Is economical groth so important ?

[Radio_free_america]

Full-Liberal economy is an aberation

URSS achieve full employement during many years, and go to space before USA.
Their economie falled because of constant state of war, and dictatorial politicians.

Is communism tied to dictatorial gvt ? It's an other question.
I remember one fact : URSS proved that employement is not tied to liberal's economic's standards.

So other way are possible.

Do ou realise that never in history an Nation had so wealth ?
Even pharaon is a dwarf in front of Bill Gates's wealth.

What could we do for all of us with all that gold ? Is a good question.

Economics groth is not important for a standard citizen.
Inflation, inequity in distibution of each part of economic "groth", are much more important to everyday life.

Economic groth is even a danger for us all :

Geological resources depleting...
Climate change...Or at least pollution and endangered species.
Wars for economics purposes...
Humanity is playing with atomic fire.

We must build something else, absolutly.

[applegrove]

1. I hear you sort of: there must be some limit to how wealthy each

person gets to be in a "western democracy". I think that limit will be reached when the Whole World has reached the middle class. If the planet doesn't implode first!! And yes - there has to be a 'distribution of wealth' to make the amount of 'wealth' in the world grow. Cause unless you have the middle classes growing in every country on the planet.. who is supposed to buy all this stuff that the companies of the wealthy are selling?

So each corporation is entirely dependant on humans to buy.

Sea cucumbers and their ilk are notoriously stingy: though I do imagine there is some megalomaniac capitalist somewhere who is trying to teach other apes about markets. Hmmmmm perhaps it is why Conservative Think Tanks have exploded in number?

But the truth is that along with raping the planet & possibly killing it, the only way to get the poorest of the poor to have lifestyles someone reminiscent of the 18th Century is for World Markets to Grow. Now how the wealth is distributed during the grow is another story. But we need world markets to get those living off of dumps or hoeing with a stone to have more in their lives. And we need the world to be open to a certain amount of market trade in order for this to happen.

[Radio_free_america]

3. So we much define "middle class"

4 or 5 cars ?
or
Right to learn and think freely ?

The problem is there.
Personnaly I prefer use my living time for a relative knoledge, and love for my familly.

I love that more than work 19h a day, or starving, or fight for my country for some oil for my 6th car.

I think that many humans on earth love that too.

The problen is the one who want "ever more" material goods and would like use other cityzens as cattle to achieve they own confort.

[applegrove]

4. Agreed that we are very very lucky in the West. For me - it is

books that I buy. Information. Maybe the internet will be the great leveler and we will all be able to get buy with paying so much less for everything.

And yes - a certain amount of 'slower growth' is in the forecast for Western nations. After all the growth will be taking place in Russia, China, Brazil, India, etc. Places where middle class still has a while to go. Tis why America & the West will actually be living with lower growth rates in the years to come.


But - we are so lucky. I mean how many people were spending Christmas in Sri Lanka for god's sake. And is flying to the other side of the world too much? These are questions of values and choice. But yes I think it is a good debate to start. Especially as the environment will likely start 'hitting back' in the next 40 years.

[applegrove]

5. It is a very 'Liberal' thing to be for open world markets

Even the neocons admit that Liberals are 'internationalists'. The hope of the poor in the world is that they get to supply a 'middle class' somewhere and thus become middle class themselves.

These are all liberal ideas. And they will be ours once again. Once the United States has great leadership and leads its people 'bravely' into this Century. Istead of force-feeding them pride crap.

[Radio_free_america]

8. Making my neighbor poorer wil make me richer

It's like if liberals were thinking that.
Nothing is more wrong.

Europe united with great disparity of economical size.

Portugal, Spain, Ireland were poor country, now they are rich.
70% of europeans country economical exchanges are internal to UE.
Does France or Germany really suffer of Greece new wealth ?
I answer no.

But the use of a politic of military domination is useless, at opposite we could give more time, money, education, health, peace to much more of us all.

[applegrove]

9. A richer neighbour makes you richer - trust me i am Candian

Liberals used to know this. It was the conservatives who hated open boarders.

[Radio_free_america]

12. Yes sorry,

I'm French, liberal have not exactly the same meanning for me.
In France a liberal is someone who don't want state regulation on economy, or at least minimal one.

It's don't have link to trans-border exchanges.

