Possible GFC V2 on its way

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Possible GFC V2 on its way

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#2105626 10-Oct-2018 14:37

MikeB4:

Caitalism and Democracy do not make good bed fellows. Democracy requires power to be or seem to be vested in the populous though various related systems. Capitalism requires power to be vested in a few with the goal of profit. Democracy is public, capitalism is private.

Ummm..... not quite. Democracy requires political power to be vested in the populous. Capitalism requires the ownership of productive assets to be predominantly in private hands. They aren't necessarily incompatible. The fact that you own a farm or a factory doesn't mean that I don't get to vote.

They can coexist reasonably happily. There have been countries that are both broadly democratic and broiadly capitalist that have existed and prospered for a long time.

MikeB4:

Saving the planet is almost impossible with Capitalism.

As opposed to what alternative? The Soviet Union and East Germany weren't capitalist, but didn't exactly have stellar environmental records.

If you think the planet can't be "saved" (whatever you mean by that?) is private ownership of assets is allowed, then what better system are you proposing?

eph

187 posts

Master Geek

#2105631 10-Oct-2018 14:46

JimmyH:

MikeB4:

Saving the planet is almost impossible with Capitalism.

As opposed to what alternative? The Soviet Union and East Germany weren't capitalist, but didn't exactly have stellar environmental records.

If you think the planet can't be "saved" (whatever you mean by that?) is private ownership of assets is allowed, then what better system are you proposing?

I agree. In capitalism (with democracy) at least there are some control mechanisms but in Communist the environment is always the last thing to worry about (first hand experience here). I think China is even better example how badly it can go...

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2105665 10-Oct-2018 15:33

China is Communist in name only. It is a capitalist state with huge fortunes vested in private individuals. Russia is the same as China with again huge wealth vested with private individuals . The ex USSR was not Communist state . I am not saying that Communism is the answer (We have not seen a true model of Communism working.) I am saying what we have now is not the answer. The cyclic boom and bust is not evidence of a successful system but that of a system that is funimentally flawed. It continues because those vested are the least affected by the busts and often as exampled by the GFC they are the ones that gain the most. Nations gave fortunes to Corporations to prop them up in the GFC and those Corpoations have done little to payback that support. Research GM Holden for a close to home example of this.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2105681 10-Oct-2018 16:02

If capitalism appeals to the worst instincts of people, and if people are choking the planet, then we just need to make environmentalism appeal to our worst instincts. In other words, make it profitable. Massive subsidies for things like home solar and electric cars, paid for by enormous taxes on meat, petrol, palm oil and the like, so rapacious oligarchs make their fortunes by accumulating carbon credits.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#2105734 10-Oct-2018 16:39

GM Holden has nothing to do with capitalism. As the Australian government maintained import tariffs on cars. Which in turn is a form of subsidy. That government then gave more handouts to them, as they didn't want to deal with the political fallout of job losses. If the Australian government had just allowed market forces to operate, GMH would have been gone at least 20 years ago. And Australians would have been able to buy cheaper cars for 20 years also.

Booms and busts are just a normal part of the market functioning. Demand for something increases, the price of that thing also increases, People and companies ramp up production and new players enter the market to take advantage of the higher prices. Prices then drop back to historical levels.

Only problem, is that sometimes speculation gets in the way. And you get people who buy up production, solely with the intent of reselling later for a profit. This creates artificial demand for that profit, so any extra production doesn't initially cause prices to drop. And the quicker prices rise, more and more speculators pile in. Eventually demand drops a little bit due to the excessively high prices, and all of the speculators panic sell. Prices then crash due to lots of product suddenly flooding the market. The speculators loose money. And some of the producers also loose, as there is now too much production capacity in relation to natural demand.

Look at Bitcoin as an example. It was a classic boom and bust. Yet no one was demanding that the government regulate BTC prices, or bail out those who lost money when BTC crashed.

