Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

It's amazing how many people are suckered in by leftists propaganda, always forgetting the lessons of history as if today's latest sensation was all that existed. The left also loves to smear centrists as right wing, as though anyone who doesn't blindly follow their blind biases is of the evil right.

Tariffs won't screw the US economy; that's just propaganda. Debt is the greater enemy. The US is already spending more on servicing debt than on its military or health systems.

SO you are saying that economists the world over, with few exceptions are all engaged in left wing propaganda, incluing the right wing ones?
DO I read you correctly?
DO you have any evidence for this.?

I could just as easily ask you how concern over the largest debt in history, with massive repayments, is right wing propaganda (albeit sans your histrionics and poor punctuation).

In order to have a discussion you might want to consider answering the questions, else we cannot move on.
In answer to your question, First please desist from the ad homimen.
Secondly, I would have to ask when do you think I implied that the debt was right wing propoganda?
The propoganda aspect of my response is the false equivalence of modern economics with ancient, especially concerning the probles with price controls
And I hardly think that the Trump team would want to remind everyone of the debt crisis, since it was he that plunged the US economy depper into debt to the tune of $7trillion + causing the inflation crisis of the last 3 years, which the Democrats have had to bring under control.

In order to have a discussion, we need honesty, and your extreme political biases stand in the way of that. A philosophy forum ideally requires objectivity, not rabid partisanship. You keep (wrongly) assuming that I'm a Trump supporter simply because I don't blindly follow your preferred narrative. I am more interested in actual policy than personality games; I don't care about Trump or Harris, or Albanese or Dutton for that matter. Policy matters more than the sideshows.

Here is a chart of US government debt over time, already disproving your false claim that Biden/Harris brought the debt under control. I also note that you were either unaware of, or unwilling to admit, the impact of COVID during Trump's tenure: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-sta ... nment-debt

It's well known that history moves in cycles. It repeats. Price controls have been tried a number of times and it tends to end badly, unless they are finely targeted at monopolies.

It's logic. If you control prices centrally it turns businesses off, and you end up with supply shortages. The first merchants to stop supplying due to price controls will always be small businesses, because corporations can absorb government-mandated losses for longer.

https://www.aier.org/article/price-cont ... -evidence/

Price controls have long been studied by economic historians in the case of the French Revolution, many countries during and soon after World War I, the 301 AD price edict of emperor Diocletian, the Song dynasty’s 13th century experiments with paper money, and the attempt to quash inflation with price controls, and even the price and wage controls of the Nixon administration. All of them point to the same thing – price controls do not stop inflation; they only make things worse. If prices are going up, it’s either because monetary policy is too loose or because the economy suffered a decline in productivity. There is no way around it, and the only solutions are to tighten monetary policy or enact reforms that promote productivity growth. Everything else is a fool’s errand that ends in economic pain.

[Sy Borg]

Most systems are valid to some extent. The world cannot all operate under one system for all the reasons that I've made that have been ignored.

I think it might be possible for one system to work across the board ... if it can be tailored to suit each national environment. But that's a bit of a fudge. Tailoring a system will result in a new system that is different, maybe in small ways, maybe in big ones. I agree there is no one *fixed* system that can accommodate all needs. 👍

Environment, resources, history and culture put paid to any global system that would do more good than harm. It's akin to expecting all people to have the same diet.

I think it's akin to expecting all people to eat food. But it doesn't matter; we are in general agreement, which is all that matters here. 👍

Your analogy is wrong, even if we concur regarding the broader principle.

Expecting all nations to have some kind of governing system is equivalent to expecting all people to eat food.

Expecting all nations to have the same governing system is equivalent to expecting all people to eat the same food.

A uniform global order would be a totalitarian nightmare. Each nation must follow its own, most suitable, course.

[Pattern-chaser]

A uniform global order would be a totalitarian nightmare. Each nation must follow its own, most suitable, course.

Consider the challenge of climate-change. Can we actually address it without a world government? One body, with the authority to rule, and the power (or whatever it takes) for its rules to be followed. A world government may not be desirable to some, but without it, can you see any possibility of us ceasing our depredations?

[Lagayascienza]

If economic growth depends on increasing population growth (as many economists say it does) and on the growth in the extraction of finite natural resorces, then, with all nations competing as usual, how do we prevent further devastation of the commons on which we all depend? It is on those who say that the the sort of competition between nations we have seen heretofore is necessay, to tell the rest of us how this will play out. There is only so much land on earth for us to live on and on which to prodice food. There is only one atmosphere and one global ocean. These are our commons on which we all depend. If these are destroyed by our population growth and our extraction of natural resorces then what happens to economic growth? Innovation and productivity are limited by the commons. Yes, we could foreseeably go off planet, but could that happen soon enough to save us? Already we are looking down the barrel of a climate catastrophe. Our population has already passed eight billion. How much higher could it go without billions of us dying as a result? And should this matter?

