Capitalism is probably one of the most misunderstood things in the world right now. Neither the right wings nor the left wings seem to understand what a free market is, what it looks like, or whether or not we live in one.
A free market is free, seems obvious right? So we should have neo-liberals of all types, especially economists, telling our government that we need to take out all regulations and reduce taxes as much as possible. Well the latter is more or less true, everyone hates taxes but the neo-liberals are really only concerned about commerce and corporate related taxes.
Rules and regulations... Completely different story. Rules and regulations restricting the key businesses from exploiting others need to go, but they love their protectionism. Bail-outs are a must, subsidiaries as well. The government needs to buy all of the crap military contractors sell, and lo and behold if another country stops buying your stuff we need to go to war. Pure capitalism would let these giant businesses fall under their own weight, and when they attempt to interfere with gov't policy, the capitalists would rise in outrage. We live in some sort of mixed economy oligarchy, the people in power are the ones who profit from oil, they profit from the destruction of ecosystems, and they actually profit from climate change. There is no way our current system, or what we call "capitalism", is going to help us mitigate climate change.
Would pure capitalism help? Actually, I think so. Having just read a condensed version of the Wealth of Nations, I have a pretty good grasp on what capitalism Should look like, or at least what Smith thought it should look like. A free market would be free of any gov't influence, even if there were food shortages or rampant inflation/deflation or stock market crashes. The free market takes care of itself, that's one of the most basic principles of capitalism. The free market will also always take care of peoples needs, because people know what they need and they buy it on... the free market! This means that pure capitalism would have educated smart labourers that know that climate change is a bad thing. They therefore naturally shift the market to greener/sustainable technologies and products. The big bad oil companies would have the greatest profit margins on their products, but the free market would dictate that no-one smart would buy them. At least, that's what I assume would happen.
Tuesday, 24 March 2015
Sunday, 22 March 2015
Is inequality a problem in our civilization? Why?
Inequality in democracy.
It's a paradox, democracy only works if people have equal power. They don't need to be equal in intellect or strength or skill in craft. Just in the power they have to make decisions, both for themselves and their society.
Inequality in capitalism.
Once again, a paradox. Adam smith's version of capitalism, which I am considering "true" capitalism, was designed so that the best products and services succeed through competitive markets. They succeed because people want them, and those people must be able to buy them. If all people do not have equal purchasing power the system breaks down, one person can manipulate a market and inflate the demand for products that aren't what the people need. This inflation skews the supply and demand curves and the businesses that create what the people actually need fail. The markets are flooded with less useful things and the system becomes inefficient as a whole.
Inequality in civilization.
Actually, this ones not too bad. I've been a tad unfair, inequality is necessary in any successful civilization, democratic or capitalist or fascist or communist. Civilizations need specialization. If everyone was capable of doing everything equally, there would be no need for collaboration or organization. Everyone would live on their own. That being said, the "natural" inequalities in skills that make our civilizations work is not what plagues our civilization today.
Fact: Civilizations require organization, that means natural born leaders lead. However, an inequality in power that lets inferior rulers lead breaks the system. This holds true in every organization you can think of, you wouldn't want sub-par doctors who are in it for the high salaries or inept police officers who just like the idea of having authority to protect your children. Even the basic labourers, the house builders and the burger flippers, should be the best at what they do, unless health and safety standards don't mean anything to you.
So the idea of an elite group that could use their wealth and power in manipulate every institution to serve their own interests should be scary right? Well, that is what we live in folks. They are aptly named the 1%, they hold 40% of the wealth in the world. They own the mass media, the lobbyists in our governments, they ensure their former employees hold public offices and that their corporations have more rights than a human being. If that isn't a problem... I don't know what is.
It's a paradox, democracy only works if people have equal power. They don't need to be equal in intellect or strength or skill in craft. Just in the power they have to make decisions, both for themselves and their society.
Inequality in capitalism.
