|
If this thread turns into a USPMT 2.0, we will not hesitate to shut it down. Do not even bother posting if all you're going to do is shit on the Democratic candidates while adding nothing of value.
Rules:
- Don't post meaningless one-liners.
- Don't turn this into a X doesn't stand a chance against Trump debate.
- Sources MUST have a supporting comment that summarizes the source beforehand.
- Do NOT turn this thread into a Republicans vs. Democrats shit-storm.
This thread will be heavily moderated. Expect the same kind of strictness as the USPMT. |
On June 14 2019 08:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2019 07:22 Wolfstan wrote:On June 14 2019 05:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 14 2019 05:14 Wolfstan wrote:
Thats exactly why I am in favor of neoliberal democracies. You can have segments of the population that live a communal socialist lifestyle. While those that want to opt out can live in capitalist private property regions. That's not how us all living on a single planet works unfortunately. The socialists can't just enjoy their lifestyle while capitalists risk the habitability of the planet we all inhabit. I'm going to make a bold prediction that wealthy capitalist communities will be much more ecologically friendly in the near future than poorer socialist regions. Democratic capitalist societies are so much preferable to live in. Your prediction doesn't match the science which clearly shows capitalists are leading us head first into a complete ecological disaster with no hope of avoiding it at the moment.
Historically you are correct, however I'm optimistic about a couple of new variables that may change that.
A) Advancements in technology
B) Newfound political and commercial willpower. (Paris climate agreement and green new deal)
So forgive me if I opt out of the revolution.
|
On June 14 2019 09:38 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2019 08:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 14 2019 07:22 Wolfstan wrote:On June 14 2019 05:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 14 2019 05:14 Wolfstan wrote:
Thats exactly why I am in favor of neoliberal democracies. You can have segments of the population that live a communal socialist lifestyle. While those that want to opt out can live in capitalist private property regions. That's not how us all living on a single planet works unfortunately. The socialists can't just enjoy their lifestyle while capitalists risk the habitability of the planet we all inhabit. I'm going to make a bold prediction that wealthy capitalist communities will be much more ecologically friendly in the near future than poorer socialist regions. Democratic capitalist societies are so much preferable to live in. Your prediction doesn't match the science which clearly shows capitalists are leading us head first into a complete ecological disaster with no hope of avoiding it at the moment. Historically you are correct, however I'm optimistic about a couple of new variables that may change that. A) Advancements in technology B) Newfound political and commercial willpower. (Paris climate agreement and green new deal) So forgive me if I opt out of the revolution.
I appreciate your optimism, however
A) What advancements, pretty sure they are part of the calculations though?
B) Countries like the US have no plans to meet their obligations under the Paris climate agreement and the GND has virtually no chance to pass in the next 10 years (when we're completely out of time).
Possibly just as importantly, even if everyone lived up to the most ambitious goals set in the GND and Paris accords, we still blow past the threshold for preventing catastrophic ecological collapse.
It's not my forgiveness you want anyway, it's those innocent kids skipping school around the world pleading with you to see your folly before they are irreparably damaged by it (beyond the health problems they're already suffering as a result).
|
I mean this debate goes in circles around a pretty simple fact: the current free market capitalism is a sham because
a) it does not factor in all the costs in a transaction, as long as these costs happen to people that are too poor/weak/far away to get them factored
b) the ownership of natural resources is determined by force or random chance of having them on your land, instead of considering them all the common property of all humans, who share the one fucking planet those resources are so far confined to
This also leads to the absurd situation where the cost of resources is set by the difficulty of obtaining them at the present moment, irrespective of their total supply and the fact that obtaining them today dramatically increases the cost for the future.
If capitalist so much deserve "fair" market, they should acknowledge all of that and include it into the system. From this point of view, the hated CO2 allowances aren't anti-free-market, as many libertarians loudly claim, but they are actually the complete opposite - and actually still too weak.
