New World Order
See other New World Order Articles
Title: Unless It Changes, Capitalism Will Starve Humanity By 2050
Source:
Forbes
URL Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/drewhan ... humanity-by-2050/#7bc8a19e4a36
Published: Feb 16, 2016
Author: Drew Hansen
Post Date: 2016-02-16 17:54:41 by Willie Green
Keywords: None
Views: 28561
Comments: 163
Capitalism has generated massive wealth for some, but it’s devastated the planet and has failed to improve human well-being at scale. • Species are going extinct at a rate 1,000 times faster than that of the natural rate over the previous 65 million years (see Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School). • Since 2000, 6 million hectares of primary forest have been lost each year. That’s 14,826,322 acres, or just less than the entire state of West Virginia (see the 2010 assessment by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN). • Even in the U.S., 15% of the population lives below the poverty line. For children under the age of 18, that number increases to 20% (see U.S. Census). • The world’s population is expected to reach 10 billion by 2050 (see United Nations’ projections). Capitalism is unsustainable in its current form. How do we expect to feed that many people while we exhaust the resources that remain? Human activities are behind the extinction crisis. Commercial agriculture, timber extraction, and infrastructure development are causing habitat loss and our reliance on fossil fuels is a major contributor to climate change. Public corporations are responding to consumer demand and pressure from Wall Street. Professors Christopher Wright and Daniel Nyberg published Climate Change, Capitalism and Corporations last fall, arguing that businesses are locked in a cycle of exploiting the world’s resources in ever more creative ways. “Our book shows how large corporations are able to continue engaging in increasingly environmentally exploitative behaviour by obscuring the link between endless economic growth and worsening environmental destruction,” they wrote. Yale sociologist Justin Farrell studied 20 years of corporate funding and found that “corporations have used their wealth to amplify contrarian views [of climate change] and create an impression of greater scientific uncertainty than actually exists.” Corporate capitalism is committed to the relentless pursuit of growth, even if it ravages the planet and threatens human health. We need to build a new system: one that will balance economic growth with sustainability and human flourishing. A new generation of companies are showing the way forward. They’re infusing capitalism with fresh ideas, specifically in regards to employee ownership and agile management. The Increasing Importance Of Distributed Ownership And Governance Fund managers at global financial institutions own the majority (70%) of the public stock exchange. These absent owners have no stake in the communities in which the companies operate. Furthermore, management-controlled equity is concentrated in the hands of a select few: the CEO and other senior executives. On the other hand, startups have been willing to distribute equity to employees. Sometimes such equity distribution is done to make up for less than competitive salaries, but more often it’s offered as a financial incentive to motivate employees toward building a successful company. According to The Economist, today’s startups are keen to incentivize via shared ownership: The central difference lies in ownership: whereas nobody is sure who owns public companies, startups go to great lengths to define who owns what. Early in a company’s life, the founders and first recruits own a majority stake—and they incentivise people with ownership stakes or performance-related rewards. That has always been true for startups, but today the rights and responsibilities are meticulously defined in contracts drawn up by lawyers. This aligns interests and creates a culture of hard work and camaraderie. Because they are private rather than public, they measure how they are doing using performance indicators (such as how many products they have produced) rather than elaborate accounting standards. This trend hearkens back to cooperatives where employees collectively owned the enterprise and participated in management decisions through their voting rights. Mondragon is the oft-cited example of a successful, modern worker cooperative. Mondragon’s broad-based employee ownership is not the same as an Employee Stock Ownership Plan. With ownership comes a say – control – over the business. Their workers elect management, and management is responsible to the employees. REI is a consumer cooperative that drew attention this past year when it opted out of Black Friday sales, encouraging its employees and customers to spend the day outside instead of shopping. I suspect that the most successful companies under this emerging form of capitalism will have less concentrated, more egalitarian ownership structures. They will benefit not only financially but also communally. Joint Ownership Will Lead To Collaborative Management The hierarchical organization of modern corporations will give way to networks or communities that make collaboration paramount. Many options for more fluid, agile management structures could take hold. For instance, newer companies are experimenting with alternative management models that seek to empower employees more than a traditional hierarchy typically does. Of these newer approaches, holacracy is the most widely known. It promises to bring structure and discipline to a peer-to-peer workplace. Holacracy “is a new way of running an organization that removes power from a management hierarchy and distributes it across clear roles, which can then be executed autonomously, without a micromanaging boss.” Companies like Zappos and Medium are in varying stages of implementing the management system. Valve Software in Seattle goes even further, allowing employees to select which projects they want to work on. Employees then move their desks to the most conducive office area for collaborating with the project team. These are small steps toward a system that values the employee more than what the employee can produce. By giving employees a greater say in decision-making, corporations will make choices that ensure the future of the planet and its inhabitants. 
