[onlooker]

Thank you Ibon. Helps to have your voice back up my altruism argument haha. I hope the Cloud Forest has bequeathed you another day of separation from the Kudzu APE craziness haha

[dissident]

The problem is that systems are not static. So capitalism can morph into a totalitarian dystopia as well. Public opinion is manipulated by various elements; MSM, religion, academia, etc. The perceptions and norms of behaviour of generations changes which directly impacts the social structure. Sure, the trends are long term, but we are seeing a nasty transition to intolerant, lynch-mob "progressivism" in the USA and EU today. The only constants are the phony moral authority and supposedly good intentions of the lynch-mob.

Humans do not have the genetic capacity to maintain timeless, ideal norms of behaviour. The cradle of humanity remains the wilderness where severe external constraints are imposed. Flexible behaviour offers potential survival advantage. Humans never evolved to maintain civilization. It is pure ignorant hubris to assume that just because humans establish societies that they are optimally evolved to do this. Advanced societies are an accident that only appeared in the last 10,000 years. Way too short for any genetic adaptation. Perhaps after a million years of building and destroying societies there will be some evolution allowing for more stable and optimal societies. Humans are going to have to survive climate change first.

[mmasters]

The problem is that systems are not static. So capitalism can morph into a totalitarian dystopia as well. Public opinion is manipulated by various elements; MSM, religion, academia, etc. The perceptions and norms of behaviour of generations changes which directly impacts the social structure. Sure, the trends are long term, but we are seeing a nasty transition to intolerant, lynch-mob "progressivism" in the USA and EU today. The only constants are the phony moral authority and supposedly good intentions of the lynch-mob.

Humans do not have the genetic capacity to maintain timeless, ideal norms of behaviour. The cradle of humanity remains the wilderness where severe external constraints are imposed. Flexible behaviour offers potential survival advantage. Humans never evolved to maintain civilization. It is pure ignorant hubris to assume that just because humans establish societies that they are optimally evolved to do this. Advanced societies are an accident that only appeared in the last 10,000 years. Way too short for any genetic adaptation. Perhaps after a million years of building and destroying societies there will be some evolution allowing for more stable and optimal societies. Humans are going to have to survive climate change first.

Good points. I do think there's something to be said about the vision of the founders of the US, they got a lot right. But keeping this thing afloat has a lot to do with common sense too which not many people have (I only developed it later in life). The progressives don't have much common sense for sure.

The up and coming generation is a real problem. They are way too geared towards instant gratification, creature comforts and are living in a bubble. Problem is they aren't happy with their bubble and want a bigger one. And, god forbid their bubble gets popped by the real world, or that some rich guy is allowed to enjoy his bigger bubble. People have in general lost their dignity and their toughness. It wont end well.

I think religion and belief systems are one area that's ripe for transformation and that could really change the big picture of clashing ideologies. This is an area where I've been working hard the past 15 years of my life and I'm making breakthroughs now.

Anyway, my strategy to deal with all of this is to get into the top 1% and insulate myself from the rest of society. It's the only thing that makes sense.

[lpetrich]

High real estate prices in some cities is a "problem". But the "victims" are unwilling to move.

Some of them move out to the suburbs, and do long commutes. Which isn't very good for them.

And it's not like government is doing much to help. If anything it makes things worse with restrictive zoning,

I'm sure that you've discovered the details of this plot in the Protocols of the Elders of Government.

How Can Zoning Protect Land Values? | Pocket Sense -- that is a big motivation for it. So follow the money.

lots of regulations, and especially "rent control" in some cities where rent is expensive. Somehow, letting landlords know the government might just steal a huge chunk of the income from their rental property (by letting undeserving renters keep a large chunk of the rent) isn't exactly a way to encourage more rental property to be built, now is it?

Rent control is an effort to make some city residences affordable to non-rich people.

So whose fault is that? The evil rich?

So rich people are always and everywhere totally sinless and blameless?

The Fountainhead: Poor Doors by Adam Lee:

Some of the world’s most expensive cities are witnessing a trend: new residences get snapped up as fast as they’re built, but not for anyone to live in. They’re being bought by ultra-rich elites who care about the properties only as investments to flip later. In the meantime, they’re left unoccupied.

Many of the buyers are oligarchs from autocratic and corruption-plagued countries like Russia, China or Saudi Arabia. Rather than keep their money where it could be seized at the whim of the authorities, they park it in real estate in foreign nations with a stronger rule of law than their own. ...

These “safe-deposit boxes in the sky” are so common, they create a bizarre spectacle: in the most expensive, exclusive neighborhoods in the world, block after block sits vacant. ...

While ordinary people have to find housing far away and go on long and stressful commutes.

So it would not be surprising if these rich speculators are keeping urban residential property from being built too fast -- from supply and demand, it would lower their property values, and every right-thinking person knows that property values must always be maintained.

Or is personal responsibility no longer a valid concept?

"Personal responsibility" meaning here meekly accepting being mugged and being opposed to doing anything about the mugger.

[Ibon]

The cradle of humanity remains the wilderness where severe external constraints are imposed. Flexible behaviour offers potential survival advantage.

