly expensive to do so because of the security issues involved - not to mention the ever present generic costs of such an operation. But, in saying all that, the war in Iraq wasn't simply about oil and anyone who says it was is misguided, in my opinion. Cheaper oil was almost certainly a hope and prediction by some before the war. But the war hasn't exactly gone to plan now, has it...

[fulmination]

Thanks for all those points Wonko... It's great to have a civil discussion on here and still be able to disagree. Certainly many issues to think about in regard to this.

[Wonko The Sane]

Thanks for all those points Wonko... It's great to have a civil discussion on here and still be able to disagree. Certainly many issues to think about in regard to this.

I thank you too. Civil disagreements are the best. It's nice to be able to work through an argument like that- discarding arguments full of holes, making arguments stronger, looking at ones argument in a different light. good stuff. I enjoy the challenge and the process.

[K In Yo Mouf]

Shut up.

Wat She Said...

[Wonko The Sane]

i concur

[mike09]

I don't know which is worse - the original post or the poeple who took it seriously

probably your avatar

[ArizonaBay]

You know what? I think Greed's done a lot of good for us...I really do! And if you don't think greed has done a lot of good for us, do me a favor and go home tonight and take all those products and medicinal drugs that have enhanced your lives over the years and burn'em! 'Cause you know what? The businessmen who provided those products and medicinal drugs........rreeeeeaaaaaallllllllllllllyyyyyyyyyy y fucking greedy.


a c a t a l y s t r e v e a l e d .
a catalyst for change, growth and enhanced quality of life.
i n c e n t i v e.
Sometimes love is just not enough.
sad story = reality.

Tell that African Aids victims.

[sidereal]

Capitalism does not necessarily equal greed, just as being a gun owner doesn't necessarily make you a murderer. It's just that a few bad apples spoil the bunch......

with all due respect, the theory behind capitalism is every individual working for their own selfish interests and at the same time, benefiting the whole (supposedly).

To the People who are positing that we should supposedly distribute all things equally...well nothing would get done. Its about incentive. (if people think things in society can get done without the profit motive then please comment, im interested as i have not given it much thought). More theory on capitalism (i think): A (suppsedly) hard and honest worker with no initial advantage over another person (which is the huge failing of capitalism i think, as this is not the reality of it) can accumulate a fair amount of wealth/capital, and can in turn then invest that surplus and create new jobs etc. Thus, the more "proactive" individuals are the ones with the power and help the whole, as it were, by creating more opportunities and the cycle begins. But along with this first failing that i think is inherent in the system, there is another. Who says that just because someone can make money they are noble and intelligent and thus the ones who should hold power over others (employees etc)? A corrupt businessman who might have made his money polluting the environment or selling interracial pornography can then dictate the allocation of productive resources? To me this is crap and refelcts the sad fact of both communism and capitalism - if you can manupulate the less intelligent/interested/aware masses (either buy convincing them of their needs (capitalism) or promising them equality (communism)), then you can rule. Then i guess thats why i dont like everything about our current forms of democracy. "Leaders", instead of doing what is required for soceity to live in the best possible way, manipulate the masses, who naturally are not all capable of or interested in informed and dire important political decisions. But thats just my opinion.

[tin foil hat]

If it wasn't for oil companies, we would have free energy devices back in 1920s.

[blue laCe meaSLe]

If the war in Iraq was about cheap oil, how come gas is three bux a gallon?





'splain.

It was, in part, about the oil (it was originally called Operation Iraqi Liberation or O.I.L.) but they arent trying to save YOU any money. The more they control, the more they can charge. you can only expect as much from an administration built from the oil industry. do you think they really give a shit about how much youre paying for gas? whether its $1.00 per gallon or $50.00 just shut up and pay. they know you will.

[Futureal]

This whole idea of incentive arises within a capitalistic paradigm. If a generation of children were to be raised to adulthood under a different system, they would not lust after things that are non-existent. Who is to say this society would not function effectively? No one knows. This has never been done (please, nobody point to some stalinist regime as 'proof' that it wont work, thats not the point of this).

Society has far FAR more influence over behavior than "human nature" IMO. It all boils down to Nature vs Nurture and the classic Hobbes vs Locke. Its really an exercise in futility to sit here and debate it because its so fundamental that no one is likely to be swayed from their opinion.

[Wonko The Sane]

Read on 'primates and economy'.

I liked your post. Is this the books full title? Who is the author? I searched for "Primates and Economy" at Amazon, but nothing popped up. It sounds interesting.

[Wonko The Sane]

I can only say, as there is TOO much, y'all should research on primates. Their society, bonobos, chimps, apes and orangatans<sp>. Very similar to us, and greed IS a part of us, given from evolution. As is teamwork, and should I say it, love. I have SEEN love in animals. We are animals. Things we believe as strictly human, have been found in lower creatures. To be human...


There was a pretty good documentary I watched a while ago entitled, "Why Dogs Smile and Chimpanzees Cry". Pretty interesting stuff.

[Futureal]

I would disagree futureal. Capitalism works but the governmental institution is the most important fact of the effectiveness. In socialism, however hard you work, your capital gains (of any type) is not yours, but WILL be shared as the societal needs matter more than yours. Thus, why the fuck would I work (or produce).


You were raised under this system, that is why this seems natural to you. All I am saying is that under a different societal framework, the members wont necessarily share this same viewpoint. Capitalism today is driven by crass consumerism. Lots of people only have the desire to work hard because society has told them that they need to drive a Mercedes. This is the business of large scale capitalism and marketing...chasing constantly higher profits. Manipulating people into having desires that arent necessarily rational.

