Mark Carolus Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 </php $base = 0.001;$compound = 1.03;for ($year = 0; $year < 10000; $year++){ $base = $base * $compound; echo $base; echo "% global resource usage after year: "; echo $year; echo "</br>";}?> How it works. $base is the amount of resources the global society uses in year 0(zero), represented by a percentage of the total available amount of resources on the planet or the total amount of resources the planet can supply each year. $compound, is the compound rate of growth capitalism "requires" to work (3 percent). $year is the current year in the for loop and this for loop will run for 10.000 (ten thousand) loops (years). Even though the initial amount is only 0.001%, we are already over 100% after 389 years (101.51205858519% to be exact and 101.5% rounded). After 1323 years, the percentage can not even be represented by a 32 bit number anymore, at this point the value of $base is 99194024233445% (ninety-nine-thousand-billion percent roughly). Now, we could of course factor in a recession here and there, make some "market-corrections" here and there and do all sorts of small things, but overall growth will be sustained. Perhaps by doing these small adjustments, we could get it to last a little bit longer, but it would still run over 100% eventually. Now... there are some arguments that this does not matter, cause the market will come up with ways to live on more than one planet (just an example), but even if we do this the rate of growth will still continue and we will eventually need 2 whole galaxies to sustain it, so the big question is, when is it gonna be enough? You can argue with every little detail in this post, I don't mind at all, but know this, any% compound rate of growth forever, is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE.
dsayers Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 You are pushing an agenda. Corrections were made to your last thread that you have ignored because truth isn't what you're interested in. You didn't explain what this made up equation has to do with capitalism and you ignore that you are engaging in capitalism when you use your time and effort to make this thread. $base is the amount of resources the global society uses in year 0(zero) In what units? represented by a percentage of the total available amount of resources on the planet How was this measured? "Whales are going to go extinct because we consume them for energy! ... Oh wait, we don't consume whales for energy anymore." Not that doomsday prophecies would have any effect on people who control the systems inflicted upon us since they're interested in what they can siphon for themselves in the present. Capitalism solves this because ownership begets responsibility.
Mark Carolus Posted March 3, 2014 Author Posted March 3, 2014 You are pushing an agenda. Corrections were made to your last thread that you have ignored because truth isn't what you're interested in. You didn't explain what this made up equation has to do with capitalism and you ignore that you are engaging in capitalism when you use your time and effort to make this thread. In what units? How was this measured? "Whales are going to go extinct because we consume them for energy! ... Oh wait, we don't consume whales for energy anymore." Not that doomsday prophecies would have any effect on people who control the systems inflicted upon us since they're interested in what they can siphon for themselves in the present. Capitalism solves this because ownership begets responsibility. I am pushing an agenda huh? ok, and you aren't? you're a hypocrite if you say no. by referring only to whales you are using a reductionist example (just like Stefan always does) which does not represent the whole and can never represent the whole, there is x amount of resources on the planet in all forms combined, whether we use resource y or z does not matter, because y and z are part of x. It is the same as Stefan's examples of his daughters lemonade stand or a pencil for a dollar, it is just.... man.... so me voluntarily exchanging a pencil for a dollar, means that the whole economy is just fine and dandy.... you seriously don't have a problem with an explanation that simple? On another note, using your daughter to represent an economic example, is completely missing the point, since your daughter IS NOT economically dependent on herself, that's kinda what being a kid means....... but maybe I'm the idiot, who knows. Libertarians are the "gotcha" type of people, always looking for something tiny you did wrong and then trying to blow the entire argument up using just that tiny thing. My friend, the world is not that simple, the economy is not that simple, emotions are not that simple, thoughts are not that simple and people overall are not that simple. One tiny thing wrong, does not make the whole argument wrong. btw, here's another small change you could introduce to it. <?php function baseit(){ $base = 0.001; $compound[] = array(1.03, 1.02, 1.01, 1, 0.99, 0.98); for ($year = 0; $year < 5000; $year++){ if($year > 10){ $x = rand(0, 5); } else{ $x = 0; } $base = $base * $compound[0][$x]; if($base > 100){ return $year; } }}$averageYears = 0;for ($c = 0; $c < 100; $c++){ echo baseit(); $averageYears += baseit(); echo " years before depleted </br>";}$averageYears = $averageYears / $c;echo "the average amount of years before depletion: ";echo $averageYears;?> In this version, it randomly chooses the amount of growth or shrinkage each year, assuming only growth for the first 10 years.
