It's not either capitalism or communism — Benkei

Finally, "sustaining capitalism" is an utter shit goal. — Benkei

I think that's called "the old bait and switch!"

The aim isn't sustaining capitalism per se. The aim is to secure a sustainable future with minimal disruption; and that's because, disruption causes people to suffer.

It is and always has been about people, not some system or ideology. — Benkei

Capitalism is the prevailing economic system the world over, and if you cared about people and sustainability - more than you do about promoting communism, you'd accept that - and seek minimally disruptive solutions to climate change.

I also don't share your optimism where it concerns science. — Benkei

Optimism is irrelevant. It's a matter of fact that the earth is a big ball of molten rock, containing a truly massive amount of energy - more than adequate to meet and exceed current global energy demand, into the indefinite future.

I think that's called "the old bait and switch!" — counterpunch

I see you like to read extra things into what I say. Let me clarify. I'm against the current type of capitalism, I think it's implementation, especially when the corporation was introduced, has and will lead to untold misery. I'm not against "free" markets as we understand them in mixed economies but against the idiotic laissez-faire nonsense. I am against societies that are diminishing people, resources and everything else into their monetary value. I'm against the concentration of power that comes along with it, I'm against the asymmetry that arises from all these effects resulting in a split between "capitalists" and "labourers" and rich vs. poor.

The "goodwill" of a company is generated by its labourers so I believe one solution could be (if we must have corporations) is to introduce a dynamic equity system where labourers, over time, become majority shareholders as opposed to those providing capital. And that's logical because if labourers wouldn't add more value than capital, shareholders would be losing money.

But hey, yeah, I totally played into your unnecessary juxtaposition!

The aim isn't sustaining capitalism per se. The aim is to secure a sustainable future with minimal disruption; and that's because, disruption causes people to suffer. — counterpunch

So the French revolution was a bad thing? Your posts involve way too many absolutes, too many assumptions and too little examination.

Capitalism is the prevailing economic system the world over, and if you cared about people and sustainability - more than you do about promoting communism, you'd accept that - and seek minimally disruptive solutions to climate change. — counterpunch

That capitalism is the prevailing economic system is no argument for it to remain so. Where have I promoted communism? I have always maintained Marx' Kapital is one of the better critiques of capitalism. Thanks to Piketty, we have an additional one.

It's a matter of fact that the earth is a big ball of molten rock, containing a truly massive amount of energy - more than adequate to meet and exceed current global energy demand, into the indefinite future. — counterpunch

So would zero-point energy. This doesn't mean it's a viable option. For someone banging on about science, you sure like to spend very little time on the actual science of the problem. Those questions you need to answer are still unanswered. Until then we'll go with the science that actually is clear, proven to work and feasible, such as wind, water and photo-voltaic renewable energy.

I see you like to read extra things into what I say. — Benkei

Murdering commie! . . . :wink:

The root cause of climate change is our mistaken relation to science — counterpunch

No, it isn’t. Assert it a million times— doesn’t make it so.

Science grew up with capitalism, and has been appropriated for profit, usually at the expense of the public (eg computers, the internet, pharmaceuticals, etc).

As usual, you have no idea what you’re talking about— and I have no interest in explaining it to you. You wouldn’t hear it anyway. Just be happy with your delusions of solving the world’s problem by fiat.

I'm not against "free" markets as we understand them in mixed economies but against the idiotic laissez-faire nonsense. I am against societies that are diminishing people, resources and everything else into their monetary value. I'm against the concentration of power that comes along with it, I'm against the asymmetry that arises from all these effects resulting in a split between "capitalists" and "labourers" and rich vs. poor. — Benkei

This is well said— and wasted on the utter buffoon you’re talking to. Still I applaud you.

You’re forgetting a simple principle: capitalism is anything that’s worked and led to benefits, and anything that doesn’t— is not capitalism.

It’s a religious belief in capitalism as a magic system that cures all, provided we do it correctly, that lies at the heart of people like magma man. Unshakable belief.

I see you like to read extra things into what I say. Let me clarify. I'm against the current type of capitalism, I think it's implementation, especially when the corporation was introduced, has and will lead to untold misery. I'm not against "free" markets as we understand them in mixed economies but against the idiotic laissez-faire nonsense. I am against societies that are diminishing people, resources and everything else into their monetary value. I'm against the concentration of power that comes along with it, I'm against the asymmetry that arises from all these effects resulting in a split between "capitalists" and "labourers" and rich vs. poor. — Benkei

Reasonable enough concerns; entirely unreasonable solution.

