Scientists Warn the UN of Capitalism's Imminent Demise (vice.com) 622
Capitalism as we know it is over, an anonymous reader writes. So suggests a new report commissioned by a group of scientists appointed by the UN Secretary-General. From a report: The main reason? We're transitioning rapidly to a radically different global economy, due to our increasingly unsustainable exploitation of the planet's environmental resources. Climate change and species extinctions are accelerating even as societies are experiencing rising inequality, unemployment, slow economic growth, rising debt levels, and impotent governments. Contrary to the way policymakers usually think about these problems, the new report says that these are not really separate crises at all. Rather, these crises are part of the same fundamental transition to a new era characterized by inefficient fossil fuel production and the escalating costs of climate change. Conventional capitalist economic thinking can no longer explain, predict, or solve the workings of the global economy in this new age, the paper says [PDF].
Chicken Warns UN of Sky's Imminent Demise (Score:3, Insightful)
Shit's falling down, brah
Get out of the way. You can thank me later.
- CL
As Accurate as the Summary's Claim... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: As Accurate as the Summary's Claim... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ahhhh the no true scientist fallacy /s
Wrong (Score:3)
Ahhhh the no true scientist fallacy
I think you need to look up the "no true Scotsman" fallacy again. I'm not trying to redefine scientist to exclude people who write such reports I'm pointing out a factual error that, these people themselves, claim to have professions which are not scientist. This is not a logical fallacy but a factual error.
Re: (Score:3)
Only the ones that deal with the planet's resources.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, if they, 'Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science), then they are scientists. This would be tied to biology, cerebral function ie psychopathic capitalism is destroying the planet because it places capital worth over life worth, is must psychopathically destroy it's ability to parasitically survive off it's host, the r
Re: (Score:3)
... then they are scientists.
No they aren't.
This is what scientists do:
1. Form hypothesis
2. Test it with an experiment
3. Publish the result
This what these NON-scientists did:
1. Form hypothesis.
2. Publish it.
The missing step is an important one.
Re: (Score:3)
There is a very strong correlation between how strongly one believes in Anthropogenic Global Warming and political ideology.
I used to get a lot of chuckles when I'd see the warming alarmists saying "there's a correlation between deniers and right-wing politics!"
When they so obviously did not understand that necessarily means there is also a correlation between believers and left-wing politics.
"Scientists" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Scientists" (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, let's take a look...
Paavo Järvensivu - Economic cultural researcher
Tero Toivanen - Political Scientist
Tere Vadén - Philosopher
Ville Lähde - Philosopher and Journalist
Antti Majava - Artist
Jussi T. Eronen - Scientist
So... I guess to answer your specific question, yes, at least some of them are likely applying the scientific method to their research. But I would definitely call this a multi-disciplinary group rather than a group of scientists.
Re: (Score:3)
"yes, at least some of them are likely applying the scientific method to their research"
But that is the crux of the issue: why do you believe that? There is nothing in there that says these people are doing that at all. Is the the term "scientist" or "researcher" that makes you think this? It is just amusing to me how people just assume because someone calls themselves a "researcher" or "scientist" they are actually applying any logic. I am not sure why I am being marked as a "troll" either. It is a valid
Re:"Scientists" (Score:5, Insightful)
Well to you it looks like that condition is, "Do they agree with me or not?"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You do know that the Royal Society was created in Newton's day, right? And the term "scientist" wasn't around for a couple centuries after that?.
Re: (Score:3)
You do know that the Royal Society was created in Newton's day, right? And the term "scientist" wasn't around for a couple centuries after that?.
The foundations of the scientific method were laid by Francis Bacon (1561-1626) influenced by Copernicus (1473-1543) and Galileo.(1564-642).
Newton was born in 1642
Re:"Scientists" ... the scientific method (Score:5, Insightful)
at least some of them are likely applying the scientific method to their research.
Which "method" would that be?
Is it the one where they conduct repeatable experiments?
How about the method where they take quantitative readings of known, agreed, observations and then extrapolate the results?
Maybe it is the method where a group of people have a few beers and bemoan the propspects for the world. Then (after a few more beers) arrive at the conclusion that we're all doomed.
Re:"Scientists" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
3 guys/gals to do the math (Score:5, Interesting)
And it's not even hard to imagine why they're saying all this. Capitalism as we practice it today makes people's lives better by growing faster than the ruling class can monopolize the wealth. Remember the
Their point is we can't keep that up. Climate Change won't let us. We can't "grow ourselves out of a recession" anymore. At some point we're going to need social solutions. That means reigning in what we let the ruling class have/do. It means that the scraps the working class has traditionally been left with, which have been mighty tasty scraps of late, are about to go back to what they used to be; scraps. We either fix that with socialism or we go back to feudalism with kings, queens and knights being the crap out of us peasants.
Re: (Score:3)
The discipline of economics has 'accurately' predicted everything. It has also inaccurately predicted a much larger set of outcomes.
The problem is there is not one 'economics' and politicians pick the ones telling them what they want to hear.
Re: (Score:3)
While this "study" by "scientists" is pretty shaky, to play devil's advocate one should not dismiss something simply on the basis of a person's affiliations either. Especially when this is the affiliation of one person, that appointed a group that actually did the studying. Now, combined with other evidence (I haven't read the paper and don't plan to) this may indeed be a bunch of hand-waving at best. Or it could be a ground-breaking bit of information to be used as a cautionary tale for our future and c
Re: (Score:2)
I guess "scientists" is the new "hackers". Two words that used to mean specialists but are now used to describe any jerk with even a tiny amount of knowledge in the field.
Re:"Scientists" (Score:5, Insightful)
What they *lack* is the same thing astronomers lack: the ability to create and run carefully controlled experiments, especially those that are designed to limit the number of variables as much as possible. True, you can run short term experiments but the real world contains so many damn variables (economic, political, religious, human nature etc) that the sort of small scale experiments that can be run do not model the real world very well.
Re: (Score:3)
Something i feel the complete lack of are scientists trying to create a better system.
People either just stick with capitalism and all it's defects, or try to force a system that was more than proven to not work, the communism.
No one sits down and comes up with a new design and test it with simulations and proofs etc etc etc..
Marx didn't even had computers back then, or as good human behavior knowledge, but now we have those things, yet we don't use em.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Surely these people are now experts in what they just wrote about.
Hah!. Good one.
Re: (Score:3)
The current attack on science is by nonscientists claiming the title to advance an agenda.
Calling them out is _defending_ science, just be consistent, demand raw data. Ignore unsupported conclusions. Especially leftists concluding 'we'll just have to smash capitalism' (or any other group with an _obvious_ agenda).
But.. they're *Scientists!* (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But.. they're *Scientists!* (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But.. they're *Scientists!* (Score:4, Interesting)
As usual, the Star Trek replicator "post-scarcity" world believers ignore how to get there the most quickly, which is the freedom to innovate with free market economics, aided by university research.
If capitalism dies, it will be because of its own success in a world of freedom and free people have moved on, and not because some power hungry snot in government decides for it on its own behalf.
Properly speaking, capitalism is a corollary of freedom, in the economic world.
Re:But.. they're *Scientists!* (Score:5, Insightful)
As usual, the Star Trek replicator "post-scarcity" world believers ignore how to get there the most quickly, which is the freedom to innovate with free market economics, aided by university research.
Marx himself believed that capitalism was necessary before socialism, and that successful socialism could not happen without completing a capitalist phase.
Re:But.. they're *Scientists!* (Score:5, Interesting)
You're talking about free trade, which is not the same as capitalism.
From Wikipedia, take it for what you will, "Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets."
There may have been very small scale capitalist like economies in the distant past, but nothing like what we have today which emerged maybe 500 years ago.
Too many people are ignoring history and definitions in order to promote their own definitions of capitalism and socialism in order to label one of them as evil. If it's one thing you'd expect from engineers and which is always lacking on slashdot is precision.
Re: (Score:3)
Marxism has authoritarianism built right in. All command economies do.
Unfixable. The violence comes from the corruption which comes from the power which is just too centralized.
Re:But.. they're *Scientists!* (Score:5, Interesting)
As usual, the Star Trek replicator "post-scarcity" world believers ignore how to get there the most quickly, which is the freedom to innovate with free market economics, aided by university research.
If capitalism dies, it will be because of its own success in a world of freedom and free people have moved on, and not because some power hungry snot in government decides for it on its own behalf.
Properly speaking, capitalism is a corollary of freedom, in the economic world.
I dont think anyone disagrees. Free-market capitalism is great. It is a bit like natural selection. You get very robust and successful specimens out of the process.
The problem is that just like natural selection, shit can get a bit out of control. The old animals don't simply move over and let the new animals in. The world has to burn a bit. You get malthusian collapses and periods of starvation. Everything eventually settles down and equilibrium is reached(after a few hundred generations), but it isn't a smooth transition.
Also, just like natural selection, stuff gets completely out of control if you pump unlimited resources into an environment. Imagine you had an aquarium, and you started pumping it full of fish food. The fish aren't simply going to eat until they are full and then allow the other animals to thrive. The larger fish will gourge themselves. Some of them will gourge themselves to death if you aren't careful. They will grow huge. They will still attack all of the smaller fish that they can now fit in their mouth. It won't be because of any need for food, rather it will be a basic predatory instinct. They will use their new size to dominate the fish tank. Even with the unlimited food supply, they will still be attacking all of the other organisms in the aquarium. They will pick the aquarium clean, until you have nothing in the tank but a few massive fish. The massive fish wont even be able to swim.
No one is saying that natural selection/free-market is bad. In fact, it is very good. Evolutionary algorithms are some of the best in the world to solve difficult computer problems. The issue is that they are messy. They are incredibly messy. They will require many generations of destruction to reach equilibrium. That is fine if we are talking about bits of data. It can be a bit more dubious if we are talking about human lives. They also frequently come up with solutions which are very counter-intuitive and downright cruel. Once again, not so bad in some realms. Awful when discussing human beings. The solution to the problem is to keep some hand on the system and make sure that the experiment of the free-market doesn't get too crazy. We don't want 5-year-olds working in mines or people being sold as slaves, both of which are free-market solutions.
You can debate how much 'regulation' you want on that experiment, but don't pretend for a second you want a completely unregulated free market. I can promise you that a world without regulation would be very messy and very ugly. After a few thousand years, it might settle down, but in the meantime many millions of people would suffer. So the real debate is only how tightly you want to rein in the experiment.
Now, as far as a post-scarcity world:
You want to get there more quickly? Why?
We have no idea how to handle that transition and the transition will be ugly as fuck. Lets be honest, we are pretty much already to a post-scarcity world.
Right now, the total energy cost to build a solar power plant is less than the output of the solar power plant. What does that mean?
Hypothetically I could build a 1 MW solar plant, and then exclusively energy from that solar plant over the next 30 years to build a 1.2 MW plant. That would include the mining, refining, fabrication, feeding the workers, harvesting their food, etc.
Unfortunately, the gains are pretty minimal and without an energy market it doesn't quite work out right now. However, we are on the precipice of a world where energy is basically just limited to how muc
Re:But.. they're *Scientists!* (Score:5, Insightful)
With natural selection you never really get to settle down and have equilibrium. It only looks that way when you look at relatively short periods of time.
You can't even point to periods of time of more than a century where the free market was relatively stable. We are most definitely still in the early experimentation phase of capitalism.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'd just like to point out that what we have in the US isn't capitalism. It's much closer to corporatism [slashdot.org]. In true capitalism, the government is present only to enforce contract law. In our current system, government is deeply entangled in virtually every aspect of business. Sorry, not capitalism.
Re: (Score:3)
It's more that certain businesses are deeply entangled in virtually every aspect of government.
Re: (Score:3)
Did you spot the incumbency bias in your own words?
Because what they are arguing against (the glorious status quo) surely also has a dollop of confirmation bias baked in.
No person has ever been so impartial as to have been calibrated to neutral in all dimensions of human conflict simultaneously. Being calibrated to neutral in any small domain (or close to it) is a remarkable human achievement. Many scienti
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This has never been a good answer because under capitalism the capitalists have been in fact, Greedy, Self-Interested, and Power-Hungry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:But.. they're *Scientists!* (Score:5, Insightful)
Your problem is there are people on this site that lived through it, plus many more directly descended from those that lived through it.
Your lie might work in another 100 years, until then, fuck right off.
Re: But.. they're *Scientists!* (Score:3)
Socialism end in one way. A few with power, thinking the answer to all the problems is more socialism.
Capitalism is about freedom.
Now it has its problema too, i.e. when governmenta have powers they will curry favors, i.e. crony capitalism.
All in all though, free markets are the only creators of wealth, full stop. Every other type of economy leads to failure.
Re:But.. they're *Scientists!* (Score:5, Insightful)
False dichotomy. There is a middle ground between state-run planned economy and corporation run governments.
Re: (Score:3)
I am thinking of the revolutions of 1848, in which almost every country in Europe had some sort of violent uprising. The reasons for this were mostly because of many of the same issues we in the west are dealing with now.
When the wealthiest parts of society control the levers of power, and give themselves exemptions from the costs of running society, there will be trouble.
I could see a time where th
Re: (Score:2)
"Objective Fact", right.
Re: (Score:3)
And the highest standards of living in the capitalist west is not in the USA either. The highest standards of living in the west tend to be those countries that mix in more social aspects to the government. So maybe the answer isn't either pure capitalism or pure socialism (or other isms).
Standard of living seems an odd measurement though. Just before the USSR fell, it had a higher standard of living in most places than existed one hundred years previously. Remember that the Russian revolution occured b
Re: (Score:3)
Now we know you're fucking crazy.
Greece and Rome...so you're in favor of Athenian democracy or Roman politics...Who will take the role of Praetorian guards? You know the group you have to bribe to become Emperor.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nordic capitalism works pretty well [amazon.com]. It's called Social Democracy; people today want to run to Democratic Socialism.
I've extended some of the basics to achieve stronger economic stability and growth with lower taxes. The Nordics use huge social welfare systems as an economic support and a household support; I split those two duties between two specifically-designed systems, with the main economic support being a foundation and the rest built on top. We should be able to provide stronger welfare and soc
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sorry but this is not true by any means. I'm living under the so-called social democracy of Sweden. Which is a joke as our social welfare is based on a lie... a big lie!
It is nothing but a Ponzi-scheme on a country scale and as soon as something goes horribly wrong, as it often does, we only raise taxes to cover the huge holes in the budget. The economy is only working if all current costs including pensions etc are paid through the taxes of the workers and they are getting fewer by the minute. That gives u
Actually untrue for most tax payer (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Every Libertarian with whom I've had such a discussion has mostly convinced me that he doesn't actually understand his worship words. My sig is actually a kind of key, but I'll go ahead and include the longer version (but still somewhat constrained by Slashdot font restrictions):
#1 Freedom = (Meaningful + Truthful - Coerced) Choice{~5} != (Beer^4 | Speech | Trade)
I bet I could do at least 18 minutes TED-style on it, but I doubt you can figure out any of it. The typical Libertarian tends to get especially co
First, let me say: What a crock of B.S.!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you telling me that struggles with climate change, scarcity of natural resources and so on will just vanish into thin air by embracing Socialism or perhaps a Fascist dictatorship, or Communist rule? These issues somehow ONLY cause problems for people living in Capitalist systems?
I've got some news for the Capitalist haters out there .... The majority of innovations in technology that will help the whole planet transition to cleaner forms of energy, and possibly even mitigate some of the climate change issues are being developed in Capitalist America.
If the American Capitalist system fails, it won't be for any of these reasons. It'll simply be due to our leaders constantly increasing the levels of our national debt, in efforts to extend and expand the role of central government into all sorts of areas it was never originally intended to get that involved with. The nation only generates so much wealth each year, and it's a recipe for disaster to keep spending more than what's sustainable.
Re: (Score:2)
This view that we can just tech ourselves out of everything when our governmental and economic systems are based around infinite growth on a planet with pretty distinctly finite resources is always a wonder to see.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you telling me that struggles with climate change, scarcity of natural resources and so on will just vanish into thin air by embracing Capitalism? No?
The majority of innovations in technology that will help the whole planet transition to cleaner forms of energy, and possibly even mitigate some of the climate change issues are being developed all over the world, in partnership with public (ie, mostly government) and private funding.
If the American Capitalist system fails, it won't be for any of these re
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I'll believe capitalism is over as soon as NetCraft confirms it.
The few places in the world that sort of do socialism and aren't cesspits of starvation and misery couldn't exist without the economic dynamo of capitalist systems like the United States. This article sounds more like wishful thinking by people who have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to economics.
The real gist of the article is that energy is becoming more expensive as fossil fuels start to run out, which is not news. How th
Re:First, let me say: What a crock of B.S.!! (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you telling me that struggles with climate change, scarcity of natural resources and so on will just vanish into thin air by embracing Socialism or perhaps a Fascist dictatorship, or Communist rule? These issues somehow ONLY cause problems for people living in Capitalist systems?
I think what they are suggesting is that unregulated/ill regulated capitalism is a serious problem because it doesn't act in the best interest of the people. However, socialism is intended to be directed to benefit society.
Do note, fascist dictatorships are not mutually exclusive to capitalistic economies and democracies are not mutually exclusive to social economies.
The majority of innovations in technology that will help the whole planet transition to cleaner forms of energy, and possibly even mitigate some of the climate change issues are being developed in Capitalist America.
I agree. However, the reason for this isn't because "capitalism will solve all the problems!" Instead, it's because a tax will eventually get applied to pollution output and thus there will be an economic incentive to pollute less. Until we use regulation to incentivize reducing and removing pollution from the environment, capitalism will continue to plunder the environment.
Regulation and taxation is the solution, not the problem.
If the American Capitalist system fails, it won't be for any of these reasons. It'll simply be due to our leaders constantly increasing the levels of our national debt, in efforts to extend and expand the role of central government into all sorts of areas it was never originally intended to get that involved with.
It would be more accurate to say it will be due to massively regressive taxation and the ever growing military industrial complex.
The nation only generates so much wealth each year, and it's a recipe for disaster to keep spending more than what's sustainable.
Agreed. If you are going to spend more money than you have then you need to raise taxes. The magical thinking that you can cut taxes and spend more is just absurdism.
Re:First, let me say: What a crock of B.S.!! (Score:5, Insightful)
In short, according to Grantham, “we face a form of capitalism that has hardened its focus to short-term profit maximization with little or no apparent interest in social good.”
..which is 100% correct. "Profits above all else". The Rich get richer, The Poor get poorer, the Middle Class disappears, replaced with an ever-widening gulf between The Rich and The Poor (which then includes what used to be the Middle Class), and essentially no way to bridge the gap. We're already seeing this happen. There's other dangerous signs: barriers to ownership of things like homes or vehicles, with ownership replaced by perpetual renting. Home Owners Associations with the power to literally steal someone's self-owned home out from under them. Even things as seemingly innocuous as 'streaming' media services, 'cloud' services, and even e-books, which discourage owning of what used to be common things, and encouraging a perpetual cycle of monthly payments. Payday lending practices that amount to loan sharking. Predatory lending practices by major banks. Even something like the privatization of the prison system, which seems like it's entirely out of left field, plays a part in this. Left on the course it's set for itself, we may end up in a feudalism-like civilization. Maybe you personally don't think you're feeling any of this yet, but you will.
Re: (Score:3)
I think, more to the point, is that Socialism, Communism and dictatorships have been all shown to be WORSE for the environment. Either you fall into the Tragedy of the Commons or the leaders just don't care about the environment because it really won't affect THEM (just the masses, and who cares about them.)
Capitalism cares about earning money. If the fines and consequences of environmental pollution and resource depletion are sufficient, then Capitalism will work within those constraints and be more effect
Re:First, let me say: What a crock of B.S.!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you telling me that struggles with climate change, scarcity of natural resources and so on will just vanish into thin air by embracing Socialism or perhaps a Fascist dictatorship, or Communist rule?
No one is telling you that (save for the click-baity slashdot headline). The article itself boils down to this:
1. Economies are changing to less energy-efficient energy sources for the first time in history (I assume that means wind+solar+hydro), which will disrupt things. The economic models used by governments and industry have traditionally assumed energy abundance, which is becoming a poor assumption.
2. Sink costs are rising - economic growth used to be straightforward with profligate use of energy, use of materials, creation of waste, will become less possible.
3. The models are fine at handling slow incremental changes, but we'll likely see more dramatic changes than they'll be good at handling.
4. Carbon pricing hasn't worked very well and doesn't seem likely to work in future.
5. Post-Keynesian models about the relationship between the state and the free market will give different predictions and metrics-for-success compared to neoclassical economic models. All of them still boil down to free markets with government tweaks+nudges of course.
6. The article sort of tails off into more or less wishing the whole world were like Finland - not surprising given the authors and the paper are from Finland.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, dear Anonymous Coward... you seem totally trustworthy and benevolent... so... you've got my vote. Oh wait. We don't vote on this right? How do we pick a benevolent leader if we don't vote? I'm so confused... SOMEBODY PLEASE TELL ME WHAT TO DO!!!
Re: First, let me say: What a crock of B.S.!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Please inform us, O wise one, when last century spent a hundred years running well over 200 large-scale experiments showing a strong corollation between economic freedom and its corollary, capitalism, and general technological advancment and wealth generation for the average citizen.
The U.N.? (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing the U.N. produces is worth anything outside of political agendas.
Re:The U.N.? (Score:5, Insightful)
The good news? (Score:2)
With sufficient climate change, the demand for resources will fall enough that there should be plenty left for the survivors. /s
"Science" (Score:2, Insightful)
These developing countries do not need to begin by dismantling the fossil-fuelled infrastructure that has provided a range of low-cost production and consumption opportunities in rich countries for decades.
This would require economic thinking that enables large public investment programs on the one hand and strong regulation and environmental caps on the other.
Same old leftist/establishment group think, now new and improved with added Scientists!
Stay tuned; next week we'll have headlines about how "science" isn't universally trusted as impartial and what a terrible shame that is.
How do we relinquish sovereignty to be safe?! (Score:2, Insightful)
[SARCASM] How do we give up our rights as sovereign nations in order to have 1 ruler care for us and the environment?! [/SARCASM]
Forms of Government will Change (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalism is the worst economic system... (Score:5, Insightful)
...except for all the rest. Or, at least, that's how the saying goes.
Given that capitalism is fundamentally based on an assumption of greed, which seems to be a fairly consistent trait among humans, it has functioned remarkably well up to this point. But given enough time and not enough regulation, it's inevitable that the greed of some will outpace that of others, resulting in the system approaching a state where wealth has accumulated in the hands of a few, as well as that those who (or that which) are less capable of defending themselves will inevitably be exploited by those who are more capable. For us, that means the exploitation of the middle-class, the lower-class, and the things we share with the wealthy, such as our shared natural resources. Unsurprisingly, this sort of exploitation is exactly what we're seeing happen on a more and more frequent basis.
I think parts of the US are slowly waking up to that fact, but a cultural awakening of this sort usually takes decades or generations to complete. We're just starting to recognize the problem. It'll be decades more before we're willing to fix it. And, at least in the case of the US, the necessary changes will almost certainly require changes to the Constitution, but we won't be able to make those changes until the people are demanding those changes en masse, and we're nowhere close to that point yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe it's a given to *you* but it's not for everyone else. I see it as fundamentally based on people reaching a mutually agreed upon exchange. You **don't have to work for or sell anything to anyone**. Except, of course, in Marxist or Socialist systems.
Check out Venezuela. Apparent
Re: (Score:3)
True. Just look at Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, Tom Steyer, and all the other crony capitalists and their political lackeys. And those are the people you want to put in charge.
I do? I've never voted for a single one of them at any level, and I encouraged others to vote against at least two of those people. You may have read something into what I wrote that wasn't there, since I agree that crony capitalism is bad and will gladly condemn those who practice it, regardless of whether they have an R or D next to their name.
It is those freedoms you want to destroy.
I think you've misread my observation of flaws in our current system as an advocacy for some other system. Take what I wrote at face value, rather than assuming mot
Yeah they are. (Score:2)
Energy and Free Market. (Score:3)
The problem is the energy and agriculture sector is so far apart from the free market.
There is so much government subsidies to energy that it makes it more affordable vs the true cost.
True Capitalism would let countries die from starvation and freezing to death, because the supply and cost of materials to survive would exceed the wages of the business, due to excessive human supply.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now we just need to start educating people on what a social democracy actually is, since we've let thinktank dipshits say everything but rampant laissez faire capitalism means the government just take's everyone's stuff.
You're already living in a relatively fascist society thanks to the right and centrist liberals. You're spied on, can be disappeared with no trial for any reason someone can just make up, the cops can just shoot you dead for any reason they feel like any get away with it about 90% of the time, capital is working on basically owning the IDEA of ideas, and if you're not the top 0.0001% every system is made to deny you any sort of help and funnel your money to said 0.0001%.
I think maybe kicking these people out for people who maybe, possibly think you deserve an ounce of dignity if you're not ultra-rich isn't really that crazy. Yeah- they're all wholly corruptible as any of us but that's not really an excuse for inaction.
Bugs in the implementation of capitalism (Score:3)
We have perverse incentives, where even the real estate agent and health insurance company that should be working for you have a vested interest in maximizing what you pay someone else because it raises the dollar amount of their fixed percentage profit. And never mind that it might be tens of thousands of dollars out of your pocket to get them a couple extra hundred. We can also count un-serviceable consumer electronics and really any product where "planned obsolescence" is a factor.
Moral hazards, where folks who know that someone else will bear the cost of a loss do nothing to mitigate the loss (know anyone who's diabetic that doesn't eat right because they've got insurance that'll cover treating the resulting problems?)â" or even act to cause a covered loss because they've got an angle where they can profit from it. See also any company that knows it's "too big to fail" and any company that's managed to protect it's financials, HR records, and trade secrets while having their customers' data liberated.
And finally, the tragedy of the commons, where common resources are monopolized, damaged, or destroyed for the profit of a select few. Here we have oil spills fracking, water pollution, industrial air pollution, etc.
The problem isn't capitalism. It's that we live in such a hyper-competitive world that old niches are disappearing and it's a struggle to find new ones where we can add value to earn an honest buck and get a decent standard of living. For some it's easier to find and exploit flaws in the system to make a great profit while fob off the actual costs on "the other guy."
what about the report on student loans? or is usa (Score:2)
what about the report on student loans? or is usa only not fitting into the USA plans.
Busted.... (Score:3, Interesting)
So... Capitalism is the problem...
All of those extremists that said Global Warming was a proxy for Socialist Communist totalitarianism... were right ?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with socialists is that the solution to every problem is more socialism, including the problem of too much socialism. My litmus test for taking global warming seriously was the day someone suggests a solution that isn't just "muh socialism".
Who woulda thought ... (Score:2)
that a Marxist front organization doesn't think Capitalism will last?
thanks for being honest (Score:2)
Thanks for being honest: the UN is just using climate change as a tool to push socialist/fascist economic ideas.
Thanks, but no thanks. Civilization can easily deal with 2-5C global warming; civilization cannot survive the kind of totalitarian system these peop
makes sense why they could not explain (Score:3, Insightful)
THis is about as stupid as reading the far right scream that AGW is not real, and few of those claiming it, have even a degree in Climate, and most are not even scientists.
Now, with that said, much of what they claim is factual. The environment is being heavily polluted all around. Worst yet, we have boneheads all over claiming that we must allow large portions of the population to pollute, while claiming that a small portion drop to zero (so foolish).
Then they go on to point out how little energy comes on the AE side. Basically, we CAN/SHOULD get energy from wind/solar/hydro/etc BUT, it can/should not be the main sources. Oddly, the one source that can be cheap, is nuclear power and yet, they ignore it.
Without nuclear power, the globe IS in for SERIOUS trouble. We need to STOP ALL building out of new fossil fuel, esp. coal, plants. At its best, coal remains a disaster.
Re: (Score:3)
None of them are economists. They are biological/environmental scientists. THis is about as stupid as reading the far right scream that AGW is not real, and few of those claiming it, have even a degree in Climate, and most are not even scientists. Now, with that said, much of what they claim is factual. The environment is being heavily polluted all around. Worst yet, we have boneheads all over claiming that , while claiming (so foolish).
Which boneheads are claiming that "we must allow large portions of the population to pollute" Windy?
Who is also claiming "that a small portion drop to zero"?
Are you hinting at all the people pointing out that it's hypocritical to complain about people who are emitting only a fraction of what you do. Asking you to cut back a bit?
Seems a bit disingenuous doesn't it.
Then they go on to point out how little energy comes on the AE side. Basically, we CAN/SHOULD get energy from wind/solar/hydro/etc BUT, it can/should not be the main sources.
Why? Why shouldn't wind/solar/hydro etc be the main sources? Wouldn't that basically solve CO2?
Oddly, the one source that can be cheap, is nuclear power and yet, they ignore it.
Too cheap to meter! Wait right here, let me get
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Did you not read the paper? The problem with AE as well as fossil fuels today, is that for the energy put in, does not have a great ROI. IOW, back in the late 1800s, pop in a pipe in the wrong place about 10' in the ground and you got massive amounts of oil. Now, we have to go down 1000x further, pump large amounts of water and other elements into the ground to open up
Re: (Score:3)
The problem in a sandbox is better seen in Europe where the Euro is building tensions rather than relieving them. Earlier it was Greece that was the problem, now Italy is sailing up as the next big problem with a debt of 130% of the GDP.
Virtual currencies like Dogecoin, Bitcoin, Monero etc. with no actual backing at all will be like ping-pong balls in a hurricane, flying all over the place rendering some people winners and others losers.
Re: (Score:3)
> The $20,000 luxury car has now turned into a $50,000 subcompact.
You are confusing the United States with Denmark. I bought my last truck for less than $20K.
This kind of deranged hysterical bullshit just makes you look like you've never bought a car for yourself ever in your life and still live in your mother's basement.
It's like you are confusing bad Facebook memes with real life.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Even _if_ command economies worked, they would still put too much power in the hands of those in command and inevitably lead to totalitarianism. Power corrupts.
Congratulations, you now know the key, unfixable, flaw in socialism and can get on with your life.
Krugman is a moron, there are no Keynesians. Keynesians save during good times. There are just deficit spenders with an excuse: 'Keynesians'.
There is no Nobel Prize in economics. Economists just made one up to lend themselves credibility. Next: 'N
Re: (Score:3)
Scientists know EVERYTHING! (Score:3, Interesting)
I hope they wore their white lab coats.
Re:Scientists know EVERYTHING! (Score:4, Interesting)
What kind of scientists are experts on social and government construct, and associated economics? Political scientists?
I hope they wore their white lab coats.
Not sure why this is modded "flamebait", it's a legit point. Climate scientists stay out of politics if they want to retain credibility (as most do). Are these economists, to talk about needed future economic models? We don't usually call economists "scientists", but at least that would be the right discipline.
As summarized, this looks like a naked power grab by somebody, presumably the dictator of a UN member state, looking to nationalize his country's oil industry "for the good of the climate".
Re: (Score:3)
My point is, climate scientists can legitimately be termed "scientists", but have no expertise on economics or politics, while people who's discipline is economics or politics aren't usually called "scientists".
Re: (Score:3)
It's obvious that a number of participants in this thread—including the author of the parent—do not know what the word "science" actually means.
Re:Scientists? (Score:5, Informative)
Can someone tell me which hypothesis they tested and what data set they used to draw these conclusions.
The paper [bios.fi] presents the hypothesis that private sector activity alone or even a carbon emission tax will suffice to transform human society to sustain itself. Then it cites previously published articles to refute this hypothesis.
Re:put you in chains -- do you want freedom? (Score:3, Interesting)
From what? Do you really live in the illusion you get to choose? Did you choose where you were born? Who your parents were/ are? The language you speak first?
Did you choose education you were given?
There are only two rationally sustainable world views on freedom:
1) Freedom exists as a gift , granted to us by a transcendent and absolute truth which is also a will or a being and is the cause of the physical forces and the whole universe as well as all ethical and moral principles.
We are free in as much as we
Re: (Score:3)
There are only two rationally sustainable world views on freedom:
1) Freedom exists as a gift , granted to us by a transcendent and absolute truth which is also a will or a being and is the cause of the physical forces and the whole universe as well as all ethical and moral principles.
OR
2) freedom is an illusion , all human beings are simply the composite of their environment and genetics absolute truth does not exist ( or is unknowable) and personal desires of a human being no more or less important then those of an ape or an elephant.
This is a false dichotomy. There could be a deity, and it could be the case that said deity does not grant free will to us (as the Calvinists believe, in essence). It could also be the case that no divine beings exist, but we are self-directed agents. The universe is nondeterministic.
Re: (Score:3)
First of all - it is clear that there are more than your two original options, which I will summarize as 1. We have freedom and a god, and 2. We have no freedom and no god. It is certainly the case that we might have 1b. We have no freedom AND a god. This is the Calvinist doctrine of predestination.
On the second statement - the question here is really about the definition of freedom. I tend to be an empiricist, and so for me a useful definition of this property called "freedom" would allow us to detect its