|
inkblot posted:Just loving stopping. Like, that's it. You stop production and distribution when you don't need anymore. If you don't have a market requiring you chase ever growing profit, and you don't have a capital class forcing labor to produce and distribute to chase said profit, then you can just say "X is our maximum unit output, we make/distribute that much, and then we're done". I think reducing the entirety of politics and economics to "Say thing happens, then it does" might be slightly reductionist.
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 00:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 15:34 |
|
|
Xae posted:I think reducing the entirety of politics and economics to "Say thing happens, then it does" might be slightly reductionist. He is confusing communism with a fascist dictatorship but like, in a positive way?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 00:30
|
|
|
Dylan16807 posted:We're not going to die if half the ports break and we have to prioritize. That's what so-called "pure capitalism" implies, yes. "No taxes" is not a strawman, it's a real concept that a surprising number of real people think would produce the best outcomes. They're wrong, but it's not something that I just made up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 00:38
|
|
|
Xae posted:I think reducing the entirety of politics and economics to "Say thing happens, then it does" might be slightly reductionist. Of course, but my main idea is that in a capitalist system targets are set by capital, and capital doesn't care for ecological impact. Saying "ah yes, but how would communism do *blank*" is a cheap distraction of a question. It was a flippant answer to a flippant question. Owlofcreamcheese posted:He is confusing communism with a fascist dictatorship but like, in a positive way? OOCC responded to me! I feel so happy!
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 00:41
|
|
|
Dylan16807 posted:We're not going to die if half the ports break and we have to prioritize. Are you arguing that a market economy with CO2 taxes is actually more effective at curbing CO2 emissions than a command economy? There's no real way of empirically proving this either way but it seems completely wrong. If the governments of the United States and the USSR each wanted to stop producing coal power plants, how do you imagine each country would make that happen?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 01:35
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:He is confusing communism with a fascist dictatorship but like, in a positive way? I know you're dumb as poo poo but you do realize that fascist dictatorships have private economies not planned economies right 16% of the world population uses 80% of the world's resources - 100 companies cause 71% of co2 emissions both of these are externalizes of capitalism - both requiring infinite and unchecked grown and consumption for the pursuit of profit and misallocating the majority of resources in the hands of a minority of people Phi230 fucked around with this message at 01:44 on Oct 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 01:41
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Are you arguing that a market economy with CO2 taxes is actually more effective at curbing CO2 emissions than a command economy? There's no real way of empirically proving this either way but it seems completely wrong. The US has more money to throw at the problem, too, largely thanks to those markets. We could do a lot of carbon capture research and deployment. Motivation far outclasses everything else as the main issue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 01:54
|
|
|
Dylan16807 posted:I think it's probably similar in effectiveness if you have similar political will in both cases. Except the US can't because that money is in private hands who would detriment if they took action against climate change Capitalism rewards those who destroy the environment, not the other way
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 02:45
|
|
|
Dylan16807 posted:I think it's probably similar in effectiveness if you have similar political will in both cases. Sure, we could. But we don't. The people with the most money are motivated to keep their taxes low and to brainwash the population into believing that global warming is a hoax. This creates the political climate that we have today, where a majority of Congress refuses to do anything about global warming. e: What Phi230 said, the economic incentive is to pollute so our economy motivates the individuals with the most power to oppose measures that would reduce pollution. Looking to China, they were huge polluters but then decided not to be and have made huge strides toward becoming green. Are we even capable of achieving that kind of pace? QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 03:45 on Oct 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 03:42
|
|
|
Remind me again why it takes Trillions with a T to protect ports from sea-level rise? They're not all located on a sinking sandbar like New Orleans is. Shipping patterns will change, same as agriculture, and there will be more frequent massive storms in both atlantic and pacific to worry about, but that's not what will end civilization.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 03:52
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:
Huhm? The Western world started doing that over the 60th-70th period. In the USA the EPA was instiuted etc. Emissions from the west would be far far higher without that processes. Imagine if everyone in your city still burned coal in individual building furnaces, vehicles had no emissions filter or fuel efficient requirement, no laws at all against open dumping of wastes everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 04:04
