The questions you raise are so complex and multi-faceted that I'll have to be a bit overly simplistic.

What brought us to this state is the triumph of the American Empire (let's call it AE). AE became the dominant global power in the aftermath of WW2. And following the collapse of the USSR, AE's global supremacy was basically unquestioned. However, America doesn't like to think of itself as an empire. AE doesn't conquer nations or set up colonies. Rather, it rules by trade. AE dominates other countries by giving them no other option than to business with it. And when you do business with AE, you do business on AE's terms.

In a lot of ways, America does a much better job at ruling than its imperial predecessors. It goes to war less frequently than the Romans did, and it doesn't violently impose its culture upon other peoples the way the British did. But because Ae rules through economic might, it's caused wealth and power to become nearly synonymous. And that, I think, is why we are so obsessed with filling our coffers and raising our GDPs no matter the human cost. Under the current global order, money makes the world go round. You can't do anything without money. All the noble objectives you want to accomplish require an enormous amount of money. And in order to get that money, you need to act like a greedy soulless capitalist.

So that, I think, answers the question of why we're in this state. But the question of how to make a change is far more difficult.

I strongly believe that socialist revolution is not the answer. For one, it hasn't worked in the past. And I don't see how it ever could. If you give the government enough power to radically redistribute the wealth in society and centrally manage all large scale economic activity going forward, they will almost certainly abuse that power. And if you think that power can remain with 'the people,' you should read Animal Farm. I could write a lot more about why socialism (even if it's democratic) isn't the answer. But for now, I'll focus on what I think might be a better answer. Because America is the source of the problem, it also has to be the source of the solution. Of course, we could just try to destroy America, but that would probably end in massive wars and global chaos. So let's cross that off our list.

I think you're right that we need better leaders. But how do we make them better? I don't think we can just educate a generation of exceptional people who will naturally take charge and fix our problems. What we need to focus on is changing the aspects of our system of government which cause our leaders to make bad decisions. And when we think of possible changes we could implement, we should make them as realistically achievable as possible. So we can't just design a new system of government.

I'm sure there are many flaws in our system that we should try to change, but I'll focus on one for now.

Our politicians are too dependent on special interests. But we can't just get money out of politics. Corruption will always find a way to creep back in. We need to adjust the rules of democracy so our politicians aren't so desperate for donations. Right now in America, Democrats and Republicans are fighting with everything they've got to maintain their power. And in order to win, they need money. They need to act like corrupt, morally bankrupt traitors who care more about undermining their political opponents than serving their country. This dynamic is tearing America apart. It needs to end. And the only way to end it is for one side to win and the other to lose. It's too late for us to come together. We don't need a total victory where Democrats absolutely wipe out Republicans or vise versa. We just need one side to dominate the other enough so that the two can reach an understanding about who has the power. Following WW2, the Democrats had all the power. From the early 50s till the mid 90s, they never once lost their majority in Congress. During that period, the Republicans understood that the only way they could have any influence is if they cooperated and sometimes even went along with the Democrats.

But given the current demographics of America, neither side can dominate the other. So both sides have to bend to corporate interests in order to raise enough money to win elections. Both sides have to refuse to compromise in order to satisfy the people who vote for them and give them money. What we need to do is change the rules so that one side has a clear advantage. We shouldn't change the rules too much, because that might cause political instability and make the situation even worse. And we should change the rules in a way that makes sense, seems justified, and isn't just clearly ad hoc. If we do that, we'll at least be capable of having effective leaders. And maybe these new leaders will be able to address some of the problems you're talking about. And whether the changes to democracy should result in Democratic or Republican leadership... I've already written too much, so I'll save that part for later.

We have never had this much money circulating in the economy, we also have never been as productive as we are right now. The gross domestic product is rising everywhere, but the profit only goes into a couple of hands. — lucafrei

As I pointed out in your other thread where you made this same mistake, GDP as it is measured. i.e. in terms of the total quantity of money and goods and services circulating in the economy gives a false picture of productivity. The first world is exploiting the third world's resources in a desperate attempt to maintain its lifestyle.