I would say that capitalism works fantastic on a small scale. Person A makes dough, person B picks apples. Person C buys dough and apples, combines them and makes apple pie which he sells for a small profit. Enough for him to subsist on the same level as the ones who provide raw resources. He is not pressured to increase profits next quarter to appease shareholders. He doesnt have to manipulate people with advertising because his product can sell itself. A product that cannot sell itself will be removed from the marketplace. I am aware that this is very unrealistic and would probably never happen.

[Amethyst Believer]

with all due respect, the theory behind capitalism is every individual working for their own selfish interests and at the same time, benefiting the whole (supposedly).

To the People who are positing that we should supposedly distribute all things equally...well nothing would get done. Its about incentive. (if people think things in society can get done without the profit motive then please comment, im interested as i have not given it much thought). More theory on capitalism (i think): A (suppsedly) hard and honest worker with no initial advantage over another person (which is the huge failing of capitalism i think, as this is not the reality of it) can accumulate a fair amount of wealth/capital, and can in turn then invest that surplus and create new jobs etc. Thus, the more "proactive" individuals are the ones with the power and help the whole, as it were, by creating more opportunities and the cycle begins. But along with this first failing that i think is inherent in the system, there is another. Who says that just because someone can make money they are noble and intelligent and thus the ones who should hold power over others (employees etc)? A corrupt businessman who might have made his money polluting the environment or selling interracial pornography can then dictate the allocation of productive resources? To me this is crap and refelcts the sad fact of both communism and capitalism - if you can manupulate the less intelligent/interested/aware masses (either buy convincing them of their needs (capitalism) or promising them equality (communism)), then you can rule. Then i guess thats why i dont like everything about our current forms of democracy. "Leaders", instead of doing what is required for soceity to live in the best possible way, manipulate the masses, who naturally are not all capable of or interested in informed and dire important political decisions. But thats just my opinion.I would agree with you on capitalism (and, I would extend the argument to democracy). It work if everyone if well-informed and on a fairly even footing. Which they just aren't. Also, capitalism doesn't work with public services. Education, healthcare, sewerage, transport, environmental conservation. (Ok, transport almost works.) Greed is just not sufficient an incentive to establish satisfactory systems to deal with this. But it manages a lot else.



But comparing pollution to interracial pornography? What the fuck? What's wrong with a bit of Asian-Spanish 69?

[Amethyst Believer]

For OIL, there is enough for hundreds of year, but only 3 decades ago we were so worried oil could only last MAYBE the next 50 years. Doomsayers. Oil is expensive (not in America, cheapest for us, Euros taxed the fucked out of thiers) because of the simple fact no NEW refineries have been built since 1979 in which was in NJ. Big supply, big demand, but the bottle-neck to process. NIMBY has a big factor on that.Increasing the supply of oil to match the current demand is a bad idea. We already have enough concerns with the environment and current stocks (China are going to start using a LOT of oil) as we are. More refineries will help no-one, in the long run.


Alternative energy is only effective once gas DOES reach high limits. The economic incentive would be feasible to invest in other forms. However, with electric cars (no hybrid) the efficiency decreases with multiple conversions of the energy. Example, fossil fuels, in power plant, converted to car batteries, converted to engine in the car, instead of straight to the car. Plus the used dead batteries would harm the environment.Electric cars run on non-disposable batteries charged by fossil fuels would be insane. The point of resaearch into electric cars is that they can be charged from renewable sources. I hope that whoever ends up making the succesful models has the sense/integrity to make said cars and batteries non-harmful to the environment. It's kinda the point.


Greed is essentail. Overzealous greed is detrimental. Economics teaches us how the world (us and animals) really works, as opposed to how we view the world should be, which is never gonna happen. Read on 'primates and economy'.I lived with economics students for 2 years. Economics does not reflect how the world really works. It (largely) reflects how a model some prominent economist came up with decades ago based upon a single scenario says the world should work. Economics is a fascinating subject, but much of it is bullshit.

[fulmination]

Derge, economics is a social construct in constant flux. It is a SOCIAL science. The fact that there are "different schools of economics" is evidence of there being different interpretations of the subject. It does not teach us how the world "really works". It is a theory of how certain human invented systems work.

[Gen 6:6]

[QUOTE=Amethyst Believer]Increasing the supply of oil to match the current demand is a bad idea. We already have enough concerns with the environment and current stocks (China are going to start using a LOT of oil) as we are. More refineries will help no-one, in the long run.

How will increasing the number of refineries not be beneficial in the long run???? The price breakdown shows that most of the cost comes from refineries. These ginormous coprs like Exxon-MObil are the ones jacking up the price for refining the oil. If they were'nt catered to by the government (as they always have been), and actually had to compete with new companies, wouldn't that drive the price down?

[sidereal]

I lived with economics students for 2 years. Economics does not reflect how the world really works. It (largely) reflects how a model some prominent economist came up with decades ago based upon a single scenario says the world should work. Economics is a fascinating subject, but much of it is bullshit.

Very true. When Adam smith sat down to write his 'wealth of nations', he and some peers thought that they actually |were| proposing an economic system based on how the world really works.

They proposed that rather than having the state heavily regulating certain economic behaviours, protecting domstic producers, keeping strict control over reserve funds etc etc, the state should leave everything along to the 'invisible hand'. By this they meant that everyone (starting from an equal playing field) should only look after their own selfish interests and by doing this they would also benefit the whole...and to Smith this not only looked theoretically attractive from an economic and social point of view, but also on a deeper level (to him). For he thought it only natural to have an economic system based on (what he saw) the nature of man.

I find it helpful to understand all this crap in the context it came out of. In those years (around the enlightenment period in european culture), the influence of religion was declining massively, and policy makers were turning to the natural world (rather than taking their views on meaning/morality from scripture) to formulate their theory on how the man-made world should operate. Thus from their "understanding" of what they were observing in the natural world, and the conclusions they came to from this, have come our current institutions including those economic. They wanted more objectivity to their institutions than simply accepting the world of scripture and the morality that followed from it (like neitzsche said a few years later, god was finially "dead" for the (then) 'leading' ideas in european/western culture") and also they did not want an economic system which simply benefitted the aristocracy. They were not money grubbing fat cats like many people think. However i don't believe they were in any state to judge the true 'nature' of man and propose so much from this. More bullshit absolutes.


But comparing pollution to interracial pornography? What the fuck? What's wrong with a bit of Asian-Spanish 69?


Well, ive got nothing intrinsically against it at all, but do you think that if someone can gain money just because they could produce and sell porn, that this should allow them to dictate the allocation of resources (including those human) rather than someone else? Plus I am somtimes suspicious of 'multiculturalism' because it think it may destory the original cultures and gives rise to a mass of people with no ties to their environment. Additionally, If you get more and more diverse ranges of people and try to cram them in the one society, then its going to get harder and harder to find any (concious or unconcious) common denominator among them (in relation to how they all live) which doesn't turn out to be the lowest common denominator. Realities like consumerism and the superflously high importance of money in dictating the social ladder, & environmental destruction are IMO at least significant consequences of the unbridled pluralism that necessarily accompanies multiculturalism. But again, just thoughts.

[Luosdasa]

Sure, greed has caused some great advancements in human society (oops, srry, u were right way back there ^^^, western society), but most of said advancements, really dont mean shit, cept for the fact that we as people naturally want cool stuff and comfort... kinda comes back around to greed again dun' it?

Could be wrong, do tell me if so, but isnt greed the reason why the human race has gone to shit? Why inequality and abuse of our world range so freely? Wait... nope, greeds already been there, in every human civilization ancient or modern... so we havent fallen from anywhere, cant fall if you're already on the ground.

The jist of what im saying is, barring the sudden evolution oh human morals and values (cmon eutopia...), the best we can do for the world as a race, is die out (preferably without takin the world with us in a big mushroom cloud). But dats not gonna happen, cuz we're all too greedy to sacrifice anything.

Any optimists shut me up with good reason if you can, id like a brighter look on life...

[quasiperiodica]

You know what? I think Greed's done a lot of good for us...I really do! And if you don't think greed has done a lot of good for us, do me a favor and go home tonight and take all those products and medicinal drugs that have enhanced your lives over the years and burn'em! 'Cause you know what? The businessmen who provided those products and medicinal drugs........rreeeeeaaaaaallllllllllllllyyyyyyyyyy y fucking greedy.


a c a t a l y s t r e v e a l e d .
a catalyst for change, growth and enhanced quality of life.
i n c e n t i v e.
Sometimes love is just not enough.
sad story = reality.

It's not greed, it's feeling the need to do what everyone else is doing, assuming that's your only option. Clever, Mr. Hicks. The businessman is just trying to make a living. It's not the single people in the system that are the greed in this world, it's the system in general.

[Wonko The Sane]

Oh course to deny ANY of us are greedy is to look back on evolution and dismiss everthing we knew. You have a computer, I bet also a T.V, car, radio, hat, and yes, our Tool albums. That is greed. Water, food, life; that is not attributable to greed.


Amen Brother Derge!

[Wonko The Sane]

Amen Brother Derge!

Christian Imagery has transcended 10,000 Days and has spillt unto the 10,000 Days Opinion Forum! Rejoice and be Merry, oh exalted Literary Device!

[Maine-iak]

I lived with economics students for 2 years. Economics does not reflect how the world really works. It (largely) reflects how a model some prominent economist came up with decades ago based upon a single scenario says the world should work. Economics is a fascinating subject, but much of it is bullshit.

Economics is the science of CHOICE. And, as someone pointed out earlier, it is a social science. Economics does not claim to "reflect how the world really works", but rather tries to understand the choices people make and in turn, the economic systems under which they operate. The models you refer to are no different than the hypotheses developed in biology, its just that with economics we don't have the convenience of a laboratory to test them in, so we have models that we use to try to mimic the economy. Biology has constants in their experiments, economics has "ceteris paribus," or, "all things being equal."

If economics was such "bullshit" as you claim it to be, then monetarist theories made popular by Milton Friedman would not have been so successful in the 1980's and 1990's at predicting the effects of monetary policy on the economy. Nor, would countries around the world have adopted similar strategies in their own economies. Is it the perfect solution? Absolutely not. Its just a recent example of what economists are trying to do. As people, technology, social structures, etc change, so will these models.

If what you believe about economics you have learned from the two students you lived with, I would suggest to them that they ask for their money back, as they apparently were hosed on their educations. That or they simply can't communicate well.

To get a glipse of what economics is all about, or at least the history of the subject, I suggest reading "New Ideas from Dead Economists" by Todd Buchholz. Fantastic book that covers the history of economic thought from Adam Smith to present. A great introduction to the subject.

[MisterMudd]

I think greed ultimately stems from the concept of self preservation. Or "looking out for #1".

I agree with alot of people in here that greed is just a trait that we carry instinctively in order to assure that we survive.

[Wonko The Sane]

Economics is the science of CHOICE. And, as someone pointed out earlier, it is a social science. Economics does not claim to "reflect how the world really works", but rather tries to understand the choices people make and in turn, the economic systems under which they operate. The models you refer to are no different than the hypotheses developed in biology, its just that with economics we don't have the convenience of a laboratory to test them in, so we have models that we use to try to mimic the economy. Biology has constants in their experiments, economics has "ceteris paribus," or, "all things being equal."

If economics was such "bullshit" as you claim it to be, then monetarist theories made popular by Milton Friedman would not have been so successful in the 1980's and 1990's at predicting the effects of monetary policy on the economy. Nor, would countries around the world have adopted similar strategies in their own economies. Is it the perfect solution? Absolutely not. Its just a recent example of what economists are trying to do. As people, technology, social structures, etc change, so will these models.

If what you believe about economics you have learned from the two students you lived with, I would suggest to them that they ask for their money back, as they apparently were hosed on their educations. That or they simply can't communicate well.

To get a glipse of what economics is all about, or at least the history of the subject, I suggest reading "New Ideas from Dead Economists" by Todd Buchholz. Fantastic book that covers the history of economic thought from Adam Smith to present. A great introduction to the subject.



That's spot-on Maine-iak

[PatXMM]

Necessity is the mother of invention.

Damn I'm smart!

[K In Yo Mouf]

Religion Iz the Opiate of The People...

[Wonko The Sane]

Necessity is the mother of invention.

Damn I'm smart!


Yes, but who's its Daddy? Avarice, that's who.

[Maine-iak]

Religion Iz the Opiate of The People...

Wow...was that posted because you actually know the origin of that "quote" or were you just espousing Maynard-esque phrases?

The reason I said "quote" was because the actual quotation is:

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people."
~ from Karl Marx's "Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right"

[wags]

Necessity is the mother of invention.

Damn I'm smart!

Economy is the mother of invention.

[Wonko The Sane]

I believe that we are now ready to trace the lineage of Invention. Whom among you is willing to accept this grand responsibility?

[raskolnikov_22]

Capitalism does not necessarily equal greed, just as being a gun owner doesn't necessarily make you a murderer. It's just that a few bad apples spoil the bunch......

Yes, capitalism is more immediately associated with ambition, which is basically mitigated greed.

[K In Yo Mouf]

Wow...was that posted because you actually know the origin of that "quote" or were you just espousing Maynard-esque phrases?

Nah, I Actually Knew the Origin Of the Quote...

And Thank u 4 Posting the Actual Quote, I Waz Juzt Tryin 2 b Helpful...

[swampyfool]

Eden does not have enough to go around. Resources and the Human Population are distributed over this earth unevenly. You know...that whole Scarcity thing...
The United States produces a shitload of food every year . . . And when we can't sell it, we burn it. Usually that amounts to about half of what we produce. The resources are there, and the starving people of the world could make use of them . . .
were it not for GREED.

[Suntorn]

greed does nothing but corrupts people's minds and souls!!

[swampyfool]

Furthermore, greed is what stands in the way of innovation, more often than not. The original combustion engine was run on vegetable oil. Henry Ford built a car entirely of hemp and hemp composites- that ran on hemp bio-diesel fuel. The GREED of the petroleum industry(-stries) got in the way of all that. They developed an offshoot of the original Diesel engine that offered higher performance while running on their synthetic poison. They invented an entirely new refining process that showed us how to pollute in new and uncharted ways. Approximately three-quarters of one century after the advent of vehicular transportation, we still use this synthetic poison- and in increasing quantities despite a skyrocketing price. GREED is to blame here, too. We have volumeses of proof that petroleum is wildly polluting, and is not sustainable. We have plenty of alternatives to pursue, but the GREED of the petroleum industry has stood in the way.

We could have refridgeration without producing CFCs (Chloro-fluorocarbons)- the Europeans do. In fact, the idea for this product was originally introduced to American manufacturers, but they thought that it would be too costly to switch the production lines. Once again GREED rears its ugly head and steps in the way of progress.

. . . and medicine. Are you fucking kidding me? Medicine these days is like trading baseball cards . . . "I'll give you my crippling depression, if you give me debilitating diarrhea, day-long migraines, and erectile dysfunction. Deal?" Find a copy of Chris Conrad's "Marijuana is Medicine," and look at one of the appendices in the back. There is one that lists all of the diseases for which cannabis has been shown to have postitive effect. Now think of ALL THE DRUGS (and their negative side effects) that would never be bought or sold at artificailly high prices again if we could grow our medicine in our backyards and tell me that GREED is a good thing. Hell, GREED has transformed the FDA from a regulatory commision into a poorly-funded rubber stamp. New medicines are rushed to the market without proper testing, with dire results that are not always reversible (try reading "Bitter Pills," by Louis Freed).

Bottom line: GREED is that budy of yours that you don't hang out with anymore because every time somebody has a good, useful or fun idea, he has to go and take it way the fuck too far.

[swampyfool]

volumeses
HAHA! Volumeses.

[Spaceman Spiff]

You know what? I think Greed's done a lot of good for us...I really do! And if you don't think greed has done a lot of good for us, do me a favor and go home tonight and take all those products and medicinal drugs that have enhanced your lives over the years and burn'em! 'Cause you know what? The businessmen who provided those products and medicinal drugs........rreeeeeaaaaaallllllllllllllyyyyyyyyyy y fucking greedy.


a c a t a l y s t r e v e a l e d .
a catalyst for change, growth and enhanced quality of life.
i n c e n t i v e.
Sometimes love is just not enough.
sad story = reality.
Haha.

Don't forget to leave the US, as it was taken from the natives purely out of greed.

[thomasknight]

Working on the original Bill Hicks quote, he thought drugs were generaly bad but that it's incorrect to think each individual experience is bad.

Same with greed

[swampyfool]

Working on the original Bill Hicks quote, he thought drugs were generaly bad but that it's incorrect to think each individual experience is bad.

Same with greed
Bill Hicks didn't say that drugs were generally bad, rather that they were generally bad for him.

But furthermore, I must add that GREED is not one of these value-neutral things. GREED is a word we made up to describe a callous and divisive indifference to the plight of one's fellow man in an attempt to satisfy material lust. I don't care what you do with a thing like that- it's going to be bad.

[swampyfool]

You know what? I think Greed's done a lot of good for us...I really do! And if you don't think greed has done a lot of good for us, do me a favor and go home tonight and take all those products and medicinal drugs that have enhanced your lives over the years and burn'em! 'Cause you know what? The businessmen who provided those products and medicinal drugs........rreeeeeaaaaaallllllllllllllyyyyyyyyyy y fucking greedy.


a c a t a l y s t r e v e a l e d .
a catalyst for change, growth and enhanced quality of life.
i n c e n t i v e.
Sometimes love is just not enough.
sad story = reality.
Somewhere, Bill Hicks' ashes are rolling over in the wind . . .

[wags]

I believe that we are now ready to trace the lineage of Invention. Whom among you is willing to accept this grand responsibility?

Since I fired one of the first shot's. I'll give it a go.

I said economy (not necessity) is the mother of invention for a very real reason. Think about why our early ancestors made spears. Spears allowed faster kills of larger animals, hence more efficient hunting. The same goes with, say, computers. None of us needs a computer to survive, but they were invented to help solve extremely complex mathematical problems and manage huge amounts of data that would be extremely unwieldy, if not impossible to achieve with human capabilities. We invent to save us time, money, discomfort, etc., NOT out of necessity or need to survive.

A parting thought: Those of you familiar with contemporary French philosophy will certainly know that the ecomony as we know it is now an autonomous entity, and has shaped society in its own image. Our role is now that of consumer, not the worker or proletariat.

[swampyfool]

Our role is now that of consumer, not the worker or proletariat.

Only if you accept that role and allow somebody else to define your reality . . . But hey,

What the {BLEEP} Do We Know?

It's all about quantum physics, people . . .

<Edit: misspelled quantum, but it wasn't a funny misspelling.>

[wags]

Only if you accept that role and allow somebody else to define your reality . . .


I agree. I was merely explaining what the autonomous economy does, not how it affects each individual person. It is up to us to realize the falsity of the claims of the economy. Once society can do this as a whole, it realizes that it is not dependent upon the economy for its existence, but vice versa.

[thomasknight]

Bill Hicks didn't say that drugs were generally bad, rather that they were generally bad for him.

But furthermore, I must add that GREED is not one of these value-neutral things. GREED is a word we made up to describe a callous and divisive indifference to the plight of one's fellow man in an attempt to satisfy material lust. I don't care what you do with a thing like that- it's going to be bad.

Why is that bad? It's not for the greedy person.

[swampyfool]

Why is that bad? It's not for the greedy person.Then you and I sit on opposite ends of the teeter-totter, my friend. When a thing is bad for the society, it is doubly bad for the individual who inflicted it. First, there are the obvious drawbacks of living in a society that you have impacted negatively (if things were better for your society, then society would be a better place in which to live). The more harm you do to your community, the more likely it is to do harm to you. However, the consequences of this drawback are often gradual or even postponed, so this may not be a substantial motivator against GREED. The second drawback- the damage done to the soul- is the real kicker. Make no mistake about it: THE GREEDY PERSON does not live life in ignorance of the difference between right and wrong, THE GREEDY PERSON simply chooses to ignore it. THE GREEDY PERSON lives life in a deluded state of denial-driven justification; as the stones pile up in THE GREEDY PERSON's GREED column, the conscience becomes increasingly heavy. No matter how strong of a denial reflex THE GREEDY PERSON has developed, eventually the conscience will overpower it. Look no further than ENRON, where you will see that Jeffrey Skilling's GREED has driven him loopier than a wingnut (which will prove to be of great detriment to him in JAIL).

You know that Rage Against The Machine shirt you have? The one with the funny looking bearded guy wearing a beret? Did you ever read the back of it? If you have the same one that I have, it's contents are in line with the following:

"It is not a matter of wishing success to the victim of aggression, but of sharing his fate; one must accompany him to his death or to victory."
Che Guevara 1928-1967

1967??!? Oh, fuckin' A! Why, Fidel, Why? But I digress . . .

The key sentiment is that nobody is truly free if even one person is oppressed . . . and GREED is an equal opportunity oppressor.

[wags]

Then you and I sit on opposite ends of the teeter-totter, my friend. When a thing is bad for the society, it is doubly bad for the individual who inflicted it. First, there are the obvious drawbacks of living in a society that you have impacted negatively (if things were better for your society, then society would be a better place in which to live). The more harm you do to your community, the more likely it is to do harm to you. However, the consequences of this drawback are often gradual or even postponed, so this may not be a substantial motivator against GREED. The second drawback- the damage done to the soul- is the real kicker. Make no mistake about it: THE GREEDY PERSON does not live life in ignorance of the difference between right and wrong, THE GREEDY PERSON simply chooses to ignore it. THE GREEDY PERSON lives life in a deluded state of denial-driven justification; as the stones pile up in THE GREEDY PERSON's GREED column, the conscience becomes increasingly heavy. No matter how strong of a denial reflex THE GREEDY PERSON has developed, eventually the conscience will overpower it. Look no further than ENRON, where you will see that Jeffrey Skilling's GREED has driven him loopier than a wingnut (which will prove to be of great detriment to him in JAIL).

You know that Rage Against The Machine shirt you have? The one with the funny looking bearded guy wearing a beret? Did you ever read the back of it? If you have the same one that I have, it's contents are in line with the following:

"It is not a matter of wishing success to the victim of aggression, but of sharing his fate; one must accompany him to his death or to victory."
Che Guevara 1928-1967

1967??!? Oh, fuckin' A! Why, Fidel, Why? But I digress . . .

The key sentiment is that nobody is truly free if even one person is oppressed . . . and GREED is an equal opportunity oppressor.

preach it brother SPO!

[wags]

Greed/avarice has been held up as, if not a virtue, then a mildly benevolent characteristic of the human condition. By whom though? Adam Smith was born into quite a wealthy family, and therefore a high social class. It was this class who controlled the methods of production, and in whose best interest it was to ensure that there was a receptive market for their products. What better way to do this than appeal to man's self-interest? In doing this, they made sure that people became more interested in aquiring goods than questioning the state of the economy, the ownership of the factories/businesses, the moralities of the lopsided distribution of wealth, etc.

[thomasknight]

Then you and I sit on opposite ends of the teeter-totter, my friend. When a thing is bad for the society, it is doubly bad for the individual who inflicted it. First, there are the obvious drawbacks of living in a society that you have impacted negatively (if things were better for your society, then society would be a better place in which to live). The more harm you do to your community, the more likely it is to do harm to you. However, the consequences of this drawback are often gradual or even postponed, so this may not be a substantial motivator against GREED. The second drawback- the damage done to the soul- is the real kicker. Make no mistake about it: THE GREEDY PERSON does not live life in ignorance of the difference between right and wrong, THE GREEDY PERSON simply chooses to ignore it. THE GREEDY PERSON lives life in a deluded state of denial-driven justification; as the stones pile up in THE GREEDY PERSON's GREED column, the conscience becomes increasingly heavy. No matter how strong of a denial reflex THE GREEDY PERSON has developed, eventually the conscience will overpower it. Look no further than ENRON, where you will see that Jeffrey Skilling's GREED has driven him loopier than a wingnut (which will prove to be of great detriment to him in JAIL).

You know that Rage Against The Machine shirt you have? The one with the funny looking bearded guy wearing a beret? Did you ever read the back of it? If you have the same one that I have, it's contents are in line with the following:

"It is not a matter of wishing success to the victim of aggression, but of sharing his fate; one must accompany him to his death or to victory."
Che Guevara 1928-1967

1967??!? Oh, fuckin' A! Why, Fidel, Why? But I digress . . .

The key sentiment is that nobody is truly free if even one person is oppressed . . . and GREED is an equal opportunity oppressor.



I wouldn't agree with your idea that these greedy people get what they deserve as quickly as you suggest. If that person's greed helped them fight their way out of poverty, then there is a good chance they will benefit, particularly if they came from the very worst area of a very bad city. Anyway plenty of people are greedy and it pays off for them... in this life.

btw - I know who Che is, but thanks for the pointer.

[swampyfool]

btw - I know who Che is, but thanks for the pointer.
I wasn't really talking directly to you, but just using you as a figurehead. I figured that you knew who he was based on the fact that you are inteligent enough to engage in a debate of this magnitude . . .

Edit: The second word was supposed to be "wasn't" instead of "was . . ." kinda changes the meaning a bit.

[thomasknight]

I was really talking directly to you, but just using you as a figurehead. I figured that you knew who he was based on the fact that you are inteligent enough to engage in a debate of this magnitude . . .

thanks

[Wonko The Sane]

Derge- Nice

[wags]

Capitalism is the BEST method for advancing society. If you disagree, provide an example of any economy run by a socialist/despot/fascist, and I'll give you example of shit hittin' the fan.
Greed, keypoint word.

Greece? The Roman Empire? China? These civilizations all lasted quite a while. But I question your use of 'advancing'. Is it really advancing when (in our own country, the richest in human history and perhaps the greatest example of the successes of capitalism) there are tens of millions of people living in poverty?

I'm not a socialist or facist or even a despot, but i do belive that capitalism does have major social and moral failings.

[Maine-iak]

Is it really advancing when (in our own country, the richest in human history and perhaps the greatest example of the successes of capitalism) there are tens of millions of people living in poverty?


It is when you talk in relative terms. The "tens of millions of people living in poverty" here in the US are not poor compared to those in third-world countries. Countries which are usually run by facist/socialist/oppressive regimes, no less. The poor in this country have better access to food, shelter, and health care than the poor elsewhere.

[swampyfool]

It is when you talk in relative terms. The "tens of millions of people living in poverty" here in the US are not poor compared to those in third-world countries. Countries which are usually run by facist/socialist/oppressive regimes, no less. The poor in this country have better access to food, shelter, and health care than the poor elsewhere.
Yeah, but it's our capitalist interests, more often than not, that require such abject povery in the third world. The definition of a "fascist regime" has come into great dispute as a wave of liberal talking points have canonized the United States as fascist; so I'll leave that one alone.

Socialist regimes in countries such as Sweden and Venezuela are enjoying tremendous social growth (under the radar of the "liberal" media- GAG). Venezuela just sent three thousand high school graduates (from ALL walks of life) to medical school on the house. When they finish their training, there will be close to three thousand doctors (I'd have to believe that they won't all successfully complete their training), working as employess of the state paying off their student loans. They will be deployed to clinics all over the country, providing medical assistance to people of ALL walks of life; when their debts are paid, they will be free to practice medicine wherever and however they choose. Even Fidel has started to pick up on the idea that one can implement socialism without implementing Stalinism (though I can't blame Fidel for coming so slowly to this realization- his mind was otherwise occupied by thwarting billions of dollars' worth of American covert operations aimed at him over the last five decades).

As far as oppressive regimes are concerned, I challenge you to name a few that were not installed or at least helped by the United States. There are a few, but for every one such regime you can name, I'll bet I can name at least three that stand contrary. Caveat: When I say helped by the United States, I do not limit this to U.S. government intervention- I also include the support of U.S. capitalist entities who pour untold billions into sustaining dictators that allow for "favorable conditions to corporate interests" (exclusive access to resources, sweatshop labor, et al).

[Maine-iak]

Yeah, but it's our capitalist interests, more often than not, that require such abject povery in the third world. The definition of a "fascist regime" has come into great dispute as a wave of liberal talking points have canonized the United States as fascist; so I'll leave that one alone.

