Al Gore takes aim at "unsustainable" capitalism

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

the DRIZZLE

Platinum Member
Sep 6, 2007
2,956
1
81
IMO he's going at this from the wrong end. If we want to encourage long term thinking we should tie managers compensation and wealth to long term company performance. Limiting shareholder oversight and power is a step in the wrong direction and will cause more problems than it will solve.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Can he take a stab at unsustainable government as well?

Unsustainable government and unsustainable capitalism are equally at fault.

Capitalism always seeks to undermine a Democracy by nature, the profit motive is directly opposed to needs of actual people except the ones who hold the wealth in a society. This is why neo-liberal capitalists are generally opposed to Democracy. Unfettered Capitalism always leads to tyranny as Capitalism itself is inherently gangsterism and thuggery throughout history. Thus the US's obsession with such subjects. (al Capone etc) China being a good example also of how basic ideology of a country matters not, all governments are run by people who run the risk of being tainted if there is not a informed Democratic public holding the reigns.

If anything Capitalism works best and can drive innovation when controlled reasonably so the capitalists themselves actually take risk (like the rest of us) instead of hoarding, those who hoard sooner or later will use their leverage to corrupt and accumulate more wealth.

Why are rich people rich? They do not spend money. (unless it directly games the system into their favor of more wealth accumulation) Anyone who knows how the world works knows this. The working classes are always underrepresented in a capitalist system run amok as they do not have this choice.
 
Last edited:

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Why doesn't Gore pick something good and actually obtainable, like reducing population growth,

Because depopulation is foolish when we live on a planet with more then enough for all, the problem is humanity is still stuck on superstitions like Capitalism/magic hand waving free market fundamentalism (simply known as serfdom a few hundred years ago) letting a few hoard by corrupting worldwide governments and keep the species in tyranny of our past age of animalistic social darwinism. (modern chattel slavery). The human race has a lot of catching up to do socially to match our technological potential.

In all fairness the human race is still divided by nationalism/profit motive, this is unsustainable in the long run, but we are a adaptable species. The permanent revolution will always march forward as long as we still are learning, remember, it has only been 150 years or so even western civilization were still wiping our ass with leaves in the candlelight.

Neo-liberalism is by no means the end game, it is but another tool on our journey of civilization for people just like transistors radios worked well enough for a time. We can do better.
 
Last edited:

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
I disagree. I see no downside to reduced populations other than the upside (which those in favor of wanting to spend spend spend will see as a downside) of it forcing Politicians to actually spend money wisely and to truly prioritize what we spend tax monies on.

What's the downside to less population again, across the globe?
 

Veliko

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2011
3,597
127
106
I disagree. I see no downside to reduced populations other than the upside (which those in favor of wanting to spend spend spend will see as a downside) of it forcing Politicians to actually spend money wisely and to truly prioritize what we spend tax monies on.

What's the downside to less population again, across the globe?

Is this post meant to be taken seriously?
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
572
126
He's not wrong, short term thinking is destructive to capitalism.

He'll probably be wrong on the remedy, but he's right about the diagnosis.

Short term thinking is not destructive to capitalism. Short term thinking is destructive to parties which engage in it in a capitalist economy.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,775
49,434
136
Short term thinking is not destructive to capitalism. Short term thinking is destructive to parties which engage in it in a capitalist economy.

And when most parties in a capitalist economy are doing this, it is destructive to all of us. Like any economic system, capitalism has problems that need to be mitigated the best we can.

I agree with the drizzle, btw. Limiting shareholder input and information is precisely the wrong way to go about it. We should increase it, if anything. I strongly agree that we should work to tie management's financial incentives to long term performance.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
I disagree. I see no downside to reduced populations other than the upside (which those in favor of wanting to spend spend spend will see as a downside) of it forcing Politicians to actually spend money wisely and to truly prioritize what we spend tax monies on.

What's the downside to less population again, across the globe?

The down side is that the illusion of prosperity created by capitalism depends on "Growth!", on constantly expanding markets & production to sustain the predatory practices of wealth agglomeration into the hands of fewer & fewer people via increasing income share at the top.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
572
126
And when most parties in a capitalist economy are doing this, it is destructive to all of us. Like any economic system, capitalism has problems that need to be mitigated the best we can.

Okay wait a second, I'm going to revise my previous statement.

Short term thinking isn't destructive to capitalism. It's destructive period. Are we saying that capitalism promotes short-term thinking? If that's true, then it's equally true that freedom promotes short-term thinking. People can be immature and short-sighted, and freedom gives them the ability to make these mistakes and suffer the consequences.

How exactly do we create a system that protects people from their own short-sightedness without grossly infringing on personal freedom?
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
572
126
The down side is that the illusion of prosperity created by capitalism depends on "Growth!", on constantly expanding markets & production to sustain the predatory practices of wealth agglomeration into the hands of fewer & fewer people via increasing income share at the top.

Predatory? People willingly giving their money in exchange for a product they want is being preyed upon?