True, it is currently bringing many people into a more prosperous middle class lifestyle, but everyone (except the very wealthy) is working longer and harder to service the exponentially increasing debt which is all that is enabling the illusion of growth to continue. Credit (new money creation) is premised on increased productivity in the future, but if productivity (really the illusion of productivity) can only continue to be increased by creating more debt, and not by increasing profitable and sustainable utilization of real resources to create more products, then there will inevitably be a day of reckoning.

It is true that if wealth were redistributed, then those people currently at the lower strata of prosperity would obviously be better off. But everything is interconnected and the current global economic structure, which is constituted by, among other things, the way the wealth is currently distributed with all the precise details and balances of consumption that go along with that, is becoming increasingly complex and fragile, so the overall economic effects of any such large scale redistribution are unpredictable, and could hasten catastrophic global economic collapse.

In other words, there is no one in control and nothing that can be done, and any attempted radical action could quite likely rapidly bring about a situation in which everyone, except the hunter-gatherer and most basic agrarian communities, basically everyone except those who can find or produce their own food and water, suddenly finds themselves far worse off.

I'm no economist but I understand that redistribution in the form of retirement funds, unemployment insurance, healthcare, and perhaps even a minimum income can help to stabilize a capitalist economy or at least act as a cushion in the inevitable downturns.

I am no economist either. I am just trying to think about the situation in light of what is generally accepted about the increase of fragility and volatility in systems, that goes along with any increase in their complexity.

The question always seems to be: where will the money come from? If the money is taken from the rich, by massively increasing taxation at the higher income levels, reintroducing death taxes or disallowing inheritance (above a certain level say) and the money gained thereby is given to the poorer sectors, then sales of luxury items that only the very rich can afford will decline, and they will decline to the degree that the wealthy are, so to speak impoverished.

If these industries generally decline and some even collapse what effect will this have on the global economy, if everything is interconnected, as it seems to be, in complex, and increasingly complex, ways?

Also, if the poorer people have more money to spend, then there may be a shortage of goods, which will cause inflation. Of course that would not seem to be a problem now, with inflation at historically low levels. It's a very complex situation, but I think whichever way you look at it, the current level of prosperity cannot continue, and bringing ever more people up to that level is unsustainable.

The only hope would seem to be that everyone very gradually reduces their level of consumption, particularly of fossil fuels; just to the degree that avoids collapsing current industries. But it would seem to be impossible to enforce, such a "rationing", or even quantify how austere would need to be, and people generally seem too complacently self-centered and unable to sustain voluntary cooperation for such a thing to come about through the "will of the people", anyway, even if they could know just how frugal they needed to be.

As a semi-trained economist I'm just going to throw this out here:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-offshore-wealth/super-rich-hold-32-trillion-in-offshore-havens-idUSBRE86L03U20120722

Private wealth held offshore represents “a huge black hole in the world economy,” Henry said in a statement.

Yeah, go figure. Any thoughts about this "issue", @andrewk?

And the supranational plutocratic ultra-rich complain that taxes are "too high". Give me a break.

sales of luxury items that only the very rich can afford will decline, and they will decline to the degree that the wealthy are, so to speak impoverished. — Janus

Let me respond as a semi-untrained economist: The current taxation level on the rich is about 30%. It used to be closer to 90%. And you know what? When it was at 90% there were still rich people getting richer. Granted, it might have taken more work on their part to get rich, and their children may not have been made quite as rich through inheritance, but they made do. They recycled their mink coats into mink stoles, their silk gowns into fancy curtains (the opposite of Scarlett O'hara in Gone With the Wind), and so on. The Gold Corvettes could eventually be used for grocery shopping instead of lavish display, etc.

impoverished — Janus

Just to alert the rich to the risks they face, "after another 5 seconds of whining about being impoverished, we'll just blow your tits apart". If they don't shut up, fire away.

