[grassroots1]

A perfect example of the reason why capitalism is a world system is Cuba. The instant they instated socialist policies, the United States basically freaked out and has since created an embargo, strengthened that embargo, attempted a coup, and harbored terrorists merely because they are against the Cuban government. And I'm sure there's more.

This is more of an example of the...world being a...world system. Earlier Cuba was able prosper somewhat and even conduct a global foreign policy thanks to the existence of the Soviet Union. Every country exists in historical, political, and economic context, but that isn't capitalism per se.

Thats very true, but the Soviet Union doesn't exist today, and literally every country in the world participates in the system of trade that has been set up by the most powerful and rich countries. The United States, a capitalist power, influences other nations economically and militarily. The CIA has been involved in coups leading to brutal dictatorships, and they have backed brutal dictators. Batista was US backed.

The reason i say that we are in a system of world capitalism right now is because literally every country in the world participates in trade using currency and every country is affected by the system that has been set up. And every living thing is affected by environmental degradation.

The US industrialized using its own resources and labor. Exploitation for us developed later and just provides some extra benefits. The fundamental reason for our affluence is very high productivity and massive amounts of invested capital over the years. Exploitation has become a bigger deal and will continue to become more important due to the wholesale annihilation of our basic industries.

We've been exploiting since the beginning. We pushed the indians off their land, and then we brought slaves in from africa to do our work for us. What do you even mean that we industrialized using 'our own' resources? Yes, our affluence does stem from 'high productivity' and 'invested captial,' but that profit motive has led to some brutal exploitation.

90% of new businesses fail. Too large of a discount? That's a lot of risk to assume.

If we all assumed the risk together it would be even easier to cushion that fall. Yes, the reason I think it's too large of a discount is because half the world is living in destitution right now. And this exploitation has been constant throughout the existence of this individualistic system.

Capitalism is a step forward from systems in the past like feudalism and slavery, but its clear now that another step needs to be taken.

People on the right, including myself, usually only pay lip service to the idea of equality. The fact of the matter is that we simply don't care about inequality. I only care about inequality if it comes at the expense of one group better off at the expense of another group, or if levels of inequality are high enough to endanger social cohesion. I actually think both of those criteria are being met right now, so it is something I'm concerned about. So yes, our priorities do need changing.

When was there a time in history where the levels of inequality did not endanger social cohesion? Rich people never liked poor people.

A large amount of desert can actually be irrigated to grow crops, and urban manufacturing centers could also be built there. If it's being used for "nothing", then you would need to transmit the electricity to places where people actually live, which entails very large losses in transmission. The same is true for "high-velocity wind areas".

Why would someone irrigate desert when there is perfectly good farmland sitting under those nice big houses? Sure, urban manufacturing centers. But there's plenty of desert to deal with. It's pretty much not being used for anything right now, probably because both of those things are too costly. No one lives in the desert. People are already building solar plants in death valley, so transmission cant be too expensive.

In terms of long-term benefits, both of these methods are better than petroleum plants or coal plants. I'm not talking about fiscal returns here, I'm talking about smart, collective decisions for energy production that reduce our effect on the environment. call them collective returns if you want.

Besides, the true cost to the environment from coal and petroleum plants can not be expressed, they could be costing us vastly more than we think.

Or they could be costing us vastly less...

...how?

The sun being gone for half the day is a great example of the problems of solar, and even while it's there you need to deal with cloud cover, contrails, etc. A normal powerplant is always online.

The sun is never gone, it's just behind clouds. Solar panels can still collect energy, just not as much. And that's why you pick a place that doesn't have cloud cover, like a desert.

What's wrong with nuclear power? It's even cheaper than coal and an extremely clean energy source.

We don't know how to get rid of the waste. All we can do is hole it up in Yucca mountain, so this puts off the problem onto future generations. We can't just confidently say that we'll come up with a method of processing it or making it less radioactive. It's the same problem with environmental degradation.

Our government isn't libertarian at all and serves a mix of corporate interests and idiot voters who want something for nothing. Implementing such a substantial change would require radical political change indeed, but far less so than socialism.

Idiot voters, less, and corporate interests, more. And corporate interests are libertarian most of the time. They're not ideological really, more opportunist. Sometimes a capitalist will support a regulation if he will benefit from it.

Right, it's not really realistic and the costs of enforcement are too high, so a holistic regulatory approach is more economic.

Consituting an expansion of the state, socialistic policies.