World Peace.

[quote="Tyrong Kojy"]

Stos wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

We can easily make more than enough food for people.

We can feed scarcely two thirds of the world, leaving about one third to struggle for food.

Bullshit. We can easily feed everybody, but it's unprofitable.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

The people can live, oh yes. But overpopulatin has more to do than just space for the people. ONCE AGAIN, FEEDING. CLOTHING. POWER. And all that other shit.

And we can absolutely afford all of that. Not in a capitalist framework, though.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

No, we haven't reached the MAXIMUM in food production. SURE we could cut down another forest or two to make farmland. (Incidentally, I fully support genetically engenerred food) Dude, seriously, so many people are starving because they can't afford food, or because there's not enough to go around.

Actually, there's not even need for genetically engineered food nor cutting down more forests. There's a lot we can do. For the starters we could engage in vertical hydroponic farming, that is, building farming skycrapers. Proper waste management can allow the fertilization of more lands. There's just so many things we can do... but, like Stos said, it's not profitable and this system's objective is profit not satisfaction of societal needs.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

YES, in Canada there's enough. Those that can't afford it, well, that's a different issue entirely. However there are places where there are too many people and not enough food. Yes, there is. While food from more developed countries IS sent over, it's certainly not enough.

Actually, it's a benefit for the more developed countries that others are underdevelop, otherwise they wouldn't import that developed country's shit.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Now, if someone, namely the morons who are bringing the food, got up and taught these people about aqueducts and how to frikin farm, maybe then there wouldn't be as much of an issue. They have soil and water. No water there? Thus the aqueduct. They just don't know how, usually. USUALLY.

Or they are limited by stupid policies and stupid market laws meaning they most often can't compete with cheaper foreign products.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

However with our resource production, consumtion, and need, yes, the planet DOES kind of have too many people on it.

That's why we need a really efficient system and not the mediocrity we have now.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Now, before you say it. and I know you will, NO, I do NOT support any kind of extermination, or segregation, (Beyond church and state, he, he, he.) or anything like that.

Calm down sir, I wouldn't have thought you'd propose extermination of any kind. You've made it clear to me several times.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Increase technology so that we can end up feeding those we can't, and simply try to maintain numbers instead of these 18 kid homes we're constantly getting.

We don't even need to increase technology, we just need to get rid of the break that capital means. Even with the limited means we have now and with teh horrible mismanagement there are literally dozens of tons of food wasted daily just because no one could afford them and others could afford and bought much more than they would consume and just threw it away.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

And what, praytell, do you think should change in housing to make more room? hm? How it it inefficent? According to you.

For an instance housing shouldn't arbitrarily develop. Planned housing would work much better.

How is housing inefcient now? Well aside from the fact that its not planned and not scientifically developed, it also grows at uneven and disorganized paces, certain indviduals can afford more land and thus manage it the way they want and build the kind of housing they desire. Housing nowadays is also designed just for profit that implying that it is not focused towards the satisfaction of all societal needs, implying that most housing falls short in quality in accordance to its potencial. Top quality residences for as much people as possible is an definitely unprofitable idea. My family builds luxury apartments and even those are short in efficience compared to the potencial such residences could have.

And this is not limited to residencial complexes but to entire urban designs. They could be much better but the system doesn't allow them. They have to be profitable.

You know, I get the impression from you that ANYONE who is a higher up in a company, per say, you view as the stereotypical fat dude in a suit with his feet up smoking cigars and grinning while counting hois money and looking for the next group to kill off. You're like Calinis and drugs.

It's like I said a long time ago. I had said Bill Gates has given almost 50% of his fortune to charity. Someone, can't recall whom, then said he ONLY did it for the tax cuts. Also said that he still had a LOT of money there. First, MAYBE he gave to chaarity because he's not a stuck up douche, and cares about other people. Just a thought. Someone with money caring and all. Second, yes he does still have a lot, but is that wrong? Is it wrong to enjoy having more? Is it wrong to make money, as much as possible? Has he hurt anyone in his search for money? With money you can have things, and people like having things. Sure he could give away a lot more of his money, but HE might want to enjoy some of it, as well, since he worked for it and all. I agree with much of socialism, but it seems to me too many take it too far. I made the money, fuck off. Yeah, I can share SOME, but I made it, I worked, you didn't, fuck off. And please don't get into how he doesn't work sitting behind a desk. Gates was still very involved with research, (less so in development) and he had managerial duties to preform.

