If supply completely outstrips demand, capitalism is regressive

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Most market sectors in the developed world no longer require a scarcity model - namely capitalism. I will avoid trivial industries like advertising, marketing, and banking and get to productive industry. In particular, supply outstrips demand in all of the following categories:

Food
Art
Services
Small commodities
Small-use electronics

Unfortunately, artificial scarcity only serves to hinder human progress. Capitalism is built on the presumption of existing scarcity. As technology continues to improve, I honestly don't see a reason for keeping the status quo.

[pusher robot]

No, no. You are completely wrong about this. Most problematic, you are not using the word "scarcity" correctly in the economic context. "Scarce" does not mean "rare." Nor does it mean "less than needed." It means "less than would be useful." So long as there is a use for additional resources, that is proof that use (or utility) outstrips supply, necessitating a mechanism for allocating the supply among the various uses.

For example, you appear to claim that food is not scarce. But of course food is scarce - if it weren't, it wouldn't cost anything. To take a trivial example, corn can be eaten, or it can go to livestock to be eaten. Or livestock to produce dairy. Or it can be made into a fuel. To determine if corn is a scarce resource, all we need to ask is, "would an additional unit of corn be at all useful?" Since we could at the very least burn it for energy, the answer must be, "yes, we could find a productive use for an additional unit of corn." Thus corn, along with almost everything else, is a scarce resource.

Capitalism is built on the presumption of existing scarcity because that presumption matches reality. If (hopefully when) that reality changes, society and economics will naturally change along with it.

[Bud Struggle]

Capitalism is built on the presumption of existing scarcity because that presumption matches reality. If (hopefully when) that reality changes, society and economics will naturally change along with it.

Yup,

Besides, the world is far from being full of food--people are starving, plumbers are paid $100 an hour because of their scarcity, we still have to make petit-bourgeoise out of the billion and a half Chinese (and we are half way there) so they will but more small commodities and electronics.

Capitalism has a long way to go before the Commies can take over. :D

[Cult of Reason]

But of course food is scarce - if it weren't, it wouldn't cost anything.

There is a simple reason why food has a cost, and it is not natural scarcity. It is sensible business models that deliberately produce less than is needed in order to make sure that there is a price. This is artificial scarcity. First of all there are the (rather famous) stockpiles of food that exist both in the USA and EU (some of which is then destroyed). Furthermore, the simple equation of supply and demand made by businesses also contributes, because they know that if they produce too much (read: their actual capacity to produce) then they cannot make a profit because they would not be able to sell their products for a reasonable price. Of course, if you deliberately retard production further, higher prices can be negotiated and so greater profit.


To determine if corn is a scarce resource, all we need to ask is, "would an additional unit of corn be at all useful?" Since we could at the very least burn it for energy, the answer must be, "yes, we could find a productive use for an additional unit of corn." Thus corn, along with almost everything else, is a scarce resource.

What if there is no demand for that energy? What if there is already enough energy to fit the demand of people who can pay for it? In that case, it is pointless to burn corn for it, so there is a surplus of corn. An abundance. More than can be consumed. Therefore it is stockpiled away, or not produced in the first place, in order to shore up price.

TomK: The world currently produces more than 3 times the amount of food needed to feed the world. The problem is not production, it is distribution, a problem that the Price System, and hence Capitalism as a subset of that system, is unable to do.

I posit that, in the First World, every single productive industry has the capacity to produce an abundance of goods, but that its production is constrained by artificial scarcity (not to mention, in some cases, planned and unnecessary obsolescence) that is forced upon it by viable business models.

In fact, a group of engineers and academics at Columbia University (the Technical Alliance) calculated during the '20s that the continent of North America + the Norther quarter of South America had had the capacity to produce an abundance of goods and services since 1912.

[Joby]

This is ridiculous.

If there is an over-supply of any good, it's because it was demanded by a substantial group. It is Capitalism that allows the supply of any good to be altered because of the demands of the consumer, and if they stop demanding it, the supply will naturally fall.

Exactly how much Corn should a person be rationed?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

For example, you appear to claim that food is not scarce. But of course food is scarce - if it weren't, it wouldn't cost anything.That's a bold lie. Farmers are actively encouraged to destroy and not produce targeted crops to keep a stable food market. The cost of transportation actively discourages farmers in developed regions of the world from feeding people living in abject poverty. It's cheaper to not produce anything. The World Health Organization reported we had the means to feed 12 billion people in the 1970s.

