Capitalism

**Moskitto** · 5th October 2001, 18:20

I was having a debate with someone over AIDS drugs prices. He suggested that the reason why no one who needs them can afford the drugs is because of transport costs. But he didn't explain why other companies can get drugs to Africa cheaper.

I thought about the situation and realised why the west wants the 3rd world to sign Kyoto. It's not because of environmental protection (Bush wouldn't be saboutaging Renewable Energy Development in Africa otherwise) but to protect capitalism.

Reason?

If the 3rd world developes (which it probably can if it developed it's industries (needs energy)) it would restrict the areas where cheap labour can be obtained. This would lead to dramatic rises in wages and eventually prices, then wages would have to go up to match and the prices would rise again. In effect we would have uncontrolable inflation rates until money becomes absolutely worthless. At this point the disgrunted masses would turn to communism as the answer.

Thoughts?

**RedSteve** · 5th October 2001, 18:45

I'm not sure, I don't know much about Kyoto agreement and its implications for 3rd world. But the developed world holds the developing world back through imperialism, the world bank and the instalation of corrupt leaders friendly to western interests. So I can see a logic in your argument.

As a slight aside, I have a friend who believes that if Gadaffi built a Nuclear power station, which as a by product pumped desalinated water into the Sahara Desert, it would be transformed back into lush fertile land. Interesting thought eh?

btw, I'm not opposed to nuclear power as such, I just mistrust the capitalist system to keep it safe.

CommieBastard · 5th October 2001, 20:57

I am fairly certain that sahara plan wouldn't work.
You see, it's all about Hadley Cells. The way the air circulates means that by the time it reaches the sahara it creates a desicatting and hot wind, which removes any moisture in the area and thus creates the desert. The Hadley Cells run all around the World, which is why there is a band of deserts roughly on either side of the equator running near the tropics.
There is pretty much nothing you can do about this unless you stop the World rotating, or somehow change the fundamental movement of air (NB: this can be done by providing such barriers as mountains or large areas of water).

I suppose the plan is theoretically possible, but you would have to pump in water faster than it was removed by the trade winds. To do this would need such monumental amounts of water that it would simply not be plausible.

**ViktorPravda** · 6th October 2001, 00:19

All right CB. You got me. One area where I have absolutely no ability to argue. Science. What are you a world book encyclopedia? lol

**Moskitto** · 6th October 2001, 10:07

A few years ago there was a series of TV programs challenging environmentalist assertions (not that i'm opposed to environment protection.) One of them showed that in Kenya the only medical treatment available is contreception and the population in many areas is declining and some areas which were formerly good quality land are now deserts.

It isn't just Kyoto to blame, Infact I think Kyoto is a good idea. But Esso saboutaging efforts by BP and Shell to develop renewable energy sources isn't helping the planet.

I've read on a capitalist FAQ website that capitalism doesn't oppress because if working conditions are bad no one would work there. But if you earn £30 a year then you have to buy food. And to fly to western world costs about £100 it isn't really easy, then there's loads of anti-immigration laws to stop people coming in. Then you have to work in sweatshops and be oppressed.

**ViktorPravda** · 6th October 2001, 16:51

As part of their Honors Algebra program at my college, the students did a study on "alternative" power sources. There is enough wind enrgy available in the US to power the whole country in the three state area around Wyoming alone. The use of hydro-electricity and thermo-electricity could be brought to full fruition in less than 20 years.

**Moskitto** · 7th October 2001, 14:17

I think nuclear power (especially fusion power) is best (if it's controlled properly) it's clean, safe and produces as much energy as a wind farm the size of Birmingham from 1 reactor.

Hydro Electric power is also useful because it can be turned on quickly to deal with peaks in electricity consumption.

**Chancho** · 8th October 2001, 22:13

Materially wealthy countries are not going to forgive 3rd world debt or encouring the development of undeveloped countries because the Earth cannot sustain a completely developed world. The poor must remain so in order for the elite to live in luxury.

Not to mention the inevitable power struggles that would ensue. It is essential to capitalism to keep the masses politically and environmentally uneducated - easily done within the system by distracting people from life with shiny trinkets and the philosophies of greed and competition.

Consumerism is the halucinogenic that they pump into our veins from birth and for most of us, it keeps us numb and dumb to reality for the duration of our artificially directed lives - enabling the state to get on with its accumulation of profit for profit's sake.

(Edited by Chancho at 1:19 am on Oct. 9, 2001)

Thread: Capitalism

Thread Tools

Similar Threads

Anti-Capitalism or State-Capitalism?

Capitalism sucks Earth dry of energy - Capitalism too greedy

¿CAPITALISM leads to ANARCHY? - Does capitalism lead to anar

Capitalism - Capitalism today ruins everything!!

Capitalism - Capitalism works, in theory.

Posting Permissions

Tags for this Thread