WATPI Prep
RTI Responses
Interview Experiences
Upskill
Admissions
Placements
Salaries
ProdMan
Rankings
Career Show

Battle #5: There is no Alternative to Capitalism- IIM Lucknow FOR- Counterpunch by XLRI Jamshedpur

Comments
 

venkat iyer

"It is to clarify that there indeed are other choices of “balanced” mixed economy and progressive models which are are/would serve as a better approach" In the current system of living, the world follows a few fixed models. So, we do have a parameter to judge so as to which among them is the most effective model. Let us take socialism. Can we say China or Russia do not cause harm to the environment? Can we say that they do not deplete their natural reserves? What then explains China's huge coal consumption? A capitalist economy, though it might cause harm in the initial phase, will create mechanisms that sustain itself in the longer run because it is in its own self-interest. No capitalist economy wants to build itself around ruins and shambles. Goulet has often talked about the 'Cruel Choice' that mankind has to make in the path of progress. Can then there be any system which totally reduces the calculus of pain? All capitalism says is, when each works for his own, he survives and thus, the world survives.

31 Aug 2014, 01.41 AM

Ansuman Mishra

Every economy, no matter what, has to use natural resources for its survival and development. But backing my claims with some data, the metric ton per capita carbon emissions in USA-17.6, China-6.2, India-1.7 according to world bank data. The figures are self-explanatory. What might seem as self-interest now might be detrimental in the long run. There has to be a trade-off in the way of progress, in the favour of sustainability.

31 Aug 2014, 11.05 AM

+Read Replies (1)

venkat iyer

It is unfair to compare Apples and Oranges. India, china and America are at different stages of their developmental cycles. Why not compare it at the same stage? Do you have data supporting that claim?

1 Sep 2014, 06.37 AM |

Ansuman Mishra

Mr iyer, the sole purpose was to compare "apples and oranges" only. I wanted to portray how different economies are different in terms of the economic models they follow, how far they have gone in their developmental cycles and how that is affecting the environment, with respect to the reservations you substantiated in your first comment. However, its not very nice to have such wonderful but irrelevant analogies.

1 Sep 2014, 02.53 PM

venkat iyer

The relevance of my first comment, to put it more clearly, was to state how it is not just the capitalist economies that are causing ruins to the world as a whole. The relevance of my second comment was to ask you how you can compare two countries at different stages of their developmental cycles. Now that those things are clear, I get your point that you wanted to portray how different economies are different in terms of the economic models they follow. But you did use the phrase 'Much better systems" and this was the basis of my argument. How can you say that there are much better systems in place without having a common base for comparison? Let me make it even clearer. According to your figures, the US is the main reason for environmental damage, right? The capitalist economy has ruined our planet, depleted our resources. But what makes you think that any other system has not done so? You compared figures of China and India, the countries notoriously known in global environmental circles for flouting all environmental norms, depleting resources at a rate much faster than their growth. All I asked you was to check figures of the USA when it was where China is right now (In terms of its industrial developmental cycle) and then maybe a fair comparison could be made. I still ask you, can you do that? Capitalism, in its limits has survived because it is a sustainable system. After all, isn't 'Survival of the fittest" the norm for all evolution?