People sell air as a joke. Does the existence of a price system mean air is scarce?


"Scarce" does not mean "rare."
What economic context do you speak of? Classical liberalism? Marxism? Regardless of where you are getting that idea from, I define scarcity as human wants exceeding supply. If you really want to challenge me on the issue go ahead. I seem to recall you senselessly attacking anarchists for "bastardizing" a word that they didn't even use.


To take a trivial example, corn can be eaten, or it can go to livestock to be eaten. Or livestock to produce dairy. Or it can be made into a fuel. To determine if corn is a scarce resource, all we need to ask is, "would an additional unit of corn be at all useful?" Since we could at the very least burn it for energy, the answer must be, "yes, we could find a productive use for an additional unit of corn." Thus corn, along with almost everything else, is a scarce resource.Want for energy is separable from want for corn consumption. There does not exist a large want for corn-powered vehichles - there's a want for cars that can provide transportation. Your analysis is all very well thought out but in the end it's irrelevant.


Exactly how much Corn should a person be rationed?

As much as they want, provided it does not conflict with the consumption habits of others. Goods where supply outstrips demand (or perhaps "where needs are satisfied") should follow that principle.

[Bud Struggle]

TomK: The world currently produces more than 3 times the amount of food needed to feed the world. The problem is not production, it is distribution, a problem that the Price System, and hence Capitalism as a subset of that system, is unable to do.

I posit that, in the First World, every single productive industry has the capacity to produce an abundance of goods, but that its production is constrained by artificial scarcity (not to mention, in some cases, planned and unnecessary obsolescence) that is forced upon it by viable business models.

I definitely AGREE with you about the problem of distribution not scarcity of food--there should be a graemlen for sarcastic posts. BUT I see the problem as essentially political not economic. As long as there are petty despots the world over clinging to riches and power while their people starve you are going to have food shortages.

On the other hand--food prices have risen sharply in the last quarter making it even more difficult for the poor to get fed.

From the AP:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hY6QytGQclZ5k8yFlaDr0VZin6IwD8VJULF00

[KC]

No, no. You are completely wrong about this. Most problematic, you are not using the word "scarcity" correctly in the economic context. "Scarce" does not mean "rare." Nor does it mean "less than needed." It means "less than would be useful." So long as there is a use for additional resources, that is proof that use (or utility) outstrips supply, necessitating a mechanism for allocating the supply among the various uses.

What you define scarcity to be is completely irrelevant to this discussion. The original poster wasn't using the economic term, but rather talking about the amount of goods in existence. That was painfully obvious from their post.


For example, you appear to claim that food is not scarce. But of course food is scarce

Food isn't naturally scarce. An artificial scarcity is created through lowering the amount produced (see: milk), buying off large portions by the government (see: dairy products) and the destruction of products already produced.


Besides, the world is far from being full of food--people are starving

The problem of malnutrition isn't due to not having a high enough production of food but rather the distribution of it as well as artificial scarcity.


This is ridiculous.

If there is an over-supply of any good, it's because it was demanded by a substantial group. It is Capitalism that allows the supply of any good to be altered because of the demands of the consumer, and if they stop demanding it, the supply will naturally fall.

This is, of course, incorrect. In order to keep market prices up, it is generally done by not producing "too much". The example of milk is a perfect example of this; farmers were producing so much milk (because of bgh) they were actually driving down the market price, which was a very big problem. The US government stepped in and paid them to produce less, thereby stabilizing the price of milk and averting such a crisis.


I definitely AGREE with you about the problem of distribution not scarcity of food--there should be a graemlen for sarcastic posts. BUT I see the problem as essentially political not economic. As long as there are petty despots the world over clinging to riches and power while their people starve you are going to have food shortages.

That is a contradiction. As the old saying goes, "money is power" and not the other way around. One can't separate the economic from the political; it just isn't correct. They are inseparable.

[pusher robot]

That's a bold lie. Farmers are actively encouraged to destroy and not produce targeted crops to keep a stable food market.

Well, I don't believe you. Find me a source for this intentional crop destruction. The amount of U.S. crop land in use has gone up, not down.



The cost of transportation actively discourages farmers in developed regions of the world from feeding people living in abject poverty. It's cheaper to not produce anything.