Once again, a paradox. Adam smith's version of capitalism, which I am considering "true" capitalism, was designed so that the best products and services succeed through competitive markets. They succeed because people want them, and those people must be able to buy them. If all people do not have equal purchasing power the system breaks down, one person can manipulate a market and inflate the demand for products that aren't what the people need. This inflation skews the supply and demand curves and the businesses that create what the people actually need fail. The markets are flooded with less useful things and the system becomes inefficient as a whole.
Inequality in civilization.
Actually, this ones not too bad. I've been a tad unfair, inequality is necessary in any successful civilization, democratic or capitalist or fascist or communist. Civilizations need specialization. If everyone was capable of doing everything equally, there would be no need for collaboration or organization. Everyone would live on their own. That being said, the "natural" inequalities in skills that make our civilizations work is not what plagues our civilization today.
Fact: Civilizations require organization, that means natural born leaders lead. However, an inequality in power that lets inferior rulers lead breaks the system. This holds true in every organization you can think of, you wouldn't want sub-par doctors who are in it for the high salaries or inept police officers who just like the idea of having authority to protect your children. Even the basic labourers, the house builders and the burger flippers, should be the best at what they do, unless health and safety standards don't mean anything to you.
So the idea of an elite group that could use their wealth and power in manipulate every institution to serve their own interests should be scary right? Well, that is what we live in folks. They are aptly named the 1%, they hold 40% of the wealth in the world. They own the mass media, the lobbyists in our governments, they ensure their former employees hold public offices and that their corporations have more rights than a human being. If that isn't a problem... I don't know what is.
Is Peak Oil for real?
Is peak oil a thing... This is like asking is Gravity a thing...
Of course it's a thing. We use a lot of friking oil.
The earth is a finite source of oil.
It takes millions of years for oil to be created.
A two year old could tell you that we are eventually going to run out of oil. The real question should be when, and what happens when we do.
If you think about it, everything you consume and use daily uses oil. Even if you're a student, how did you get to class? Whats your laptop, notebook, pen, pencil, phone, even your textbook made of? How was the building you live in constructed? Oil, Oil, Oil. We get power from it, we use it mine and deforest, then we use it to transport, and finally to create all the crap we think we need. Not to mention everywhere in between.
So what happens if we run out? I have no idea. Would the world end? I think not, but it certainly wouldn't look the same. Every plastic would need to be recycled, we would run out of almost all of our synthetic organic compounds from toothpaste to the rubber in our tires. Finding a versatile compound to replace oil would be tough in itself, but we would need to also find one that we can exploit at the same level as we did with oil. Personally, I doubt we'll find this mystical replacement.
So how about recycling everything? Reduce, reuse, recycle, fixes everything right? Ha, no. Many oil based products require insane amounts of energy to be recycled, its not economically viable for companies to start trying to recycle all of the oil based products that we have. Not to mention that reducing and reusing products will make our consumption-based economy go down the drain.
The solution we should all be working too is not IF peak oil is a "thing" or when it is coming. The solution we need to be working towards is becoming less oil dependent so that when peak oil comes, we are ready for it. There is no harm in reducing the millions of tons of pollutants we put in the air, or by innovating new technologies and switching our dependency to renewable energy sources. We need to open our eyes and look towards the future, instead of the profit margins of today.
Of course it's a thing. We use a lot of friking oil.
The earth is a finite source of oil.
It takes millions of years for oil to be created.
A two year old could tell you that we are eventually going to run out of oil. The real question should be when, and what happens when we do.
If you think about it, everything you consume and use daily uses oil. Even if you're a student, how did you get to class? Whats your laptop, notebook, pen, pencil, phone, even your textbook made of? How was the building you live in constructed? Oil, Oil, Oil. We get power from it, we use it mine and deforest, then we use it to transport, and finally to create all the crap we think we need. Not to mention everywhere in between.
