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

[allen]

Wolfger wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>   
Socialism converts private ownership into common ownership, into a 
commons. Where there's a commons there's always a tragedy of the 
commons. It's that pesky human nature. The answer to the tragedy of the 
commons is inevitably commons cops; people whose job it is to prevent 
the tragedy of the commons.

Unfortunately, the labor pool you have to draw from when looking for 
those cops of the commons is plain, old human beings. Plain, old human 
beings complete with the same sorts of self-interest as every other 
human being except that these human beings are in charge of the commons, 
a valuable enough resource to require policing to prevent the tragedy of.

Now you've got a two-tiered society - those in charge of the commons and 
those not. Want to guess the likelihood of the former finding all sorts 
of justifications for hanging onto their power over the latter?
> 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...
>
>   
"Drives agriculture to ridiculous standards"? Is that something like 
being too rich, too lucky or too pretty? Would that I had those burdens 
to bear.

The flip side to "small-time farmers have(ing) difficulty surviving" is 
the relentless drop in the price of food in the face of ever greater 
demand while variety and quality increase. I may feel some sympathy for 
the suffering of people losing their farms but the continual drop in the 
percentage of the populace in the agricultural sector means that it's 
only going to get tougher.

If you think you've got the stuff to be part of the diminishing number 
who can survive, go for it. But the odds are against you and no sympathy 
is due someone for making a bad bet and losing.
> 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.
>
>   
Nope. Like I wrote before, socialism ignores and/or attempts to suppress 
human nature. Capitalism harnesses it.

The reason we have a mixture of socialism and capitalism is because 
socialism is long on cheap promises and there'll always be a market in 
cheap promises and people willing to serve that market.
> 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.
Decision time then. Do you erect trade barriers to "protect" those jobs, 
knowing where it'll take the entire nation, or do you not, knowing that 
the resulting efficiencies *always* end up benefiting the bulk of the 
populace?
>  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. 
Oh sure it is. No capitalism without democracy, remember?
> 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.
>   
And it's the capitalism that generates the wealth to fund unemployment 
insurance socialism.

By the way, check the record of starvation in socialist nations. Hunger 
is one area in which authoritarian nations always excel. But that's the 
way it is with a class-based society.
> 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.
>
>   
I'm not putting capitalism on a pedestal, I'm just pointing at the 
pedestal capitalism is already on and saying "there's the pedestal" and 
I'm quite firmly rooted in reality. The reality is, born out by the 
historical record and current events, that socialism inevitably results 
in poverty and often results in authoritarian tragedies. That hardly 
seems make the two ideas equally bad.
> "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
Bill Gates one of the most powerful people in the world? I wonder what 
would happen if he got busted for DUI a couple of times? We could ask 
Paris Hilton, when she gets out of the slam. She's pretty rich.

Allen