(Credit: ZINIYANGE AUNTONY/AFP/Getty Images)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Willie Green (#0)
Capitalism has nothing on communism and socialism in this regard. In fact it doesn't even register on the starvation scale set by communism. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Thanks
You are clueless
You're welcome.
We need to build a new system: one that will balance economic growth with sustainability and human flourishing. capitalism isn't to blame for huma greed. There is nothing essentially wrong with the business model that takes unvestment by many to produce a product. However the idea that stockholders are entitled to super profits and CEO entitked to extravagant renumeration is what is essentially wrong with the system. What is needed is to measure more than profit and earnings per share and to truely determine whether real value is being gained from the endeavour. Whilst not being in favour of a carbon market there is a lot to be said for a tax or royalty or resources used including land so that there is an economic benefit to the community in general. This does exist in some extractive industries but should be more generally applied to limit unnecessary transportation of materials and waste. What I'm getting at is that in many industries there is massive waste and that waste is not valued and therefore all waste that isn't recycled should be taxed. If you have to dig a ton of dirt to gain an ounce of gold you should pay for the ton of dirt, niether should you be able to pile that spoil up in man made mountains
You are clueless Says the commie village idiot. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
We need to build a new system: one that will balance economic growth with sustainability and human flourishing. capitalism isn't to blame for huma greed. The comrades conveniently forget exactly how communism worked in the USSR. Indeed people owned nothing and had state constructed, managed and provided housing. Indeed like most people everywhere, including those in so-called inner city ghettos in the U.S., Ivan and Natalia took care of their assigned housing quarters, keeping them clean, maintaining and enhancing their inner living spaces to the best of their financial capability. But the outer "public areas" of the state owned and maintained housing apartments and complexes, including stairwells, hallways and, where present, elevators (if working) were run down, unmaintained and often littered sh*tholes. It was my pleasure to have been invited to dinners and parties at more than a few of these public apartments. Irrespective of their economic status the people were gracious hosts and took pride in what was theirs (even if just temporarily and in name only). No-one, but no-one, felt any personal responsibility for what was just outside their front door and the rest of the state owned public access areas. For all of its shortcomings capitalism expands one's sense of responsibility for his private and public surroundings. And that's another manifestation of human nature. The State can never, ever fulfill, much less equal, the sense responsibility that comes with a sense (real or perceived) of ownership. Simply stated people value their private property and capitalism is the single economic systems that fosters broad, mass ownership of private property AND an expectation, if not demand, for the maintenance of public properties. The real evil of communism was that it ignored human nature and consciously worked to kill the individual human spirit. Socialism is not that far behind communism is this regard, it just is less of a heavy hand on the individual spirit, sense of accomplishment and sense of ownership. Every Russian and citizen of the former USSR knows the story of a bucket full of live crabs. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
One look at the title and I knew it had to Willie or A Hole that posted it. Mmmm...Forbes won't sponsor anti-capitalist nonsense. The clickbaity title is a bit inaccurate. The writer advocates reforming capitalism toward sustainability, not abolishing it to move to socialism.
