Like Ellen Degeneres, Aurora James, etc?
I like how you supported this claim with evidence.
Social security, welfare, & education are not the
"means of production". Perhaps you'd be happier
in the worker's paradise of N Korea or Cuba?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Capitalism Sucks
- Thread starter The Hammer
- Start date
I like how you supported this claim with evidence.
"means of production". Perhaps you'd be happier
in the worker's paradise of N Korea or Cuba?
Heyo
Veteran Member
Lol. Next time you'll tell me that Biden and Harris are on the left. You Revoltistanians need to adjust your Overton Window. Try this for slightly left:
https://www.youtube.com/user/redactedtonight
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
Can you support that claim with any kind of evidence?
They're on the left side of the aisle by Ameristanian measure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisle_(political_term)#Origin_of_the_usage
(The whole world revolves around Ameristan, ya know.)
Heyo
Veteran Member
From a European view they are on the far right (and the pubs are on the crazy right).
Oh, I can explain....that's cuz you Eurostanians are
bat **** crazy lefties....what with your hate speech
laws, high taxes, & over-regulation.
When I worked for Knorr Bremse (a German outfit),
a co-worker splained how she couldn't even grocery
shop after work because the stores couldn't legally
be open then. So everyone shopped during lunctime.
Heyo
Veteran Member
That's gone now. I can shop 'till 22:00, and that's in a rural area. Though shops are still closed on Sundays (outside of tourist areas where there is almost no restriction).
We still have over-regulation in other areas and corporations love them because it keeps pesky competition out.
Closed on Sundays?
Fascists!
Heyo
Veteran Member
What do you expect from a country where the biggest party has "Christian" in their name? (They are right-wing (by our standards) btw.)
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
"Crazy" is an understatement, let me tell ya.
exchemist
Veteran Member
No. Because you seem oblivious to the huge strides towards tackling climate change that private enterprise, stimulated by government targets, support and regulation, is making. That is what I mean by living under a rock.
I read just today in the Financial Times that $100bn has been invested since 2020 in electric vehicles and a further $300bn of further investment is in the pipeline over the next 4 years. Car makers expect 50% of new car sales in Europe to be electric by 2030.They see it as like the change from the horse and cart to the car, and are falling over themselves not to be left behind. The internal combustion engine is already effectively dead, in the planning of the big auto makers.
The UK now gets 25% of its electricity from renewables and climbing, and has only 2 coal power stations left, which hardly run at all and will soon shut. The new investments have been made by capitalism, again stimulated by government incentives.
The next target has to be home heating. Once our governments make their minds up what they want people to shift to, and how to structure the regulatory incentives, capitalism will deliver the solutions, as it is doing for power gen and transport.
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
All you're doing here is rattling off sales figures and investment trends, without even bothering to look into whether any of this is more than ad copy for a newspaper that has a very well known bias as the designated cheerleader of the coporate world, and has an actual, measurable impact on future carbon emissions.
Where are these investments going and what is their likely outcome?
Could you perhaps like to this article, as I can't find it on the FT's front page?
While we're at the impact of private entertprise on climate change - just what would you say about the fact that private companies funded counter-research and media campaigns put the at the time established scientific consensus on global warming publically into question, effectively turning climate change policy into a political wedge issue and nearly destroying international public trust in climate science as a result?
Or is our memory so short that we aren't even going to talk about anything that happened before the 2010s, unless it involves the supposed failures of socialism?
exchemist
Veteran Member
It's the Big Read in today's edition.
This stuff is serious. It is written to inform investors, not to bamboozle the public with lies.
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
I never said they weren't serious about their openly pro-corporate agenda.
You don't believe that investors are going to read "gas prises rising in the UK" and going to act accordingly?
exchemist
Veteran Member
So what's your point, then?
The FT's "pro-corporate agenda" is evidence that capitalism is spending vast suns on addressing climate change. They don't make this stuff up, you know.
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
They are spending vast sums to invest in profitable enterprises. That's oil, gas, mining of coal, lithium, aluminium and uranium, coal and gas based energy, and now that the EU has announced a coming ban for fuel-based vehicles, electric cars. If electric cars were to fail at being sufficiently profitable, then investments would quickly move away from that market.
None of these people care one iota about whether any of their money addresses climate change or not, because that's not the point of investment and never has been - the point is making as much money as humanly (or, more recently, algorithmically) possible.
You are cheerleading people for not killing human civilization as fast as they can solely because they accidentally stumbled upon a new fad that makes them look good in the press for a change, until the press gets bored and they go back to putting their money into firearms and bitcoins (or whatever).
exchemist
Veteran Member
I suggest you set aside for a moment your political prejudices (about what you think the motives of the auto makers and operators of power plants are) and, and just recognise their practical contribution to solving the problem we all face.
That is my point. I am not making a moral point. I am making a practical point. If you want to get on top of climate change, you can do it by harnessing capitalism to that end, by suitable government measures.
Imagining that you can somehow throw out the entire global economic system and replace it with something yet to be specified is a recipe for 50 years of political strife (cf. communism in the c.20th), instead of doing anything about climate change.
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
Their practical contribution is minimal compared to what they could have done within the past two decades, when they instead spent millions trying to fool us into believing that climate change isn't real.
I'm sure they will finally save us, and not simply profit off the new fad of "green" consumer goods until that goes away in the wildfires, droughts and floods of the next decade, as GDPs around the world plummet due to global climate crises.
But hey, we'll get some neat cars out of it, so it's not all bad!
Good point, if we do nothing at all, our corporate masters will surely save us, because corporations definitely aren't legal constructs designed specifically to generate profit and nothing else.
Heyo
Veteran Member
That is what economists call a "planned economy". Private enterprises are not motivated by the necessity to save our way of life, they are motivated by greed (in this instance the prospect of government subsidies).
In fact it is the tax payers paying the corporation to stop polluting. And the "investors" will make their cut out of it. Never let a good crisis go to waste.
Now imagine how much cheaper it would be for the tax payers if they didn't have to pay the capitalists.