The "goodwill" of a company is generated by its labourers so I believe one solution could be (if we must have corporations) is to introduce a dynamic equity system where labourers, over time, become majority shareholders as opposed to those providing capital. And that's logical because if labourers wouldn't add more value than capital, shareholders would be losing money. But hey, yeah, I totally played into your unnecessary juxtaposition! — Benkei

It's basically the centre-piece of Corbyn's 2019 manifesto. It's been offered to, and rejected by the British public. Just as Kinnock's left of Clause IV platform saw him rejected by the British public three times. And obversely, Blair dropped Clause IV, and won three elections for Labour. When will the left learn they are there to represent working class people's interests, not prosecute their own ideological prejudices?

Just on the surface of things, why would someone start a business, risk their capital, invest their time, effort and ingenuity - knowing they are required to give that company away to factory floor workers whose sole contribution is their labour power? Business could not operate under those conditions; and then you really would see suffering. Immediately there'd be capital flight, mass unemployment, the value of the currency would tank, while interests rates would skyrocket.

So the French revolution was a bad thing? Your posts involve way too many absolutes, too many assumptions and too little examination. — Benkei

Arguably, the revolution was a disaster for France that still echoes today in the all too frequent strikes, often turning into riots. A romantic desire to tear down the system, as if to birth the next republic - encourages social protest to become disproportionate.

That capitalism is the prevailing economic system is no argument for it to remain so. Where have I promoted communism? I have always maintained Marx' Kapital is one of the better critiques of capitalism. Thanks to Piketty, we have an additional one. — Benkei

Let's take Pikkety's critique, and respond, so what?

"The book argues that the rate of capital return in developed countries is persistently greater than the rate of economic growth, and that this will cause wealth inequality to increase in the future."

Wealth inequality is good. Inequality means that people have been able to develop their talents, and use those talents to create social good, for a profit. Talent is unequally distributed by nature. Equality of opportunity, sure - I'm with Rawl's on equality of opportunity, but denying people the right to profit from their talents, for sake of equality of outcome with the talentless, is profoundly unjust and dysfunctional.

So would zero-point energy. This doesn't mean it's a viable option. For someone banging on about science, you sure like to spend very little time on the actual science of the problem. — Benkei

That's crazy; zero point energy is not a form of energy outside of cartoons. It refers to the lowest energy state of a quantum system - even at absolute zero, there's a residual energy. That's zero point energy. Magma is a real source of huge amounts of clean energy we need, like yesterday. It cannot be developed quite that quickly, but doesn't have to be - assuming ultimately, it would be more than adequate, we can redress the damage in due course.

Those questions you need to answer are still unanswered. Until then we'll go with the science that actually is clear, proven to work and feasible, such as wind, water and photo-voltaic renewable energy. — Benkei

Your unanswered questions are not due to a lack of scientific rigour, but that they could only be answered after conducting physical research. I'm not currently in a position to hire those specialist skills. Give me the money, and I'll start making calls - and get you your answers. But until then, it's just not possible to answer the questions you've asked. You can keep implying this constitutes some sort of deficiency on my part, but I can only do so much - and I'm doing what I'm qualified to do, and that is to speak on the philosophy, political theory and economics of the whole thing.

Wind and solar are sub-optimal at best. They will never meet our energy needs - and so will entrench fossil fuel dependence. They are inconstant sources of energy, and so that energy must be stored - meaning you don't just need to build windmills and solar panels, but energy storage facilities - and still maintain a fossil fuel generating capacity. Windmills cost about £250m each to manufacture and erect, and last around 25 years, after which time they need replacing at similar cost. And all this to barely take the edge off carbon emissions.

In order to make wind and solar make sense - living standards will have to fall dramatically. This means old people afraid to put the fire on in winter; the price of food, travel, everything that costs energy costing much more - to reduce demand, to address climate change. It's cruel and unnecessary, and leads nowhere good. We need to apply technologies that produce massive amounts of clean energy to balance human welfare and environmental sustainability in our favour.

Let's take Pikkety's critique, and respond, so what?

"The book argues that the rate of capital return in developed countries is persistently greater than the rate of economic growth, and that this will cause wealth inequality to increase in the future."

