[goldfishbowl42]

Holmes, I still don't understand how you can say the US is Socialist.
It owns as a state none of its means of production.
Dictionary definitions:-
Capitalism-An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Socialism-Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

If you mean, after use of the virgin resources that neither system would have any means of production so would be no production owned by the state or private individuals so would be the same then maybe.
But that is like saying zero oranges = zero apples
As long as there is any means of production then capitalism does not equal socialism as they opposite methods of owning production.
I suppose you could have a 1 man state.

[Booger]

All so called capitalist countries are really socialist to varying degrees. The US IS a socialist country. The roads are paid for and supervised by the government, every large corporation and business is given tax breaks, outright grants, legislation, government protection, government regulation. That is socialism, and the means of production controlled by the government. The difference between the US and Europe is that in America a rich person is convinced that the government got in the way of his making money, whereas a rich person in Europe knows he fleeced the government and worked hand in hand with them to get rich. The latter is true, the former is fantasy. There really is no such thing as capitalism, any so called capitalism has an enormous socialist underbelly to support it. The only free economies are Iraq, Afghanistan, the Congo, and parts of Somalia, where there is no government regulation. I suggest that the free enterprisers on this board move there to get the taste of freedom they want and richly deserve.

[mgibbons19]

Good grief. This board sure is wierd sometimes. Life on the internet I guess.
Thanks gg3 for bringing some sense into this ridiculous thread. As important as PO is, I almost can't bring myself to talk about it because these ppl (yes us, the believers) are so insane.
There is no such thing as pure capitalism. No doubt. It would be too inhuman to even try. But put the right kind of social structures in place to curb the bad parts, and you have a pretty cool system.

There is also no such thing as pure socialism. Again, it would be too inhuman even to try. Even the most extreme examples would have had black markets and illegal goods that were getting traded around.
There is simply no benefit to the kind of blather that goes around on this board. The best way in economics, as in most things, is something of a middle way, with the best of both sides working to curb the worst of each. If the best you can come up with is "this whole socialist mess" or "destroy money" you're not even adding to the discussion. Go back to playing doom or something.

[Booger]

mgibbons19, the 19 I assume is your age. Please wake up from your high school/community college valhalla, elysian fields, etc. utopia of insanity. Pure socialism can be found in North Korea, and a few other psycho hold outs. If it's not pure, it's pretty damn close. A fascist country is merely communism with hollow corporations carrying out the government's orders. Please add something to conversation then merely stating you disagree with me. BAck it up with some relevance.

[mgibbons19]

Yeah you really put me in my place.
What I object to is extremism. When you jump on someone who claims to be a (C)onservative, and just say "look at all the stuff the govt pays for" I think duh. High school - these big ideas sure are fun aren't they.
I find that a blanket approach that I've seen you exhibit is pointless. OK, so the govt owns everything and the uber-corporations are just a front. I just don't see it. OK, so it turns out the govt is spending ppl's tax money. On roads. I'm shocked! It must be socialism.

The one place it seemed like you were on a decent track was when you pointed out/agreed that monolithic capitalism is not good for ppl. But then you relapsed. Sorry if I don't see you adding much. In ten minutes worth of browsing the board, you twice reiterated my worst stereotypes of this place. So I gently called you on it.
Even regarding this post I'm responding to. You take what I say, resay it with vitriol, and act like you're disagreeing with me. Talk about high school.
You are living up to your name sir.

Now show me some creative thinking. Show me a way to balance soc/capitalism in such a way that peak oil (or any other problem for that matter) is lessened or even solved and I will listen.

[BastardSquad]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mgibbons19', 'G')ood grief. This board sure is wierd sometimes. Life on the internet I guess.

Thanks gg3 for bringing some sense into this ridiculous thread. As important as PO is, I almost can't bring myself to talk about it because these ppl (yes us, the believers) are so insane.

There is no such thing as pure capitalism. No doubt. It would be too inhuman to even try. But put the right kind of social structures in place to curb the bad parts, and you have a pretty cool system.

There is also no such thing as pure socialism. Again, it would be too inhuman even to try. Even the most extreme examples would have had black markets and illegal goods that were getting traded around.

There is simply no benefit to the kind of blather that goes around on this board. The best way in economics, as in most things, is something of a middle way, with the best of both sides working to curb the worst of each. If the best you can come up with is "this whole socialist mess" or "destroy money" you're not even adding to the discussion. Go back to playing doom or something.

[holmes]

and please tell me where this middle of the road is?
I for one don't see any middle of the road. I see extremes all over when it comes to our economics. I see either full blown capitalism or full blown socialism. Where is this middle of the road? Maybe I am missing it.
Doesn't get any better than this? Are u implying that you are above the rest of us. What are you doing to get us on the the middle of the road track?

