[retiredguy]

Centralized economic planning worked well for the Soviets, didn't it?

Even the Chinese have switched to a market economy.

Die off is inevitable after an overshoot. Only the form it takes is variable.

[Tyler_JC]

No one wants a 100% "free" unregulated market, just like no one wants a 100% command economy.

The question is how much freedom we want. It's a sliding scale, not a Yes or No question.

Some people, like Quinny, want less economic freedom and more government regulation. Others, like retiredguy, want more economic freedom and less government regulation.

I think, on a net basis, we have too much government.

We clearly need more oversight of the financial markets but I think small business and health insurance regulations are excessive.

I also support school vouchers, giving parents the ability to use taxpayer money to pick what school to send their children. It's a wash for the taxpayer but the parents could find a better school with their check.

Are school vouchers part of the free market? Of course not. A "Free" market would have no public funding for education at all.

But school vouchers are freer than the current system of a public monopoly on education.

[Quinny]

Like I've said before my belief is that the free market is a good servant but a bad (sorry terrible) master.

I can't agree that you've got too much government in the States, it seems to me that Wall St and the uber capitalists have walked all over your politicians. Ineffective and weak springs to mind. It's not just the size of the cake that matters it's how it's shared out between different services.

I believe that most peoples experience of Government (in fact it's echoed time and time agian on this board) is it's them politicians that are the Government and us that are the citizens/subjects whatever you prefer.

Thats why a participative democracy is essential, especially when resources need to be more equally shared out. The lack of interest in politics is IMO because of the lack of choice between the different parties.

I used to speak to young (and old) people about politics and they always said they were'nt interested. I'd then ask them for £5 which the first thing most said was not no, but 'what do you want it for'. They weren't willing to part with £5 without knowing what it would be spent on, yet they were willing to part with a larger part of their wage than any other purchase in their life without looking into what it's spent on!

My fear is that because of overshoot we may be too late to avoid massive die-off, but post that, surely those who look back at the mess we've made of the planet will realise that a more co-operative approach is needed in future.

[MrBill]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Quinny', 'I') can't see anyone defending it so far!

[Munqi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('retiredguy', 'C')entralized economic planning worked well for the Soviets, didn't it?

Even the Chinese have switched to a market economy.

Die off is inevitable after an overshoot. Only the form it takes is variable.

[MrBill]

Well, of course, unless you count the guy from Finland typing away on a PC connected to the Internet with someone in Cyprus instead of eating slop in a smokey, wooden hut, after he fed the reindeer, so he can go out tomorrow and cut down trees with his axe. You're right. Making Nokias instead of rubber boots is a real step backwards isn't it?

[Munqi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'W')ell, of course, unless you count the guy from Finland typing away on a PC connected to the Internet with someone in Cyprus instead of eating slop in a smokey, wooden hut, after he fed the reindeer, so he can go out tomorrow and cut down trees with his axe. You're right. Making Nokias instead of rubber boots is a real step backwards isn't it?

[Falconoffury]

Capitalism works if nobody is lying and everyone fully understands what they are buying and selling. If the seller doesn't lie about what he is selling, and the buyer understands what he is buying, it works.

People never would have taken the option ARM mortgages if they only understood them. It would also help if the loan officers didn't lie about them. If people understood how much the credit card companies were ripping them off, they wouldn't use the cards so much. Regulation is needed simply to protect human beings from their own stupidity and greed. The paradox is that regulation itself is subject to the same flaws. Human flaws break the system of capitalism, not capitalism itself.

A system that is inherently flawed is our current fractional reserve banking system, but that is not the fault of capitalism.

[MrBill]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Munqi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'W')ell, of course, unless you count the guy from Finland typing away on a PC connected to the Internet with someone in Cyprus instead of eating slop in a smokey, wooden hut, after he fed the reindeer, so he can go out tomorrow and cut down trees with his axe. You're right. Making Nokias instead of rubber boots is a real step backwards isn't it?

[Quinny]

Don't underestimate yourself. I've learned a lot from you. We just tend to see things from different perspectives.

I'm sure you do understand the Market Economy, surely you understand it's broke!

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Quinny', 'I') can't see anyone defending it so far!

[Munqi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'I') have thought about it. Obviously a little more than you have. Finland lives in an integrated global economy. That creates wealth via the market economy and, gasp, competition. Taxes to support government and the market economy are not mutually exclusive. One pays for the other. The other paves the way for a functioning market. It is just numbskulls that have not figured it out yet. Think about that.

