What is better than Capitalism?

close
more_vert
morfe lux M
morfe lux Sep 9, 2003 19:13:51
Replying to Dog 3000

"Just think what technology has done for the world in the last 100 years . . . and if anything the pace of tech development is INCREASING . . . ."

It may be a little glib of me, but I'm not quite so openly welcoming of technology for technology's sake, (neither am I a luddite, I just abhor technology creating a problem/vaccuum (for fiscal profit) instead of solving a problem. It puts me in mind of a simple but powerful parable:

An American businessman was at the pier of a small coastal Mexican
village where a small boat with just one fisherman was docked. Inside
the small boat were several large yellowfin tuna. The American
complimented the Mexican on the quality of his fish and asked how long it
took to catch them.

The Mexican replied only a little while.

The American then asked why didn't he stay out longer and catch more
fish?

The Mexican said he had enough to support his family's immediate needs.

The American then asked, but what do you do with the rest of your time?

The Mexican fisherman said, "I sleep late, fish a little, play with
my children, take siesta with my wife, Maria, stroll into the village
each evening where I sip wine and play guitar with my amigos. I have a full and busy life, senor."

The American scoffed, "I am a Harvard M.B.A. and could help you. You
should spend more time fishing and with the proceeds buy a bigger boat
with
the proceeds. From the bigger boat you could buy several boats and
eventually you would have a fleet of fishing boats. Instead of selling
your catch to a middleman you would sell directly to the processor,
eventually opening your own cannery. You would control the product,
processing and distribution. You would need to leave this small
coastal fishing village and move to Mexico City, then LA and eventually
NYC where you will run your expanding enterprise."

The Mexican fisherman asked, "But senor, how long will this all take?"

To which the American replied, "15-20 years."

But what then, senor?

The American laughed and said that's the best part. When the time is
right you would announce an IPO and sell your company stock to the
public and become very rich, you would make millions.

Millions, senor? Then what?

The American said, "Then you would retire. Move to a small coastal
fishing village where you would sleep late, fish a little, play with
your kids, take siesta with your wife, stroll to the village in the
evenings where you could sip wine and play your guitar with your amigos."

A anthonyqkiernan
anthonyqkiernan Sep 9, 2003 20:01:43
Replying to morfe lux

Heh-heh. Nice.

Do not be ashamed of being called Luddite. If my vague grasp of the Industrial Revolution should be trusted, they were the few that had it sussed.

Technology is only bad when you look at how it is used.

Where the powerloom didn't result in the utopian happier healthier staff and higher output, it just led to the dark satanic mills. Similarly the wonders of modern communication now only means that with your mobile and laptop you're not expected to work smarter and less, but instead also on the way to the office. etc.

(Probably not the place to bring up my general enthusiasm for gm tech)

D Dog 3000
Dog 3000 Sep 9, 2003 21:55:12
Replying to morfe lux

A funny joke, true. Does a good job pointing out the problems with "aquisition for aquisition's sake" but I think that is more of a cultural than economic issue.

It kind of misses the point because obviously we can't all live the easy life of the Mexican fisherman in the story. Think of a city like London or New York -- 10 million people in a crowded area are all supposed to get their own boats and catch a few fish every day? Not feasible in any way.

In order to support the population we have, people need to specialize. One guy builds a whole lot of boats, another guy catches a whole lot of fish, etc. Farmers out in Sussex (is that a rural area?) or Nebraska ship in grain (cuz the fish supply around London/NY is limited and you don't want to over-fish) and so forth.

Of course you can say "we should all go back to nature and lead simple lives" but again I don't see how that can be accomplished without the death of millions. Think of someplace as densely populated as China -- it was only through "modernisation" of their economy that they've finally been able to feed everyone in the first place! (There was still mass starvation even under Mao.)

Basically . . . you can't go back without reducing the earth's population a LOT. There is no way but forward.