I simply don't understand arguments like this. Capitalism means one thing and one thing only: let people trade if they want to trade.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,775
49,434
136
Okay wait a second, I'm going to revise my previous statement.

Short term thinking isn't destructive to capitalism. It's destructive period. Are we saying that capitalism promotes short-term thinking? If that's true, then it's equally true that freedom promotes short-term thinking. People can be immature and short-sighted, and freedom gives them the ability to make these mistakes and suffer the consequences.

How exactly do we create a system that protects people from their own short-sightedness without grossly infringing on personal freedom?

It's not essentially true that freedom promotes short term thinking, because no capitalist system is truly free. (nor should it be, talk about a catastrophe) Our current capitalistic system encourages short term thinking because incentives for management are short term in nature. That's quite easy to change, actually.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
572
126
It's not essentially true that freedom promotes short term thinking, because no capitalist system is truly free. (nor should it be, talk about a catastrophe)

Just because it's not anarchy doesn't mean it's not considered "free". Compared to the vast majority of civilizations throughout history, we are definitely granted economic freedom.

Our current capitalistic system encourages short term thinking because incentives for management are short term in nature. That's quite easy to change, actually.

Please explain.
 
Last edited:

Griffinhart

Golden Member
Dec 7, 2004
1,130
1
76
What's the downside to less population again, across the globe?

And how do you propose to achieve this? How do you reduce population without trampling on an individual rights? Even with China's 1 child policy, it has only managed to slow population growth. The countries population has grown by about one billion since the policy was enacted.

Certainly there are benefit's to a lower global population, but the downside is what the world would need to do in order to reduce the population.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
Is this post meant to be taken seriously?

More seriously than yours obviously. Your posts here remind me of another P&N poster who thinks people need training on how to pickup garbage off the ground. Apperently he has more mental company than I thought....

The down side is that the illusion of prosperity created by capitalism depends on "Growth!", on constantly expanding markets & production to sustain the predatory practices of wealth agglomeration into the hands of fewer & fewer people via increasing income share at the top.

I don't know why capitalism would necessairly have to work like you just postulated. Just because it is currently - to whatever degree - doesn't mean it has to. You could have a capitalist society and have the company leadership take a more moral and ethical viewpoint on salaries, and still have that type of society.

My point is rather than try and change the way world economies are functioning, why doesn't he just try and change the amount of babies being spit out, and by nature of less people, less resources will be consumed. And we'll have the benefits of less people on top of that.

Other than reduced tax revenues (offset by necessary reduced spending and prioritized spending), and less people for large wars, I'm still not seeing a downside to this than this new insanity by Gore to gain attention.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,775
49,434
136
Just because it's not anarchy doesn't mean it's not considered "free". Compared to the vast majority of civilizations throughout history, we are definitely granted economic freedom.

Yes, it is more free, but it is still not free. You equated capitalism with freedom though, and that's not really accurate. Nearly everyone agrees that we need to regulate it in order to reign in its worst parts while keeping its best parts.
Please explain.

We can alter our regulatory, taxation, etc schemes in order to promote management compensation that rewards long term success. While I'm sure the devil is in the details, the general idea of what to do in order to discourage short term thinking is pretty clear.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
572
126
Yes, it is more free, but it is still not free. You equated capitalism with freedom though, and that's not really accurate. Nearly everyone agrees that we need to regulate it in order to reign in its worst parts while keeping its best parts.

Capitalism means free markets. Low restraint to trade. To the extent that barriers to trade are reduced, capitalism is advanced.

Capitalism does have some rough edges that need smoothing over. People who are unable to care for themselves need help. There is a case for government protecting parties who suffer because of a transaction to which they did not consent, like second hand smoke.

But those sorts of involvements need to be extraordinarily restrained. Good intentions have habits of producing undesirable ramifications that no one could foresee.

We can alter our regulatory, taxation, etc schemes in order to promote management compensation that rewards long term success. While I'm sure the devil is in the details, the general idea of what to do in order to discourage short term thinking is pretty clear.

Long term thinking is already naturally rewarded. The devil is indeed in the details; so much so that I'd prefer to rely on the natural mechanisms already in place which discourage short-term thinking, rather than on government to impose what it deems best.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,775
49,434
136
Capitalism means free markets. Low restraint to trade. To the extent that barriers to trade are reduced, capitalism is advanced.

Capitalism does have some rough edges that need smoothing over. People who are unable to care for themselves need help. There is a case for government protecting parties who suffer because of a transaction to which they did not consent, like second hand smoke.

But those sorts of involvements need to be extraordinarily restrained. Good intentions have habits of producing undesirable ramifications that no one could foresee.

As we have already agreed on, or at least so I thought, was that capitalism means free-er markets. Not free markets.

Long term thinking is already naturally rewarded. The devil is indeed in the details; so much so that I'd prefer to rely on the natural mechanisms already in place which discourage short-term thinking, rather than on government to impose what it deems best.

