Climate Change
- Started
- Last post
- 536 Responses
- R_Kercz1
Ars Technica : In court, oil companies accept climate science but rewrite its history
- utopian0
$2 billion spent to influence Congress on climate change, Drexel study finds
Lobbyists spent more than $2 billion trying to influence the U.S. Congress on climate change from 2000 to 2016, with fossil fuel industry groups outspending environmental groups 10 to one, according to a new study by a Drexel University professor.
- sted0
Global 1850-2017
+1.35°C averageCANADA
5.5°C (dark blue) to 11.0°CUK 1772-2017
7.6°C to 10.8°CUSA 1895-2017
50.2°F to 55.0°FVienna 1775-2017
7.5°C to 12.0°CAustralia
20.7°C to 23.0°
- teh0
oil=lubricant
gas=buffer
water=life
- Ianbolton1
Interest post regarding Palm Oil and that bloody orangutang advert that Iceland made over here in the UK.
https://www.facebook.com/5765850…
Is this about climate change?
- Great post! I had no idea that Palm Oil was so much more productive than alternatives :\Nairn
- everything that is related to how we consume products, produce/waste food, travel around, use electricity, heat our homes/office is connected to climate changelowimpakt
- ^ wow, thanks man!Ianbolton
- Huh. No shit?Nairn
- shapesalad0
What's better:
One lorry brings a load of clothes to a shop(not in usa where everyone one drives, somewhere in europe, in a city) and customers on lunch breaks, after work, using public transport and lets say 10% drive to the city to visit the store.
Vs
No store. customers order online =no customer polluting journeys to stores (but as mentioned above, in our case that is quite few anyway). Lorry brings clothes to warehouse. A few vans take orders from warehouse to customer houses, delivering packages. And then lets say 60% of those need to be returned, so same journey again of van to warehouse.
Just thinking all that through... Isn't online shopping more pollution expensive than us popping into a store during our lunch breaks?
- I've read it may use more carbon to use Amazon Prime than to have a car. Amazon is supposed to release their carbon footprint info this year.sarahfailin
- https://www.cbsnews.…sarahfailin
- deathboy-1
First of all there is the larger cycles that dont encompass what we consider the human race. we know through "science' there are cycles of ice ages and warming periods. we know humans have an effect and a large amount of media and money is spent to point out the obvious that "stuff" effects things. What we don't know scienticially is to what extent. We have had numerous models and all have failed. Yes all based on data and hypothetical "science" of said data. But we dont really know wether we cut 1000 or 2 years off natural cycles. And we really have no ability to control climate change if everyone on earth was an ant and fell in line to those who thought they could control.
But i will say there is a ton of money to be made from it. from statician grants for bias to carbon credits.Hell tesla has made 2 billion in carbon credits alone while remaining unprofitable except to the upper echelon. Its manipulation of best interests by those you hate. i mean i cant really say you dont deserve it... spelled out and ppl still fall for it. at the end of day you have to wonder if its larger darwinianism, a culling of the herd for the better good.