Wealth inequality is good. Inequality means that people have been able to develop their talents, and use those talents to create social good, for a profit. Talent is unequally distributed by nature. Equality of opportunity, sure - I'm with Rawl's on equality of opportunity, but denying people the right to profit from their talents, for sake of equality of outcome with the talentless, is profoundly unjust and dysfunctional. — counterpunch

You missed Pikkety's point. The point is that those with capital will only get richer, while others who do produce get poorer in relation. Investors don't develop their talents to create something, they only invest to get more money back. This incentivizes rent-seeking behaviour which makes the economy actually worse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

The problem is not with the free-market mechanism as such, markets are good at producing, distributing and pricing goods etc... The problem is that they have 'forgotten' their role and have over the years essentially taken over the state by lobbying and by playing states against eachother after globalization. They have turned a means into the goal.

No, it isn’t. Assert it a million times— doesn’t make it so.

Science grew up with capitalism, and has been appropriated for profit, usually at the expense of the public (eg computers, the internet, pharmaceuticals, etc).

As usual, you have no idea what you’re talking about— and I have no interest in explaining it to you. You wouldn’t hear it anyway. Just be happy with your delusions of solving the world’s problem by fiat. — Xtrix

Thanks again for your abusive, ill informed, half assed, hateful opinion!

Scientific method emerged 100 years before the industrial revolution; and in effect, was condemned as heretical. It was this religiously motivated philosophical position that rendered science a mere tool to be used by capitalism and government.

Science is not just a tool, but is also an understanding of reality to contrast with an ideological description of the world. To maintain that religious, political and economic ideological description of the world - a scientific understanding of reality was ignored, downplayed, undermined - over hundreds of years. That's the context within which capitalism operates, and it's a mistake. You want to blame capitalism, and I'm not suggesting capitalism is entirely innocent, but it's not the problem.

Having established that - then we return to the real world, where things are not ideal, but nonetheless, thinking in these terms creates a rationale to apply the technologies necessary to sustainability - and in that course, magma energy is the most likely adequate technological solution - a solution that sovereign nations states in economic and political competition, would not naturally arrive at. But it's there, and our best bet, because as a matter of fact - resources are function of the energy available to create them. Ask a physicist!

Thanks again for your abusive, ill informed, half assed, hateful opinion! — counterpunch

The only appropriate response to a deluded individual who listens to no one and has no ideas.

Scientific method emerged 100 years before the industrial revolution — counterpunch

You don't know what you're talking about. But it's nice to see you fit right in with the typical behavior of most ignoramuses -- always speaking with utmost assurance in their own (believed) acumen.

The scientific method doesn't exist. That's a fairy tale. But even if it did, it didn't "emerge" at a date, and certainly not "100 years before the industrial revolution," which is itself difficult to date. Some estimate around 1750, which would make your bogus date 1650, which is completely arbitrary. Galileo was already dead by that point -- to take one example.

I don't even know why I'm bothering, to be honest. But almost everything you say is so stupid I feel compelled to respond. It's too easy a target.

To maintain that religious, political and economic ideological description of the world - a scientific understanding of reality was ignored, downplayed, undermined - over hundreds of years. — counterpunch

:yawn:

OK Richard Dawkins. What a boring analysis. Also has the benefit of being completely wrong.

But you're welcome to keep believing it. In your world, the problem is the ignoring of science and the solution to the climate crisis is magma energy. Got it. Everyone is riveted. Now go away.

You missed Pikkety's point. The point is that those with capital will only get richer, while others who do produce get poorer in relation. — ChatteringMonkey

I shouldn't have been required to answer to Pikkety's point. I'm not advocating capitalism per se; capitalism is the prevailing economic system, and imperfect as it may be, has the knowledge, skills and resources to apply the technology to prevent an imminent catastrophe. Your determination to put ideology ahead of the practicalities of sustainability is absurd. You would use sustainability as an anti-capitalist battering ram, to force your ideology on the majority. Pikkety should be required to answer to my proof that's unnecessary.

