Which lifestyle will survive globalization?

[Count of Montesano]

This weekend, I watched a Discovery Channel documentary on India's growing professional class and the effects of globalization on India's traditional culture (hosted by NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman.) Today, I read a travel article about living in Amsterdam by a writer at slate.com, an article that mentioned the laid-back, work to live culture of the Dutch.

These two experiences got me thinking that there are two distinct schools of thought when it comes to globalization and quality of life. I could call them the Dutch School and the American School. But in reality you could easily lump the rest of Europe, countries like Bolivia, Canada and the U.S. West Coast in with the "Dutch School." You could also say India and China have embrassed the "American School" of Thought. Some nations, like Japan and South Korea, might embrace certain aspects of both schools of thought.

The Dutch School -the more socialist, laid-back, family friendly lifestyle

Pros
1. emphasis on sustainability and energy conservation
2. while being a modern consumer society, status is not merely determined by how much stuff you have
3. work to live - workweeks are not extreme and emphasis is placed on having a life outside of work
4. socialist society - the gap between rich and poor not extreme, strong social safety nets
5. slow food society - emphasis on locally grown food rather than mass-produced food. People take time to eat rather than gulf down food during 10-hour workdays

Cons
1. Lower standard of living, at least in terms of wealth (this can be seen as fewer toys, smaller living spaces, etc. For example, many residents in Amsterdam travel by bike and do not own cars.)
2. heavy taxes
3*** unable to survive in a hyper-competitive, winner takes all world driven by America, China and India

The American/Indian/Chinese Schools

Pros
1. Hard work, intense competition and lack of burdensome taxes equals far faster innovation than in socialist states
2. High standard of living for the most ambitious and talented
3. More "equality" in terms of people not taking advantage of expensive socialist programs that encourage some levels of unemployment and freeloading
4. Highly productive societies capable of setting the agenda in global politics

Cons
1. Highly wasteful societies; hyper-consumerism runs rampant
2. Live to work - production is everything. Family, personal satisfaction comes second
3. Fast food nation (not so much a problem in India or China, yet) - mass-produced food is scarfed down; no time for regular dinners with family and friends
4. winner takes all, loser gets to scrounge in a slum and die at age 30 from malaria/ avian flu/a hail of Uzi bullets during a gang drive-by shooting

So, the big question in my mind is - which lifestyle will win out in globalization? One could say only the Dutch school is viable in the long run, yet increasing advances in technology and alternative energy breakthroughs could lead to today's hyper-consumerism (the American school) being sustainable for centuries to come, when we'll have to mine asteroids or other solar systems for precious metals.

The thing is, after watching the documentary on India, I'm not convinced socialist European countries will be able to survive in a global economy dominated by India-China-US. Truth is despite America's obsession with profits and work, America may not be able to survive. The youth of India are buying into the whole American lavish lifestyle and work-hard play-hard mentality, and are brought up to compete in a system where only a handful of people can ever be successful. As one young Indian said, the West is just waking up to the fact that it takes extreme effort simply to survive, much less have the American dream of a house, car, 2.5 children, and plasma tv. The American School at least takes a page from nature in rewarding the most ambitious/innovative.

So what do you all think? Will globalization herald a new era of prosperity, an era when rampant consumerism will be checked, where everyone will work 30-hour-weeks, and pursuit of leisure and personal relationships will be more socially acceptable than chasing after professional success? Or will globalizations lead desperate conditions similar to ancient Rome, where the rich will live as gods but the starving masses will be kept in check with bread ( I mean kelp by-products), circuses, and designer drugs?

[Major.Stupidity]

When I first saw the title of the Thread I thought you were talking about cultural destruction in an era of globalization. Taking the thought of cultural destruction and globalization, I would say that the American school of thought will win out, because its human nature to see the benefits of the short term and turn a blind eye to the long term consequences.

And bringing cultural destruction into the playing field after having seen the documentary a few months ago, I believe it was an Indian man who was complaining of the changing times and how his children were ditching ancient traditions. Friedman responds with the thing he calls Glocalization, creating products on the International market but tailored for the culture. Glocalization

Now I'm going to modify it and intern say that the different schools and thoughts being the Dutch and the American respectfully, should choose what best suites them. They could take after Japan and South Korea as Count of Montesano said in his post.

To answer the question posed by Montesano, I believe that the American school will win out, with what it projects in the short term scope. But, ask me what I want to happen, I think a permutation of the two schools on certain issues like the environment and the social make - up would be best suited for future generations, but that’s just me.

@ Count of Montesano - It may be just me, but you so sounded like Friedman in your post. But then again maybe I'v read and watched to much Friedman!

[Simetrical]

The Dutch School -the more socialist, laid-back, family friendly lifestyle

Pros
1. emphasis on sustainability and energy conservation

I don't think "sustainability" is such a pro. Realistically speaking, at the present time solar/wind/etc. aren't viable large-scale energy sources, and what's the harm in starting to use up oil sooner rather than later? Research will occur whether or not compelled by governments, research to find the most economically efficient fuel. The only thing we have to watch out for is the tragedy of the commons, such as in the form of pollution, but that's a different issue entirely.

2. while being a modern consumer society, status is not merely determined by how much stuff you have

Nor is it in America. Many things determine status, wealth being just one of them.

4. socialist society - the gap between rich and poor not extreme, strong social safety nets

Social safety nets, yes, but the gap between rich and poor being less extreme? I don't know about that. In the Netherlands, the top 10% control 25.1% of the wealth, while the lowest 10% are left with 2.8%; in the United States, the figures are 30.5% and 1.8% respectively. Certainly a sizable difference, but in both cases the wealthiest have ten times as much as the poorest. Of course, this assumes that you accept GDP PPP as an acceptable form of wealth—in general, I would tend to think it's acceptable as long as not many people consume their own products (which is not the case in many poor nations), but other factors would ideally be considered (such as likelihood of severe disease).

5. slow food society - emphasis on locally grown food rather than mass-produced food. People take time to eat rather than gulf down food during 10-hour workdays

Why is this good? Food is food, it's eaten so we can live, it's inefficient and pointless to eat it slowly.

1. Lower standard of living, at least in terms of wealth (this can be seen as fewer toys, smaller living spaces, etc. For example, many residents in Amsterdam travel by bike and do not own cars.)

Well, many residents of Amsterdam may not need to own cars. My family, in New York City, didn't until a few years ago. Remember that in heavily urbanized areas, usually the need to own your own car is reduced (due to more places within walking distance of one's home and of mass transportation stops), as the expense of keeping one increases (due to increased insurance and parking costs). Keep in mind that Europe's population density is a lot higher than the U.S.—we need cars more than they do.

Anyway, it should be noted that if we use GDP distribution as our litmus test, the poor of the Netherlands have more of the Netherlands' wealth than the poor of America have of America's wealth, but the American poor are still almost as wealthy. 1.8% of our GDP per capita is IN$721.80, whereas 2.8% of their GDP per capita is IN$826.00. A 15% increase.

3*** unable to survive in a hyper-competitive, winner takes all world driven by America, China and India

Perhaps a better way to put this would be to say that a socialist or otherwise restrictive economy usually has lower economic growth than a more capitalist one. Over time, this will add up. Netherlands has a GDP growth rate of 1.2%, the U.S. has a growth rate of 4.4%. That makes a big difference. Our economy will double every 16 years, Netherlands will take 58 years—by which time the U.S. economy will have septupled. Of course, this assumes that a) the two-state "trend" here is typical of economically freer nations (which I might be able to prove, if you'd like), b) the trend is caused by the economic freedom rather than being correlated to it for other reasons, and c) GDP is meaningful when it comes to measuring wealth.

1. Highly wasteful societies; hyper-consumerism runs rampant

We're not economically wasteful, in general. We're only wasteful to the ecological-minded. Yeah, we may not recycle as much, but so what? Recycling isn't cost-effective, and for some materials, it will quite likely never be cost-effective. We don't recycle too much less glass or metal, which is where we see a real monetary benefit. It doesn't really matter if we throw away all our paper, it's a renewable resource.

As for the second, what exactly is hyper-consumerism, and why is it bad?

4. winner takes all, loser gets to scrounge in a slum and die at age 30 from malaria/ avian flu/a hail of Uzi bullets during a gang drive-by shooting

Come on, now, you're being rather extreme there. Malaria and drive-by shootings are extremely rare in the U.S. As I pointed out above, subject to certain caveats, the poor aren't that much worse off here than in Europe. In general, the average lifespan of a poor person (but not someone who will not or cannot enter the workforce, that's an entirely separate issue) isn't too much shorter than that of a rich person.

So, the big question in my mind is - which lifestyle will win out in globalization? One could say only the Dutch school is viable in the long run, yet increasing advances in technology and alternative energy breakthroughs could lead to today's hyper-consumerism (the American school) being sustainable for centuries to come, when we'll have to mine asteroids or other solar systems for precious metals.

Metals are recyclable, and are recyled. Everywhere. We will not run out of metal on Earth, not even in hundreds of years, any more than we'll run out of water or salt. It would be immeasurably cheaper to make do with synthetic materials in such a distant future (when presumably all labor will be robotic and everyone will be immortal andriods with perfect VR devices and a bevy of robot servants) than to cut back on metal consumption now, in any case, and the same pretty much goes for anything that won't run out for the next century or two.

So what do you all think? Will globalization herald a new era of prosperity, an era when rampant consumerism will be checked, where everyone will work 30-hour-weeks, and pursuit of leisure and personal relationships will be more socially acceptable than chasing after professional success? Or will globalizations lead desperate conditions similar to ancient Rome, where the rich will live as gods but the starving masses will be kept in check with bread ( I mean kelp by-products), circuses, and designer drugs?

Ultimately, virtually all paths that include no major natural or artificial disasters will lead to there being no poor or rich, because all labor will be performed by robots and computers, including the design, construction, and maintenance of those same robots and computers. There will be no jobs to be paid, and either a) power will belong to a group of few, who will hold it completely unshakably due to their total command of most or all of the robots on the planet plus their artificial physical toughening, hiding behind guard robots, or even brain-computer transplants allowing their minds to be backed up in case they get destroyed by angry mobs while walking the streets, or b) power will be once and forever distributed among all people equally.

Due to the probable gradual nature of the change, combined with the world powers' (i.e. governments') developing general attitudes at present, plus the lack of difference power makes when everyone is immortal and has unlimited sustenance and virtual reality, I think that option b is more likely. Computing power and raw energy would be distributed evenly among all people to do with as they would see fit, and it would be enough to satisfy anyone's desires.

But to finish my answer: this will occur whether socialism or capitalism is dominant, but with capitalism I firmly believe the requisite technological progress will take a lot less time, and will in general provide greater benefit to rich and poor alike over any period of more than a few decades. Thus, I strongly support free markets.

[Count of Montesano]

Major, Simetrical, both good replies. I hope both of you know I like to embellish some of my points - sorry about the comments on malaria and drive-by shootings.

Your responses have got me thinking. I personally hope things go more toward scenario A: robots and advanced technology help all people to live healthier, more rewarding lives. But I fear the trend is toward increased competition, increased conflict over dwindling resources as we refuse to make basic changes in our lifestyle, greatly increased stress and uncertainity for most of the world's population.

The warning signs are already there in America. Our slums may not match up with Rio or Mexico City, yet Compton in LA or Algiers in New Orleans or downtown Detroit are some of the most dangerous places in the first world. America has the largest prison population in the first world, the greatest number of starving children among industrialized countries, a semi-permanent underclass who cannot afford health insurance, much less college. And America is sitting at the global table playing Texas Hold'em with India and China, both of which are more than happy to raise the ante in human suffering in the name of progress.

And I disagree that money does not equal status in America - that's all people around me talk about. The measure of an American is how much money he or she has. It doesn't really matter how you get it either anymore. Bling bling slinging, drug-dealing pimp = role model for millions of kids. Poor teacher = loser who can't afford to buy a house in many communities anymore. Granted, I live on the West Coast, where the movie stars and hi tech moguls come to fufill their gold rush dreams.

Perhaps I sound like a liberal, but I would like to see America adopt some of the European style of placing family and friends above work and possessions; of actually enjoying meals instead of scarfing Taco Bell in front of the computer; having a few more weeks of vacation each year to travel, study or GASP volunteer.

[IronBrig4]

It's a real shame that France is starting to become a "fast food nation." They no longer have a 35-hour work week, which means less time to enjoy their meals. From what I hear, you'll see less and less people at the cafes, and the local boulangeries and boucheries are disappearing.

I refuse to turn into one of those drones who only has a milkshake thing in the morning, a quick McDonald's combo at lunch, and a TV dinner. I spend at least a half hour eating every meal, so I can chat with my friends and family. Sure, I work and I have classes, and I do a good job. But if it's a beautiful day and my classes will be normal lectures, I play hooky. I go to the bowling alley or the beach, and just get the lecture notes from a class-mate.

[Marcus Scaurus]

Until a few years ago, I always thought that English people always have a very large breakfast in the morning, you know, the English breakfast. But when I was in London, I saw hundreds of people eating their breakfast on street. On street! In Holland (Dutch School ), we also eat a lot of fastfood, but we keep the fastfood inside the McDonalds.

[Evariste]

Major, Simetrical, both good replies. I hope both of you know I like to embellish some of my points - sorry about the comments on malaria and drive-by shootings.

Your responses have got me thinking. I personally hope things go more toward scenario A: robots and advanced technology help all people to live healthier, more rewarding lives. But I fear the trend is toward increased competition, increased conflict over dwindling resources as we refuse to make basic changes in our lifestyle, greatly increased stress and uncertainity for most of the world's population.

The warning signs are already there in America. Our slums may not match up with Rio or Mexico City, yet Compton in LA or Algiers in New Orleans or downtown Detroit are some of the most dangerous places in the first world. America has the largest prison population in the first world, the greatest number of starving children among industrialized countries, a semi-permanent underclass who cannot afford health insurance, much less college. And America is sitting at the global table playing Texas Hold'em with India and China, both of which are more than happy to raise the ante in human suffering in the name of progress.

And I disagree that money does not equal status in America - that's all people around me talk about. The measure of an American is how much money he or she has. It doesn't really matter how you get it either anymore. Bling bling slinging, drug-dealing pimp = role model for millions of kids. Poor teacher = loser who can't afford to buy a house in many communities anymore. Granted, I live on the West Coast, where the movie stars and hi tech moguls come to fufill their gold rush dreams.

Perhaps I sound like a liberal, but I would like to see America adopt some of the European style of placing family and friends above work and possessions; of actually enjoying meals instead of scarfing Taco Bell in front of the computer; having a few more weeks of vacation each year to travel, study or GASP volunteer.

Competition is a good thing. It leads to lower prices and increased quality of products.

And going full socialist would cause America's economy to nosedive or at least stagnate. 10 years ago we were at the top of the list of GDP's, now we're like 10th after increasing our socialist programs.

I know many teachers that live alone and live comfortably. I agree that teachers don't get paid enough but I think that's at least partly the result of our socialised school system. If we went all private then I'm sure that pay would increase.

[Da Skinna]

The economic cycle will be moving in its circle a lot faster with the hyper-consumerism one. Depression eras will keep making such unprecendented returns, and there's a lot of holes for mistake with the American school. The Dutch school can improve upon, but it really comes down to humanity, and that gets tricky. I vouch and hope the Dutch one wins, but like I said, it comes down to humanity, and people don't like talking about that stuff and it all goes to hell.

It'll come down to humanity issues when these two schools try to adapt to stay with the time, and that's where we'll fail, and that failure exponentiates into the rest of the school's aspects, sortof maintaining the status quo will have to do, and nothing gets done. These schools will not be able to survive, unless they can sit down and seriously tackle humane issues, or unless a wholly different school emerges and slowly, or rapidly takes over the other ones.


I hope you can follow, I'm VERY tired right now, and I have only read the first post of this topic, so it's all fffffzzzz to me.

[Simetrical]

10 years ago we were at the top of the list of GDP's, now we're like 10th after increasing our socialist programs.

A statement that is mistaken on a number of levels. First of all, in 1995 the United States' economy was substantially less free than it is now, with an Index of Economic Freedom rating of 1.99 as opposed to our current rating of 1.85 (lower numbers are freer). Second of all, we are presently second in GDP per capita, at about 30% behind Luxembourg, and somehow I find it doubtful that we've had -30% GDP per capita growth over the past 10 years, or that Luxembourg has had 50% GDP per capita growth.

[galenwolf]

Man, i gotta start posting more... Anyway.

I don't think any of them will survive.

America and europe are both socialist to different degrees and socialist societies don't work in the long run. I'm going to quote someone I know who is a lot better at wording this than I.

First I will deal with big business. Socialism in its ideal form is meant to limit big business by putting limits onto companies to stop monopolies, but in fact the opposite happens:

Socialists, in their misguided attempt to prevent the creation of oligopolies or monopolies within any given industry, insist upon regulatory controls by government in an effort to prevent the former and what they perceive will result in a corrupt corporatist system without said controls. However such an attempt is essentially the actual cause of government established/enforced cartels, oligopolies and/or monopolies, empowering a now politicized Big Business. Thus socialist regulatory controls create the very problem they allegedly seek to alleviate or even completely remove.

Next is interest groups that can its their power to change government, and how government will embrace this.

Socialism breeds interest groups though the use of tax. As tax in socialist countries is higher, to provide for the state, then people who have common cause, and who have proven they can influence part of the populace, will aquire funds from the government through tax benefits and handouts because government will see this as a covert way of winning votes with the knowledge that they will then have to give succor to the interest group in the way of policies. As time goes on both of these groups, interest and government, will form greater ties as they muturally help each other to grow in power. As the government gives out more money to the interest group, the interest group in turn feeds the population propaganda that they need more government controls to stop a false injustice which the interest group has manufactored. A good example is Sweden where government has helped feminism grow in power until no one can question their idealology openly because of the backlash feminism can give. In turn government has been able to expand into various sector of society with controls and balances that removes choice and freedom from the people and have given it to government. This is also the case in America with the patriot act, VAWA, harrasment, no fault devorce and various other measures that have been implemented.

As a side note, Sweden is by and large the most feminised country on the world and it has underneath its laid-back image some disturbing attitudes towards men. This is allowed because feminism whilst being poltical isnt a political party thus is not subject to public debate like a political party is. Instead it is able to throw around words like sexist and chauvinist to those who opposite their idealogy even when the arguements against it are valid. You will note that feminism it self is full of double standards and sexism with an added "all animals are equal but some are more equal than others" view of point when it comes to gender, for instance this little quote "To call a man an animal is to flatter him: He is a machine, a walking dildo, a biological mishap". Their core belief is meant to be everyone is equal yet they praise any study that says women are better than men in any given area but then also object to any study that says men are better then women in any given area. But I am getting off track here.

Socialism also breeds a lazy workforce through the redistribution of wealth. Capitialism is based on the idea that you earn everything you own and if you do not have enough money then you must do something economically to change that situation. This creates a society that works hard to benefit themselves and in turn this helps the economy thus helping everyone. Socialism instead gives you someone elses money, this creates a situation where people will not work because they believe the government can give them money for good. Socialist governments see the individual wage of the workforce as a pool of money that can be just moved around like its a mere bookkeeping transaction. Whilst taxing A to benefit B they forget about A. The same goes for taxing companies; tax a company and that company will have less money to use for upgrading equipment, expanding the workforce and for improving the lot of their workforce. Another worthwhile note is that the current resession is not down to captialism but is down to socailist taxes that are reducing the workforce and profits of companies because of too much tax.

Governments that are likely to survive are those which are limited, same goes with I.P and copyright and where true free trade is allowed. That way companies are in fair competition and with that no monopoly can fully exist. The problem currently, however, is that monopolies do exist and so have ahead start even if the world did have true free trade. The past has shown even large companies can be brought low by a new company with a better product, until that new company itself gets competition. The problem today is super companies now have the money and power to buy up any newly starting competitor.

I would continue, but I am actually meant to be working, thankfully i am self employed so i cant fire myself.

[Bwaho]

"Socialists, in their misguided attempt to prevent the creation of oligopolies or monopolies within any given industry, insist upon regulatory controls by government in an effort to prevent the former and what they perceive will result in a corrupt corporatist system without said controls. However such an attempt is essentially the actual cause of government established/enforced cartels, oligopolies and/or monopolies, empowering a now politicized Big Business. Thus socialist regulatory controls create the very problem they allegedly seek to alleviate or even completely remove"

In some cases it can happen yes. But without the government control it happens as well (maybe it's even easier) that a company gets monopoly. No system is perfect, but goverment control can at least prevent a few companies from getting monopoly.

"We're not economically wasteful, in general."

Americans use most of the worlds resources (no i'm not bashing america, just stating a fact).

"Come on, now, you're being rather extreme there. Malaria and drive-by shootings are extremely rare in the U.S. As I pointed out above, subject to certain caveats, the poor aren't that much worse off here than in Europe. In general, the average lifespan of a poor person (but not someone who will not or cannot enter the workforce, that's an entirely separate issue) isn't too much shorter than that of a rich person"

No health care, bad food, bad living conditions, bad hygiene = people dying faster

It's also a humane factor too isn't it? If you have no problem watching kids die of hunger then you should be alright.

[Simetrical]

Socialists, in their misguided attempt to prevent the creation of oligopolies or monopolies within any given industry, insist upon regulatory controls by government in an effort to prevent the former and what they perceive will result in a corrupt corporatist system without said controls. However such an attempt is essentially the actual cause of government established/enforced cartels, oligopolies and/or monopolies, empowering a now politicized Big Business. Thus socialist regulatory controls create the very problem they allegedly seek to alleviate or even completely remove.

To some extent. Socialists generally don't object to monopolies so much as big business, which is (accurately) viewed as completely unfeeling toward customers, willing to weigh even their very lives as though they were priced in dollars and cents—witness the whole Ford Pinto debacle. Therefore, they don't care whether a business is actually a monopoly or just very large, and view big government (which theoretically doesn't care so much about money) as being okay.

Capitalists, on the other hand, object to any kind of monopoly (whether private or government, management or labor) because competition is viewed as necessary for progress, but think big businesses are fine as long as they aren't too big.

You will note that feminism it self is full of double standards and sexism with an added "all animals are equal but some are more equal than others" view of point when it comes to gender, for instance this little quote "To call a man an animal is to flatter him: He is a machine, a walking dildo, a biological mishap".

There certainly exist such feminists, yes. There are also more moderate self-described feminists, who truly believe in nothing more than equality. Don't tar them all with the same brush.

The problem currently, however, is that monopolies do exist and so have ahead start even if the world did have true free trade. The past has shown even large companies can be brought low by a new company with a better product, until that new company itself gets competition. The problem today is super companies now have the money and power to buy up any newly starting competitor.

Depends on the field and the locality. In general, there are very few monopolies like that in the U.S. Super-huge companies usually kill competitors by just outperforming them, economy of scale and all that (like Wal-Mart moving into competition with a town's local stores).

I would continue, but I am actually meant to be working, thankfully i am self employed so i cant fire myself.

I have a friend whose father fired himself instead of just resigning when he wanted to retire. He collected government unemployment that way.

In some cases it can happen yes. But without the government control it happens as well (maybe it's even easier) that a company gets monopoly. No system is perfect, but goverment control can at least prevent a few companies from getting monopoly.

Yes, but in a truly socialist system, businesses are all monopolies, operated by the state. A controlled capitalist system (as opposed to laissez-faire) makes most or all businesses private, but intervenes when they get too big.

Americans use most of the worlds resources (no i'm not bashing america, just stating a fact).

We don't use most of the world's resources as a whole, that's silly. There are doubtless some specific resources we use an absolute majority of, but not many. What we do use is a plurality of many different kinds of resources (more than any other single country, but not necessarily more than all other countries combined), but that shouldn't be surprising, since our GDP is larger than that of any other country.

No health care, bad food, bad living conditions, bad hygiene = people dying faster

Most Americans have health care, the food is only bad if you want to eat bad food, and hygiene is just as good as anywhere. We do have a somewhat shorter life expectancy than several other Western nations, yes, but it's still perfectly respectable at 77 years, only five years behind the world leader (Japan).

It's also a humane factor too isn't it? If you have no problem watching kids die of hunger then you should be alright.

Come on, the number of children who starve to the death in the U.S. is tiny. Maybe higher than in some other countries, but that's not saying much.

[galenwolf]

There certainly exist such feminists, yes. There are also more moderate self-described feminists, who truly believe in nothing more than equality. Don't tar them all with the same brush.

I have had dealing with a lot of feminists and I can say that feminists always want equality, but only when its for them and only when it suits them. For example when a scientific study comes out saying women are better at this or that it gets praised by feminists, yet when another study comes out saying men are better at something, they either try to rubbish it, the researchers or just call it sexist and the person who wrote it, a pig. Also look at VAWA, its complete rubbish the statisitics false yet feminists pushed for it. Look at the courts when a women gets sentenced, it is in general less years yet feminists do not ask that these women get the same sentence a man would get, they defend the woman and say she shouldn't go to jail. When a man gets treated unfairly in child custody feminists do not shout out about the inequality of it, they say the man was most likely an abuser even if he has no record of it.

Have a look at http://tinyurl.com/5h9tj its a blog called feministing, then stick it through regender http://regender.com/index.html

I used to think feminism was a good thing, that was until i started to read their literature and what their feelings where, now i would never support it. and the ironic thing is i am for equality, i just don't see it in feminism.

[Hanno the Navigator]

Probably none. There won't be any crude oil substitute available when peak oil is reached (which Goldman Sachs estimates to be around 2007, and they threw a lot of money at the problem. The smart guess seems to be 'until 2010'). With declining availability of oil, mainly as raw material for plastics etc and secondly as a source of energy, the potential for continuing economic growth (in terms of productivity) will very much decrease, and the potential for purely financial growth (which constitutes the largest single amount of economic growth in post-developed nations) will follow a year later at the latest. Energy-intensive businesses all over the world hat increases in production costs of 5-20% in the last year simply due to risen oil prices; this is likely to happen year after year in the foreseeable future - how long do you think it will still be economically viable to produce aluminium? How much aluminium can be recycled? Odd weather can increase the cost of groceries up to 20% in some years even in Western Europe (ask the Swiss or the Bavarians how their grain harvest's gonna be this year), and we're only seeing a tenth to a fifth of the weird weather we're probably going to see in the 2050s - if climate change remains on a level that civilizations can survive at all without fragmenting, that is.

The question is, can we adapt? And who will survive? I'd say, as usual: the scavengers, the nomads; the ability and will to resort to makeshift means to make ends meet is probably crucial. People throw away so much that's still good - I didn't pay a single cent for my bike, or for the stuff I repaired it with, except the lock. It works like a charm, and as it's a pimped secondhand one, it's much less likely to get stolen too and I love it even more for all the work I had to put into it. So scavenging it is, and some basic farming skillz (lucky me grew up in the countryside, so I got me a green thumb. If things turn ugly, I'll resort to the hinterlands and grow me some taters'n'beans and raise some chickens). Or maybe the Russians - they've already been through what the future seems to have in hold for 80-90% of mankind. Life expectancy is down in Russia by some 15% in the last 20 years, BTW, so the 'age crisis' of the Western countries will probably never realize. Not that the reasons why are nice at all.

It is not the 'fittest' who survives best in evolution - that's just pop darwinism. It is the most versatile, the most adaptable, he who can carve out a living under sucky conditions. It is fecal bacteria and not lions who rule the world, by sheer biomass involved.