[Sy Borg]

A uniform global order would be a totalitarian nightmare. Each nation must follow its own, most suitable, course.

Consider the challenge of climate-change. Can we actually address it without a world government? One body, with the authority to rule, and the power (or whatever it takes) for its rules to be followed. A world government may not be desirable to some, but without it, can you see any possibility of us ceasing our depredations?

Will the US and Japan do as China says or will China and Russia do what the US says? Will India obey either?

Climate change is a wicked problem. There are only lest worst solutions and none of them will involve a global order, because that's not realistic.

Meanwhile, China is building new coal fired power stations every day, probably to satisfy the west's demand for "green" technology.

[Sy Borg]

If economic growth depends on increasing population growth (as many economists say it does) and on the growth in the extraction of finite natural resorces, then, with all nations competing as usual, how do we prevent further devastation of the commons on which we all depend? It is on those who say that the the sort of competition between nations we have seen heretofore is necessay, to tell the rest of us how this will play out. There is only so much land on earth for us to live on and on which to prodice food. There is only one atmosphere and one global ocean. These are our commons on which we all depend. If these are destroyed by our population growth and our extraction of natural resorces then what happens to economic growth? Innovation and productivity are limited by the commons. Yes, we could foreseeably go off planet, but could that happen soon enough to save us? Already we are looking down the barrel of a climate catastrophe. Our population has already passed eight billion. How much higher could it go without billions of us dying as a result? And should this matter?

The world has been overpopulated with humans for a long time. However, many are in denial about it. Billions will die. A hundred billion have died already in Earth's history; it's just a matter of how and when.

There is no climate crisis in most parts of the world, but the conditions are there for future climate crises.

Humans are made for Earth. No one is living (for long) off-world, unless they are significantly trained, cyborged and/or genetically modified. Musk and many others claim that humans must become a multi-planetary species, but I think that any species living off-world won't be very human any more. Nor will they care about what happens on Earth.

[Mo_reese]

If economic growth depends on increasing population growth (as many economists say it does) and on the growth in the extraction of finite natural resorces, then, with all nations competing as usual, how do we prevent further devastation of the commons on which we all depend?

Economic growth as it is currently measured seems to be a measure of how badly we are doing to sustain a livable planet.

We here a lot about economic growth and how well we are doing in the US but is a measurement of how well the Elite Class are doing as it is measured for the most part on production and has no relation to how well the 99% of Americans are doing financially. While many US corporations are recording record profits, the prosparity is not being trickled down. Wealth inequality, poverty, personal debt, medical bankruptcies, homelessness, etc. are all getting worse while the government brags about a great economy.

We need a way to measure the cost of the economic growth to the sustainability of our planet.

[Sy Borg]

... a measurement of how well the Elite Class are doing as it is measured for the most part on production and has no relation to how well the 99% of Americans are doing financially. While many US corporations are recording record profits, the prosparity is not being trickled down. Wealth inequality, poverty, personal debt, medical bankruptcies, homelessness, etc. are all getting worse while the government brags about a great economy.

Ditto China. Ditto India. Corporations and their governments become ever more powerful as they do business with each other while regular people are increasingly like the Proles of 1984 or those living on the reservation in Brave New World - irrelevant life forms feeding on the scraps of those wielding power.

It's not the top 1%, which is a dated figure. It's more like the top 0.01% https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/nev ... 01-percent

[Pattern-chaser]

A uniform global order would be a totalitarian nightmare. Each nation must follow its own, most suitable, course.

Consider the challenge of climate-change. Can we actually address it without a world government? One body, with the authority to rule, and the power (or whatever it takes) for its rules to be followed. A world government may not be desirable to some, but without it, can you see any possibility of us ceasing our depredations?

Will the US and Japan do as China says or will China and Russia do what the US says? Will India obey either?

As I wrote:

One body, with the authority to rule, and the power (or whatever it takes) for its rules to be followed.

Climate change is a wicked problem. There are only least worst solutions and none of them will involve a global order, because that's not realistic.

As I wrote:

A world government may not be desirable to some, but without it, can you see any possibility of us ceasing our depredations?

Then it seems there will be no solution, and no recovery, just a descent into the mire. Perhaps it will engulf us while the American Empire still survives? We'll see...