1 Sep 2014, 04.46 PM

Mini Mock Test

MBA Admissions 2023 - WAT 20

Participants: 41

MBA Admissions 2023 - WAT 19

Participants: 8
WAT-PI S03 Quiz Ad

MBA Admissions 2023 - WAT 18

Participants: 8

MBA Admissions 2023 - WAT 17

Participants: 4

MBA Admissions 2023 - WAT 16

Participants: 3

MBA Admissions 2023 - WAT 15

Participants: 2

MBA Admissions 2023 - WAT 14

Participants: 3

MBA Admissions 2023 - WAT 13

Participants: 5

MBA Admissions 2023 - WAT 12

Participants: 2

MBA Admissions 2023 - WAT 11

Participants: 2

MBA Admissions 2023 - WAT 10

Participants: 5

MBA Admissions 2023 - WAT 9

Participants: 4

MBA Admissions 2023 - WAT 8

Participants: 4

MBA Admissions 2023 - WAT 7

Participants: 4

MBA Admissions 2023 - WAT 6

Participants: 5

MBA Admissions 2023 - WAT 5

Participants: 6

MBA Admissions 2023 - WAT 4

Participants: 9

MBA Admissions 2023 - WAT 3

Participants: 9

MBA Admissions 2023 - WAT 2

Participants: 16

MBA Admissions 2023 - WAT 1

Participants: 38

Unilever Changemakers 2023

Participants: 11

WAT-PI | Current Affairs: Sports

Participants: 116

NMAT Logical Reasoning 2

Participants: 136

IIFT Quant - 1

Participants: 395

Modern Maths Test - 5

Participants: 396

Modern Maths -Test 4

Participants: 198

Modern Maths -Test 3

Participants: 198

Modern Maths - Test 2

Participants: 233

Modern Maths -Test 1

Participants: 493

Number Systems - Test 5

Participants: 280

Take Free Test Here

Comments
 

venkat iyer

"It is to clarify that there indeed are other choices of “balanced” mixed economy and progressive models which are are/would serve as a better approach" In the current system of living, the world follows a few fixed models. So, we do have a parameter to judge so as to which among them is the most effective model. Let us take socialism. Can we say China or Russia do not cause harm to the environment? Can we say that they do not deplete their natural reserves? What then explains China's huge coal consumption? A capitalist economy, though it might cause harm in the initial phase, will create mechanisms that sustain itself in the longer run because it is in its own self-interest. No capitalist economy wants to build itself around ruins and shambles. Goulet has often talked about the 'Cruel Choice' that mankind has to make in the path of progress. Can then there be any system which totally reduces the calculus of pain? All capitalism says is, when each works for his own, he survives and thus, the world survives.

31 Aug 2014, 01.41 AM

Ansuman Mishra

Every economy, no matter what, has to use natural resources for its survival and development. But backing my claims with some data, the metric ton per capita carbon emissions in USA-17.6, China-6.2, India-1.7 according to world bank data. The figures are self-explanatory. What might seem as self-interest now might be detrimental in the long run. There has to be a trade-off in the way of progress, in the favour of sustainability.

31 Aug 2014, 11.05 AM

+Read Replies (1)

venkat iyer

It is unfair to compare Apples and Oranges. India, china and America are at different stages of their developmental cycles. Why not compare it at the same stage? Do you have data supporting that claim?

1 Sep 2014, 06.37 AM |

Ansuman Mishra

Mr iyer, the sole purpose was to compare "apples and oranges" only. I wanted to portray how different economies are different in terms of the economic models they follow, how far they have gone in their developmental cycles and how that is affecting the environment, with respect to the reservations you substantiated in your first comment. However, its not very nice to have such wonderful but irrelevant analogies.

1 Sep 2014, 02.53 PM

venkat iyer

The relevance of my first comment, to put it more clearly, was to state how it is not just the capitalist economies that are causing ruins to the world as a whole. The relevance of my second comment was to ask you how you can compare two countries at different stages of their developmental cycles. Now that those things are clear, I get your point that you wanted to portray how different economies are different in terms of the economic models they follow. But you did use the phrase 'Much better systems" and this was the basis of my argument. How can you say that there are much better systems in place without having a common base for comparison? Let me make it even clearer. According to your figures, the US is the main reason for environmental damage, right? The capitalist economy has ruined our planet, depleted our resources. But what makes you think that any other system has not done so? You compared figures of China and India, the countries notoriously known in global environmental circles for flouting all environmental norms, depleting resources at a rate much faster than their growth. All I asked you was to check figures of the USA when it was where China is right now (In terms of its industrial developmental cycle) and then maybe a fair comparison could be made. I still ask you, can you do that? Capitalism, in its limits has survived because it is a sustainable system. After all, isn't 'Survival of the fittest" the norm for all evolution?

1 Sep 2014, 04.46 PM