- Drill baby drillutopian
- I love how people like deathboy have lovely nice big opinions on climate science. That is contrary to, you know, what actual climate scientists say.inteliboy
- Tesla is not a voice in the scientific community. There's a mistake in confusing science as a whole as a 'for profit' entity.T-Dawg
- If you make a claim of people 'falling for climate science' where the interest was profit, back that claim up. Give us some examples.T-Dawg
- Show me the dataT-Dawg
- climate "scientists". its quite a name that really gets people to go along. but little has to do with any science.deathboy
- as far as tesla im just using them as one example of the profit motive behind such pushes that has little to do with ... well results to stop climate change...deathboy
- which is so absurd... who here thinks we can stop climate change? we cant even control inflation to our liking which is complex but much less so than climate.deathboy
- tdawg look at any and every green tech company that runs on subsidies or some sort of carbon trade. those are the examplesdeathboy
- ask yourself if they could be in business without those, and how much profit is extracted or wether the whole company if built around themdeathboy
- hell tdawg give me an example of a business not interested in profit, or their employees, the whole only working out of good intentions to save the environment?deathboy
- even if that is true.... why is that a big deal anyway? New jobs. New industry. All in the cause to make green energy and technology.inteliboy
- you actually concerned about 'green' tech companies and gov funded scientists rubbing their greedy hands together?inteliboy
- @death lol I don't have to find an example to a claim I never made.T-Dawg
- Environmental policy and profit pull in opposite directions. But if we neglect environmental protections, the burden of pollution falls on the taxpayer.T-Dawg
- oh for sure inteliboy im concerned because those jobs and monies are all at the expense of someone else. not to mention the market distortionsdeathboy
- even if it doesn't directly effect me i know it hits the poorest the hardest. and that will effect my freedom in the long run.deathboy
- Well you don't have to find an example tdawg but i doubt you can. But looking for a such a thing may enlighten how you perceive the whole thing.deathboy
- Not sure what you mean environmental policy and profit pull in different directions. I can name plenty where they pull in the samedeathboy
- as far as pollution policy falls on taxpayers... i'd say consumers. let consumers decide what value things. they are far wiser than a couple publicly electeddeathboy
- officials having money thrown at them from special interests for personal and future job employment securitydeathboy
- oh and most important no one came out to actually think we can stop climate change through policy. thats a positivedeathboy
- @death have you at all followed what's going on in China right now? Massive environmental regulation enacted concerning air pollution.T-Dawg
- Moving away from coal towards natural gas and other energy sources.T-Dawg
- Policy has been working in that model, at the cost of industry and to the consumers. It's just a matter of priorities.T-Dawg
- Until it becomes a matter of necessity, as is the case in China, where air quality was a huge detriment to everyone and everything.T-Dawg
- subsidies and carbon trade do not equal profit, dude, they just reduec the massive carbon fees for massive pollutorsmonospaced
- Tdawg what is the social cost of such programs? Who is most effected negatively? Would you prefer the US to be like china with politicians like AOC at the helmdeathboy
- dictating policy for personal gains? With such a dictatorship in china what has been there gains at what costs?deathboy
- subsidies and carbon trade equal a shit ton of profit mono.... jeez man they just reduce carbon fees... you don't really understand economics at alldeathboy
- you cant possibly think subsidies and carbon credits don't equal massive profit for those who get them. im a bit stunned by such a responsedeathboy
- Nairn4
We do know about the physics of the 'greenhouse effect, and - to actual fucking scientists who know what the fuck they're talking about - the logical thermodynamic effects to our atmosphere are so inevitably obvious that there;s a global sense of exasperation at bullshit diversionary twaddle regularly trotted out by the likes of 'deathboy' here.
https://www.lenntech.com/greenho…
You fucking mug.
- haha im quite aware of greenhouse effect. are you aware co2 build up is quite natural in larger cycles outside our human cycles and a big part is on orbitdeathboy
- im actually embracing the whole co2 thing you mug. im saying what science are you believing we can control it. or even exactly how much we contribute?deathboy
- and to your "scientists". lets call them a new name. lets call them mechanics. something people relate more too since they relate more.deathboy
- your scientist data plotters are no different than your mechanics. few good most garbage selling you on "new pads" to make a buck or whatever is hot.deathboy
- the way ppl follow "scientist" terms reminds me of middle ages following "priests" its crazy. but than again we aren't really any different in rational capabilideathboy
- ties than milleniums a go. just gotten farther on the coattails of the 1% of people who pushed the species into knowing a little more.deathboy
- its funny you should look up some articles on geology for orbital eccentricity. geology of all places unrelated to buoys and sensors that record fascinating datdeathboy
- a they help detail extreme weather patterns based on about a 100k scale which largely is part of our orbit.deathboy
- you mug!.. is mug an insult? think of a coffee cup or wolverine saying it for the face. Like hey "face" or hey "ceramic glass for coffee" feels britishdeathboy
- hell for fun we have about 8 billion ppl lets say we kill 2/3 and go all "green" what would the scientists say is our projected global average temp?deathboy
- would you believe them if they projected something enough to do it? taking in knowledge of basic weather reports for weekend...deathboy
- there really is a parable with climate change rules that is so similar to religion. Its all a matter of sacrifice and who. follow so many faceless priests neverdeathboy
- questioning a thing. in the end all we are selfishly hoping for is our own salvation. or even a comforting lie. pointless to state the obviousdeathboy
- but i sleep easier knowing hey i tried.deathboy
- Just so you know - I didn't bother reading any of that. Well, maybe the last one, because it's right above this and hard to ignore, but otherwise, none.Nairn
- lol. you'll never know what it was he triedFax_Benson
- lol. well thanks for letting me know you didn't read any of it... would this nicety also be in vain if you didn't read the others?...deathboy
- deathboy-7
Theres 2 types that puzzle me
1) Climate change deniers. Now I think this group is more likely misunderstood do to absurd nature of believing such a thing. I could be wrong, but I think this camp is more common sense driven. Lived in an area 30-40 years and has seen the weather and sees little correlation to the narrative man and extent he has altered the environment.
