Peterkin

Ordinary people, yes. Ordinary enterprises, yes if they're still making any money. Mega corporations, which are making money, not so much; very rich people, not at all. Oh, hey, all of that equipment is produced by corporations with big, juicy government contracts. By sheer coincidence, they also happen to be major campaign contributors and own a string of lobbyists. Aww, the poor banks! They've collected interest and interest on the interest for years already and are still in profit, when practically everyone else is broke. Do governments have to repay those debts? What, like their voters' health and education? Not a bad idea!

Why achieve " a deep level of skill" at the price of your childhood? How about just a shallow level of skill and a lot less pain? What's so terrible about jumping, painting or singing quite well, rather than superbly? Yes, Mozart was pushed pretty hard by his ambitious father, but he was a little show-off anyway, so it didn't hurt him as much as it did many child prodigies. Don't underestimate the American parent's desire for fame! Yes, prodigal children very often are unhappy. Trouble is, they spend so much of their formative years acquiring the skill that they never learn how to relate to other people or or make independent decisions. They are often socially and emotionally stunted, lonely, anxious and unstable. They are sacrificed to the spectators' pleasure, their handlers' quest for success and the venue's profit margin. Also, their siblings and later their spouses and children can become collateral damage. Anyway, whatever is good and not so good in professional sport, it does have some cohesive qualities. Participants in any particular sport are a community of sorts, with shared experiences and values. Fans really do seem to consider themselves something like a tribe. I don't know whether that translates to co-operation outside the stadium or pub, or whether they have more understanding and tolerance for one another because of this one passion they all have in common. It does not, however, seem to unite "people" in any other sense.

On the present scale, and with the present resource peaks, competition is unsustainable: it escalates to contention, hostility, confrontation, conflict and culminates in mega-death. If we have a shot at survival, it's by means of co-operation. We can resume competing, once the population figures stabilize around a reliable food supply.

I didn't make it. And I'm not using its as a dirty word, in the sense that capitalists have vilified socialism. But I do think it is a fatally flawed economic system, in that its survival depends on growth. Necessary growth on a finite medium means that when the nutrient runs out, the organism dies. An economic system that must necessarily keep growing on a single planet means that it will die when the planet is consumed. Unlike viruses or some plants, it cannot go dormant or store its seeds until more favourable conditions return. And when a planet's been trashed, they won't, anyway. It could, in theory, emulate bacteria and slow its own growth when nutrients become scarce, but it doesn't do this voluntarily; the control has to come from outside. From revolution, natural catastrophe or strong government. Can you supply information on that? The earliest I found is this one, which isn't exactly shining on either private service providers or government. She attempts to present a fair view, though her sympathies lie with the water companies. They and governments seem to have been acting at cross-purposes, each making some good and bad decisions, with the consumer paying the price of their muddles. Just the one thing: debt. Capitalism runs on the need to take out getting more than one put in. Unfortunately, it's on the same hand, 99% of the time. Regulated - very tightly regulated, by an un-coercable, incorruptible authority - both hands would be able to survive, alongside the citizenry, considerably longer. But not indefinitely: slow consumption is still all one way, toward depletion and eventual exhaustion of the resource. On second reading, I'm not quite sure how the two situation between present world economy and the late stages of the Roman Empire are related. I don't see capitalism could have arisen without money. All its siblings came out of theories about money. I don't see how they can be separated.... without a major shake-up. Which is what I'm asking: Is it time for? (in your opinions.) Capitalism doesn't run on ownership; it runs on investment. Profit without effort. I've heard a very similar idea articulated very well. The author proposed a split economy: essentials in the public sector, where money has no role; luxuries in the private sector, where voluntary participants can buy, sell, compete and make profit. however, for that to be sustainable, all the natural resources would have to stay in the public sector, which would also regulate land use and waste management. In the present political climate, anything like is obviously impossible. But a massive increase in nationalization, regulation and taxation might become possible, if things go sour enough. Too bad no change can take place without a whole lot of people and other living things suffering harm that was predictable and avoidable.

The other interesting factor, at least in Canada, is how a (not particularly adroit) Liberal government, having had to cope first with the long depredations and of the conservative administration it followed, then the (twice as long as initially predicted) pandemic, then the fallout from the pandemic and its dislocations, along with its international commitments, then the severely damaged business sectors and lost revenues, will recover. One possibility is that it won't: that it will be knocked over a Republican wannabe riding a wave of public grievance he himself has whipped up, accompanied by a phalanx of racist, sexist, climate-change-denying, gun-toting regressed yahoos. If he gets a majority, that Conservative leader may renege on every promise made to other countries, to the environment, to future generation, immigrants and workers of all kinds. What happens after that is unclear - except in it conspicuous ugliness.

