• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Myths About Capitalism

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
No you haven't, all you have done is given your opinion that "market forces may not be quick enough" to do what you personally see is a problem without saying what the problem is or proving that any problem exists with real data, proclaiming an opinion is your right but asking for laws to be improperly implemented because of an opinion is not.
Its not my opinion, with the vaccines it was seen there was a need that superseded the testing process beyond the most basic level so they were rushed to availability ahead of schedule. With auto standards, there was seen to be a need to reduce fuel consumption and ease gas prices so targets were set that are easily attainable by US manufacturers with regard to fuel efficiency.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Its not my opinion, with the vaccines it was seen there was a need that superseded the testing process beyond the most basic level so they were rushed to availability ahead of schedule.
Which does not address the original reason that vaccines take so long for FDA approval. Which would be..........?
With auto standards, there was seen to be a need to reduce fuel consumption and ease gas prices so targets were set that are easily attainable by US manufacturers with regard to fuel efficiency.
You claim there was a need, but provide no analysis. The need arose from long standing bans on perfectly good drilling grounds, a shift to imported oil, and the OPEC situation in the '70s. Not to mention refinery shrinkage and individual state mandates on fuel blends adjusted seasonally which all is because of..........?
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Which does not address the original reason that vaccines take so long for FDA approval. Which would be..........?
To ensure that what gets put on the market is safe for human consumption and to ensure that there are as few side effects as possible.

You claim there was a need, but provide no analysis. The need arose from long standing bans on perfectly good drilling grounds, a shift to imported oil, and the OPEC situation in the '70s. Not to mention refinery shrinkage and individual state mandates on fuel blends adjusted seasonally which all is because of..........?
"Perfectly good drilling grounds" is not entirely accurate, aside from Alaska, we dont really have other large-scale accessible sources of oil on the mainland and our drilling in the ocean isnt making very much of a dent in our demand.

Regulation's main goal, at this point, is to improve the usage of the oil we have left and make it's use more efficient so we can stretch our supply. Oil doesnt just fuel our cars, it goes into almost every facet of our daily lives. The fact that our supply is dwindling while our demand increases is a cause for very serious concern because of how ubiquitous it's use is.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
To ensure that what gets put on the market is safe for human consumption and to ensure that there are as few side effects as possible.
And that is fine, but the regulatory nature expands into every possible scenario 100% of the time when producing medicines and vaccines and has a burdensome testing/licensing phase so you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

"Perfectly good drilling grounds" is not entirely accurate, aside from Alaska, we dont really have other large-scale accessible sources of oil on the mainland and our drilling in the ocean isnt making very much of a dent in our demand.
Completely false. Ca, Fl, Pa, and many midwest locales have are very oil rich, but only a handfull of those lands are accessible to oil producers.

Regulation's main goal, at this point, is to improve the usage of the oil we have left and make it's use more efficient so we can stretch our supply. Oil doesnt just fuel our cars, it goes into almost every facet of our daily lives. The fact that our supply is dwindling while our demand increases is a cause for very serious concern because of how ubiquitous it's use is.
What is the provable need. In other words everything is arbitrary out of D.C. because nobody knows for sure how much available oil exists and neither is the value of unaccessible oil known.
 
S

Smack You Too

Capitalism is mostly cruel and unfair.
True, if you mean laissez farie capitialism. Not true, if you mean the type of regulated welfare state capitalism we have in the U. S.
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
And that is fine, but the regulatory nature expands into every possible scenario 100% of the time when producing medicines and vaccines and has a burdensome testing/licensing phase so you cannot have your cake and eat it too.
These regulations ensure that what you get when you get a vaccination or prescription that as much attention has been paid to the safety of the product as possible.

Completely false. Ca, Fl, Pa, and many midwest locales have are very oil rich, but only a handfull of those lands are accessible to oil producers.
Oh? How much oil is actually there and what form is it in?

What is the provable need. In other words everything is arbitrary out of D.C. because nobody knows for sure how much available oil exists and neither is the value of unaccessible oil known.
The provable need is that our domestic oil supply is shrinking as is the world oil supply; oil is a finite resource. Regulations that encourage it's wiser use help prolong the supply both domestically and internationally and ensure we can try to be as independent as we can with oil.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Oh? How much oil is actually there and what form is it in?
That's for you to provide since you are making the resource management argument. Again, you want protectionism but don't provide the analysis to prove it's actually necessary....thus an emotional argument.
The provable need is that our domestic oil supply is shrinking as is the world oil supply; oil is a finite resource. Regulations that encourage it's wiser use help prolong the supply both domestically and internationally and ensure we can try to be as independent as we can with oil.
Considering no two models concur you'll need to provide more proof than a proclamation. All you are doing here is rewording the same argument without any factual evidence as to the shrinkage, or extent thereof.
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
That's for you to provide since you are making the resource management argument. Again, you want protectionism but don't provide the analysis to prove it's actually necessary....thus an emotional argument.
http://www.lookoutmtn.com/Documents/Sources_of_United_States_Oil_Supply.pdf