|
|
|
Harik posted:Remind me again why it takes Trillions with a T to protect ports from sea-level rise? They're not all located on a sinking sandbar like New Orleans is. This is an example of how they go about it. https://www.researchgate.net/public...bility_and_risk Here's the question. What systems are dependent on ocean carriage?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 04:43
|
|
|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:Huhm? The Western world started doing that over the 60th-70th period. In the USA the EPA was instiuted etc. Emissions from the west would be far far higher without that processes. Imagine if everyone in your city still burned coal in individual building furnaces, vehicles had no emissions filter or fuel efficient requirement, no laws at all against open dumping of wastes everywhere. The rates of ecological change between those periods are barely even comparable. That's like comparing a space rocket to a catapult
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 05:15
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:The rates of ecological change between those periods are barely even comparable. That's like comparing a space rocket to a catapult China is actually seeing a rapid growth of emissions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 05:54
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:The rates of ecological change between those periods are barely even comparable. That's like comparing a space rocket to a catapult That is nonsense. Much of the changes China made were ones that the western countries, and then most others, made already one at a time (some of which did not originally produce expected changes or were dead-ends, but China could operate knowing the correct path). It was more of a case that China knowingly allowed high-pollution practices well past when they were banned in other place, and then ordered changes after the capital benefits were achieved. EG Build themselves large amounts of horrible coal plants and allow home coal fires to acheive rapid growth, than order heavy restrictions on new use once goals had been acheived. If a European country had floated such proposal to rejuvenate economy in their territory in the 90s we would rightfully decry it as unneccesarily pollution. You don't give credit for such a thing, anymore than setting a house on fire and demanding credit for being quick to put it back out. And even yet China has much problems with pollution, not long ago they had much more use of bicycles and much less use of private cars. Even with mass transit expansions and programs, China still has much more vehicle pollution than in recent past. Let alone how China is extremely capitalist of course.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 05:54
|
|
|
Sorry friend but I'm not interested in purchasing a subscription
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 06:40
|
|
|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:That is nonsense. Much of the changes China made were ones that the western countries, and then most others, made already one at a time Say that there was a hypothetical capitalist version of China that did the same thing that you're accusing China of having done. I propose that the incentives of capitalism would prevent this not-China from even getting their green initiative off the ground, which is exactly what's making it so hard to achieve in the US. In 2015 China already had more solar power capacity than any other country on Earth, and in 2 years they tripled it. To achieve that in the US you'd have to accidentally create a deadly supervirus that only targets conservative politicians.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 06:51
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Say that there was a hypothetical capitalist version of China that did the same thing that you're accusing China of having done. I propose that the incentives of capitalism would prevent this not-China from even getting their green initiative off the ground, which is exactly what's making it so hard to achieve in the US. The US, a capitalist country with modest levels of regulatory zeal and government power, managed to pass and enforce sustainability legislation 50 years ago. Your hypothetical capitalist version of China would need to be the laissez-fairiest of laissez-faire shitholes to be flat-out incapable of having a green initiative. The US today is reluctant to go further because there is not enough motivation to actually do anything about climate change until it's too late. Now, you can say that's to a significant part because fossil fuel companies have bought off politicians and spread propaganda about how climate change isn't real, but unless you're positing fully automated luxury gay space communism, the Peoples' Subterranean Energy Resources & Power Department will sure as hell spread their own propaganda and have shady backroom discussions with central committee members 24/7 to maintain their budget, staffing and prestige. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 08:37 on Oct 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 08:33
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