The only hope would seem to be that everyone very gradually reduces their level of consumption, particularly of fossil fuels; — Janus

OK, so here you have stumbled upon an inconvenient truth: The present level of consumption (all goods and services) is unsustainable. Global warming is a reality, and one way or another consumption is going to get cut -- probably by some unpleasant process where heat and high water eliminates large batches of consumers from existence. Fossil fuels are not just our achilles heel, they are the bulging aneurism in our aorta that will burst, bringing this whole fandango to an abrupt and clumsy finish.

Let me respond as a semi-untrained economist: The current taxation level on the rich is about 30%. It used to be closer to 90%. And you know what? When it was at 90% there were still rich people getting richer. Granted, it might have taken more work on their part to get rich, and their children may not have been made quite as rich through inheritance, but they made do. They recycled their mink coats into mink stoles, their silk gowns into fancy curtains (the opposite of Scarlett O'hara in Gone With the Wind), and so on. The Gold Corvettes could eventually be used for grocery shopping instead of lavish display, etc. — Bitter Crank

I agree with all of that. The rich could still get richer when tax rates were much higher. But, given the increasing amount percentage of debt to GDP and diminishing and consequently more costly resources, do you think they could get richer today if taxation levels were at those mush higher levels? Perhaps they could continue to grow richer, but only at the expense of being able to purchase the said luxury items. I don't know this, obviously, I'm just speculating. If this were the case though, is it plausible to think this would have no destabilizing effect on the global economy?

Just to alert the rich to the risks they face, "after another 5 seconds of whining about being impoverished, we'll just blow your tits apart". If they don't shut up, fire away. — Bitter Crank

:rofl: Yeah, fuck'em; I have no sympathy!

OK, so here you have stumbled upon an inconvenient truth: The present level of consumption (all goods and services) is unsustainable. Global warming is a reality, and one way or another consumption is going to get cut -- probably by some unpleasant process where heat and high water eliminates large batches of consumers from existence. Fossil fuels are not just our achilles heel, they are the bulging aneurism in our aorta that will burst, bringing this whole fandango to an abrupt and clumsy finish. — Bitter Crank

I love your colourful language Crank! Totally agree! There is global warming indeed, nonetheless there is the other side of the problem which is the increasing fragility of the global economic system, which seems to be due to a number of converging factors, not least of which is depletion and hence increasing real cost (that is cost in energy terms) of resources. We just don't know which will hit us hard first, and just how soon we will be hit, but one of them will hit us, it seems fairly sure.

Yes. I don't know how, exactly, but to this semi-untrained economist, it seems obvious that the work economy as going to fracture. It isn't that economic activity will cease -- it won't until human life ceases -- but it will break up into less economic activity much less widely distributed.

For example, before the supply of oil is exhausted (maybe 100 years away), once heavy manufacturing becomes impossible because of labor, resource, and market, problems, global trade is going to come to shrink. It isn't that people won't want to buy anything; producers may not be able to make stuff to sell, AND get it to where buyers are. And if the buyers economy is collapsed, they won't be able to afford to buy anything. The fracturing and collapse of parts of the world economy probably isn't 100 years away--it's somewhat less. No, I don't know.

But it stands to reason that with heat waves, floods, crop failures, fires, and disease (animal, plant, human) taking an ever larger toll, (I left out major wars) economic activity is going to shrink.

Fossil fuels are not just our achilles heel, they are the bulging aneurism in our aorta that will burst, bringing this whole fandango to an abrupt and clumsy finish. — Bitter Crank

You underestimate the power of the markets. The invisible hand works its magic through the ever-increasing creative destruction that we are perpetuating.

But, "consume less"! Not really, just change the means of production to robots and the endless demands of productivity increases and all boats will rise.

I'm just going to be blunt and call you out on your catastrophizing here. The markets have lifted countless people in India and China out of destitute poverty. You might brush that aside and counter with another knee jerk response that this has happened at the cost of the environment, especially in China. But, it goes without saying that there is no free lunch and we might as well accept the fact that the world is becoming a better place despite what Marx or Engels might have said some 100+ years ago.

