Socialist Party's policies

Iwasfrozen

pollyannawins wrote: »

red baiting aside, isn't the question of public ownerside a purely practical issue resolving largely around the question of to what extent is profit a guarantee of product quality?

the socialist party are brave not to water down their message (and their message is appropriate to their mandate of representing socialist sentiment in a democratic environment). vitriol and spite should be conserved for and limited to the voting booth

If socialists want to "nationalize" (read as: steal) private assets like the Dell plant people are going to oppose that.

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If socialists want to "nationalize" (read as: steal) private assets like the Dell plant people are going to oppose that.

It wouldn't be stealing. Nationalisation implies lawful expropriation.

Iwasfrozen

coolemon wrote: »

It wouldn't be stealing. Nationalisation implies lawful expropriation.

Legalized theft is still theft. If for whatever reason the government decided to nationalize your property I doubt you would consider it lawful expropriation.

Anyway we can argue about definitions all day the fact remains there will always be these who oppose the nationalization of private assets.

BuilderPlumber

All successful countries whether officially are capitalist or communist/socialist in reality mix the two. Countries rigidly based on one or the other tend to fail sooner or later. Haiti and North Korea being 2.

Its Only Ray Parlour

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Capitalism has lifted hundreds of millions of people in 3rd world countries like China and India out of abject poverty. I've just read Permabears post, make that almost a billion.

The commies love to blame capitalism on poverty in the Third World, but the real cause of poverty there is the climate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_and_wealth

As the human race migrated north into the cold regions of Earth, they evolved to have stronger work ethic and are more intelligent.

SwiftJustice

Its Only Ray Parlour wrote: »

The commies love to blame capitalism on poverty in the Third World, but the real cause of poverty there is the climate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_and_wealth

As the human race migrated north into the cold regions of Earth, they evolved to have stronger work ethic and are more intelligent.

The real cause of poverty and stagnation in the third world is trade barriers that socialists love to put up to protect their ****ty domestic policies. For example the EU gives free money to money to farmers to supplement their income and inefficiencies and have put in place trade barriers to prevent third world produce from entering the market place and distorting the prices.

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

It wouldn't be stealing. Nationalisation implies lawful expropriation.

depends on whose doing it surely ?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

coolemon

Its Only Ray Parlour wrote: »

As the human race migrated north into the cold regions of Earth, they evolved to have stronger work ethic and are more intelligent.

And after this migration the Irish race became isolated on an island on the far reaches of Europe. Since they did not interbreed with other superior European genes, they evolved differently and became a race of lazy and idle alcoholics. This was known and written about for hundreds of years.

As one observer noted in 1185:

"They use their fields mostly for pasture. Little is cultivated and even less is sown. The problem here is not the quality of the soil but rather the lack of industry on the part of those who should cultivate it. This laziness means that the different types of minerals with which hidden veins of the earth are full are neither mined nor exploited in any way. They do not devote themselves to the manufacture of flax or wool, nor to the practice of any mechanical or mercantile act. Dedicated only to leisure and laziness, this is a truly barbarous people. They depend on their livelihood for animals and they live like animals."

Other commentators noted the barbarism of the Irish race:

"This is a filthy people, wallowing in vice. They indulge in incest, for example in marrying – or rather debauching – the wives of their dead brothers. exchanging their wives as freely as other men exchange their horses."

Thomas Carlyle noted:

"The uncivilised Irishman, not by his strength, but by the opposite of strength, drives the Saxon native out, takes possession in his room. There abides he, in his squalor and unreason, in his falsity and drunken violence, as the ready-made nucleus of degradation and disorder."

Even a Communist like Frederick Engles saw the inherent inferiority of the Irish genome, writing in 1845:

"Carlyle is perfectly right. These Irishmen who migrate for fourpence to England, on the deck of a steamship on which they are often packed like cattle, insinuate themselves everywhere. The worst dwellings are good enough for them; their clothing causes them little trouble, so long as it holds together by a single thread; shoes they know not; their food consists of potatoes and potatoes only; whatever they earn beyond these needs they spend upon drink. What does such a race want with high wages? The worst quarters of all the large towns are inhabited by Irishmen. Whenever a district is distinguished for especial filth and especial ruinousness, the explorer may safely count upon meeting chiefly those Celtic faces which one recognises at the first glance as different from the Saxon physiognomy of the native, and the singing, aspirate brogue which the true Irishman never loses. I have occasionally heard the Irish-Celtic language spoken in the most thickly populated parts of Manchester. The majority of the families who live in cellars are almost everywhere of Irish origin. In short, the Irish have, as Dr. Kay says, discovered the minimum of the necessities of life, and are now making the English workers acquainted with it. Filth and drunkenness, too, they have brought with them. The lack of cleanliness, which is not so injurious in the country, where population is scattered, and which is the Irishman's second nature, becomes terrifying and gravely dangerous through its concentration here in the great cities. The Milesian deposits all garbage and filth before his house door here, as he was accustomed to do at home, and so accumulates the pools and dirt-heaps which disfigure the working- people's quarters and poison the air. He builds a pig-sty against the house wall as he did at home, and if he is prevented from doing this, he lets the pig sleep in the room with himself. This new and unnatural method of cattle-raising in cities is wholly of Irish origin. The Irishman loves his pig as the Arab his horse, with the difference that he sells it when it is fat enough to kill. Otherwise, he eats and sleeps with it, his children play with it, ride upon it, roll in the dirt with it, as any one may see a thousand times repeated in all the great towns of England. The filth and comfortlessness that prevail in the houses themselves it is impossible to describe. The Irishman is unaccustomed to the presence of furniture; a heap of straw, a few rags, utterly beyond use as clothing, suffice for his nightly couch. A piece of wood, a broken chair, an old chest for a table, more he needs not; a tea-kettle, a few pots and dishes, equip his kitchen, which is also his sleeping and living room. When he is in want of fuel, everything combustible within his reach, chairs, door-posts, mouldings, flooring, finds its way up the chimney. Moreover, why should he need much room? At home in his mud-cabin there was only one room for all domestic purposes; more than one room his family does not need in England. So the custom of crowding many persons into a single room, now so universal, has been chiefly implanted by the Irish immigration. And since the poor devil must have one enjoyment, and society has shut him out of all others, he betakes himself to the drinking of spirits. Drink is the only thing which makes the Irishman's life worth having, drink and his cheery care-free temperament; so he revels in drink to the point of the most bestial drunkenness. The southern facile character of the Irishman, his crudity, which places him but little above the savage, his contempt for all humane enjoyments, in which his very crudeness makes him incapable of sharing, his filth and poverty, all favour drunkenness. The temptation is great, he cannot resist it, and so when he has money he gets rid of it down his throat. What else should he do? How can society blame him when it places him in a position in which he almost of necessity becomes a drunkard; when it leaves him to himself, to his savagery?"

Most crimes in places like Liverpool are caused by the Irish gene. The immigrant Irish savages with low intelligence have brought mayhem wherever they emigrated to.

Only yesterday the Irish brought their savagery with them to Australia aand inflicted it upon themselves - http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30665359

So I agree fully with you about race. Thankfully I am only half Irish so I can safely say I am a bit more civilised and more intelligent. How about you?

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

depends on whose doing it surely ?

Nationalisation is done by a state. And a state is an entity which claims and asserts lawful authority over its territory.

So nationalisation is always lawful so long as the state is not voluntarily signed up to higher level legal agreements like the EU.

That is why North Korea and the USA can lawfully use firing squads and electric chairs on their own people. The state itself asserts what is legal in so far it can maintain the legitimate use of violence over its claimed territory.

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

Nationalisation is done by a state. And a state is an entity which claims and asserts lawful authority over its territory.

So nationalisation is always lawful so long as the state is not voluntarily signed up to higher level legal agreements like the EU.

That is why North Korea and the USA can lawfully use firing squads and electric chairs on their own people. The state itself asserts what is legal in so far it can maintain the legitimate use of violence over its claimed territory.

This is just your version of civics 101 . Were Pinochet's diktats lawful for example ? If there was a revolution here in the morning and a democratically government was overthrown would that be lawful ?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

This is just your version of civics 101 . Were Pinochet's diktats lawful for example ? If there was a revolution here in the morning and a democratically government was overthrown would that be lawful ?

Just because you or I disagree with a law does not mean it is unlawful.

The Egyptian "democratic" leadership were overthrown last year. The Turkish military and Pakistan military have, amongst others, frequently overthrown the elected governments and heads of state. But they were lawful in so far as they asserted the monopoly of violence and had various forms of legitimacy.

The gun makes the law, as the saying goes.

coolemon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And Cuba's expropriation of United Fruit Company assets?

Was that legal?