2) Climate controllers who believe they can stop climate change through man made laws and actions.... now this group I find the crazier of the two. We know climate changed before man. History. And now we have people telling us we can control it by adopting varying rules.... Seems a little suspect right? BS detector pinging? Thinking a little highly of our capabilities like a dotcom company who thinks they're changing the world?
I prefer choosing 3
3) we will die as a species more than likely, wether it be weather or by our own hand. chasing hubris is simply a power game for politicians and corps. Not trying to tax countries burning our computers. Its best to practice the 3 Rs where possible, but to penalize ppl or tax them to alleviate fears of the rich with more assets and property to fear about... thats bullshit. And the whole pitch being sold is as educated as a flat earth sale. And yes i expect the ocean will swallow NY one day and i find no need to panic about it. Thats life. And i do feel that way because i have no assets there. And not going to irrationally try to protect them. If i did thought i still wouldn't be a stupid child and think stupid laws would make a difference... idiots...
- you are the personification of everything wrong with mankind. your handle suits you well!hotroddy
- cool bro. of course interpretation of my handle is more a reflection of your meaning. which you'd need to define. im all wise and comfy not runnin from death?deathboy
- Like I said before, laws made a difference with ozone layer depletion. Which you tried to refute with a forbes article that had a clickbait title.T-Dawg
- Are you 1) an ozone layer denier? 2) An ozone layer controller? or do you still prefer choosing 3) we will die as a species anyways.T-Dawg
- Which you're still perfectly entitled to do, but seems silly when we look at this past example of a large scale air pollution measure.T-Dawg
- there's tons of evidence to backup claims of climate control and our man-made impact on its change ... but only anecdotes and confusion from deniersmonospaced
- Denying a global environmental crisis where millions could die because politicians and corporations told you to is pretty much the definition of sheeplikeyuekit
- thinking...maybe it's time to reevaluate your other beliefs too if you genuinely were fooled by this.yuekit
- tdawg did you read past the headline on the forbes article have an issue on it pertaining to content other than headline in anyway to ozone layer?deathboy
- mono how hard is it and costly to accurately control climate in a house, building? Do you really think we could control climate despite larger shit like EMdeathboy
- and orbits? Are you one of those believers we can stop climate change?deathboy
- ukit. im not denying any crisis of any sort. im like meh on it. and more denying any ability to change or altar it. and realizing by holding it as some greatdeathboy
- value or thing to pursue politically we are going to sacrifice many. Not the rich but the poor. Here's a thought you should really think about with escalationdeathboy
- IF man-made climate change is the beast to destroy, than the most efficient method would be to destroy man and limit their numbersdeathboy
- theres no centralized plan yet, but just wait for it and its going to be dark ages shit if common sense doesn't kick indeathboy
- lol death did YOU read the article? Because the scientist who's study the article was based on is quoted IN THE ARTICLE saying the measures were workingT-Dawg
- I already brought this up, but I'm learning now that you're more interested in being heard than listening.T-Dawg
- It's all starting to make sense now. I suspected there might be an ego issue when you went into an unrequested explanation of your username handle.T-Dawg
