Can nine billion people enjoy the standard of living of the rich?

[Sam_Stone]

Also, when corporations have an inordinate amount of power, look behind the scenes and you will often see that power protected by governmnent.

Modern agribusiness is intertwined with government. It gets huge subsidies, it gets government to apply tariffs to restrict trade, and its the beneficiary of everything from price protection to protected trade routes to outright bans on competition. Look at dairy farmers, and how the large dairies are protected by laws that tax milk based on proximity to consumers. This has the effect of preventing small, local dairy farmers from competing with the large, more distant huge dairy farms.

Here in Canada we have agricultural boards that fix the price of commodities, and special freight tariffs and subsidies designed to control how agricultural goods flow around the country. Even tariffs between provinces or outright bans on selling goods between provinces. All enacted by governments who have been influenced by agricultural concerns.

Want to make the farm industry healthier? Lobby for an end to subsidies dairy laws, and other government intrusions in the market.

In fact, the problem of agribusiness demonstrates on of the major flaws of government regulation - “Regulatory capture”. What typically happens is that a problem crops up, and the people demand that government ‘fix things’. So the government implements laws to satisfy the people, and the people are satisfied and stop paying attention. But the industry being regulated hasn’t! Now that government has its fingers in their business, they hire lobbyists and lawyers and begin working to twist those regulations in their favor - to block new entries into the marketplace, punish competitors, or even to take advantage of the public. This is not a rare occurance - it happens in EVERY regulated industry. Often, the long-term effect of trying to regulate business is to simply make businesses partners with the government, giving them the same coercive power government has.

But whenever I bring this up with advocates of big government, they just wave the problem away as not worthy of consideration. It is a major issue.

[Paladud]

Aldous Huxley wrote: “The optimum population,” said Mustapha Mond, “is modelled on the iceberg - eight-ninths below the water line, one-ninth above.”

Reality is not too dissimilar.

[Kimstu]

Sam Stone: *Let me give you a perfect example of the difference: In Canada, Atlantic fishermen lobbied the government for aid, on the grounds that fishing is seasonal and they should be able to collect unemployment benefits during the winter months. The government allowed this, which short-circuited the mechanism which would have fixed this ‘problem’. Now we have a permanent underclass dependant on government largesse to maintain their lifestyles. And once their income becomes tied to the whim of legislators, they begin agitating for more, or complaining when they get less. Atlantic Canada is not really very happy about their economy.

Now look at Atlantic U.S. states like Maine. They have the same problem, don’t they? Well, no. Because the government never bailed them out. So the market took over. Smart people noticed that there were a lot of people looking for work in the winter, so seasonal businesses showed up. Atlantic U.S has evolved summer and winter economies. The people there have good standard of livings and unique lifestyles that they enjoy. *

You’ve used this example before, but one of the things you overlook is that many of the Canadian “Atlantic fishermen” are based on islands. Maine fishermen, on the other hand, live on the mainland and thus have much easier access to off-season businesses such as forestry.

I’m not saying that government subsidies to industry are a good thing, just that your example doesn’t do a very good job of demonstrating the superiority of free markets to subsidized ones.

It’s a good thing to be skeptical of markets, because they can have their problems as well. What distresses me is that the same people who seem to be ultra-skeptical of markets tend to accept the efficacy and efficiency of government as a given.

Really? Personally, I don’t know anybody in this day and age who “accepts the efficacy and efficiency of government as a given”. I thought that pretty much went out with the naive Bernard Shaw-style socialism of the 1920’s.

But whenever I bring this [regulatory capture] up with advocates of big government, they just wave the problem away as not worthy of consideration.

Cite? I certainly don’t know any non-libertarians (which is what I presume you mean by “advocates of big government” who don’t agree that regulatory capture is indeed a serious problem. I’m sorry that all the non-libertarians you’ve discussed the issue with happen to be so short-sighted as not to realize this. Or perhaps when you say “they just wave the problem away as not worthy of consideration” you just mean “they don’t agree with my libertarian solution to it”.

You and pervert both seem to be setting up strawman opponents who are advocating outright socialism as preferable to capitalism, or refusing to admit that markets have any useful function. I don’t see anybody making those arguments in this thread. In real life, the nature of what you call “capitalist” societies is actually a mixture of capitalism and socialism. Rather than having completely unregulated market operations deciding everything, or completely centralized bureaucratic control over everything, our mixed economies combine the two approaches in varying proportions.

