1
   

Capitalism Will Bring World Peace

 
 
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 02:15 pm
Beyond Burgers And Computers

Dell Wikipedia: Theory of Conflict Prevention

The theory is that, with war becoming very expensive for nations in the 21st century, and global supply chains becoming an very important part of economies, nations can't afford to go to war with each others any more, to not interrupt business.
Examples are the China-Taiwan situation and the India-Pakistan conflict in 2001.

This is from The World is Flat by Thomas Friedman, I will probably do a review in the Book Review section.

# Tom Friedman has a theory: Two countries invested in a business together by being part of the same global supply-chain are less likely to go to war, as they are now heavily invested in the success of the business venture. Any interruption to that supply chain would be critical.
# Supply chains have evolved and they have effected politics the stability of countries, such as Asian countries. These countries are part of many supply chains and are good business.
# The price of war is dramatically higher than it used to be and many countries must consider the economic effect of a war on their country.
# For example, the China-Taiwan relations and India-Pakistan. These are two examples of how the globalization and supply-chains have caused countries to think rationally about the cost of war and have arrived at a solution.

So I'm looking forward to a bright and interesting future for mankind. All of the world producing and consuming is a win-win situation for everybody. People in poor nations get a better standard of living. But it will not be a matter of charity for those in rich nations as we will have to improve ourselves to keep up with the competition. Which is the best thing that can happen for a person.
I do see some potential problems:
- Lack of resources could pose a problem. But I think new technology can solve that, both on the energy as on the materials side.
- The education systems of most western nations is in the hand of liberals, that teach rejection of capitalism as evil.
- Stability is essential. Forces that wish to destroy it can have huge detrimental effects with little effort, trust can easily be destroyed.
- It is human nature to rather want others to have less than to have more themselves. This was tested in a study.
- We would have to restrain from government restrictions of capitalism for the sake of special interest, in the name of whatever - probably under the guise of equality.
- What I just named the "1984 Factor". Which means that with total equality of opportunity, one can only be "better" than others through effort and talent. If an oligarchy doesn't want that, it would keep others in poverty and ignorance through an Orwellian government.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 21,756 • Replies: 629
No top replies

 
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 02:29 pm
@EmperorNero,
Ive just heard the first sound of spring a cuckoo.It claims its ground by making a silly cuckoo sound, over and over again..
A little destitute country in Africa with no natural resources, begging is a growth industry and dying of hunger a national sport..My o my they read a new contract between china and the usa will bring them wealth and stability, how? a few ask why? is the mumble of its weakest.
OOO i have just read that economic cooperation will lead to world peace and prosperity for allll.... Cuckoo cuckooo...
EmperorNero
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 02:31 pm
@EmperorNero,
I have suspected such an answer from you xris, what can I do to pull you over from the dark side?

First off, Africa has great natural resources. They will be somewhat behind, but they will havethe same chances as the west and Asia.
Lower standard of living means lower wages, which is like a magnet to business.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 02:43 pm
@EmperorNero,
EmperorNero wrote:
I have suspected such an answer from you xris, what can I do to pull you over from the dark side?

First off, Africa has great natural resources. They will be somewhat behind, but they will havethe same chances as the west and Asia.
Lower standard of living means lower wages, which is like a magnet to business.
Exploitation is the magnet and not all have resources..then if they have its another reason to exploit them...oil in nigeria..diamonds in S.A......Oil,Sudan and Darfur...
I walk in the light of reality not the darkness of dreamland..
EmperorNero
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 02:59 pm
@EmperorNero,
It's IQ that creates wealth in the 21st century. The reasons the Taiwan and India are economic power houses is that they dont have netural resources, so they had to rely on talent and effort.
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 03:10 pm
@EmperorNero,
I think the success of certain Asian economies is more to do with work ethic than IQ.
EmperorNero
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 03:13 pm
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;60024 wrote:
I think the success of certain Asian economies is more to do with work ethic than IQ.


By IQ I don't just mean intelligence. It's everything that is of value for knowledge-based work.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 03:15 pm
@EmperorNero,
EmperorNero wrote:
It's IQ that creates wealth in the 21st century. The reasons the Taiwan and India are economic power houses is that they dont have netural resources, so they had to rely on talent and effort.
Slum dogs, remember its in India...They do their best in a capitalist economy but their hearts are well left of yours.Do you think a company contract will stop the border conflicts between Pakistan and India, in the north???I dont think so.....
0 Replies
 
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 03:54 pm
@EmperorNero,
EmperorNero wrote:
By IQ I don't just mean intelligence. It's everything that is of value for knowledge-based work.