- You know what, forget that. I shouldn't have posted that last comment. I apologize. You're allowed to be who you are.T-Dawg
- Just find it silly that we already went through this discussion already, and I'm not going to dig out the previous conversation.T-Dawg
- It's like conversing with a brick wall.T-Dawg
- hehe got frustrated. it happens.T-Dawg
- But seriously, go back and re-read the article you posted.T-Dawg
- Read the scientist's take on the study at the bottom.T-Dawg
- *On his own studyT-Dawg
- To be honest I'd don't recall the conversation. Have to see what I wrote. Was it this article? https://www.forbes.c…deathboy
- Where he says the motreal protocol seems to be working but there is a lot of unknowns and don't know if its related to faster ozone depletion in lower?deathboy
- ha i just read the unrequested user handle. no apologies necessary. but i'm well aware of how my handle can be perceived by othersdeathboy
- sometimes remind ppl what it might mean to me is far different than they may perceive. but i do have a healthy ego. im confident in what i know anddeathboy
- MORE importantly in what I DON'T. But its no ego like i need a big truck or hear myself. Only thing actually care about is learning and growingdeathboy
- Yup, that's the one, good find! I just wanted to reiterate: This was an inter-governmental treaty, with demonstrable evidence that we have a certainT-Dawg
- amount of control over global atmosphere.T-Dawg
- And we can definitely say that we were the primary cause of the rapid atmospheric deterioration before measures were taken.T-Dawg
- To me, this seems like history repeating concerning the climate change debate. With a more sensationalized and polarized media behind both sides of the issue.T-Dawg
- It not the same exact issue, but one is not that far a jump from the other.T-Dawg
- See I'm not full on board with we have definitive control of atmosphere. Or even the effects of the protocol. Even in the forbes many questions remaindeathboy
- The thinning of the ozone layer also seemed to have stop early 1990s before the protocol got tight. i wouldnt be surprised if their is false correlationdeathboy
- with the limited data. I get it you have to make hypothesis with what you know but those are always changing with new info.deathboy
- Holy fuckballs. You just compared climate control of a planet to a building. Exposing you have no real grasp on the subject in the first place. #entrophymonospaced
- wow... and you don't even grasp the comparison... haha ignorance is bliss. im almost jealous of our naivetydeathboy
- pr22
Two words: Adam Curtis:
- nb8
"And yes i expect the ocean will swallow NY one day and i find no need to panic about it. Thats life. And i do feel that way because i have no assets there." - deathboy
^ honestly, this one of the dumbest (and funniest) statements I've heard on this topic. The rest of his idiot rant reeks of narcissism, but this is just too hilarious not to call out.
- narcissism... hmm. well if you knew me you would know how funny of a statement that is. but glad i could entertaindeathboy
- but tell me this do you not think NY will be swallowed by the ocean outside man made anything?deathboy
- oh yea and assets there. its a bit of a joke, but a lot of people dont like to face reality when they have skin in the game. like those blinded abusivedeathboy
- relationships. some mighty rich people might not realize they built an empire on a foundation that might not last their lifetime. deny that shit fiercelydeathboy
- ill take your non "no" as a "yes" by the waydeathboy
- MrT2
Deathboy's not alone in saying we may not be the culprits but I wonder if that's just the satisfaction of being contrarian.
Whether or not we're causing climate change, to use that doubt as justification for more mining and general shit burning, is just wrong IMHO.