The post is about the drilling of Alaska is the final nail in the coffin. There is no more wild frontier left in America. The last of its oil will be drained unless they start taxing and spending more to begin exploring and drilling off shore after the ice melts. The ecosystem will be extinct and the poles are just a litmus test for whats to come at southern latitudes.
The complete industrialization of America brings in a new era. I really don't see how this new era is any where near the middle of the road. I see more and more people growing more and more dependent as resources decline further. Well if its not pure socialism then it will come really close.

I have to laugh when soon millions and millions will be unemployed and dependent on some sort of subsidy and some are believing a middle of the road will be achieved and be diverted towards that perfect socialism. What planet are you all on? First the wild will be gutted and then its just handouts available. Thats the way things work with exponential growth.
please tell me how we will easily transition into this balance? Heck we can't even get the country to agree on basic biology.

[holmes]

ecological economics is the answer. link
Dr. Charlie Hall was one of my systems ecologist professors.
Now tell me how we can get this implemented into the US culture?

[Garrelic]

Wasn't this about ANWR? P.S. There are much more socialist G7 nations then the US, the US is on the lower end of the list.
Anyways... So the US is developing its 'wartime' oil reserve, and it takes 10 years to develop... and some people here are puzzled to why its an emergency plan when it takes 10 years to implement... Now seriously, do you need a picture painted here?

[Eustacian]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Garrelic', 'A')nyways... So the US is developing its 'wartime' oil reserve, and it takes 10 years to develop... and some people here are puzzled to why its an emergency plan when it takes 10 years to implement... Now seriously, do you need a picture painted here?

[formandfile]

Since the US is 'one of the most socialistic countries around' im just going to kick back and wait for the workers to take over all remaining manufacturing industries and start to control production and.....

...ooops, wait a second...where is the manufacturing?

Anywho, from what im getting from some of the previous posts is that 'subsidies=socialism'. If that's so, as an employee of a struggling public transportation system, i say 'bring it on', as we need every penny.

[gg3]

yo, please no more ad-hominems...
And hmm, tastes like someone else's words in my mouth...
I was not saying that the US economic system is "as bad as" socialism or some other comparison. I was not making better-or-worse comparisons. Humans have got to stop engaging in "-ER" thinking, as in biggER, bettER, worse-ER, etc., that is really counterproductive.

Take my statement above as a stand-alone, no -ER comparisons whatsoever. My point toward the end is that unfettered finance capital distorts market mechanisms such as to crowd out other types of ownership (e.g. proprietorships, etc.), thereby reducing the degree of freedom of enterprise that citizens can effectively practice. And that is a market distortion that needs to be corrected. The Libertarian prescription here is not the same as the socialist prescription.

By the way, you can get "green" via Libertarian, thus: ecological impacts are externalized costs that entail committing uninvolved parties to bear the consequences of transactions to which they did not freely give consent. Externalized costs are illegitimate in this way, as a generalization. The internalization of ecological costs to the willing participants in a transaction, produces results that are analogous to the strictest ecological measures.

[sventvkg]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', 'T')hough, keep in mind that it will take about ten years to get the infrastructure in place to start producing oil up there. So, Bush et. al. might "give permission," but some later administration can as easily put the brakes on, and put ANWAR back into "emergency usage" status.

This, IMHO, could be the best of both worlds: to be ready to produce it when it becomes necessary, but to not go using it for frivolous purposes.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sventvkg', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', 'T')hough, keep in mind that it will take about ten years to get the infrastructure in place to start producing oil up there. So, Bush et. al. might "give permission," but some later administration can as easily put the brakes on, and put ANWAR back into "emergency usage" status.

This, IMHO, could be the best of both worlds: to be ready to produce it when it becomes necessary, but to not go using it for frivolous purposes.

[MonteQuest]

By the way, ConocoPhillips and partner Anadarko Petroleum Corp. will develop five tracts around the oil-rich Alpine field on Alaska's North Slope, not ANWR. Production from there is estimated to begin in 2006.

[jato]

How are they going to transport the oil? Pipeline? Will the Alaskan pipeline handle all of the "new" ANWR oil?

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jato', 'H')ow are they going to transport the oil? Pipeline? Will the Alaskan pipeline handle all of the "new" ANWR oil?

[backstop]

Monte - On a practical note, just how vulnerable is the pipeline ? Not merely to a truly pissed off Iraqi, but to subsidence due to melting permafrost ?
1.0mbls/day would make it quite a hit on US supplies and thence on global prices. ~ I gather Bin Laden views $400/barrel as being about right.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('backstop', 'M')onte - On a practical note, just how vulnerable is the pipeline ? Not merely to a truly pissed off Iraqi, but to subsidence due to melting permafrost ?

[backstop]

Monte -I should have made clear that I was thinking of the now well recorded impact of Global Warming on the permafrost (both Russia and Canada have had significant changes) - thus I'm wondering if this was taken into account during the pipeline's construction ?
With regard to an attack on it, I'm wondering the extent to which a hit in early winter could employ the weather to delay reconstruction work and thus keep the pipeline out of action for an extended period?