Well I currently derive no income from that trust. My Father’s passion, now that he retired, is buying up pieces of land 5 and 10 acres at a time. He’s got like 700 something acres now. I think he wants to die with 1000.
Not to be flippant but “I’m barely getting by” I hear that all the time now. I hear all the struggles Millennials are having with student debt. I heard a statistic that 62% of all bankruptcies are caused by a medical illness.
I think he means, less forests, less undammed rivers, less wolves, less of nature in general. As far as the Feds having most of that land, well yes, they do. Your comment was accurate. I’m not sure if trying to sort out my opinion vs his opinion vs your opinion is really that critical or necessary. But if you do want to make a further point, go ahead.
There’s too much in the original post to really address everything, but one thing I find interesting is the assertion that the average person didn’t benefit from the railroads.
The “robber barons” were only able to amass enormous fortunes because shipping by railroad was so much cheaper than any other option. Even charging extortionist rates, few people had any affordable alternative other than the railroads. Since the things they shipped in the biggest bulk were things like wheat and coal, these are precisely the things that benefit people lowest on the economic ladder. Any reduction in price for wheat benefits the poor. (Even if we argue that there should have been a bigger reduction in wheat prices, we’re still having to admit that the poor benefit from railroads.)
In fact, the silly anti-capitalist rant actually admits its own mistake. It says: “but the exploitation of the wealth of the American west did not really benefit the majority of the US population” but then later concludes “Sure, it generates wealth and gives people jobs”
I think that’s a fair criticism of capitalism. It has its weaknesses, but it generates wealth and gives people jobs. The only things worse than capitalism are the alternatives.
Anyway, on the environmental front: what ecological paradise are we comparing the West to? How about the Chinese? Combining millennia of wisdom from native populations with the inherent fairness of communism, they have… :smack:
Not to be argumentative, but for the sake of clarity, do you think Socialism is worse than Capitalism? And if you do do you think it is only slightly worse or do you think it is significantly worse?
I think considering all the variants of socialism and capitalism, the former is worse (assuming by socialism you mean the nationalization of significant portions of the industry) given the presence of properly regulated social market/social democratic system.
Also I find the anti-modernism of the OP quite amusing considering Marxism has always been quite pro-development. Stalin and Mao certainly were just as ruthless as the Robber Barons in pursuing industrialization-the only communist leader of note who was anti-modernist was Pol Pot and we know how that turned out…
Would you happen to know which of his specific writings addressed this?
Can you give me some examples please? I would not deny for a second that Stalin and Mao were ruthless, I’m curious as to specifics and how it relates to industrialization.
In modern times, as has been alluded to, the environmental record of Communist regimes has been horrific, so environmental damage isn’t just a capitalist thing.
Lastly, the mass settlement of the West was facilitated by the Homestead Acts. The government handing out free tracts of land to all comers seems, again, totally unrelated to capitalism.
Well, I still “endorse” the rant but since I seem to be the only person on the thread that does so, objectively I must admit you all are probably right… thanks for your response it was a good explanation.