From what I can see with the Argentinian case you mention, there was a willingness of Argentina to go along with international agreements, contracts and to bow to external pressure. In addition, there was internal state defined laws surrounding the issue. That is quite different from the point being made here.

coolemon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So where does COINTELPRO fit into that? or Section 31 of the Broadcasting Act?

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

Just because you or I disagree with a law does not mean it is unlawful.

The Egyptian "democratic" leadership were overthrown last year. The Turkish military and Pakistan military have, amongst others, frequently overthrown the elected governments and heads of state. But they were lawful in so far as they asserted the monopoly of violence and had various forms of legitimacy.

The gun makes the law, as the saying goes.

we will just have to disagree then. If only life were that simple

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

we will just have to disagree then. If only life were that simple

Disagree about what?

Go to Egypt and see how lawful it is to go against the Military junta. Police, a court and a prison cell will await.

Learn a bit of civics 101 because you haven't the faintest.

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

Disagree about what?

Go to Egypt and see how lawful it is to go against the Military junta. Police, a court and a prison cell will await.

Learn a bit of civics 101 because you haven't the faintest.

I didn't ask you about Egypt , why not answer the questions you are asked and not always pose a different one.

BoJack Horseman

marienbad wrote: »

why not answer the questions you are asked and not always pose a different one.

Commies speak with forked tongue.

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

I didn't ask you about Egypt , why not answer the questions you are asked and not always pose a different one.

I am an anarchist. To me the state is illegitimate. Indeed to traditional Irish republicans the state is illegitimate.

But that is quite different than saying the state has no legitimacy and has no lawful authority. It does. And it does so primarily because it asserts a monopoly of violence. Its funny how when you are in a corner you attempt to shift the goalposts by wanting to isolate matters to Ireland. As if doing so will make your irrationality any more rational.

Do yourself a favour and start your civics 101 lesson here: http://anthropos-lab.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Weber-Politics-as-a-Vocation.pdf

Then come back with an informed opinion.

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

I am an anarchist. To me the state is illegitimate. Indeed to traditional Irish republicans the state is illegitimate.

But that is quite different than saying the state has no legitimacy and has no lawful authority. It does. And it does so primarily because it asserts a monopoly of violence. Its funny how when you are in a corner you attempt to shift the goalposts by wanting to isolate matters to Ireland. As if doing so will make your irrationality any more rational.

Do yourself a favour and start your civics 101 lesson here: http://anthropos-lab.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Weber-Politics-as-a-Vocation.pdf

Then come back with an informed opinion.

I'll tell you what '' I am an anarchist'' that statement alone alone rules you out of any meaningful conversation.

Come back to me when you have grown up.

Iwasfrozen

coolemon wrote: »

Only yesterday the Irish brought their savagery with them to Australia aand inflicted it upon themselves - http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30665359

So I agree fully with you about race. Thankfully I am only half Irish so I can safely say I am a bit more civilised and more intelligent. How about you?

Oh don't worry, they're Northern Irish. Not one of ours.

Jolly Red Giant

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Absolutely and deservedly so

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

We are big boys and girls - we can take it on the chin.

I have no problem spending time engaging in a political debate with anyone if it is done on the basis of being constructive and helping people get a better understanding of the political, social and economic outlook of different political ideas. I ignore the trolling type stuff that is based in prejudice rather than concrete criticism.

marienbad

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Absolutely and deservedly so


We are big boys and girls - we can take it on the chin.

I have no problem spending time engaging in a political debate with anyone if it is done on the basis of being constructive and helping people get a better understanding of the political, social and economic outlook of different political ideas. I ignore the trolling type stuff that is based in prejudice rather than concrete criticism.

and the stuff to which you have no answer I notice

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

and the stuff to which you have no answer I notice

Even if he did have answer you would just resort to self referential ageism to dismiss it. Why you even post in this thread I have no idea.

garhjw

So if the communists got into power and implemented their socialist state, how long would it take to implement? I imagine it would take a long time? Longer than 1 term in power? What happens if a capitalist party wins the following election?

karma_

marienbad wrote: »

I'll tell you what '' I am an anarchist'' that statement alone alone rules you out of any meaningful conversation.

Come back to me when you have grown up.

Grow up? Being an anarchist is a perfectly legitimate political position, hell being a nazi is one, even if you don't agree with it.

karma_

garhjw wrote: »

So if the communists got into power and implemented their socialist state, how long would it take to implement? I imagine it would take a long time? Longer than 1 term in power? What happens if a capitalist party wins the following election?