[MrBill]

Then it is my mistake. Other than being a fiscal conservative. Social liberal. I do not have an ideoogy. I believe in whatever works. Sound regulation and a level playing field help the market economy to function. Imagine a market economy in the absense of enforceable contracts? It works, but much less efficiency. Trust has a price too.

[phaster]

one suggestion, why not make a "free market" type thread "sticky" since this topic seems to pop up every so often and always makes for interesting reading?

http://peakoil.com/fortopic43209.html

[MrBill]

Simply because most would sooner post their own ideas than read what others have already posted. With the exception of the lurkers of course. Even within long threads you have the same ideas popping up again and again as many have not bothered to read what has already been posted.

[ReverseEngineer]

What I have found is that events of the day tend to drive discussions. The underlying themes repeat themselves of course, and those who hold particular viewpoints tend to stick to them and spin the events of the day toward their perspectives.

Peak Oil has been a highly active board since at least 2004, from the past posting I have read. A few here (mostly the Mods, but a few other long term members also)continue to plug onward, writing and defending their points of view, generally irrespective of what is the event of the day. The event of the day is just a jumping off point to espouse one's own particular point of view. I am of course as guilty of this as the next poster

So, why do we even BOTHER debating these things, when its clear those with entrenched points of view are NOT going to change them, regardless of what the event of the day is?

The reason is actually the LURKERS, not the people who are involved heavily in these debates. Anyone who has enough hubris to expound on his or her point of view here is NOT going to capitulate to the opposition. The point here in the debate would be to sway those who are NOT writing, who are sitting on the fence, to accept your arguments as the one which holds the most validity.

While certainly I would find it gratifying if one of the Communists on the board bought into my perceptions of God and Heaven and Hell, I hardly see that as a likely outcome. Similarly, I hardly see it likely any Capitalist ont he board would ever accept my concepts of a world without Money based on small tribal communities where all work for the good of the tribe rather than themselves. These are all antithetical concepts, there really is no compromise here to be made.

So we argue, we make our points, often several times over in new threads with the same underlying themes. This does not mean the discussion is not worthwhile or devalued because of this. Its an exercise in thought process and in understanding your own personal philosophy. Its wrothwhile to do, because in the end the discussion does elucidate the truth for those who will read it carefully. Of course, that truth can be different based on presuppositions the reader has coming in, but as long as someone is NOT writing here, generally speaking that means they have not come to a conclusion for themselves as to what is RIGHT. These are the folks I write to in my posts, not the folks I argue with. For the most part, these folks are Lost Souls, they cannot be saved. Without them though, I cannot expound on what *I* think is right, so I am greatful to have members here with opposing viewpoints to argue with. Even if I have to pound on the same concepts over and over with a Sledgehammer, and not make a DENT in some very THICK skulls. LOL.

Reverse Engineer

[MrBill]

[align=center]How Can Anyone Call This The Free Market At Work?[/align]
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b] GMAC, the auto finance and mortgage company, is seeking to become a bank holding company in order to access the government's $700 billion financial rescue plan, the Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday.

As a bank holding company, GMAC could receive equity injections from Treasury Department and sharply reduce its borrowing costs in part by gaining access to the Fed's discount window.

[criticalmass]

Falconfury is right. The free market does theoretically work without lies. These lies include everything from withheld knowledge to poor substitutes, to collusion and made-up scarcity. Now take away any sort of accountability (via bailouts) and we've created some real problems. We no longer have a free-market economy.

Just as a side note, a REAL free market does not need growth to be sustainable. It's typically a bonus, especially when you've allocated yourself almost free energy.

[CarlosFerreira]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('criticalmass', 'F')alconfury is right. The free market does theoretically work without lies. These lies include everything from withheld knowledge to poor substitutes, to collusion and made-up scarcity. Now take away any sort of accountability (via bailouts) and we've created some real problems. We no longer have a free-market economy.

[retiredguy]

There seems to be general agreement that human population is in overshoot because of exploitation of fossil fuels.

Because they are finite, dependence on fossil fuels is not sustainable.

The current human population is 6.5 billion, projected to grow to 9 billion by 2050.

Sustainable human population without fossil fuels is estimated to be 1 to 2 billion.

So, the solution to our problem is to reduce the human population to the sustainable level and keep it there. And to do this with a minimum of pain and suffering.

For those of you who believe that all hope rests in a central authority, please explain how such an authority would evolve? And what would that central authority have to do to achieve a peaceful transition to sustainability?

As far as I know, this would be a totally unique event in human history.

[MrBill]

Carlos wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')ome months ago I was arguing against the free market. Now I think free means there's a government to create the free market and the means to enforce its rules. If that is accomplished, it's still our best shot.