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#2105760 10-Oct-2018 17:07

Rikkitic:
If capitalism appeals to the worst instincts of people, and if people are choking the planet, then we just need to make environmentalism appeal to our worst instincts. In other words, make it profitable. Massive subsidies for things like home solar and electric cars, paid for by enormous taxes on meat, petrol, palm oil and the like, so rapacious oligarchs make their fortunes by accumulating carbon credits.

You have to be extremely careful with any subsidies. Since you have mentioned Meat. NZ farmers can produce a KG of beef while only emitting approx half the carbon emissions of what a US or GB farmer would emit to produce the same amount of beef. Even when you account for the carbon emissions of shipping NZ beef to the other side of the world, NZ beef still has far lower carbon emissions.

The best thing would be if NZ beef production increased, and US and GB production dropped. The planet is a single world. So emitting more carbon dioxide in one place is not a problem, as long as a bigger reduction in carbon emissions happens somewhere else. As overall carbon emissions will be lower.

Taxes and penalties on beef and dairy in NZ will simply cause NZ production to drop, and overseas production to increase. More overall emissions. But hey, the government can then claim that the enviroment is supposedly better. As long as no one looks at the big picture.

And a positive situation. Second hand car dealers realised that the fuel savings from driving an EV, mean that people are willing to pay more money for them. They rushed out to buy as many as they can from the Japan auction houses. And now, used Japan import EVs are readily available.

ICE car makers have long known that consumers will pay more for cars that use less fuel. So they have responded by making cars that use less fuel.

eph

187 posts

Master Geek

#2105805 10-Oct-2018 17:37

Aredwood:
Rikkitic:

If capitalism appeals to the worst instincts of people, and if people are choking the planet, then we just need to make environmentalism appeal to our worst instincts. In other words, make it profitable. Massive subsidies for things like home solar and electric cars, paid for by enormous taxes on meat, petrol, palm oil and the like, so rapacious oligarchs make their fortunes by accumulating carbon credits.

You have to be extremely careful with any subsidies. Since you have mentioned Meat. NZ farmers can produce a KG of beef while only emitting approx half the carbon emissions of what a US or GB farmer would emit to produce the same amount of beef. Even when you account for the carbon emissions of shipping NZ beef to the other side of the world, NZ beef still has far lower carbon emissions.

The best thing would be if NZ beef production increased, and US and GB production dropped. The planet is a single world. So emitting more carbon dioxide in one place is not a problem, as long as a bigger reduction in carbon emissions happens somewhere else. As overall carbon emissions will be lower.

Meat farming (especially beef) should not be subsidised at all. It is without any doubt the single biggest environmental issue of today...

So people can have their McDonald's they need meat which:

- contributes 18% to all green house emissions on Earth

- uses 30% of usable land area of Earth (including all the modified crops production)

- for 1kg of beef you need 25kg of grain and 15000l!!! of water

- adding to antibiotics resistance by massively overusing antibiotics

- all the water and land pollution and erosion from raising/grazing beef

- feeding the more GMO -> more pesticides -> more GMO cycle

- not to mention all issue of how "inhumanely" the animals are actually treated/raised/killed

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

GV27

5896 posts

Uber Geek

#2105808 10-Oct-2018 17:42

eph:

Meat farming (especially beef) should not be subsidised at all. It is without any doubt the single biggest environmental issue of today...

So people can have their McDonald's they need meat which:

- contributes 18% to all green house emissions on Earth

- uses 30% of usable land area of Earth (including all the modified crops production)

- for 1kg of beef you need 25kg of grain and 15000l!!! of water

- adding to antibiotics resistance by massively overusing antibiotics

- all the water and land pollution and erosion from raising/grazing beef

- feeding the more GMO -> more pesticides -> more GMO cycle

- not to mention all issue of how "inhumanely" the animals are actually treated/raised/killed

Again, as above, NZ is far more efficient than this. We don't grain-feed our animals as a rule, they're kept outside due to a more temperate climate and farmers don't receive the same subsidies that they do in the US. A lot these talking points just aren't relevant here.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2105816 10-Oct-2018 18:11

I don't think meat should be subsidised at all. Just the opposite. I was just citing some offhand examples of things that distort economic reality by being sold far, far cheaper than their actual (environmental) cost, and suggesting that if they were taxed to reflect their real cost, that money could be used to subsidise things that actually matter. As shown above, meat production imposes a tremendous burden on the environment, in all kinds of ways. Meat shouldn't be banned but it should be priced realistically. It would then become a luxury food only to be enjoyed at Christmas, people would be much healthier, and the money could go into planet-saving technologies.