[applegrove]

13. Ahhh - and I get your name: 'la Guerre des Ondes n'est ce pas?"

Bonjour!!

[Radio_free_america]

16. Yes my nickname is sarcastic

US have Radio Free Europe, so a french must have Radio Free America :)

Bonjour :)

[applegrove]

18. Very true - I hope the Utopian occupation of America ends soon

[LinuxInsurgent]

15. my personal view is that

socialism is not only desirable...but inevitable, if we seek to survive as a species.

Capitalism, at the root, is based on this following rough equation.
CAPITAL(Resources, oil, precious metals, agricultural raw products, etc.) is invested into the PRODUCTIVE PROCESS (done by workers). PRODUCT of the workers is claimed by those owning the means of production (machines, tractors, land where agriculture is tilled, oil patches, etc.), sold for use, VALUE is realized from that transaction which HAS to be more than the initial value of the INITIAL CAPITAL, so that a portion of that REALIZED VALUE is re-invested as NEW CAPITAL to start the process of Production - Realized Value, again, and again, and again. The portion of REALIZED VALUE that is ABOVE that needed to start the process again is called SURPLUS...and SURPLUS is accumulated as PROFIT...ever growing, thereby allowing for ECONOMIC GROWTH.

The problem with capitalism and the cult to economic growth is that it requires INFINITE sources of materials for putting it into the PRODUCTION process, to realize MORE VALUE/SURPLUS, so that it can be infinitely re-invested into the production process, and PROFIT can continually be accumulated. Cycle never ends...and growth continues...or does it?

Our Earth has FINITE resources...and the activity of capitalism is destroying our environment, our FINITE resources (tree, food, fisheries, Peak Oil, etc). This is why Capitalism leads to Imperialist politics of expansion...because Capitalists needs ever more markets (to sell their realized products) and resources.

Example of Capitalist Economic Logic + Imperial Politics:

The United Fruit Company needed Central American labor to be cheap...and the ability to "own" the banana fields of Central America (hence the term, Banana Republic). In order to establish a situation of "ownership" over Central American agriculture AND to have Central American people work for cheap (to minimize the INVESTMENT part of the production process, in order to get more PROFIT at the end), the United Fruit Company pressured the American government to act against the organized worker groups in Central America. The American government did so through using its CIA agency to overthrow worker-friendly governments (Juan Arbenz in Guatemala, e.g.), and trained the military forces of "right-wing" capitalist governments in the Central American republics, to attack the peasants of their nations...thereby controlling them, and allowing the United Fruit Company to take ownership of Central American agriculture through "agreements" with the local governments.

That's an example of how capitalist economic logic FUELS Imperialist politics.

It's as simple as this...if we wish to destroy the heart of the American Empire (which has always been capitalist and imperialist, expanding into newer areas of the world and supporting its capitalist companies against worker movements EVERYWHERE in the world), AND we wish to survive as a human race (FINITE RESOURCES)...we MUST adopt a Socialist system of collaboration, egalitarian production, and egalitarian distribution. Whether the structure of that socialist system is through Social Democracy (Scandinavia), Leninist Communism (Soviet Union, China), Stalinist Communism (North Korea), or anarchism (libertarian socialism, The Spanish Republic Anarchists) is up for debate...and I welcome the debate. But...the agreed consensus must be that capitalism is NOT VIABLE.

That's the only way to rationally use the FINITE resources we have, develop renewable resource pools that will be practically INFINITE (solar power, rational agriculture planting that exceeds consumption by humanity, etc.), and stop the impetus of American imperialism to feed the American consumption lifestyle (which harms the rest of the world, in order to be maintained at its current pace).

SIMPLE AS THAT...if we don't adopt it...warfare will continue...and we will one day become extinct.

[cosmicdot]

2. a book review FYI

reading your comments ...

"Geological resources depleting...
Climate change...Or at least pollution and endangered species.
Wars for economics purposes...
Humanity is playing with atomic fire."

... made me think of it ...

"Meditations on Collapse"

A review of Jared Diamond's Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed

Civilizations collapse. That is the rule that we learn from history, and it is a rule whose implications deserve careful thought given the fact that our own civilization-despite its global extent and unsurpassed technological prowess-is busily severing its own ecological underpinnings. Thus we should pay close attention when Jared Diamond, one of the world's most celebrated and honored science writers, author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning Guns, Germs, and Steel, devotes his newest and already best-selling book to the subject of how and why whole societies sometimes lose their way and descend into chaos. ~snip~

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/021705_world_stories.shtml

[Radio_free_america]

6. Yes great men aknoled this conclusion

On scientificals facts.