Not to give you the impression that I am disagreeing with you here, Bitter Crank. I agree with most of what you say on the forums and think Marx was right in some or most regards, although the jump between capitalism to socialism to communism isn't quite that continuous. There is quite a bit of jump discontinuity between each economic system. Anyway, I'm more of a guy that thinks progress should be continuous rather than instilled through revolution contra evolution.

My gripe is only that the picture you paint is devoid of all else considered or caeteris paribus.

But, "consume less"! Not really, just change the means of production to robots and the endless demands of productivity increases and all boats will rise. — Wallows

Yes, Wallows, but where are the resources, both economic and energy, not to mention scientific and technological, going to come from to build all those robots? And where is the money going to come from to radically transform all the existing infrastructure to serve the new regime? And where is all the money to support all the humans who will be out of work going to come from? Where is the political cooperation, globally speaking, going to come from? Where is the willingness to sacrifice our precious lifestyles, not to mention the knowledge as to precisely how and to what degree to do it going to come from?

I'm just going to be blunt and call you out on your catastrophizing here. The markets have lifted countless people in India and China out of destitute poverty. — Wallows

It's arguable that the "countless people" brought out of poverty is on account of increasing debt, and it seems obvious that this cannot be sustainable. Perhaps you might think it is not productive to think catastrophically, but if we really are facing catastrophe, would it not be more helpful; to face the fact rather than bury the collective head in the sand. What solid reason do you have to think we are not facing a catastrophe, when everything seems to point to the conclusion that we are? It's no good saying something like, "Oh, well we should try to look on the bright side", because that would likely be nothing more than wishful thinking.

It seems to me that we would do better to think that collapse, or at least a great and rapid reduction and transformation, of civilization as we know it is inevitable, and perhaps much sooner than we think, and to try to prepare as best we can for that, than to vainly hope that we can sustain "business as usual" indefinitely into the future.

Yes, Wallows, but where are the resources, both economic and energy, not to mention scientific and technological, going to come from to build all those robots? — Janus

Education? Human capital? Amazon is tirelessly working on automating all its distribution centers. Tesla, last week, released a fully autonomous electric car. It really never ends, as long as people want things instead of being satisfied with less, like myself. Now, there is undeniably an enormous amount of waste created through this indecisive nature of human wants and needs. And, I feel like that's the issue here. The amount of waste we produce is staggering. Just go to a food bank and realize that if your a glutton, then you just landed in heaven if you can get around the fact that the food is about to expire, which never really bothered me.

Where is the willingness to sacrifice our precious lifestyles, not to mention the knowledge as to precisely how and to what degree to do it going to come from? — Janus

Nothing needs to be sacrificed. That's a myth that I see pushed by nay-sayers of the economic system that governs capitalism. We will simply adapt and change the way we behave. If you get my gist here, it's like placing the horse behind the cart. Expectations are malleable and not concrete.

"Oh, well we should try to look on the bright side", because that would likely be nothing more than wishful thinking. — Janus

Substitute "wishful thinking" with "expectations" and my point should become more clear.

It seems to me that we would do better to think that collapse, or at least a great and rapid reduction and transformation, of civilization as we know it is inevitable, and perhaps much sooner than we think, and to try to prepare as best we can for that, than to vainly hope that we can sustain "business as usual" indefinitely into the future. — Janus

I don't believe in the notion of "collapse and inevitable" here. Others might differ.

Nothing needs to be sacrificed. That's a myth that I see pushed by nay-sayers of the economic system that governs capitalism. We will simply adapt and change the way we behave. — Wallows

Are you saying that we will not need to drastically reduce consumption (a reduction of consumption that I refer to as "sacrifice:) or that we will not see the drastic reduction of consumption as a sacrifice? You or I may not see such a reduction of consumption as a sacrifice, but how can you be confident that no one will, or that most, or even many, will not?

It seems to me you are just assuming that we will be able to do all these things without being able to give a plausible explanation as to how we will be able to do them.

