An interesting critique of capitalism

[BaalChatzaf]

Please give this a listen (about ten minutes).

Lecture by Steve Keen.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited May 23, 2011 by BaalChatzaf

[psychoanaleesis]

That's a well-informed opinion. How keen of Steve Keen. Strangely, I find myself agreeing to what he is saying since capitalism IS founded on the ethics of rational selfishness or egoism that it is rather deaf when it comes to feedback from other social forces e.g. government, pressure groups et al.

Steve Keen was also saying that it is rather late for simple capitalism to come into the picture and save everyone from ruin (economic or otherwise) because the world has been run into the ground by second-rate economists (adding to what he said).

Remember, if it's only the political climate you want to alter, Objectivists should simply side with Conservative Republicans. It is more than capitalism that would save man, this will require that he check his premises and see whether it is his way of understanding and treating his surroundings and himself or even what are the given that must be considered to command it he should change to reach his glory.

In this case however, the facts about global warming due to the intervention or impact of man is still debatable. Until a direct and significant causal relationship is established, I shall remain on guard and against forced regulation of activities undertaken by an enterprise or individual(s) except when such violates the rights of others.

The way I see it, only a few questions remain for businessmen in a free market economy: How far can you project? How will you do it? These depend on their capabilities and I shan't care what they stand to gain or lose in their enterprise since they do not work or produce for my happiness, but theirs. That said, I would still be grateful for their contribution in making life better.

Edited May 24, 2011 by David Lee

[Frediano]

GW is one thing; MMGW is something else. But either way, what definition of 'the global temperature' is being discussed in the GW/MMGW debate?

As an engineer, I'd look for that first. And yet, the debate is filled with people who have never asked that most basic of questions even once. Tell me why I should equally weight the opinions of technical illiterates on this topic?

Area averaged from sparse surface point data, with a decided bias towards manmade thermal islands?

Integrated detailed but indirect surface measurements(of scene radiance, not temperature)from low earth orbiting AVHRR instruments on spaceborne platforms? (If so the question is, how to compare those with the 'same' measurement from the 1800s, etc.? And if comparable to numbers inferred from ice core sample gas analysis(???)then why bother with spaceborne measurements at all? How are spaceborne measurements of scene radiance converted to surface temperatures? As well, how is sounder data converted to layer temperatures?

Mass averaged temperatures? As in, an acknowledgement that 99.9% of the earth's atmospheric system is tied up in our oceans?

The most informative fact, to me, is the deer in headlights response given to these fundamental questions, when asked of fervent MMGW acolytes; they have no idea-- not even the first clue -- what the basis is for the 'global temperature' trends being reported with an uncertainty of tenths of a degree(matters little if F or C...)

Guaranteed, this is surface temperature data. Is it reasonable to ask, if surface temperature data, why a square mile of ten foot deep Gulf of Mexico would be weighted the same as a square mile of 5000 ft deep North Atlantic?

And on any basis claiming to influence long term climate or short term weather, on what thermophysical/atmospheric physics basis do we ignore a mass averaged value of something called 'the global temperature?' For an answer to that, look up 'thermocline uncertainty,' and then, understand that we have no way of determining something called 'the global temperature' today with fractions of a degree uncertainty, but surely no means of doing that over hundreds or thousands of years. Certainly not from analysis of ice core data, which unfortunately for the whole MMGW religion provides evidence of CO2 as a response, not driver of those inferred temperatures.

We don't angst over mass averaged values because we do not have the first prayer of measuring them to an uncertainty that would cause any politically usable alarmist data. At most, our centers of subsidized research could claim, 'needs more study' as they hold their beggar hands out.

There are well understood models of the greenhouse effect. Short wave radiation converted to long wave radiation at the surface, and absorbed by the thermal blanket covering the earth. H20 is the dominant greenhouse gas, C02 is a bit player, both exist in our thin whispy atmosphere primarily as a result of being buffered by our massive oceans.