Well, what is your solution? After all, the reason transportation costs money is that it consumes scarce resources! Do those resources "not count?" Do we just ignore them? In any case, an enormous amount of food is both exported and donated from developed countries. I have a hard time believing that you are unaware of this.



People sell air as a joke. Does the existence of a price system mean air is scarce?

LAME. That someone sells something "as a joke" does not create a price system, obviously. An illustrative point might be that compressed air, which stores scarce energy, does have a price.



What economic context do you speak of? Classical liberalism? Marxism? Regardless of where you are getting that idea from, I define scarcity as human wants exceeding supply. If you really want to challenge me on the issue go ahead. I seem to recall you senselessly attacking anarchists for "bastardizing" a word that they didn't even use.


Anarchists weren't using the word "anarchy?" Really?

Anyways, we agree, I guess, except that I think you are vastly underestimating the capacity of human want. Let's look at energy. I need, say 10kwh/mo to survive. To be comfortable, with a heated home and assorted conveniences, would take 1000 kwh/mo. But so long as more is available, I can continue to find uses. I could have an outdoor heated swimming pool! I could run my car on electricity! I could smelt my own aluminum! Power a 100-foot water fountain! Now, obviously, all of these things provide relatively low utility, which is why I'd only do them if energy was very cheap or free. But they don't provide zero utility, and as long as there is >0 utility to be gained, there is an unmet want.


Want for energy is separable from want for corn consumption. There does not exist a large want for corn-powered vehichles - there's a want for cars that can provide transportation. Your analysis is all very well thought out but in the end it's irrelevant.

I just don't know how to respond to this. Have you really never heard of corn ethanol? Are you really such a cave-dweller that you haven't read one of thousands of articles explicitly linking the high cost of corn - despite higher-than-ever levels of production - to (government-mandated) demand for fuel for cars?



As much as they want, provided it does not conflict with the consumption habits of others. Goods where supply outstrips demand (or perhaps "where needs are satisfied") should follow that principle.

I noticed suddenly you've switched from "wants" to "needs." Why is that?


[/quote]

[pusher robot]

Trash, dp

[pusher robot]

What you define scarcity to be is completely irrelevant to this discussion. The original poster wasn't using the economic term, but rather talking about the amount of goods in existence. That was painfully obvious from their post.

No, we're both talking about the same thing: whether enough resources exist to satisfy all human wants and desires.

[KC]

Well, I don't believe you. Find me a source for this intentional crop destruction. The amount of U.S. crop land in use has gone up, not down.

"Currently, the dried milk stockpile the government owns is at 1.3 billion pounds. With the U.S. population at about 300 million, that would potentially equal about five pounds of product per person in the country. Much of the excess dairy is shipped to underground mines and cave systems outside of Kansas City, Missouri. The mines and caves are filled with the dairy products, said John Heywood, professor of economics at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee."
Dairy Regulations Keep Prices High in the US (http://uwmpost.com/article/52/14/2824-Dairy-regulations-keep-prices-high-in-the-U-S-)


Well, what is your solution? After all, the reason transportation costs money is that it consumes scarce resources!

"This is where the government stepped in. In order to keep smaller farmers in business, congress raised the price of shipping, making it uneconomical to buy dairy from elsewhere in the country."
-Ibid.

This isn't including other unnecessary costs such as import/export tariffs, for example.

[pusher robot]

"Currently, the dried milk stockpile the government owns is at 1.3 billion pounds. With the U.S. population at about 300 million, that would potentially equal about five pounds of product per person in the country. Much of the excess dairy is shipped to underground mines and cave systems outside of Kansas City, Missouri. The mines and caves are filled with the dairy products, said John Heywood, professor of economics at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee."
Dairy Regulations Keep Prices High in the US (http://uwmpost.com/article/52/14/2824-Dairy-regulations-keep-prices-high-in-the-U-S-)


Your source is a second-rate college newspaper? Okay, whatever. Milk isn't a crop, either, but again, let's be charitable. If we read the article we find that (shock! horror!) free markets were dramatically lowering the cost of milk. Socialists, determined to "save" the poor dairy farmer and protect his right to a living wage in uneconomic dairy locations, decided to fuck over the markets with regulations. Result: waste!

It's not your fault, though, I suppose; I should have more specifically asked where the free-market, not socialism, caused such wastage. My mistake, I'll try not to do it again.