Are you saying that we will not need to drastically reduce consumption (the reduced consumption that I refer to as "sacrifice:) or that we will not see the drastic reduction of consumption as a sacrifice? — Janus

Yes, we won't see it. It will just be a new "equilibrium" that we adapt to. Again, to repeat, expectations change due to things within or beyond our control. Hurray capitalism!

You or I may not see such a reduction of consumption as a sacrifice, but how can you be confident that no one will, or that most, or even many, will not? — Janus

Well, it's not a zero-sum game and we don't see change unless it has already happened. But, according to the snapshot or image I can present at this moment, there is a dramatic shift in the market towards a more sustainable future due to a rise in the efficiency of existing products.

It seems to me you are just assuming that we will be able to do all these things without being able to give a plausible explanation as to how we will be able to do them. — Janus

It just happens. I can't tell you how it does happen because we don't live in a communist central command economy that determines or transcends human wants and needs.

So, you are saying that the complex system we call the global economy will always be able to adapt, despite diminishing resources and their consequently increasing costs, to sustain something that will continue to possess all the positive attributes and benefits of what we call civilization? I would agree that such a thing might happen, even if I don't think it looks likely, if some new cheap energy resource, like for example workable fusion, suddenly comes into play. Even then I think it would be a challenge.

What cogent reason do you have for your apparently great faith in human resourcefulness?

So, you are saying that the complex system we call the global economy will always be able to adapt, despite diminishing resources and their consequently increasing costs, to sustain something that will continue to possess all the positive attributes and benefits of what we call civilization? — Janus

Something like that. Though you seem to be missing the point that markets are composed of people and not an abstract entity like the invisible hand that Adam Smith talked about.

I would agree that such a thing might happen, even if I don't think it looks likely, if some new cheap energy resource, like for example workable fusion, suddenly comes into play. Even then I think it would be a challenge. — Janus

The market is not a machine contra Marx. It's composed of people who drive it. Although if you read my first post in this thread you might be able to discern that it's actually a handful of people that are controlling the money stream.

What cogent reason do you have for your apparently great faith in human resourcefulness? — Janus

Well, I'm not part of the picture so I can somewhat objectively state that most people have a zest or zeitgeist for things in life. To sound philosophical there's an unsatisfiable desire for "more" than what people already have. This breeds discontentment and alienation of group interactions. But, I'm kind of not part of the composite of people who feel that way.

I can understand what you say here, but I can't see how any of it constitutes any reason to believe that we will inevitably, or are even likely to, whether by sheer luck or by brilliant artifice, make our way safely out of the current pickle we certainly seem to be in.

I'm a positivist, so there you have it. That's my attitude on the matter.

What do you think brought us to this state? — lucafrei

People want too much, and can't carry the burden of it.
It's always pushing and pulling; an overstressed heart.
A heart attack is a learning experience for some and a death sentence for others.

And how can we make a change? — lucafrei

Generosity.

That said, rock bottom isn't so bad, when you realise you can't go any lower and all that's left is elevation.

To sound philosophical there's an unsatisfiable desire for "more" than what people already have. This breeds discontentment ... — Wallows

So, do you think that "the desire for more" is the basic driving force in human development? Some people think it is. Should we suppose that human beings have been hungering for more for the last... let's say, 100,000 years? It seems like our species has spent far more time living in equilibrium with needs, wants, and resources than in incessant hankering after more.

Most of our history has been lived as hunter gatherers whose societies were very stable and who did not accumulate goods. The couldn't carry more than the absolute minimum gear needed to carry out hunting, gathering, and consuming food. Studies of contemporary hunter gatherer societies reveals people who are reasonably healthy, and reasonably happy. Our basic formula for success has been 'travel light'.

Of course, we want 'more'; just because you ate well at breakfast doesn't mean you will not want 'more' at supper time.

The idea that humans hunger for ever more and better goods, experiences, and services is a treadmill made to serve corporate purposes, not an inherent human desire. "Always more" is the motto of capitalism, which requires ever expanding sales to maintain profitability. This, by the way, is capitalist theory, not Marxist theory. It's just a fact: corporations can not achieve steadily increasing profitability on the basis of flat sales and consumer contentment.