Does pure capitalism work? No, I agree with that. But you seem to have this odd mindset that every problem is based on another's search for profit. Like the Ferengi. However they DO, in more cases than not, try to actually help. A capitalist isn't always trying to take advantage of as many people as physically possile. Yes there are some, admitedly, but most are trying to do the best they can, and most are trying to make things better with what we have. Things aren't as potentially perfect as you think, Zealot, even with socialism or communism.

Now, you're right abou the food being wasted bit. It's sick, and everyone knows it. But that's NOT an enormous ammount compared to that which is used.

For housing, while your plan has merrit, it wounds like, and correct me if I'm wrong, you're proposing cubicle apartments, (I think that's the name. I don't care what it's really called, you know what I mean.) And no one wants to live in those. No one. Some people want larger places. You're saying, from te sounds of it, to just make everything smaller, appartments and such, and to probably eliminate houses. Efficent? Oh yes. Wanted? By so few you can't imagine.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

You know, I get the impression from you that ANYONE who is a higher up in a company, per say, you view as the stereotypical fat dude in a suit with his feet up smoking cigars and grinning while counting hois money and looking for the next group to kill off. You're like Calinis and drugs.

Since my uncle in the owner of a relatively succesful construction company and I've met lots of owners and investors of different construction companies and their suppliers that operate here in Mexico and abroad I know that stereotype is false. But I also know that their motto, mainly for legal resons is "safety first, profit second, quality 3rd".

And its of course understandable, not only do tehy want to be rich or at least be able to afford a moderately luxurious lives, they need to focus on profit if they don't want their companies eaten by other more profiting ones.

Hell, even if they were charitable enough to try to focus their companies into social projects they'd still have to think first in the profit for a very simple reason: No profit, no company.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

It's like I said a long time ago. I had said Bill Gates has given almost 50% of his fortune to charity. Someone, can't recall whom, then said he ONLY did it for the tax cuts. Also said that he still had a LOT of money there. First, MAYBE he gave to chaarity because he's not a stuck up douche, and cares about other people. Just a thought. Someone with money caring and all.

And how is this linked to the discussion?

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Second, yes he does still have a lot, but is that wrong? Is it wrong to enjoy having more? Is it wrong to make money, as much as possible? Has he hurt anyone in his search for money?

Within a capitalist framework money means freedom and security, that's the main reason lots of persons want to have the greatest ammounts of possible. They want the greatest freedom and security possible. However, the only way to amass such large ammounts of money is by getting them directly or indirectly through exploitation for no man can alone amass a wealth produced by thousands of men.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

With money you can have things, and people like having things. Sure he could give away a lot more of his money, but HE might want to enjoy some of it, as well, since he worked for it and all.

Like I said before no one becomes rich out of their own hard labour. If they don't benefit directly or indirectly from someone's exploitation they cannot amass such gigantic wealth.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

I agree with much of socialism, but it seems to me too many take it too far. I made the money, fuck off. Yeah, I can share SOME, but I made it, I worked, you didn't, fuck off.

Socialism is not about "sharing money". It's about completely eliminating money, a market economy and substitute it for a worker ran democratic egalitarian economy.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

And please don't get into how he doesn't work sitting behind a desk. Gates was still very involved with research, (less so in development) and he had managerial duties to preform.

It's not about that at all. But Gates didn't become rich alone nor by his own labour. And, lots if not most of the activities performed by business owners would be really expendable if it wasn't for the disorganized legal framework of capitalism.

My uncle, an architect, works 12 hours a day, sometimes even 14. 50% of that time is invested in how to make profitable a project that is in making a profitable enough design that will still be appealing in the market, measuring money, checking the legal status of the enterprise and speed up workers at construction. The other 50% is spent speeding up people at the office, getting business partners, investors, getting better supplies' deals, checking how to spend money and government filing.

Scientifically, 80-100% of his work is expendable. It is just necesary or useful due to the political and economic framework in which we live. The only useful thing he could do is provide aesthetical and artistic quality to a building, and that supposing there were no engineers with artistic notions. However, there's a new career called "architecture-engineering" which basically makes architects absolutely expendable.

In a communist framework not only would someone like my uncle be unable to become rich, he'd have to learn something else for the expendability of his labour.

Some other owners of contrsuction companies, and more succesful than my uncle's don't even know a fuck about architecture or engineering, tehy're literally useless fucks.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Does pure capitalism work? No, I agree with that. But you seem to have this odd mindset that every problem is based on another's search for profit.

Not at all my friend. My problem is when said profit is attained at the expense of others. My personal problem is to have to take 1 of these 4 options:
1. Work for someone for a salary.
2. Have someone working for me to generate profit.
3. Have to sell either a product or a service. Trade.
4. Get fucked.

