|
Cicero posted:No, it's "it wouldn't auto solve climate change because in the past 'full' socialist countries were just as lovely for the environment as capitalist ones". That's been made pretty clear. the ironclad, immutable rule is that capitalist countries are fundamentally incapable of taking meaningful steps to address climate change without ceasing to be capitalist countries. it is not a question of if socialism inherently will fix the problem. the question is if a system inherently opposed to even the concept of fixing the problem can be traded out for one that lacks that flaw.
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 17:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 22:20 |
|
|
anonumos posted: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. There is also not anything that force a state factory to realize cost of polluting the environment. Especially when it comes to carbon/other greenhouse gas production whose effects are global and produce almost no direct local effect from that. It is like you think that the carbon dioxide exhaust is bright green slime that anyone can pass by and see? That it is not so obvious is large part of why it happen. PT6A posted: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. China also has highly favorable terrain for hydro power too, it is why their share of it is so high and pushes them over the edge to better non-carbon production than places like United States. 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. This is so silly, every country being praised for advancing climate solutions is a capitalist country. Or is this that you also are deciding to talk about hypothetical perfect capitalist libertopia that never existed rather than engage with real country? Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:the ironclad, immutable rule is that capitalist countries are fundamentally incapable of taking meaningful steps to address climate change without ceasing to be capitalist countries. So by your standard United States is not capitalist, Canada is not capitalist, Japan is not capitalist, Germany is not capitalist, etc. Who does this standard even leave as capitalist, maybe Venezuela and North Korea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 17:34
|
|
|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:So by your standard United States is not capitalist, Canada is not capitalist, Japan is not capitalist, Germany is not capitalist, etc. Who does this standard even leave as capitalist, maybe Venezuela and North Korea. He said meaningful steps, not a single one of those countries has come anywhere close to making meaningful progress against climate change.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 17:36
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:He said meaningful steps, not a single one of those countries has come anywhere close to making meaningful progress against climate change. Capitalism is neither cause nor solution to this particular issue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 21:48
|
|
|
The over consumption of resources that capitalism thirsts for make it part of the problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 22:00
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:He said meaningful steps, not a single one of those countries has come anywhere close to making meaningful progress against climate change. That is simply not truthful, without useless redefining of "meaningful" that also make it impossible for anything ever to be "meaningful". Are you sophmore enough to believe continuing at same rates we were doing thing in 1950 would not mean radical increased pollution and carbon output in particular compared to now? Perhaps you will post garbage "these 100 company do all the emission" list like some do these days, claim it as evidence for nationalization, and ignore that most top company on it are already nationalized. 😂 Sylink posted:The over consumption of resources that capitalism thirsts for make it part of the problem. Historically, 'socialist' country also over consumes resources. Remember when Aral Sea existed?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 22:06
|
|
|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:This is so silly, every country being praised for advancing climate solutions is a capitalist country. Or is this that you also are deciding to talk about hypothetical perfect capitalist libertopia that never existed rather than engage with real country? Every capitalist country making headway on reducing CO2 emissions is using state-driven solutions, not capitalist solutions. That's the point. There is no economic incentive to combat climate change, governments have to step in and create one (e.g. carbon taxes, huge fines, etc). e: You and a few others in the thread keep getting hung up on the idea that socialism doesn't auto-solve climate change; no one is saying that it does. QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Oct 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 22:33
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Every capitalist country making headway on reducing CO2 emissions is using state-driven solutions, not capitalist solutions. That's the point. There is no economic incentive to combat climate change, governments have to step in and create one (e.g. carbon taxes, huge fines, etc). They're at this point typical bad faith liberals who would rather burn the world than have a fair and equal society
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 22:47
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Every capitalist country making headway on reducing CO2 emissions is using state-driven solutions, not capitalist solutions. That's the point. There is no economic incentive to combat climate change, governments have to step in and create one (e.g. carbon taxes, huge fines, etc). The thing is, you've still got to support the argument that political influence by capitalists is inherently a bigger barrier to solving climate change than every other form of political influence and/or institutional inertia that remains valid under socialism. There is no clear historical evidence to support the ideas that 1) capitalist nations are inherently incapable of taking ~meaningful~ climate action and that 2) socialist/wannabe-communist nations actually make use of their theoretically-greater capacity to account for externalities and reign in destructive activities.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 22:48
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Also goddamnit please stop failing so hard at being socialists, I want more socialism for societal reasons but this line of reasoning is just embarrassing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 22:48
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Every capitalist country making headway on reducing CO2 emissions is using state-driven solutions, not capitalist solutions. That's the point. There is no economic incentive to combat climate change, governments have to step in and create one (e.g. carbon taxes, huge fines, etc). Capitalist governments make capitalist solutions. Your point does not make of sense. Phi230 posted:They're at this point typical bad faith liberals who would rather burn the world than have a fair and equal society What even is this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 22:51
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:I will, once again, ignore that you're implicitly arguing against a strawman fully privatised oligarchic stateless space anarcho-capitalism that has never been tried in the real world. No, I'm arguing that capitalist countries need to invoke non-capitalist solutions in order to combat climate change. I thought that was spelled out very clearly: QuarkJets posted:Every capitalist country making headway on reducing CO2 emissions is using state-driven solutions, not capitalist solutions. That's the point. There is no economic incentive to combat climate change, governments have to step in and create one (e.g. carbon taxes, huge fines, etc). quote:The thing is, you've still got to support the argument that political influence by capitalists is inherently a bigger barrier to solving climate change than every other form of political influence and/or institutional inertia that remains valid under socialism. Again you missed the point, it seems really weird that you could read this sentence and misinterpret it so weirdly: QuarkJets posted:e: You and a few others in the thread keep getting hung up on the idea that socialism doesn't auto-solve climate change; no one is saying that it does. I am not arguing that socialist countries intrinsically fight global warming better, or that everyone becoming socialist will auto-solve global warming. I am arguing (alongside others in the thread making the same argument) that capitalist principles are incapable of fighting global warming.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 22:54
|
|
|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:Capitalist governments make capitalist solutions. Your point does not make of sense. It does, if you understand the role of government in a modern capitalist society. For example enforcing vehicle emission standards is inherently not a capitalist solution but virtually every western country does that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 23:01
|
|
|
IMO this is more about fear among the ruling classes. The advances in the 60s/70s in Western Europe and the US were due to the people reaching their limits and actually protesting & voting. Nixon was the guy that created the EPA because he was fighting for his political life, not because his golf buddies liked the idea. It’s also where (IMO) this grand GOP propaganda campaign about the evils of regulation and how dems like the spotted owl more than the white working man. The rulers USSR didn’t have this same fear, so they didn’t give a poo poo, and the results show. China is more interesting, because the leaders there are scared shitless. They have to improve the economy AND not poo poo all over the environment AND hide a certain amount of corruption. We know that there have been mass demonstrations, this is no doubt a big cause of the new cellphone-wrapped surveillance state as well as the sporadic-but-serious greening campaigns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 23:09
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:No, I'm arguing that capitalist countries need to invoke non-capitalist solutions in order to combat climate change. I thought that was spelled out very clearly: QuarkJets posted:It does, if you understand the role of government in a modern capitalist society. For example enforcing vehicle emission standards is inherently not a capitalist solution but virtually every western country does that. These are not non-capitalist solutions. Who do you think runs government in capitalist country? Your talk seems exactly like libertarian trying to say why taxes are evil. How are these things ordered? It is fines and withholding of tax credits. Options for "trading" other commodities. It is certainly not nationalizations and direct orders to build x things. It seems you have only interest in making up strawman that does not touch on reality. By the text of it, we have no reason to worry of global warming because capitalism was already defeat, and only capitalism ever made problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 23:10
|
|
|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:These are not non-capitalist solutions. Who do you think runs government in capitalist country? Your talk seems exactly like libertarian trying to say why taxes are evil. How are these things ordered? It is fines and withholding of tax credits. Options for "trading" other commodities. It is certainly not nationalizations and direct orders to build x things. Why should anyone itt listen to you after a post like this the capitalism defender has logged on
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 23:21
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Why should anyone itt listen to you after a post like this I really do not understand you. Do you agree with other guy that nothing a government does in a capitalist country is itself capitalism? It would seem that capitalism doesn't even exist, lol.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 23:33
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Every capitalist country making headway on reducing CO2 emissions is using state-driven solutions, not capitalist solutions. That's the point. There is no economic incentive to combat climate change, governments have to step in and create one (e.g. carbon taxes, huge fines, etc). Capitalist countries require the government to apply solutions onto the economy, because capitalism itself will never act to combat climate change. Socialist countries require the government to apply solutions onto the economy, because socialism itself will never act to combat climate change. Communist countries require the government to apply solutions onto the economy, because communism itself will never act to combat climate change.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 00:29
|
|
|
fox new yelled that government regulation is socialism so long and so loud even supporters of government regulation decided that was a thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 00:58
|
|
|
lol at the people in this thread saying that "all the countries currently making progress on lowering carbon emissions aren't using capitalist solutions! They are using cap and trade and carbon taxes!" Cap and Trade and Carbon taxes are explicitly market-based capitalist solutions. They work by incentivizing "good" behavior through increased profit margins.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 06:00
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:They work uhhhhh I got some bad news for you dude
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 06:06
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:uhhhhh I got some bad news for you dude Do you? Because you might want to inform the E.U., Canada, MIT, the U.N. Climate Fund, the IPCC, and Harvard. quote:Putting a price on carbon, in the form of a fee or tax on the use of fossil fuels, coupled with returning the generated revenue to the public in one form or another, can be an effective way to curb emissions of greenhouse gases. That’s one of the conclusions of an extensive analysis of several versions of such proposals, carried out by researchers at MIT and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 06:13
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:lol at the people in this thread saying that "all the countries currently making progress on lowering carbon emissions aren't using capitalist solutions! They are using cap and trade and carbon taxes!" Those are two things being done in a small handful of countries.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 07:42
|
|
|
I think the reason people are saying that we need to transition away from capitalism for this to work is because 'a tax that slowly promotes addressing climate change through profit motives' is not a fast or guaranteed enough way to deal with an issue that gets worse every single second we're not addressing it. When is retail collapsing our walmart just keeps getting bigger
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 08:06
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:I think the reason people are saying that we need to transition away from capitalism for this to work is because 'a tax that slowly promotes addressing climate change through profit motives' is not a fast or guaranteed enough way to deal with an issue that gets worse every single second we're not addressing it. But at its core taking drastic action here is very unpleasant to do and that's where the pushback lies, no matter how necessary it is long-term.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 08:20
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:I think the reason people are saying that we need to transition away from capitalism for this to work is because 'a tax that slowly promotes addressing climate change through profit motives' is not a fast or guaranteed enough way to deal with an issue that gets worse every single second we're not addressing it. I'm perfectly fine with a 101% income tax on all employees that work in NAICS 212100. I think that would do plenty to shut down the coal mining industry.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 08:32
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/cnn/status/1059431606216245249?s=21
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 17:56
|
|
|
Of course they are. I worked for them for about 4 years and during that time there was such a huge cultural shift even in that short time you could tell what was happening. Take for instance: Removing all commission for appliances and commercial sales (most of them anyways), only hiring part time workers, removing department managers altogether, benefits cut back (that was partly due to Obamacare), lowering the amount of assistant managers the store has. They were the big dog at the top for a while and got complacent with their lovely practices and then Home Depot and Ace started to get their poo poo together and encroach.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
And intentionally shrinking your economy to address climate change is just going to encourage other nations to take up the slack and get that profit because they don’t care. You know how in chess the king is never technically captured because the game ends before that happens? The game ends when it is no longer possible to make a legal move. That’s where we are with climate change, we can’t make any moves, so we’re checkmated.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 20:33
|
|
|
skooma512 posted:And intentionally shrinking your economy to address climate change is just going to encourage other nations to take up the slack and get that profit because they don’t care. I watched a TED talk about that very recently. In brief, the speaker basically said that the global economy is incapable of any meaningful change until severe climate change makes it literally impossible (read: less profitable) to continue as such. As spine-chilling as that was to hear, it's absolutely true. The only way that the global order can do anything about it is for everyone to work together, and that will never happen. It's a global "tragedy of the commons" issue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 23:01
|
|
|
Invalid Validation posted:Of course they are. I worked for them for about 4 years and during that time there was such a huge cultural shift even in that short time you could tell what was happening. Take for instance: Removing all commission for appliances and commercial sales (most of them anyways), only hiring part time workers, removing department managers altogether, benefits cut back (that was partly due to Obamacare), lowering the amount of assistant managers the store has. They were the big dog at the top for a while and got complacent with their lovely practices and then Home Depot and Ace started to get their poo poo together and encroach. It's not complacency necessarily, more it's corporate mismanagement due to bad owner directives. Companies exhibiting the cycle you're describing are ones that have reached a glass ceiling for growth, that then start cannibalizing core operations to stop RoI from falling which in turn makes them susceptible to competition.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 23:11
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:I watched a TED talk about that very recently. In brief, the speaker basically said that the global economy is incapable of any meaningful change until severe climate change makes it literally impossible (read: less profitable) to continue as such. As spine-chilling as that was to hear, it's absolutely true. The only way that the global order can do anything about it is for everyone to work together, and that will never happen. It's a global "tragedy of the commons" issue. But it's even worse than that: even if it's actually more profitable for everyone to change behavior, many businesses still won't, and they'll somehow justify to themselves that doing nothing is the more profitable path (either denying that an alternative path is more profitable, or assuming that others will change enough that they'll be able to get away with doing nothing). Markets are irrational.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2018 07:58
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:I watched a TED talk about that very recently. In brief, the speaker basically said that the global economy is incapable of any meaningful change until severe climate change makes it literally impossible (read: less profitable) to continue as such. As spine-chilling as that was to hear, it's absolutely true. The only way that the global order can do anything about it is for everyone to work together, and that will never happen. It's a global "tragedy of the commons" issue. It’s absolutely tragedy of the commons. The best part is that once people really start feeling the pain and are finally ready to get going, it’ll be well past too late. Like, it’s arguably too late now
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2018 08:53
|
|
|
skooma512 posted:It’s absolutely tragedy of the commons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2018 17:08
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:But it's even worse than that: even if it's actually more profitable for everyone to change behavior, many businesses still won't, and they'll somehow justify to themselves that doing nothing is the more profitable path (either denying that an alternative path is more profitable, or assuming that others will change enough that they'll be able to get away with doing nothing). Markets are irrational. I partially disagree with this, Quark. I think that if it were immediately profitable more would be done because it would affect the bottom line, which is all that oligarchs care about. I could maybe see someone like that raving Randian sociopath Charles Koch spiting his face, but he's still a capitalist and I still think that he would most likely take the path of short-term profitability that just happens to be environmentally favourable. Remember, this is the guy who recently came out in favour of Medicare for all. Obviously, he doesn't care in the slightest if people have health care, he just thinks that it will mean more profit for him. Mind you, I am talking about now versus later in terms of profit, and in that case there is no hope. Capitalism has no ability to sacrifice short-term profit for long-term stability, and the only way to ensure that would be for massive, strict global regulation to which everyone was subjected and for which the penalty was for more severe - we all know that that won't happen either. So, things will continue to worsen until it is literally more immediately profitable to change, and not a moment sooner. Remember, the ultra-rich are the most responsible for these problems, but they are also insulated from the outcomes and will not twitch a muscle until it starts to harm them personally.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2018 19:01
|
|
|
Pretty certain the (new) CEO is Marvin Ellison, who was known of his impeccable track record in helping to bury J.C. Penney.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 11:52
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:But it's even worse than that: even if it's actually more profitable for everyone to change behavior, many businesses still won't, and they'll somehow justify to themselves that doing nothing is the more profitable path (either denying that an alternative path is more profitable, or assuming that others will change enough that they'll be able to get away with doing nothing). Markets are irrational. Markets certainly don't act rationally, but the problem with businesses is that acting "rationally" doesn't really mean anything. It's totally rational to act in a way that favors short term gains if the people making those decisions will never have to suffer the long term consequences of their actions, and climate change will literally never be a short term problem. No matter how bad it gets, even if all the cities are already underwater, actions in the here and now will always be about changing things decades into the future.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 15:45
|
|
|
Horseshoe theory posted:Pretty certain the (new) CEO is Marvin Ellison, who was known of his impeccable track record in helping to bury J.C. Penney. Man once you get that C-suite title you can just hop from job to job even if you abjectly suck. I gotta do 15 rounds of interviews but guys like him have a track record that’s beyond public and he still gets hired. I’d say barriers to entry are more borne out of social class than skill.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 17:40
|
|
|
Wasn’t JC Penney doomed long before he took over? Apple guy crushed it and then I think they had a retread there for a little bit. Massive debt they had would lead any company to be in a death spiral no matter what schmuck took over. I assume he sucked anyway though despite joining a lost cause.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 01:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 22:20 |
|
|
Hand Row posted:Wasn’t JC Penney doomed long before he took over? Apple guy crushed it and then I think they had a retread there for a little bit. Massive debt they had would lead any company to be in a death spiral no matter what schmuck took over. Retail executive leadership is mostly in it to sell off assets and make a personal mint, with no intention of rescuing the business.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 06:40
|
|