- He is pretty much alone actually...I don't think any credible scientists seriously believe billions of people burning fossil fuels aren't affecting the climate.yuekit
- OK. I have a mate who’s of this opinion but that’s me exaggerating I guess!MrT
- jeezus have i ever ever denied climate change or that man is a vector? It's asinine these people talking of stopping climate change.deathboy
- I merely question the cost vs time and acknowledging every climate data manipulator so far has been pretty wrong on projections of the limited data avaibabledeathboy
- or there choices of using select data and ignoring other on short time frames to guarantee their money for bias. If i seem so wrong in looking at it vs believindeathboy
- a couple politicians with little knowledge except how to ladder climb can create policy that stops global climate change in its tracks... well fuck all. illdeathboy
- live under a bridge and hope this salem witch hunt logic passesdeathboy
- OK, I hear ya. But can we agree they still shouldn’t dig up and burn what we’ve got left?MrT
- i think that kind of decision is not one to be made lightly considering the costs and who they will effect. see what happened in france recentlydeathboy
- and im not sure there is legit evidence besides good feelings on the returns of policies which will make the poor even more poor and push more politics in thedeathboy
- direction of a some nut job dictator. I don't have the answer. no one does, but the politicians aiming to get to the top without caring about any of it scaresmedeathboy
- with any proposals you look at costs and effects. 10% in GDP but 25% less for 30K and under, while increasing costs which hit the 30K and under harder for Xdeathboy
- amount of years of alteration from natural courses. have you seen any such study? I doubt they exist because that is not what give a shit aboutdeathboy
- plus be hard as hell to make one with 90% bullshitdeathboy
- imbecile3
we all buy consumer goods. we use services like amazon, or other means of procuring mass produced goods. smartphones are in each of our pockets. the amount industry required to fulfill that level of consumption creates enormous amounts of pollution. to believe that pollution will have no ill effect is naive. to not believe those gasses are capable of altering the atmosphere we are contained in is closed minded.
- to believe the repercussions are not exponential is an act of retardationhotroddy
- and we keep searching for life on other planets, while we don't pass the Great Filter...grafician
- who thinks such things have no costs?deathboy
- im still looking for a real solid denier of of any man made climate change effect. i think a large amount of those people are falsely portrayed... IE medeathboy
- hard not to see the witch hunt tactics being employed around any such discussion of the topicdeathboy
- PonyBoy1
You guys go first... I promise I'm right behind you. <3
- lolT-Dawg
- why not?MrT
- its funny but serious. if someone truly believes in man made change, wouldn't that be the logical end game.deathboy
- yes the solution is always the most extreme one. praise those serial killers/terrorist. they are doing earth's good work.pango
- Mmmm... Dead bodies > methane, not a good short term solution. Another fantastic idea you genius?OBBTKN
- I'm with you pony, I'll wait for themOBBTKN
- colin_s0
https://www.theguardian.com/envi…
The world is increasingly at risk of “climate apartheid”, where the rich pay to escape heat and hunger caused by the escalating climate crisis while the rest of the world suffers, a report from a UN human rights expert has said.
Philip Alston, UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, said the impacts of global heating are likely to undermine not only basic rights to life, water, food, and housing for hundreds of millions of people, but also democracy and the rule of law.
Alston is critical of the “patently inadequate” steps taken by the UN itself, countries, NGOs and businesses, saying they are “entirely disproportionate to the urgency and magnitude of the threat”. His report to the UN human rights council (HRC) concludes: “Human rights might not survive the coming upheaval.”
(no fucking shit)
- and watch them laugh at us while we scrap around in the filth blaming everything on immigrants and poor people.inteliboy
- BaskerviIle2
I just can't understand why population reduction isn't a more high profile solution. You almost never see/read discussion around having fewer children. Surely the aim with climate change is to reduce consumption/emissions? So reducing the number of people creating those emissions seems like an obvious longer term solution that needs adopting whatever else we do in the short term?
Why do we still celebrate when people get pregnant, as if it's something novel? Why do we shun people who choose not to have children as if they're being selfish? I know China failed massively with their 1 child policy, it was a disaster. But if choosing not to have children, or only 1 to 2 was more culturally accepted (not mandated by an authoritarian state) but there was a gradual shift, much there seems to be right now with people opting to eat less meat etc.
The rise of automation would mean that we need less people in general for every day tasks, we're already seeing people losing jobs because of this. The 4 day work week could be a normal thing soon, which again is an implication that we may do just fine with smaller populations.