That would be fine, if talented children were not pushed and driven by their parents and coaches, from a very early age. In some cases, it's parental ambition or vicarious accomplishment; in many cases, it's the only way a kid born without privilege can get an education, climb out of poverty or escape discrimination. And the pressures even after the initial success are not all internal! Saka may be too young, but many of those professional footballers have played on various foreign teams... to the extant that, when we're watching a match between European countries or even MLS, we play "who can spot more poached South Americans". The fans may be partisan, even passionately and violently partisan, but the players are just doing a job and advertising a brand of sports gear. Also to bully their entourage, mistreat women and generally act like out-of-control adolescents -- which, I suppose many are, because, as physical training, drill and competition take up most of their youth, their socialization and culturation is largely neglected. Their little-boy egos swell - female athletes act out childishly sometimes, as well, but more often in frustration than from entitlement - without the concomitant self-discipline and responsibility it takes to earn status in a grown-up world. Nobody expects them meet the basic standard of behaviour demanded of a software designer or supermarket manager. I suppose that's what most appeals to children: adults acting the way they themselves would in the absence of parental supervision. In one way, athletes have an advantage over other celebrities: a relatively short time in the limelight, after which they retire to normal family life, become coaches, managers or sales reps of some kind. The baseball reference reminds me of a neighbourhood sandpit game described in a book titled A Reasonable Life. That's how sport should be!

I don't either. Just an interesting diversion, following an example - one of many - wherein governments have abdicated their responsibility to the public and allowed private greed to prevail. When private greed (capitalism), from causes of its own making (like stock market crash, crunch, slump, contraction, retrenchment or whatever it's called) or an external one (like a viral infection) is in danger, the government is obligated to rescue it, because so much of the society's infrastructure and functioning has been entrusted to private enterprise that the failure of a few big corporations, interconnected as "the financial sector" is, could bring down the whole country's economy and cause wide-spread hardship, impoverishment, privation and death. The central question, how many of these rescues can any particular government carry out before it's exhausted its assets, capabilities and credibility - and falls or is toppled.

Yes, don't be in any hurry. The newly created, privately owned, water and sewerage companies (WSCs) paid £7.6 billion for the regional water authorities. At the same time, the government assumed responsibility for the sector's total debts amounting to £5 billion and granted the WSCs a further £1.5 billion—a so-called "green dowry"—of public funds. It's only wiki, but checkable by interested parties. Coming and going, the corporations get a sweetheart deal from a conservative government; coming and going, citizens get.... the usual. How the Ontario government gets around its subsidy to private electricity providers is through allowing them to pass their debt on to the consumer (of course there isn't a competing provider you can switch to!) plus a "delivery" charge (i.e. use of the infrastructure we paid for when it was a public utility and that we continue to pay for in their debt retirement item on the monthly bill) and then, if the electric bills are too heavy for low-income consumers, the government sends them a semiannual pittance to offset the cost. The private provider risks nothing.

The pithy French saying is perfectly self-contained and doesn't invite discussion. It also, IMO, quite untrue as a description of societal conditions, though probably true of human nature. I had not read it. I thought the point was in the title. So, like, seven people in the world have jobs again? Until the rich people's money runs out or becomes worthless .... um, why hasn't it already? Why does this enterprising fellow, or anyone, even want a job? I can't respond adequately unless I read the story to see what makes it plausible. I notice a further incongruency with the present situation: in the story, something new and positive was added, while bifurcations in history tend to be marked by the loss of or threat to something vital, which altered the hominids' circumstances so that he had to adapt or relocate. That negative change sometimes comes suddenly, as a flood, or in increments, like the troubles that beset the Roma Empire during its long decline.

That's because I didn't think one was required. I took it to mean you don't think his present situation will have any significant affect on how the world economy is organized. That's a valid position and quite possibly correct, and it didn't seem to invite discussion. I did respond, if not directly, by pointing out that major changes had taken place in previous civilizations. In retrospect, historians can identify the events that led to a collapse, but the people - particularly the political leadership of the time, didn't see it coming. I woud be happy to elaborate, argue, look for examples and discuss in detail, if you were so inclined.

In Canada, it's hockey. Seems the fans like "the physicality" of the game - meaning fights. There really is quite a lot not right with professional sport.

