So, so wrong.

Simple illustration; If a man alone on an island builds a shelter and catches some fish, he is richer, who is poorer?
If towns people build a hall that lasts for hundreds of years, they are richer, their decedents will be richer, who is poorer?
If a damn is built that generates electricity for a century etc, etc..
Wealth creation is not a zero sum game, though civilisation can have costs – and benefits into the future.

While entropy always increases we (and other life) have the option of using the energy available, or not using it.
Life on Earth uses solar energy, who would be richer if there was no life here, if the energy fell on a lifeless Earth?

I understand that there were extensive comments by Michael Manley in that doco, you’ll understand my scepticism of a documentary that relies heavily on the views of the politician who was in power when his country got into the sh*t, and who goes and attributes the blame to the IMF, or who ever else as long as not to his own errors.
I’d suggest you treat all sources of information with scepticism, checking them against other, contrary sources as much as you can.

My regards

An advocate of the glories of socialism are you Andrew?

I don’t think we’re going to come to agreement about any of this, especially not this idea of ‘creating’ wealth. Whenever someone gets richer it is because somewhere else someone has become poorer, whether it be the poor, the third world, future generations…

And as you point out, the wealthy parts of the globe are more peaceful than the poorer.
And as you point out, conflict will get more common if/as resources get more scarce (and poverty increases) .

I’m not in a position to comment on “Life and Debt”, but
I can point out that Michael Manley never implemented many of the free market reforms that were advocated by the IMF, and that as a socialist and trade unionist, his focus was always on protecting the worker and was effective in opposing labour market reforms, wages in Jamaica climbed to levels way above what the levels of productivity could justify, unions in effect had a labour market monopoly, which they exploited as market monopolies can be expected to do.
I understand that’s what killed the recovery and virtually sunk the Jamaican tourist industry.
Having traveled through some of the poorest (Zimbabwe, Liberia, Sierra Leone), some middle rung (Zambia, Kenya) and some of the richest (Botswana) countries in sub-Sahara Africa, I can tell you that my observation is that those economies suffering the least government control are doing the best.

“As to how this can be brought about… ? I don’t know…”
When you do know, don’t keep it a secret. Until then the free market in the best we’ve got as an economic system for efficiently creating wealth.

I argue that the current generation should be recognising the value of resources to future generations which it currently doesn’t. By the time the TVs being produced now are long buried in landfill (ie in about 30 years) the resources used to make them will be far more valuable and will probably be able to be utilised with less pollution.

Imagine your grandchildren thinking of Tui or Bellbird in the same way we think of Moa or Haast Eagle – semi-mythical creatures. For you there may be no absolutes, for me I think the deforestation and extinctions that have taken place in this country’s history are absolutely disgraceful and the prospect of further erosion of the tiny fraction of remaining native bush is absolutely abhorrent. No absolutes means at the right price you would countenance New Zealand being converted to a gigantic deserted pit in the ground. I absolutely wouldn’t.
—
Aid is not an example of capitalist markets solving the problem of hunger, it is evidence of capitalism’s failure to do so. The reason it cannot succeed is that poor nations never have the money to pay for the food they need or the economic power to negotiate fairly with the corporations which seek to exploit their resources.
The aid the rich world pay is a pittance – given the exploitation that took place as those nations colonised the world and pillaged its resources to get themselves where they are – and is usually tied to debilitating loans and trade agreements which hamstring their attempts to climb out of poverty. Witness how the IMF stopped Jamaica’s food production and forced them to borrow money to import food (the documentary “Life and Debt” I highly recommend).

Your criticism of socialism is that those “in the state system in a position to look after themselves, and their sycophants will do so” but this is the exact case with capitalism also. Those that can afford meat aren’t going to forego it so that the poor will have enough. An increased price on meat will lead to greater meat production which is a severely less efficient way to feed people with far higher energy inputs and far higher energy wastage (not to mention emissions). The market cannot address these issues without modification or intervention.
It still comes down to those with power (whether economic or political) exploiting those without.
—
You are constantly ascribing my arguments to a defence of socialism which they are not. I do not think either system works, nor do I think these are the only two alternatives. But both allow small sectors with political power to enrich themselves at the expense of the masses and this is the problem. The solution must be a system whereby everybody gets the basics (food, water, shelter, education), before anybody gets the luxuries. As to how this can be brought about… ? I don’t know…

“I grew up on a farm and am well aware of monoculture’s place in the world food system, but just because it’s the one we have doesn’t mean it’s the only one capable of feeding the world.”

The evidence is that it is the only one capable of feeding the world at a cost that most can afford, those that can’t afford are at the mercy of socialism.

“The trouble with this is that people thinking they own things tends to lead to people thinking they have the right to exploit things for short term gain.”

Dealt with.

“Take the mining lobbies – they care about the DOC land they’re after but certainly not for the same reasons I do.”

Valid point, so the State puts a value on native forest high enough to stop it’s purchase by miners, there has to be a very high economic benefit to justify its purchase for mineral extraction.
You may argue that no DOC land should ever be mined under any circumstances, in which case you and I disagree, in this instance for me there are no absolutes.

“The concept of ownership places man in precisely the wrong hierachical relationship to the land.”

I don’t see that statement being connected to reality.

“It will mean that in any crisis the group with the greatest power (militarily) will take what they need at the expense of weaker and poorer nations. This is how nature works.”

>The great nations have always acted like gangsters, and the small nations like prostitutes.
Stanley Kubrick

It’s how it works now, in todays wealthy world conflict is relatively rare (both domestically and internationally) because the cost of conflict is usually seen as being greater than the benefits. When the greater power sees the benefits of conflict as being greater than the cost, conflict occurs.

“The billions will not be fed by capitalism. The hungry poor are not being fed now.”

Aid, (from capitalist countries) feeds many of the poor. It’s no coincidence that it’s the countries that don’t have free markets that are the poorest.
Zimbabwe used to be the breadbasket of Southern Africa, the mismanagement typical of socialism has destroyed it. Have you got ANY example of countries that are prosperous as a result of restricting free markets?

“If your goal is feeding the people the key will be maximising local food systems and minimising the degree to which food is carted across the globe. It will be setting up sustainable food production that does not require external energy inputs in the form of fertilisers and irrigation and it will require the adoption of more efficient diets – predominately vegetarian rather than wastefully eating meat at every meal.”

You role several distinct issues into one here.
Global food distribution is what prevents starvation every time the crops fail somewhere on the globe.
Without irrigation and fertilisers we couldn’t feed todays population, yes these inputs need to be managed sustainably. which means that to feed todays population we need sustainable energy inputs.
The world does produce enough food today to feed itself (despite messes like Zimbabwe and North Korea), if in the future producing enough food means reducing meat consumption, in a free market the price of meat will go up, and meat consumption will decline, with no free market those people in the state system in a position to look after themselves, and their sycophants will do so, you think Mugabe or Kim Jong-il have worries about putting food on their own tables?

“I can guarantee you that market capitalism will not feed the hungry poor masses.”

An absolutely meaningless guarantee.

“you are in a society which is largely a beneficiary of capitalist markets” for which I’m thankful “rather than a victim of them” So who’re these “victims”?

What if I don’t want to sell?