[Magiver]

@antechinus

I did not say 2.3 ha of ‘productive ecosystem’. I was refering to ‘biologically productive space’. Ecosystems are appropriated by humans to produce consumables. Ecosystems are a subset of biologically productive space.

‘Ecological footprint’ is a way of quantifying human use of nature.

There is a finite amount of sea and land available to produce food and other consumables sustainably. You can set up greenhouses on non-arable land, but these require resources to make them productive. Same as an aluminium smelter - it consumes resources (eg water) to produce a consumable.

Can you please explain what you mean by saying “land use is not (finite)”.

Although land is finite it’s use is infintely variable. We can slice the pie in an infintely variable manner to accomodate food production. We can stack people like cordwood to free-up agricultural land or people can grow gardens on their property.

I have a very small yard (approximately equal to the area of the structures on it). The prior owner had 2 apple trees and a garden on it. It’s not considered agricultural but I could grow approximately 2 months worth of caloric intake if I wanted to. As it is, I feed a LOT of squirrels.

There is certainly a limit to land use in undeveloped countries. There is also a universal limit to natural fishing in the ocean. We may have to raise the animals we are now catching. Not sure of the solution to 3rd World countries. Sending them food is just a breeding program for more starving people.

[antechinus]

@Magiver

Although land is finite it’s use is infintely variable. We can slice the pie in an infintely variable manner to accomodate food production. We can stack people like cordwood to free-up agricultural land or people can grow gardens on their property.

I have a very small yard (approximately equal to the area of the structures on it). The prior owner had 2 apple trees and a garden on it. It’s not considered agricultural but I could grow approximately 2 months worth of caloric intake if I wanted to. As it is, I feed a LOT of squirrels.

Well, yes you can use land for lots of things. But we are talking about the total use of land for producing consumables which maintain our level of consumption - not just food.

If you want to survive for more than 2 months you will need a larger plot of land. If you want paper, bricks, metals, plastics, furniture, fresh water you will need even more land. If you want to live with the standard of consumption you live at now - with road transport, the odd air flight, electrical goods, interesting foods etc you are getting up to needing 10 hectares to support your habit.

There is certainly a limit to land use in undeveloped countries. There is also a universal limit to natural fishing in the ocean. We may have to raise the animals we are now catching. Not sure of the solution to 3rd World countries. Sending them food is just a breeding program for more starving people.

The solution for third world countries would have been political stability and no graft/corruption or exploitation by the first world.

[pervert]

@Kimstu

You and pervert both seem to be setting up strawman opponents who are advocating outright socialism as preferable to capitalism, or refusing to admit that markets have any useful function. I don’t see anybody making those arguments in this thread. In real life, the nature of what you call “capitalist” societies is actually a mixture of capitalism and socialism. Rather than having completely unregulated market operations deciding everything, or completely centralized bureaucratic control over everything, our mixed economies combine the two approaches in varying proportions.

Precisely. The question is what proportions are better. Since we are considering the question only from a utilitarian point of view (that is, we are not looking at things like property rights as rights and so forth), Sam Stone and I are trying to make the argument that the freer the market the more efficient the market. (correct me if I’m wrong, Sam).

[kanicbird]

The middle class is (IMHO) living the life of the rich of years ago. Truly poor in the the US is truly rare. I would think this trend will accelerate, so yes most of the people int he US will be enjoying the luxeries of the rich in years to come. outsourcing, which is a function of capitalism, will raise the living standard of other cap. countries as well, and bring riches to them as well. OTHO comunism is a system that lowers all to a commom level, can’t accomplish this.

[Sam_Stone]

Precisely. The question is what proportions are better. Since we are considering the question only from a utilitarian point of view (that is, we are not looking at things like property rights as rights and so forth), Sam Stone and I are trying to make the argument that the freer the market the more efficient the market. (correct me if I’m wrong, Sam).

Pretty much, although I am in agreement with government regulation in some markets if it can be objectively demonstrated that those markets are not functioning. But that doesn’t include social justice. By ‘functioning’ I mean that the price system is working, there are no 3rd party costs, there is no coercive monopoly, etc. Basically, the goal of government intrusion should simply be to keep the playing field swept clean of debris.