A french economist "René Passet", see the "world of nature", "world of men" and "world of economy".

He say that the third had taken power on the two others.

Peasant confort is not an objective, the objective is producing letuce or tomatos in winter because you could sell this a good price.
The energetical cost for this is accounted as a simple line in annual reports : electricity $30.000.
Who care inpact on living species, and huamn being ?

No body remember Tchernobyl or Bopal ?
Full liberal economy is going that way if nothing is made to limit it.

Economy must be limited by law for all of us interrest.

I will try to find and reas your book.

[applegrove]

7. I read a similar book written by Ronald Wright and talking about

the same things. That civilizations will go caput when the environment 'hits back'. And China & Egypt are the only two empires that have lasted a thousand years. England perhaps. China has hundreds of feet of Ukrainian & European top soil on its farms curtsey of trade winds ore the years. Egypt used to get Africa's top soil dumped onto its farmland every year with the Nile floods.

The good news is that England discovered "fallow" and managed to make its topsoil last 800 years. So technology can help.

Interesting stuff!

[Martin Eden]

10. Definition of uncontrolled growth:

CANCER

In some respects, human civilization is a cancer on the planet. We are consuming resources, spewing pollution, altering the climate, destroying ecosystems, and causing the extinction of many species.

If the purpose of the Earth is to sustain the wonderful diversity of life that either evolved or was created here, human beings are having a disastrous effect. Even from the egocentric perspective that the purpose of Earth is to serve human interests, our own activities are diminishing the capacity of this planet to serve our interests.

Economic growth is used as the primary measure of the success of our economy, but is it really an accurate measure of the success of our civilization or a good indicator of human fulfillment and happiness?

GDP (gross domestic product) includes all economic activity, including growth industires such as prisons and the manufacture of weapons. It is a measure of quantity, not quality.

The so-called "conservatives" currently in power in the U.S. government would have us believe that "free markets" are the solution to every problem, and that government regulation of business and assistance to the underpriveleged are impediments to prosperity and a better life for all.

Setting aside the fact that corporations use their money and influence to gain special favors and subsidies from government, we have seen the effects of unregulated capitalism. People work in unsafe conditions for low wages and no benefits, the environment is poisoned with no accountability, fraud and unethical business practices abound, and the citizens of a democracy are collectively powerless to direct the course of their nation. Decisions about global warming, depletion of resources, and planning for a sustainable future are in the "invisible hand" that grasps for short term profits above all else.

That kind of growth is the real impediment to the necessary growth and development our species needs to reach its potential and to maintain the beautiful planet that sustains us.

The United States of America is the most powerful and influential nation on Earth, but we have a seriously misplaced set of values. It is very discouraging that our president -- the embodiment of corporatism, militarism, and anti-environmentalism -- was "elected" by those who profess to share his values.

[Radio_free_america]

11. Exactly, wealth is not human fulfillment

Economical indicators as groth are placing Nation, individuals in a struggle against each other, it's not a solution in our state of evolution because Earth have limited capability.

We must learn to live with, not again.

Darwinism, who is often used as a justification for full capitalistic society is in fact a scientific missinterpretation.

When a specie is too much performing or numeros it could endanger other in an ecosystemic point of wiev. It could even endanger it own specie.
If lions or Squales were applying capitalistics morality : groth, performing, population rising they would suffer great backfire : Prey extinction, stravation, own disparition.

Yes it would be like cancer in ecosystem "trophisation" and death.

Earth is much like a closed bottle with fish in it, equilibriums are necessary for life.

USA and in fact most of G8 nation and corporations are willing to break equilibrium to achieve superpredator position with no limits it's could only bring them to their own death.

[Martin Eden]

17. Darwinism

I agree that equilibrium (also known as sustainability) is essential, and that an overperforming species can bring about its own demise by destroying the ecosystem that sustains it.

Scientific Darwinism is an explanation of natural processes that have shaped life on this planet over billions of years. Equilibrium is automatically achieved by adaptation to resources, environment, and competition.