If long term solar variability was the primary driver, we would expect to see mostly surface trends. If increase in the greenhouse effect, then we would expect to see mainly mid troposphere trends-- the middle of that thermal blanket that causes the greenhouse effect. Those are the facts that our physical understanding of the model demand. But there is no observed trends at those mid-altitudes, from two sets of independent data-- radiosonde/weather balloons and satellite sounder data. The trends that are observable are at the surface, consistent with long term solar variability. Also supported by observations of polar caps on Mars, also leading to the same conclusion readily supported by the fact that there used to be massive glaciers over Manhattan; GW is a long term undeniable trend.

In our panic to use MMGW as a shortcut to political power, we are told to blow right by H20 as a dominant greenhouse gas, and focus on fringe CO2. Why?

What is the science behind that? I never hear any science. What I hear is floating factoids -- 'the residence time of CO2 is very long compared to H20.'

Really? H20 leaves the atmosphere 'quickly?' But it also enters the atmosphere 'quickly.' The scientific question is, at what point in its residence is H20 not totally dominating CO2 as a greenhouse gas? It is crystal clear that, regarding our massive oceans, mankind does not have a prayer of influencing the buffered nature of H20 in our atmosphere, nor of 'controlling' mankind's emissions of H20 into the atmosphere. And so...H20 is ignored, and we focus instead on fringe CO2, and cook up theories of CO2 as primary driver of climate, theories that are verified not in the actual record, but only in tweaked computer models that are never calibrated.

There is plenty of scientific reason to be skeptical of MMGW. (GW, not at all.) At the same time that Mr. Keen laments the demise of 'engineers' running companies and answering technological questions, he yet gives credence to political science aimed at technological issues by pushing to the front his 'defense' of capitalism as having as its primary reason to be the solving of the MMGW 'crisis.' He is too cute by half.

The perversion of capitalism is clearly identified in Rands romantic novels -- the businessmen/industrialists who run to the guns of government for leverage over their competitors. The GMs, the IBMs, all of IKE's MIC. Once stood up as our own version of soft-fascism in a do-or-die response to global totalitarian meat eating alternatives, external threats to freedom. Well, they never stood down. Human nature. That soft-fascist melding of industry and government never stood down.

That is exactly what is wrong with 'capitalism' in America. For over 50 years, we've barely seen it.

SEC Exempt GSEs? The specter of Mortgage Backed Securities? CRA? 50 sets of state banking and lending regulations systematically replaced in court case after court case and even USSC case by a single-point-of-failure overbearing federal model?

And when the perps screwed the pooch, they circled the wagons and cried out 'capitalism did it!' And this Keen fellow is an apologist for this subterfuge.

This engineer isn't buying it, not for an instant. He is right to distinguish the HP of Hewlett and Packard from the HP of the Carly-forward MBA generation. Not the same beast. There is beast-building capitalism, and there is carcass-carving capitalism and America has been over-run with the latter, for decades.

The bones are showing. We there yet?

[syrakusos]

I found nothing cogent or insightful. Every statement was a groundless complaint. First, he never defines "capitalism." He seems to mean whatever the present system is, the mixed economy of private parties controlled by, in league with, or attempting to work around the thousands of governments at all levels. His pun, "Gold man sacks U.S. Treasury" is typical of the real problem and his ignorance of it. I mean that on two levels. First, he ignores the basic facts; and second he is uninformed on the fundamental truths. I am sorry to learn that Bob Kolker found this "interesting." I am also disheartened by David Lee's reply. Every successful business predicted the future. That is what defines success.

[BaalChatzaf]

I found nothing cogent or insightful. Every statement was a groundless complaint. First, he never defines "capitalism." He seems to mean whatever the present system is, the mixed economy of private parties controlled by, in league with, or attempting to work around the thousands of governments at all levels. His pun, "Gold man sacks U.S. Treasury" is typical of the real problem and his ignorance of it. I mean that on two levels. First, he ignores the basic facts; and second he is uninformed on the fundamental truths. I am sorry to learn that Bob Kolker found this "interesting." I am also disheartened by David Lee's reply. Every successful business predicted the future. That is what defines success.

His likening socialism to paranoid schizophrenia was on point as was his likening capitalism to bipolar maniac depression. The business cycle is clear support for that. If capitalists could predict the future correctly why the succession of boom and bust?

