Spanish soccer pro quits sports in criticism of capitalism

[Razgovory]

Are you arguing that the fighting in Libya is caused by high fuel prices?

Food prices surely have.  That's one of the root causes for all the rebellions in the Middle East this year.

[Barrister]

Did you post the right link?  That one doesn't even mention the price of oil...

Maybe some arrows will do the trick: High fuel prices -> high food cost (via fertilizer, transportation etc) -> hunger -> uprisings -> Actual Mad Max.

Are you arguing that the fighting in Libya is caused by high fuel prices?

It is a very, very significant factor. Take a look at this, from a report by the World Bank:

But what does that have to do with the Libyan revolution?

And correlation is not causation.

[Iormlund]

Again, food prices are the main reason behind the uprisings.

And it's not mere correlation. I already explained how high fuel prices increase fertilizer cost. Then there's transportation. Also fuel cost for operating tractors, combines, etc. Not to mention encouraging to dedicate arable land to biofuel instead of food production.

[Barrister]

Again, food prices are the main reason behind the uprisings.

And it's not mere correlation. I already explained how high fuel prices increase fertilizer cost. Then there's transportation. Also fuel cost for operating tractors, combines, etc. Not to mention encouraging to dedicate arable land to biofuel instead of food production.

You are the first one to suggest the Libyan revolt was due to food prices.  Most have said it was due to the Arab spring, general dissatisfaction at Gadaffhi's rule, etc.

Are there connections between food and oil prices?  Sure.  But they're also driven by the same global demand.  Most raw resources will show a roughly similar trend in price over the past 5 years - from lumber, to minerals, to soybeans, to gold...

[DGuller]

You are the first one to suggest the Libyan revolt was due to food prices.  Most have said it was due to the Arab spring, general dissatisfaction at Gadaffhi's rule, etc.

I'm pretty sure he's not.

[Razgovory]

You are the first one to suggest the Libyan revolt was due to food prices.  Most have said it was due to the Arab spring, general dissatisfaction at Gadaffhi's rule, etc.

I'm pretty sure he's not.

Yeah, people were saying that back when it was just Egypt.

[Iormlund]

You are the first one to suggest the Libyan revolt was due to food prices.  Most have said it was due to the Arab spring, general dissatisfaction at Gadaffhi's rule, etc.

Yes, there was dissatisfaction in all those states. And that's nothing new. Tunisia, Egypt, Libya ... all of those have been ruthless dictatorships for decades. People can and will live with that. But it becomes harder without enough food on the table.

[dps]

It is possible that demand for life necessities will rise so much that we will need to expend most of our resources on the basics, rather than luxuries.  Just because supply and demand help adjust for some good's shortage doesn't mean that the new equillibrium wouldn't make us objectively poorer.  You seem to confuse the ability of free market to adjust to changing conditions with the ability of free market to deal with any cataclysm for free.

The bolded part was true for the vast majority of humanity throughout human history.  It's less true now that it ever has been, not because the earth's resources have increased, or because demand has decreased due to a drop in human population (far from it!), but because the technology and social organization to use the resources has increased.  Whether or not those factors have steadily increased throughout history, or just since the industrial revolution isn't really important.  What is important is how much they will increase in the future, relative to human population.  I see no reason to believe that technological decline or even stagnation is likely to set in any time in the near future.  I'm less confident that social stagnation or decline won't set in, but if it does, it'll be because we've listen to the Ideologues of the world, not the Barristers.

[Ideologue]

It is possible that demand for life necessities will rise so much that we will need to expend most of our resources on the basics, rather than luxuries.  Just because supply and demand help adjust for some good's shortage doesn't mean that the new equillibrium wouldn't make us objectively poorer.  You seem to confuse the ability of free market to adjust to changing conditions with the ability of free market to deal with any cataclysm for free.

The bolded part was true for the vast majority of humanity throughout human history.  It's less true now that it ever has been, not because the earth's resources have increased, or because demand has decreased due to a drop in human population (far from it!), but because the technology and social organization to use the resources has increased.  Whether or not those factors have steadily increased throughout history, or just since the industrial revolution isn't really important.  What is important is how much they will increase in the future, relative to human population.  I see no reason to believe that technological decline or even stagnation is likely to set in any time in the near future.  I'm less confident that social stagnation or decline won't set in, but if it does, it'll be because we've listen to the Ideologues of the world, not the Barristers.

While I'm always happy to hear my name dropped, WTF did I do?

[Razgovory]

You're a commie.

[Admiral Yi]

When I first read Slag's zero-sum nugget I thought it was Ide.  Confusion cause by the similar avatars as well as overlap in political economy.

[Ideologue]

When I first read Slag's zero-sum nugget I thought it was Ide.  Confusion cause by the similar avatars as well as overlap in political economy.

Not that much of an overlap.

[ulmont]

Human beings have existed with behavior modernity for about 100,000-50,000 thousand years.  The great bulk of this time period saw static economic and technological growth.

You're wrong.  But I can not spend the time to find the proof that you're wrong this afternoon - it's a sunny Friday afternoon.

Barrister,

I recently read "Why the West Rules--for Now: The Patterns of History, and What They Reveal About the Future" by Ian Morris.  One of the premises is that both the East and West (writ large, with centers of gravity shifting over time) several times reached a certain amount of development and then crashed; only in around the 1800s were the previous limits broken.

[Siege]

I have food insecurity.

[garbon]

I have food insecurity.

Eww, take your poor ass out of here.