So what happens if we run out? I have no idea. Would the world end? I think not, but it certainly wouldn't look the same. Every plastic would need to be recycled, we would run out of almost all of our synthetic organic compounds from toothpaste to the rubber in our tires. Finding a versatile compound to replace oil would be tough in itself, but we would need to also find one that we can exploit at the same level as we did with oil. Personally, I doubt we'll find this mystical replacement.
So how about recycling everything? Reduce, reuse, recycle, fixes everything right? Ha, no. Many oil based products require insane amounts of energy to be recycled, its not economically viable for companies to start trying to recycle all of the oil based products that we have. Not to mention that reducing and reusing products will make our consumption-based economy go down the drain.
The solution we should all be working too is not IF peak oil is a "thing" or when it is coming. The solution we need to be working towards is becoming less oil dependent so that when peak oil comes, we are ready for it. There is no harm in reducing the millions of tons of pollutants we put in the air, or by innovating new technologies and switching our dependency to renewable energy sources. We need to open our eyes and look towards the future, instead of the profit margins of today.
Saturday, 21 March 2015
Are the Greeks or the World (system) to blame for the Greek economic crisis? Why?
If a kid runs across a highway chasing a ball and gets hit by a car whose fault is it?
The Greek government had been running a deficit for decades, and the conversion to the use of the euro didn't help their economic situation. The loss of the ability to control their monetary policy as well as inefficient government spending and many other factors quickly lead to a failing economy. The IMF rushed in to save them because the euro needed to maintain it's value, but the IMF wasn't worried about the well-being of the Greek population. All they wanted was their government to cut spending while loaning them massive amounts of money to "stimulate the economy".
For starters, you can't stimulate an economy without increasing spending, so the strategy was flawed right off the bat. Then of course, IMF money always comes with fine print and large amounts of money were spent on buying useless goods from the countries that were lending the money in the first place.
So who is to blame for the Greek crisis? Everyone! The Greek government was failing in the first place; the corruption and blatant ignorance of well-proven Keynesian economic principles seems to be its downfall. Then the conversion to the Euro sealed its fate and the "rescue party" that was the IMF only instituted policies that allow key members and corporations to profit while the people freeze and starve.
Does any of this really matter though? No.
Who cares about the blame game, we know how to fix the crisis. Forgive some debts, and increase government spending in the right places. Greece would be a thriving economy in a matter of months. Our focus should be reinventing IMF and WB policies as well as taking preventative actions against countries that are on the same road as Greece.
It's a stupid question, the kid shouldn't have chased the ball and the driver should have been more alert. There are so many little nuances that the question shouldn't be who do we blame, it should be how do we make sure this doesn't happen again.
The Greek government had been running a deficit for decades, and the conversion to the use of the euro didn't help their economic situation. The loss of the ability to control their monetary policy as well as inefficient government spending and many other factors quickly lead to a failing economy. The IMF rushed in to save them because the euro needed to maintain it's value, but the IMF wasn't worried about the well-being of the Greek population. All they wanted was their government to cut spending while loaning them massive amounts of money to "stimulate the economy".
For starters, you can't stimulate an economy without increasing spending, so the strategy was flawed right off the bat. Then of course, IMF money always comes with fine print and large amounts of money were spent on buying useless goods from the countries that were lending the money in the first place.
So who is to blame for the Greek crisis? Everyone! The Greek government was failing in the first place; the corruption and blatant ignorance of well-proven Keynesian economic principles seems to be its downfall. Then the conversion to the Euro sealed its fate and the "rescue party" that was the IMF only instituted policies that allow key members and corporations to profit while the people freeze and starve.
Does any of this really matter though? No.
Who cares about the blame game, we know how to fix the crisis. Forgive some debts, and increase government spending in the right places. Greece would be a thriving economy in a matter of months. Our focus should be reinventing IMF and WB policies as well as taking preventative actions against countries that are on the same road as Greece.
In a perfect world, what would be the role of government?
(crowd chanting outside) "An Ar Chy! An Ar Chy! An Ar Chy! An Ar Chy!"