Capitalism is the least worst economic system and its weakness is that in its success it enables the fantasy that something can be gotten for nothing. This fantasy leads to the bubbles (history is replete with economic bubbles) and this leads to the bursts of the bubble. Socialism is an abomination predicated on the zero sum fallacy. Whereas capitalism is painful every so often, socialism is a total disaster and an abomination always and everywhere. Hence my claim that capitalism is the least worst economic system.

My judgement flows from my estimate of the human species. Rather than the heroic near gods that Rand sees, I see the Smartest, Baddest Primate in The Monkey House. We are Chimpanzee, Version 3.01. History will prove who has the better estimate - I or Rand.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited July 5, 2011 by BaalChatzaf

[Selene]

GW is one thing; MMGW is something else. But either way, what definition of 'the global temperature' is being discussed in the GW/MMGW debate?

As an engineer, I'd look for that first. And yet, the debate is filled with people who have never asked that most basic of questions even once. Tell me why I should equally weight the opinions of technical illiterates on this topic?

The bones are showing. We there yet?

In the interests of diversity, let us not forget the non-technical illiterates!

For example, Reuters reports on a US "study" which apparently concludes, please sit down, remove any sharp objects, poisons and loaded weapons from the room before reading...

The paper raised the prospect of more rapid,

pent-up climate change

when emerging economies eventually crack down on pollution.

World temperatures did not rise from 1998 to 2008, while manmade emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuel grew by nearly a third, various data show.

The researchers from Boston and Harvard Universities and Finland's University of Turku said pollution, and specifically sulphur emissions, from coal-fueled growth in Asia was responsible for the cooling effect.

Sulphur allows water drops or aerosols to form, creating hazy clouds which reflect sunlight back into space.

"Anthropogenic activities that warm and cool the planet largely cancel after 1998, which allows natural variables to play a more significant role," the paper said.

Natural cooling effects included a declining solar cycle after 2002, meaning the sun's output fell.

The study said that the halt in warming had fueled doubts about anthropogenic climate change, where scientists say manmade greenhouse gas emissions are heating the Earth.

Have your children check under the bed for that "pent up climate change" that is just itching to kill all the pretty carnivorous child eating Polar bears out there!

Adam

[Frediano]

In the interests of diversity, let us not forget the non-technical illiterates!

For example, Reuters reports on a US "study" which apparently concludes, please sit down, remove any sharp objects, poisons and loaded weapons from the room before reading...

The paper raised the prospect of more rapid,

pent-up climate change

when emerging economies eventually crack down on pollution.

...

Have your children check under the bed for that "pent up climate change" that is just itching to kill all the pretty carnivorous child eating Polar bears out there!

Adam

-boing!- Sort of like a spring?

To me, one of the best symbols of this whole thing is exactly those cute little Polar bears on those cans of carbonated Coke. See, we're not emitting enough CO2 into the atmosphere, so it is necessary to distribute billions of gallons of dissolved CO2 into personal distribution cans, so that green minded, Polar bear loving folks can take their cans of Coke out into the world and freshly release their personal cans of CO2 into the atmosphere. But it's OK...look, the can has a cute little Polar bear on it, and he's green.

It's called 'carbonation;' is that even a slight hint?

They don't harvest CO2 out of the air to put the fizz in carbonated drinks(as I was once told by some technical illiterate.) That would be an incredibly inefficient(and still net CO2 producing)process to generate the amount of CO2 needed, because CO2 is such a fringe constituent in air. No, they produce it the only economical way possible; by way of industrial CO2 generators, via brand new combustion dedicated to producing CO2 for our Polar bear decorated Cokes.

See, here is where the 'minor contribution' argument usually shows up. "But its such a tiny, negligible fraction of mankind's CO2 emissions...surely it is ridiculous to worry about the CO2 in Cokes? I mean,..they are so green."

I wonder where that argument is when it is pointed out that all of mankinds CO2 emissions are a tiny, negligible fraction of all CO2 emissions, living as we are in this thin, whispy atmosphere buffered by massive oceans that cover 70% of the earth and hold 99.9% of the atmospheric mass.

When the crunchies start campaigning to take the fizz out of the several tens of billions(scary!) of gallons of carbonated beverages sold every year, I will start to at least not laugh at their perseverance on fringe man made emissions of CO2. Meanwhile, when they are ooohing! and ahhhhing! at Coke's green Polar bear campaign, and toasting each other with carbonated beverages, I'm going to deservedly laugh.