I wouldn't worry, there is major changes coming in the next 10 to 15 years that will have global impacts on society as energy becomes cheaper and easier to manufacture. A lot of the nonsense we know today will be irrelevant pretty soon.

garhjw

karma_ wrote: »

I wouldn't worry, there is major changes coming in the next 10 to 15 years that will have global impacts on society as energy becomes cheaper and easier to manufacture. A lot of the nonsense we know today will be irrelevant pretty soon.

I don't think that answers my question. Are you a communist? If so, can you answer the question?

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

I wouldn't worry, there is major changes coming in the next 10 to 15 years that will have global impacts on society as energy becomes cheaper and easier to manufacture. A lot of the nonsense we know today will be irrelevant pretty soon.

You have a crystal ball do you?

Jolly Red Giant

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Absolutely and deservedly so


We are big boys and girls - we can take it on the chin.

I have no problem spending time engaging in a political debate with anyone if it is done on the basis of being constructive and helping people get a better understanding of the political, social and economic outlook of different political ideas. I ignore the trolling type stuff that is based in prejudice rather than concrete criticism.

JRG, with all due respect, in questions posed to you regarding the economic aspects of a DPSE (your term) you were unable to explain or perhaps even understand the economic implications of what you were portraying. You also accepted (admirably) that you are not well versed in economics as a whole, and others on thread who had asked (perhaps loaded) questions in order to try to get a greater picture of this DPSE were mostly left without any clearer positive answers on the matter.

My second post on this thread asked you to refrain from the simple commutative error "This is where capitalism fails so therefore Socialism", but you seem unable to answer questions without mentioning capitalism. I'd urge you if possible to utterly refrain from mentioning capitalism when attempting to answer the economic questions posed to you.

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

Even if he did have answer you would just resort to self referential ageism to dismiss it. Why you even post in this thread I have no idea.

Well possibly because, unlike you going by your posts, I have lived a life in the real world . So I am denied the smug complacency of just living in books.

Jolly Red Giant

Deleted User wrote: »

JRG, with all due respect, in questions posed to you regarding the economic aspects of a DPSE (your term) you were unable to explain or perhaps even understand the economic implications of what you were portraying.

Emmet - with all due respect - I have answered the questions posed - what I have not done is answer the questions the way those opposed to a socialised economy want me to answer them - there is a difference.

You also accepted (admirably) that you are not well versed in economics as a whole, and others on thread who had asked (perhaps loaded) questions in order to try to get a greater picture of this DPSE were mostly left without any clearer positive answers on the matter.

I haven't studied economics in an academic fashion and I haven't studied the analysis of Marx on capitalism in detail - it would take years and I find e detailed study of economics drudgery - but that does not mean that I don't have an understanding about the general operation of a capitalist economy, the basis of the Marxist analysis of capitalism and an understanding of the difference between how a capitalist economy and a democratically planned socialised economy would work.

My second post on this thread asked you to refrain from the simple commutative error "This is where capitalism fails so therefore Socialism", but you seem unable to answer questions without mentioning capitalism. I'd urge you if possible to utterly refrain from mentioning capitalism when attempting to answer the economic questions posed to you.

it is and has been necessary to 'mention' capitalism for the simple reason that every question is couched in capitalist terms and the replies are expected with reference to a capitalist context. People ask for the 'numbers' but you cannot take the 'numbers' from a capitalist basis and transfer and extrapolate them into a socialised economy - it doesn't work and is like trying to ram a square peg into a round hole.

The contrast comes down to some basic differences -
1. A democratically planned socialised economy creates a stable economy that eliminates cyclical economic activity
2. A socialised economy utilises economic and human resources for e provision of need rather than the production of profit
3. A socialised economy eliminates wasteful expenditure on what are primarily non-productive aspects of the economy (e.g. Advertising)
4. A socialised economy is based on solidarity and cooperation and avoids the duplication caused by competition - it focuses resources on the provision of a need, not on the production of a profit in completion with others attempting to produce the same product or provide the same service for a profit.
5. A socialised economy eliminates speculation (i.e. gambling) and the damage it can and does inflict on the economy.
6. A socialised economy operates in the interest of the 99%

Etc.

marienbad

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Emmet - with all due respect - I have answered the questions posed - what I have not done is answer the questions the way those opposed to a socialised economy want me to answer them - there is a difference.


