The Aral Sea is essentially gone and it was killed by poor Soviet planning. Capitalism was not the driving factor rather ignorance was and ignorance is held equally by all sides.
Capitalism isn’t the only thing driving environmental collapse. It’s industrialization
Industrialization to make money is encouraged by capitalism. Why do you think big oil was lying about global warming? It’s not a few bad apples it is a systemic drive to make more money even if it hurts people or the planet.
Industrialization has been done by every nation that is capable of doing it regardless of their economic system or philosophy.
Thinking this is a capitalist issue ignores the Marxist states that have horrible records on the environment eg China and the USSR. It’s industrialization that is the issue.
There’s a difference between industrialization for people and trade versus industrialization for money and power. One helps everyone, The other only helps capitalists.
I wouldn’t necessarily look at China and USSR and say they are a good alternative. I prefer a more democratic socialism. My problem with capitalism is specifically the lack of choice of the people. We spend 8 out of 12 hours on average working for a company that we don’t get a vote in.
There’s a difference between industrialization for people and trade versus industrialization for money and power.
Not as far as the environment is concerned and frankly many will tell you running water and electricity are huge advantages regardless of how you get them.
What? Yes, the environment can tell because there would be less pollution. The motivations are different. Do you think worker controlled industries would use the same tactics to over produce and polute the areas the workers live in? No one would benefit from that.
I’m not saying we would reach zero pollution but there would be a lot less pollution.
I have no problem with running water and electricity, most reasonable socialist would agree.
Central planners in the Soviet Union didn’t even have computers and they lacked the level of scientific understanding we have today of the environment, of our resources, and of the limits to growth. We’ve all heard about Mao killing the sparrows in China.
This isn’t a reason to never try central planning again.
They absolutely had computers, I have no idea why you would think the second largest economy that produced tremendous technological advances in its time did not have computers.You know Tetris was created by a Soviet programmer, right?
Planned economies are doomed at this point gecause we aren’t able to predict distasters and the planned economy cannot respond in an efficient manner when things go wrong. Humans aren’t smart enough and we do not have artificial intelligence capable of doing so.
They had computers towards the end, of course, but they were extremely primitive. The kinds of disaster predictions you can do on a machine built to run Tetris are nothing compared to what can be done with today’s technology.
Also, it’s not like markets can actually deal with disasters. Without at least some central planning disaster response and relief is impossible.
Planning for relief disaster and a planned economy are incredibly different things. Planned economies do not handle disasters well at all as they didn’t prepare for that disaster in advance (typically because how can you plan for the one in a hundred million chance that x would happen).
We largely have stuck with market based economies because they currently are much more responsive to changes.
While computers have gotten more powerful there is zero evidence to support that we have gotten to the point where they could run a planned economy in any fashion.
We largely have stuck with market based economies because they currently are much more responsive to changes.
No, we still have market based economies because they make a few people very very rich.
We needed markets before computers and instant mass communication. Things are different now
While computers have gotten more powerful there is zero evidence to support that we have gotten to the point where they could run a planned economy in any fashion.
What about the fact that market-based responses to COVID were universally worse than centrally planned responses?
If you don’t understand that microeconomics and macroeconomics are not the same, and you have clearly stated this when you say companies and nation-states function under the same rules, then there isn’t a point in having a further discussion with you because you aren’t coming from an informed position.
Im stopping not because if your tone but rather because you have made it clear you don’t really know anything about economics.
Non market economies are never going to work, because you’ll be essentially creating one giant monopoly and leaving people without the possibility of doing things differently
What happens when you don’t like the product the state offers?
What if you discover a way of doing things more efficiently?
What about independent artists and creators?
And that’s not getting into how unpredictable people are, products that have been predicted to fail end up becoming very successful, and the opposite also happens
How old are you? Did you go through COVID? Capitalism doesn’t do disasters well at all. Every cost is minimized. So emergency supplies go unmaintained. If it doesn’t help the stock price annually it doesn’t get done.
50, yes and most nations did poorly the reason for America’s failures have to do with American healthcare as most market economies handled it much better than the planned ones did. China did much worse but that rarely made China’s news.
Im well aware of what a planned economy is as I have taken economics courses. Historically speaking planned economies have performed extremely poorly because humans are bad at predicting the future. Until circumstances change to the point where we can reliably predict the future planned economies will always perform poorly compared to market based ones.
I don’t disagree with that. Why leave that to the market which doesn’t optimize for anything other than more money and whos actions are opaque? Happy, healthy, and productive societies cost money, money that can be spent elsewhere. Slavery is efficient and profitable.
If some organization is going to have the power to make or break me, I want them to be transparent and democratic. Not a rich person who has never worked in their life trying to make more money using whatever means they can get away with.