Bastii Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 My friend, the world is not that simple, the economy is not that simple, emotions are not that simple, thoughts are not that simple and people overall are not that simple. If it's not that simple why do you think you can accurately represent it all in like 10 lines of php code?
Mark Carolus Posted March 3, 2014 Author Posted March 3, 2014 If it's not that simple why do you think you can accurately represent it all in like 10 lines of php code? Good argument. I can, because growth. Capitalism, free-market or not, is based on growth and i can easily simulate growth in just a few lines of code, in fact, as I've demonstrated that it can even simulate recessions and it will still ultimately lead to unsustainable growth.
dsayers Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Pardon my ambiguity. When I said push an agenda, I was referring to your adherence to an idea regardless of refutation or how it conflicts with the real world. If you can identify where I've intentionally behaved in such a way as to ignore reality in favor of my own desires, I am interested in the feedback. However, it would not change the truth value of my claim that this is what you're doing. You did not answer my questions. You did not address my pointing out that you haven't done anything to tie your made up equation with capitalism at all. You could save everybody time by just being honest with us and yourself by saying, "I think capitalism is evil regardless." I mentioned whales to point out that, "You're going to crash!" doesn't preclude somebody from hitting the brakes, or swerving, or jumping out of the car. Even if your equation used real values to produce something of any meaning, it wouldn't be the end of the story. Libertarians are the "gotcha" type of people, always looking for something tiny you did wrong and then trying to blow the entire argument up using just that tiny thing. This is a collectivist claim, it brings in a label that wasn't here already, it demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of logic, and it doesn't even address anything I said. The moment you find ANY right triangle that cannot be described by, "The square of the length of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the square of the lengths of the other two sides," the ENTIRE sentence becomes false. This is how logic works. Kind of like when you say, "Capitalism, free-market or not," as if there's such a thing as not. The moment you introduce coercion, it's not voluntary, therefor it's not free and it's not capitalistic. Have you explored why exactly you have such a hatred for what you call capitalism that you need for it to be evil even if you have to speak in contrast to the real world to describe it as such? This is an incredible opportunity for you in the realm of self-knowledge.
Mark Carolus Posted March 3, 2014 Author Posted March 3, 2014 Pardon my ambiguity. When I said push an agenda, I was referring to your adherence to an idea regardless of refutation or how it conflicts with the real world. If you can identify where I've intentionally behaved in such a way as to ignore reality in favor of my own desires, I am interested in the feedback. However, it would not change the truth value of my claim that this is what you're doing. You did not answer my questions. You did not address my pointing out that you haven't done anything to tie your made up equation with capitalism at all. You could save everybody time by just being honest with us and yourself by saying, "I think capitalism is evil regardless." I mentioned whales to point out that, "You're going to crash!" doesn't preclude somebody from hitting the brakes, or swerving, or jumping out of the car. Even if your equation used real values to produce something of any meaning, it wouldn't be the end of the story. This is a collectivist claim, it brings in a label that wasn't here already, it demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of logic, and it doesn't even address anything I said. The moment you find ANY right triangle that cannot be described by, "The square of the length of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the square of the lengths of the other two sides," the ENTIRE sentence becomes false. This is how logic works. Kind of like when you say, "Capitalism, free-market or not," as if there's such a thing as not. The moment you introduce coercion, it's not voluntary, therefor it's not free and it's not capitalistic. Have you explored why exactly you have such a hatred for what you call capitalism that you need for it to be evil even if you have to speak in contrast to the real world to describe it as such? This is an incredible opportunity for you in the realm of self-knowledge. Perhaps it is me that needs to learn some new form of understanding, that might be, i will not deny this. BUT... and here is the big but, how come you cannot or will not agree, that the earth can only have x amount of resources, no matter what resource we start using next? It is like living inside a bulb with a finite amount of gold, silver, oil, gas and copper. If any of these things runs out, i could switch to a technique using the other resources i have at my disposal, but that will also run out eventually.