If anyone releasing greenhouse gasses for profit were forced to compensate every low-lying nation, nation suffering from dertification or extreme weather etc .. for their part in the destruction they cause on them, the ecological issues would solve themselves in the framework of capitalism, but that's about as unlikely as a fully functional communism.
|
On June 14 2019 16:16 opisska wrote:
I mean this debate goes in circles around a pretty simple fact: the current free market capitalism is a sham because
a) it does not factor in all the costs in a transaction, as long as these costs happen to people that are too poor/weak/far away to get them factored
b) the ownership of natural resources is determined by force or random chance of having them on your land, instead of considering them all the common property of all humans, who share the one fucking planet those resources are so far confined to
This also leads to the absurd situation where the cost of resources is set by the difficulty of obtaining them at the present moment, irrespective of their total supply and the fact that obtaining them today dramatically increases the cost for the future.
If capitalist so much deserve "fair" market, they should acknowledge all of that and include it into the system. From this point of view, the hated CO2 allowances aren't anti-free-market, as many libertarians loudly claim, but they are actually the complete opposite - and actually still too weak.
If anyone releasing greenhouse gasses for profit were forced to compensate every low-lying nation, nation suffering from dertification or extreme weather etc .. for their part in the destruction they cause on them, the ecological issues would solve themselves in the framework of capitalism, but that's about as unlikely as a fully functional communism.
I agree with this other than the "about as unlikely as fully functional communism", the inherent contradiction of capitalism that necessitates it not account for that exploitation you describe is not present in communism.
I acknowledge it's not going to be easy to make the sociological changes needed, but they are far more realistic from my perspective than getting capitalism to commit voluntary suicide by accounting for externalities (essentially erasing profit).
|
On June 14 2019 16:16 opisska wrote:
I mean this debate goes in circles around a pretty simple fact: the current free market capitalism is a sham because
a) it does not factor in all the costs in a transaction, as long as these costs happen to people that are too poor/weak/far away to get them factored
b) the ownership of natural resources is determined by force or random chance of having them on your land, instead of considering them all the common property of all humans, who share the one fucking planet those resources are so far confined to
This also leads to the absurd situation where the cost of resources is set by the difficulty of obtaining them at the present moment, irrespective of their total supply and the fact that obtaining them today dramatically increases the cost for the future.
If capitalist so much deserve "fair" market, they should acknowledge all of that and include it into the system. From this point of view, the hated CO2 allowances aren't anti-free-market, as many libertarians loudly claim, but they are actually the complete opposite - and actually still too weak.
If anyone releasing greenhouse gasses for profit were forced to compensate every low-lying nation, nation suffering from dertification or extreme weather etc .. for their part in the destruction they cause on them, the ecological issues would solve themselves in the framework of capitalism, but that's about as unlikely as a fully functional communism.
Do libertarians claim that? Friedman has advocated for a carbon tax since the 70s to take account of the negative externalities caused by climate change. It's the only solution which uses the market to solve the problem instead of excessive government intervention. I would say it's the opposite. A carbon tax is the most popular solution to climate change on the right.
|
On June 14 2019 23:21 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2019 16:16 opisska wrote:
I mean this debate goes in circles around a pretty simple fact: the current free market capitalism is a sham because
a) it does not factor in all the costs in a transaction, as long as these costs happen to people that are too poor/weak/far away to get them factored
b) the ownership of natural resources is determined by force or random chance of having them on your land, instead of considering them all the common property of all humans, who share the one fucking planet those resources are so far confined to
This also leads to the absurd situation where the cost of resources is set by the difficulty of obtaining them at the present moment, irrespective of their total supply and the fact that obtaining them today dramatically increases the cost for the future.
If capitalist so much deserve "fair" market, they should acknowledge all of that and include it into the system. From this point of view, the hated CO2 allowances aren't anti-free-market, as many libertarians loudly claim, but they are actually the complete opposite - and actually still too weak.
If anyone releasing greenhouse gasses for profit were forced to compensate every low-lying nation, nation suffering from dertification or extreme weather etc .. for their part in the destruction they cause on them, the ecological issues would solve themselves in the framework of capitalism, but that's about as unlikely as a fully functional communism. Do libertarians claim that? Friedman has advocated for a carbon tax since the 70s to take account of the negative externalities caused by climate change. It's the only solution which uses the market to solve the problem instead of excessive government intervention. I would say it's the opposite. A carbon tax is the most popular solution to climate change on the right.
