Dezakin wrote:americandream wrote:Dezakin wrote:My original statement was simply refuting the position that more efficient trading is bad. Eliminating market arbitrage exploitation isn't enough to mend financial market problems of systemic risk or moral hazard, and you can rail against that all you want; Not that its in the least bit helpful if you're not offering credible alternatives.
Thats largely becuase you confuse capitalism with the exchange of commodities which has been with us from our first rudimentary social economy, tribally primitivistic and communal with exchange taking place at the interface with other tribes (primitive markets).
No, I don't. You're projecting and building strawmen. Have fun arguing against points I never made, pontificating from your soapbox, and building more strawmen.
If you can convince me:
that a system based on commodifying everything on this planet, once twice, thrice and beyond, in pursuit of voracious personal gain, cannot ulytimately exhaust the surplus it stripmines by these various devices, (and exhaustion of surplus also contemplates terminal degradation of the resource base, the planet), AND;
with a comprehensive argument that does not fob off critique with resort to petulance or singularity pie in the sky whilst ignoring the latent environmental threat of full spectrum JIT obsolescence scaled out to this planet's potential consumer capacity of 6 billion (and climbing);
I would be the first to admit I am wrong.
But simply baldly arguing that more efficient or ethical commodification or some other vague condition (somehow ridding the FREE market of suckers sounds quaint ) somehow confers eternal sustainablity on capitalism let alone the near term collapse juggernaut headed for us, IS NOT an argument.