[Demogorgon]

The problem with a lot of distribution of necessary goods in capitalism is the way it responds to Demand. Capitalism says that a free market will respond accurately to societies wants, but that is not strictly true, what a market will actually respond to is Demand. To demand something is to want (or need) it, to be able to pay for it and to be willing to pay for it.

That means that when a supporter of a free market says that the free market can allocate goods exactly according to societies wants and needs, you need tot ake that with a very big pinch of salt. Ignoring the other great problem that contrary to the theoretical models nobody has perfect knowledge of what others are demanding and supplying, the problem that needs to be drummed home again and again is that the market will allocate goods and services widely out of proportion to people's wants and needs because people's ability to Demand is widely out of sync.

In a theoretical world where there was no monopoly or other forms of market failure and we all had exactly equal buying power, a free market would exactly distribute resources according to our preferences (but even then it would have problems on the supply end unless we were all independent suppliers), but we live in no such world. If I have no money I may want or need something more than anything in the world, but I do not demand it, my preferences are not taken into account. If I have money I may only mildly desire something but as I have the funds I might say "to hell with it" and buy it in which case I show up as a demander.

These inequalities get very serious when it comes to satisfying people's needs rather than their wants. There is currently enough food in the world to feed everyone, there is no supply problem there. Even taking into account the protectionist agricultural policies Conservative governments in the west engage in, it is entirely possible, from a resource standpoint, to produce enough food and distribute it to everyone. So why are people starving?

The answer is that while a starving person quite clearly needs food they are not demanding it. They have no ability to pay, so the market has no reason to respond. There is the classic example of the famine in Bengal in 1943. Food production was down on the previous year (but still enough to feed everyone), because of the decrease in supply, prices went up and man people could no longer afford the food. People starved, by the time the market responded and prices went back down again a lot of people had already died and a lot of food had wasted, all because of people's inability to demand the food. This goes on today on a global scale today, if people in famine struck countries had the necessary spending power, the global market would redirect food towards those places. A case in point is that if crops fail in Ethiopia it is a disaster because most consumers in Ethiopia do not have the buying power to demand imported food. Whereas when there are bad harvests in Australia, consumers will barely notice as there certainly won't be any food shortage due to their much greater ability to demand food.

This problem does not just exist in terms of global food distribution either, it exists in all our societies. An example is that of homelessness. In most countries there are more empty houses than there are homeless people, yet the Homeless' inability to demand homes means the market will not respond. That is the great problem with Capitalism's ability to distribute adequately. It fails to best allocate its resources because it distributes demand power so poorly.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Your source is a second-rate college newspaper? Okay, whatever. Milk isn't a crop, either, but again, let's be charitable. If we read the article we find that (shock! horror!) free markets were dramatically lowering the cost of milk. Socialists, determined to "save" the poor dairy farmer and protect his right to a living wage in uneconomic dairy locations, decided to fuck over the markets with regulations. Result: waste!

It's not your fault, though, I suppose; I should have more specifically asked where the free-market, not socialism, caused such wastage. My mistake, I'll try not to do it again.

Hallo. Earth to pusher robot. Dramatically reducing the profit farmers make off of milk by allowing the market to sink prices would get us nowhere. What are farmers to do if prices drop, stop producing as much milk? Perhaps if the dairy industry operated as a collective unit, but it doesn't. If one person stops producing as much milk, stores - historically - go after another person and the cycle continues. You calling price control methods socialism is absolutely hysterical. :laugh:

You can't get around the problem capitalism faces: it costs more to transport food to people with no/little money, than it does to simply not make it. What a shame that you support starvation de facto - through a method of distribution that does not satisfy the very basic of rights - life.


I just don't know how to respond to this. Have you really never heard of corn ethanol? Are you really such a cave-dweller that you haven't read one of thousands of articles explicitly linking the high cost of corn - despite higher-than-ever levels of production - to (government-mandated) demand for fuel for cars?

I find it absolutely hilarious that you misinterpreted what I wrote and then proceeded to call me a cave-dweller. I said there is no want for corn-powered corns. Consumers just want vehichles that can provide them transportation. So long as it's effective - and safe - most consumers (99%) won't care if you use fecal matter.


Well, what is your solution? After all, the reason transportation costs money is that it consumes scarce resources! Do those resources "not count?" Do we just ignore them? In any case, an enormous amount of food is both exported and donated from developed countries. I have a hard time believing that you are unaware of this.