Henry Ford understood this. His very short list models (any color you want as long as its black) were not made to be bought and enjoyed for decades. Ford engineers strove to produce a vehicle that would not last too long. Why? Because if everyone who wanted a car bought one, and the car lasted them for decades, Ford would be out of business fairly soon. Ford soon had the company of many auto manufacturers who offered an array of cars in various styles, colors, luxury, or utility. They all followed the same principle: car sales can be driven by encouraging dissatisfaction with what you have in hand in favor of what is at the showroom. And we haven't gotten to 1930 yet!

So, this idea of driving sales by the whip of dissatisfaction wasn't invented in 1901. Sales of fashionable goods (clothing, shoes, jewelry, home furnishings) had been applying this principle to the affluent bourgeoisie for a while; let us say, during the 19th century. The further back you go, the fewer people there were who had sufficient resources to engage in discontented buying (we are talking about very small numbers).

You know this: there is a huge industry devoted to the careful, 24/7 cultivation of discontentment. It is so ubiquitous that it might seem invisible. It is certainly so ubiquitous that it is inescapable short of becoming a cloistered monastic or falling into a coma.

at this moment, there is a dramatic shift in the market towards a more sustainable future due to a rise in the efficiency of existing products — Wallows

What, pray tell us, is efficient and sustainable about selling water in plastic bottles? arranging society so that everyone who can owns at least one car? A product packaging system that consumes and buries or burns many tons of paper, plastic, and metal every day? Housing built for 2 people that comprises at least 3,000 sq. feet of space, where a century ago, a house for 2 people might have had 1000 square feet?

The questions you raise are so complex and multi-faceted that I'll have to be a bit overly simplistic.

What brought us to this state is the triumph of the American Empire (let's call it AE). AE became the dominant global power in the aftermath of WW2. And following the collapse of the USSR, AE's global supremacy was basically unquestioned. However, America doesn't like to think of itself as an empire. AE doesn't conquer nations or set up colonies. Rather, it rules by trade. AE dominates other countries by giving them no other option than to business with it. And when you do business with AE, you do business on AE's terms. — Dusty of Sky

When you sign the agreement you are agreeing with the terms/conditions set out within the agreement.

The sheer size of some multinational corporations lends their board of directors and/or ceos a tremendous amount of power, including but not limited to free speech; the power to influence an entire electorate during what are supposed to be free and fair elections; the power to appoint specific people in charge of lobbying on the corporations own behalf by virtue of helping write and/or actually writing legislation that has a direct effect upon the profit margin of the corporation. Interest of employees and/or workers(everyday citizens) are always in conflict with corporate profits.

Of the people, for the people, by the people? What bullshit.

There is nothing illegal about a citizen of a foreign nation who sits on a multinational corporation's committee/board directly influencing how American laws are written. There's nothing illegal about the same people having the power to govern the discourse, even when it is a deliberate attempt to divert attention from what ought be the focus.

Collusion? Pffft. That shit's legal.

Thanks Scalia.

But, "consume less"! Not really, just change the means of production to robots and the endless demands of productivity increases and all boats will rise. — Wallows

And you think I'm dreaming!

I'm just going to be blunt and call you out on your catastrophizing here. The markets have lifted countless people in India and China out of destitute poverty. You might brush that aside and counter with another knee jerk response that this has happened at the cost of the environment, especially in China. But, it goes without saying that there is no free lunch and we might as well accept the fact that the world is becoming a better place despite what Marx or Engels might have said some 100+ years ago. — Wallows

That's fine; you don't have to believe whatever catastrophizing I do here. And I would agree with you that economic activity in China, India, SE Asia, Korea, and elsewhere has indeed lifted many people out of destitution over the last few decades. Trade has helped, internal consumption has helped. Shaking off very stultifying systems of peonage has helped a great deal too.