Friend (think stereotype of the general population): Dude whats with all the noise outside. Why do they want an Arch key?
Me: Are you serious... Anarchy... they are protesting the power structures not demanding a key.
-What? well what's anarchy? Are they protesting democracy! These commies just want to see the world burn
Oh come on, are you completely ignorant. A true anarchist would get rid of all government, institutions, and power structures. He would want absolute freedom to do whatever he wants, that is what most Americans think they want anyways.
-Oh, well yeah, that actually kind of sounds pretty awesome.
Yeah it sounds great doesn't it, no taxes, no rules, no regulations...
-Totally! I'm going to be an anarchist now!
I didn't finish...
-You don't need too, An Ar Chy!
Oh be quiet, you are so impressionable. Anarchy wouldn't just mean no taxes and no laws, it would mean no government at all. Do you like your health care? Or how about your firefighters? Or even the road you use to drive to work?
-Hold on, all of that stuff can be privatized
Really? I mean I would sure hope that firefighters stop every fire not just the ones people pay for. Same with all of our current public services.
-Okay yeah, but that could be done by getting everyone to pay for it.
That doesn't really make sense, but okay fine. How about publicly protected resources? And how do you prevent people from committing crimes, or even punish them after they do.
-That's what the police are for!
The police, the army, the lawmakers are all parts of an institution, and you now don't stand for them.
-Okay so maybe institutions aren't that bad. But I still don't like paying taxes!
Of course you don't, but you like it when the government spends money to do all the things we've been talking about.
-Well yeah I guess, yeah I suppose they have to get the money from someone. But why does it have to be me! Why can't they tax those rich people!
How is that fair? If they just taxed everything the rich had, what would be the incentive to get rich? And why should the rich have to take care of you anyways?
-Well obviously you wouldn't tax Everything they had, but they have an obligation to take care of us! We should tax them just enough that they aren't stupidly rich.
What do you mean obligation?
-Well who do you think made them rich? We make them powerful with our hard earned cash, and then they go around just stealing more from us? They owe us everything!
So you've gone from far right to anarchism to far left in about 2 minutes flat... Well do you think it's the responsibility of the government to balance things out or do you think the people will do it themselves?
-Of course the government has to do something, those greedy corporations wouldn't give anyone dime. They need to tax them and enforce laws and regulations to stop them from ruining the environment and stealing my pension!
You are all over the place here...
-I guess what I'm saying is that anarchy would be nice, no rules and regulations would be great if people had a conscious, but here in this world the government needs to stop people from corrupting the system. However, they need to...
Friend (think stereotype of the general population): Dude whats with all the noise outside. Why do they want an Arch key?
Me: Are you serious... Anarchy... they are protesting the power structures not demanding a key.
-What? well what's anarchy? Are they protesting democracy! These commies just want to see the world burn
Oh come on, are you completely ignorant. A true anarchist would get rid of all government, institutions, and power structures. He would want absolute freedom to do whatever he wants, that is what most Americans think they want anyways.
-Oh, well yeah, that actually kind of sounds pretty awesome.
Yeah it sounds great doesn't it, no taxes, no rules, no regulations...
-Totally! I'm going to be an anarchist now!
I didn't finish...
-You don't need too, An Ar Chy!
Oh be quiet, you are so impressionable. Anarchy wouldn't just mean no taxes and no laws, it would mean no government at all. Do you like your health care? Or how about your firefighters? Or even the road you use to drive to work?
-Hold on, all of that stuff can be privatized
Really? I mean I would sure hope that firefighters stop every fire not just the ones people pay for. Same with all of our current public services.
-Okay yeah, but that could be done by getting everyone to pay for it.
That doesn't really make sense, but okay fine. How about publicly protected resources? And how do you prevent people from committing crimes, or even punish them after they do.
-That's what the police are for!
The police, the army, the lawmakers are all parts of an institution, and you now don't stand for them.