I got just the answer for you: we cut most of the bases we have around the world and withdraw from Iraq. There's your new source energy. Only that won't happen with capitalism since our leaders are having to desperately enforce dollar hegemony. :laugh:


LAME. That someone sells something "as a joke" does not create a price system, obviously. An illustrative point might be that compressed air, which stores scarce energy, does have a price.

:laugh: Your arguments get more pathetic by the moment.

Well, I don't believe you. Find me a source for this intentional crop destruction. The amount of U.S. crop land in use has gone up, not down.

No duh. And the amount of man-power required to feed a population has dwindled significantly as well.

Feeding the World by Vaclav Smil
Hydroponic Food Production—A Definitive Guidebook for the Advanced Home Gardener and the Commercial Hydroponic Grower
World Agriculture: Towards 2010, An F.A.O. study Nikos Alexandratos
World Hunger: Twelve Myths by Frances Moore

The last book cites a UN report: The world today produces enough grain alone to provide every human being on the planet with thirty-five hundred calories a day. That’s enough to make most people fat? And this estimate does not even count many other commonly eaten foods - vegetables, beans, nuts, root crops, fruits, grass-fed meats and fish. In fact, if all foods are considered together, enough is available to provide at least 4.3 pounds of food per person a day. That includes…nearly [a] pound of meat, milk and eggs.

A nail in your sick coffin:

In South Africa around 50,000 black children starve to death each year—136 every day. Yet South Africa is a net exporter of agricultural products.

“78 percent of all malnourished children under five in the developing world live in countries with food surpluses.”

[pusher robot]

What are farmers to do if prices drop, stop producing as much milk?
Well, eventually, yes! Of course! If the price of milk falls below the cost of the resources required to make it, then obviously those resources would be better consumed doing something else and the farmers should stop!


Perhaps if the dairy industry operated as a collective unit, but it doesn't. If one person stops producing as much milk, stores - historically - go after another person and the cycle continues. You calling price control methods socialism is absolutely hysterical.

What cycle? What do mean, "go after?" What the hell are you talking about?


You can't get around the problem capitalism faces: it costs more to transport food to people with no/little money, than it does to simply not make it.
The question you are begging is why they have no money. It's not "capitalism's problem" that autocratic unfree hellholes exist.
What a shame that you support starvation de facto - through a method of distribution that does not satisfy the very basic of rights - life. Where capitalism exists, food is plenty.



I find it absolutely hilarious that you misinterpreted what I wrote and then proceeded to call me a cave-dweller. I said there is no want for corn-powered corns. Consumers just want vehichles that can provide them transportation. So long as it's effective - and safe - most consumers (99%) won't care if you use fecal matter.

They also wouldn't care if you use saffron, right? But then why shouldn't we burn saffron? You haven't refuted my basic point which is that saffron, corn, fecal matter, gasoline - they are all finite resources. Deciding which to use as fuel, and in what quantity, requires assessing the tradeoffs of using one or the other. You started the thread by denying this simple fact of reality.


I got just the answer for you: we cut most of the bases we have around the world and withdraw from Iraq. There's your new source energy. Only that won't happen with capitalism since our leaders are having to desperately enforce dollar hegemony.


:laugh: Your arguments get more pathetic by the moment. I'll just let these stand as their own self-refutations.


The last book cites a UN report: The world today produces enough grain alone to provide every human being on the planet with thirty-five hundred calories a day. That’s enough to make most people fat?Only a small portion of which is fit for human consumption, incidentally.
And this estimate does not even count many other commonly eaten foods - vegetables, beans, nuts, root crops, fruits, grass-fed meats and fish. In fact, if all foods are considered together, enough is available to provide at least 4.3 pounds of food per person a day. That includes…nearly [a] pound of meat, milk and eggs.
You're off in la-la land, arguing against phantoms of your own creation. I'm not arguing that food access in the world is not manifestly unjust. Of course it is! People are forced to live in despotic shitholes of countries whose leaders are self-aggranding assholes and feel free to exploit their populations for every ounce of personal power that can be gained. It's a fucking tragedy and a disgrace.

But going back to my very first point in my response on this thread: the fact that enough food is produced to satisfy everyone's needs DOES NOT MEAN THAT FOOD IS NOT SCARCE. Why? Because we can still find a use for more. It is still a finite resource!