Yes, there have been environmental costs. There were, are enormous environmental costs as a result of our own economic development. Economic development, in general, has tended to be a dirty game, because whether in a command economy or a capitalist economy, managers prefer to externalize costs by throwing waste into the river.

The catastrophe that I catastrophacize about, however, is quite novel. the crisis of global warming owing to CO2, methane, and other greenhouse gases is unprecedented and is pretty much cross cultural for industrialized nations. It's also novel in that it isn't a crisis that can be thrown into reverse quickly or easily. We already may be past the point where strenuous reductions of CO2 will prevent a sharp rise in global average temperature. Strenuous reductions would certainly be a good idea, but we might get the consequences of CO2 increase before we experience the benefit of CO2 decline.

Global warming probably won't wipe out our species. I don't think it will do that. But it is already wiping out many species. Warming, and excessive use of pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and so on. And global warming certainly threatens to cull human population. that will be pretty ghastly. It's worth avoiding.

I would agree with you that economic activity in China, India, SE Asia, Korea, and elsewhere has indeed lifted many people out of destitution over the last few decades. Trade has helped, internal consumption has helped. — Bitter Crank

A much bigger class of people who are just comfortable enough to not want to riot. Keep them fed clothed and housed...

The inequality of today is bigger than it was in Ancient Rome when slavery was still a total normality. — lucafrei

Evidence and counter evidence please? Anyone can make a sweeping claim about anything, but without actually presenting evidence for this why should I believe you given that what I’ve learnt - from actual empirical evidence - is generally opposite to what you’re saying?

And you think I'm dreaming! — Bitter Crank

Well, everything is becoming automated. The Luddites were aware of this impending doom to their welfare and claimed that machines should be banned from becoming the means of production, yet here we are enjoying ourselves due to these machines that are sorting your mail or building new electric cars.

Keep in mind that things are progressing in a manner where costs are decreasing or remaining stable comparatively to inflation. This is just me pointing out the fact that technology, productivity increases, and efficiency gains - through automation and other factors - are causing deflationary tendencies in the economy, not inflationary.

That's fine; you don't have to believe whatever catastrophizing I do here. — Bitter Crank

Yeah; but, it attracts attention and is misguided. Just trying to point that out.

Economic development, in general, has tended to be a dirty game, because whether in a command economy or a capitalist economy, managers prefer to externalize costs by throwing waste into the river. — Bitter Crank

So, before we claim that this will continue to happen, let's take a step back and realize that this is a big issue that people are aware of, much like how Rachel Carson's, Silent Spring raised awareness of the use of pesticides and their detrimental effects on eggshell density, which caused hatchlings to prematurely die. Furthermore, there's a shift taking place, most notably in the car industry, and in the energy sector to go electric. Indirect fusion (solar panels) is becoming cheaper than oil and gas. The fracking industry will only last so long, despite the mind-boggling fact that the US is becoming a net exporter of oil and gas, which was unthinkable some 30 years ago.

We already may be past the point where strenuous reductions of CO2 will prevent a sharp rise in global average temperature. Strenuous reductions would certainly be a good idea, but we might get the consequences of CO2 increase before we experience the benefit of CO2 decline. — Bitter Crank

Yes, no disagreement here on my end. And oil and gas companies were campaigning against nuclear, through promoting solar some 30 years ago, when solar was never going to compete with oil and gas, at the time. But, times are changing and nuclear is experiencing a renaissance.

Disinformation is a cause for concern; but, the oil and gas companies seem to have accomplished their goal of vilifying nuclear, which is still the safest and a practical alternative to oil and gas. It's a tragedy that liberals in office still think nuclear is evil and all that crap, which paradoxically Republicans have been very fond of. So, interests and goals are misaligned and are warped and distorted over at Washington due to disinformation and special interest groups. But, this is where we have to realize that economics dictates what is most cost-effective, and not any particular group of people or president for the matter.