And while Kimstu says that no one is claiming that the problems of government don’t exist, I find that in reality that is exactly what they do. Look at the debate on health care - the focus is always on the current situation. If there is a perceived problem, it is just assumed that it would be a good thing for government to step in.

It’s a matter of burden of proof. Some think that markets should only be allowed if they can constantly prove that they are fair and free, or government will step in. I happen to think that governments should only be allowed to intrude in the market if they can prove to my satisfaction that A) the market isn’t functioning, and B) they have an objective plan to address the concerns of information transmission, corruption, efficiency, regulatory capture, and all the other problems that governments have repeatedly shown themselves to be vulnerable to. It’s simply not enough to point to a problem and say “Government must do something”.

If you agree, for instance, that regulatory capture is a serious problem, why do I never see proposals from supporters of government for how to deal with the problem? Perhaps because there isn’t a solution, so they prefer to hand-wave it away or push the focus back on to the current victims. But man, we sure spend a lot of time talking about the flaws of the market, don’t we?

[BrainGlutton]

Can we please continue this thread without discussing the relative merits of capitalism and socialism? Let us simply assume, for purposes of this thought experiment, that an optimal path can be found and all social and political obstacles to a universally prosperous world can be overcome. (And the economist says, “First, assume the existence of a can-opener . . .”) The fundamental question of this thread still remains: Can the material obstacles be overcome? Is it physically possible for nine billion humans, living on this Earth, to enjoy a G-8 standard of living without causing environmental collapse?

[MrDibble]

@BrainGlutton

The fundamental question of this thread still remains: Can the material obstacles be overcome? Is it physically possible for nine billion humans, living on this Earth, to enjoy a G-8 standard of living without causing environmental collapse?

I don’t believe it can. One reason, I think, is that that standard is built on a base of easily-obtainable, factory-farmed, chemically-fertilized food. Which is very petrochemical-dependant.

Sure, you can fuel the combines with “miracle hydrogen” if you say so, and ship produce around in electric freight trains, for argument’s sake, but…
modern agribusiness is built around artificial fertilizers. Those wonder-GM crops are not designed to use manure as fertilizer. They need the manufactured kind. Made from petrochemicals and other non-renewables like phosphates which have to be mined and proccessed, mostly. So anything too far removed from subsistence or 19th C. farming will need oil in more ways than one, and that’s something we don’t have enough of now IF 9Bil. people are all eating their BigMacs and fries (so before dragging Peak Oil into the picture).

Subsistence living is where most of the current 6+ billion are at. Just keeping them in what would be considered a really poor state in America or Western Europe would require more resources than I think most of you are reasonably allowing for. These are people without public transport, let alone 1 car per family. Without basic immunisation, let alone a doctor or emergency room they can go to. People who’ve never seen a camera, let alone watched television. People who get their water from a polluted river, and can’t conceive of a flushing toilet. What do you think it would take to raise them up to a “normal” standard of living, never mind a “rich” one, and never mind the other 3 billion like souls to be added.

[antechinus]

@Sam Stone

If you agree, for instance, that regulatory capture is a serious problem, why do I never see proposals from supporters of government for how to deal with the problem? Perhaps because there isn’t a solution, so they prefer to hand-wave it away or push the focus back on to the current victims. But man, we sure spend a lot of time talking about the flaws of the market, don’t we?

If it was not for governments intervention in resource usage, we would be in a worse off state. For example, Australian governments have just started off a sensible approach to managing water aquisition from waterways by irrigators. Previously it was a free-for-all, which has been killing off the Murray-Darling river system.

An example of a government investing big in increasing production is China. On February 8, 2004, the Chinese government announced an emergency appropriation, increasing its agricultural budget by 25% — or roughly $3 billion..

This story says China is concerned about its falling grain production which has dropped four of the last five years. Dropping by 70 million tons to 322 million since 1998, which exceeds the entire grain harvest of Canada.

“The fall in China’s grain harvest is due largely to shrinkage of the grain-harvested area from 90 million hectares in 1998 to 76 million hectares in 2003.”

And they are adding 11 million people per year and demand for individual consumption is rising.

You are right though Sam, the market will adjust. Food prices will rise, rich people will eat less, many in the third world will starve. At least it may solve the wests obesity problem.