Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Lord Blackadder, Apr 21, 2008.
Bolivian Prez Morales:
That's painting with a bit of a broad brush, eh?
Umm...that's a bit much.
Yeah. It's an over-simplistic remark, to say the least. I'm not aware of an economic system that does not exploit (and potentially over-exploit) natural resources.
I wonder what o'l Hugo "Look at my Red Shirt" Chavez has to say about this...
Are you kidding? Hugo probably told Morales to say it.
reality TV is a planet killer.
We in the US share his frustration, because it's obvious that capitalism is way out of control. But abandoning it? To be replaced with what exactly?
The story really did not give a great deal of detail. Since it is BBC, my guess there was not a great deal of it (BBC is usually thorough in their reporting). This appears to have just been a speech, and with little background. I would like to see him on Bill Moyers to get a better idea of what he is thinking.
He is correct about the impact biofuels are having on the food supply chain. We are reading daily stories of civil unrest and starvation on a scale not seen in recent memory. It does not have to be this way. But, the culprit is not capitalism per se. It is greed.
Capitalism is the perfect system to promote wide-spread greed. Other systems also spawn greed. With socialism, and all of its various incarnations, it is usually through corruption, not the system itself. Monarchies limit the greed to the ruling family and their associated aristocracies.
In America, capitalism is so completely ingrained into our psyche and core beliefs, that any serious challenge meets with the stiffest resistance. The European countries have experimented with various forms of socialism, but I do not think the UK has. Still, they have much stronger socialist parties than the US does. I do not think you can easily switch from a capitalist system to a communist government. That is a serious commitment. So, it is not seen often, except in emerging societies.
Going back to the 'greed' factor, we need to address this at some point. When is enough enough? For the truly greedy, it never is. Greed is what feeds the atrocities of the mega corporate conglomerates, which have no moral convictions, except the pursuit of profit. People commit acts for 'the company' they would not do in their personal lives. Yet, society itself is partly to blame. We esteem people like Murdoch, Gates, Allen, Pickens, Bush for the wealth they have accumulated. Millions who complain, really want to change places with them. Can we not begin to quit admiring those consumed by the need for wealth and power, and instead honor those who really make the world a better place?
My first appreciation goes to those people. The next group I admire most are the small family farmers of the world. Each season, they risk everything, work from the cold dark morning hours, to long after the sun goes down, to earn a meager living, but put quality food on our tables. They are the world's overlooked heros.
I am drifting off subject, so I will just end by saying, "Any system is workable, providing the society embraces it and others do not exploit it.
The root of the source doesn't have to do with money. It has to do with power.
What can Bill Gates do with $20 billion that he couldn't do with $19 billion?
Stalin and Mao weren't capitalists, but they still still managed to screw things up royally.
I like how this neglects how the communists weren't exactly great to the environment (China, Russia).
I just posted something the Govenator said in another thread on the environment:
Doesn't have to be against business, it can actually create more opportunities. But greed does have something to do with it, as it seems almost no one wants to pay more up front, even if it saves or even makes more in the long run. They'd rather just run ads about how they're going "greener" whatever that means. Also laziness.
"Green", like "Freedom", has been buzzworded into irrelevance IMO.
Saying that a particular political system is inherently bad for the planet is ridiculous - pretty much every political system can damage the environment if it's priorities don't include not damaging the environment...
I think that's the issue here. Terrorism and environmental worries are two of the biggest topics bouncing around these days, and it stands to reason that politicians like Morales would try to tie their own agenda to them. Everybody's doing it; this just happens to be a clumsy attempt.
Yeah, any socio/economic system can make a mess.
Cleaning up messes is costly. Governments don't have money beyond what they can receive in taxes. (I'm ignoring the "public ownership of resources" in the various thugocracies.) There is a limit to how much of an economy can be drained away into taxes and remain viable.
But, without money, who can protect the environment? Folks gotta eat. Gotta have some sort of job. All that stuff. So, what system generates the most surplus capital, the most wealth for use beyond an individual's basic survival?
It sure ain't socialism; Russia already proved that, same as China. China is now using a capitalistic format to generate what is becoming the world's greatest surplus of capital on hand. All that the followers of Marx have been able to do is to do without.
The economic system espoused by Morales--or Castro, Chavez and others--already has his people picking poop with the chickens. He's another of these strange creatures that I'd like to buy for what he knows and sell for what he thinks he knows. Helluva profit.
Russia and China were socialist?
News to me too. Marx certainly wouldn't have considered either of them to be so.
The "revolution" was stolen for selfish purposes.
T'was ever thus.
capitalism for the win. If you don't like it, you're doing it wrong.
I think I'm doing it fine, it's everyone else that keeps pissing me off.
Money is power; the two are symbiotically linked. As for your last sentence, why do you not concentrate more on what people write, before you begin criticizing them. I have notice this pattern with you for a long time.
I wrote: Capitalism is the perfect system to promote wide-spread greed. Other systems also spawn greed. With socialism, and all of its various incarnations, it is usually through corruption, not the system itself. Monarchies limit the greed to the ruling family and their associated aristocracies.
I added this to my post to address the issue of socialism based systems failing, but mainly through corruption (Mao, Stalin).
Just a bit! I don't know what world this guy lives in, but from my own personal travels the capitalist countries like England and the US are the cleanest/most efficient, and the less capitalist countries are more polluted.
It does (esp. in the U.S. sense)
it5Five, I don't think USSR stood for Union of Soviet Sexy Republics.
England clean? some mistake surely?
Well it might not be perfectly clean, but it's a lot cleaner than some of the 3rd world countries I've visited. And those places also seem to have more of a socialist bent.
But that said, I think it's not really particular systems that pollute, but particular technologies. Pollution will be solved when all our polluting technologies have been upgraded.
But again, the countries that seem most adept at rolling out new tech are the capitalist ones. Something in that system (profit motive?) encourages scientist and businessman to work together, so that technology is not just invented and sits on the shelf, but is made affordable to the masses (iPod, iPhone, ...). Well, maybe the iPhone is not *totally* affordable yet