To leave that one alone is fine with me. To add a splash of humor to the thread, I'll simply employ the "Two Cows" definition of Fascism: "You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk."

Socialist regimes in countries such as Sweden and Venezuela are enjoying tremendous social growth (under the radar of the "liberal" media- GAG). Venezuela just sent three thousand high school graduates (from ALL walks of life) to medical school on the house. When they finish their training, there will be close to three thousand doctors (I'd have to believe that they won't all successfully complete their training), working as employess of the state paying off their student loans. They will be deployed to clinics all over the country, providing medical assistance to people of ALL walks of life; when their debts are paid, they will be free to practice medicine wherever and however they choose. Even Fidel has started to pick up on the idea that one can implement socialism without implementing Stalinism (though I can't blame Fidel for coming so slowly to this realization- his mind was otherwise occupied by thwarting billions of dollars' worth of American covert operations aimed at him over the last five decades).

Warm-fuzzy points like these can be very misleading and over-simplifying things. Who wouldn't want 3k extra doctors to help those in need? How can you argue with that? However, what this doesn't take into account is the funding for those doctors. Where is the State getting the money for this program? Chances are its taxes. Where do taxes come from? From the businesses and working people of the country.

What I'm trying to get at is that one of the main points of capitalism (and Economics in general) is the efficient use scarce resources. When a government increases spending, it is in effect, pulling money out of the money supply. When that happens, money is less available for businesses and entreprenuers for investing, driving up interest rates and driving down investment in new products, technologies, etc that could also be used to further the public good. In short, allowing the government to dictate the proper use of scarce resources often does not result in an efficient use of those resources, compared with market forces.

I'll admit this is a simplified example, however, I'm attempting to show the flip-side from an Economics standpoint, one that is not often shared with, nor understood by, the masses.


As far as oppressive regimes are concerned, I challenge you to name a few that were not installed or at least helped by the United States. There are a few, but for every one such regime you can name, I'll bet I can name at least three that stand contrary. Caveat: When I say helped by the United States, I do not limit this to U.S. government intervention- I also include the support of U.S. capitalist entities who pour untold billions into sustaining dictators that allow for "favorable conditions to corporate interests" (exclusive access to resources, sweatshop labor, et al).

I'll readily admit I'm not up on my regime history. However, I would be interested in evidence backing up the US capitalist entities that have poured billions into sustaining dictators.

P.S. I love to see threads like these that have a great discourse path such as this and that don't evolve into insulting flame-fests.

[swampyfool]

P.S. I love to see threads like these that have a great discourse path such as this and that don't evolve into insulting flame-fests.
Fuckin' A right, brother!


To leave that one alone is fine with me. To add a splash of humor to the thread, I'll simply employ the "Two Cows" definition of Fascism: "You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk."

Very funny, indeed. Kinda reminds me of Monsanto. A potato farmer in (I believe that it was) Minnesota, woke up one year to see that Monsanto had purchased all of the fields surrounding his property. They offered to buy his property, but he was doing well enough on his own and enjoying his lifestyle, so he refused.

One year (mid to late 90's, if memory serves) Monsanto filed notice of a lawsuit against the farmer for patent infringement. According to their case, they had this farmer's potatoes genetically analyzed, and concluded that they were the genetic offspring of their genetically modified pottatoes (for which they had obtained a patent). They further alleged that the farmer must have harvested seed from their field, spliced it with some of his own, and planted it.

The farmer maintained that the only source of seed for his field was from his own field. He further argued that since potatoes, like most flora, rely on a symbiosis with insects in order to reproduce. Thus, the logical conclusion to draw was any similarity in the genetics was the result of natural cross-polination- given the proximity of the fields in question.

Unfortunately for our farmer, that's just not how patent law works. He lost the case, and he now works that same field- only now, he is sharecropping for Monsanto.

To me, the obvious moral of the story is that we shouldn't be able to patent genetic structures. Otherwise, I could just go ahead and isolate the structure for blue eyes (easier said than done, I know- but hypothetically) and mandate that everybody either get permission from me to use them or gauge them out with a rusty melon baller. However, I tell this story because it really is an example of your humorous definition of fascism- perpetrated by our government and our capitalist interests IN SHADOWED CONCERT. Kinda sad . . .


Warm-fuzzy points like these can be very misleading and over-simplifying things. Who wouldn't want 3k extra doctors to help those in need? How can you argue with that? However, what this doesn't take into account is the funding for those doctors. Where is the State getting the money for this program? Chances are its taxes. Where do taxes come from? From the businesses and working people of the country.

What I'm trying to get at is that one of the main points of capitalism (and Economics in general) is the efficient use scarce resources. When a government increases spending, it is in effect, pulling money out of the money supply. When that happens, money is less available for businesses and entreprenuers for investing, driving up interest rates and driving down investment in new products, technologies, etc that could also be used to further the public good. In short, allowing the government to dictate the proper use of scarce resources often does not result in an efficient use of those resources, compared with market forces.

I'll admit this is a simplified example, however, I'm attempting to show the flip-side from an Economics standpoint, one that is not often shared with, nor understood by, the masses.
While there certainly are historical examples that fit into the model that you specify, Hugo Chavez' Venezuela is not one of them. Chavez is brilliant- not only has he survived a coup attempt that was blatantly backed by the U.S. (Washington had announced its support of the "new Venezuelan authority" before the coup had finished successfully- which it never did), but he has also managed to incorporate the positives from capitalism and socialism into a policy strategy that BEST manages the resources of his nation.