-Okay so maybe institutions aren't that bad. But I still don't like paying taxes!
Of course you don't, but you like it when the government spends money to do all the things we've been talking about.
-Well yeah I guess, yeah I suppose they have to get the money from someone. But why does it have to be me! Why can't they tax those rich people!
How is that fair? If they just taxed everything the rich had, what would be the incentive to get rich? And why should the rich have to take care of you anyways?
-Well obviously you wouldn't tax Everything they had, but they have an obligation to take care of us! We should tax them just enough that they aren't stupidly rich.
What do you mean obligation?
-Well who do you think made them rich? We make them powerful with our hard earned cash, and then they go around just stealing more from us? They owe us everything!
So you've gone from far right to anarchism to far left in about 2 minutes flat... Well do you think it's the responsibility of the government to balance things out or do you think the people will do it themselves?
-Of course the government has to do something, those greedy corporations wouldn't give anyone dime. They need to tax them and enforce laws and regulations to stop them from ruining the environment and stealing my pension!
You are all over the place here...
-I guess what I'm saying is that anarchy would be nice, no rules and regulations would be great if people had a conscious, but here in this world the government needs to stop people from corrupting the system. However, they need to...
Sunday, 15 March 2015
Is education a tool to help corporations? Should it be?
Is education a tool to help corporations? Yes.
Should it be? No.
Simple answers.
Our current education system is set up like a factory, but is this effective for the 21st century?
Absolutely not.
Watch Sir Ken Robinson and he'll elaborate on how our education system is a factory, we are put in the system in batches according to an irrelevant demographic (age).
We are then pushed through the system in levels, each supposed to make us slightly better at what we do. We are taught to value external rewards like grades to get us ready to receive paychecks. We are taught that discipline means success, and that questioning anything will means punishment. Refusing to conform to anything will either get you branded as a troublemaker by your teachers or a loser by our peers. School is a factory that pumps out obedient workers ready to do whatever job the next institution needs them to do.
What should our education system look like?
Well for starters, education needs to be personalized. Students should progress at the pace they do well at; they shouldn't be confined to an age group. Children who excel in something should be guided into an education program that centers around that thing. Grades shouldn't even exist, if you educate people right then you don't need an evaluation method to see who is better than the others. All of your pupils will be at the same level, or at the very least a level in which they can do the job they have adequately. Education should be free, it should be mandatory. Everyone in the world should have some basic foundation of knowledge, after that is accomplished people should then be free to pursue the knowledge that interests them. This only works, however, if society functions very efficiently. That would mean that people are free to pursue the things they love, but are required to do the things they are good at. No matter how much a neurosurgeon wants to paint, he must do his job saving peoples lives and paint in his free time.
Or at least, that's what I think.
Watch Sir Ken Robinson and he'll elaborate on how our education system is a factory, we are put in the system in batches according to an irrelevant demographic (age).
We are then pushed through the system in levels, each supposed to make us slightly better at what we do. We are taught to value external rewards like grades to get us ready to receive paychecks. We are taught that discipline means success, and that questioning anything will means punishment. Refusing to conform to anything will either get you branded as a troublemaker by your teachers or a loser by our peers. School is a factory that pumps out obedient workers ready to do whatever job the next institution needs them to do.
What should our education system look like?
Well for starters, education needs to be personalized. Students should progress at the pace they do well at; they shouldn't be confined to an age group. Children who excel in something should be guided into an education program that centers around that thing. Grades shouldn't even exist, if you educate people right then you don't need an evaluation method to see who is better than the others. All of your pupils will be at the same level, or at the very least a level in which they can do the job they have adequately. Education should be free, it should be mandatory. Everyone in the world should have some basic foundation of knowledge, after that is accomplished people should then be free to pursue the knowledge that interests them. This only works, however, if society functions very efficiently. That would mean that people are free to pursue the things they love, but are required to do the things they are good at. No matter how much a neurosurgeon wants to paint, he must do his job saving peoples lives and paint in his free time.