I have no wish to deprive you of your own peculiar understanding of certain terms - but if you want to use IQ to refer to skills and talents that may actually have more to do with willingness to work long hours, adopt a high degree of discipline, accept one's place, manual dexterity or company loyalty then you aren't facing up to the real reasons why manufacturing seems to be becoming the preserve of Asian societies.

Based on the incredible generalisations and right-wing utopian agenda of your opening post I have to wonder if you are flattering yourself that knowledge-based work fulfills more roles than simple hard graft and manufacturing - because to face the possibility that admitting the opposite might be true would be to admit that the western world has handed the eastern world the ability to call the shots in the future.

It may turn out that an optimistic model of capitalism's benefits to human relations might be right. However, if it is not the case that technology can be developed to counter the environmental impact of production and consumption then the resulting scarcity of resources will certainly result in great human misery and maybe even sweeping adjustments to our civilisation.

There seem to me to be two polar philosophies at work here:

A) We certainly benefit in the short term from producing and consuming. Thusfar technological advance has kept us comfortable (when it hasn't been making war and genocide easier) so just put your faith in it being able to do so for the future.

B) The comfort afforded to us by our wealth and technology have given rise to an unprecedented rise in population, and a resulting drain on resources used up in our manufacturing processes or poisoned by them, so prepare for an unstable future.

It strikes me that if there is any likelihood of an environmental collapse occuring then curbing production and consumption will be of more benefit to long term human harmony than encouraging it. If people are taught to require and desire resources and resources run out - then we are set at one another's throats. If people are taught to use resources sparingly and they don't run out - we are no worse off than we were before.
EmperorNero
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 04:56 pm
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;60032 wrote:
I have no wish to deprive you of your own peculiar understanding of certain terms - but if you want to use IQ to refer to skills and talents that may actually have more to do with willingness to work long hours, adopt a high degree of discipline, accept one's place, manual dexterity or company loyalty then you aren't facing up to the real reasons why manufacturing seems to be becoming the preserve of Asian societies.

Based on the incredible generalisations and right-wing utopian agenda of your opening post I have to wonder if you are flattering yourself that knowledge-based work fulfills more roles than simple hard graft and manufacturing - because to face the possibility that admitting the opposite might be true would be to admit that the western world has handed the eastern world the ability to call the shots in the future.

It may turn out that an optimistic model of capitalism's benefits to human relations might be right. However, if it is not the case that technology can be developed to counter the environmental impact of production and consumption then the resulting scarcity of resources will certainly result in great human misery and maybe even sweeping adjustments to our civilisation.

There seem to me to be two polar philosophies at work here:

A) We certainly benefit in the short term from producing and consuming. Thusfar technological advance has kept us comfortable (when it hasn't been making war and genocide easier) so just put your faith in it being able to do so for the future.

B) The comfort afforded to us by our wealth and technology have given rise to an unprecedented rise in population, and a resulting drain on resources used up in our manufacturing processes or poisoned by them, so prepare for an unstable future.

It strikes me that if there is any likelihood of an environmental collapse occuring then curbing production and consumption will be of more benefit to long term human harmony than encouraging it. If people are taught to require and desire resources and resources run out - then we are set at one another's throats. If people are taught to use resources sparingly and they don't run out - we are no worse off than we were before.
[*]

What I'm trying to say, is that we shouldn't project todays problems on tomorrow. We cannot anticipate what progress brings - new solutions and new problems. What is the alternative?

And thanks for the term utopian right-winger, I think I will use that from now.
0 Replies
 
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 05:11 pm
@EmperorNero,
You're welcome, and for the record I certainly think right-wing utopianism has a better track record than left-wing utopianism.

The scientific discoveries of the last 100 years are beneficial and impressive on the whole (though note that the last century also utilised science to commit larger wars and greater atrocities than at any other period of history - there were genocides before, but the Nazis could not have wiped out millions without cattle trucks and poison gas, there have been tyrannies before, but Stalin could not have populated his gulags without trains and communication systems).

Anyway - let's agree that it's largely been a pleasurable and beneficial journey for plenty of people around the world and that we can reasonably expect to see greater acheivements in the future.

These benefits were all brought to us by use of scientific method.