suck my woke dick posted:The US, a capitalist country with modest levels of regulatory zeal and government power, managed to pass and enforce sustainability legislation 50 years ago. Your hypothetical capitalist version of China would need to be the laissez-fairiest of laissez-faire shitholes to be flat-out incapable of having a green initiative. The US right now does not have a green initiative. We can't even get off of our asses to clean up Flint's water supply; no one thinks that's a conspiracy or has a political reason to oppose it, we just don't give a poo poo. "Stock up on bottled water and go gently caress yourselves" basically. We're not a particularly laissez-faire country yet we seem to have infinite inertia when it comes to significant environmental cleanup A country with a command economy has no reason to create separate corporations for different sources of power. Generally you just have The Power Company and it has all kinds of power sources in its portfolio. In China they have two state-owned corporations managing their two electrical grids, and each has a huge portfolio that includes green and dirty sources. You're positing that China couldn't possibly triple their solar capacity, in direct opposition to reality, because of "shady backroom discussions" between central committee members and oil barons that don't exist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 08:57
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:The US right now does not have a green initiative. We can't even get off of our asses to clean up Flint's water supply; no one thinks that's a conspiracy or has a political reason to oppose it, we just don't give a poo poo. "Stock up on bottled water and go gently caress yourselves" basically. We're not a particularly laissez-faire country yet we seem to have infinite inertia when it comes to significant environmental cleanup 1) You're positing that, in Communist!China, people in charge would give a poo poo about Flintzhou's drinking water being contaminated. Again, unless you're assuming fully automated luxury gay space communism, it's more likely that it'll be convenient for mid-level civil servants to sweep the problem under the rug as long as possible. (e: "but that implies the public would be up in arms if Flintzhou's plight came out!" - no, it just assumes that the next administrative level up won't go out of its way to actively investigate reports of "no problems, honest", unless you're positing a state of permanent revolution and most of the population being actively engaged in politics and solidaric activism, which is uhhhh unlikely to happen) 2) Capitalist America managed to give a poo poo 50 years ago so environmental standards improved, Capitalist America doesn't give a poo poo now so environmental standards are declining. It's not that capitalism is unique in preventing people from caring about the environment, it's that it's generally extremely easy not to give a poo poo about the environment, and short term planning in general (whether it be self-enriching or nominally/actually for the common good) will actively discourage giving a poo poo about the environment. Real-world implementations of capitalism aren't built to inherently force people to give a poo poo, but neither are real-world implementations of any non-capitalist economic system that have seen widespread application throughout recorded history. quote:A country with a command economy has no reason to create separate corporations for different sources of power. Generally you just have The Power Company and it has all kinds of power sources in its portfolio. Whether it's "The Coal Department" or "The Coal Unit in The Energy Department" doesn't really matter for that argument, congratulations for missing quote:In China they have two state-owned corporations managing their two electrical grids, and each has a huge portfolio that includes green and dirty sources. You're positing that China couldn't possibly triple their solar capacity, in direct opposition to reality, because of "shady backroom discussions" between central committee members and oil barons that don't exist. China's emissions are still rising, "world's most populous country triples solar panels installations from small per-capita amount to modest per-capita amount" isn't particularly impressive once you take into account the per-capita part, and China starting to become somewhat serious about the environment (in very specific ways) merely shows that national leaders have started giving enough of a poo poo to override special interests/institutional inertia, not that suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 10:31 on Oct 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 10:19
|
|
|
quote:Whether it's "The Coal Department" or "The Coal Unit in The Energy Department" doesn't really matter for that argument, congratulations for missing No I understood your general idea, it's just idiotic and not representative of reality. Again, See: China tripling their solar energy production (which "the coal unit" would oppose) while leveling off their coal usage per year (again, the "coal unit" would oppose this). In fact most of your post is reality-denying nonsense. 50 years ago America improved its environmental standards so the green revolution is surely right around the corner! Any day now we'll elect Jill Stein and enact a carbon tax so big that Al Gore shits himself. Also it's impossible to clean a town's water supply without pure unfettered capitalism (which definitely didn't cause the problem in the first place, no sir)
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 12:16
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Sorry friend but I'm not interested in purchasing a subscription China's emissions have only decreased two of the last nine years. quote:China’s carbon emissions growth has accelerated since the beginning of the year, leading to warnings that the country could be headed for its largest annual increase in climate pollution since 2011.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 13:36
|
|
|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:Unless you have knowledge that the seas are going to jump 100 feet tomorrow morning, that is quite not relevant at all. Several decades are plenty of time to handle changeover and give up toys - for rich countries. Several decades isn't enough time for, in the US example, courts to get past the eminent domain seizures required to do the level of building they'll need, much less actually get it accomplished. And that's assuming it was funded now, not off and on over those decades when a Democrat happens to be in power. Remember, one of our two major parties takes denial of climate change as a platform statement.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 13:55
|
|
|
Liquid Cannibalism posted:Several decades isn't enough time for, in the US example, courts to get past the eminent domain seizures required to do the level of building they'll need, much less actually get it accomplished. And that's assuming it was funded now, not off and on over those decades when a Democrat happens to be in power. And makes active efforts to dismantle and reverse literally everything the other major party does.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 13:57
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Say that there was a hypothetical capitalist version of China that did the same thing that you're accusing China of having done. I propose that the incentives of capitalism would prevent this not-China from even getting their green initiative off the ground, which is exactly what's making it so hard to achieve in the US. What hypothesis? China is a capitalist country. China only bothers to build large amount of solar power after spending recent decades building massive fleet of coal power plants. But also the comparable movement in the US was not able to do so in its time, because commodity solar power was impossible to build back in 50-40 years ago, it was massive more expensive and lower efficiency then. There is also larger discussion to be had where massive growth in itself does not mean much. Do you know what is the Solar percentage of China electricity? It is 6% of China's power. And the comparison is, 53% coal, 22% hydro, 8% wind, 5% natural gas, 2% nuclear, 4% all others. In France, it is 72% nuclear, 10% hydro, 8% gas, 5% wind, 2% solar, 2% coal, 1% others. In America, it is 32% gas, 30% coal, 20% nuclear, 8% hydro, 6% wind, 2% solar, 2% other. In Canada, it is 59% hydro, 15% nuclear, 9% coal, 9% gas, 5% wind, 1% solar, 2% others. So what does this look if we seperate into carbon/non-carbon sources? China: 58% carbon/42% non-carbon France: 11% carbon/89% non-carbon America: 64% carbon/36% non-carbon Canada: 20% carbon/80% non-carbon Hurmh, China's mix is very similar to America, while equally capitalist to America country Canada uses far less polluting sources, and France is even less polluting sources. Looks quite like China is not magic land that fixed carbon emission. Liquid Cannibalism posted:Several decades isn't enough time for, in the US example, courts to get past the eminent domain seizures required to do the level of building they'll need, much less actually get it accomplished. And that's assuming it was funded now, not off and on over those decades when a Democrat happens to be in power. This is bullshit. You seem to talk again about achieving current western all-my-toys economy. I speak of people can get by society. You will sit and be annoyed by using old TV and wearing more expensive clothes in 2050, the family in Bangladesh was killed by global sea rise 20 years prior. Does that reach your level of understanding. I guarentee the wealthy nations will suffer minimal death from the effects outside of specially vulnerable parts like Japan and UK, while the poor world will experience mass deaths.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 19:19
|
|
|
New thread title time? The Retail Collapse of 2018: Does that reach your level of understanding?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 19:53
|
|
|
Retail Collapse of 2018: *slapfighting intensifies*
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 20:11
|
|
|
I think the point is that even for a capitalist country like China it takes uncapitalist action to go green despite hurting the bottom line And to expand on that point, the United States is structurally unable to combat climate change. It would take nothing short of revolution to begin to do the actions necessary to combat climate change
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 20:15
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:I think the point is that even for a capitalist country like China it takes uncapitalist action to go green despite hurting the bottom line China's actions have not been uncapitalist. They care a little bit now because the 2008 Olympics made it look like pollution was a major problem. That and the way Chinese tourists go everywhere with face masks for pollution. What is it about a revolution that would be necessary to combat climate change? Wouldn't a revolution with its attendant breakdown in how people would acquire their day-to-day needs (like energy) be worse for climate change as people move (perhaps temporarily, perhaps not) to ad hoc sources of energy ( which are usually much dirtier )?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 06:29
|
|
|
twerking on the railroad posted:China's actions have not been uncapitalist. They care a little bit now because the 2008 Olympics made it look like pollution was a major problem. That and the way Chinese tourists go everywhere with face masks for pollution. Because capitalists will not stop polluting until they are physically prevented from doing so, and currently they pay everyone with power to allow them to continue polluting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 07:13
|
|
|
Capitalism has one glaring defect: externalities. That's why capitalists will not stop polluting until forced to. There is nothing in a free market that forces a factory owner to realize the cost of polluting the environment. The local peasants can't fight back with free market forces and another owner (who would have the wealth and power to wage market combat) is likely taking advantage of the same ability to externalize costs. It takes violence, whether old fashioned might-makes-right or political agreements and enforcement by a state. Pure market forces never resolve externalities.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 09:53
|
|
|
While the criticism of capitalism as creating perverse incentives to pollute is quite true, communist countries are also noted for their stinking factories and poisoned rivers. Are we talking about “ideal” socialism here, of the kind that might exist after the singularity? Because we kinda need a solution in the next 5 years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 13:18
|
|
|
The point being made is that capitalism won’t come up with solution if we have five minutes, five days, five years, five decades, or five centuries. We need a different system or hundreds of millions of people will die, so arguments about how and what the soviets did will fall on deaf ears because we can make a better system (specifically because we can know what they did and the results) and the current system is slated to prime those in power to accept a loss of life that will dwarf the black death. It was asked earlier in this thread, and should be asked of anyone who defends capitalism, which do you think will be destroyed first, the net worth of Bank of America, or the city of Miami? e: it was asked in the thread I thought I was in, the doomsday econ thread. These two threads have become indistinguishable. Chakan fucked around with this message at 14:08 on Oct 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 13:31
|
|
|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:In France, it is 72% nuclear, 10% hydro, 8% gas, 5% wind, 2% solar, 2% coal, 1% others. In America, it is 32% gas, 30% coal, 20% nuclear, 8% hydro, 6% wind, 2% solar, 2% other. In Canada, it is 59% hydro, 15% nuclear, 9% coal, 9% gas, 5% wind, 1% solar, 2% others. Saying Canada is great at these things is disingenuous, because it just so happens that we had a lot of suitable areas to build hydroelectric plants. In those places where this is not the case, we still use a poo poo ton of carbon-based fuels for power plants. We're moving forward with other renewable sources, particularly wind, but not nearly as much as we could.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 13:35
|
|
|
Chakan posted:The point being made is that capitalism won’t come up with solution if we have five minutes, five days, five years, five decades, or five centuries. Neither will socialism/communism/whateverism, unless there's pressure to force whoever is in charge to care and tell special interests and NIMBY concerns standing in the way of meaningful climate action to piss up a rope. At most, you can make the case that under capitalism you create some level of bias to not care, but it's wishful thinking to assume that [insert favourite variety of not-capitalism here] will put climate concerns on the agenda without also needing to apply similar pressure as would be needed to force a capitalist society to give a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 16:21
|
|
|
anonumos posted:It takes violence, whether old fashioned might-makes-right or political agreements and enforcement by a state. Pure market forces never resolve externalities.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 16:30
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:While the criticism of capitalism as creating perverse incentives to pollute is quite true, communist countries are also noted for their stinking factories and poisoned rivers. As I said, step 1 is Full Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism Now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 16:31
|
|
|
One thing that isn't being addressed by the anti-left dead enders itt is why wouldn't socialism solve climate change. Their logic is that "it won't solve climate change because it won't" Of course a democratic society that prioritizes the needs and wellbeing of the people would take action against climate change. Modern socialists do want to take action against climate change.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 16:59
|
|
|
yeah, there's no large political ideology yet that has commitments to "whole earth"/"unlimited growth is literally impossible" economics because uhh this is the first historical crisis to which such a theory would helpfully apply
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 17:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 15:34 |
|
|
Phi230 posted:One thing that isn't being addressed by the anti-left dead enders itt is why wouldn't socialism solve climate change. Their logic is that "it won't solve climate change because it won't" It's true that right now being further left at least in developed countries is usually associated with better environmental policy, but it's not some kind of ironclad, immutable rule.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 17:12
|
|