OTOH, wealthier countries reproduce less so it would seem that wealth might be the ultimate planet saver. it also allows for peopel to worry about being "green."
so how do you explain the natural disasters that occurred before humans even existed?
your last paragraph is fairly dogmatic. the above isn't a description of fascism but a description of states. the accumulation of capital isn't a goal of any capitalists nor is it why china has moved to capitalism. What is happening in American is basedon human nature. A wealthy, powerful nation became arrogant and felt entitled...per human nature, we've been slow to addresss ourt shortcomings or change our ways in response to the changing world. that's normal, most people, companies, and governments only change in response to crisis and with governments it's a crapshoot with whether it's for better or for worse. Lenin seized the tsar's poor decision to enter WWI, Hitler seized on a Germany sickened by the economic malaise under the Republic, FDR seized on the collapse of global trade, banking, and disastrous farming policies of his predecessors. GM couldn't change until bankruptcy was knocking at the door.

__________________
"You down wit OPM?"
Fumo: "Yeah, you know me!"

This seems relevant to our discussion...we're going to see more resource nationalism if things continue the way they are..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai...bcnfood108.xml

How so? Why does the U.S. or China have a stock market. Why does the U.S allow private investment banking and then bail them out when they overleverage themselves? Why do CEO's rake in enormous amounts of Capital compared to the average American worker with a negative savings rate? If they don't seek to accumulate capital..how can we have a capitalist economy?

"As this newspaper has reported, the average CEO of a sizeable corporation makes more than $10 million a year, while the minimum wage for workers amounts to about $10,000 a year, and has not been raised in nearly a decade. When I graduated from college in the 1960s, the average CEO made 20 times what the average worker made. Today, that CEO makes 400 times as much."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110009246


ALSO:

Is a CEO worth 364 times the average Joe?

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...verageJoe.aspx

Stock markets are more than just "tools to accumulate welath in only a few hands." They evolved out of business' need for capital as well as investors' desire for better returns. They serve a function quite well and, in fact, are far more democratic, not to mention more effective, than the old way of raising money which was simply knowing a king or lord.
that's a complicated question. Wall St has always been full of people "too smart for their own good." Of course, wall st's washington alliance is what keeps it the center fo the universe...otherwise finance might be much more spread out. anyways, to some extent it was the fed's fault, providing enormous amoutns of excess liquidity (monetary inflation) which is generally what fuels such speculative excesses. Once the deed was done, the Fed felt that allowing BS to fail might cripple the country and stepped in, for better or for worse.
Capitalism, at it's most basic, is the free flow of capital which allows for its employment where it's most profitable. the concentration of capital (or accumulation of capital in fewer hands as you put it)is a marxist theory. Simple accumulation of capital (meaning, anyone can accumulate) is, of course, hwo capitalist functions and how decisions are made to allocate between consumption and investment. Capitalism, like any ism, is subject to the quality of people and institutionswithin which it functions.
BTW-I paged through the NG China issue at lunch, nice pic's. I didn't read it though. TO your earlier point, wealthy economies can "clean up." Your information on pollution deaths woudl be more meaningful if coupled with deaths from malnutrition and a "hard life." There was very little industrial pollution in the middle ages yet most people never made it to what is now considered middle age.

__________________
"You down wit OPM?"
Fumo: "Yeah, you know me!"

Don't put too much stock in National Geographic...they have some nice photos and stories, but not all their 'science' is really scientific...also,the 'planet' does not react violently, as the 'planet' is in itself not a 'living being'...there are plentiful resources, but certain monopoly interests control many of these resources and by creating scares and 'artificial scarcities', fool the public into thinking that constantly increasing prices are 'inevitable'...for instance, we have enough oil in the United States to last another 150 years, right now, but the oil companies don not find it in their interest to extract his oil, even with prices at almost $130 a barrel...climate change is a natural thing, as the main cause of it, the sun, goes through cycles that cause the earth to be either hotter or cooler...but this fearmongering on the part of certain global interests condition populations into accepting high prices and the idea that people will have to make do with less...but will the top 1-3% have to tighten their belts?...I don't think so...you do make a good point, though, in the sense that more intelligent planning would be helpful in eliminating certain excesses...I would agree that uncontrolled growth is not the best situation; more managed and micro development would be a more natural solution, and would make life better for the little person...but big capital craves growth, and big capital rules the world.

The planet does react violently...moreover last I checked the earth was full of living organisms and although not a self conscious "living being" it is a force of nature that exerts energy and has it's own inertia. It also requires balance...just ask all the civilizations that have disappeared as a result (i.e. the inhabitants of Easter Island). Moreover, the planet does not have enough resources. If that were so...the U.S would not have peaked in oil production in the 70's (Hubbert's Peak was fact) . We would still be the World's net exporter of oil like in the 50's and 60's. We've imported more oil each year after we peaked. Peak oil is not a contrivance..it is real. That being said , I do agree that their are monopolistic forces (global elites) at work but there are other converging forces that are at play....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7396400.stm

We have plenty of prison labor as well....learn Mandarin b/c not only will they own this country..we'll be working for them...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...367,full.story

Now why would you tell your 1.3 billion population otherwise?

http://www.energy-daily.com/reports/...anner_999.html

I would beg to differ...'Peak Oil' is a bullshit scam...if production was supposed to have peaked in the 70's, then why are the total reserves now higher than in the 70's, and in fact, whenever they talk about this 'peak' oil reserves are always higher then the last time they tried to scare us?...there are two fields in Alaska that the oil companies have not even touched, NW of the Prudhoe Bay site, both larger than the big Saudi field...there are HUGE deposits in the Gulf of Mexico, Brazil has just discovered a gigantic oil field off it's coast, the list goes on and on...it's called 'the big squeeze'.

I love the google ad at the top of the page that actually tells us the girls measurements. Can we really order these girls right off the internet like this from Chnlove.com?