It's just one small step for man to get there - a very small step. Sustainability comes when there is a demand for it. And clearly there is a growing demand, at least for those people that can afford it. The masses in India, China, Russia, etc. do not seem to GAS about sustainability, they simply can't afford it. When it comes to a conscious choice of what to and/or how to between gun point or Adam Smith's invisible hand, the hand is much more effective and sustainable than the gun. Human history bears this out over and over again. The government can't make you value what you have but it sure can make you value what you no longer have. By way of a small example, sustainability has caused the demise of the Hawaiian pineapples, which were arguably among the very best in the world. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
It can't become a reality until we can dream of it, speak of it, implement it. I grant your points and the agenda of some players but you can't dismiss their argument out of hand entirely, regardless of the fate of Hawaiian pineapples.
We all agreee that communism is a system of government that has been tried and rejected. However the absense of communism is not capitalism. Socialism has been successful in varying degrees. The fact is unbridled capitalism is just as evil as communism or unbridled socialism. We can agree that personal ownership of property is a natural right, however we have also determined that government is desirable for the collective good and to exercise its functions government needs to own property. It is undesirable for government to own the means of production excepting in wartime, however depending upon scale it may be necessary for government to participate in certain enterprise, at least until an industry is established. This is not socialism. We need to develop a system that has a social conscience so that heavy handed regulation is not necessary to ensure that individual rights are not infringed. Capitalism has demonstrated that it does not respect or demand ethical behaviour. Therefore individuals cannot be allowed to self regulate and government has proven to be ineffective in forseeing the need to regulate. Lets look to apply a simple test. Is any person likely to suffer losss or damage or injury by these actions, if so, then the activity cannot be undertaken whether it is profitable or not
I grant your points and the agenda of some players but you can't dismiss their argument out of hand entirely, regardless of the fate of Hawaiian pineapples. So go the Hawaiian pineapples so goes the world. Some dreamed of sustainability, some of having Hawaiian pineapples. Guess who won. Correct, those that dreamed of sustainability, spoke of it and implemented it through legislation via the ballot box. Now there is virtually nothing those of us who dream of the pineapples can do about it, other than pay a fortune to visit Hawaii and buy a pineapple in a local market during the season. They that have a fortune and/or live there still have it both ways. They just f*cked it up for the rest of us. Those that can afford sustainability or are not affected by it don't GAS about the rest of us. Life's a bitch that way, no? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I don't think we all agree on that. I am pretty sure Willie Boy a A Boris don't. "We need to develop a system that has a social conscience so that heavy handed regulation is not necessary to ensure that individual rights are not infringed." Good luck with that as no system will ever do what only individual humans acting in some degree of concert can do. Kumbaya and good luck to you. What really will work is pricing in the impact of the utilization of a resource and/or asset has on living conditions on the planet. As of now only regulation, i.e. gun point, is doing that not Adam Smith's Invisible Hand. And only the haves, not the have nots that are playing in the game. Please see post #12. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
That's not total true. there are plenty examples of the collective actions of Joe Average have punished or even put out of business unethical players without the need for legislation. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
This is really funny as it has been capitalism has been feeding much of the world for quite sometime now. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
should this be so it is because it is profitable to do so, but then it depends on how you define "much". has capitalism donated food to Etheopia? does capitalism feed China or India? I think by much you mean the middle class of the western world. Does capitalism produce surpluses because government subsidies them, they would not do it otherwise.. the argument is flawed
Go to Russia and see the effects of socialism. I would like to see you on your knees thanking the Lord you were born in Ameerica.