I also wasn't referring specially to New Zealand. We are talking about saving the planet here so any measures like this would have to be planet-wide. New Zealand could continue as a niche producer of meat for the Christmas market while the inefficient producers in other countries could be shut down.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#2105831 10-Oct-2018 18:43

I was not saying that NZ farming should be subsidized. Just that it shouldn't be subjected to special taxes.

Have a look at the Common Agricultural Policy in Europe. It is an absolute mess with subsidies and market distortions. Then look up the amount of tax that gets spent on it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Agricultural_Policy

NZ farming is far better than that mess. The EU CAP and other subsidies should be scrapped before anyone should even think about any taxes on NZ farming.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2105836 10-Oct-2018 19:09

Rikkitic:

I don't think meat should be subsidised at all. Just the opposite. I was just citing some offhand examples of things that distort economic reality by being sold far, far cheaper than their actual (environmental) cost, and suggesting that if they were taxed to reflect their real cost, that money could be used to subsidise things that actually matter. As shown above, meat production imposes a tremendous burden on the environment, in all kinds of ways. Meat shouldn't be banned but it should be priced realistically. It would then become a luxury food only to be enjoyed at Christmas, people would be much healthier, and the money could go into planet-saving technologies.

I also wasn't referring specially to New Zealand. We are talking about saving the planet here so any measures like this would have to be planet-wide. New Zealand could continue as a niche producer of meat for the Christmas market while the inefficient producers in other countries could be shut down.

data here

Of course that misses the elephant in the room - the massive and ever increasing population of humans.

eph

187 posts

Master Geek

#2105856 10-Oct-2018 19:35

GV27:

eph:

Meat farming (especially beef) should not be subsidised at all. It is without any doubt the single biggest environmental issue of today...

So people can have their McDonald's they need meat which:

- contributes 18% to all green house emissions on Earth

- uses 30% of usable land area of Earth (including all the modified crops production)

- for 1kg of beef you need 25kg of grain and 15000l!!! of water

- adding to antibiotics resistance by massively overusing antibiotics

- all the water and land pollution and erosion from raising/grazing beef

- feeding the more GMO -> more pesticides -> more GMO cycle

- not to mention all issue of how "inhumanely" the animals are actually treated/raised/killed

Again, as above, NZ is far more efficient than this. We don't grain-feed our animals as a rule, they're kept outside due to a more temperate climate and farmers don't receive the same subsidies that they do in the US. A lot these talking points just aren't relevant here.

More efficient in which sense? The farmland needed to feed grass fed cattle is many time bigger? I would also think it needs more water and since it's not contained to small areas it pollutes all the water sources and causing erosion of massive amount of land in NZ. I don't think intensive farming anywhere else is better but NZ farming is no fairy tale, it is a business same as anywhere else in the world - with its own set of big issues.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2106126 11-Oct-2018 10:48

AFAIK NZ beef is "antibiotic free" as far as use for prophylaxis / growth promotant as used in the USA.

But we do some feedlotting - for example.

eph

187 posts

Master Geek

#2106134 11-Oct-2018 11:12

Yeah, the horrid stuff they do in US without anybody complaining is mental.

I guess you need to use antibiotics mainly when the beef is contained to small areas, the breeding grounds for all sort of illnesses. Wouldn't apply to roaming free NZ beef as much (or at all). Though for the feedlotting beef I'm not so sure they don't use any...

Dingbatt

6754 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2106296 11-Oct-2018 14:47

Wow, only 2 pages and already way off topic.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

1 | 2 | 3 | 4