We currently have about 30 billion barrels of oil left in the wells we know of today and about 70 billion estimated to be undiscovered in North America (A lot of which is in Canada, just for funsies)

We consume, on average, about 20 million barrels of oil per day
EIA - Petroleum Basic Data

That means if we went cold-turkey on imports and ONLY stuck to our own reserves, we'd have enough oil for about a year and a half before we went dry. That's assuming we dont export a single drop (Which, as the price goes up, you know is going to happen).

The top 15 oil-producing countries have about 54 years of oil reserves left
Oil reserves (most recent) by country

This is a serious problem because of how widespread our use of petroleum is in our modern society.

Considering no two models concur you'll need to provide more proof than a proclamation. All you are doing here is rewording the same argument without any factual evidence as to the shrinkage, or extent thereof.
We may not be able to pin down an exact rate, but we do know our oil supply is decreasing and it isnt being replaced anytime soon.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
http://www.lookoutmtn.com/Documents/Sources_of_United_States_Oil_Supply.pdf

We currently have about 30 billion barrels of oil left in the wells we know of today and about 70 billion estimated to be undiscovered in North America (A lot of which is in Canada, just for funsies)

We consume, on average, about 20 million barrels of oil per day
EIA - Petroleum Basic Data

That means if we went cold-turkey on imports and ONLY stuck to our own reserves, we'd have enough oil for about a year and a half before we went dry. That's assuming we dont export a single drop (Which, as the price goes up, you know is going to happen).

The top 15 oil-producing countries have about 54 years of oil reserves left
Oil reserves (most recent) by country
Good, analysis. Now, again we have divergent reports but yes if these models are correct you have a point. Now, for the tricky part, is there widespread agreement that this report is correct? Probably not, considering as well that drilling and other extraction technologies are constantly increasing the availability of newer sources.
This is a serious problem because of how widespread our use of petroleum is in our modern society.

We may not be able to pin down an exact rate, but we do know our oil supply is decreasing and it isnt being replaced anytime soon.
There is also a theory gaining ground that petroleum is a biotic, considering "once dead" wells seem to be finding new life, I don't necessarily believe it to be factual but again. There is no widespread agreement. Challenge two, mathmatically justify the set minimums on fuel efficiency compared to known consumption and justify why we also don't allow for the best electric option, nuclear, to be in wider use. Doesn't seem so pressing after that n'est pas?
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Good, analysis. Now, again we have divergent reports but yes if these models are correct you have a point. Now, for the tricky part, is there widespread agreement that this report is correct? Probably not, considering as well that drilling and other extraction technologies are constantly increasing the availability of newer sources.
Again even if these numbers are off by a factor of ten or more, it still boils down to "we dont have much left"

There is also a theory gaining ground that petroleum is a biotic, considering "once dead" wells seem to be finding new life, I don't necessarily believe it to be factual but again.
I'd have to see sources on it.

Challenge two, mathmatically justify the set minimums on fuel efficiency compared to known consumption
The targets set are a feasible and realistic goal to reduce the fuel consumption of vehicles the average American drives and thereby reduce our demand for fuel.

and justify why we also don't allow for the best electric option, nuclear, to be in wider use. Doesn't seem so pressing after that n'est pas?
I dont agree with using nuclear, but I do think alternative energy is a pressing need at the moment
 

phattonez

Catholic
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,870
Reaction score
4,244
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Its not my opinion, with the vaccines it was seen there was a need that superseded the testing process beyond the most basic level so they were rushed to availability ahead of schedule. With auto standards, there was seen to be a need to reduce fuel consumption and ease gas prices so targets were set that are easily attainable by US manufacturers with regard to fuel efficiency.

Have you ever thought that the reason we have cars that pollute so much is not because regulation hasn't been strong enough, but because the government has gotten in the way? Think about it like this, if we had courts that would actually deal with pollution correctly (sue for damages beyond contractually stipulated agreements), then cars would have to be much more efficient. If not, then you would have to pay more in order to pollute. That's on top of the amount that you already pay for gas. Plus, private companies would own roads and they would be sued for the pollution. So they would have a great incentive to have less polluting cars - price out those cars that pollute too much.