"A silly idea is current that good people do not know what temptation means. This is an obvious lie. Only those who try to resist temptation know how strong it is... A man who gives in to temptation after five minutes simply does not know what it would have been like an hour later. That is why bad people, in one sense, know very little about badness. They have lived a sheltered life by always giving in.” ― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
You will not see me thanking the Lord for being born in america, I was born in a better place, one that can see the rationale for ensuring that everyone is looked after. Call it socialism if you like, but I think of it as responsibility. You can scoff but communism might be a step on the path of reform for some places, China for example; the rotten system had to be swept away. This can give rise to excesses as it did in Russia and China and it too must be swept away. The great difficulty is controlling capitalism so it produces wealth for all and not just wealth for some
Yeah, Irish famine was funny. And slave trade was even funnier, opium for Chinks, Indian lands for free, Belgian liberation of Kongo savages. One could go for long. Ah, the golden era of free market capitalism, before Reds and Pinkos ruined it. And TooCon, no verbal insults, please.
Don't say it. Cuba under Batista was a swanky paradise.
Russia was poorer than America before Communism, and there are some quite capitalist countries in Africa or Latin America that were poorer than both. But why do you thank God? That you were born in America and not in Haiti, is presumably a result of your hard work and entrepreneurship.
IDM it's being done by a capitalistic system, not a commie or socialist system but a capitalistic one. b"ut then it depends on how you define "much". Try this on for size, the U.S. is the world's largest agricultural exporter in the world. And not by a liitle, in 2008 the value of U.S. agricultural exports was $118.3 billion vs. the next country at just $79 billion. China was 10th at $35.9 billion. How do you like dem apples? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Bwahahahahahahaha.... He doesn't have to, you insult yourself every time you post. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Yeah, you are right. Under communism Russia and China both produced a broad and deep middle class with a high standard of living, broader and deeper than the U.S. BTW, what color is the sky in your world? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Here's some more apples for your pie. For the period of 1988-2009 the U.S. has been the world's largest supplier of food aid - and not by just a little. The U.S. was consistently 5 to 10 times higher in tonnage each year than the 2nd place European Community as a whole and 10 to 100 times higher each year than China. India has occasionally been in the top 25 over this period. Russia has only sporadically been in the top 25 supplier countries and only since 2003. So suck on those facts for awhile. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
A few more facts for you to chew on.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
It's an argument worth having. I just don't agree that "sustainability" is no more than a code word for "socialism". This is a classic legal problem of the commons, how to use a common resource for the benefit of all without destroying it for everyone. Let's look at the crisis in groundwater around the world via some articles posted here at LF. In California (and China and some Arab countries), wells are going dry due to overpumping. China is socialist, California (more or less) capitalist, Saudi Arabia theocratic. Yet all three are having to drill new water wells several miles deep and facing shortages. LF: California Land Subsidence Hits Record Levels, nativist nationalist, 2015 LF: US to overtake Saudi Arabia in oil as China's water runs dry, A K A Stone, 2012 LF: Pumped beyond limits, many U.S. aquifers in decline, TooConservative, 2015 LF: Seas Beneath The Sands, A K A Stone, 2007 LF: Time, Water Running Out for America's Biggest Aquifer, war, 2010 So is the depletion of groundwater by overpumping a socialism problem, a capitalism problem, a theocracy problem, or a sustainability problem? I'd say sustainability is the culprit, far more so than political or economic systems.
