Capitalism vs. Communism

[Occupied Deutschland]

Just mechanisms that have developed within the system. You might view them as having a negative social impact relative to their commercial merit, and perhaps that is the case. There's no reason why that negative impact can't be mitigated within the system itself, though.

Dogma. Belief in the system even when the system has been shown to be broken.

Indeed, that is what a dogma is.

Now if only you could prove that is in any way connected to the existence of markets you would have the beginnings of a point.

[Renegade Island]

Dogma. Belief in the system even when the system has been shown to be broken.

Except you haven't shown anything. Like, literally nothing.

me: the system is broken.
you: no it isn't.
me: what about points A, B, C that clearly show the system is broken
you: the system isn't broken.


Dogma.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Except you haven't shown anything. Like, literally nothing.

me: the system is broken.
you: no it isn't.
me: what about points A, B, C that clearly show the system is broken
you: the system isn't broken.


Dogma.

Problem: Points A, B, C DON'T "clearly" show the system is broken.

[Renegade Island]

Dogma. Belief in the system even when the system has been shown to be broken.

Indeed, that is what a dogma is.

Now if only you could prove that is in any way connected to the existence of markets you would have the beginnings of a point.

I'm not going to repeat myself ad infinitum.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

Except you haven't shown anything. Like, literally nothing.

me: the system is broken.
you: no it isn't.
me: what about points A, B, C that clearly show the system is broken
you: the system isn't broken.


Dogma.

I've nearly contracted carpal tunnel from all the typing I've done in this thread, most of which you've ignored or brushed over. In any case, my responses have been far from "no it isn't" and your responses have been far from a clear indictment.

[Renegade Island]

me: the system is broken.
you: no it isn't.
me: what about points A, B, C that clearly show the system is broken
you: the system isn't broken.


Dogma.

Problem: Points A, B, C DON'T "clearly" show the system is broken.

Right, so planned obscolescence, cyclical consumption are nothing to worry about? Let's just keep throwing stuff away to get the new model 3 months down the line, making stuff that's designed to break, and creating false needs for more stuff that we don't need until we've used up everything. It doesn't matter that we're destroying the planet, we need economic growth, dammit!

[Renegade Island]

me: the system is broken.
you: no it isn't. Capital, growth, economics, etc.
me: what about points A, B, C that clearly show the system is broken
you: the system isn't broken.


Dogma.

I've nearly contracted carpal tunnel from all the typing I've done in this thread, most of which you've ignored or brushed over. In any case, my responses have been far from "no it isn't" and your responses have been far from a clear indictment.

Sorry, I fixed it for you.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

I've nearly contracted carpal tunnel from all the typing I've done in this thread, most of which you've ignored or brushed over. In any case, my responses have been far from "no it isn't" and your responses have been far from a clear indictment.

Sorry, I fixed it for you.

We're discussing economics. I used economics to support my arguments. Your point is where, exactly...?

[Occupied Deutschland]

Problem: Points A, B, C DON'T "clearly" show the system is broken.

Right, so planned obscolescence, cyclical consumption are nothing to worry about? Let's just keep throwing stuff away to get the new model 3 months down the line, making stuff that's designed to break, and creating false needs for more stuff that we don't need until we've used up everything. It doesn't matter that we're destroying the planet, we need economic growth, dammit!

You would notice I never said that.

Planned obsolescence and "cyclical consumption" might be good ire-raising talking points but they aren't in and of themselves indicative of a system-wide failure.

Besides that, they may be indicative of a (kind of) success as they reflect a business model bent on constant production. Why is that a good thing you ask? Well it's not. Not necessarily and not in and of itself. But there is a point where the benefit of building things to last outweighs the cost of doing so. People have decided that building things cheaply that are not top of the line nor filled with the latest technology is more desirable than building the perfect product in small numbers and then replacing said product when it breaks due to poor craftmanship.

[Renegade Island]

Sorry, I fixed it for you.

We're discussing economics. I used economics to support my arguments. Your point is where, exactly...?

I pointed out several negative effects that the economic system has on the planet and the people.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

We're discussing economics. I used economics to support my arguments. Your point is where, exactly...?

I pointed out several negative effects that the economic system has on the planet and the people.

Which I believe I sufficiently addressed. If I didn't, present a counter argument. You can't just ignore my response and then complain that I'm dogmatic a few pages later.

[Renegade Island]

Right, so planned obscolescence, cyclical consumption are nothing to worry about? Let's just keep throwing stuff away to get the new model 3 months down the line, making stuff that's designed to break, and creating false needs for more stuff that we don't need until we've used up everything. It doesn't matter that we're destroying the planet, we need economic growth, dammit!

You would notice I never said that.

Planned obsolescence and "cyclical consumption" might be good ire-raising talking points but they aren't in and of themselves indicative of a system-wide failure.

Besides that, they may be indicative of a (kind of) success as they reflect a business model bent on constant production. Why is that a good thing you ask? Well it's not. Not necessarily and not in and of itself. But there is a point where the benefit of building things to last outweighs the cost of doing so. People have decided that building things cheaply that are not top of the line nor filled with the latest technology is more desirable than building the perfect product in small numbers and then replacing said product when it breaks due to poor craftmanship.

Yes, they are a success if if you desire short term profit. No, they are not a success if you desire long term survival of the species.