I think the confusion on whether the right favors a carbon tax is reasonable
75 CONSERVATIVE GROUPS OPPOSE ‘ANY CARBON TAX’ DAYS AFTER MITT ROMNEY WAS REPORTEDLY ‘LOOKING AT’ ONE
I get the distinct impression it's a modern day version of beads and manillas though considering how many corporations seem to generally support it (at least rhetorically).
|
On June 14 2019 23:21 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2019 16:16 opisska wrote:
I mean this debate goes in circles around a pretty simple fact: the current free market capitalism is a sham because
a) it does not factor in all the costs in a transaction, as long as these costs happen to people that are too poor/weak/far away to get them factored
b) the ownership of natural resources is determined by force or random chance of having them on your land, instead of considering them all the common property of all humans, who share the one fucking planet those resources are so far confined to
This also leads to the absurd situation where the cost of resources is set by the difficulty of obtaining them at the present moment, irrespective of their total supply and the fact that obtaining them today dramatically increases the cost for the future.
If capitalist so much deserve "fair" market, they should acknowledge all of that and include it into the system. From this point of view, the hated CO2 allowances aren't anti-free-market, as many libertarians loudly claim, but they are actually the complete opposite - and actually still too weak.
If anyone releasing greenhouse gasses for profit were forced to compensate every low-lying nation, nation suffering from dertification or extreme weather etc .. for their part in the destruction they cause on them, the ecological issues would solve themselves in the framework of capitalism, but that's about as unlikely as a fully functional communism. Do libertarians claim that? Friedman has advocated for a carbon tax since the 70s to take account of the negative externalities caused by climate change. It's the only solution which uses the market to solve the problem instead of excessive government intervention. I would say it's the opposite. A carbon tax is the most popular solution to climate change on the right.
I have to admit that I come from a country with very loud and very dumb libertarians, yours seem to be smarter 
|
On June 14 2019 12:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2019 09:38 Wolfstan wrote:On June 14 2019 08:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 14 2019 07:22 Wolfstan wrote:On June 14 2019 05:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 14 2019 05:14 Wolfstan wrote:
Thats exactly why I am in favor of neoliberal democracies. You can have segments of the population that live a communal socialist lifestyle. While those that want to opt out can live in capitalist private property regions. That's not how us all living on a single planet works unfortunately. The socialists can't just enjoy their lifestyle while capitalists risk the habitability of the planet we all inhabit. I'm going to make a bold prediction that wealthy capitalist communities will be much more ecologically friendly in the near future than poorer socialist regions. Democratic capitalist societies are so much preferable to live in. Your prediction doesn't match the science which clearly shows capitalists are leading us head first into a complete ecological disaster with no hope of avoiding it at the moment. Historically you are correct, however I'm optimistic about a couple of new variables that may change that. A) Advancements in technology B) Newfound political and commercial willpower. (Paris climate agreement and green new deal) So forgive me if I opt out of the revolution. I appreciate your optimism, however A) What advancements, pretty sure they are part of the calculations though? B) Countries like the US have no plans to meet their obligations under the Paris climate agreement and the GND has virtually no chance to pass in the next 10 years (when we're completely out of time). Possibly just as importantly, even if everyone lived up to the most ambitious goals set in the GND and Paris accords, we still blow past the threshold for preventing catastrophic ecological collapse. It's not my forgiveness you want anyway, it's those innocent kids skipping school around the world pleading with you to see your folly before they are irreparably damaged by it (beyond the health problems they're already suffering as a result).
A) Advancements in fuel efficiency, solar and wind energy becoming competitive, phasing out coal, advancements in agriculture for a smaller footprint, those kinds of things.
