h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

When you see the US government being incompetent, it's not a case of capitalists getting it wrong, it's a case of governments getting it wrong. All governments are incompetent. We just talk about ours more. If it were socialist, it wouldn't be any more competent, but it would appear to be less so, because they'd have more opportunities to screw up.

When I said the debt belongs to the government, I meant that it is the government who created the debt. Most good capitalist families have some sort of financial debt, but it is a manageable one. Borrowing money is the way a family contributes to the economy... they buy something they couldn't afford on cash alone (like a car or a home) which in turn makes money for the sales agent, the manufacturer, the stockholders, the workers, the people who invested their money in the institution the money was borrowed from, their workers, stock holders, etc. But it's a shitty way to run a government.

On the global warming thing, the reports I quoted said 60% of scientists believe global warming is real. The main point is only 13-15% blame man. And if there was ever a group who would be willing to take on dirty polluters, it would be Greenpeace, and they're the 13% people. And remember that in the 70's there was a similar scare about global COOLING. Here's a few quotes on that:

"Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend... but they are almost unanimous (that line sound familiar?) in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century." (Newsweek, April 28, 1975)

"An increase by only a factor of four in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 degrees Kelvin... sufficient to ttrigger an ice age." (Science Magazine, July 9, 1971)

I have more, but you get the idea.

As far as Gore and religion, I really don't want to turn this into a religious debate (I have enough of those going already). But the point is that in the US there is supposed to be this thing called Seperation of Church and State, and the more religion figures into politics, the more disgusted I become. Tipper's campaign for censorship in music and tv had goals far beyond that simple sticker on the cd case, it's just that she was shouted down by people who believe in protecting freedom of speech, which is a good thing. Remember, you have to protect the freedoms for the few who will abuse them, else you take them from the majority who won't.

What in the Hell!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

I don't know what happened with that last post, but I assure you it was NOT written by Lupa Mirabilis, but by GargleBlaster. This one, in case it comes up wrong as well, is also by GargleBlaster. Hopefully, it was just a one-time glitch; otherwise, there's going to be a fight.

I thought the new name was terrific - maybe you could keep it and do like Abi and have several on the go at once!

The name change threw me for a minute.

I don't really want to mix religion into this either, I was just trying to make a point of how politicians are trying to gain people's votes by aligning with something that nobody can agree on.

I read a news article this morning about several oil companies getting sued by the government for underreporting the oil taken out of federal and indian land. The article named five companies that were lying about how much oil they were pumping out of the ground and underpaying royalties to the land owners. All the companies settled with the Department of Justice out of court. They still made a profit on it and nobody went to jail. The lawsuits were barely mentioned in the Daily Oklahoman. Yeah, next time I decide I want to rob a 7-Eleven and get arrested I think I'll settle out of court. I might even get to keep part of the money, and nobody will tell my boss.

I don't think you'd be able to take enough money out of one 7-11. You'd have to empty their bank account and make up some story that you didn't know it was there's and you really intended to put most of it back - or all of it less the interest it made while you were 3 years in the run up to going to court.

We've been doing a lot of US bashing in here, and dwelling on the negatives, so I thought of this forum when someone sent me this. It'll help shed some extra perspective:

Widespread but only partial news coverage was given recently to a remarkable editorial broadcast from Toronto by Gordon Sinclair, a
Canadian television commentator. What follows is the full text of his trenchant remarks as printed in the Congressional Record:

"This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the earth. Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of these countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States. When the France was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up, and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it.

When earthquakes hit distant cities, it is the United States that hurries in to help. This spring, 59 American communities were flattened by tornadoes. Nobody helped. The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent, warmongering Americans. I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplane. Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tri-Star, or the Douglas DC10? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all the International lines except Russia fly American Planes?

Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on the moon? You talk about Japanese technocracy, and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy, and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy, and you find men on the moon - not once, but several times - and safely home again.

You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everybody to look at .. Even their draft-dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, and most of them, unless they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American dollars from ma and pa at home to spend here. When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke. I can name you 5000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.

Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them get kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one of those."

it's not as simple as saying the govt is good or bad at doing stuff - you need to understand that under proper socialism there would be an entirely different system of govt from the status quo - you need to stop thinking about how socialism would work inside current models - think outside the exisiting square

socialism relies on the best in human nature, altruisim and collective spirit; capitalism exacerbates the worst ie greed and individualism - capitalism has consumerism on its side, which is very seductive and hard to escape - repeat after me:

a new washing machine will not make me happy

span
*enters the room, looks at how long the thread is and suggests a move to a new thread?*

Nice idea but there will always be people unhappy with any form of government. I agree that our materialism is not enough to make us happy, but there are too many people who haven't found that out for themselves.

how do we teach them, help them realize? i've been discussing this a fair bit lately and i don't think it's too big a problem to be solved, we just need to communicate and work together (yes yes i'm an idealist)

also you might want to have a look at a page i've done (it's not very good, but the links are the most important thing) on the Anti-Capitalism demos happening worldwide (currently in Washington DC)

www.h2g2.com/A300114

cheers
span

"socialism relies on the best in human nature, altruisim and collective spirit":

And that's why it fails. Deep down, nobody is altruistic enough to take out the trash. Nobody is altruistic enough to wait tables with a smile when there's no tipping involved. Most people aren't altruistic enough to study hard. Greed is an excellent motivator, but a society that depends on altruism is going to get hungry in a hurry.

A society based on greed will make others hungry in a hurry.

Isn't it odd, then, that the country most based on greed also has the most food? And it has very little to do with land resources, because China and parts of Africa have more fertile land than we do.

I was helping out at a kids party the other day. The oldest child there was a boy who was also very greedy. He pulled all of the best eats onto his plate before the other children could get anywhere near them.

Modern economies are based on the need to grow. If you have the chance read Richard Douthwaite's book the Growth Illusion.

I need capital to get a business off the ground so I borrow it. I now have to make more than I borrowed just to stand still because of interest. Economies (capitalist or otherwise) based on debt linked to interest are on a slippery slope.

What about UK and American corporations who drain the resources out of African, South American and other economies?

As for fertile land, major corporations have forced people into "cash cropping" for years which reduces diversification and self reliance and also increases the reliance on chemical fertilisers. This then leaves the host economy extremely vulnerable to speculation and undue influence from external powers.

Capitalism is like a ravenous beast which has to be fed from wherever food can be found. The US (and probably UK) consumption rates are ridiculously high and are importing massive amounts of products from around the world. We've all heard of the big corporations cutting down huge swathes of forest to provide inefficient grazing for cows, to be turned into burgers for high consuming publics.

This forum isn't about how crummy capitalism is, it's about how much worse socialism is. You rant about how terrible consumption is in the UK and US, but the types of things we're importing are not necessary to sustain life. The US exports more food than any other nation, and then we give away tons more, and also pay people to NOT produce some. And a burger that had to come from Thailand would taste like hell.

Socialism is a nice idea, and it has lofty goals, and many socialists have only good intentions. However, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Cuba is socialist, and they're dirt poor. North Korea is socialist, and they're starving (but their capitalist neighbors are eating well). Capitalist societies aren't perfect, because people aren't perfect. The good thing about that is that capitalism doesn't expect people to be perfect; socialism does. I've quoted stats, I've presented solid, undebateable history, and I've even offered quotes from some of the most respected men in history, all of which says that socialism CANNOT work. In response, I've seen a lot of bitterness directed at capitalism in general, but I have not seen, nor do I expect I shall, one solid bit of evidence why socialism could ever work. It completely ignores human nature. Ask yourself:

How many people would be willing to pursue medicine, with its long hours, grueling work, emotional costs, years of study, etc. if they would receive the same economic benefits as a pizza delivery boy?

How do you teach a dog a new trick? You coax it with a reward. How are people motivated any differently?

Why would the massive governmental bureaucracy required to operate a true socialist system work any better than a much smaller capitalist one? Lack of corruption of government officials isn't the answer here, because there weren't any monetary benefits to be had when the H3 took 30 years to construct, or that traffic light took 10 months to get operational.

When all people are equal, who is going to work in garbage collection?

When all people are equal, who is going to run the businesses?

GB, Your last posting sounded a tad bitter. You describe my posts as "rants" and that means to me that you are moving from logical discussion to name calling. I prefer the logical approach.

I think there have been lots of positive things said about socialist approaches. You seem to completely deny the existence of anything good outside of capitalism. When a parent loves a child and cares and nurtures it what reward do they expect. Who pays them to do it.

When you see an accident in the street do you have to wait for someone to offer to pay before you get involved? For most of us we want to help our neighbour. There are many ways of turning this into a sustainable society other than basing it on greed.

The world existed for many years before capitalism and many systems were extrememly successful. Capitalism as you describe it has only been around for the wink of an eye and many people are expecting it to collapse.

Cuba has had the hostility of a huge miltary power to contend with to prevent it trading with the outside world. Surely you must acknowledge the American Blockade of Cuban ports! Why would they do that for a system which you were convinced would not work? Please don't say "The Bay of Pigs" That was in the 1950's.

The common Agricultural Policy of the European Union also pays foramers not to produce and at the moment British Farming is on the verge of collapse. Farmers are begging for government intervention to save them. Capitalism would say let them fall. What would you say, GB?

By the way, nothing you have stated is undebatable. It is hard to pick up every item in a long post and argue it without writing a thesis or making the posts so long that they cannot be downloaded, or read!, without a problem.

In the Uk we have had a history of badly paying Doctors and Nurses. The med schools were always full and turning people away. More recently pay has become an issue but there is still a strong feeling of vocation for many jobs. Junior doctors work massive numbers of hours and are paid and equivalent hourly rate of little more than a pizza delivery boy.

In the UK we are not paid for giving blood and even the idea of payment many people find insulting - but lots of people still do it.

As you see many of your premises are very debatable.

The world was full of leaders and garbage collectors in the days before capitalism and would continue to be so afterwards.

I wasn't intending to sound bitter by labelling your previous post a "rant," but "Capitalism is like a ravenous beast which has to be fed from wherever food can be found" is hardly a dispassionate logical argument.

Yes, the world had lots of garbage collectors before capitalism.. they're called peasants. Those systems were extremely successful at exploiting people... much more efficiently than capitalism ever could.

The blood donating point is moot, because 90% of blood donations in the US are just that: donations. I've given several times without any further compensation than a cookie and orange juice.

"You seem to completely deny the existence of anything good outside of capitalism." Wrong. How many things have I said against my own country here? Too many for me to go back and count. What I fail to see is any merit in a socialist answer. It sounds good on paper, but you have to consider realities, not dogma.

"Cuba had a huge hostile power to contend with." Meanwhile, North Korea shares a border with friendly socialist neighbor China, and they're still starving. Why hasn't China helped? A failure of good socialist altruism, or do they have nothing to spare themselves?

BTW, your history is wrong there. Bay of Pigs was in the 60's, 1961 I think. And despite the US blockade, the USSR pumped billions of dollars into the Cuban economy throughout the Cold War. I bet they wish they had that money back now.

As for your doctors, I've heard things about the quality of care, but since it's only hearsay, I won't delve into it.

blood donations: extensive research has actually been done on this issue and it has been found that by having a donation system, rather than a pay system, not only do you get more blood, you also get far better quality blood - there's a great book on this that i forget the name of right now - i don't understand how you, GB, can write off this example as "moot" purely because you have donated bloody yourself - also to say that the cookies and OJ are reward is misleading, no one donates blood for that reason, hence they are not a reward

who says most people aren't still treated like peasants in your modern capitalism? i don't know so much about other countries, but in aotearoa/nz the country has been moving back centuries to when the majority didn't have access to health care, dentists, decent food, safe housing, education (we just got a new, centre-left govt, so the tide is hopefully turning) - that sure sounds like peasantry to me (and this is allegedly a first world country - these policies have been brought in in the name of the market - we have been told here, since 1984, that the market will provide - and oh it will, of that i am sure, but only to those already rich and powerful - the market is incapable of recognising reality - there is irrefutable evidence that in aotearoa/nz since pro-market policies were introduced the gap between rich and poor has widened considerably - what i am talking about, when i talk about socialism, is society wide cooperation, not the current climate of competition

take universities for example: how much is wasted on advertising, NOT so that more students will actually go on to further study (advertising has been shown here to have minimal effect on that) but to drag people who already know they are going to study, to particular institutions? uni departments now have to have marketing plans - gosh gee, i thought these were institutions of learning, where education was valued intrinsically, for it's own sake, notbased on how it can contribute to the market and prepare people to be good workers

capitalism is fundamentally undermining democracy - participation is determined by the size of your chequebook and a society full on those happy to amuse and consume themselves to death (apologies to neil postman) is ideal to maintain a high lack of interest in democracy - in a socialist society everyone would be able to participate because wealth would be shared - everyone would be prepared to do their share of the dirty work because that would be the kind of society that we lived in; one which shared the good and the bad

and you can't seriously believe that people only study medicine to make money? i know a number of med students who have gone into debt well beyond their eyeballs because medicine is their vocation, because they want to make a difference - with a huge loan hanging over them many of them will never really make any money (NB: student loan scheme in aotearoa/nz very different from usa)

that is a lot longer than i intended

span

I accept your critique, GB, of my description of Capitalism as a beast as not being in the normal language of debate.

What I meant it to represent was the fact that Capitalism is now a major producer of tension in the world.

Country A has oil which is in short supply. Country B wants that oil - in fact because of the practice of encouraging everyone to own several cars and travel even the shortest journey in one - HAS to have the oil.

Capitalism says that Country A can charge whatever it wants to and will do so. Oil prices go skyward. Country B has an oil shortage, petrol/gas prices rocket. People start to get unhappy about having their normal activities curtailed by the market.

What happens next?

Spanner: I agree with everything you said about blood donating, but I said it was 'moot' because here, where they pay for blood, most people don't choose to get paid for their donation. And the people who donate blood for money are generally not the kinds of people you would want to share blood with. But, I suppose, if you really needed a bit of extra cash, it's a pretty good way to get it. Arthur Dent financed his trek across the cosmos by donating semen.

And I was NOT implying that I donated for a cookie. I don't know about elsewhere, but here, they always give you a bit of sugar and a drink immediately after you donate to help you replace the sugar and liquid you just gave, to help keep you from passing out on your way out the door.

As for that NZ problem, that's what happens when capitalism goes totally unregulated. Just like people have to keep their eye on the government, so government and the people have to keep their eye on business. A pure capitalist society would be about as bad as a socialist one.

I don't know how everyone got the impression that here in the US, the only reason people practice medicine is for money. People here are just as altruistic as people anywhere else. My point when I brought the medical profession up is the fact that they work grueling hours at a difficult job that takes eons to learn; why shouldn't we reward them?!


Vestboy: Country B finally gets off its lazy ass and develops some of those alternate fuel technologies that have been allowed to languish so Detroit can continue producing gas-hogs.

Sorry if that came off a little strong, but that issue is one on which I also have strong views (yeah, as if there was anything I didn't).

hmmm it seems to me that your capitalist state is supported by a whole lot of people doing crappy jobs, for crap wages and under crap conditions (i'd come up with better adjectives but it's nearly 2am here and i'm a little slow right now) - eg the 66% of women's work in the usa which is unpaid (and largely unrecognised) - in Aotearoa/nz we have a basically structured unemployment level of around 7%, this means that workers aren't really in much of position to demand their dues, unless they are "indispensable" - incomes have been going up...at the ceo level, while increases on the shop/factory floor have failed to match inflation where there isn't a strong union (i've been working in the same shop for four years - i've had two pay increases, despite increases in responsibilities, one of which was universal across all workers) - i hate this whole attitude that poor people don't work hard - they do, they just don't get paid for it - and all that crap about how poor people just need to learn to budget: there are plenty of rich people who sure as hell can't budget, but it doesn't really matter in their cases - i went to a great talk by one of the women who runs a budgeting service in one of the poorest areas of my city - she identified exactly what the problem was for most of the poor she saw: not enough money

i think i'm getting a little off topic - my point is that capitalism is not working, so surely we should look at alternatives? of which socialism is one i like

what about the fact that capitalism exacerbates and plays to so many existing discriminatory attitudes eg sexism, racism? it seems that in a capitalist society there is always a heap, and women, indigenous people, people of colour, and the like are invariably on the bottom - i don't see how that can be good

sorry if this is somewhat incoherent, i cite aforementioned sleep deprivation by way of defence
span