The Aral Sea is essentially gone and it was killed by poor Soviet planning. Capitalism was not the driving factor rather ignorance was and ignorance is held equally by all sides.
Capitalism isn’t the only thing driving environmental collapse. It’s industrialization
Industrialization to make money is encouraged by capitalism. Why do you think big oil was lying about global warming? It’s not a few bad apples it is a systemic drive to make more money even if it hurts people or the planet.
Industrialization has been done by every nation that is capable of doing it regardless of their economic system or philosophy.
Thinking this is a capitalist issue ignores the Marxist states that have horrible records on the environment eg China and the USSR. It’s industrialization that is the issue.
There’s a difference between industrialization for people and trade versus industrialization for money and power. One helps everyone, The other only helps capitalists.
I wouldn’t necessarily look at China and USSR and say they are a good alternative. I prefer a more democratic socialism. My problem with capitalism is specifically the lack of choice of the people. We spend 8 out of 12 hours on average working for a company that we don’t get a vote in.
Not as far as the environment is concerned and frankly many will tell you running water and electricity are huge advantages regardless of how you get them.
What? Yes, the environment can tell because there would be less pollution. The motivations are different. Do you think worker controlled industries would use the same tactics to over produce and polute the areas the workers live in? No one would benefit from that.
I’m not saying we would reach zero pollution but there would be a lot less pollution.
I have no problem with running water and electricity, most reasonable socialist would agree.
Central planners in the Soviet Union didn’t even have computers and they lacked the level of scientific understanding we have today of the environment, of our resources, and of the limits to growth. We’ve all heard about Mao killing the sparrows in China.
This isn’t a reason to never try central planning again.
They absolutely had computers, I have no idea why you would think the second largest economy that produced tremendous technological advances in its time did not have computers.You know Tetris was created by a Soviet programmer, right?
Planned economies are doomed at this point gecause we aren’t able to predict distasters and the planned economy cannot respond in an efficient manner when things go wrong. Humans aren’t smart enough and we do not have artificial intelligence capable of doing so.
They had computers towards the end, of course, but they were extremely primitive. The kinds of disaster predictions you can do on a machine built to run Tetris are nothing compared to what can be done with today’s technology.
Also, it’s not like markets can actually deal with disasters. Without at least some central planning disaster response and relief is impossible.
Planning for relief disaster and a planned economy are incredibly different things. Planned economies do not handle disasters well at all as they didn’t prepare for that disaster in advance (typically because how can you plan for the one in a hundred million chance that x would happen).
We largely have stuck with market based economies because they currently are much more responsive to changes.
While computers have gotten more powerful there is zero evidence to support that we have gotten to the point where they could run a planned economy in any fashion.
No, we still have market based economies because they make a few people very very rich.
We needed markets before computers and instant mass communication. Things are different now
What about the fact that market-based responses to COVID were universally worse than centrally planned responses?
Given what you have said in the last comment I replied to I do not wish to continue this conversation
You called me poorly educated. Was I supposed to be nice after that?
If you don’t understand that microeconomics and macroeconomics are not the same, and you have clearly stated this when you say companies and nation-states function under the same rules, then there isn’t a point in having a further discussion with you because you aren’t coming from an informed position.
Im stopping not because if your tone but rather because you have made it clear you don’t really know anything about economics.
Non market economies are never going to work, because you’ll be essentially creating one giant monopoly and leaving people without the possibility of doing things differently
What happens when you don’t like the product the state offers?
What if you discover a way of doing things more efficiently?
What about independent artists and creators?
And that’s not getting into how unpredictable people are, products that have been predicted to fail end up becoming very successful, and the opposite also happens
How old are you? Did you go through COVID? Capitalism doesn’t do disasters well at all. Every cost is minimized. So emergency supplies go unmaintained. If it doesn’t help the stock price annually it doesn’t get done.
50, yes and most nations did poorly the reason for America’s failures have to do with American healthcare as most market economies handled it much better than the planned ones did. China did much worse but that rarely made China’s news.
American healthcare is capitalist. It’s insurance companies and for profit hospitals. That’s why it’s bad. Healthcare is an inelastic demand.
China isn’t a Democratic State. I’m not arguing that just having one guy handling all the economic planning is a good idea.
Im well aware of what a planned economy is as I have taken economics courses. Historically speaking planned economies have performed extremely poorly because humans are bad at predicting the future. Until circumstances change to the point where we can reliably predict the future planned economies will always perform poorly compared to market based ones.
I don’t disagree with that. Why leave that to the market which doesn’t optimize for anything other than more money and whos actions are opaque? Happy, healthy, and productive societies cost money, money that can be spent elsewhere. Slavery is efficient and profitable.
If some organization is going to have the power to make or break me, I want them to be transparent and democratic. Not a rich person who has never worked in their life trying to make more money using whatever means they can get away with.