You missed Pikkety's point. The point is that those with capital will only get richer, while others who do produce get poorer in relation. — ChatteringMonkey

So, not real poverty then - but new all times highs in left wing envy? So what? The rich pay most of the taxes. Do you suppose they think that's fair? We can all complain about how unfair everything is, but it's just not about that for me. It's about finding a way to apply the technology necessary to sustainability - and I don't see that happening by making an enemy of government, wealth and industry. I want a solution that suits them - and counter intuitive blue sky thinking though it may be, magma energy ticks a lot of boxes.

capitalism is the prevailing economic system, and imperfect as it may be, has the knowledge, skills and resources to apply the technology to prevent an imminent catastrophe — counterpunch

Capitalism has personal traits now -- like knowledge and skill.

You're barking up the wrong tree, I'm no left ideologue. I'm just saying the system is broken right now, however you want to look at it.

Capitalism has personal traits now -- like knowledge and skill. — Xtrix

I love how there's nothing you cannot misunderstand somehow!

I love how there's nothing you cannot misunderstand somehow! — counterpunch

Yeah, that's what's happening.

You're barking up the wrong tree, I'm no left ideologue. I'm just saying the system is broken right now, however you want to look at it. — ChatteringMonkey

You weigh in by telling me I misunderstand Pikkety - then forgive me for considering you an advocate of his position, and tailoring my remarks accordingly. I cannot comprehend how inequality of wealth is relevant to my proposal - even if I thought it were a problem, which I don't. I'm happy to see someone doing well for themselves - good on 'em! The question is about approaches to climate change, and frankly, the left wing limits to resources approach is factually wrong and requires great suffering to an intangible ideal - and the reply is, "Ah yes, but - if we sustain capitalism, some people will get very rich!" How awful!

So your thought is that geothermal energy will solve the coming energy crisis. Could be.

I cannot comprehend how inequality of wealth is relevant to my proposal - even if I thought it were a problem, which I don't. I'm happy to see someone doing well for themselves - good on 'em! — counterpunch

Good god you're an imbecile.

You're barking up the wrong tree, I'm no left ideologue. I'm just saying the system is broken right now, however you want to look at it.
— ChatteringMonkey

You weigh in by telling me I misunderstand Pikkety - then forgive me for considering you an advocate of his position, and tailoring my remarks accordingly. I cannot comprehend how inequality of wealth is relevant to my proposal - even if I thought it were a problem, which I don't. I'm happy to see someone doing well for themselves - good on 'em! The question is about approaches to climate change, and frankly, the left wing limits to resources approach is factually wrong and requires great suffering to an intangible ideal - and the reply is, "Ah yes, but - if we sustain capitalism, some people will get very rich!" How awful! — counterpunch

I weighed in because you misunderstood Pikkety, which... you know, seems fair game on a philosophy forum.

And it's not only about inequality of wealth, even if you are not left politically, the system isn't working properly, by it's own standards.

Personally I don't think limiting energy is needed to solve this problem long term because renewables, solar in the first place, will be cheap enough to provide the energy... short term it could certainly help to be more energy-conserving though.

But climate change and energy-supply is not the only issue, there will eventually, sooner for some, be problems with other resources that are not renewable.

Either way, a model that relies on perpetual growth isn't sustainable I think, because at some point we will hit a wall of diminishing returns on possible innovations, which is what ultimately drives growth.

And that's only tackling the question of the feasibility, i.e. can or could we do it? The real question - and beyond the scope of this thread - is do we really want this?

I weighed in because you misunderstood Pikkety, which... you know, seems fair game on a philosophy forum.

And it's not only about inequality of wealth, even if you are not left politically, the system isn't working properly, by it's own standards.

Personally I don't think limiting energy is needed to solve this problem long term because renewables, solar in the first place, will be cheap enough to provide the energy... short term it could certainly help to be more energy-conserving though. — ChatteringMonkey

Wind and solar cannot possibly solve climate change. These technologies will never even meet current energy demand, less yet provide surplus energy to capture carbon, desalinate, irrigate and recycle. They'll cost a fortune to build, produce a trickle of energy, only slightly reduce total GHG emissions, and be impossible to recycle in 25 years time, when they'd need replacing at similar cost.

The technology is simply not adequate to the problem, and consequently, other forms of sacrifice will be necessary - an endless series of government interventions in the market and society to tax this and stop that, in hopes of eeking out our existence!

There is a viable source of energy, and it's massive beyond imagining. It's constant high grade clean energy, and there's a limitless amount of it. Harnessing this energy we would not need to impose upon people and business to secure a sustainable future. It's the difference between stopping flying and inventing a hydrogen powered jet engine. And you say let's stop flying? Then I think you're nuts!