B) The US specifically has a chance which is why we are posting in the 2020 candidates thread, many of whom support the GND. A Combination of mitigation and adaptation are definitely possible to avoid ecological colapse
|
On June 15 2019 01:58 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2019 12:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 14 2019 09:38 Wolfstan wrote:On June 14 2019 08:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 14 2019 07:22 Wolfstan wrote:On June 14 2019 05:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 14 2019 05:14 Wolfstan wrote:
Thats exactly why I am in favor of neoliberal democracies. You can have segments of the population that live a communal socialist lifestyle. While those that want to opt out can live in capitalist private property regions. That's not how us all living on a single planet works unfortunately. The socialists can't just enjoy their lifestyle while capitalists risk the habitability of the planet we all inhabit. I'm going to make a bold prediction that wealthy capitalist communities will be much more ecologically friendly in the near future than poorer socialist regions. Democratic capitalist societies are so much preferable to live in. Your prediction doesn't match the science which clearly shows capitalists are leading us head first into a complete ecological disaster with no hope of avoiding it at the moment. Historically you are correct, however I'm optimistic about a couple of new variables that may change that. A) Advancements in technology B) Newfound political and commercial willpower. (Paris climate agreement and green new deal) So forgive me if I opt out of the revolution. I appreciate your optimism, however A) What advancements, pretty sure they are part of the calculations though? B) Countries like the US have no plans to meet their obligations under the Paris climate agreement and the GND has virtually no chance to pass in the next 10 years (when we're completely out of time). Possibly just as importantly, even if everyone lived up to the most ambitious goals set in the GND and Paris accords, we still blow past the threshold for preventing catastrophic ecological collapse. It's not my forgiveness you want anyway, it's those innocent kids skipping school around the world pleading with you to see your folly before they are irreparably damaged by it (beyond the health problems they're already suffering as a result). A) Advancements in fuel efficiency, solar and wind energy becoming competitive, phasing out coal, advancements in agriculture for a smaller footprint, those kinds of things. B) The US specifically has a chance which is why we are posting in the 2020 candidates thread, many of whom support the GND. A Combination of mitigation and adaptation are definitely possible to avoid ecological colapse
A) yes those are accounted for and still fall well short even with more optimistic projections for technological advancements
B)The GND (in it's most idealistic form) still doesn't avoid catastrophic climate collapse according to the best available science.
Mitigation and adaption is what will happen whether we miraculously do something to limit catastrophic collapse (in the next 100 years) in the next 10 years or not. The question is who will suffer the brunt of the consequences of capitalism, and it's looking like it's going to be the people who have this whole time, the most marginalized and oppressed.
Granted the plan you're talking about (in it's most idealized form) saves affluent residents of North America from the first waves of the disaster, but it will result in catastrophic climate collapse and hundreds of millions if not billions of people dead and displaced regardless.
|
dems will always be fighting off the backfoot, thats their main problem
|
That is true a look at it mostly from a Canadian perspective, and I firmly believe policy needs borders where it ends. The situation of people in poorer countries is like issue number 78 on my weighting of political topics.
I believe that Canada/Australia and Scandinavian countries have the best political and economic model currently. I am also optimistic that the US is ripe for a change and look forward to its shift into something new. I currently look view where the US is now with a mixture of pity and derision.
I am certainly not interested in a communist/socialist government that you seem to think
A) the world needs to get on board with and
B) the imaginary system won't work if there is another political/economic system operates across a border to compare it to.
The world needs multiple ideas on how to best govern occurring simultaneously to see what works out best. Having different systems will obviously lead to unequal outcomes and I'm willing to live with there being poorer regions based on those systems.
|
On June 15 2019 06:06 Wolfstan wrote:
That is true a look at it mostly from a Canadian perspective, and I firmly believe policy needs borders where it ends. The situation of people in poorer countries is like issue number 78 on my weighting of political topics.
I believe that Canada/Australia and Scandinavian countries have the best political and economic model currently. I am also optimistic that the US is ripe for a change and look forward to its shift into something new. I currently look view where the US is now with a mixture of pity and derision.
I am certainly not interested in a communist/socialist government that you seem to think
A) the world needs to get on board with and
B) the imaginary system won't work if there is another political/economic system operates across a border to compare it to.
The world needs multiple ideas on how to best govern occurring simultaneously to see what works out best. Having different systems will obviously lead to unequal outcomes and I'm willing to live with there being poorer regions based on those systems.
As long as we recognize the viciousness of that position I can appreciate the honestly of taking it.