What does this same method say to us about the environmental impact of the rather wasteful process which fuels economic growth?
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 05:18 pm
@Dave Allen,
I wouldn't say strictly capitalism, but at least trade will bring peace.

This is why, in the other thread, I asked what we (the US, but really any developed nation) would really need an army for if we were to eliminate our own army. It seems that our army largely either starts wars or breeds the resentment that leads to wars.

No nation powerful enough to conquer another developed nation would do so for fear of devastating their own economy. As it concerns the US, there is no nation that can manage these two requirements: 1) They have a standing army strong enough to combat an American national guard or private militia that would be mobilized in the case of invasion 2) They would not suffer devastating consequences to their economy.
EmperorNero
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 05:29 pm
@Mr Fight the Power,
Mr. Fight the Power;60047 wrote:
I wouldn't say strictly capitalism, but at least trade will bring peace.

This is why, in the other thread, I asked what we (the US, but really any developed nation) would really need an army for if we were to eliminate our own army. It seems that our army largely either starts wars or breeds the resentment that leads to wars.

No nation powerful enough to conquer another developed nation would do so for fear of devastating their own economy. As it concerns the US, there is no nation that can manage these two requirements: 1) They have a standing army strong enough to combat an American national guard or private militia that would be mobilized in the case of invasion 2) They would not suffer devastating consequences to their economy.


I agree that eventually all nations would slowly dismantle their military, simply to save the cost. - If this works.
But in todays world, the US dismantling their military would be devastating, because the bad guys wouldn't. I'm more for 'peace through superior fire-power' for now. I don't think the world as it is today would be nice just because the US stops being mean. But thats a different debate.
0 Replies
 
nameless
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 07:27 pm
@EmperorNero,
EmperorNero;60011 wrote:
Capitalism Will Bring World Peace

Well, capitalism, as practiced in Amerikkka has certainly shown the natural consequences of selfishness and violence with which such a philosophy naturally, must end. Quite antithetical to 'peace'.
The proof is in the puddin'/state of the world economy as effected by capitalism. Some have too little because some have too much! Not a peaceful situation when the bellies of the poor rumble and they can watch the rich throw their excess resources in the trash after 'urinating' on it!
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 07:32 pm
@nameless,
Capitalism, the economic theory based entirely on self-interested competition, will somehow bring an end to armed self-interested competition?

If it's peace you want, go in peace. Act peacefully. Capitalism requires violence - not necessarily physical violence, but necessarily economic violence.
EmperorNero
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 05:04 am
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;60044 wrote:
You're welcome, and for the record I certainly think right-wing utopianism has a better track record than left-wing utopianism.


True. But that reminds me of the pilot average life span statistic conundrum.
Some years ago, let's say in 1985, a statistic found that commercial pilots have a very low average life span. They were wondering what about being a pilot makes you die young. But the simple reason was that commercial pilots were only around in great numbers since around the sixties. So the only way to get in the average life span statistic was by dying young. Pilots were unlikely to be 90, so statistically commercial pilots died young.
The same with right-wing utopianism. It just wasn't around long enough to have much of a track record.

Dave Allen;60044 wrote:
The scientific discoveries of the last 100 years are beneficial and impressive on the whole (though note that the last century also utilised science to commit larger wars and greater atrocities than at any other period of history - there were genocides before, but the Nazis could not have wiped out millions without cattle trucks and poison gas, there have been tyrannies before, but Stalin could not have populated his gulags without trains and communication systems).


Yes, I'm saying: Not project todays problems on the future. We will have new solutions and new problems.

Not that it matters, but I think the big increase in murdering ability through technology was the century before.

Dave Allen;60044 wrote:
Anyway - let's agree that it's largely been a pleasurable and beneficial journey for plenty of people around the world and that we can reasonably expect to see greater acheivements in the future.

These benefits were all brought to us by use of scientific method.


Well, we still have the potential of an aristocracy who doesn't want to put in the effort to compete in a flat world. The only other way to be on top, is putting every body else down though a Orwellian government.
From Wikipedia:
It was "clear to all thinking people that the need for human drudgery,
and therefore to a great extent for human inequality, had disappeared... hunger,
overwork, dirt, illiteracy and disease could be eliminated within a few generations".
However, since the Party wants to maintain a hierarchical society with itself on top,
this real possibility of eliminating poverty and inequality is a deadly threat
rather than something to be desired: "If leisure and security were enjoyed
by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty
would learn to think for themselves"-eventually sweeping away the oligarchy ruling them.
"In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance."