I haven't studied economics in an academic fashion and I haven't studied the analysis of Marx on capitalism in detail - it would take years and I find e detailed study of economics drudgery - but that does not mean that I don't have an understanding about the general operation of a capitalist economy, the basis of the Marxist analysis of capitalism and an understanding of the difference between how a capitalist economy and a democratically planned socialised economy would work.


it is and has been necessary to 'mention' capitalism for the simple reason that every question is couched in capitalist terms and the replies are expected with reference to a capitalist context. People ask for the 'numbers' but you cannot take the 'numbers' from a capitalist basis and transfer and extrapolate them into a socialised economy - it doesn't work and is like trying to ram a square peg into a round hole.

The contrast comes down to some basic differences -
1. A democratically planned socialised economy creates a stable economy that eliminates cyclical economic activity
2. A socialised economy utilises economic and human resources for e provision of need rather than the production of profit
3. A socialised economy eliminates wasteful expenditure on what are primarily non-productive aspects of the economy (e.g. Advertising)
4. A socialised economy is based on solidarity and cooperation and avoids the duplication caused by competition - it focuses resources on the provision of a need, not on the production of a profit in completion with others attempting to produce the same product or provide the same service for a profit.
5. A socialised economy eliminates speculation (i.e. gambling) and the damage it can and does inflict on the economy.
6. A socialised economy operates in the interest of the 99%

Etc.

Has any of this ,any of it , not even all of it worked anywhere ever ?

I can go through this one line by line with real world examples if you like ?

Or will you ignore this post also ?

garhjw

Can the communists please answer my questions? I asked nicely.

PopePalpatine

I'm just wondering...how would products be upgraded if there's no competition? I'd imagine that if every other constructor in F1 bar Mercedes quit after last season, Mercedes probably wouldn't upgrade last season's car.

To the Marxists in this thread, do you still see a place for research into improving existing products in your hypothetical Marxist state?

marienbad

karma_ wrote: »

I wouldn't worry, there is major changes coming in the next 10 to 15 years that will have global impacts on society as energy becomes cheaper and easier to manufacture. A lot of the nonsense we know today will be irrelevant pretty soon.

Major changes have been a factor for at least the last 200 years . The system will just absorb and adapt ,as it always does .

Godge

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Emmet - with all due respect - I have answered the questions posed - what I have not done is answer the questions the way those opposed to a socialised economy want me to answer them - there is a difference.


I haven't studied economics in an academic fashion and I haven't studied the analysis of Marx on capitalism in detail - it would take years and I find e detailed study of economics drudgery - but that does not mean that I don't have an understanding about the general operation of a capitalist economy, the basis of the Marxist analysis of capitalism and an understanding of the difference between how a capitalist economy and a democratically planned socialised economy would work.


it is and has been necessary to 'mention' capitalism for the simple reason that every question is couched in capitalist terms and the replies are expected with reference to a capitalist context. People ask for the 'numbers' but you cannot take the 'numbers' from a capitalist basis and transfer and extrapolate them into a socialised economy - it doesn't work and is like trying to ram a square peg into a round hole.

The contrast comes down to some basic differences -
1. A democratically planned socialised economy creates a stable economy that eliminates cyclical economic activity
2. A socialised economy utilises economic and human resources for e provision of need rather than the production of profit
3. A socialised economy eliminates wasteful expenditure on what are primarily non-productive aspects of the economy (e.g. Advertising)
4. A socialised economy is based on solidarity and cooperation and avoids the duplication caused by competition - it focuses resources on the provision of a need, not on the production of a profit in completion with others attempting to produce the same product or provide the same service for a profit.
5. A socialised economy eliminates speculation (i.e. gambling) and the damage it can and does inflict on the economy.
6. A socialised economy operates in the interest of the 99%

Etc.

You forget this one.

7. A socialised economy requires ordinary people to submit to the will of the State and eliminates personal economic freedom.

That one is the one that will prevent the creation of the socialist utopia.

CramCycle

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

1. A democratically planned socialised economy creates a stable economy that eliminates cyclical economic activity

Many economists would argue it's necessary for Infrastructure to improve. Without the cyclical nature, the DPSE seems to be happy with the status quo rather than progress.

2. A socialised economy utilises economic and human resources for e provision of need rather than the production of profit

And with human nature you will find that once need is fulfilled, we will want more, is this possible in the DPSE you mention but not fully detailed (which is fair enough, it's an Internet forum, few would read it through).