A) I'm open to alternatives but the ones presented (outside mine) literally lead to inexorable doom for people you generally disregard the humanity of. Maybe the suggestions I've made aren't sufficient, but neither is the status quo and in 10 years it will be far too late (the science basically says it already is too late).
B) Every system needs to first be imagined before it can be applied, let alone demonstrate success then be copied? The problem is the political/economic systems you prefer are leading us into catastrophic climate collapse with no sign of stopping.
That people are willing to sacrifice those countless millions so that they can maintain a lifestyle we in the west have become accustomed to is not a position I'm comfortable with myself.
|
On June 14 2019 23:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2019 23:21 RvB wrote:On June 14 2019 16:16 opisska wrote:
I mean this debate goes in circles around a pretty simple fact: the current free market capitalism is a sham because
a) it does not factor in all the costs in a transaction, as long as these costs happen to people that are too poor/weak/far away to get them factored
b) the ownership of natural resources is determined by force or random chance of having them on your land, instead of considering them all the common property of all humans, who share the one fucking planet those resources are so far confined to
This also leads to the absurd situation where the cost of resources is set by the difficulty of obtaining them at the present moment, irrespective of their total supply and the fact that obtaining them today dramatically increases the cost for the future.
If capitalist so much deserve "fair" market, they should acknowledge all of that and include it into the system. From this point of view, the hated CO2 allowances aren't anti-free-market, as many libertarians loudly claim, but they are actually the complete opposite - and actually still too weak.
If anyone releasing greenhouse gasses for profit were forced to compensate every low-lying nation, nation suffering from dertification or extreme weather etc .. for their part in the destruction they cause on them, the ecological issues would solve themselves in the framework of capitalism, but that's about as unlikely as a fully functional communism. Do libertarians claim that? Friedman has advocated for a carbon tax since the 70s to take account of the negative externalities caused by climate change. It's the only solution which uses the market to solve the problem instead of excessive government intervention. I would say it's the opposite. A carbon tax is the most popular solution to climate change on the right. I think the confusion on whether the right favors a carbon tax is reasonable 75 CONSERVATIVE GROUPS OPPOSE ‘ANY CARBON TAX’ DAYS AFTER MITT ROMNEY WAS REPORTEDLY ‘LOOKING AT’ ONEI get the distinct impression it's a modern day version of beads and manillas though considering how many corporations seem to generally support it (at least rhetorically).
Sorry I wasn't very clear. I was talking about liberals/libertarians in particular not conservatives. I don't know how they view a carbon tax.
On June 14 2019 23:55 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2019 23:21 RvB wrote:On June 14 2019 16:16 opisska wrote:
I mean this debate goes in circles around a pretty simple fact: the current free market capitalism is a sham because
a) it does not factor in all the costs in a transaction, as long as these costs happen to people that are too poor/weak/far away to get them factored
b) the ownership of natural resources is determined by force or random chance of having them on your land, instead of considering them all the common property of all humans, who share the one fucking planet those resources are so far confined to
This also leads to the absurd situation where the cost of resources is set by the difficulty of obtaining them at the present moment, irrespective of their total supply and the fact that obtaining them today dramatically increases the cost for the future.
If capitalist so much deserve "fair" market, they should acknowledge all of that and include it into the system. From this point of view, the hated CO2 allowances aren't anti-free-market, as many libertarians loudly claim, but they are actually the complete opposite - and actually still too weak.
If anyone releasing greenhouse gasses for profit were forced to compensate every low-lying nation, nation suffering from dertification or extreme weather etc .. for their part in the destruction they cause on them, the ecological issues would solve themselves in the framework of capitalism, but that's about as unlikely as a fully functional communism. Do libertarians claim that? Friedman has advocated for a carbon tax since the 70s to take account of the negative externalities caused by climate change. It's the only solution which uses the market to solve the problem instead of excessive government intervention. I would say it's the opposite. A carbon tax is the most popular solution to climate change on the right. I have to admit that I come from a country with very loud and very dumb libertarians, yours seem to be smarter
I have to nuance my first post a bit. I kind of used liberalism (the European kind) and libertarianism interchangeably. As with any ideology it's a scale from moderates (like The Economist) to extremists bordering ancaps. A lot of them outright deny climate change and as such obviously aren't in favour of a carbon tax.
|
On June 15 2019 10:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2019 06:06 Wolfstan wrote:
That is true a look at it mostly from a Canadian perspective, and I firmly believe policy needs borders where it ends. The situation of people in poorer countries is like issue number 78 on my weighting of political topics.
