Well. as a delegate who was AT COP17 and who was involved in many debates and discussions at Speaker's Corner, the issue of globalisation, corporate greed, the Occupy movement and global injustice are all so neatly and clearly related that the only rational alternative is a radical rethink of capitalism and a resetting of the system to make it more fair to groups and societies that will continue to remain on the periphery if change is not manually inserted and foisted on "the system".
HAHAHAH! Cop17. How nice, I know someone who attended as well, Leon Louw (Go Google him). He mentioned he saw the following whilst he was there:
- There was joke amongst the organisers who kept watch on the bicycles they had for you guys, since when Leon asked them if many of the delegates had decided to opt to use the bicycle as transport instead of other means, the guys laughed and said that he must be joking.
- The buses used in the park and ride scheme to take delegates from the drop-off points to the conference: Leon said at most he saw 8 poeple to a bus and the buses were turned on all the time so as to have their air-conditioners active.
- There was that solar panel outside the conference, which in fact didn't work, and moved because it was plugged into the electricity grid, drawing coal created power from the grid.
- There was that windmall inside the conference which also didn't work, but was plugged into the grid, drawing again coal created electricity.
- Based on the actions of the delegates at the conference and especially the NGO's in attendence, Leon is convinced this is the biggest money making swindle on the planet at the moment. Thousands of people and business asking the state to transfer wealth from other people to them, effectively the state abusing its power to channel wealth to its politically connected allies. Effectively like pigs at the trough.
Since Leon is someone who has spent the greater part of his adult life fighting for the freedoms of individuals against oppression, is world reknown, has spoken for the UN etc. and as an executive director of the Free Market Foundation, who specialises in analysing policy and making recommendations to the government which enhance individual freedom and prosperity, as well as other friends of mine who made small fortunes for their clients during the financial crash as they understood exactly what was happening and called it from the beginning, I can safely say based on their credentials and more importantly their arguments
- the financial crises was not caused by capitalism
- it was not caused by corporate greed, if anything the green movement is the poster child for corporate greed and lobbying
- the occupy movement are a bunch of ignorant people who want hard working people to provide for them and the state to force them to do so, regardless of the will or desires of such people
When many radical capitalists, such as Peter Schiff, various "Austrian" and Free-market economists, Ron Paul etc. ALL pointed to the crises, long in advance and were ignored by the quasi-fascist/socialist economists and politicians alike, and made small fortunes off their predictions, you cannot come here and argue, "they were wrong" and the people who didn't see it coming, the state and its cronies, as well as people who are pretty ignorent about economics (Young college kids in general), are right.
I really don't think you can expect me to take you seriously.
http://www.mises.co.za/2012/02/the-capitalism-delusion/
There is no ways the current system, with so many regulations WORLD WIDE can be argued to be capitalists. The most highly regarded indices of economic freedom such as the Frasier Institute and the Heritage Index, NO LONGER REGARD THE US AS A CAPITALIST ECONOMY. It has not been for years.
If you have legions of regulations, you cannot argue the economy is unregulated. When by comparison, some European nations, which have FAR FAR LESS REGULATIONS, particularly in the banking sector (but then are called socialist by you guys, which shows the illogical thinking on your part) did not have the same problems as the US did.
I cannot see how you can argue a banking sector which is highly regulated, is blamed for its capitalist failings and banking sectors which are much less regulated, with no problems are called "welfarist" or socialist. The double-speak is blatant, but it seems to go beyond most people.
The fact remains, the Wall Street bailout could've comprehensively solved world hunger
How, all it did was take wealth away from people with money and give it to companies without money. (That's all printing and bailouts are, transfers of wealth.
Only way to solve world hunger is create sufficient supply of food and get it to the people. Unless you are talking about mass nationalisation of farmland, the only system which automatically does this (increases mass productivity and industrialisation) is the capitalist system. Not only that but your since all environmental regulations impose a cost of doing business (and the smaller countries are the easiest to bully into implementing this) then basically your policies indicate you cary very little for economic developement in 3rd world countries which surely is the fastest way to end global hunger.
Removed BILLIONS of tons of carbon from the atmosphere and given renewable energy a massive boost.
Again, the only way that could have happened is if the state decided to give the money to its Green cronies and friends instead of its banker cronies and friends. "Green" energy imposes a high cost on industry. If it was cheaper and more efficient there simply would be NO need for any regulations. Some "greedy capitalist" would understand that he could satisfy consumer demand more cheaply and efficiently than his competitors and put them out of business. Since that hasn't happened we know that is not the case. (Also patents and intellectual property laws prevent this but those are anti-market inventions...)
So the cost of green companies and penalties on non-green companies is less growth, less advancement. The reality is if you really want to save the plant, the best way to do so is to advance technologically as quickly as possible. Since all current proposals are a cost or deterrent on growth and production, you achieve the opposite of technological advancement.
The money was of course spent on bailing out banks and institutions representative of a creaking, ailing financial system that is collapsing under the weight of its own BS.
Correct. But since this monetary system is not "capitalistic" as by definition the Reserve Banks have a MONOPOLY on the issuance of money (thus not a "freely competitive market") its not a capitalistic problem.
Oh btw, those extreme captalists I mentioned have been saying the banking system is a problem for about 100 years or so.
Of course I support the free market system, but I also support fairness
If I am born as a more talented individual than you, why should I be punished for this? (Thus dispelling the notion of fairness. Either you impede me, through laws or your force me to subsidise you (tax me and give to you), both harm me and benefit you.
Ironically, in a capitalist economy, those who benefit the CONSUMER the most, make the most money. No you are arguing this wrong, and those who can't compete (because they cannot serve the consumer like I can) need to be subsidised.
Besides what is fair? A word for jealousy that I'm better than you and you want me harmed and yourself rewarded.
and with the might of Google and their known aggressive policy of takeovers, acquisitions and hostile closures, they're not this big, innocent company so many of you think it is...I implore you to please research the Occupy movement and visit
www.googleopoly.net for some insight into the real issues at stake.
1. Google do not have a monopoly. There is nothing preventing you from competing.
2. Their position of market dominance has been earned because they simply were MUCH MUCH better than anyone else in giving consumers what they wanted, a search engine etc. Now you want to take away their dominant position, effectively belittling everything they have accomplished, because both go hand in hand. If you could go back in time and you understood that preventing them from starting up is what you are really arguing for, you would probably have a world with, "gasp", Yahoo!
3. There is nothing preventing consumers from moving to you.
4. If you truly offered a better service and were truly better at communicating this to consumers, you wouldn't need any laws or regulations to beat the big bad bully, because consumers would come to you naturally. Since you seem to desire intervention from the state, obviously in the minds of the ULTIMATE judges, the Consumers, Google kicks yo ass.
5. Ultimately it should be the consumers and thus societies choice who wins, not you and your politically connected cronies.
GreenSrch.com will continue to provide a search service that results in zero emissions and which can help you offset your carbon emissions...these are the facts.
I would rather work for a company and use a company that provides jobs for the poor and needy, regardless if they have emmissions or not. They would be doing a lot more for world hunger than anything you are doing.