Another problem I have is all the lack of social organization, I hate alienation. There's many problems I have with this dehumanizing system.

It's not hatred against rich people. It's not class resentment or remorse. It's a defense of my principles and my rearch for a just and workable economy, a scientific economy.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Like the Ferengi. However they DO, in more cases than not, try to actually help. A capitalist isn't always trying to take advantage of as many people as physically possile.

There can be very nice capitalists, many helpful capitalists. There are even passively socialist capitalists (capitalists that agree with socialist ideas but don't think they're plausible). Lots of them are really good people alays trying to help, some even do sacrifice their earnings to help people. But that's not how it works. It doesn't work by having a company in which you pay all the workers the same that you'll take, it doesn't work by puring dozens of millions of dollars to aid starving africans. It's not matter of giving clothes and food to starving people. That doesn't end the origin of all evils: capitalism.

You can't stop the flood fetching water to your side with a spoon.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Yes there are some, admitedly, but most are trying to do the best they can, and most are trying to make things better with what we have.

And what we have will definitely not allow for any considerable enough improvement.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Things aren't as potentially perfect as you think, Zealot, even with socialism or communism.

There's enough pace for improvement. The potencial of practically everything is greatly limited by this system.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Now, you're right abou the food being wasted bit. It's sick, and everyone knows it. But that's NOT an enormous ammount compared to that which is used.

I wouldn't be so sure about it. I've seen stores daily throwing around 33-50% of spoiled unbought supplies. Tens of tons of food wated. And that considering the food production potential is much larger than the actual production we have.

One, food wise, it's stil small compared to that which is consumed. Which is alone too much, but a moot point, and tends to be a cultural thing. Fat American, kind of deal.

Two, the Gates thing was an example of a rich capitalist caring. It jsut came to mind, and as I said, someone blamed his chairty not on caring, but on further profit: tax cuts. I said... well, I already typed it all.

Three, this was SUPPOSED to be about funny Penn and Teller finding "the perect way", not about the advantages of one economic system and disadvantages of aother, and vice versa. Incidentally, before I finish, becaus ethis is getting ridiculous, communism relies, in my opinion, too much on "the honour system", so to speak. ANd it has proven many times in the past, that sad system fails, (Though yes, it does work quite often.) Communism is just as liable to be corrupted like capitalism has been. It began with good intentions, and became corrupted. Communism always begins with good intentions. It's just as corruptable.

In final; FUNNY! YOU GUYS KILLJOYS! If you don't like Penn and Teller, just say so.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

One, food wise, it's stil small compared to that which is consumed. Which is alone too much, but a moot point, and tends to be a cultural thing. Fat American, kind of deal.

Food production could be inmensely increased. My point is that even with such a limited food production a considerable ammount of food is wasted which proofs how uneffective this system is to suffice societal needs and manage resources.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Two, the Gates thing was an example of a rich capitalist caring. It jsut came to mind, and as I said, someone blamed his chairty not on caring, but on further profit: tax cuts. I said... well, I already typed it all.

Something that I don't know why would fit in the discussion.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Three, this was SUPPOSED to be about funny Penn and Teller finding "the perect way", not about the advantages of one economic system and disadvantages of aother, and vice versa.

Well, some of us take some topics very seriously, even on the internets.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Incidentally, before I finish, becaus ethis is getting ridiculous, communism relies, in my opinion, too much on "the honour system", so to speak.

No, not really. Communism depends on the capability of people to intelligently analyze the best way to manage economy in a democratic fashion. In other words it plainly relies on people's intelligence, which doesn't need to be so high to understand something that simple.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

ANd it has proven many times in the past, that sad system fails, (Though yes, it does work quite often.)

Except that it has never been attempted at a large enough scale without some of the most powerful armies in the world trying (and managing) to crush it.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Communism is just as liable to be corrupted like capitalism has been.

How if both systems are completely different and rely on very different basis?

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

It began with good intentions, and became corrupted.

Capitalism never began with good intentions, except according to those for whom exploitation is acceptable.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Communism always begins with good intentions. It's just as corruptable.

It's not a matter of "good intentions". It's not a system of charity. Communism implies the whole working force to realize how to free themselves from the economic system that keeps them under oppression. It's about workers determining the way economy is going to be run. It's about having an organized economy that benefits all, in which everyone works.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

In final; FUNNY! YOU GUYS KILLJOYS! If you don't like Penn and Teller, just say so.

Sorry for that one, I just didn't think it to be comedic.

