Alfa Romeo Forums banner

3101 - 3120 of 3151 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,689 Posts
We should all believe and wait for jobs in the Easter Bunny hoax too!! Or maybe we can all learn how to clean the planet from North Korea, China, Russia, Cuba or any other third world paradise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
837 Posts
"perhaps America should not spend so much on the military if they have a large portion of poor and cannot adhere to the paris accords" ... Just having fun, but actually agree with you, but that is a socialist view, i.e. put your people first.

And yes capitalism has caused this mess, but we need to come up with a viable alternative
Pete
excuse me but capitalism is not responsible for the millions of deaths worldwide....by the way since china is the number on polluter and is communist...why are you saying capitalism caused this.....strange socialist view

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
837 Posts
So, @alfaman , you're argument is that global warming is about destroying Capitalism.

I think the reverse could also been true and only time will tell. Lots of jobs could be created and new business created to support reducing CO2 and other green houses gases.
osso...why would an officer of the UN say this....my argument based on my unfounded opinion..they have actually said this
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
837 Posts
I don't believe you are right here. Greta doesn't like to travel because it is bad for the planet as it produces CO2. I've just read more about her message and it is to all world leaders.

If you want to talk about agendas to control our lives, let's discuss religion
Pete
ok...lets discuss how the different ways china is attacking religion..both christian and muslim....in order to have communist control over every aspect of life...no better not...lets stick to global warming
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,898 Posts
excuse me but capitalism is not responsible for the millions of deaths worldwide....by the way since china is the number on polluter and is communist...why are you saying capitalism caused this.....strange socialist view

As with most, if not all, communist countries they do not follow communism fully as if they did some should not get rich, but they do.

But of course I might be wrong, maybe capitalism AND communism just takes from our planet for the mighty $.
Pete
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
152 Posts
I normally don't comment in P&R sections. But I find this present juxtaposition of the concepts of capitalism and global warming rather ironic. I'm not looking for an argument, or attempting to disagree with anyone. In fact, I have only read the first few, and then the last few comments in this thread. I'm simply making a comment based on the idea of what I think is a common misconception regarding these two things. And I think it ironic to find them in the same topic. The first is global warming and the second is capitalism.

First of all, arguing against the existence of "global warming" is futile. The Earth has been warming since the last Ice Age. So there is no rational argument against the existence of global warming. The argument about whether or not the recent warming trend from the early 20th century to the early 1980's was man-made is another matter. And in truth, it's impossible to know for certain either way. Partly because there are no consistent means of measurement. Especially when the 120-130 year sunspot cycle, which also contributed to the run-up in temperatures, peaked during the same period. We are now in the beginning of a major minimum, which could be as severe as the Wolf Minimum of 1315. Who knows? The only reason the Dalton Minimum (1910), was not severe, was because there were two unforeseen (and so-far, to my knowledge, unrecognized) factors that minimized the impact of that minimum. Those two factor were: 1) the invention of the railroads and 2) the invention of the combine harvester. Minimums historically created periods of famine. Both the combine harvester (to harvest more food) and the railroad (to distribute that food), obfuscated the historic effects of minimums to mankind for the past 100 years. So there is a level of ignorance, wherein as British economist Friedrich Hayek once said, (note: I will replace the word "science" that Hayek used with "technology", as it is more appropriate to our era)

"It is not the advance of technology that threatens mankind, but technological error, based usually on the assumption of knowledge, which in fact, we do not possess" - ' On the Errors of Deconstructionism', University of Salzburg, (195?) I apologize - I don't recall the exact year off-hand.

The second comparison to capitalism I find almost funny, from an economic point-of-view, because the means by which this confusion occurs is almost the same as it is for global-warming. To put it bluntly, capitalism does not exist. It has never existed, except as perhaps a minor function (hedge funds, for example) in a larger socioeconomic eco-system. The word "capitalism", if I recall correctly, was only used twice previous to Karl Marx's use of it as the title of his book Das Kapital. But, it was Karl Marx who offically defined and made the concept of "capitalism" famous. To argue for capitalism is as futile as arguing against global-warming, which is what I find so ironic. Trying to find an argument against Karl Marx's theory by using his own terms, is, in my opinion, like trying to find a corner in a round room to take a piss!