I don't know about uniting, but sport has certainly been used by many societies to sublimate aggression and channel rivalry into a manageable form, with rules and far fewer fatalities. OTOH, those loyal fans can turn into football hooligans in some social climates, and international relations have not been noticeably improved by the Olympic Games. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-nazi-olympics-berlin-1936 This is just a personal opinion, but I really don't think the hype is doing sports or athletes any good: the competition is so intense, and the stakes are so big that they're pushing themselves beyond human capacity, burning out too soon and suffering too many injuries. And the money is doing a good deal of harm to society. In gambling, in education, in the buying and selling of athletes like prize cattle, in commercial sponsorships, in the inflation of frivolous spectacles to eclipse serious endeavours. Also, I think art, entertainment and games should be play, not work.

Of course not! Why would it? Why would you think I was offended?

Let me guess! The Tory government bails them out (adding lovely gold life-buoys for the CEO's who scuttled it) with money collected from the people not rich enough to avoid taxation - the same people who took the hit when their national assets were sold off and they got no dividends, and who have been paying higher transportation fees ever since. Sounds vaguely familiar.... Funny story. It had been a disaster every place it was done (committed?), and for much the same reason every privatized essential service is a disaster. By the time Thatcher's hatcheteers got 'round to it, they had examples to learn from, like Chile.

The first time I read about such behaviour in corvids was from Conrad Lorenz, who was scolded by jackdaws simply for walking down to the river with his black bathing trunks in his hand - and not, when he wore it. They suspected him of being a black-bird killer. Even though he didn't hunt them, other humans and predatory animals did. Lorenz was my early introduction to the study of animal behaviour, on which subject, he was more sound than his contemporaries. (In other areas of life, alas, he wasn't. Don't you sometimes wish you hadn't learned personal details about people you admired?)

I think if you turn it, you expose more of the already burning fuel to air to make it burn faster and hotter, not unlike blowing under it.

And yet the Mughal empire, the Roman empire, the Mayan empire and the Soviet empire declined and fell over varying periods of time; other kinds of economy have been replaced. It's not a question of whether something will end, but when and by what means. I'm particularly interested in the intermediate steps.

Maybe so, but a couple more pandemics could balance that out.... Unless the delta and lambda variants tip it back again. It's those "unknown unknowns" that mess up prediction!

That's exactly what interests me: what will change and how.

Depends on the administration, the economy, the state of cross-border relations, the public mood ... It's not just up to every American to decide where he'll live; it's also up to the country thus honoured whether it wants him. The Canadian government was no fan of the VietNam war from its inception, and the Trudeau I government was sympathetic to draft evaders, conscientious objectors and later, deserters. Most of those people were educated and progressive; they made a valuable contribution. (I knew several of them personally, and found them valuable people.) Of course, quite a few went back, once Nixon backed down, but many had established homes and families here by then. I'm not sure how many actually relocated because of Trump, but there was a rise in immigration from the US at that time. As there have been at other moments of political retrogression. (Not to mention the first lot, in the 1790's) I'm glad we didn't do it! I'd hate to have missed out on Spider Robinson, William Gibson, John Irving, Ted Gonzales and a whole lot of other smart, talented, good people.

I don't suppose the working class will return? I mean as an identity, as an economic force, as a socially recognized stratum, or as a political faction. I remember when there was a working class - perhaps even a Working Class - that industrialists and politicians had to take seriously. I know the Reagan-Thatcher-Mulroney axis staged a major assault on the working class, was very successful with substantial help from Rupert Murdoch et al , and since then, even the the Labour and NDP parties have looked everywhere but straight in the eyes of their support base. Sometime between 1980 and 2010, everyone in the western world became "the middle class, and those working hard to join it" as Trudeau II keeps saying. Now that they've been told and thanked and lauded for how essential they are (too essential to be allowed to strike, but not so essential as to be in the early vaccination queues) might the underpaid, disrespected workers find a collective will again?

That's a helpful clarification. Thanks.

Are workers going to unite again? Class warfare has been long and fraught with trade unions playing a major role - first, in the betterment of working class conditions and then as the huge and easy target of business-friendly government. https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikecollins/2015/03/19/the-decline-of-unions-is-a-middle-class-problem/?sh=717d2a257f2d Or will they consider themselves each a free agent, to seek the best deal for themselves, without regard to all the other "essential" workers?

I thought so at the beginning, when so many businesses had to shut down; travel and tourism all but ceased; borders were closed and people stayed at home to work, study and be entertained. And yet, when I did go out once a week to buy necessities, everything looked the same: same goods, including imported ones, on the shelves; same advertising on TV, only with extra emphasis on home delivery. But it seems, something has changed. "Nobody wants to work anymore." Especially in service jobs. But maybe not so much in offices, either. What's going on? Why have people suddenly discovered the exploitation everybody's known about - and lampooned in movies, comedy routines and newspaper cartoons - for decades? How will this affect capitalism as we have come to know it?