3. A socialised economy eliminates wasteful expenditure on what are primarily non-productive aspects of the economy (e.g. Advertising)

I find advertising useful, it is another driving force behind making myself and many people I work with more productive.

4. A socialised economy is based on solidarity and cooperation and avoids the duplication caused by competition - it focuses resources on the provision of a need, not on the production of a profit in completion with others attempting to produce the same product or provide the same service for a profit.

Without competition what drives improvements in both production time and quality. I think that if you think it through you will see more waste on the production line, might not be noticeable in the finished product but it will be there on the line.

5. A socialised economy eliminates speculation (i.e. gambling) and the damage it can and does inflict on the economy.

It also could be seen to reduce the innovation required to remain competitive therefore while not increasing waste, it does nothing to reduce it.

6. A socialised economy operates in the interest of the 99%

From your description it would seem to act in the interests of a far smaller percentage than that.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You have a crystal ball do you?

marienbad wrote: »

Major changes have been a factor for at least the last 200 years . The system will just absorb and adapt ,as it always does .

It's called science, computing power will start to drop off within 10 years but our ability to harness energy other than fossil fuels is going to start increasing exponentially. Make no mistake, the world we know is going to change very rapidly.

marienbad

karma_ wrote: »

It's called science, computing power will start to drop off within 10 years but our ability to harness energy other than fossil fuels is going to start increasing exponentially. Make no mistake, the world we know is going to change very rapidly.

It has been changing rapidly for the last 100 years . What makes you think this will be any different ?

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

But it is a waste of our resources. Cars arent a great example but look at mobile phones and the sheer volume of materials effectively wasted with new models every 6 months it seems. Very little of those resources are actually recycled. Let me guess you're a fan of planned obsolescence?

karma_

marienbad wrote: »

It has been changing rapidly for the last 100 years . What makes you think this will be any different ?

What has been changing? What are you asking me to clarify?

marienbad

karma_ wrote: »

What has been changing? What are you asking me to clarify?

You are the one the introduced the notion of rapid changes as if it was going to be a problem .

I am just asking why when the capitalist system has always adapted it would have a problem doing so in this world you predict

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

It's called science, computing power will start to drop off within 10 years but our ability to harness energy other than fossil fuels is going to start increasing exponentially. Make no mistake, the world we know is going to change very rapidly.

The only energy production that I can see that would be actionable to that extent would be nuclear fusion and frankly I don't see that coming within 10 to 15 years. Even if it did it won't change the make up of society...

karma_ wrote: »

But it is a waste of our resources. Cars arent a great example but look at mobile phones and the sheer volume of materials effectively wasted with new models every 6 months it seems. Very little of those resources are actually recycled. Let me guess you're a fan of planned obsolescence?

Ignore cars because they don't fit my narrative.

karma_

marienbad wrote: »

You are the one the introduced the notion of rapid changes as if it was going to be a problem .

I am just asking why when the capitalist system has always adapted it would have a problem doing so in this world you predict

But sure that's not the point I was making now was it and any system can adapt.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The only energy production that I can see that would be actionable to that extent would be nuclear fusion and frankly I don't see that coming within 10 to 15 years. Even if it did it won't change the make up of society...

Well you'd be wrong there gumbo, energy will become cheaper and cleaner and I imagine the big fossil fuel companies are going to see some hard times.

Ignore cars because they don't fit my narrative.

Sure there is waste with cars too, certainly not trying to manage a narrative, that strictly the domain of you lads. Anything to say on planned obsolescence at all? Or you working that narrative again?

marienbad

karma_ wrote: »

But sure that's not the point I was making now was it and any system can adapt.

You said

''I wouldn't worry, there is major changes coming in the next 10 to 15 years that will have global impacts on society as energy becomes cheaper and easier to manufacture. A lot of the nonsense we know today will be irrelevant pretty soon''

So what is your point if not change ? Or does every thing have to be like unravelling a ball of string with you ?

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

Well you'd be wrong there gumbo, energy will become cheaper and cleaner and I imagine the big fossil fuel companies are going to see some hard times.

What are you basing this on? What form of energy production are you even talking about and do you have anything to back up what you're claiming?

Or is this just a hunch?

Sure there is waste with cars too, certainly not trying to manage a narrative, that strictly the domain of you lads. Anything to say on planned obsolescence at all? Or you working that narrative again?

My phone came with a one year warranty, I don't expect a phone to last longer than a year.