[Demogorgon]

You're off in la-la land, arguing against phantoms of your own creation. I'm not arguing that food access in the world is not manifestly unjust. Of course it is! People are forced to live in despotic shitholes of countries whose leaders are self-aggranding assholes and feel free to exploit their populations for every ounce of personal power that can be gained. It's a fucking tragedy and a disgrace.

But what about people starving in countries that by your estimation are not despotic. The member you were arguing with cited South Africa as an example of people dying from starvation yet there being no food shortage-and South Africa is certainly a liberal democracy.

Now if you were me, you would argue that the fact that overt De Jure political despotism ended some fifteen years ago, much of apartheid still remains De Facto, especially in the rural areas where people starve (due to their lack of spending power). However you are not me and tend not to like that line of argument, arguing that the end of Dictatorship (not to mention the market liberalisation that is rife in modern SA) should be enough. But it is not.

The intrinsic problem with this kind of thing is that capitalism cannot respond to people's wants or needs, only their demands. If people have no money for food, they can't demand food and hence capitalism cannot distribute food to them. Blaming despotic Governments is a diversion, trying to blame a contributing factor for being the main cause. There are Dictatorships where barely anyone starves and there are "liberal democracies" where people do. Form of Government can not simply be allowed to be made the explanation without more serious examination.

[Zurdito]

The intrinsic problem with this kind of thing is that capitalism cannot respond to people's wants or needs, only their demands. If people have no money for food, they can't demand food and hence capitalism cannot distribute food to them. Blaming despotic Governments is a diversion, trying to blame a contributing factor for being the main cause.

More than a "contributing factor", I'd argue that the only way to protect private property in such a society is a police state. Police states are the direct result of unequal systems which would never be accepted by consensus - they are not the causes. They uphold capitalism, they are necessarry to global capitalism, inseperable from it, but ultimately it is not the case that the bourgeoisie is borne out of these dictatorships, but that these dictatorships are the only option available to the bourgeoisie.

[Bud Struggle]

The intrinsic problem with this kind of thing is that capitalism cannot respond to people's wants or needs, only their demands. If people have no money for food, they can't demand food and hence capitalism cannot distribute food to them. Blaming despotic Governments is a diversion, trying to blame a contributing factor for being the main cause. There are Dictatorships where barely anyone starves and there are "liberal democracies" where people do. Form of Government can not simply be allowed to be made the explanation without more serious examination.


I don't see it. If the government was a fair democracy they would find a way to make food accessable to everyone. Food stamps, give aways. A short term fix, to be sure. But a country like SA that's been in the grips of VASTLY overt racism for centuries can't really get all of it's people up to snuff in 15 years.

That kind of racism was a nation disaster and SA should treat it as such. All the SA people could be producing and consuming members of society if given the chance.

As far as "liberal democracies" go that term is as one shoe fits all as is "People's Republic." Some may be good, but for the most part it's just a sham of political positioning.

[Demogorgon]

I don't see it. If the government was a fair democracy they would find a way to make food accessable to everyone. Food stamps, give aways. A short term fix, to be sure. But a country like SA that's been in the grips of VASTLY overt racism for centuries can't really get all of it's people up to snuff in 15 years.

That kind of racism was a nation disaster and SA should treat it as such. All the SA people could be producing and consuming members of society if given the chance.

As far as "liberal democracies" go that term is as one shoe fits all as is "People's Republic." Some may be good, but for the most part it's just a sham of political positioning.
Well I agree on the "liberal democracy" part, but it is Pusher Robot's term of choice, so that's the one that will be used when I debate him.

As for the rest of it, well the South African Government isn't deliberately starving people. I am sure the Ministers don't sit down at Cabinet meetings and ask "so who shall we starve to death today?" The Government is trying, but in the framework of capitalism it is not enough. Even the apartheid Government didn't intentionally let people starve. They were many things but they were not so stupid that they thought they could be seen to try and starve Black Africans without there being a revolution. In many ways starvation happens in spite of the Government rather than because of it.

It is just like the various welfare programmes Conservatives often attack as not working. They are there for decades but poverty unemployment et al still persist. It is not that those programmes are useless, they clearly alleviate a lot of damage but they only tackle a symptom. They can not truly solve the problem, and neither will all the piecemeal famine relief measures that go on.