The only hope would seem to be that everyone very gradually reduces their level of consumption, particularly of fossil fuels; just to the degree that avoids collapsing current industries. But it would seem to be impossible to enforce, such a "rationing", or even quantify how austere would need to be, and people generally seem too complacently self-centered and unable to sustain voluntary cooperation for such a thing to come about through the "will of the people", anyway, even if they could know just how frugal they needed to be. — Janus

It would seem to require a rather drastic shift in values, and that takes time, probably much more time than we have left before the shit hits the fan. Oddly, I think people would generally be much happier if their values were shifted toward seeking meaning and happiness, rather than wealth, status, and distraction. In a culture that values meaning and happiness, "rationing" may not feel like rationing but simply living cooperatively for mutual benefit.

It would seem to require a rather drastic shift in values, and that takes time, probably much more time than we have left before the shit hits the fan. — praxis

Not according to those inclined to agree with Marxism. The revolution is always around the corner; but, seemingly never comes about as long as cooperation is enforced by a higher authority. And, that's sort of the paradox with Marxism. That people don't seem to want it, not in capitalist society at least. Marx understood this and elaborated about the need for this "shift" to occur gradually from capitalism to socialism, and eventually towards communism. China is perhaps an exception to this, in how they accomplished this shift within the span of one or two generations.

Oddly, I think people would generally be much happier if their values were shifted toward seeking meaning and happiness, rather than wealth, status, and distraction. In a culture that values meaning and happiness, "rationing" may not feel like rationing but simply living cooperatively for mutual benefit. — praxis

So, classical and neo-classical economics doesn't really delve into cooperation and mutual benefit as much as it should. The solution to the tragedy of the commons, which is pretty much a summary of the current predicament we have with climate change, is in essence relinquished through highlighting the benefits of cooperation. Combine neo-classical economic theory with laissez-faire sentimentality, and you can't address the problem until it the negative externalities (such as carbon emissions) start affecting growth and prosperity. One solution to this problem that is compatible with neoclassical economic theory is through internalizing externalities such as a carbon tax. This seems like the only "rational" solution to the issue, yet it has its downsides. The main downside is that economies that are less well developed are going to get hit with an equivalent price to pay as more developed economies. To resolve the problem you have to determine (a nearly impossible task) the number of emissions that each country has emitted to the atmosphere of CO2 and based on the amount to create, what I would call a "guilt-tax" proportional to the amount previously emitted to the amount currently being emitted.

Anyway, my favorite field of science being game theory would never allow such an "unfair" guilt-tax to ever be implemented.

In my opinion, we as humans have to escape the illusion everyone lives in, try to see the bigger picture and maybe remember where life started, because strictly speaking we are all related to each other, it does not matter if you believe in science or in any religion. We are a “being family”. Empathy has gotten lost or it may have never been around in the first place. Therefore I am not happy with our world even though I grew up in Switzerland where you can say the welfare is extremely high. No one has to suffer in terms of essential needs and everyone gets help if its needed. — lucafrei

And that's exactly your problem.

You don't see the positive side in the World as you have grown up what many would see as the model of a peaceful prosperous country where various ethnic groups speaking different languages live in harmony (or at least we don't hear about any ethnic strife in Switzerland). No news is good news. And the Swiss don't get much into the news. The only bad things you hear from Switzerland is that there is a drug problem (but which country wouldn't have one).

Why don’t we think about how the human family can live together in peace, sharing knowledge and thoughts? Imagine we include the brilliance of every human individual and put this together. I see humanity working with nature, as if they were one, I see humanity exploring space, making new discoveries, extending their knowledge. I see humanity as one nation but still with different cultures. — lucafrei

Yet isn't that actually happening? American astronauts have still gone to the International Space Station with Russian rockets. Doesn't that at least tell something?

It is an inherent aspect of Western culture to be critical about the way things are. We have that what could be called Angst. We are restless about the problems we perceive the World having and we have this urge to solve them. Or at least to speak about them. The globe isn't in a near Mayhem. We portray it to be so as to highlight the importance of the present.

We wouldn't be happy if our time now would be just the backwater of the far more interesting 20th Century to future historians, who don't see much happening in the 21st Century (especially compared to the awesomely exiting 22nd Century and the epic 20th Century).