Social Darwinists attempt to justify the disparities of wealth and power in a system of unregulated capitalism as the "natural order" of human civilization -- the survival of the fittest. They argue against regulation and Socialism as impediments to beneficial competition and the natural course of human achievement.

In my opinion, the Social Darwinists are wrong on 3 counts:

1) "Nature" as applied to the activities of human beings is all-encompassing. Competition between the systems of capitalism and socialism is part of natural selection on a macro-scale. They are both equally valid from the perspective of impersonal natural selection. If one prevails over the other, by definition it was the fittest.

2) The system advocated by the Social Darwinists -- unregulated capitalism -- is not sustainable because it consumes the resources and poisons the environment upon which we depend. In my opinion, we need a hybrid that rewards hard work, innovation, and enterprise, but within a democratic framework that collectively provides purposeful direction.

3) Social Darwinism is a reality in that we all function within the constraints that nature places on us, and that we cannot escape the natural consequences of our activities. However, using this to argue against any form of regulation or collective management is to say we are no different than the animals of the jungle. It is a rejection of human compassion, and of the religion which the poltical party of the Social Darwinists uses to their great advantage.

[Radio_free_america]

23. The real problem is "Hierarchie"

Economic standarts are not "better" than human life or nature, stable relationship must be in place, ever, these rules can change but they must be the result of a feed-back between every circle (natur, human, economy).

Each too brutal changes can break the global ecosystem.

Unemployement, war, epidemies, often break out of such desequilibrium.

US attack Irak, because Irak and Muslim world is military weak.
Chineses can be killed because of political activitys, but they learder have the power.
It's not moral, it's pearaps "amoral", without any kind of moral.

But it's hurt me for humanist reasons.
We can also look at this problem in a light-philosophical point of wiev. Natural selection is a think, but are we on earth for long ? What is the real reason of live ? Does a reason exesist ? We can ask theses questions, but we can answer for everyone. We must accept the right of the other to search is own way.
Economical, religious, every thing other want, as soon as it's respect my own security.

It's a wery light "morale" in international and individual relation we need and can change many thing if aplied.

[Radio_free_america]

24. Jude Talion's, or Bush preemptive war can be solutions but

In a world filed with atmomic bombs it's not realy resonable.
Expect if you are conviced of escaping "apocalyps".

They are crazy with Russia giving technologie to Iran.

Do you know game of prisonners.

You arrest 2 men.

You say plaid guilty and denounce the other man, You take 2 years and him live.
If the other case if he denounce you and you plaid noguilty you take life and he 2 years.

If you denounce each other you tow take 5 years.

Many strategy can work, you can play points in place of jail sentences.
And play for many turns.

Talion (retalation at each "treachery") word well, Preemptive strike is hasardous etc.

But if you play only one turn, and if sentence is death for both player...
You must cooperate.

It's the case in geostrategy right now.
Bush strategy is very dangerous, he play with our live, our own and live of all species.
How can he forget that England, France, Israel, Pakistan, India, Russia, Georgia, Kaskstan, China... at least and probably many more country can at every momment destroye all live on earth, or heavily damage it.

Disuation is not dead, it's only more complexe.
We must learn to live with it.

War is no longer a solution.

[applegrove]

14. It will be okay - the environment will send out a bigger bomb than

9/11. And we know for sure that America's taste for a nitwit lead by utopians will have 'wained' by then.

[applegrove]

19. Yes - just so long as Utopians of any kind are not in control

That way corporations act as they were built - to serve mankind!

[applegrove]

20. Utopias are bad; mixed market Liberal Democracies are good

[Radio_free_america]

21. Utopias have nothing to do with that

It's just a racional look at human specie on a planete somewhere in space.

We human live on a little rock of sand.
We must learn how to live at least in peace on it.

So we must respect each other.

American can eat hamburger as long as they don't make a war to force me to eat it too :)

Seriously, individuals, social groupes, religion etc. everyone must devellope a Winner/Winner relationship, as show us mathematitians in 'game theory'.

The problem is how to send this simply to a population who live in constant fear of others men.

[applegrove]

22. We need to live with a mixture of tools to help us humans live

great lives. The Utopian neocons and the Utopian Socialists need to be 'removed' from the thrones from which they speak.

We need fluidity and openness and regulation to keep things running smooth (smooth from the point of view of plurality & humans values).