The more I look into this, the more I am convinced that there is a fundamental problem with resource allocation in capitalism stemming from inequitable distribution of income and wealth. There are arguments for and against inequality that have been canvassed many times in OI and I don't intend to go there again just now, but it is obvious there is a desperate problem when this inequality is so great that it means that resources are wasted (not just badly distributed) when they are greatly needed. We produce more than enough food to feed the whole world, yet millions starve. It is becoming quite clear to me that this is going tot he very route of capitalism.

We hear many reasons given for people starving: Western Greed, Local Corruption, Western Protectionism, particularly the EU's notorious CAP, dumping of food in third world markets to drive local farmers out of business etc and all of these play their part but at the underlying route of it all there is a simple reason why the starving are not getting enough food. There is no Demand for it. Market forces at their most brutal. Only by giving those who need the food the ability to Demand it will the problem be solved.

Please understand, I am not trying to score points in an abstract capitalist vs. socialist debate, I am airing my honest feelings and horror about something that is truly wrong with the world. And I believe we have to genuinely address this head on and I am sure you feel the same way. I do not believe that capitalism can solve this difficulty, but if it can I would support it in doing so, Capitalism has solved Demand Side problems on its own before and ultimately capitalism lasting a little longer would be worth it in the long run if this problem could be solved.

But it will have to be tackled head on if we are to do so

[Bud Struggle]

Please understand, I am not trying to score points in an abstract capitalist vs. socialist debate, I am airing my honest feelings and horror about something that is truly wrong with the world. And I believe we have to genuinely address this head on and I am sure you feel the same way. I do not believe that capitalism can solve this difficulty, but if it can I would support it in doing so, Capitalism has solved Demand Side problems on its own before and ultimately capitalism lasting a little longer would be worth it in the long run if this problem could be solved.

But it will have to be tackled head on if we are to do so

Well, I totally agree with you there. It is one thing to argue over economic policies and debate market forces--but there are real people out there with real hunger. I easily would support any honest attempt at getting them food. I do understand that the system in place--Capitalist or whatever is not doing the job and the situation needs to be changed. I'm not sure if Communism is the answer, but something does need to be done.

It's amazing how uninterested world leaders are in such an important problem. There should be no excuse for human suffering in this world when an (relatively) easy solution is possible.

[pusher robot]

South Africa is certainly a liberal democracy.It may be in form but clearly it fails to consistently uphold the most basic principles of a liberal democracy, such as equality under the law. It's a country that arguably suffers under a lingering civil cold war. Holding it up as a prime example of liberal democracy is just blatant cherry-picking. But even if you do pick that cherry, compare like with like - why not compare South Africa to its even less liberal democratic African neighbors?


Blaming despotic Governments is a diversion, trying to blame a contributing factor for being the main cause. There are Dictatorships where barely anyone starves and there are "liberal democracies" where people do. Form of Government can not simply be allowed to be made the explanation without more serious examination.

With all due respect, it's not a diversion, it's fundamental to the issue. Capitalism requires, at its base, a society in which individuals are free to work cooperatively to pursue their own self-interests. Societies where this is not possible cannot fully benefit from the productivity that Capitalism can offer.


at the underlying route of it all there is a simple reason why the starving are not getting enough food. There is no Demand for it. Market forces at their most brutal.Underlying this assessment is a very...chauvinistic...assumption: that only western societies can save the starving. Don't you wonder why Africa can't feed itself? Do you take it for granted that African farmers are simply incapable of providing for their hungry?


I do not believe that capitalism can solve this difficulty, but if it can I would support it in doing so, Capitalism has solved Demand Side problems on its own before and ultimately capitalism lasting a little longer would be worth it in the long run if this problem could be solved.Well, you're right about that. The real problem in the world is not economic, but political. The lack of liberty has been a common cause of failure in capitalist, socialist, feudalist, communist, fascist - whatever system you care to name. Almost without exception, where people are free, they prosper, and where they are not, they suffer.

But you're right, of course; capitalism alone cannot defeat tyranny. Capitalism is not the cause of freedom; quite the opposite.