And the whole "system effectiveness" began when analysing the roots of common casi belli for wars and discusing the impacts of populational growth being these linked to war.

Last time I post on this. Fucking youtube vid....

So it relies on human inteligence Then it's doomed to fucking fail, man. That is both a joke, and serious. I have no faith in the human mind but for VERY few. People are more rational alone than in a group, (The exception being those in emotional distress.) If that's what it relies on then I realy can't see it working. Can you blame me?

Once more, the Gates bit was an example of a good capitalist. I had said you compared capitalists to the Ferengi, so I gave an example. As I said originally, I don;'t care if you remembered it or not, I was simply saying how a man can give, a capitalist, can give without a thought for greed. Greed may coime inadvertently, but that need not be the point. Am I clear?

You shouldn't take everything your ead on the intertubes seriously.

For corruption, people tend to gather around a leader. It's obvious throughout history. (I don't care about the conquered. Even they have leaders, like tribal or otherwise.) Said leader can end up corrputing the needs of the many for their own needs. Stalin is a good example. Or how about three letters. KGB. If this was good to you, then I pity the world where you win.

Capitalism came about with the good intention of giving everyone a chance to become rich and powerful. Sounds good to me. Once certain people DID become rich and powerful, they realised they could become MORE so on the backs of others. Blah, blah, blah. Works on paper, but humans are sometimes very bad, or even moderately bad. In other words, shit happens.

And finally, yes there is profit to be made in war, which is sad. However, much like was said in those vids, Britan and France used to be at war every twenty minutes. Now they work together and have been MUCH better off for it, (current depression aside.) So peace IS quite profitable, as long as the "war businesess" remain out of the picture.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Last time I post on this. Fucking youtube vid....

Then I guess it wouldn't make much sense replying to you, would it? I'll reply anyway.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

So it relies on human inteligence Then it's doomed to fucking fail, man. That is both a joke, and serious. I have no faith in the human mind but for VERY few. People are more rational alone than in a group, (The exception being those in emotional distress.) If that's what it relies on then I realy can't see it working. Can you blame me?

Most people are intelligent enough, the problem is that their actual conditions disable them to fully develop their intellectual capabilities.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Once more, the Gates bit was an example of a good capitalist. I had said you compared capitalists to the Ferengi, so I gave an example. As I said originally, I don;'t care if you remembered it or not, I was simply saying how a man can give, a capitalist, can give without a thought for greed. Greed may coime inadvertently, but that need not be the point. Am I clear?

"Good" is a subjective term. For me he would have been good if he had used all that capital he amassed to undermine capitalism. What he did may qualify as a "good intention", "charity" and "capitalist's remorse".

I never argued that c apitalists are all evil, I just argued that the system forces most of them into greed. Even so, Bill Gates is a bad example to try portraying the average capitalist. The average capitalist doesn't have such a large fortune and so is much harder for him to engage in charitable projects.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

You shouldn't take everything your ead on the intertubes seriously.

In that context it seemed more serious to me than comedic.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

For corruption, people tend to gather around a leader. It's obvious throughout history. (I don't care about the conquered. Even they have leaders, like tribal or otherwise.) Said leader can end up corrputing the needs of the many for their own needs. Stalin is a good example. Or how about three letters. KGB. If this was good to you, then I pity the world where you win.

Yet, this fails to explain how would corruption take place in a communist context.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Capitalism came about with the good intention of giving everyone a chance to become rich and powerful. Sounds good to me.

Baits also seem awesome to fish until they realize they're choking.

It's impossible for everyone to become rich and powerful. The existance of weaklings and poor ones is unexpendab le for the existance of rich and powerful ones. The only possible end such a system can have is what we have now, a bunch of powerful people becoming more powerful thanks to the neverending race of the majourities to become if not rich and powerful, at least succesful or just to even survive. Pretty much like those dog races or those cartoons in which a man uses a carrot tied to a cane to lure the horse into going after it.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Once certain people DID become rich and powerful, they realised they could become MORE so on the backs of others. Blah, blah, blah. Works on paper, but humans are sometimes very bad, or even moderately bad. In other words, shit happens.

The only possible outcome of capitalism regardless of morality.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

And finally, yes there is profit to be made in war, which is sad. However, much like was said in those vids, Britan and France used to be at war every twenty minutes. Now they work together and have been MUCH better off for it, (current depression aside.) So peace IS quite profitable, as long as the "war businesess" remain out of the picture.

War is a necesary tool sometimes, mainly when a weakling tries or is finding a way to either become powerful or at least manipulate a powerful one.