So the problem lies with the fact that we look the other way for pollution instead of allowing property owners to deal with it, plus we decided that government should own the roads, and you can't sue the government for that pollution (if you did, good luck in winning that case).
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Again even if these numbers are off by a factor of ten or more, it still boils down to "we dont have much left"
But, does that justify draconian standards that are not of provable need? I'll even be generous and give a 15% margin of error. I say no.

I'd have to see sources on it.
Was looking for sources that didn't include commentary or bias. I'll have to point you in the direction of the theories. Start with biotic theory and as well abiotic theory.
The targets set are a feasible and realistic goal to reduce the fuel consumption of vehicles the average American drives and thereby reduce our demand for fuel.
I dont agree with using nuclear, but I do think alternative energy is a pressing need at the moment
I disagree.
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
But, does that justify draconian standards that are not of provable need? I'll even be generous and give a 15% margin of error. I say no.
How on earth are our current standards draconian? As I have said before, the entire rest of the world seems to be able to meet them, why are we so far behind?

Was looking for sources that didn't include commentary or bias. I'll have to point you in the direction of the theories. Start with biotic theory and as well abiotic theory.
From what I can find thus far, there doesnt seem to be much weight to the theory. Abiotic generation of petroleum seems poorly supported and more wishful thinking than anything else
http://static.scribd.com/docs/j79lhbgbjbqrb.pdf

I disagree.
On what grounds?
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
How on earth are our current standards draconian? As I have said before, the entire rest of the world seems to be able to meet them, why are we so far behind?
You're kidding right? The rest of the world doesn't matter when discussing domestic policy as they do not have limited government built in to their constitutions, that's the first point. Second, physics, a heavier vehicle requires more power which requires fuel, Detroit can eventually adapt but think about all the polution controls on vehicles that have questionable value and how often they fail, as well they sap power by restricting natural flow throughout. The third point is there is no agreed upon demonstrable need for a truck to get 30mpg.

From what I can find thus far, there doesnt seem to be much weight to the theory. Abiotic generation of petroleum seems poorly supported and more wishful thinking than anything else
http://static.scribd.com/docs/j79lhbgbjbqrb.pdf
Again, I don't necessarily subscribe to the theory either but put it out there to demonstrate that there is no absolute science behind vehicle regulations.....they just get passed.


On what grounds?
That the reasoning behind passing these regs aren't based in solid reasoning, but an arbitrary number that is ever increasing and ridiculous time tables for implementation.
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
You're kidding right? The rest of the world doesn't matter when discussing domestic policy as they do not have limited government built in to their constitutions, that's the first point.
What is reasonably possible DOES have an impact. If the rest of the world can create fuel efficient cars that are also safe and reliable, we can too and there's no excuse around that.

Second, physics, a heavier vehicle requires more power which requires fuel, Detroit can eventually adapt but think about all the polution controls on vehicles that have questionable value and how often they fail, as well they sap power by restricting natural flow throughout. The third point is there is no agreed upon demonstrable need for a truck to get 30mpg.
A further question is why do you NEED such vehicles?

Again, I don't necessarily subscribe to the theory either but put it out there to demonstrate that there is no absolute science behind vehicle regulations.....they just get passed.
So, because there's one SERIOUSLY shaky theory out there that conflicts with established science all of a sudden nobody knows what they're talking about?

That the reasoning behind passing these regs aren't based in solid reasoning, but an arbitrary number that is ever increasing and ridiculous time tables for implementation.
Again, even if the numbers arent precise, we KNOW oil is a finite resource that WILL run out and planning for that is prudent.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
79,133
Reaction score
35,254
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You're kidding right? The rest of the world doesn't matter when discussing domestic policy as they do not have limited government built in to their constitutions, that's the first point. Second, physics, a heavier vehicle requires more power which requires fuel, Detroit can eventually adapt but think about all the polution controls on vehicles that have questionable value and how often they fail, as well they sap power by restricting natural flow throughout. The third point is there is no agreed upon demonstrable need for a truck to get 30mpg.
.

That doesn't make them "draconian." 30mpg isn't a breakpoint for anything. It's a target that reduces fuel consumption and emissions. The target could just as easily have been 60mpg, but the expense of reaching that target would be extreme and it's likely that trucks built to that standard would cease being useful as trucks. It's a tradeoff, you analyze the benefits and pick a point on the scale that seems to be the best balance of efficiency, cost, and effectiveness. Sometimes you just have to make a decision.

