[mdlug-discuss] Ethanol vs gasoline economy [Was: [mdlug] Automotive technical info ...]

[Wolfger]

On 5/31/07, allen <amajorov at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Wolfger wrote:
> > I think you're confusing economic systems with something else...
> >
> Naw, I think the distinction between economic systems and governmental
> systems inaccurately describes either. Capitalism requires certain
> features of society that are most commonly found in a democracy or a
> reasonable facsimile; rule of law, property rights, equality before the
> law. There are others but it's getting late and I'm tired.
>
> Authoritarian regimes of all stripes - monarchies, communism, fascism
> and any other "isms" - are inherently inimical to capitalism since
> capitalism requires a number of freedoms and legal guarantees.

I'll grant you, for the moment, that capitalism requires some form of
democracy to survive (I don't know of any country that has a true
democracy, or unfettered capitalism, but that's a side argument). That
does nothing, however to explain why you think socialism (which can
also exist under a democracy) is more dangerous.

> If you think a sweat shop is tough try the agricultural sector some
> time. Even now, here in America with all the latest technology and
> labor-saving gadgetry, it's still a tough way to make a living. It
> becomes progressively tougher the more primitive the agricultural
> technology in use until you get to subsistence farming.

Thanks for helping me with my point! Capitalism drives agriculture to
ridiculous standards, so that the small-time farmers have difficulty
surviving.
Oh, and then there's the government subsidies (socialism) that are
designed to keep farms afloat...

> Oddly enough, the more socialism a nation embraces the less betterment
> it seems to enjoy. If you've got an example or two of the success of
> socialism's strivings feel free to provide them.

Well as I said previously, the problem with socialism is human nature.
Since we can't seem to remove that element, socialism fails.
Likewise capitalism also fails. That's why, in the best nation on
earth, you see a mixture of capitalistic and socialistic practices.

> > Which is why the gap between the wealthy and the poor is widening?
> >
> Would that be the poor who own their own homes with central heating and
> air conditioning, cable TV, their own cars and have, as their number one
> health problem, obesity? If that's the poor to whom you're referring
> then they seem to be doing progressively better as that income gap gets
> wider.

Yes, those are the poor that I'm referring to, who are currently
seeing a huge rise in home foreclosures, who are losing their jobs to
overseas markets because it makes the best capitalistic sense to a
rich board of directors. While it's true that our poor have it much
better than the poor in some other companies, you are diverting the
argument. You called capitalism a "leveler", and it is NOT. For every
CEO who is "asked to leave" with a multi-million dollar separation
package, there are thousands of guys living paycheck-to-paycheck who
suddenly find themselves without paychecks. And it's the socialistic
practice of "unemployment insurance" that keeps them from starving.

> > So capitalism leaves room for a person changing his social standing
> > for better or for worse, I agree. I don't see how that levels anything
> > when mostly the rich get richer and the poor stay poor. Each biography
> > is offset by thousands of failures.
> >
> As opposed to socialist nations in which there aren't any of those
> inspiring stories because there's no social movement?

I'll remind you again that I didn't start this by saying "socialism is
the best!" I started this by saying that socialism and capitalism are
fairly equally bad ideas. You keep trying to put  capitalism up on a
pedestal, and I'm just trying to bring you back to reality.

> > Ha! Well, I think we'll be waiting a while to see who gets the
> > position. Unfortunately, it's looking like Bill Gates.
> >
> Bill Gates? I don't think so.
>
> Touch base with younger techies, the ones in their twenties or less. I
> don't know whether they've quite come to the point of viewing
> Microsoft-bashing as a quaint anachronism, like high-button shoes and
> cell phones so big you can't lose them in a pocket, but he hardly stands
> astride the tech world the way he did in the distant past of, oh, six or
> seven years ago.

"Tech world", nothing. Try "real world". I believe Bill's still one of
the top 5 richest (i.e. most powerful) people in the world. He's
currently got little-to-no standing in the tech world, but that's
irrelevant.

-- 
Wolfger
http://wolfger.wordpress.com/
http://1fjordaroad.wordpress.com/
AOL IM: wolf4coyot
Yahoo!Messenger: wolfgersilberbaer
Skype: wolfger88