Daniel Unplugged Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Capitalism does not require 3% growth, or any growth at all to "work" unless, you define working as growing. Capitalism is merely a more efficient mechanism for allocating resources in a society, not to mention a more moral one. Even in a society where resources are running on empty and gdp is shrinking rapidly, capitalism would still provide a much higher, and more sustainable standard of living to the occupants, than would occur under socialism. Of course, any society that consumes non renewable resources will eventually run them dry, including socialism. The great thing about capitalism, is it's ability to react to changing circumstances, to explore alternative ideas and find new resources, and most importantly, the endless drive to produce more with less. Useful traits in a world of finite resources. What is the point of having non renewable resources if you are never going to consume them? FYI, all of the world's mineral resources are owned by governments (socialised), if we want them to be used more efficiently, we better get them into private hands as soon as possible.
Mark Carolus Posted March 3, 2014 Author Posted March 3, 2014 Capitalism does not require 3% growth, or any growth at all to "work" unless, you define working as growing. Capitalism is merely a more efficient mechanism for allocating resources in a society, not to mention a more moral one. Even in a society where resources are running on empty and gdp is shrinking rapidly, capitalism would still provide a much higher, and more sustainable standard of living to the occupants, than would occur under socialism.Of course, any society that consumes non renewable resources will eventually run them dry, including socialism. The great thing about capitalism, is it's ability to react to changing circumstances, to explore alternative ideas and find new resources, and most importantly, the endless drive to produce more with less. Useful traits in a world of finite resources. What is the point of having non renewable resources if you are never going to consume them? FYI, all of the world's mineral resources are owned by governments (socialised), if we want them to be used more efficiently, we better get them into private hands as soon as possible. Capitalism does not require 3% growth, or any growth at all to "work" Agreed, if this were the case, there would be no problem at all. However, this is freedomainradio. Freedomainradio is the forum/message board that is founded on the principles of a man called Stefan Molyneux. I have regularly heard Stefan Molyneux say growth is a good thing. What am I missing here?
Wesley Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Capitalism does not require 3% growth, or any growth at all to "work" Agreed, if this were the case, there would be no problem at all. However, this is freedomainradio. Freedomainradio is the forum/message board that is founded on the principles of a man called Stefan Molyneux. I have regularly heard Stefan Molyneux say growth is a good thing. What am I missing here? An individual's preference for growth says nothing about a system as a whole or even about the sum total of preferences of the people who make up the system. There are many areas of the economy that would contract or stay stagnant in a capitalist system. On net, it is impossible to determine what would happen. Also, most growth in output would come from higher efficient use of inputs, not from needing more inputs. Therefore, your entire code is meaningless as growth in output doesn't directly correlate with growth in inputs.
TheRobin Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Growth in economics terms doesn't mean using more of something. Or being physically larger. An economy also grows, when you use recources differently or more efficiently. Growth just means, people get more value out of their work it doesn't necessairly mean we use up more stuff.That being said. We ARE organism who need to consume recources, so yes, recources will be used up at some point, but that's not a fact of capitalism or growth, that's just nature. Even if we never invented tools, the sun who fuels the life on this planet would at some point be used up and the planet and all its organisms would die regardless. But given that we live in a realm of scarcity, free trade is the most efficient way to NOT waste recources unnecessarily.