Or at least, that's what I think.
Tuesday, 10 March 2015
Considering what the film shows us, what does globalization, our consumption, the banks (IMF and WB) and the corporations do to a country like Tanzania ?
Darwin's nightmare.
This film shatters the bubble that residents in the Global North, or "developed" countries, create for themselves. It reminds us that more then half the world doesn't worry about getting the newest Ipad, they worry about if they will have a next meal.
Who is to blame for the pathetic state of things? The very same people who forget that half the world is like this. It started with imperialism, a long complicated history of European invaders lead to corrupt systems of power and masses of poor uneducated people. Then the European presence is replaced with an imperative to "develop", the economy is the only thing that matters. While millions starve, food is exported out of the country so profits can be maintained. The banks funnel in money so that the economy will "rescue the country", but the profits go to western companies and the money is nowhere to be seen. Jobs are of the utmost importance, it's either find a job or join the military. Otherwise, you can't feed yourself, nor your children. Globalization ensures that industry is put before the welfare of the people, and the western hunger for profit puts guns in the hands of anyone who will buy them.
The volatile region was created by white men, and now it is continually fueled by it. Food is exported, guns are imported. The natural conclusion is war. We hear it all the time, this country is fighting that country, some other country is in the midst of a revolution or divided by a civil war. No one seems to bat an eye anymore. Whether it is the corporations that deceive us into thinking profits come before human life or we put blinders on ourselves, we need to wake up and realize the atrocities we are forcing people to live through and commit. Our taste for fish does not mean millions should starve, our need for profit shouldn't put a country on the streets, and our beliefs shouldn't hinder us from stopping millions of deaths.
Globalization is a disease, the corporations are actual viruses, and the banks are the pseudoscience that people seem to think will cure it. There is not a Global South country in the world that is not being taken advantage of by the Global North, the corporations exploit natural resources and destroy the natural way of life in too many ways too count. The banks swoop in and offer to fix everything, but only end up making way for more corporations to exploit faster. We are to blame. We are the problem, now we have to think of ways to be the solution.
This film shatters the bubble that residents in the Global North, or "developed" countries, create for themselves. It reminds us that more then half the world doesn't worry about getting the newest Ipad, they worry about if they will have a next meal.
Who is to blame for the pathetic state of things? The very same people who forget that half the world is like this. It started with imperialism, a long complicated history of European invaders lead to corrupt systems of power and masses of poor uneducated people. Then the European presence is replaced with an imperative to "develop", the economy is the only thing that matters. While millions starve, food is exported out of the country so profits can be maintained. The banks funnel in money so that the economy will "rescue the country", but the profits go to western companies and the money is nowhere to be seen. Jobs are of the utmost importance, it's either find a job or join the military. Otherwise, you can't feed yourself, nor your children. Globalization ensures that industry is put before the welfare of the people, and the western hunger for profit puts guns in the hands of anyone who will buy them.
The volatile region was created by white men, and now it is continually fueled by it. Food is exported, guns are imported. The natural conclusion is war. We hear it all the time, this country is fighting that country, some other country is in the midst of a revolution or divided by a civil war. No one seems to bat an eye anymore. Whether it is the corporations that deceive us into thinking profits come before human life or we put blinders on ourselves, we need to wake up and realize the atrocities we are forcing people to live through and commit. Our taste for fish does not mean millions should starve, our need for profit shouldn't put a country on the streets, and our beliefs shouldn't hinder us from stopping millions of deaths.
Globalization is a disease, the corporations are actual viruses, and the banks are the pseudoscience that people seem to think will cure it. There is not a Global South country in the world that is not being taken advantage of by the Global North, the corporations exploit natural resources and destroy the natural way of life in too many ways too count. The banks swoop in and offer to fix everything, but only end up making way for more corporations to exploit faster. We are to blame. We are the problem, now we have to think of ways to be the solution.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)