I picture the execs at Coke, as all this nonsense is taking off, having one of those meetings where guys in suits are yelling at each other, in a panic, until one of them comes up with the brilliant idea "We'll just put Polar bears on the personal cans of CO2 emissions, "go green," and maybe they won't notice that they are drinking carbonated beverages and personally releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere?"

It's worked so far. Nobody will ever go poor under-estimating the intelligence of King Consumer.

My advice to them when they uncomfortably realize what they are doing? Drink up, because you aren't hurting any Polar bears -- or any living thing on earth-- in the least.

regards,

Fred

[syrakusos]

Every successful business predicted the future. That is what defines success.

His likening socialism to paranoid schizophrenia was on point as was his likening capitalism to bipolar maniac depression. The business cycle is clear support for that. If capitalists could predict the future correctly why the succession of boom and bust?

I also liked the cute analogies to paranoid schizophrenia and manic depression -- as far as they went.

Successful prediction is not omniscience. Canal building looked like a good investment. Some got into it; others followed. It reached a peak, and then subsided and nearly disappeared at least locally, though the Suez and Panama Projects were headliners 50 years later. Railroads, telegraphs, computers... Sensible people do not follow the crowd. We do not hear about them. We only see the "broken window" of the Dow Jones. Even in the 19th century, with gold-backed banking, banks failed. But when a pharmacy or barber fails, we don't have a special name for that. Everything in life follows a pattern of growth and decline. When the institution is cental to the transmission lines of energy - Isabel Paterson's imagery - the effects are many and deep.

Here in Ann Arbor, Pfizer closed its campus. Hundreds were let go. Many or most of the Ph.D.s went to Pfizer's other plants. Down the line, reseach assistants and assistant assistants had fewer options. When they let their 50 security guards go, that pretty much killed that market here. It just happens. It's life. Things come and go. Certainly, Bob, you are not going to claim a boom and bust in security guards because patrollers were unable to predict the future.

Back to those socialists: the paranoiacs are terrified of the unknown. They want everything predicted and predicable and immutable and dependable.

One of the many deep insights from Herbert Spencer is that warm as July can be, we might still want a fire. One Fourth, we watched the parade sipping hot coffee to stay warm. I don't blame anyone for that.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Michael E. Marotta

[psychoanaleesis]

I found nothing cogent or insightful. Every statement was a groundless complaint. First, he never defines "capitalism." He seems to mean whatever the present system is, the mixed economy of private parties controlled by, in league with, or attempting to work around the thousands of governments at all levels. His pun, "Gold man sacks U.S. Treasury" is typical of the real problem and his ignorance of it. I mean that on two levels. First, he ignores the basic facts; and second he is uninformed on the fundamental truths. I am sorry to learn that Bob Kolker found this "interesting." I am also disheartened by David Lee's reply. Every successful business predicted the future. That is what defines success.

And I would agree to that Michael, Keen was ranting although it was if he was just simply reporting his observations of what has happened and the rants came in lines like "not a hell of hope in hagen..." which were fine by me. Watching it again, I may have missed a few lines when I first heard the clip he blames "bankers and not the government..." you're right, that ignores the basic facts of the case and that is, governments do tell what bankers should do with the money that they keep (at the point of a gun) in the present system. As for fundamental truths, I'd like to hear them out before I respond since I am not yet well versed with the economic and political system of the US.

Do tell me though Michael, are there metaphysical "road signs" that say that a businessman is going the "wrong way"? Is simply "predicting the future" a definite key to success or is it all about having a vision of what one would like to see, studying the essential variables, gathering necessary resources (capital) and proceeding with rational confidence? Well heck, I can can predict future trends to some extent, but acting on that prediction is another thing altogether.

Should every venture be successful? No. There are no guarantees in capitalism.

Should an individual be forced to consider the impact his scheme would have on others (provided that he does not violate their rights i.e. without malice aforethought)? Never. If that is so the case, then one could choose to go into business while another can choose to compete with or oppose that using the aforementioned guidelines to reach success and still playing by the rules of NIOF or simply, the principles of rational self-interest.

Edited July 21, 2011 by David Lee