I will explain why capitalism does not exist. But first I need to digress for a moment into another Friedrich. Friedrich Hegel was a famous philosopher of the 19th Century, who died just before Karl Marx was born. Duing Karl Marx's formative years (as well as most of his life), Hegel was the most revered philosopher of his time (and is in many respects even so today!) and set the intellectual bar by which almost all new ideas and theories had to pass. For those of you who remember civics class in High School, it was Hegel who had the theory that society goes though phases, where an idea or "thesis" is presented (like democracy, which is where it is, or was, commonly used as an example), and when the thesis is proposed, then a counter-theory, or an "anti-thesis", emerges (like communism), and when these two opposite theories clash, (sometimes in violent conflict), what occurs is a "synthesis", where the differences between the two conflicting theories meld together and form a new "thesis", and then from that new thesis a new "anti-thesis" arises and another "synthesis" follows, and mankind, Hegel supposed, progressed along these lines repeating the paradigm over-and-over: thesis/anti-thesis/synthesis, in a repeating pattern. This concept is what I think some of you may remember from high school. If not, well then, you just heard it here and that is sufficient. It's an easy enough concept to grasp. This will be important to know in a moment.

Now, in my opinion Hegel was, (maybe) not "wrong" per se, but rather incomplete. I think he's wrong in that mankind always progresses this way (sometimes, as in the Bronze Age collapse, mankind regresses) and he was also wrong (or short-sighted) in that opposite theses can be so simply articulated. As is usually the case in philosophy as well as economics, and in global-warming for that matter, there are always unknown factors. Regulation vs. deregulation is a good example. The anti-thesis of regulation is not de-regulation. In theory it is, because the semantics work that way, and also because the theory itself is theoretically static (it presents itself as an absolute). But we don't live in a static world. We live in a dynamic world where, as Heraclitus the Greek philosopher said, "No man steps in the same river twice" - we live in constant change. The anti-thesis of regulation is therefore not de-regulation, but rather circumvention. When a rule is put in place, such as a stop-light, or a speed-limit, or prohibition, people seek to circumvent the rule. Duh! We all know that intuitively if not by example and by history. The idea that the thesis/anti-thesis/syntheses paradigm had to (must, in fact) exist within the time/space continuum, was apparently not considered by Hegel. In the end, it is the actions of the people involved in the concept that define it's merit or render it moot, not the semantic construction of a static notion of an idea that may only exist for a brief moment.

Now to Marx. Marx, like many, envisioned the possibility of a world that was equitable for all. We all dream of it, don't we? We want things to be fair and to be just. Unfortunately, that "utopia" does not , nor can it exist. In fact, Sir Thomas Moore's word utopia says just that. "Utopia", the name of his letter to his friend Desiderius Erasmus, literally means, "no place". In other words, it does not exist. But Marx envisioned it anyway. So in a world where Hegelian thought was paramount, Marx's thesis "communism" needed an anti-thesis, a bogey-man. Marx was an economist. The biggest argument of the time was the definition of value. Best friends, David Ricardo and Thomas Malthus debated the definition of value almost endlessly. But what is value? How do you define value? The common theory of the day was that value, or the "fair price" of a product was shown as a formula. The value of the materials, plus the labor, plus a small portion for the man who made it happen (i.e., profit), was the fair value for a product. So, labor+materials+profit=fair price. Sounds fair, doesn't it? So this is the foundation that Karl Marx built his thesis on. Marx also went a step further and declared that the profit theft. Marx felt that the workers should all share in the profits equally, including the person who had the vision to put all of the pieces together to make it all happen. And if the person, who he called the "capitalist" could not be trusted to share the profits equally, then the people should revolt and demand higher wages to diminish that profit so that what he received equaled no more than what the workers received. This sounded just, and this has become the justification for everything from, communism, to socialism, to collective bargaining, to unions, and all of that which reject any merits of capitalism today.