Allow me to elaborate. The new money is not coming from taxes. When Chavez took power in Venezuela, he seized control of the national oil supply from the (ahem, COUGH) U.S. oil conglomorates. This caused great alarm in Washington, as Venezuela is our country's fourth-largest oil supplier (which would explain motive on the coup attempt). However, Chavez continues to sell the oil to the U.S, pretty much in keeping with the OPEC guidelines. And here, also, is where he incorporates some pretty advanced, capitalist strategy. He has turned all of his oil futures into realized capital, which he then used to purchase- on behalf of los Venezolanos- a majority interest in Citgo Oil . . . HE VERTICALLY INTEGRATED THE FLOW OF OIL FROM THEIR EARTH TO OUR GAS TANKS. And that is where all that money comes from. (sorry for yelling- but it was significant)

What's more, it's just one of many "missiones" that Chavez has employed. Another one is the one that yielded so many high school graduates who qualified for medical school in the first place. Under Chavez, Venezuela has become the second nation in the western hemisphere to eradicate illiteracy, the other being Cuba (you knew I wasn't gonna say the U.S.). Also, there have been several "missiones" launched for the explicit purpose of reestablishing the Afro-Venezolano population- a population that has been racially maligned and relegated to existence as a servant class throughout its history. These programs include rebuilding of neighborhoods; funding of Afro-Venezolano art; rebuilding schools; offering job and literacy training to those who have passed school age and/or have already acquired adult responsibilities that proclude them from attending school.

Seriously, look up Hugo Chavez, and "La Republica Bolivariana." United States be warned . . . It's the new E.U., only more progressive, and taking over our continental roots . . .



I'll readily admit I'm not up on my regime history. However, I would be interested in evidence backing up the US capitalist entities that have poured billions into sustaining dictators.
Well, look into Pepsi in Africa, Coca-Cola in Colombia, Nike and Wal-Mart in China and Indonesia (most of Asia, really) . . . The list goes on, man. The list goes on . . .

[wags]

It is when you talk in relative terms. The "tens of millions of people living in poverty" here in the US are not poor compared to those in third-world countries. Countries which are usually run by facist/socialist/oppressive regimes, no less. The poor in this country have better access to food, shelter, and health care than the poor elsewhere.


I agree with SPO on this one. It is through the efforts of the more developed contries that most of these dictator/facist/oppresive regimes remain in power. Industrialized countries (and international corporations--and if you think these are separate you are seriously misinformed), on the economic model of the British empire, continue to 'invest' in third world countries for two reasons: cheap labor and markets into which they can flood their products. Huge loans with impossibly high interest rates from the IMF and World Bank (merely extensions of US foreign policy now) ensure that these countries are forever in debt. Part of the conditions of this debt are unrestricted access to these markets and rights to resources or land for military bases. If you are skeptical about this, research Columbia, Equador, Indonesia, and nearly any other South American/Southeast Asian country.
Furthermore, the people who benefit from these loans are those few already in power, usually a military regime or dictator and his cronies. The corporations/foreign governements and local regimes benefit, but the already impoverished people become saddled with the crushing debt which they can never hope to pay back.

[Luosdasa]

Greed does play a major part in our society world. Greed has been a major ingreedient in the advancement human race.

The price to greed, is the suffering and death of so unbeleivably fucking many people as you would not beleive. The wealth of so few could help so many so, so very much. The combined wealth of a few more could do more. Endless numbers of people who die of deseises and sickness cured or prevented easily else where, or of famine which could be controlled.

But who wants to give up anything for people they have never, nor will ever meet, or even have met someone who has met someone who bumped into someone on the street who was on the same side of the world... We detach our selve very effectively indeed.

It truely isn't our fault they are in this predicament. (ha! if it is the fault of someone reading this, please go and kill yourself). But it isnt their fault either. They are born into a world of pain and suffering, and cannot do anything about it. IT IS OUR FAULT, if they do not get out of their predicament.

Society may have advanced alot since past times... I beleive humans have never advanced, nor indeed changed at all. Cept for when we became sentient, then we took a major step backward. People are the cancer of the earth. We dont help the world, we dont help eachother, we help ourselves. I still rekon the best thing humans can do is die out...

[JOK3R]

this is my favorite thread. can't stop reading. a lot of good points and civil arguments. this is great. i just peed my pants...

[swampyfool]

Greed does play a major part in our society world. Greed has been a major ingreedient in the advancement human race.

The price to greed, is the suffering and death of so unbeleivably fucking many people as you would not beleive. The wealth of so few could help so many so, so very much. The combined wealth of a few more could do more. Endless numbers of people who die of deseises and sickness cured or prevented easily else where, or of famine which could be controlled.

But who wants to give up anything for people they have never, nor will ever meet, or even have met someone who has met someone who bumped into someone on the street who was on the same side of the world... We detach our selve very effectively indeed.

It truely isn't our fault they are in this predicament. (ha! if it is the fault of someone reading this, please go and kill yourself). But it isnt their fault either. They are born into a world of pain and suffering, and cannot do anything about it. IT IS OUR FAULT, if they do not get out of their predicament.

Society may have advanced alot since past times... I beleive humans have never advanced, nor indeed changed at all. Cept for when we became sentient, then we took a major step backward. People are the cancer of the earth. We dont help the world, we dont help eachother, we help ourselves. I still rekon the best thing humans can do is die out...My dad once laid some heavy shit on me about collective awareness:
"All this shit that is wrong with the world today . . . You and I are responsible for none of it at the same time that we are responsible for ALL OF IT."

[fulmination]

My dad once laid some heavy shit on me about collective awareness:
"All this shit that is wrong with the world today . . . You and I are responsible for none of it at the same time that we are responsible for ALL OF IT."
And therein lies one of the many tragedies of being human.

[Bloody]

...

....

[wags]

My dad once laid some heavy shit on me about collective awareness:
"All this shit that is wrong with the world today . . . You and I are responsible for none of it at the same time that we are responsible for ALL OF IT."


"Set as I am in my ways and my arrogance..."

[Bloody]

shouldn't this be in the bin?