- because the entire Western capitalist model is built on an ever-growing workforce - why on Earth do you think immigration's so highly encouraged?Nairn
- I agree Nairn. I think it's pretty obvious that capitalism needs rethinking if we're to get out of the climate crisis.BaskerviIle
- Growth for the sake of growth is so absurdly unsustainableBaskerviIle
- My mum was from a family of 10, my father from a family of 9. My parents had two kids, I've had 1. The numbers are already decreasing.PhanLo
- We can't get people to stop using plastic bags. What hope for stopping them having kids!Hayzilla
- ^Hehehe.PhanLo
- *mulls hayzilla's point* The answer is clear - we need to remove the child safety warnings from plastic bags and encourage their use as toys!Nairn
- ^the population was controlled by a phenomena known as 'Nairn's blue bairns'.PhanLo
- sex is the sedative of the poor. it eases the pain of poverty.imbecile
- Ianbolton0
Why do you think capitalism needs changing to save the environment when we've only realised that we're a destructive force on this planet within the last 50 years we've developed more sustainable technologies than ever. We're more likely to destroy ourselves through nuclear war than anything, but who knows?
Capitalism (we as a collective) are rethinking our ways every single second and it'll still be too late if we don't sort out a global narrative to get along with each other.
- because capitalism is contributing just as much to the denial of necessary changes to ensure profitability for a select few above survival for the manycolin_s
- not to mention the multitude of ways greed and individualism harm society as a whole from a humanist viewpointcolin_s
- not to mention capitalism has never thrived without enslavement and oppression so to believe it is a-OK is abhorrently self-centeredcolin_s
- Okay, here we go! So what's your solution mate?Ianbolton
- Capitalism is too nearsighted, and it's inclined to short term solutions and cutting corners. You can't save the planet and profit off all its resources.sarahfailin
- I'm with you there, market based initiatives are the most likely to succeed. Air is free, so is polluting (mostly) so of course it's not taken into account butzarkonite
- we're setting up costs and changing the system. No one's proposed any alternatives that I'm aware of anyways...zarkonite
- In a socialist system where is the incentive to innovate, to invent, to push the boundaries. Profit is a very good motivator.Morning_star
- The majority of people don't want to change the market system of capitalism, they just want regulation and a welfare safety net.T-Dawg
- Socialism would be if the government (and then the workers) seized amazon, google, etc.T-Dawg
- And there would be no private industry.T-Dawg
- I'd say capitalism isn't what most people have a problem with. It's short term irresponsibility in the name of profit, like sarahf mentioned.T-Dawg
- When people want more control over an aspect of their well being, healthcare for example. Some want the governement to run it (this is not socialism)T-Dawg
- Because then they can at least have a say in how things are done with their votes and their tax dollars.T-Dawg
- On the opposite side of that argument, Some will say that the government should stay out of it, and that consumers already have control in buying/not buying.T-Dawg
- But in this case, the people without the means to buy/not buy don't get a say in anything.T-Dawg
- And it cuts off access to a service or good to a large number of people.T-Dawg
- In the case of the environment, which is a public good, people want more say. It's not so much about capitalism, but about regulation.T-Dawg
- At least that's my understanding of it.T-Dawg
- The sad thing is that even Adam Smith, supposed Patron Saint of the free market, never envisaged an entirely unconstrained and unmoderated market.Nairn
- Capitalism's a best-fit system for the human psychology, but it needs to be bridled. It needs to guide, it needs to act with constraint in critical domains.Nairn
- Welfare, healthcare and transportation at least should all be 'socialised', with base services bid to the best private contractor. Externalities should be taxedNairn
- Industries should be compelled by law or tax to evolve into forms that don't abuse position. But underneath all this, capitalism needn't be noxious.Nairn
- Humans are greedy and ambitious. The system we have needs to accept this and allow for it.Nairn
- Add to the above industries - warfare and the envionment. We've just this century left a boundless and infinite world, we need time to transition to the next.Nairn
- /deathboyNairn
- Nairn: A market, by definition, is a set of rules to normalize the interactions between parties. Free market is basically an oxymoron.zarkonite
- T-dawg think of it this way: China has lifted half a billion people out of poverty with market based economics. No other system on earth has achieved so much.zarkonite
- Don't forget that the pursuit of happiness is also a human right, and some people are happy to be assholes. Whatever system you're under should be light touchzarkonite
- to allow for maximum personal freedom. This leads to more happiness, much more than having tons of rules in your way when you try to make something of yourself.zarkonite
- The point of government is smooth out the problems, not dictate how people are supposed to behave. So yeah, it's messy and people get hurt but most are betterzarkonite
- off and more importantly MORE people will benefit than under any other top-down system.zarkonite
- I can agree with you on those points Zark, but many of these social safety net proposals are inspired by the happiest nations.T-Dawg
- I'm not a socialist by any means, I'm for a well regulated market economy.T-Dawg
- Reading about China's growth, this sticks out: Market activity then generated problems that required officials to build stronger institutions.T-Dawg
- Which in turn fostered the further development of markets.T-Dawg
- What worries me, is I feel that the US's institutions are losing power to corporations and private interest.T-Dawg
- From health, to education, to voting rights.