[Sculptor1]

During the time of the height and power of the British Empire was also the height of the most extreme inequality. Whilst the Monarch and his Lords decked themselves in gold, with massive estates, and until 1808 slaves too, they exploited the most extreme poverty and imported tea, sugar and textiles from the dirt poor peasants that made these goods.

[...]

But in the US we see the very opposite of this. People are losing their power and you seem to think this will end the empire, yet China where the same personal freedoms do not exist is growing to eclipse the US.

It would seem you have things precisely backwards. Loss of personal freedoms and individual power is not a sign of the end of empire, but a re-assertion of it. Imperial power thrives on the fear and poverty of the masses.

This is an interesting speculation. Could it be that the unbridled greed we can see demonstrates the health and vigour of the American Empire? Is that possible?

There is synchrony between greed, evil and imperial power, and there always has been.

[Sculptor1]

If economic growth depends on increasing population growth (as many economists say it does) and on the growth in the extraction of finite natural resorces, then, with all nations competing as usual, how do we prevent further devastation of the commons on which we all depend? It is on those who say that the the sort of competition between nations we have seen heretofore is necessay, to tell the rest of us how this will play out. There is only so much land on earth for us to live on and on which to prodice food. There is only one atmosphere and one global ocean. These are our commons on which we all depend. If these are destroyed by our population growth and our extraction of natural resorces then what happens to economic growth? Innovation and productivity are limited by the commons. Yes, we could foreseeably go off planet, but could that happen soon enough to save us? Already we are looking down the barrel of a climate catastrophe. Our population has already passed eight billion. How much higher could it go without billions of us dying as a result? And should this matter?

We need a new metric.
If growth just means billionarres double their fortunes every 4 years whilst the minimum wage stays the same then what sort of growth is that?
Economic success needs to be measured by the absence of need, not gross greed.

[Sculptor1]

Elitism is defined as the belief that certain persons or members of certain groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their superiority, as in intelligence, social standing, or wealth.
The Great Republican Depression saw elitist greed almost destroy the United States. The greedy were willing to kill the goose, so to speak.
President Franklin Roosevelt with some help by the Republicans decided that the greed needed to be regulated in order to save the country from total collapse which would hurt not only the People Class but also the Elite Class. Stiff regulations were adopted to stifle the uncontrolled greed.

Notice, it was benevolent elite that came to the rescue not a populist revolution.

But a benevolent elite that had to appeal to voters.

That elite everntually repaced that rescue with a new plan from Milton Friedman whose economic theory has meant that the poor, lower and middle classes have not progressed whilst inequality has accelerated.

[Mo_reese]

Consider the challenge of climate-change. Can we actually address it without a world government? One body, with the authority to rule, and the power (or whatever it takes) for its rules to be followed. A world government may not be desirable to some, but without it, can you see any possibility of us ceasing our depredations?

How would it be possible to turn around the current pending climate disaster without a world government? However, such a government would have to be authoritarian and billions of people would most likely be sacrificed.

[Sy Borg]

A world government may not be desirable to some, but without it, can you see any possibility of us ceasing our depredations?

... Then it seems there will be no solution, and no recovery, just a descent into the mire. Perhaps it will engulf us while the American Empire still survives? We'll see...

Since you are so strongly against US capitalism, and the EU is already breaking, then you can only be recommending one thing - that the CCP becomes the world government. That would indeed be a totalitarian nightmare. On the plus side, we are a probably a tad too old to be used for organ harvesting. Seriously, a cohesive world government is utterly impossible.

Besides, we are already decades too late - the temperature changes are locked in. Atmospheric CO2 is not something you just switch off. Humans being humans, serious action won't happen until there is no choice. That's a problem when there are long lag times between cause and effect. A wicked problem.

As for the "American Empire", there is no such thing. It's a metaphor. It's not rare in history for dominant societies to become unstable due to growing inequality. The media and activists misread the situation, though. It's not the top 1%, it's the top 0.01% that is increasing its share at an incredible rate, and there's evidence for that.

That this thread even exists shows that cracks are appearing in the system. When the wealth divide reaches a certain point, unrest begins, eg. Rome, Egypt, Mayans, France and the USSR. I expect that the mainstream media will lie, hide and mislead as usual to maintain the status quo, and keep people distracted and divided with petty culture wars.

[Mo_reese]

But a benevolent elite that had to appeal to voters.

That elite everntually repaced that rescue with a new plan from Milton Friedman whose economic theory has meant that the poor, lower and middle classes have not progressed whilst inequality has accelerated.

Yes I agree. It was not a typical situation and not apt to happen again. Greed usually wins out.