Him go and get a dose of reality, that will never happen. None of the good little drones have ever left their basements... Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
Before Communism, Russia and China were worse for most people. So was Vietnam. What Communism excels at is getting everybody into a house, getting everybody basic health care, getting everybody enough to eat, and getting everybody literate. The Communists have made sure to shore up the bottom to a universal standard of decency. Ever been through the Tijuana slums, where people are living in cardboard huts, or seen images of the poor places in India, where people are literally starving and living in mud? Well, the Communists take all of the property and redistribute the wealth, and they bring up the bottom. China always had famines. Their last one was under Mao, during the transition. They don't have famines anymore, because Communists are good at shoring up the bottom. Illiteracy rates in poor countries are high, but Communists educate everybody and get to high literacy rates in a generation. The POSITIVE legacy of Communism in all of those countries is that it took what was a completely backward, half-literate society that had starvation and people perishing from the elements, and brought everybody, all the way to the bottom, up to a working class standard of living. And that is quite an achievement, one that capitalst countries do not achieve. The bottom rung in America is more miserable than the bottom rung was in Soviet Russia. That said, once those levels of need satisfaction of the bottom have been rounded up, and everybody else has been rounded down, Communism hasn't gone anywhere, because it has always gotten entangled with war with the rest of the world, and war is expensive. China is a new thing, though. Thanks to size and nuclear weapons, the ChiCom homeland is a secure sanctuary, and the Chinese seem to be transitioning from universal working class Communism to middle class Communism. The nationalist leaven in that bread makes the Chinese model unappealing to neighbors, but everybody loves money, and the Chinese have great gobs of that, so even Goldman Sachs is eagerly sucking at that tit. Cuba, for that matter, seems to also have succeeded at it, and that in spite of having been under a US embargo. The US ideological fear was not that the Communists would take over the world. It was that they would SUCCEED. We did what we could to ensure that it wouldn't, but we were not successful in killing it in the crib. European socialism takes the Communist ideal of rounding up the bottom to a standard of decency, but retaining considerable upward mobility. It's an appealing model, but there is not enough wealth redistribution to make it actually sustainable. Trump sees it, and realizes that getting the American lower class back into factories here, at the expense of cheap goods at the store, is a national security issue. None of the other Republicans see it, or will.
Russia is quickly catching up, sanctions are helping her. (figure for 2015/2016 is not complete yet for obvious reason)
They do not want to see, and they brainwashed population to be scared of any correction as a Socialist conspiracy. Marx said that capitalists are the most shortsighted and self destructing ruling class (compared for example with the aristocracy that they replaced).
Let's recall the absolutely miserable record of those countries like the USSR and Chine who took Marx's political and economic prescriptions seriously. They were a disaster for all involved other than the top elite. Even the elite did far more poorly than if they had pursued a reasonable social-welfare state within a capitalist framework. Which is exactly what eventually happened to the major communist countries.
Returning to my earlier post on sustainability and the growing global aquifer crisis, I thought I'd cite an example of the Boston Common from colonial America which applied to Britain and its empire around the world. This is an example of the "tragedy of the commons", well-known in politics and law. The concept of the commons is generally taken to mean any shared and unregulated resources such as atmosphere, oceans, rivers, fish stocks, or even an office refrigerator; as distinct to the centuries-old use of the word "commons" when colloquially used to indicate formally-recognised common land in its collective sense. The tragedy of the commons concept is often cited in connection with sustainable development, meshing economic growth and environmental protection, as well as in the debate over global warming. It has also been used in analyzing behavior in the fields of economics, evolutionary psychology, anthropology, game theory, politics, taxation and sociology. The term tragedy of the commons was probably coined by Lloyd and later used by Hardin in his article.[1] Although commons certainly have been known to collapse due to overuse (such as in over-fishing), many examples of commons exist where commons prosper without collapse. Elinor Ostrom stated that it is often claimed that only private ownership or government regulation can prevent the tragedy. It is however in the interests of the users of a commons to keep the common running and complex social schemes are often invented by the users for maintaining them efficiently.[3][4]
TooConservative Exactly,--- " a reasonable social-welfare state within a capitalist framework", is a workable system... 'Three hots & a cot' provided for those who need it, --- and dog eat dog (within the rule of constitutional law) for everyone else. Everybody wins...
For your information, Russia was communist, not socialist. If YOU want to see the effects of socialism, visit Scandanavia... it's really quite nice there and a helluva lot better than the banana republic fascism that the GOP is importing from our southern border.
Problem is that capitalist class is incapable to be rational by itself. They devour the substance of the poor and devour each other. Only external threats like in the past from Fascism and Communism combined with smart government leadership like FDR, can force them to allow social development and to save the system from collapse or regressive oppression. Talking that idealized market system is fine, that its problems are abnormal to be blamed on malicious plots, weather and wickedness of individuals or some backward groups, is same as saying that Communism is perfect and that its faults are caused by others.
They also advance science and technology, bringing forward new solutions to isolation and hunger. No one ever suggests that "capitalism" would become self-aware and self-governing. There will always be abusers and the need to protect the commons we all share.
Similarly to Bernie Sanders' lifelong love affair with Danish "socialism", you come up with this old chestnut of the Left. You did notice that Denmark replied to Sanders claiming them as a successful social-democrat country by rejecting entirely the idea that they are socialist in any meaningful sense. They rightly consider their country and economy as a capitalist country. They are also pretty nationalistic by any measure, something we see in how they are rejecting the Mideast migrants who try to settle there. They have no intention of sharing their little country and its welfare state with non-Danes. That kinda deflated Sanders and he stopped talking about Denmark so much.
Exactly,--- " a reasonable social-welfare state within a capitalist framework", is a workable system... 'Three hots & a cot' provided for those who need it, --- and dog eat dog (within the rule of constitutional law) for everyone else. Everybody wins... Not if they (we) are restrained by a system of constitutional law that protects individual rights. You're not making a cogent argument above, imo. Try again..
wow the street scenes are the same as they are today . same cars (except now they are classic cars ) ,same poverty . "If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
Comments (41 - 163) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestUnless It Changes, Capitalism Will Starve Humanity By 2050
#2. To: Willie Green (#0)
#3. To: SOSO (#1)
Capitalism has nothing on communism and socialism in this regard. In fact it doesn't even register on the starvation scale set by communism.
#4. To: A Pole (#2)
#5. To: Willie Green (#0)
Corporate capitalism is committed to the relentless pursuit of growth, even if it ravages the planet and threatens human health.
#6. To: A Pole (#3)
Capitalism has nothing on communism and socialism in this regard. In fact it doesn't even register on the starvation scale set by communism.
#7. To: paraclete, Willie Green, A Pole (#5)
#8. To: SOSO (#1)
Title: Unless It Changes, Capitalism Will Starve Humanity By 2050
Capitalism has nothing on communism and socialism in this regard. In fact it doesn't even register on the starvation scale set by communism.
#9. To: TooConservative (#8)
The writer advocates reforming capitalism toward sustainability, not abolishing it to move to socialism.
#10. To: SOSO (#9)
Sustainability comes when there is a demand for it. And clearly there is a growing demand, at least for those people that can afford it. The masses in India, China, Russia, etc. do not seem to GAS about sustainability, they simply can't afford it.
#11. To: SOSO (#7)
The real evil of communism
#12. To: TooConservative (#10)
It can't become a reality until we can dream of it, speak of it, implement it.
#13. To: paraclete, Willie Green, A Pole (#11)
We all agreee that communism is a system of government that has been tried and rejected.
#14. To: paraclete (#11)
Capitalism has demonstrated that it does not respect or demand ethical behaviour.
#15. To: All (#0)
Unless It Changes, Capitalism Will Starve Humanity By 2050
#16. To: SOSO (#15)
capitalism has been feeding much of the world for quite sometime now
#17. To: Willie Green (#0)
#18. To: GarySpFC (#17)
I would like to see you on your knees thanking the Lord you were born in Ameerica.
#19. To: SOSO, paraclete, Willie Green, Vicomte13, TooConservative (#15)
This is really funny as it has been capitalism has been feeding much of the world for quite sometime now.
#20. To: paraclete (#18)
You can scoff but communism might be a step on the path of reform for some places, China for example; the rotten system had to be swept away.
#21. To: GarySpFC (#17)
Go to Russia and see the effects of socialism. I would like to see you on your knees thanking the Lord you were born in Ameerica.