Except capitalism doesn't exist. And it has never existed.

The definition of capitalism resets solely on the formula above, which is called the "Labor theory of value". And like Hegel, the labor theory of value is incomplete. Karl Marx completed the first volume of Das Kapital in 1867, and the final edition was finally published just 4 years later in 1871 and sold out. Marx was a hit. He became fabulously famous. He was on a roll! The public couldn't wait for more of Marx! He began work on volume II, writing some manuscripts, but then, mysteriously, never completed them. What he left was a pile of incomplete and unfinished notes. Volume II and III were eventually completed by yet another Friedrich, Friedrich Engels, with Vol II in 1893 and Vol III in 1894 - almost 20 years later. So, what happened?

Karl Marx died in 1883. What was he doing during those 12 years between 1871 and 1883? Why did he stop writing? He was on a roll! And why did it take Engles another 10 years to come-up with Vol II in 1893 and Vol II in 1894? Why did he wait so long? It couldn't have been the tedious task of going though them volume by volume. It took 10 years to do volume II and only 1 year to add volume III. Did Engles simply finish what Marx started to try and make a name for himself? One wonders.

What happened in 1871 however, was the Marginalist Revolution in economics. It was an event so momentous that Marx could not have missed it, since it discredited everything he wrote. The Margnialist Revolution redefined the definition of value more correctly and more completely. In 1871, the same year Marx's Das Kapital was published, and the same year that Marx stopped writing prolifically, there were publications by Carl Menger, Stanley Jevons and William Walras (as well as John Bates Clark , for whom the renowned economics award is named after, here in the US), that correctly re-defined value as being determined by the consumer and not by the producer.

Marginalism states that value is: the price a person is willing to pay for a given item, when he has all he desires at a given price. In other words, what is he willing to pay to receive 1 more unit of an item after he has all he needs at a given price. It is the acknowledgement of marginalism as the primary driver of value, that is the cause of the 2-for-1 sales, we so commonly see today.

How many times have you heard asked, "What's my used car worth?", and the response comes, "Whatever someone is willing to pay for it!". Well, that is the definition of value. Value is set by the consumer and not by the producer. The producer - that guy who puts it all together, that guy that is stealing profits from the wokers because he wants to make a few (or a lot) of bucks, is taking a "risk" that someone (anyone, in fact) will be willing to buy any of the product he produces. But the value of the product is not the materials and labor. The value is what someone is willing to pay for it.

The consumer sets the price. Marxism is based on the "labor theory of value" and that theory is wrong. This fact de-legitimizes the very foundation of Marx's theory and of Marxism itself, and even the notion of capitalism is based on the same erroneous theory of value.

Again, it is the actions of the people that render the concept of the labor theory of value incorrect and therefore moot. Marx knew this, he was well read and kept up with the times. He knew anything else he wrote, would simply dig a bigger hole from which he would never be able to dig himself out. His safest way, his only way, to protect his intellectual status was to do nothing. And that's exactly what he did - nothing. He stopped writing.

So what exists is not "capitalism", but rather "consumerism". The labor theory of value isn't just wrong, it's backwards. It puts the cause of value on the producer instead of on the consumer. And Marxism attempts to use it to justify causes that have no basis in reality.

If you read all of this and think, "So what? What's that got to do with global warming"? I apologize for wasting your time. If not, thank you for reading it. I felt it was necessary to complete my thought, and to make an adequate and (to me) ironic comparison between the arguments "against global-warming", and the "arguments for capitalism". They suffer from the same logical deficiency: a belief that we have knowledge that, in fact, we do not possess. Global warming is easier to explain of course. The world "really has" been warming since the last Ice Age. But the short-term increase may have many explanations. On the other hand, people are so wrapped-up in defending this notions of capitalism as if they can argue that disease (like ignorance) is good, because the end (death) is the cure, when it fact, it doesn't even exist!

Just my 2-cents of course.

Cheers!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,689 Posts
Thanks for that....
Boiling it all down a bit, here we use global warming as it is culturally used. The same with capitalism and communism. The terms mean different things to different cultures and different time frames.
Man made is the assumed source by some, but as you say, the normal cycles are long enough to blur the facts.
Some blame human nature. Greed and envy can drive a lot of emotions. And government is another variable that pushes different agendas. Redefines "science" to ignore some data ( sun spots, medieval warming) and invent others.
Some here just enjoy the banter!
 

·
Out of the office!
Joined
·
11,640 Posts
osso...why would an officer of the UN say this....my argument based on my unfounded opinion..they have actually said this
@alfaman The person quoted in the article, Christiana Figueres is no longer Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC. Her term expired in July 2016. From what I can find, she never actually said that Global Warming is a conspiracy nor did she say that it would destroy Capitalism. What she said was,

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

The comments in the article are only those of the author, not hers.

See the link below:


Read up on Martin Armstrong, the founder of Armstrong Economics. His website is not unbiased.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,689 Posts
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
So, which economic system was she talking about changing??? Hint..."150 years ago...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
837 Posts
I normally don't comment in P&R sections. But I find this present juxtaposition of the concepts of capitalism and global warming rather ironic. I'm not looking for an argument, or attempting to disagree with anyone. In fact, I have only read the first few, and then the last few comments in this thread. I'm simply making a comment based on the idea of what I think is a common misconception regarding these two things. And I think it ironic to find them in the same topic. The first is global warming and the second is capitalism.

First of all, arguing against the existence of "global warming" is futile. The Earth has been warming since the last Ice Age. So there is no rational argument against the existence of global warming. The argument about whether or not the recent warming trend from the early 20th century to the early 1980's was man-made is another matter. And in truth, it's impossible to know for certain either way. Partly because there are no consistent means of measurement. Especially when the 120-130 year sunspot cycle, which also contributed to the run-up in temperatures, peaked during the same period. We are now in the beginning of a major minimum, which could be as severe as the Wolf Minimum of 1315. Who knows? The only reason the Dalton Minimum (1910), was not severe, was because there were two unforeseen (and so-far, to my knowledge, unrecognized) factors that minimized the impact of that minimum. Those two factor were: 1) the invention of the railroads and 2) the invention of the combine harvester. Minimums historically created periods of famine. Both the combine harvester (to harvest more food) and the railroad (to distribute that food), obfuscated the historic effects of minimums to mankind for the past 100 years. So there is a level of ignorance, wherein as British economist Friedrich Hayek once said, (note: I will replace the word "science" that Hayek used with "technology", as it is more appropriate to our era)

"It is not the advance of technology that threatens mankind, but technological error, based usually on the assumption of knowledge, which in fact, we do not possess" - ' On the Errors of Deconstructionism', University of Salzburg, (195?) I apologize - I don't recall the exact year off-hand.

The second comparison to capitalism I find almost funny, from an economic point-of-view, because the means by which this confusion occurs is almost the same as it is for global-warming. To put it bluntly, capitalism does not exist. It has never existed, except as perhaps a minor function (hedge funds, for example) in a larger socioeconomic eco-system. The word "capitalism", if I recall correctly, was only used twice previous to Karl Marx's use of it as the title of his book Das Kapital. But, it was Karl Marx who offically defined and made the concept of "capitalism" famous. To argue for capitalism is as futile as arguing against global-warming, which is what I find so ironic. Trying to find an argument against Karl Marx's theory by using his own terms, is, in my opinion, like trying to find a corner in a round room to take a piss!

I will explain why capitalism does not exist. But first I need to digress for a moment into another Friedrich. Friedrich Hegel was a famous philosopher of the 19th Century, who died just before Karl Marx was born. Duing Karl Marx's formative years (as well as most of his life), Hegel was the most revered philosopher of his time (and is in many respects even so today!) and set the intellectual bar by which almost all new ideas and theories had to pass. For those of you who remember civics class in High School, it was Hegel who had the theory that society goes though phases, where an idea or "thesis" is presented (like democracy, which is where it is, or was, commonly used as an example), and when the thesis is proposed, then a counter-theory, or an "anti-thesis", emerges (like communism), and when these two opposite theories clash, (sometimes in violent conflict), what occurs is a "synthesis", where the differences between the two conflicting theories meld together and form a new "thesis", and then from that new thesis a new "anti-thesis" arises and another "synthesis" follows, and mankind, Hegel supposed, progressed along these lines repeating the paradigm over-and-over: thesis/anti-thesis/synthesis, in a repeating pattern. This concept is what I think some of you may remember from high school. If not, well then, you just heard it here and that is sufficient. It's an easy enough concept to grasp. This will be important to know in a moment.

Now, in my opinion Hegel was, (maybe) not "wrong" per se, but rather incomplete. I think he's wrong in that mankind always progresses this way (sometimes, as in the Bronze Age collapse, mankind regresses) and he was also wrong (or short-sighted) in that opposite theses can be so simply articulated. As is usually the case in philosophy as well as economics, and in global-warming for that matter, there are always unknown factors. Regulation vs. deregulation is a good example. The anti-thesis of regulation is not de-regulation. In theory it is, because the semantics work that way, and also because the theory itself is theoretically static (it presents itself as an absolute). But we don't live in a static world. We live in a dynamic world where, as Heraclitus the Greek philosopher said, "No man steps in the same river twice" - we live in constant change. The anti-thesis of regulation is therefore not de-regulation, but rather circumvention. When a rule is put in place, such as a stop-light, or a speed-limit, or prohibition, people seek to circumvent the rule. Duh! We all know that intuitively if not by example and by history. The idea that the thesis/anti-thesis/syntheses paradigm had to (must, in fact) exist within the time/space continuum, was apparently not considered by Hegel. In the end, it is the actions of the people involved in the concept that define it's merit or render it moot, not the semantic construction of a static notion of an idea that may only exist for a brief moment.

Now to Marx. Marx, like many, envisioned the possibility of a world that was equitable for all. We all dream of it, don't we? We want things to be fair and to be just. Unfortunately, that "utopia" does not , nor can it exist. In fact, Sir Thomas Moore's word utopia says just that. "Utopia", the name of his letter to his friend Desiderius Erasmus, literally means, "no place". In other words, it does not exist. But Marx envisioned it anyway. So in a world where Hegelian thought was paramount, Marx's thesis "communism" needed an anti-thesis, a bogey-man. Marx was an economist. The biggest argument of the time was the definition of value. Best friends, David Ricardo and Thomas Malthus debated the definition of value almost endlessly. But what is value? How do you define value? The common theory of the day was that value, or the "fair price" of a product was shown as a formula. The value of the materials, plus the labor, plus a small portion for the man who made it happen (i.e., profit), was the fair value for a product. So, labor+materials+profit=fair price. Sounds fair, doesn't it? So this is the foundation that Karl Marx built his thesis on. Marx also went a step further and declared that the profit theft. Marx felt that the workers should all share in the profits equally, including the person who had the vision to put all of the pieces together to make it all happen. And if the person, who he called the "capitalist" could not be trusted to share the profits equally, then the people should revolt and demand higher wages to diminish that profit so that what he received equaled no more than what the workers received. This sounded just, and this has become the justification for everything from, communism, to socialism, to collective bargaining, to unions, and all of that which reject any merits of capitalism today.

Except capitalism doesn't exist. And it has never existed.

The definition of capitalism resets solely on the formula above, which is called the "Labor theory of value". And like Hegel, the labor theory of value is incomplete. Karl Marx completed the first volume of Das Kapital in 1867, and the final edition was finally published just 4 years later in 1871 and sold out. Marx was a hit. He became fabulously famous. He was on a roll! The public couldn't wait for more of Marx! He began work on volume II, writing some manuscripts, but then, mysteriously, never completed them. What he left was a pile of incomplete and unfinished notes. Volume II and III were eventually completed by yet another Friedrich, Friedrich Engels, with Vol II in 1893 and Vol III in 1894 - almost 20 years later. So, what happened?

Karl Marx died in 1883. What was he doing during those 12 years between 1871 and 1883? Why did he stop writing? He was on a roll! And why did it take Engles another 10 years to come-up with Vol II in 1893 and Vol II in 1894? Why did he wait so long? It couldn't have been the tedious task of going though them volume by volume. It took 10 years to do volume II and only 1 year to add volume III. Did Engles simply finish what Marx started to try and make a name for himself? One wonders.

What happened in 1871 however, was the Marginalist Revolution in economics. It was an event so momentous that Marx could not have missed it, since it discredited everything he wrote. The Margnialist Revolution redefined the definition of value more correctly and more completely. In 1871, the same year Marx's Das Kapital was published, and the same year that Marx stopped writing prolifically, there were publications by Carl Menger, Stanley Jevons and William Walras (as well as John Bates Clark , for whom the renowned economics award is named after, here in the US), that correctly re-defined value as being determined by the consumer and not by the producer.

Marginalism states that value is: the price a person is willing to pay for a given item, when he has all he desires at a given price. In other words, what is he willing to pay to receive 1 more unit of an item after he has all he needs at a given price. It is the acknowledgement of marginalism as the primary driver of value, that is the cause of the 2-for-1 sales, we so commonly see today.

How many times have you heard asked, "What's my used car worth?", and the response comes, "Whatever someone is willing to pay for it!". Well, that is the definition of value. Value is set by the consumer and not by the producer. The producer - that guy who puts it all together, that guy that is stealing profits from the wokers because he wants to make a few (or a lot) of bucks, is taking a "risk" that someone (anyone, in fact) will be willing to buy any of the product he produces. But the value of the product is not the materials and labor. The value is what someone is willing to pay for it.

The consumer sets the price. Marxism is based on the "labor theory of value" and that theory is wrong. This fact de-legitimizes the very foundation of Marx's theory and of Marxism itself, and even the notion of capitalism is based on the same erroneous theory of value.

Again, it is the actions of the people that render the concept of the labor theory of value incorrect and therefore moot. Marx knew this, he was well read and kept up with the times. He knew anything else he wrote, would simply dig a bigger hole from which he would never be able to dig himself out. His safest way, his only way, to protect his intellectual status was to do nothing. And that's exactly what he did - nothing. He stopped writing.

So what exists is not "capitalism", but rather "consumerism". The labor theory of value isn't just wrong, it's backwards. It puts the cause of value on the producer instead of on the consumer. And Marxism attempts to use it to justify causes that have no basis in reality.

If you read all of this and think, "So what? What's that got to do with global warming"? I apologize for wasting your time. If not, thank you for reading it. I felt it was necessary to complete my thought, and to make an adequate and (to me) ironic comparison between the arguments "against global-warming", and the "arguments for capitalism". They suffer from the same logical deficiency: a belief that we have knowledge that, in fact, we do not possess. Global warming is easier to explain of course. The world "really has" been warming since the last Ice Age. But the short-term increase may have many explanations. On the other hand, people are so wrapped-up in defending this notions of capitalism as if they can argue that disease (like ignorance) is good, because the end (death) is the cure, when it fact, it doesn't even exist!

Just my 2-cents of course.

Cheers!
Wow David...read through it three times..very well thought out.....excellent in fact...and anyone who quotes Thomas Moore is ok by me....as far as global warming..think this video is very well thought out

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
837 Posts
@alfaman The person quoted in the article, Christiana Figueres is no longer Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC. Her term expired in July 2016. From what I can find, she never actually said that Global Warming is a conspiracy nor did she say that it would destroy Capitalism. What she said was,

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

The comments in the article are only those of the author, not hers.

See the link below:


Read up on Martin Armstrong, the founder of Armstrong Economics. His website is not unbiased.
osso..at least to me it's pretty obvious what she was talking about in regard to which economic system...but i was thinking about what you said in an earlier post about how more jobs /opportunities would be created by adhering to laws/treaties like the paris accord...i hope you are right, and kind think you may be...on the other hand joe biden said he was going to train all the coal miners in tech and i thought that was a bit outlandish
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
152 Posts
Wow David...read through it three times..very well thought out.....excellent in fact...and anyone who quotes Thomas Moore is ok by me....as far as global warming..think this video is very well thought out

Thank you. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,898 Posts
David,

Yes, I'm happy to blame consumerism for global warming, and so many other things. Everybody should take a trip to their local rubbish tip and view what society throws away. It is shocking and so wasteful. We could probably live just as well as we do now, and consume something like 1/10th of the energy, if we got rid of the current wasteful processes.

The point I was trying to make; is that we IMO need governments to prioritize the well being of our planet (streams, soil, air, sea, etc.) higher than they do now. Currently economic growth and employment come first and at the expense of our planet (those streams, soil, air, sea, etc.). We live like fishermen who believe that fish are of infinity supply. This is obviously not true.

Many people, like Alfaman, prioritize his personal freedom above any government restrictions, and I say to you and him, that no corporation or business is going to reduce their profits willingly to look after our environments. We are a greedy species and that greed has got us where we are today, and consumerism is not going to invent ways to help our planet UNLESS somebody satisfies his/her greed.

I personally am all for huge taxes on inefficient vehicles, etc. You buy an SUV that does 10mpg, it should be taxed at 50%. You buy a Ferrari, same, or a 500hp Alfa Romeo. Not stopping you buying them, but you should pay for your wasteful decision. It's nicer though if they use incentives instead though, i.e. interest free purchasing of solar panels, etc.
Pete
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,689 Posts
I think all of this has been tried,
With dismal results.
The reason that some cultures achieve more technically and citizens live better, healthier lives is a culture that rewards innovation, hard work and personal ethics.
Sounds a bit like the American brand of capitalism! This also results in an economy with the resources to clean up after ourselves..
 

·
Out of the office!
Joined
·
11,640 Posts
osso..at least to me it's pretty obvious what she was talking about in regard to which economic system...but i was thinking about what you said in an earlier post about how more jobs /opportunities would be created by adhering to laws/treaties like the paris accord...i hope you are right, and kind think you may be...on the other hand joe biden said he was going to train all the coal miners in tech and i thought that was a bit outlandish
I was not in the US when safety rules and emissions standards were adopted on cars. So, I have no real experience about the chatter around those things. That said, I am sure that when folks were told these things were going to change, there was fear of job loss and some sort of economic strangulation. Have these things really happened? OR, are there more businesses and jobs that manufacture all of those required bits and pieces?

The need for new forms of energy has created new businesses. This has also brought the cost of these things down. For example, the cost of solar panels for an average home has been reduce by half in recent years.

Yes, it seems that the need to address climate change/global warming is an attack on capitalism. But is it really? Hasn't capitalism thrived in the world of government regulation? Isn't US employment low?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,689 Posts
Not sure what kind of benevolent dictatorship some grew up with. My experience of the US in the '60s was that the gov't. would step into an industry and proclaim their desire to improve it. The results were almost always higher cost, less utility and questionable improvement. Mandating change before the technology is ready for market is a hallmark of this thinking. And taxing people to subsidize products that we would not otherwise buy is particularly grinding!
So a lot of Americans wary attitude towards "virtue signaling" from politicians is based on experience.
 
3101 - 3120 of 3151 Posts
Top