I believe that Canada/Australia and Scandinavian countries have the best political and economic model currently. I am also optimistic that the US is ripe for a change and look forward to its shift into something new. I currently look view where the US is now with a mixture of pity and derision.
I am certainly not interested in a communist/socialist government that you seem to think
A) the world needs to get on board with and
B) the imaginary system won't work if there is another political/economic system operates across a border to compare it to.
The world needs multiple ideas on how to best govern occurring simultaneously to see what works out best. Having different systems will obviously lead to unequal outcomes and I'm willing to live with there being poorer regions based on those systems.
As long as we recognize the viciousness of that position I can appreciate the honestly of taking it. A) I'm open to alternatives but the ones presented (outside mine) literally lead to inexorable doom for people you generally disregard the humanity of. Maybe the suggestions I've made aren't sufficient, but neither is the status quo and in 10 years it will be far too late (the science basically says it already is too late). B) Every system needs to first be imagined before it can be applied, let alone demonstrate success then be copied? The problem is the political/economic systems you prefer are leading us into catastrophic climate collapse with no sign of stopping. That people are willing to sacrifice those countless millions so that they can maintain a lifestyle we in the west have become accustomed to is not a position I'm comfortable with myself.
You are correct that I'm generally fine with the status quo in the countries that are doing the best with tweaks as better ways present themselves. I'm talking more about the US who have a very broken political and economic system.
I genuinely hope your imagined system can and will be executed well in places that adopt it. Just please remember your other part of your ideology and let people live their lives without the US going the white savior route and imposing your system on people that don't want it at the barrel of a gun. It has been a disaster for you to export capitalism/democracy to places like the middle east and Latin America. How would you propose to avoid disaster exporting your imagined system to the rest of the world?
I am happy with sovereign nations governing themselves as they see fit whether its social democracies in the western world, dictatorships in the third world, theocracy in the middle east and one party government in China. If your imagined system beats them all, let the people take the best parts of it with their own agency.
|
On June 16 2019 04:19 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2019 10:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 15 2019 06:06 Wolfstan wrote:
That is true a look at it mostly from a Canadian perspective, and I firmly believe policy needs borders where it ends. The situation of people in poorer countries is like issue number 78 on my weighting of political topics.
I believe that Canada/Australia and Scandinavian countries have the best political and economic model currently. I am also optimistic that the US is ripe for a change and look forward to its shift into something new. I currently look view where the US is now with a mixture of pity and derision.
I am certainly not interested in a communist/socialist government that you seem to think
A) the world needs to get on board with and
B) the imaginary system won't work if there is another political/economic system operates across a border to compare it to.
The world needs multiple ideas on how to best govern occurring simultaneously to see what works out best. Having different systems will obviously lead to unequal outcomes and I'm willing to live with there being poorer regions based on those systems.
As long as we recognize the viciousness of that position I can appreciate the honestly of taking it. A) I'm open to alternatives but the ones presented (outside mine) literally lead to inexorable doom for people you generally disregard the humanity of. Maybe the suggestions I've made aren't sufficient, but neither is the status quo and in 10 years it will be far too late (the science basically says it already is too late). B) Every system needs to first be imagined before it can be applied, let alone demonstrate success then be copied? The problem is the political/economic systems you prefer are leading us into catastrophic climate collapse with no sign of stopping. That people are willing to sacrifice those countless millions so that they can maintain a lifestyle we in the west have become accustomed to is not a position I'm comfortable with myself. You are correct that I'm generally fine with the status quo in the countries that are doing the best with tweaks as better ways present themselves. I'm talking more about the US who have a very broken political and economic system. I genuinely hope your imagined system can and will be executed well in places that adopt it. Just please remember your other part of your ideology and let people live their lives without the US going the white savior route and imposing your system on people that don't want it at the barrel of a gun. It has been a disaster for you to export capitalism/democracy to places like the middle east and Latin America. How would you propose to avoid disaster exporting your imagined system to the rest of the world? I am happy with sovereign nations governing themselves as they see fit whether its social democracies in the western world, dictatorships in the third world, theocracy in the middle east and one party government in China. If your imagined system beats them all, let the people take the best parts of it with their own agency.
Fair enough. Well, it certainly would have been more practical for the US to make this transition starting 40+ years ago but Reagan pretty much put the nail in that coffin.
You avoid disaster exporting socialism by not exporting socialism. If there's an alternative that doesn't lead to certain catastrophic climate collapse I'm all ears, but tweaking European social democracies isn't it.
|
What is the correlation between ownership of the means of production and the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?
|
On June 16 2019 08:48 Dan HH wrote:
What is the correlation between ownership of the means of production and the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?
The answer is self-apparent to me so let me try an example/analogy.
We each own a hybrid and a F-350. What's the correlation between the ownership of those vehicles and the amount of carbon emissions (from the vehicles) we put into the atmosphere?
How could we end up putting out different amounts of carbon at different rates despite owning the same model vehicles?
The answer is what we choose to do with the resources we have, or in the case of capitalism, whether we (the non-wealthy) get a choice at all.
|
On June 16 2019 11:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2019 08:48 Dan HH wrote:
What is the correlation between ownership of the means of production and the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? The answer is self-apparent to me so let me try an example/analogy. We each own a hybrid and a F-350. What's the correlation between the ownership of those vehicles and the amount of carbon emissions (from the vehicles) we put into the atmosphere? How could we end up putting out different amounts of carbon at different rates despite owning the same model vehicles? The answer is what we choose to do with the resources we have, or in the case of capitalism, whether we (the non-wealthy) get a choice at all.
Yes, it's apparent that people have different priorities. What's not apparent is how a different type of ownership shifts those priorities.
If you look at a list of countries by emissions per capita you will find no relationship whatsoever between socialism and emissions. What you will find immediately apparent is that the main factors are the industries that countries rely on and their level of development.
For example Venezuela has more emissions per capita than the more developed Croatia, while Croatia has a lot more emissions per capita than the significantly less developed North Korea, while North Korea has a lot more emissions per capita than the significantly less developed Ivory Coast.
Sure, your average folk doesn't have any more say in a centrally planned socialist economy than in a capitalist economy. Let's say that wouldn't be the case in socialist US, are workers more willing to take one for the environment than boards of directors? Are miner unions more willing to abandon coal and retrain than shareholders are to divest themselves from coal? Is it not workers that are making the F-series the most sold car year in year out for decades regardless of how topical emissions have gotten?
|
On June 16 2019 20:41 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2019 11:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 16 2019 08:48 Dan HH wrote:
What is the correlation between ownership of the means of production and the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? The answer is self-apparent to me so let me try an example/analogy. We each own a hybrid and a F-350. What's the correlation between the ownership of those vehicles and the amount of carbon emissions (from the vehicles) we put into the atmosphere? How could we end up putting out different amounts of carbon at different rates despite owning the same model vehicles? The answer is what we choose to do with the resources we have, or in the case of capitalism, whether we (the non-wealthy) get a choice at all. Sure, your average folk doesn't have any more say in a centrally planned socialist economy than in a capitalist economy. Let's say that wouldn't be the case in socialist US, are workers more willing to take one for the environment than boards of directors? Are miner unions more willing to abandon coal and retrain than shareholders are to divest themselves from coal? Is it not workers that are making the F-series the most sold car year in year out for decades regardless of how topical emissions have gotten?
No one here is arguing for central planning.
Yes, my presumption is that if you told workers they were all going to die (or rather their family lines) if they don't change the way they do business they are far more likely to change than wealthy people who build giant underground luxury cities and multi-billion dollar weapons of war instead
|
Still liking gabbard for her emphasis on ending wars. But I liked Trump too in early 2016 so I kind of doubt my intuition now. Seems like she has zero chance anyway since the media doesn't give her the time of day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