The "demonstrable need" is clear. Our use of fossil fuels vastly exceeds the earth's ability to produce them. That equation must be balanced eventually, and we can't just wait for the market to fix it on its own. Global demand for fossil fuels is increasing exponentially as population grows and more nations industrialize. Meanwhile, global production will decline as fuels become harder and harder to extract. Econ101 will tell you the impact on prices. The price of energy affects the price of everything. Food prices will go up, which will hurt a lot of people. As price goes up, yes, the market pressures will start to shift towards alternative fuel sources and more efficient use of gasoline, but you have to remember that this is a big ass planet. Technology improvements have a lag time, and a fundamental shift in our transportation system will take decades. There's a huge wall we're going to have to get over. The sooner we start, the smoother the slope will be. The less fuel we use in the meantime, the shorter that wall will be.
 
Last edited:

phattonez

Catholic
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,870
Reaction score
4,244
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Hoplite, were you going to answer my point about how the situation would be under capitalism and not corporatism?
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
That doesn't make them "draconian." 30mpg isn't a breakpoint for anything.
Improper time frame, incorrect expansion of powers not granted to the federal, economically punitive, forces increases in cost to consumer and tends to harm quality overall, does not solve the problem. Yes, that could be considered draconian and nothing else you have provided made your case.
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Hoplite, were you going to answer my point about how the situation would be under capitalism and not corporatism?
I agree with your sentiment, but we have to be practical. The current structure for punishment of private enterprise is...notoriously lax and the legislation required to correct that will be fought tooth and nail by the relevant industries.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
79,133
Reaction score
35,254
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Improper time frame, incorrect expansion of powers not granted to the federal, economically punitive, forces increases in cost to consumer and tends to harm quality overall, does not solve the problem. Yes, that could be considered draconian and nothing else you have provided made your case.

You haven't provided any evidence that the timeframe was "improper," or that the "expansion" of powers is "incorrect," nor that the measures are "punitive." Nor that quality has gone down. And the "problem" is not one that can be solved by a single measure, but you knew that. You could literally ban all internal combustion engines in any kind of vehicle and we'd still eventually run out of oil.

Everything you just mentioned is entirely subjective. "Could be considered" is practically a codeword for "my opinion is irrational." Speed limits "could be considered" draconian.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
You haven't provided any evidence that the timeframe was "improper," or that the "expansion" of powers is "incorrect," nor that the measures are "punitive." Nor that quality has gone down. And the "problem" is not one that can be solved by a single measure, but you knew that. You could literally ban all internal combustion engines in any kind of vehicle and we'd still eventually run out of oil.

Everything you just mentioned is entirely subjective. "Could be considered" is practically a codeword for "my opinion is irrational." Speed limits "could be considered" draconian.
I don't think you get how things work. It is not up to me to provide that an improper law is unnecessary or improper, it is the onus of those who desire to prove that it is.
 

phattonez

Catholic
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,870
Reaction score
4,244
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I agree with your sentiment, but we have to be practical. The current structure for punishment of private enterprise is...notoriously lax and the legislation required to correct that will be fought tooth and nail by the relevant industries.

But until things are fixed, you cannot call that aspect capitalism. It is corporatism, doing what it does by helping companies at the expense of individuals.
 

Sandokan

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
4,032
Reaction score
489
Location
Los Angels, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Capitalism gives us the products that we want and are willing to pay for directly. Socialism gives the products that government thinks we need. People are willing to work hard in their own best interests and the interests of their customers. People are not willing to work hard only in someone else's best interest. That is why socialism fails and has rampant corruption and black markets. Cubans, under the Castros regime, say “We pretend to work, they pretend to pay us." That pretty much sums it up.
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
But until things are fixed, you cannot call that aspect capitalism. It is corporatism, doing what it does by helping companies at the expense of individuals.
Corporatism is Capitalism taken to it's logical conclusion. If you truly let markets run themselves, they will eventually start bleeding over into the government to further their own interests.
 

Sov

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
471
Reaction score
89
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
One of the biggest myths about capitalism is that it is synonymous with market, let alone free market.
Corporatism is Capitalism taken to it's logical conclusion. If you truly let markets run themselves, they will eventually start bleeding over into the government to further their own interests.
Big capitalists have been in bed with government from the beginning. The rules, regs and red tape supposedly put in place to protect people end up stifling small business and suffocating individual initiative and free enterprise. They don't cramp the style of the big CEOs, bankers and super-rich lawyers who can afford to rig the system in their own favor. The Republicans are sometimes called the Party of the Rich, but it's no accident that this is even more true of the Democrats. The Democratic Party is the party of Wall Street, big business, and billionaires even more than the Republicans ever have been. If most of the super-rich really opposed a highly regulated economy then the Libertarian Party would rank first among billionaires and on Wall Street, but that's never been the case.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom