|
|
 Originally Posted by OngBonga
Oil companies are deliberately using their wealth and might to stop humans from advancing into a post-oil economy. There's no reason for us to be so heavily dependant on oil, other than to keep oil companies in business.
Not nearly as much as you think. The impact oil companies have had on reduction in renewables is on the margin of the margins. I'll explain more later.
Why?
Then why are we still reliant on fossil fuels?
Because the technology required for these to replace oil is substantially higher than people think. Even after we've made enormous advancements, like exponential advancements, the tech is still nowhere close to what it needs to be to provide what oil does. The oil companies are not the reason the tech doesn't exist. Masses of funds and man hours have gone into renewables, so much so that it's hugely subsidized now, yet it's still nowhere close to doing what oil can
Land isn't yours. You merely own the rights to land. Just like copyright, or a webpage. It all goes back in the box, remember? They can take away your land if you fail to pay your debt, and the debt is enforced on you when you take on a mortgage. Where does the money come to provide your motgage? Your deposit (your time and work), plus the money they already created through previous debt. The fact is, the baks don't even have to put anything up as deposit themselves, yet they still have the power to repossess your land if you fail to pay your dues.
I have no idea what your point is. This isn't a critique of capitalism
It straight up does. Take truffles as a basic example. I read somewhere here recently that truffle can be mass produced and be sold at a fraction of the cost. But why would they want to do that when they can sell it for more if it's rarer? The very fact that we use oil instead of solar power demonstrates the important role that scarcity has on capitalism. If we used solar energy, then energy would be abundant, not scarce. But if energy was more or less free, then large oil companies can't make money.
If we used solar, the world economy would collapse. Eventually the tech will be strong enough and scalable, but even then, it would only replace oil in certain areas since it's not liquid, cant make plastics, etc
Scarcity form the basis of capitalism. Something that is scarce is worth more than soemthing that is abundant. Thus, maintaining scarcity increases long term revenue. And capitalism is all about profit, so capitalism encourages scarcity over abundance because it's more profitable.
Scarcity is a facet of capitalism, but not the foundation. If you were right, we'd be living a much different world. The world we are living in doesn't look like one where scarcity reigns supreme. Only in outliers are extremes of scarcity ever successful
Diamonds are a great example, actually. What would happen if somebody created a method of creating perfect artificial diamonds? Their value would plummet. Thus, they won't be in any hurry to release such technology. That's two of my points supported in one.
There basically already are. Also there's a ton of regular diamonds anyways. The cost is already really low, but the price is not due to artificial scarcity. We don't see this in commodities that people need, and the extremes of this only exist in a handful of situations. Diamonds is the outlier. Even Apple is an outlier, but it's still nowhere near diamonds. Only niche and boutique markets where people are willing to overpay for something they don't actually need, can companies gouge prices and get away with it
Things like oil, OTOH, are as cheap as possible. The incentives to make them even cheaper is off the charts for virtually every player. Scarcity is no more the foundation of capitalism as abundance. Keep in mind that the theory of supply and demand already accounts for and explains all this
Of course it's every man for himself. Let's give you a hypothetical moral dilemma -
You are a self employed used car salesman. A new rival business opens half a mile from your business, and your profits plummet. You then discover that the person who runs the business has served time in prison for attempted murder. He's served his time and is trying to turn his life around, but you could ruin him and restore your profits by smearing him in public. Do you go to the press with this information? How many people do you suppose would compared to those who won't? Ultimately most people will put themself and their familes first. That's every man for himself. No-one gives a flying fuck about Bob and his family, except for Bob and his family.
This isn't a product of capitalism. It happens everywhere there has been anything not capitalism. You're making a bunch of causal leaps
This is fundamentally false. The vast majority of crime is committed as a result of money, or more the desire for money. That's a direct result of the economic system imposed on us. If everyone had equal wealth, then what reason is there for crime? People will still fight over love, or steal things they want, but the vast majority of crime would be negated.
I don't really know how to address this. Crime is a huge thing in places without money and times before money. Reduction in crime also correlates well with increases in free enterprise. You live in one off the lowest crime areas in the history of the world, as do I
If only abundant resources were used, then products and services would be cheaper. And if that's the case, then corporations make less money. Scarcity underlines capitalism at its most basic level. Human greed and corruption is the consuqeuence.
Businesses don't all operate the way you think. Some can probably be said to kinda sorta do what you think, but nothing close to most. Go read posts by Yglesias about Amazon. That's an example of the opposite of what you think companies do
In a nutshell: both abundance and scarcity play roles in capitalism, and too much in one direction tends to increase the value of the other
|
Reply With Quote
