bc7b1349   
   From: IanIveson.home@blueyonder.co.uk   
      
   Patrick Turner wrote:   
      
   > >The Chinese really do like doing business with us.   
   >   
   > >You see, 3 billion ppl want to have lifestyles like us,   
   > >all those   
   > >Chinese and Indians and Indonesians et all.   
   >   
   > >When do they want it? within 25 years. It took 250 years   
   > >for 1 billion   
   > >to get as rich as we are.   
   >   
   > That's a straw man. One does not have to reinvent the   
   > wheel, or the   
   > bow and arrow, or the steam engine, and so on.   
      
   Yes, I see that straw man you refer to due my roundabout way   
   of   
   speaking about world progress on abolition of povety. AFAIK,   
   the   
   Chinese are trying to become as inventive as possible with   
   their ideas   
   about nuclear steam engines for the future.   
      
   In 100 years time the people may look back to 2010 and our   
   very   
   primitive lifestyle. Or perhaps they'll be looking for a yew   
   tree from   
   which they can make a decent bow and arrows to defend   
   themselves   
   against each other.   
      
   >   
   > >So there is HUGE DEMAND for every fuckin thing you can   
   > >think of. The   
   > >matter of price is a minor concern.   
   >   
   > Price is always a concern because you can't have what   
   > can't be paid   
   > for.   
      
   The GFC is a sample of very many ppl thinking they can have   
   what they   
   can't pay for. Despite the limitations to the financial   
   system   
   operation or its honesty record, life will proceed apace   
   even while so   
   may grumble about being so poor while trying to pay for a   
   huge house   
   and a huge car and funding an absurdly unsustainable   
   lifestyle.   
      
      
   >   
   > >I don't think there is anywhere near enough Earth   
   > >resources for   
   > >several more billion ppl all living *better* than we do.   
   >   
   > Malthus has been proved wrong over and over again but that   
   > never seems   
   > to stop anti-humanists from spitting it back up.   
      
   Maybe Malthus saved the world. Who can tell? Society adapts:   
   Malthus, eco-warriors, et al, have been driving forces in   
   that process. Whether they were right or wrong, in your   
   narrow literal sense, is not really the point. Complex   
   entities aren't like Newton's apple: you need to find a more   
   sophisticated conception of science, or you'll keep looking   
   silly.   
      
   > History shows that as societies become more affluent the   
   > birth rate   
   > drops and, in some cases, goes negative so you wailing   
   > about the   
   > 'billions' wanting to be prosperous is counter productive   
   > to the very   
   > problem you complain about.   
      
   Yes, but if the population stabilises at say 9 billion, and   
   all of   
   them have our present lifestyle for 80 years each then they   
   will   
   consume about 5 times current levels of almost everything.   
   We have   
   only one Planet.   
      
   *** Don't be drawn into accepting flipper's idea of science.   
   History hasn't shown that at all. Where more affluent   
   societies do have lower birth rates they also have higher   
   survival rates and, in cases where population growth is   
   lower, it's hard to say which, affluence or low rate of   
   population growth, is cause, and which is effect. There is a   
   closer and apparently valid correlation between education   
   and birth rate, but even then it's hard to establish a   
   causal relationship between the two...could be a babies and   
   storks type of coincidence. Over a long period of history,   
   including all parts of the world at all times we know about,   
   these relationships are not simple even if they exist.   
      
   Doom and gloom pedictions could always be laughed at if you   
   lived in   
   Rome while Augustus was around. World population was small   
   and the   
   anthropogenic effects on nature were negligible. But not   
   now. Things   
   are becoming quite different.   
   >   
   > >If I am right there may be wars in future over resources,   
   >   
   > There have always been 'wars' over resources from the   
   > first hominids   
   > fighting over a water hole. Of course, humans didn't   
   > 'invent' that.   
   > Just watch two stray dogs with one bone between them.   
      
   Agreed. Many species just like a fight for a fight's sake.   
   Species   
   which fight to improve their chance at survival tend to   
   survive well   
   compared to those who lose the fight so fight genes get   
   passed on. Our   
   human history is blood soaked. And when resources are short,   
   expect   
   big fights.   
      
   *** We're different. We have a conscious social history and   
   it learns. Human nature, through civilisation, makes   
   progress.   
      
   > > but its   
   > >cheaper to buy your way than bomb your way to wealth and   
   > >control.   
   >   
   > You cannot 'buy' your way to 'wealth'. Or, put simply, you   
   > can't 'buy'   
   > a million dollars with a penny.   
      
   Yes you can. You buy raw materials for pennies and with your   
   labour   
   you add value and sell the product for far more than the   
   penyworth of   
   iron ore or coal. The Chinese are doing this very cleverly.   
   >   
   > You have to 'produce' wealth. I.E. Make or do something of   
   > value..   
      
   China is beavering away making a huge amount of stuff which   
   ppl like   
   to buy and they are getting better off as a result.   
      
   "To get rich is glorious"   
      
   *** Traditionally, capital lurches from one crisis of   
   overproduction to another. It'll be interesting to see how   
   China manages its exposure to the current one.   
   >   
   > > The   
   > >Japs found out about that the hard way.   
   >   
   > No, Imperial Japan found out that armed robbery is frowned   
   > upon, not   
   > to mention bigotry and mass murder.   
      
   And as a result, ordinary Japanese ppl who were not part of   
   the   
   Imperial lot got swept into the maelstrom of war and   
   finished up   
   losers. All Japanese learned the hard way. But learn they   
   did, unlike   
   so many muslim brothers who now vow to never surrender to   
   infidels.   
   The Germans eventually also got the message. They had big   
   troubles   
   with WW1, and then they tried again to make a pest of   
   themselves in   
   WW2. After that they really began to change. Some folks   
   learn real   
   slow.   
      
      
   > >The Brits used to own most of Oz, and then the Yanks came   
   > >in heavy.   
   > >Its only natural that when the financial supremacy of the   
   > >US fades and   
   > >the power of the US wanes like what happened in the   
   > >decline of the   
   > >British Empire that China will have a greater % of   
   > >ownership of   
   > >companies in OZ. A huge chunk of Oz companies have always   
   > >been foreign   
   > >owned.   
   >   
   > "Foreign owned" is a popular bugaboo but the fact of the   
   > matter is   
   > unless you, yourself, make everything you use and consume   
   > then you are   
   > dealing with a 'foreign [to you, yourself] owned' entity.   
      
   But if all australians owned all the businesses in Oz the   
   profits woud   
   stay in Oz for its betterment.   
      
   *** Unlikely. Even assuming the businesses made the same   
   profits, the only real difference would be who they pay   
   their tax to. Capital itself is just capital. It goes   
   wherever it pleases.   
      
   But foreign companies send profits out   
   of the country to raise living standards of company home   
   countries   
   rather than here. Right now our PM is trying to put a "40%   
   super   
   profits tax" on the mining industry which is dominated by   
   global   
   companies making money for shareholders mainly elsewhere.   
   There is a   
   an election soon. The mining companies are spending millions   
   on   
   newspaper adds to say how poor they all are and how they'll   
   be rooned   
   if the tax goes ahead.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)