[Renegade Island]

So how do you explain cyclical consumption, planned obsolescence, the advertising and marketing industries, etc?

Just mechanisms that have developed within the system. You might view them as having a negative social impact relative to their commercial merit, and perhaps that is the case. There's no reason why that negative impact can't be mitigated within the system itself, though.

I don't believe I would call this "sufficiently addressed."

[The Joseon Dynasty]

Just mechanisms that have developed within the system. You might view them as having a negative social impact relative to their commercial merit, and perhaps that is the case. There's no reason why that negative impact can't be mitigated within the system itself, though.

I don't believe I would call this "sufficiently addressed."

There wasn't much to say. You've identified some sectors or practices which arguably have a negative externality, and I'm supporting that. There are plenty of things within any system - economic, social, political or otherwise - which can be considered harmful, and perhaps we ought to mitigate that harm. What you haven't demonstrated in any measure is how those few examples imply a failing of the entire system.

[Renegade Island]

I don't believe I would call this "sufficiently addressed."

There wasn't much to say. You've identified some sectors or practices which arguably have a negative externality, and I'm supporting that. There are plenty of things within any system - economic, social, political or otherwise - which can be considered harmful, and perhaps we ought to mitigate that harm. What you haven't demonstrated in any measure is how those few examples imply a failing of the entire system.

Because you can't have neverending growth or neverending cyclical consumption.

You just can't.

[Occupied Deutschland]

You would notice I never said that.

Planned obsolescence and "cyclical consumption" might be good ire-raising talking points but they aren't in and of themselves indicative of a system-wide failure.

Besides that, they may be indicative of a (kind of) success as they reflect a business model bent on constant production. Why is that a good thing you ask? Well it's not. Not necessarily and not in and of itself. But there is a point where the benefit of building things to last outweighs the cost of doing so. People have decided that building things cheaply that are not top of the line nor filled with the latest technology is more desirable than building the perfect product in small numbers and then replacing said product when it breaks due to poor craftmanship.

Yes, they are a success if if you desire short term profit. No, they are not a success if you desire long term survival of the species.

Perhaps not.
But then, perhaps so. We don't know.

Besides that how do two (arguable) inefficiencies indicate a system wide failure?
Or were those the only ones Zeitgeist talked about?

[Renegade Island]

Yes, they are a success if if you desire short term profit. No, they are not a success if you desire long term survival of the species.

Perhaps not.
But then, perhaps so. We don't know.

Besides that how do two (arguable) inefficiencies indicate a system wide failure?
Or were those the only ones Zeitgeist talked about?

Zeitgeist?

[The Joseon Dynasty]

There wasn't much to say. You've identified some sectors or practices which arguably have a negative externality, and I'm supporting that. There are plenty of things within any system - economic, social, political or otherwise - which can be considered harmful, and perhaps we ought to mitigate that harm. What you haven't demonstrated in any measure is how those few examples imply a failing of the entire system.

Because you can't have neverending growth or neverending cyclical consumption.

You just can't.

Why?

[Renegade Island]

Because you can't have neverending growth or neverending cyclical consumption.

You just can't.

Why?

Mathematics.

The most important video you'll ever see

[The Joseon Dynasty]

Why?

Mathematics.

Is a word. And a subject I'm taking at degree level, so I'd be pleased to discuss it with you.

Please, elaborate.

[Renegade Island]

Mathematics.

Is a word. And a subject I'm taking at degree level, so I'd be pleased to discuss it with you.

Please, elaborate.

See my above edit.

[Occupied Deutschland]

There wasn't much to say. You've identified some sectors or practices which arguably have a negative externality, and I'm supporting that. There are plenty of things within any system - economic, social, political or otherwise - which can be considered harmful, and perhaps we ought to mitigate that harm. What you haven't demonstrated in any measure is how those few examples imply a failing of the entire system.

Because you can't have neverending growth (1) or neverending cyclical consumption (2).

You just can't.

1. Why not? We've managed it for the last 400 years or so roughly. When encountering "hard" barriers that would stop that growth (Malthus's farm-food argument comes to mind off hand, along with other resource barriers) there has been an adaptation to overcome it (more efficient farming techniques, to stick with the Malthus, a shift to different or more efficient usage of resources to speak more generally).
2. Why not?

Also, perhaps a read of the wiki section on consumer and producer surplus would be of value.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Why?

Mathematics.

The most important video you'll ever see

This:


Failed when it was first introduced. What makes it more true today?

[Renegade Island]

Because you can't have neverending growth (1) or neverending cyclical consumption (2).

You just can't.

1. Why not? We've managed it for the last 400 years or so roughly. When encountering "hard" barriers that would stop that growth (Malthus's farm-food argument comes to mind off hand, along with other resource barriers) there has been an adaptation to overcome it (more efficient farming techniques, to stick with the Malthus, a shift to different or more efficient usage of resources to speak more generally).
2. Why not?

Also, perhaps a read of the wiki section on consumer and producer surplus would be of value.

Maybe you've heard of the Chess Problem?

[Renegade Island]

Mathematics.

The most important video you'll ever see

This:


Failed when it was first introduced. What makes it more true today?

It didn't fail.

It just hasn't happened yet. You can't push that line indefinitely. If human population continues to grow at the current rate, we'd occupy every square inch of the universe in a few thousand years.
I'm willing to wager that this won't happen.