WorBlux Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Capitalism does not require 3% growth, or any growth at all to "work" Agreed, if this were the case, there would be no problem at all. However, this is freedomainradio. Freedomainradio is the forum/message board that is founded on the principles of a man called Stefan Molyneux. I have regularly heard Stefan Molyneux say growth is a good thing. What am I missing here? Hardwood forests in the united state have increased in size since the advent of the automobile. Capitalism can work to entirely obsolete old practices that destroys environmental resources. The use of wood as cooking fuel in urban areas is astonishingly destructive to the surrounding countryside. Increased levels of wealth allow us to adopt practices that better preserve natural resources. And as a resource begins to be used up, the price increases, encouraging people to find alternatives and substitutes for that resource, Additionally growth is often measured in GDP, which is simply money*velocity. GDP can increase simply by increasing the average number of trades a unit of money participates in. It's actually a fairly meaningless measure intra-economy.
Alan C. Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 The very fact that you're programming PHP on a computer attests to the efficacy of the capitalistic order of production.
Daniel Unplugged Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Capitalism does not require 3% growth, or any growth at all to "work"Agreed, if this were the case, there would be no problem at all. However, this is freedomainradio.Freedomainradio is the forum/message board that is founded on the principles of a man called Stefan Molyneux.I have regularly heard Stefan Molyneux say growth is a good thing.What am I missing here?I also think that growth is a good thing, I was just pointing out that the premise of the original post was that capitalism does now work because it results in perpetual growth, which is not necessarily the case. Even if it did, however, there is nothing that says that a 3% growth rate in output under capitalism requires a 3% growth rate in non renewable resource consumption. The capitalist system favors producers who minimise resource consumption, since resources are expensive, and those who minimise their costs can charge a lower price for their product.
Prairie Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 It is like living inside a bulb with a finite amount of gold, silver, oil, gas and copper.If any of these things runs out, i could switch to a technique using the other resources i have at my disposal, but that will also run out eventually.When these bulb people run out of that gold, silver, oil, gas, and copper, what happened to it? Is it still there? Was it transmuted?
Josh -Lel- Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 How can someone sign up an account here and still be retarded enough to not know why capitalism is advocated by FDR? It's not about efficiency. ** EDIT: I'm sorry about this comment, it was really uncalled for. Sorry to any the newcomers who may have been turned away by this -- politeness and empathy are emphasized here, especially to the uninitiated. It's just that I see a lot of threads/posts like this and I would think they would look at each other, but that's obviously not always the case. I hold myself responsible for any people who may have been discouraged, confused or offended by this. And finally, it was a really unempathetic comment. I'm working on that and I thank anyone who points that out for what it is.
Wesley Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 How can someone sign up an account here and still be retarded enough to not know why capitalism is advocated by FDR? It's not about efficiency. It is free and easy to sign up and people are introduced to the site from Joe Rogan or Peter Schiff or Noam Chomsky or Peter Joseph or from an appearance on RT America or from the Bitcoin community. People may not know everything about the topics or definitions of terms that we use as a community. As long as Stef and Mike keeps growing the show, there will always be a stream of people who are coming in with different experiences and preconceived notions as to what things mean. It took me years to develop to the understanding that I have now, and I am certainly still learning. I do know that comments like this will turn away new people who may be interested in the relationship stuff or the bitcoin stuff and not know exactly what is going on with capitalism or why it is advocated. This post makes me feel angry and sad as you criticize people for not knowing why capitalism is argued for in FDR when I think the information about empathy and abuse is much more important information (if even not to the OP, but to the average new person or guest who may stumble upon this thread).
J-William Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 I like topics where I can't see the first post because the user has a rating that is too low... Saves valuable time. Out of curiosity I sometimes check to see what's so bad about the poster in question... I always regret doing so. I just have to reiterate how much I love the feature and the wisdom of crowds (especially FDR crowds )
Josh -Lel- Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 This post makes me feel angry and sad as you criticize people for not knowing why capitalism is argued for in FDR when I think the information about empathy and abuse is much more important information (if even not to the OP, but to the average new person or guest who may stumble upon this thread). Ugh, my bad -- I made a stupid mistake. Sorry guys.
Recommended Posts