Oh, and I wouldn't believe most of what Friedman says. He's still into the unlimited-growth thing by the way he thinks, which is total and utter BS. He's shifted his rethoric, but he has not grasped that things have changed noticeably; anyone who's like 35 years old and has his street smarts can tell that at least in Western Europe, we're definitely starting to take a downward turn, and I think it's not that different in the US; people over here were better-educated, healthier and better off (from their own hands' work - getting heavily into debt's the new craze over here) 10 years ago. Of course, that's easy to blank out if you're able to see only what fits your theory, like Friedman does.

[galenwolf]

This post, is about laissez-faire.

Monopolies within a true free market can exist, but this is a rare event. However they are always very short lived because the of the lack of government intervention and due to the inherent nature of laissez-faire. Quite obviously the fear of the existence of a monopoly is exemplified by the price system.

When a company achieves a monopoly people will fear that the companies prices for it's products will rise substantially due to the greed of the entrepreneur that leading the company, not forgetting the stock holders of course. The problem with this, however, is that it is short-lived. As soon as the prices start the rise new companies will come to the fore with similar products that have lower prices, though these prices might still be higher than the given price before the monopoly.

The monopolist now has three choices, it can either lower its prices, try to take over all these new companies (which is unlikely) or keep it prices high and have to greatly improve it's products to justify it's prices. If the monopolist doesn’t lower it's prices or justify it's prices then it will go out of business.

It is fallacy to think that once a monopoly is created that all competition can be prevented from coming into being. One barrier that can be put up is through government regulations which will make it harder to start up a company to compete with the already big monopoly. With this method the regulations help the monopolist because entrepreneurs will find it less risky to sell their company to the monopolist than to try and weather the existential regulations that often choke newly emerging competition.

Another problem that allows for the long term existence of a monopoly is corporate tax. Large monopolies can afford this much easer than new competitors. Interestingly, the highest bracket for tax is the US is somewhat lower than the 2nd tier tax bracket, observe:

Taxable income over Not over Tax rate

$ 0 $ 50,000 15%
50,000 75,000 25%
75,000 100,000 34%
100,000 335,000 39%
335,000 10,000,000 34%
10,000,000 15,000,000 35%
15,000,000 18,333,333 38%
18,333,333 .......... 35%

Production costs for small companies is usually higher since they cannot sell in bulk like the monopoly can, but since monopolies always increase prices that itself can allow enough room for small companies to start, and thus the monopoly again has to lower it prices, thus ending the monopoly unless, of course, it holds prices as closely to the marginal cost of production as possible.

There is a huge amount of information necessary to detail all the intricacies of how and why a monopoly within a free market cannot last. For further study the following book provides an excellent instruction on the subject: Basic Economics: A Citizens Guide to the Economy.

[IronBrig4]

I do not know which lifestyle will survive, but I sure hope it's the Dutch or Japanese lifestyle.

[galenwolf]

I do not know which lifestyle will survive, but I sure hope it's the Dutch or Japanese lifestyle.

Japanese, hopefully. Tho they are alittle strange with their culture {from the wests point of view anyway} they are a better at making laws and dealing with interest groups.

[Bwaho]

"Yes, but in a truly socialist system, businesses are all monopolies, operated by the state. A controlled capitalist system (as opposed to laissez-faire) makes most or all businesses private, but intervenes when they get too big."

Yup, In my country the government has control (monopoly) on alcohol sale. Can't say I like it very much, they only have their limited set of products, if you want something special you have to import (import can be annoying because sometimes you have to buy more than you want to actually be allowed to order) or travel to get it.
Which system do you prefer btw?

Cartels is pretty interesting situation too, it happened with dentists here. They got together and decided the minimum prices that would apply to all of their companies.

[Milteades]

Personal freedoms and liberties as well as whatever democratic rights will not survive globalisation

[Major.Stupidity]

Personal freedoms and liberties as well as whatever democratic rights will not survive globalisation

May I ask how you arrived at that conclusion?