And sadly, they have taken over the education system lock, stock and barrel.

Dave Allen;60044 wrote:
What does this same method say to us about the environmental impact of the rather wasteful process which fuels economic growth?


This challenge can also be met with technology, there will be alternatives, just like in 1900 nobody would have expected nuclear energy to become a solution. Well, in many countries we reject it for silly emotional reasons, but France gets 78.8% of it's energy from it.

---------- Post added at 01:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:04 PM ----------

xris, are you just saying stuff now to disagree with me? If you aren't open to opposing opinion, and are just going to be a bot, your comments are not very helpful.
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 05:59 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
Capitalism, the economic theory based entirely on self-interested competition, will somehow bring an end to armed self-interested competition?

If it's peace you want, go in peace. Act peacefully. Capitalism requires violence - not necessarily physical violence, but necessarily economic violence.


Capitalism, or at least the free market system you are likely referring to is necessarily peaceful. Everywhere violence or fraud takes hold, markets break down.

By what definition of "violence" can you call competition "economic violence"? Economic actors compete to convince other economic actors that they can better satisfy their wants. Note that convince necessarily excludes violence.

To me, calling market competition "violent" would be the same as calling debate violent. You conflate confrontation with violence.
EmperorNero
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 06:07 am
@Mr Fight the Power,
Mr. Fight the Power;60148 wrote:
By what definition of "violence" can you call competition "economic violence"?


I think he means that capitalism always is a unjust and immoral way of acquiring wealth.
In essence that the system will be rigged for the benefit of the wealthy.

That's saying that if there is trade, there must be fraud, so the solution to get rid of fraud is having no trade.
I would point out that fraud should rather be restricted, not trade.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 06:08 am
@EmperorNero,
Ah the last refuge of the rhetoric debater."Why are you not entering into reasonable debate?"
I dont disagree with you for the fun of it, i disagree with you on every point because your opinions are unethical.
Capitalism has a millennium to prove its worth and it has failed dismally.
Imperial capitalism demanded commerce between its colonial entities they thrived only for those who created the empires.
The same thing still exists now, empires exist, but they are multinationals , with great powers to support or destroy governments.War will still be with us because multinationals survive wars, in fact do better during wars.
Capitalism only exists for those certain to survive , those inadequate poor fools are cast aside every time by empires of man.

---------- Post added at 07:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:08 AM ----------

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:
If I call bull**** will you back up your claim?

Capitalism, or at least the free market system you are likely referring to is necessarily peaceful. Everywhere violence or fraud takes hold, markets break down.

By what definition of "violence" can you call competition "economic violence"? Economic actors compete to convince other economic actors that they can better satisfy their wants. Note that convince necessarily excludes violence.

To me, calling market competition "violent" would be the same as calling debate violent. You conflate confrontation with violence.
Confrontation when the individual is damaged is violence.Nothing in debate will give me pain but my place of work transported halfway around the world for the benefit of shareholders will cause me extreme pain.
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 06:14 am
@EmperorNero,
EmperorNero wrote:
True. But that reminds me of the pilot average life span statistic conundrum.
Some years ago, let's say in 1985, a statistic found that commercial pilots have a very low average life span. They were wondering what about being a pilot makes you die young. But the simple reason was that commercial pilots were only around in great numbers since around the sixties. So the only way to get in the average life span statistic was by dying young. Pilots were unlikely to be 90, so statistically commercial pilots died young.
The same with right-wing utopianism. It just wasn't around long enough to have much of a track record.

Sure, but the argument that because something hasn't been tried yet it ought to be given a chance isn't necessarily a strong one. I have not tried dipping my hand into a vat of sulphuric acid.

All utopian projects involve a certain degree of setting aside realism. Humans have different needs and desires and different conceptions of freedom.

I have never been to the US - and so can only really comment on what I see via media channels - but my impression is that if I were to meet some of the loudest voices in favour of putative "freedom" I would be in for a heated debate if I were to support things like freedom to abort unwanted pregnancies, or parity of esteem for homosexuals.

These are things I equate with freedom and am willing to defend (when I can be bothered and if the risk of actual harm to my person is minimal).

There are also freedoms I cannot respect - such as the freedom to pollute the environment or eat endangered species or oppose immigration whilst sireing more than a single child. Freedom to teach scripture as scientific method also raises my ire.