(sorry I've gone a bit off topic from the thread)T-Dawg - Hehe I'm gonna stop because I'm rambling and I'm posting comments before forming them into cohesive ideas :)T-Dawg
- "Capitalism is too nearsighted, and it's inclined to short term solutions and cutting corners. You can't save the planet and profit off all its resources."deathboy
- Can such system be nearsighted or those involved? And how does one save the planet and from what? Need to hear more.deathboy
- Tdawg! - "I'm not a socialist by any means, I'm for a well regulated market economy." what ism would you define that asdeathboy
- Thanks for trying to sort this out for me guys. I hope the global governments are reading this threadIanbolton
- @death I'm a capitalist with a progressive agendaT-Dawg
- These days, anyone who supports welfare programs/regulation gets incorrectly smeared as a socialist. Hence the specification.T-Dawg
- so you are not following anything on principle but only what suits your desires. Id say you are more closet case socialistdeathboy
- you mentioned china earlier. commy, socialist all the same fundamentals, but china has done the best job of using "capitalism" for economic aims while maintaindeathboy
- ing the POWER of the state or supreme emperor or whatever. however it will be short term success, since all success was not based on value of what people wanteddeathboy
- when the money stops Xi will be fucked. Or we will with reserves currency status. which is what is being played outdeathboy
- runnign debt for political gains only lasts so long. ask rome about itdeathboy
- lolT-Dawg
- I think our principles are pretty similar. It's the means to support them that differ.T-Dawg
- If you had real world evidence of welfare programs bring replaced successfully by free market industry in developed countries.T-Dawg
- Then let's examine those case by case.T-Dawg
- Because introducing private ownership in rural China is a far stretch from carbon capping multinational corporations.T-Dawg
- Even when you can argue broadly 'on principle' it's the same thing.T-Dawg
- Also, Rome's economic troubles were to due to war and overexpansion, not environmental regulation and welfare programs.T-Dawg
- Please do not make that equivocation fallacy.T-Dawg
- Whoops, meant false equivalenceT-Dawg
- Probably gonna let these discussions trail off, as they sort of get away from the original post.T-Dawg
- Well of course our "desires" are similar. Not principles. We both want to see others do better and well.deathboy
- However we all want to see others do well until it comes down to our self interest. Basic darwinism. This is where our principles differ. I don't want to forcedeathboy
- people to comply or serve like an ant colony. China is probably the most successful ant colony however it is only due to money generation.deathboy
- All our meant to serve one another. All slaves except the top brass. And as far as rome check it's monetary policy and pension system.deathboy
- whatthefunk2
- Ha advertising! Slowly selling cheaper(less) product for more money.deathboy
- At least we know it can't get any smaller than it is and maybe increase material with obesity. SO pendulum swings backdeathboy
- This is as compelling evidence as I've seen. Point well made! hahahaMondoMorphic
- freedom-1
Because Walmart needs more and more stuff to fill their store. It takes energy to make and deliver the junk.
- utopian-1
#MAGA Country
#Cowards- Make America Smug Again, this effen guy, wtf...whatthefunk