Humans are going to have to survive climate change first.

Climate change brings back those external constraints in spades, returning us to that base from where we evolved. Full circle irony.

[KaiserJeep]

Dum de dum dum, dumb.

[onlooker]

https://qz.com/879092/the-us-doesnt-loo ... d-country/

The US has a lot of money, but it does not look like a developed country

The US is the world’s largest national economy, and the epitome of industrialization. Because of its wealth, high standards of living, and availability of world-class services, many Americans believe theirs to be one of the better—or outright best—countries in the world to live.

Measuring wellbeing can be tricky: Seemingly objective standards, like income, are affected by the availability of social services, which improve life even for low-earners. Infant mortality, another common measure of wellbeing, can actually be higher in countries where advanced healthcare technologies allow premature babies to be born in the first place. Nonetheless, there are some comparisons we can make: In 2015, the United Nations defined 17 goals for any country claiming to achieve complete sustainable development. Those goals range from ending poverty, to gender equality, to environmental preservation.

Quartz used those goals to compare the US development to that of other wealthy nations, following the blueprint of a 2016 report by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). We found that the US performs scores dismally in most areas—such as healthcare, education, and violence.

[dissident]

"Industrialization". That was in the past thanks to all the banana republic offshoring of manufacturing. The downsizing and right-sizing chickens are coming home to roost.

[evilgenius]

The problem is that systems are not static. So capitalism can morph into a totalitarian dystopia as well. Public opinion is manipulated by various elements; MSM, religion, academia, etc. The perceptions and norms of behaviour of generations changes which directly impacts the social structure. Sure, the trends are long term, but we are seeing a nasty transition to intolerant, lynch-mob "progressivism" in the USA and EU today. The only constants are the phony moral authority and supposedly good intentions of the lynch-mob.

I think you are right. I also think that what is happening in the US is an extension of this. In particular, I will cite the depravity of the Christian Church, especially the Evangelical Church, as a contributing factor. Ever since the doctrine of faith based "name it and claim it" theology took over the Church the role of the Church in American life to curb excess has diminished. There simply is no cap in place from that quarter anymore. The salt has lost its saltiness. What is it good for?

I bring this up because this is the type of constraint that has worked effectively to give Capitalism in America boundaries. Capitalism uses the market to make decisions. It doesn't use ideals. What works goes on, just like under evolution. It's free to react to changes. But the moral environment has always meant that the legal and ethical structures within which every actor takes part have imposed other things to consider when choosing excess. Those things used to be so strong even that a powerful person might not consider fulfilling their megalomania driven desires. They might have inner constraints based upon influence from the world around them.

[onlooker]

Good points Evil and Dissident. First Evil, I would submit to you that given the underlying basis of Capitalism as ruthlessly competitive and selfish oriented, the morality in America has been incessantly chiseled away by the "immoral " nature of Capitalism.

As for your point Dissident, the constant with Capitalism is its immoral bedrock principles. Ayn Rand is an an author who articulated them quite well. And the central immoral stance is that what is good for me is what is ultimately thy Good. So, following this basic principle, people and groups will look at what is beneficial for them without regard to the wider whole. That is why the elite wealthy power brokers have gamed the system to their advantage and maybe why the last few generations have been so focused on their own welfare without caring it seems about future generations

[Cog]

I'm sure you socialists on this board will get socialism right this time without the usual genocide and suffering that goes along with it.

[KaiserJeep]

For all the complaining about the USA, this is the real, inflation-adjusted family income in constant 2016 dolllars for the last half century:

This is the real, inflation adjusted cumulative family wealth over the same period:


Need I remind everyone that this is the largest Capitalist country in the world, and the one large country where even our lowest income quadrile ranks among the wealthiest 10% in the world?

Need I remind you that the USA has made tremendous strides in improving our environment, and has set aside more wilderness, parks, and public lands than any other country?

Need I remind you that we have solved our own population issue and would have a falling total population, did we not have unrestricted and (almost) unimpeded immigration? (The soloution for which is Trump's wall.)

In case you are wondering, most of the desperate South-of-the-border immigrants are from countries with some level of Socialism in government, and a starving populace. Likewise the terrible and tragic frieght containers of people we unload from China virtually every day in the SF Bay area ports, refugees from Socialism/Communism/Maoism/whatever.

So if you are so inclined, why don't you silly, uninformed, unreasoning, and completely ungrateful economic reprobates complain about American Capitalism and then sing the praises of Socialism some more. That would be the form of economy that is causing that long queue of legal immigrants, and that even larger crowd of illegals, all eager to enter and live here in the USA.

Go ahead, you Morons, do it.

[Cog]

Well said KJ. I'm somehow missing the lines of Americans desperate to cross the US border into their supposed socialist paradises in south and central America. I'm sure they have room for Pops and onlooker down there alongside Ibon.