There are also freedoms people generally agree shouldn't be allowed, such as freedom to kill arbitrarily or molest children.

All utopian projects bank on people setting aside their differences in regard to these freedoms - ignoring the apparent truth that there can be no true consensus on even the most obvious of them. Adaptable and resourceful methods of social organisation which meet the needs of the situation will tend to fare better in the long run than those who run off a belief that their values are sacred and/or immutable. Hence why the US respect for ammendments - which might seem a little weird to a European at first - seems a good idea provided the ammendment is open to ammendment.

Quote:
Yes, I'm saying: Not project todays problems on the future. We will have new solutions and new problems.

I am also convinced that mankind will cope - in some manner - with the problems of today, and tomorrow. However, what sort of world will result from ignoring the problems of today?

The problems of last century were largely those of political projects preaching utopian transformations of society in Europe and the USSR.

What sort of world would we be living in today if the prevailing attitude had been to worry about the problems of tomorrow?

Quote:
Not that it matters, but I think the big increase in murdering ability through technology was the century before.

Atomic, biological and chemical weapons are pretty much a twentieth century phenomenon. The death-dealing hardware of the 19th century - whilst impressive - count for little against modern conceptions of WMDs.

Quote:
Well, we still have the potential of an aristocracy who doesn't want to put in the effort to compete in a flat world. The only other way to be on top, is putting every body else down though a Orwellian government.
From Wikipedia:
It was "clear to all thinking people that the need for human drudgery,
and therefore to a great extent for human inequality, had disappeared... hunger,
overwork, dirt, illiteracy and disease could be eliminated within a few generations".
However, since the Party wants to maintain a hierarchical society with itself on top,
this real possibility of eliminating poverty and inequality is a deadly threat
rather than something to be desired: "If leisure and security were enjoyed
by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty
would learn to think for themselves"-eventually sweeping away the oligarchy ruling them.
"In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance."

The conceptual leap that the leaders of the party in 1984 had taken was they admitted to one another that the reason they wanted power was because they liked power. The methods by which they abused their power are less important than the conceptual leap. 1984 is not a pro-prosperity fable - it is a lesson to be wary of power seekers of any hue. Also note that in 1984 the effort put in by the inner party to maintain the status quo was huge. By O'Brien's account he didn't enjoy luxuries - just power.

In regards to capitalism - is the endless barrage of messages a member of such a society receives to produce and consume "for the good of the economy" orchestrated, in part, to shore up an oligarchy? Surely so, it's just that the big winners are directors and magnates rather than a political elite.

I would also point out that 1984 is a fiction written to address the problems of yesterday rather than those of today, even less those of tomorrow. It's a great book, but I feel the ease with which it can wheeled out to address almost any political standpoint speaks less of it's practical political application and more to it's strength as a story.

Any political system can be tyrannous - the right wing has it's roots in defence of absolute monarchy after all...

Quote:
And sadly, they have taken over the education system lock, stock and barrel.

Oh come off it! This is pure conspiracy theory - no more worthy of serious consideration than supposing that the US government orchestrated 9/11.

Still, I suppose if you'd had more respect for educators you might have grasped the meaning behind 1984...

Quote:
This challenge can also be met with technology, there will be alternatives, just like in 1900 nobody would have expected nuclear energy to become a solution. Well, in many countries we reject it for silly emotional reasons, but France gets 78.8% of it's energy from it.

The fact that this 'clean' source of energy is also responsible for some of the world's worst industrial accidents when it goes wrong is surely a worthy subject of debate rather than "silly emotional reasons". I think nuclear energy is a better alternative to fossil fuels - until I consider living next to nuclear power plants.

Quote:
But in todays world, the US dismantling their military would be devastating, because the bad guys wouldn't. I'm more for 'peace through superior fire-power' for now. I don't think the world as it is today would be nice just because the US stops being mean. But thats a different debate.

The lesson Iraq has taught the world is that if one does want a degree of security from invasion by US it better make sure it has servicable WMDs. Hence North Korea's desire to demonstrate that it is capable of launching rockets I suppose.

Personally I think leading by example is the best policy, rather than preaching to others to do what you are unwilling to. I used to think that a stronger UN might be the best answer - but I know reject such thinking as utopian.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Capitalism Will Bring World Peace
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/17/2019 at 08:29:32