Uhmm, isn't our current situation proof positive that those 'natural mechanisms' don't work?
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
572
126
As we have already agreed on, or at least so I thought, was that capitalism means free-er markets. Not free markets.

I'm not sure whether I agree. What's wrong with truly free markets?

Uhmm, isn't our current situation proof positive that those 'natural mechanisms' don't work?

If anything, it's proof positive that they do. The mechanism works; short-sightedness reaps misery. If people refuse to learn from experience, that's their call.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,775
49,434
136
I'm not sure whether I agree. What's wrong with truly free markets?

Entirely free and unregulated markets? Unless you are an anarchist, I hope the answer to that would be self evident. Truly free markets lead to tyranny.
If anything, it's proof positive that they do. The mechanism works; short-sightedness reaps misery. If people refuse to learn from experience, that's their call.

.... no. Short sightedness does not bring misery to the people making the decisions, it brings misery to those with no input into the process. Short sightedness brings great rewards to those actually in charge, hence my original objection.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
And how do you propose to achieve this? How do you reduce population without trampling on an individual rights? Even with China's 1 child policy, it has only managed to slow population growth. The countries population has grown by about one billion since the policy was enacted.

Certainly there are benefit's to a lower global population, but the downside is what the world would need to do in order to reduce the population.

For the US?

1.) Bring all US military home from EU once we're out of Afghanistan. Those still in military lock down southern border. Anyone attempting to cross that does so in an area where detention is not guaranteed, and won't take warnings to leave, is destroyed. The continuation of illegal invasion would be over. Mexicans (and those that travel through Mexico to illegaly come here) would be Mexico's problem, not ours. If Fox doesn't like this, that's even better: He can actually take steps to fix the problem rather than foster it.

2.) Since we'll never get rid of SS or Medicare, rather, we'll eventually go to UHC, enact tiered UHC: Basic, Plus, Premium. Everyone in the US gets Basic, if people want more consideration than what Basic will provide, they can pay themselves for additional level of care. You can't have an adult contribute nothing to Fed taxes, and expect $2M in care. Don't want to not get high $$$ care? Net contribute then.

3.) Since we now don't have 1/2 of Mexico + other countries illegally F'ing up our country, plus we have people getting at least Basic medical care, we can now chop spending on the multitude of Fed. Those states/counties that want extra that was chopped, no problem. They can pay for it themselves. The people in those states/counties will have exponetially more voting control of what they want/don't want than the insanity that is Fed spending.

4.) Since Everyone now is a US citizen, and has Basic healthcare, and we don't have f*cktons of illegals, we can now work. On Unemployment? That sucks! On Unemployment past 30 weeks (that's more than 1/2 year)? Bummer for you. Report to your local government designated place x times a week to do whatever the F they want you to do. Look at that...less people on the Unemployment rolls (if they're forced to work, they'll be MUCH more apt to at least get paid better money for having to do it). Those that aren't on UE and don't want to work? Either they can afford to or they're going to be some really poor F's.

5.) Now that we've fixed the major F up problems in the country, or, at least some of them, we institute a tax credit program for women over 18, giving them credit to not have any kids. (assuming 1 kid per pregnancy) Have one successful pregnancy, less credit. Have two successful pregancies, no credit. Have three, tax penalty. Have four, more tax penalty. Have more than two pregnancies and can't afford the tax penalty without government assistance? Forced sterilization to solve your lack of control problem. Men or women wanting free sterilization would get it at any time.

Sounds very reasonable to me.

Thing is, something like this will eventually happen. Might take 200 years, 300 years, all very short periods of time, but, it will happen. "The world being able to support <absurd number> Billions of people" does not mean the World can actually support those number of people in the lifestyle they'll expect to be supported in...it means we can sustain life at that population level.

Get something like my #5 implemented now before the 15 Billion people in the future world eat up every resource on the Earth that took millions/billions of years to get there, and will take millions/billions of years to reform. Social whining now, or, social anarchy later. Pick one.
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,297
352
126
I'm not sure whether I agree. What's wrong with truly free markets?



If anything, it's proof positive that they do. The mechanism works; short-sightedness reaps misery. If people refuse to learn from experience, that's their call.

The argument against truly free markets has 3 main points.

1. Somehow people stop acting towards their best interest and accept wages that are below what they could bargain for. Examples would be Foxconn campus, Pullman towns, etc.
2. People will begin hoarding wealth just to hoard wealth, spending it would release the wealth back into the economy, but they simply will hoard without spending, causing deflation and painful price adjustments.
3. Gold - truly free markets cannot have a government imposed currency. Free market currency is bad - see #2 about hoarding.
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,297
352
126
Entirely free and unregulated markets? Unless you are an anarchist, I hope the answer to that would be self evident. Truly free markets lead to tyranny.


.... no. Short sightedness does not bring misery to the people making the decisions, it brings misery to those with no input into the process. Short sightedness brings great rewards to those actually in charge, hence my original objection.

Free markets without government lead to ultimate government oppression in the form of tyranny? Where did you hear that?
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |