Man I am kinda sorry, that I invade your worldview.
But rich people don’t have all their money stored in a vault like Dagobert Duck. It’s all stocks.
And boy, if one of the companies make losses, then their money goes downhill. It’s volatile.
And due to immense concurrence in innovation in the tech sector, every investor has a huge interest in innovation.
And with many investment, the start of a company is ensured.
The current capitalism is the system that works best.
Especially the US capitalism is one hell of a driver in innovation.
I live in Germany and many companies wouldn’t be possible here. Even though we have capitalism, it’s much softer than its US counterpart.
The downside of course is poverty for cheaper labour.
And that’s brutal, but it’s the reality we live in.
Though I wouldn’t want to live in the US without healthcare, on the counter side I wouldn’t want to start a company here in Europe.
UserDoesNotExist, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this website is now dumber for having read it. I award you one downvote, and may God have mercy on your soul.
My dude, your argument boils down to “this is the way we’ve always done it so this is the way it must be”.
Have you considered the possibility that if innovation were to slow, and companies DIDN’T insist on quarter-after-quarter growth, the world might just continue to turn? That while the richest individuals may be slightly less rich, the vast majority of people would continue their lives with no negative consequences?
My dude, your argument boils down to “this is the way we’ve always done it so this is the way it must be”.
But we haven’t done this always. As humans we have tried different attempts. Socialism, communism, monarchy, feudalism, democracy, capitalism, social capitalism, anarchism,…
And here we are now. After all those experiments.
Have you considered the possibility that if innovation were to slow, and companies DIDN’T insist on quarter-after-quarter growth, the world might just continue to turn?
But we humans are not made to chill. We need to advance as fast as possible. My parents and their generation did so. We now have AI becoming increasingly popular. And sooner or later I will hopefully have children. So I have to do my part, that the lives my kin will be better than mine. Better medical tech, better education, better transport, better tech,…
Of course the world would continue to turn.
That while the richest individuals may be slightly less rich, the vast majority of people would continue their lives with no negative consequences?
I don’t understand why you always believe that if the rich were less rich, that anything would change. It would not.
Have you considered that this too might be an ‘experiment’?
Defenders of monarchy and the divine right of kings used to argue the exact same thing - that we tried democracy before and it failed in the Roman Republic and Ancient Greece - so clearly feudal monarchy is the best, right?
Yet here we are, experimenting again.
Why is this joke of a system the ideal? It doesn’t produce innovation - most of the stuff that led to the internet and modern computing came out of DARPA and various govt funded universities. All of our space advancements were from state-run NASA and the Soviet space programme. The wealthy CEO types only start ‘innovating’ after taxpayers fund most of the R&D. Same with medical advancements, material science, physics - almost every single positive innovation has come from state-run, taxpayer-funded, or non-profit institutions.
Maybe try reading a little bit more about all this innovation you seem so fond of:
Have you considered that this too might be an ‘experiment’?
Yes. It very well might be.
But todays world is so strongly interwoven. Tons of conflicts are constantly challenging the system. And it has yet to break.
The final test will be the sudden termination of economic growth. This will be the point, where it will be shows how resilient capitalism rly is.
Defenders of monarchy and the divine right of kings used to argue the exact same thing - that we tried democracy before and it failed in the Roman Republic and Ancient Greece - so clearly feudal monarchy is the best, right?
Tell me which system to try next. But pls don’t suggest to repeat another one again.
Yet here we are, experimenting again.
And that’s a good thing.
Why is this joke of a system the ideal? It doesn’t produce innovation - most of the stuff that led to the internet and modern computing came out of DARPA and various govt funded universities.
That was maybe the start. But big companies managed to elevate the importance to another level.
The complexity of everything was reinforced and elevated drastically, driven by private companies.
Just take a look at AI at this point.
AI is innovation, mainly driven by private companies.
All of our space advancements were from state-run NASA and the Soviet space programme.
Because most of it was useless. What kind of innovation did. space exploration bring to humans?
The wealthy CEO types only start ‘innovating’ after taxpayers fund most of the R&D.
As I already stated, this is not the case. Especially pharma, medical and IT is heavily driven by big corporations.
Basic research on the other hand, there you are right. As it usually does not feature real world appliances, means that it’s mostly founded by tax payers and the government.
Same with medical advancements,
Especially medical innovation is heavily driven from the private sector. Pharmaceuticals as well. There is not much involvement of any government or tax payer.
material science, physics - almost every single positive innovation has come from state-run, taxpayer-funded, or non-profit institutions.
But as I said, mostly for the basic research. Without much interest in application.
None of those links are about Chemistry or Physics. The demos link is Economics, The Entrepreneurial State. The youtube link is about the history of the internet. Maybe try learning something that isn’t STEM. Might broaden your way of thinking.
I’ll respond to the rest of your comment later, although I’m not sure I want to anymore since you clearly have no interest in taking into account new information.
Also how the fuck can you be interested in technology and say something like this:
Because most of it was useless. What kind of innovation did. space exploration bring to humans?
If you know anything about any science you should know how stupid of a point this is
And sooner or later I will hopefully have children.
And when the average summer day is 60c and crops fail every single year, and Nestle has taken half our drinking water, and the smoke in the air from wildfires is giving everyone asthma, and deadly storms happen year round, and the coasts erode, and wars break out for the remaining water/etc, what will you tell them? Will you tell them to look at the brilliant ‘innovator’ CEO’s who intentionally shut down electric cars? The CEO’s who found out climate change was happening sixty years ago and intentionally hid it to keep themselves rich, what do you tell your kids about that?
What innovation is worth your children dying early?
I don’t believe that those scenarios are that plausible.
Here is south Germany, the climate change has led to mediterran plants growing here. The plant life for the climate already exist. And they are spreading (olives don’t make it through the winter yet).
Change is happening, but adapting to it is possible. And solutions for adaptation do not have to be invented, because they already exist.
I don’t believe that those scenarios are that plausible.
lol i think they said the same thing about the Titanic sinking. also the submarine guy said the same thing about it imploding.
Hmm 🤔
also all evidence that’s not conservative propaganda points to us hitting the worst possible outcomes when it comes to climate change. Read the IPCC reports and the worst case scenarios listed within. That’s what’s going to happen over the next ~40 years
You know, as a member of the SSBN force, occasionally during thermonuclear launch exercises I take a moment to regret the death of humanity and the biosphere. People like you, on the other hand, are what steels my resolve to flip the switch with gusto. I hope you know that I’ll be thinking of you, should I receive the order to commence procedures to launch.
Shipmate, I am a Navigation Electronic Technician First Class Petty Officer, fully qualified in both submarines and in my rating. I have been on five strategic alert deterrent patrols over the last three years. I’ve been through fires, flooding, and steam line ruptures. When we set condition 1SQ for Strategic Launch during WSRT, I was the one at the consoles conducting the procedures to do so. I’ve been a helmsman, planesman, Strategic Navigation Technician, and Quartermaster of the Watch.
Of course I wouldn’t have internet while submerged or at sea. Have you ever heard of in-port periods?
Fragile personality or not, I’m the sailor at the switch. What have you done with your life, shipmate?
Do you not understand the system at live in is actively dooming us all? Why are you so vehemently defending it? Especially when you can acknowledge that other systems can exist?
Why would you think that companies going bankrupt is somehow worse than people being increasingly unable to live.
Do you not understand the system at live in is actively dooming us all?
I don’t think that it is dooming us. I cannot imagine a system that would lead to more freedom, better education or innovation.
Why are you so vehemently defending it? Especially when you can acknowledge that other systems can exist?
Even though I acknowledge that other systems have been tried in the past, I also believe that all of them, except capitalism with a few social tweaks, have failed.
Why would you think that companies going bankrupt is somehow worse than people being increasingly unable to live.
Because tons of lives are also depending on the company to keep on running.
Making some people’s lives worse will probably not fix the problems of others.
Instead the people that are in need of betterment must get a tailored solution. Tailored towards them without the need to completely overhaul a working system.
I cannot imagine a system that would lead to more freedom, better education or innovation.
LOL.
Even though I acknowledge that other systems have been tried in the past, I also believe that all of them, except capitalism with a few social tweaks, have failed.
Capitalism fails every ~8 years requiring the use of vast amounts of public funds to keep afloat. I’d also say if fails daily if you look at all the needless suffering occuring in the world today, especially in the most “free market” countries and the countries these exploit. We have “socialism for the rich, capitalism for everyone else,” as Jon Stewart would say.
I personally know people that endured the UDSSR. And those stories are not pleasant.
And seeing the anti capitalistic movement being accepting of radical ideas and the idea of using violence and the belief that the vote of the masses (who are in favour of Capitalism) is unimportant, just makes me believe that anti capitalistic movements all strive for what we saw in the UDSSR and today in China.
I only accept political ideas that have been viable for years in other countries without the occurrence of dictatorship. If you are a US citizen, then the wishful view to Western Europe is the only one I’d accept as reasonable.
And as a Western European myself, I can say that even though we currently face massive problems with immigration, life here is still more enjoyable than in the rest do the world.
Most leftists in the U.S. are democratic socialists, social democrats, are some flavor of anarchists; not authoritarian socialists… Most do not think violence is necessary, except for protection against the increasingly fascist right-wing. Many believe it’s possible to move closer to a socialist-like society by building mutual-aid networks and communities, and promoting candidates for government positions that align with their values; not through a violent revolution.
And yes, I would prefer systems closer to Scandinavian countries, which the right-wing here calls socialism. Ideally, I would like to see some kind of real socialism where the workers own the means of production (factories, stores, farms, etc) and controls it through democratic processes, not the investor-shareholders or the government. I think the term is anarcho-syndicalism, but I doubt that will happen in my lifetime.
Check the planet. It is literally burning right now and we are all going to either die, or have our lives massively changed by this climate catastrophe.
Technically most of the planet is Oxygen in the highest reductive state. Bound in ores of oxidases metals.
Second highest occurrence is silicon, also in an oxidated state as Silicon oxides. Then comes Iron and Magnesium.
None of them will burn.
What you are talking about burning is not the planet, but the biosphere.
And 99.9% of the biosphere contains far too much water to actually burn.
So no. The planet does not burn. Only tiniest parts of its biosphere sometimes catch fire.
And the smoke actually blocks sunlight and acts as a natural measurement against climate change.
Lol people like you that believe humanity will always overcome make me laugh. Talk to any environmental scientist and they will tell you we’re fucked. There’s no secret technology coming to save us.
Yea… I know what some environmental scientists are claiming.
But the earth has seen higher levels of carbon already. It has seen higher temperatures and lower temperatures. And we humans inhabit many climate zones already.
And yes, technology can save us. We have the means to control weather with highly reflective particles. Scientists are currently attempting to make fusion work (even though they are probably using a far too small magnetic field. They should have built it 10x larger in France).
And furthermore environmental scientists do not claim that we are fucked. They only claim that change is coming and that this change comes with a bunch of problems.
But the earth has seen higher levels of carbon already. It has seen higher temperatures and lower temperatures. And we humans inhabit many climate zones already.
This is like the “They can just sell their house and move” thing Ben Shapiro said about what people who live on climate change affected coasts will do. Who will they sell their house to, Ben??
Humans can inhabit many climate zones, but several of them will become uninhabitable. The ones that contain the most people. And those people have to go somewhere. And all of the food that used to be produced in that place is gone. All of the ecosystems in those areas die, etc. etc.
This is the “war and famine” part of climate change that people don’t often talk about. Most of the death and chaos isn’t going to be from people literally immediately burning up to death, it’s from the secondary effects of rising temperatures, drought, killing entire ecosystems, and forcing billions of people to leave their homes or die. And the migrant crises that come with all of that. If you thought Syria was bad…
And you’re right, the earth has seen higher levels of carbon. The earth itself will probably be OK.
The ‘future’ is not inevitable. There have been countless collapses in history. Our technology doesn’t make us immune. The people of the major Bronze Age powers probably thought the same.
Also we do not have the means for weather engineering. If you’re talking about SRM, we have no idea what its consequences will be or how to do it effectively. It’s all theoretical. No aircraft we currently have can do this stuff. Sure, we could design it and build one, but then you need global governance to actually implement it properly. Not to mention the risk of ‘termination shock’ and countless others.
Firstly, that isn’t ‘already done’. It’s a PR statement from the Chinese government about plans. The stuff they have already done, like reducing hail etc., is nowhere near the same level to what is needed to stop climate change.
Secondly,
Radical solutions such as seeding the atmosphere with reflective particles could theoretically help reduce temperatures, but could also have major unforeseen consequences, and many experts fear what could happen were a country to experiment with such techniques.
This is from your source ^
So is this:
In a paper last year, researchers at National Taiwan University said that the “lack of proper coordination of weather modification activity (could) lead to charges of ‘rain stealing’ between neighboring regions,” both within China and with other countries. They also pointed to the lack of a “system of checks and balances to facilitate the implementation of potentially controversial projects.”
Think of the geopolitical mess this kind of thing would create. If it works that is.
Did you read any of those links? 10% of world GDP. That’s not relatively little. That’s insane.
I have only overflown the Oxford paper. Caught my attention with the affect of increasing taxing the rich. Interesting take, but purely theoretical with no reasonable adaption possibility. The rich would just leave the country and some other country would profit from their taxes.
And stocks doesn’t automatically mean good. How much of that is speculative bubbles and hype-driven overvalued stocks?
If you believe to know which ones are overvalued, then you should try to go buy short positions in them. Maybe you become rich then?
Jokes aside. The stock market is relatively precise, it also projects potential into the future.
Due to that many stocks to combat climate change have risen in popularity and a lot of money has been brought to said companies by purely capitalistic driven motives.
Rich people are people and most people don’t just up and leave behind places they’ve built their lives in unless under extreme pressure. A few billionaires might relocate to the Bahamas but they’re not going to be able to take their mansions and penthouses with them - and they lose out on the markets, infrastructure, and other benefits of their home countries. That’s a major incentive to just pay the taxes.
If you believe to know which ones are overvalued, then you should try to go buy short positions in them. Maybe you become rich then?
Who says I haven’t done that already?
The stock market is relatively precise, it also projects potential into the future.
The stock market is not precise. I have data and papers discussing this - but there’s no need for them. I’ll instead leave you with a simple question: if the stock market is so precise, why is there a major crash every decade?
Due to that many stocks to combat climate change have risen in popularity and a lot of money has been brought to said companies by purely capitalistic driven motives.
Sure, purely capitalistic motives, which is why a lot of these are impractical venture capital BS and outright scams. It is currently more profitable to greenwash than it is to actually solve the problem.
Rich people are people and most people don’t just up and leave behind places they’ve built their lives in unless under extreme pressure. A few billionaires might relocate to the Bahamas but they’re not going to be able to take their mansions and penthouses with them - and they lose out on the markets, infrastructure, and other benefits of their home countries. That’s a major incentive to just pay the taxes.
As I said, it depends on the country and the relative situation to other countries.
If you believe to know which ones are overvalued, then you should try to go buy short positions in them. Maybe you become rich then?
Who says I haven’t done that already?
I do. Because you are still here. Arguing on the internet, a cesspool of morons, you and I included.
The stock market is relatively precise, it also projects potential into the future.
The stock market is not precise. I have data and papers discussing this - but there’s no need for them. I’ll instead leave you with a simple question: if the stock market is so precise, why is there a major crash every decade?
Because events, such as Corona and the ausraube war temporarily lower the estimated gains. Losses are expected. So the value weds to be corrected according to those losses.
Due to that many stocks to combat climate change have risen in popularity and a lot of money has been brought to said companies by purely capitalistic driven motives.
Sure, purely capitalistic motives, which is why a lot of these are impractical venture capital BS and outright scams. It is currently more profitable to greenwash than it is to actually solve the problem.
Companies such as Linde plc are no scam. They existed far longer than the climate drama. Their value just increased because demand in their products increased as well.
Greenwashing is only done in media. Company winnings and numbers don’t lie. (Except if they do. Fuck wirecard)
It’s interesting, but I have to point out that some of the evidence they use is stuff like manufacturers relocating to China, which happens regardless of tax rates.
The stuff about energy costs is also nothing to do with taxes but rather Germany’s energy policy missteps.
Also the author randomly referring to “Genderforschern” und “Gleichstellungsbeauftragten” at the end damages the credibility of the article a lot - seems very culture-war motivated.
I agree that the way in which the taxes are implemented and how the bureaucracy works has a major impact though. But this doesn’t mean taxing the rich is imppssible, just needs to be done right, like all policy.
I do. Because you are still here. Arguing on the internet, a cesspool of morons, you and I included.
Rich people waste time arguing with morons on the internet all the time! Have you seen Musk’s Twitter feed lately?
In fact the only reason I am doing this is because I have time to kill; and that’s only possible thanks to the fact that I am wealthy enough to take days off work pretty much whenever I want, without fearing starvation. Unlike ~90% of people globally who live paycheck to paycheck.
The idea that rich people are always busy being productive is simply wrong. I know enough of them personally to know that most of their ‘working’ hours aren’t very strenuous to say the least.
Because events, such as Corona and the ausraube war temporarily lower the estimated gains. Losses are expected. So the value weds to be corrected according to those losses.
Have you heard of the 2008 crash? Dot com bubble? SVB, FTX and other crypto crap, etc? Markets crash regularly regardless of Corona or wars.
Also the fact that markets fail to consider wars and pandemics, whereas experts were warning about these for years before they happened, is further evidence that we can do better than relying on markets for everything.
There must be some way to develop a system of knowledge aggregation, decisionmaking, and resource allocation that isn’t prone to ignoring very obvious risks.
Greenwashing is only done in media. Company winnings and numbers don’t lie. (Except if they do. Fuck wirecard)
Oh brother
Man I am kinda sorry, that I invade your worldview.
But rich people don’t have all their money stored in a vault like Dagobert Duck. It’s all stocks.
And boy, if one of the companies make losses, then their money goes downhill. It’s volatile.
And due to immense concurrence in innovation in the tech sector, every investor has a huge interest in innovation.
And with many investment, the start of a company is ensured.
The current capitalism is the system that works best.
Especially the US capitalism is one hell of a driver in innovation. I live in Germany and many companies wouldn’t be possible here. Even though we have capitalism, it’s much softer than its US counterpart.
The downside of course is poverty for cheaper labour.
And that’s brutal, but it’s the reality we live in.
Though I wouldn’t want to live in the US without healthcare, on the counter side I wouldn’t want to start a company here in Europe.
UserDoesNotExist, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this website is now dumber for having read it. I award you one downvote, and may God have mercy on your soul.
… A simple “wrong” would’ve just been fine…
Edit:
for those who missed the reference
Nah I like this better
… It’s the response that Billy Madison gives to that quote…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec7rCsNFn30
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=Ec7rCsNFn30
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Sorry if you do not understand the system we live in.
My dude, your argument boils down to “this is the way we’ve always done it so this is the way it must be”.
Have you considered the possibility that if innovation were to slow, and companies DIDN’T insist on quarter-after-quarter growth, the world might just continue to turn? That while the richest individuals may be slightly less rich, the vast majority of people would continue their lives with no negative consequences?
But we haven’t done this always. As humans we have tried different attempts. Socialism, communism, monarchy, feudalism, democracy, capitalism, social capitalism, anarchism,…
And here we are now. After all those experiments.
But we humans are not made to chill. We need to advance as fast as possible. My parents and their generation did so. We now have AI becoming increasingly popular. And sooner or later I will hopefully have children. So I have to do my part, that the lives my kin will be better than mine. Better medical tech, better education, better transport, better tech,… Of course the world would continue to turn.
I don’t understand why you always believe that if the rich were less rich, that anything would change. It would not.
Have you considered that this too might be an ‘experiment’?
Defenders of monarchy and the divine right of kings used to argue the exact same thing - that we tried democracy before and it failed in the Roman Republic and Ancient Greece - so clearly feudal monarchy is the best, right?
Yet here we are, experimenting again.
Why is this joke of a system the ideal? It doesn’t produce innovation - most of the stuff that led to the internet and modern computing came out of DARPA and various govt funded universities. All of our space advancements were from state-run NASA and the Soviet space programme. The wealthy CEO types only start ‘innovating’ after taxpayers fund most of the R&D. Same with medical advancements, material science, physics - almost every single positive innovation has come from state-run, taxpayer-funded, or non-profit institutions.
Maybe try reading a little bit more about all this innovation you seem so fond of:
https://academic.oup.com/ser/article/7/3/459/1693191
https://demos.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/files/Entrepreneurial_State_-_web.pdf
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=oLLxpAZzy0s
Yes. It very well might be. But todays world is so strongly interwoven. Tons of conflicts are constantly challenging the system. And it has yet to break. The final test will be the sudden termination of economic growth. This will be the point, where it will be shows how resilient capitalism rly is.
Tell me which system to try next. But pls don’t suggest to repeat another one again.
And that’s a good thing.
That was maybe the start. But big companies managed to elevate the importance to another level. The complexity of everything was reinforced and elevated drastically, driven by private companies. Just take a look at AI at this point. AI is innovation, mainly driven by private companies.
Because most of it was useless. What kind of innovation did. space exploration bring to humans?
As I already stated, this is not the case. Especially pharma, medical and IT is heavily driven by big corporations. Basic research on the other hand, there you are right. As it usually does not feature real world appliances, means that it’s mostly founded by tax payers and the government.
Especially medical innovation is heavily driven from the private sector. Pharmaceuticals as well. There is not much involvement of any government or tax payer.
But as I said, mostly for the basic research. Without much interest in application.
I have a good understanding of sciences. Especially in chemistry and physics. Thanks.
None of those links are about Chemistry or Physics. The demos link is Economics, The Entrepreneurial State. The youtube link is about the history of the internet. Maybe try learning something that isn’t STEM. Might broaden your way of thinking.
I’ll respond to the rest of your comment later, although I’m not sure I want to anymore since you clearly have no interest in taking into account new information.
Also how the fuck can you be interested in technology and say something like this:
If you know anything about any science you should know how stupid of a point this is
And when the average summer day is 60c and crops fail every single year, and Nestle has taken half our drinking water, and the smoke in the air from wildfires is giving everyone asthma, and deadly storms happen year round, and the coasts erode, and wars break out for the remaining water/etc, what will you tell them? Will you tell them to look at the brilliant ‘innovator’ CEO’s who intentionally shut down electric cars? The CEO’s who found out climate change was happening sixty years ago and intentionally hid it to keep themselves rich, what do you tell your kids about that?
What innovation is worth your children dying early?
I don’t believe that those scenarios are that plausible.
Here is south Germany, the climate change has led to mediterran plants growing here. The plant life for the climate already exist. And they are spreading (olives don’t make it through the winter yet).
Change is happening, but adapting to it is possible. And solutions for adaptation do not have to be invented, because they already exist.
lol i think they said the same thing about the Titanic sinking. also the submarine guy said the same thing about it imploding.
Hmm 🤔
also all evidence that’s not conservative propaganda points to us hitting the worst possible outcomes when it comes to climate change. Read the IPCC reports and the worst case scenarios listed within. That’s what’s going to happen over the next ~40 years
Climate scientists disagree with you.
You know, as a member of the SSBN force, occasionally during thermonuclear launch exercises I take a moment to regret the death of humanity and the biosphere. People like you, on the other hand, are what steels my resolve to flip the switch with gusto. I hope you know that I’ll be thinking of you, should I receive the order to commence procedures to launch.
You sound like a fragile personality. You might be in the wrong occupation.
Or you might be talking bullshit. Because I doubt that you would have internet on a submarine.
Shipmate, I am a Navigation Electronic Technician First Class Petty Officer, fully qualified in both submarines and in my rating. I have been on five strategic alert deterrent patrols over the last three years. I’ve been through fires, flooding, and steam line ruptures. When we set condition 1SQ for Strategic Launch during WSRT, I was the one at the consoles conducting the procedures to do so. I’ve been a helmsman, planesman, Strategic Navigation Technician, and Quartermaster of the Watch.
Of course I wouldn’t have internet while submerged or at sea. Have you ever heard of in-port periods?
Fragile personality or not, I’m the sailor at the switch. What have you done with your life, shipmate?
Do you not understand the system at live in is actively dooming us all? Why are you so vehemently defending it? Especially when you can acknowledge that other systems can exist?
Why would you think that companies going bankrupt is somehow worse than people being increasingly unable to live.
I don’t think that it is dooming us. I cannot imagine a system that would lead to more freedom, better education or innovation.
Even though I acknowledge that other systems have been tried in the past, I also believe that all of them, except capitalism with a few social tweaks, have failed.
Because tons of lives are also depending on the company to keep on running. Making some people’s lives worse will probably not fix the problems of others. Instead the people that are in need of betterment must get a tailored solution. Tailored towards them without the need to completely overhaul a working system.
LOL.
Capitalism fails every ~8 years requiring the use of vast amounts of public funds to keep afloat. I’d also say if fails daily if you look at all the needless suffering occuring in the world today, especially in the most “free market” countries and the countries these exploit. We have “socialism for the rich, capitalism for everyone else,” as Jon Stewart would say.
I personally know people that endured the UDSSR. And those stories are not pleasant.
And seeing the anti capitalistic movement being accepting of radical ideas and the idea of using violence and the belief that the vote of the masses (who are in favour of Capitalism) is unimportant, just makes me believe that anti capitalistic movements all strive for what we saw in the UDSSR and today in China.
I only accept political ideas that have been viable for years in other countries without the occurrence of dictatorship. If you are a US citizen, then the wishful view to Western Europe is the only one I’d accept as reasonable.
And as a Western European myself, I can say that even though we currently face massive problems with immigration, life here is still more enjoyable than in the rest do the world.
Most leftists in the U.S. are democratic socialists, social democrats, are some flavor of anarchists; not authoritarian socialists… Most do not think violence is necessary, except for protection against the increasingly fascist right-wing. Many believe it’s possible to move closer to a socialist-like society by building mutual-aid networks and communities, and promoting candidates for government positions that align with their values; not through a violent revolution.
And yes, I would prefer systems closer to Scandinavian countries, which the right-wing here calls socialism. Ideally, I would like to see some kind of real socialism where the workers own the means of production (factories, stores, farms, etc) and controls it through democratic processes, not the investor-shareholders or the government. I think the term is anarcho-syndicalism, but I doubt that will happen in my lifetime.
Hey guy uhhh
Check the planet. It is literally burning right now and we are all going to either die, or have our lives massively changed by this climate catastrophe.
Technically most of the planet is Oxygen in the highest reductive state. Bound in ores of oxidases metals.
Second highest occurrence is silicon, also in an oxidated state as Silicon oxides. Then comes Iron and Magnesium.
None of them will burn.
What you are talking about burning is not the planet, but the biosphere. And 99.9% of the biosphere contains far too much water to actually burn.
So no. The planet does not burn. Only tiniest parts of its biosphere sometimes catch fire. And the smoke actually blocks sunlight and acts as a natural measurement against climate change.
Oh brother
I might lighten you up a bit.
The methods to combat climate change are already there. We already have the means for weather engineering.
The future is inevitable. And so is every step towards it.
Lol people like you that believe humanity will always overcome make me laugh. Talk to any environmental scientist and they will tell you we’re fucked. There’s no secret technology coming to save us.
Yea… I know what some environmental scientists are claiming.
But the earth has seen higher levels of carbon already. It has seen higher temperatures and lower temperatures. And we humans inhabit many climate zones already.
And yes, technology can save us. We have the means to control weather with highly reflective particles. Scientists are currently attempting to make fusion work (even though they are probably using a far too small magnetic field. They should have built it 10x larger in France).
And furthermore environmental scientists do not claim that we are fucked. They only claim that change is coming and that this change comes with a bunch of problems.
This is like the “They can just sell their house and move” thing Ben Shapiro said about what people who live on climate change affected coasts will do. Who will they sell their house to, Ben??
Humans can inhabit many climate zones, but several of them will become uninhabitable. The ones that contain the most people. And those people have to go somewhere. And all of the food that used to be produced in that place is gone. All of the ecosystems in those areas die, etc. etc.
This is the “war and famine” part of climate change that people don’t often talk about. Most of the death and chaos isn’t going to be from people literally immediately burning up to death, it’s from the secondary effects of rising temperatures, drought, killing entire ecosystems, and forcing billions of people to leave their homes or die. And the migrant crises that come with all of that. If you thought Syria was bad…
And you’re right, the earth has seen higher levels of carbon. The earth itself will probably be OK.
The ‘future’ is not inevitable. There have been countless collapses in history. Our technology doesn’t make us immune. The people of the major Bronze Age powers probably thought the same.
Also we do not have the means for weather engineering. If you’re talking about SRM, we have no idea what its consequences will be or how to do it effectively. It’s all theoretical. No aircraft we currently have can do this stuff. Sure, we could design it and build one, but then you need global governance to actually implement it properly. Not to mention the risk of ‘termination shock’ and countless others.
Have a look at the scientific literature: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Stratospheric-aerosol-injection-tactics-and-costs-Smith-Wagner/e4e5a78335eda8c16557b32af915798b06091362#cited-papers
Would you seriously risk the future of life on Earth on something this experimental?
I fear this arrogance will kill a lot of people and cause a lot of suffering.
Also
This kind of futurist accelerationist thinking hasn’t turned out well in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurism?wprov=sfla1 It always ends up feeding into Fascism. I wonder why.
Somehow double posted. So this is now a blank comment.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/12/03/asia/china-weather-modification-cloud-seeding-intl-hnk/index.html
It is already done. And the consequences are relatively easy to estimate. Much easier actually than the complex mechanics of world climate change.
Firstly, that isn’t ‘already done’. It’s a PR statement from the Chinese government about plans. The stuff they have already done, like reducing hail etc., is nowhere near the same level to what is needed to stop climate change.
Secondly,
This is from your source ^
So is this:
Think of the geopolitical mess this kind of thing would create. If it works that is.
Ok Raiden
Who or what is Raiden?
Your mom
Ribbit
I have no motive other than my own profit. And I do not profit from a conversation here, other than to quench my thirst for discussion.
So please refrain from accusing me of propaganda.
btw they do store a lot of their money in vaults where it doesnt benefit the economy at all.
This is in the form of expensive art that stays in containers in tax-free zones, and offshore accounts in tax havens.
Please educate yourself.
https://archive-yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/how-wealthy-sell-treasures-tax-free
https://www.icij.org/inside-icij/2017/09/7-charts-show-how-rich-hide-their-cash
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers
https://academic.oup.com/ser/article/20/2/539/6500315
But most of it is still invested in stocks. So those few links have relatively little impact.
Did you read any of those links? 10% of world GDP. That’s not relatively little. That’s insane.
And stocks doesn’t automatically mean good. How much of that is speculative bubbles and hype-driven overvalued stocks?
I have only overflown the Oxford paper. Caught my attention with the affect of increasing taxing the rich. Interesting take, but purely theoretical with no reasonable adaption possibility. The rich would just leave the country and some other country would profit from their taxes.
If you believe to know which ones are overvalued, then you should try to go buy short positions in them. Maybe you become rich then?
Jokes aside. The stock market is relatively precise, it also projects potential into the future. Due to that many stocks to combat climate change have risen in popularity and a lot of money has been brought to said companies by purely capitalistic driven motives.
This is an oft-repeated talking point but usually contradicted by data. Sounds smart but isn’t smart.
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/nov/20/if-you-tax-the-rich-they-wont-leave-us-data-contradicts-millionaires-threats
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/11/20/if-you-tax-the-rich-they-dont-move-they-just-pay/
Rich people are people and most people don’t just up and leave behind places they’ve built their lives in unless under extreme pressure. A few billionaires might relocate to the Bahamas but they’re not going to be able to take their mansions and penthouses with them - and they lose out on the markets, infrastructure, and other benefits of their home countries. That’s a major incentive to just pay the taxes.
Who says I haven’t done that already?
The stock market is not precise. I have data and papers discussing this - but there’s no need for them. I’ll instead leave you with a simple question: if the stock market is so precise, why is there a major crash every decade?
Sure, purely capitalistic motives, which is why a lot of these are impractical venture capital BS and outright scams. It is currently more profitable to greenwash than it is to actually solve the problem.
You don’t have to take my word for it: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/26/chamath-palihapitiya-esg-investing-is-a-complete-fraud.html
Yes and No. it leads depends on the country and where it is still tolerable and where it is not. In Germany and France we already see people leave. link to a german article. you will need a translator.
As I said, it depends on the country and the relative situation to other countries.
I do. Because you are still here. Arguing on the internet, a cesspool of morons, you and I included.
Because events, such as Corona and the ausraube war temporarily lower the estimated gains. Losses are expected. So the value weds to be corrected according to those losses.
Companies such as Linde plc are no scam. They existed far longer than the climate drama. Their value just increased because demand in their products increased as well. Greenwashing is only done in media. Company winnings and numbers don’t lie. (Except if they do. Fuck wirecard)
I will look later into that article.
Just read the German article.
It’s interesting, but I have to point out that some of the evidence they use is stuff like manufacturers relocating to China, which happens regardless of tax rates.
The stuff about energy costs is also nothing to do with taxes but rather Germany’s energy policy missteps.
Also the author randomly referring to “Genderforschern” und “Gleichstellungsbeauftragten” at the end damages the credibility of the article a lot - seems very culture-war motivated.
I agree that the way in which the taxes are implemented and how the bureaucracy works has a major impact though. But this doesn’t mean taxing the rich is imppssible, just needs to be done right, like all policy.
Rich people waste time arguing with morons on the internet all the time! Have you seen Musk’s Twitter feed lately?
In fact the only reason I am doing this is because I have time to kill; and that’s only possible thanks to the fact that I am wealthy enough to take days off work pretty much whenever I want, without fearing starvation. Unlike ~90% of people globally who live paycheck to paycheck.
The idea that rich people are always busy being productive is simply wrong. I know enough of them personally to know that most of their ‘working’ hours aren’t very strenuous to say the least.
https://www.readthemaple.com/i-was-born-wealthy-and-know-rich-people-dont-work-harder-than-you/
Have you heard of the 2008 crash? Dot com bubble? SVB, FTX and other crypto crap, etc? Markets crash regularly regardless of Corona or wars.
Also the fact that markets fail to consider wars and pandemics, whereas experts were warning about these for years before they happened, is further evidence that we can do better than relying on markets for everything.
There must be some way to develop a system of knowledge aggregation, decisionmaking, and resource allocation that isn’t prone to ignoring very obvious risks.
Company winnings and numbers lie all the time. https://yewtu.be/watch?v=Wx51CffrBIg https://yewtu.be/watch?v=Y9KPcQqG0ao
There are countless cases of companies making shit up and markets and investors falling for it.
Wealth hoarding is a massive problem irl
No it’s not. It has already been studied, that with an inflation rate of roughly 2 percent, that people are more willing to spend.
And currently we exceed this by far. And people do spend their money in an attempt to get the most out of it.
So wealth hoarding is currently no problem. And in a well managed economical state, it as well becomes no problem.