| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| The problem with "unsustainable" capitalism | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 17 2012, 09:10 PM (503 Views) | |
| Chris | Feb 17 2012, 09:10 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I agree with Al Gore, well, at least partly. Al Gore takes aim at "unsustainable" capitalism:
I agree 100% that "short-termism" (time preference) is a major problem these days. There is too much focus on short-term profits to the detriment of long-term growth. And certainly companies should be encouraged to be concerned about environment, society and governance. But let's step back a moment and ask is this prelude to government guiding business toward failure again? Again? As the The misguided practice of earnings guidance reports
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995? Once again it was government interference in business that created this mess. So it was government that caused "capitalism has been blighted with short-termism and an obsession with instant investment results, which had ramped up market volatility, widened the gap between rich and poor and deflected attention from the deepening climate crisis." So while I agree with Gore that this interference should be dropped by companies, I disagree we need new government "guidance." |
![]() |
|
| Mountainrivers | Feb 17 2012, 09:50 PM Post #2 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I guess you think corporations are going to go for that without government mandating it, eh, Chris? |
![]() |
|
| Chris | Feb 17 2012, 10:47 PM Post #3 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
"I guess you think corporations are going to go for that without government mandating it, eh, Chris?" From the second link:
Exhibit 1:
|
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Feb 17 2012, 10:58 PM Post #4 |
|
Deleted User
|
Well the basic down to bare essentials fact is you cannot have infinite growth in a finite environment, so sooner or later we have to move to a solid state economy. The question is how? Our society is not structured for it. |
|
|
| Chris | Feb 17 2012, 11:07 PM Post #5 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
True provided you see economics as as win-lose activity, with a limited pie to slice up. I can't think of an economist who thinks that way, can you refer me to one? Most I know see it as win-win whereby wealth is generated in each exchange. |
![]() |
|
| Mountainrivers | Feb 17 2012, 11:12 PM Post #6 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So, out of approximately 1225 companies, about 225 have stopped providing guidance. That could be a trend, but I suspect that analysts will require that most companies continue to provide guidance on a quarterly basis. It's a terrible practice and should be discontinued, by law, if necessary. |
![]() |
|
| Chris | Feb 17 2012, 11:15 PM Post #7 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
"So, out of approximately 1225 companies, about 225 have stopped providing guidance. That could be a trend, but I suspect that analysts will require that most companies continue to provide guidance on a quarterly basis. It's a terrible practice and should be discontinued, by law, if necessary." Yes, undo that portion of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 as Gore advises. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Feb 17 2012, 11:31 PM Post #8 |
|
Deleted User
|
Its basic physics. I am of course assuming that we only have access to finite resources. Technology may change or postpone that. But the assumption is we will eventually reach a limit. |
|
|
| Chris | Feb 17 2012, 11:41 PM Post #9 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Economics is not physics. It's not biology. It's not really even science. Using such analogies and metaphors is scientism. Yes, resources are limited. Economics is the study of allocating limited resource against unlimited wants. Allocation, use, trading, exchange all produce wealth. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Feb 18 2012, 12:50 AM Post #10 |
|
Deleted User
|
No, but the planet & its resources are basic physics and economics runs within those parameters whether it likes it or not. Exploitation, utilization & sale of resources, that is what it all comes down to in the end. |
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2






![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)



10:17 PM Jul 11