Wind and solar cannot possibly solve climate change. These technologies will never ever even meet current energy demand, less yet provide surplus energy to capture carbon, desalinate, irrigate and recycle. — counterpunch

If you have a sources for these claims, I'm willing to look at it... if not, I disagree.

If you have a sources for these claims, I'm willing to look at it... if not, I disagree. — ChatteringMonkey

East Anglia One is a wind farm offshore of the British Isles. It's 102 turbines produce enough energy to power 600,000 homes. There are approximately 35 million households in the UK. By dint of a back of the envelope calculation; saying nothing of the governments intention to phase out petrol powered cars in favour of electric vehicles from 2030, you'd need roughly 10,000 windmills to meet current energy demand. Maybe 15,000 once you source transport energy from the national grid. The 102 turbines cost about £2.5bn to build, which is to say, 15,000 windmills would cost.... oh no, my calculator has run out of zeros! So that's not going to happen, is it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Anglia_Array

I was talking about solar energy.

:up: And where one technology (especially an unknown and unproven one) is given the grace of time to develop and improve, I would think the same courtesy should be extended to others; and those which are extant, with a head start, would be favored, I would think. It's my understanding windmills just keep getting better. Compare what they started with to where they are today. Solar panels, likewise. I've even heard you could make roads out of and drive on them. Just imagine if all oil subsidy were ripped away (including the use of public lands) and diverted to alternatives.

I was talking about solar energy. — ChatteringMonkey

Oh, sorry! You mean like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crescent_Dunes_Solar_Energy_Project

or like this:

Gwent Levels: 'Wales' Amazon in danger from energy developments'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-57174252

???

Oh, sorry! You mean like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crescent_Dunes_Solar_Energy_Project — counterpunch

"The first three months of 2019 (January, February and March) showed good progression, topping all previous monthly data, but in April the plant was shut down because the project's sole buyer, NV Energy, terminated the Power Purchase Agreement for failure to produce the contracted power production. The power generated also cost NV Energy about $135 per megawatt-hour, compared with less than $30 per MWh available from a new Nevada photovoltaic solar farm."

They shut it down because other solar technology was cheaper? Anyway, it's not representative for all solar energy, it's a specific technology being tested because it is more effective at storing energy.

Gwent Levels: 'Wales' Amazon in danger from energy developments'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-57174252 — counterpunch

This is not about the viability of solar, but about specific placement of it.

None of this supports your claim that solar wouldn't be viable

↪ChatteringMonkey

:up: And where one technology (especially an unknown and unproven one) is given the grace of time to develop and improve, I would think the same courtesy should be extended to others; and those which are extant would be favored, I would think. It's my understanding windmills just keep getting better. Compare what they started with to where they are today. Solar panels, likewise. I've even heard you could make roads out of and drive on them. — James Riley

Yeah, energy-efficiency is getting better and better. And there are enough ways to get around the irregular supply of energy, if you have enough of it. Most of it could also be recycled eventually...

The idea seems to be that, solar and wind, and sure if present other renewables, could get us there. No idea why he's so hung up on geothermal energy specifically.

And where one technology (especially an unknown and unproven one) is given the grace of time to develop and improve, I would think the same courtesy should be extended to others; and those which are extant would be favored, I would think. It's my understanding windmills just keep getting better. Compare what they started with to where they are today. Solar panels, likewise. I've even heard you could make roads out of and drive on them. — James Riley

The potential is not there. Wind and solar cannot produce enough energy, cannot produce energy reliably, don't last long enough, cost a fortune to build, and are impossible to recycle. If all those problems were solved, we'd still need an unfeasibly large number of solar panels and/or windmills to meet current energy demand. We will always be behind the eight ball on climate change if we apply inadequate technologies to merely mitigate emissions. Magma energy, by contrast - has the potential to defeat climate change and transcend limits to resources.

We need sources that back up these claims Counterpunch... just stating it won't do.

No idea why he's so hung up on geothermal energy specifically. — ChatteringMonkey

Really? After everything I've said you've still no idea why magma? That's an extraordinary admission.

We need sources that back up these claims Counterpunch... just stating it won't do. — ChatteringMonkey

I have no obligation to provide you with sources on demand if you still don't know why magma; you're not taking anything in.

I have no obligation to provide you with sources on demand — counterpunch

No that's right, and I have no obligation to take your word on it.