[Demogorgon]

It may be in form but clearly it fails to consistently uphold the most basic principles of a liberal democracy, such as equality under the law. It's a country that arguably suffers under a lingering civil cold war. Holding it up as a prime example of liberal democracy is just blatant cherry-picking. But even if you do pick that cherry, compare like with like - why not compare South Africa to its even less liberal democratic African neighbors?South Africa is economically still suffering from the aftermath of apartheid, but politically it is a fully functioning liberal democracy. Fair, free and competitive elections, diverse press, independent judiciary etc. Now if you want to argue that that is not enough, I will be the first to agree. All the guarantees that liberal democracy gives are meaningless if you are living in the Johannesburg Ghettos or some backwards village in the middle of nowhere. But that is a socialist argument, not a liberal one. In terms of negative freedom, South Africa ranks ahead of many Western countries. It is lack of Positive Fredom that is the problem


With all due respect, it's not a diversion, it's fundamental to the issue. Capitalism requires, at its base, a society in which individuals are free to work cooperatively to pursue their own self-interests. Societies where this is not possible cannot fully benefit from the productivity that Capitalism can offer.I can think of some very unfree societies indeed where capitalism thrives, the Emirates for example. The fact they are building their wealth on what practically amounts to slavery (the abuse of foreign workers there is appalling) notwithstanding they are keeping people fed. Or even more importantly, China had a very oppressive Government that was not practicing what you would see as capitalism when it managed to tackle the famines tat had ravaged China for centuries. I am not saying that there is no correlation between despotism and famine there is, but it is a contributory factor, not a cause. Very often in famine hit countries even, the Government is not even functioning as a proper dictatorship anyway. t is just a collection of corrupt officials taking bribes and leaving people tot heir suffering. They certainly don't stop those with the means to acquire food from acquiring it.

Underlying this assessment is a very...chauvinistic...assumption: that only western societies can save the starving. Don't you wonder why Africa can't feed itself? Do you take it for granted that African farmers are simply incapable of providing for their hungry? That is not what I am saying though. I am arguing that the problem is not the world's ability to produce food, but it's ability to demand it. African farmers are certainly capable of producing food, though they can oftenf ace difficulties, in some parts of Africa, if the rain doesn't come on time, the harvest will fail and there is also the problem that it is very hard for African farmers to stay in business due to Western dumping, but that is not the underlying cause. Africa is very capable of producing food. Indeed when I go down to the supermarket later I will see proof positive of that, much of the produce will be imported from Africa. But that is the point, an African farmer who wants to turn any kind of profit will sell his or her produce for export a lot of the time. They will most likely be robbed blind by the transaction but it is still etter than trying to sell food to people who can't afford to pay for it

Well, you're right about that. The real problem in the world is not economic, but political. The lack of liberty has been a common cause of failure in capitalist, socialist, feudalist, communist, fascist - whatever system you care to name. Almost without exception, where people are free, they prosper, and where they are not, they suffer.

But you're right, of course; capitalism alone cannot defeat tyranny. Capitalism is not the cause of freedom; quite the opposite.
Well that depends on your definition. If you value positive freedom, then yes, because prosperity is part of that, but if you go for negative freedom then no. I don't think you can say that famine is caused by despotism, because despotism does not automatically lead to famine. It is likely the other way round in fact, with despotism able to thrive when there is famine and hence people are too busy worrying where the next meal is coming from to organise any kind of coherent opposition.

I think the problem here is fundamentally economic in nature, but it is not a problem with capitalism's ability to produce food. Whatever other faults it may have, it certainly produces plenty. It even lets large amounts go to waste. The difference between food produced and food consumed in the EU for example is quite staggering and that is before you factor in that we also import a lot of food. No, capitalism left to its own devices can certainly produce all the food the world needs, I dont deny it. What it fails to do is distribute it.

As I said before, defenders of the market system point to it responding to peoples wants and needs, but that is not really wha it does, what it responds to is people's demand, wants backed up with the ability and willingness to pay. It is distribution of income and wealth that causes this problem ultimately.

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/planned-obsolecence-t75525/index.html


Planned obsolescence is a strategy whereby firms will design their products in a way that makes the product non-functional or obsolete only a short time after purchase, thereby ensuring that there will always be demand for a firm's products. This has widely been criticized as one of the negative impacts of the capitalist system, because it has a negative impact on the environment and is also unfair for consumers. An example of this is the use of short-term warranties in the consumer electronics industry, such that if a product breaks, consumers are unable to get a free replacement or a repair, they are forced to buy a new copy of the same product.

[Joby]

As much as they want, provided it does not conflict with the consumption habits of others. Goods where supply outstrips demand (or perhaps "where needs are satisfied") should follow that principle.

Oh, so the answer to FDR's big govt programs is...the unregulated free market?