#22. To: paraclete, Willie Green, A Pole, All (#16)
Does capitalism produce surpluses because government subsidies them, they would not do it otherwise..
#23. To: A Pole, paraclete, Willie Green, Vicomte13, TooConservative (#19)
And TooCon, no verbal insults, please.
#24. To: paraclete, GarySpFC (#18)
The great difficulty is controlling capitalism so it produces wealth for all and not just wealth for some
#25. To: paraclete, Willie Green, A Pole, TooConservative, All (#22)
#26. To: paraclete, Willie Green, A Pole, TooConservative, All (#25)
#27. To: SOSO, paraclete, Willie Green, A Pole, nativist nationalist, A K A Stone, Pericles (#26)
A few more facts for you to chew on.
LF: What California can learn from Saudi Arabia’s water mystery, Willie Green, 2015
#28. To: GarySpFC (#17)
Go to Russia and see the effects of socialism.
#29. To: SOSO (#24)
(Edited)
#30. To: SOSO (#25)
Russia has only sporadically been in the top 25 supplier countries and only since 2003.
#31. To: Vicomte13 (#29)
None of the other Republicans see it, or will.
#32. To: A Pole (#31)
Marx said that capitalists are the most shortsighted and self destructing ruling class (compared for example with the aristocracy that they replaced).
#33. To: All, SOSO, paraclete, Willie Green, A Pole, nativist nationalist, A K A Stone, Pericles, nolu chan, Vicomte13 (#27)
The Common's purpose has changed over the years. It was once owned by William Blaxton (often given the modernized spelling "Blackstone"), the first European settler of Boston, until it was bought from him by the Puritan founders of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. During the 1630s, it was used by many families as a cow pasture. However, this only lasted for a few years, as affluent families bought additional cows, which led to overgrazing, a real-life example of the Tragedy of the commons.[8] After grazing was limited in 1646 to 70 cows at a time,[9] the Boston Common continued to host cows until they were formally banned from it in 1830 by Mayor Harrison Gray Otis.[10] The tragedy of the commons is a situation where individuals acting independently and rationally according to their own self-interest behave contrary to the best interests of the whole by depleting some common resource. The concept was based upon an essay written in 1833 by the Victorian economist William Forster Lloyd, who used a hypothetical example of the effects of unregulated grazing on common land in the British Isles.[1] This became widely-known over a century later due to an article written by the ecologist Garrett Hardin in 1968.[2]
So this argument about sustainability is not particularly unique to capitalism and it is certainly nothing new in public policy.
#34. To: TooConservative (#32)
Let's recall the absolutely miserable record of those countries like the USSR and Chine who took Marx's political and economic prescriptions seriously. They were a disaster for all involved other than the top elite. Even the elite did far more poorly than if they had pursued a reasonable social-welfare state within a capitalist framework. Which is exactly what eventually happened to the major communist countries.
#35. To: GarySpFC, CZ82, A Pole (#17)
Go to Russia and see the effects of socialism.
#36. To: TooConservative, tpaine (#34)
Exactly,--- " a reasonable social-welfare state within a capitalist framework", is a workable system...
#37. To: A Pole (#36)
Problem is that capitalist class is incapable to be rational by itself. They devour the substance of the poor and devour each other.
#38. To: Willie Green (#35)
If YOU want to see the effects of socialism, visit Scandanavia...
#39. To: A Pole, Y'ALL (#36)
Problem is that capitalist class is incapable to be rational by itself. They devour the substance of the poor and devour each other.
Only external threats like in the past from Fascism and Communism combined with smart government leadership like FDR, can force them to allow social development and to save the system from collapse or regressive oppression. --- Talking that idealized market system is fine, that its problems are abnormal to be blamed on malicious plots, weather and wickedness of individuals or some backward groups, is same as saying that Communism is perfect and that its faults are caused by others.
#40. To: A Pole (#20)
Don't say it. Cuba under Batista was a swanky paradise.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]