[onlooker]

Need I remind you that being the richest most successful country under Capitalism is NOT a badge of honor as it only highlights the tremendously inequality in what is now a worldwide economic system as ruthless competition creates winners and losers. And while preserving some of "our" good environment , Capitalism has strode forth and has been wrecking much of Environment of the rest the world. Oh but Kaiser will say no its overpopulation. Okay then those Socialist countries like China are not suffering from overpopulation. Which is it?

It is high time we stopped seeking each other as separated by countries or in whatever way and saw each other as just ONE species. For the Environmental crisis makes no such distinctions among us

[KaiserJeep]

You are so full of it on this particular matter, that your eyes are brown.

The inequality in this world is not caused by the Western Democracies or Capitalism. It is caused by overpopulation in the 3rd world which is indeed exacerbated by those more prosperous countries that give those countries food, medicine, and assistance in developing infrastructure. In other words, the charity of richer nations, and the USA by far gives the most.

I don't in fact blame those unfortunate people for their fate. I and everyone here at peakoil.com was fortunate when we were born in a wealthy and prosperous nation, or immigrated to one.

But YOU have no excuse for your abysmal ignorance or your silly delusions, because you have an education, plenty of food, a computer, Internet, probably one or more ICE vehicles, a conditioned and comfortable living space, and security.

Yet you obviously do not appreciate what you have, and you won't even acknowledge your own good fortune. You are among the most fortunate on Earth and live in the most powerful country, and you can't even admit that the assistance that we give the misfortunate victims of Socialism is because of the tremendous wealth we derive from Capitalism.

And furthermore, if what I just said is not completely accurate and you cannot admit it, then you are also willfully blind, and someone - probably an "educator" - who never had a real job, filled your head with claptrap about Socialism..

[onlooker]

Again where does Overpopulation come from? From Industrial Civilization which allowed us to exploit Fossil fuels, create sanitary conditions and it turn create a connected world. And what is the impetus for Industrial Civilization yep Capitalism. And as for being ungrateful not true but I also feel bad for others who cannot enjoy my standard of living. The charity given is measly compared to the murderous brutal regime of the prerogatives and motivations of wealth to exploit, enslave and oppress others via force ie Empire and economic coercion throughout the centuries and that includes future not yet born generations who will have to live on a much degraded Earth.

[lpetrich]

I'm sure you socialists on this board will get socialism right this time without the usual genocide and suffering that goes along with it.

Define "socialism". All I see here is "socialism" being used as an indiscriminate dirty word.

[lpetrich]

Are government military and police forces socialist?

Here is something that I once thought up:

End protection welfare!

Abolish all government military and police forces! They must all be turned into private companies or else disbanded.

• Let the market decide. If soldiers' and cops' services have any value, people will hire them, or else people will become vigilantes. Government coercion is unnecessary.
• Government protection is one-size-fits-all. Vigilantism, hired guards, and mercenaries can be adjusted to individuals' protection needs and desires, while government protection cannot.
• Government involvement in protection crowds out private investment in protection solutions, solutions that will inevitably be superior to government ones.
• People who refuse to protect themselves deserve to be conquered and beaten up and stolen from and extorted from and raped and enslaved and murdered and whatever other crimes that they might suffer. Protection laziness ought to have consequences, and government protection protects people from the consequences of their actions.
• Crime victims are really crime enablers, and they deserve to suffer the consequences of their crime enabling.
• The cult of crime victimhood should be recognized for it is: a part of the cult of victimhood, a very popular way for people to try to evade responsibility for their actions.
• Self-protectors should not have to protect non-self-protectors by the government stealing from them to do so. Government protection is governments robbing Peter to protect Paul.
• Individuals are much better at protecting themselves than governments. Therefore, government protection is unnecessary and people should not be stolen from to pay for it.
• Advocates of government military and police forces are very condescending with their insinuation that people have no agency, that they are incapable of protecting themselves.
• If there are any people who are not capable of protecting themselves, then private charities like vigilantes will do much better at protecting them than governments.

[KaiserJeep]

onlooker, That is NOT Capitalism. That would be the completely natural ape instincts that arose from a couple of million years of primate evolution. There is something deep down in our genes that tell us to eat more than we need to live, mate with as many females as many times as possible, to hang out with other apes who smell like us, and to try to take more than our share of everything. It's what apes do, and how they behave.

Furthermore, the last few thousand years have proven that this ape behavior, elaborated by and extended by human intelligence, is the optimal way for a species to exist on Earth. It has enabled humans to reproduce beyound all reasonable numbers, to occupuy more territory, to dominate, control, domesticate, and eradicate other species, and to be an all around raging success story.

Just because YOU, one of the benefactors and among the most fortunate members of the most successful species the planet has ever known, perceive a flaw, does not mean that a flaw exists.

It may well be that the entire purpose of the entire ecosystem of planet Earth is to enable the highest number of humans to exist on the planet. It is distinctly possible - and far more likely than your theory - that humans and their ape behaviors are the raging success story for the entire Milky Way Galaxy.

[KaiserJeep]

Ipetrich, learn to reason and to learn logical thought. Then study up on punctuation. Finally, realize that almost everyone from Karl Marx to yourself who writes a manifesto is widely considered a crackpot.