Climate Change

weso1 said:
The free market did discover a better alternative to lead. It was suppressed in large part by the collusion between large corporations and government. Corporatism was the main economic driver behind the leaded gasoline phenomenon. Lead possibly would have never been an issue in the first place had government not gotten involved.
Click to expand...

Capitalism leads to corporatism, though: that's its natural end-state. How do you suggest fighting that without regulation—admitting, as I do, that regulatory policies and practices can certainly be improved over the past and present versions?
 
jpx7 said:
Capitalism leads to corporatism, though: that's its natural end-state. How do you suggest fighting that without regulation—admitting, as I do, that regulatory policies and practices can certainly be improved over the past and present versions?
Click to expand...

It's not its natural end state. Corporatism is dependent upon government, not capitalism. The natural end state of capitalism is the destruction of government.
 
jpx7 said:
Capitalism leads to corporatism, though: that's its natural end-state. How do you suggest fighting that without regulation—admitting, as I do, that regulatory policies and practices can certainly be improved over the past and present versions?
Click to expand...

It's not its natural end state. Corporatism is dependent upon government, not capitalism. The natural end state of capitalism is the destruction of government.
 
weso1 said:
It's not its natural end state. Corporatism is dependent upon government, not capitalism. The natural end state of capitalism is the destruction of government.
Click to expand...

Disagree. But glad to know you're an anarcho-capitalist. Very pie-in-the-sky ideology, from where I sit.
 
jpx7 said:
Disagree. But glad to know you're an anarcho-capitalist. Very pie-in-the-sky ideology, from where I sit.
Click to expand...

By definition corporatism doesn't exist without the state. I'm not necessarily anarcho-capitalist. I'm just making an argument which system is more moral at its core. Although I do think that as technology advances, government will become less relevant in a capitalist society.
 
Forever Fredi said:
How and why do you think millenials started demanding it? Why do you think climate change has become a big issue amongst millenials?

It has less to do with millenials going hmmm electric cars are cool and they don't have a big carbon footprint. It has everything to do with self-survival. Millenials want to live on a planet that isn't going to be raped by climate change. I don't want my grandkids to have to suffer because we as a country and society were too stubborn to do something about this and waited too long. Most Boomers don't seem to care as much about climate change since they already had their pie. It's millenials trying to elect leaders that are willing to fight for our country to be a leader on the global stage of climate change.

The Paris Accords have less to do with China or India, and more to do with the United States being a leader and leading by example. It's the message and direction the United States wants to lead the world with. The problem people have with Trump pulling out is 1) He's been campaigning on climate change being a hoax and 2) He's shown no commitment for our government to leading the way for renewables.
Click to expand...

If you want to make the argument that the symbolism of us leaving is damaging, then fine - I can support that. But the actual ramifications of us leaving are meaningless. Actually - I'd say it's resulted in a good outcome: the American people and businesses are upset, and the US doesn't commit to transferring US wealth to subsidize other countries to achieve a truly meaningless outcome.
 
Forever Fredi said:
Tesla has been the biggest driving force in the electric car industry. It's only after all the hype they've received have the other big car companies invested more to try and make sure Tesla doesn't dominate the market.

If Musk wasn't pushing this, it's not really likely the other Big auto companies invest as much in it now than later. You forget half the country still thinks climate change is a hoax. So if there's no need to create demand for electric cars, why would people get it? Because of hte novelty?
Click to expand...

I don't accept the premise that without musk, we don't get electric cars. Ford has been working on them for over a decade.

Even if it's Musk - that doesn't undermine the point the private sector has been the pioneer
 
zitothebrave said:
And how much money is he getting from the Government for his research? Not to mention the money for launching satellites into space?

All of Musk's Companies as of early 2015 received 4.9 Billion dollars in government subsidies according to the LA Times
Click to expand...

Not much. Much less than the oi companies get.

He's gotten $4.9B in subsidies. PayPal, First Solar, and Tesla are worth over $130B combined. And that's not even including SpaceX.

Having said that, if your argument is that government subsidies help these businesses (tax cuts) innovate... then why wouldn't you support massive corporate and individual tax cuts?
 
Forever Fredi said:
Weird how Musk and Apple have been two of the biggest critics of Trump pulling out of Paris agreement, and are two companies that have wanted more government leadership on climate change action.

Why are you and sturg trying to insinuate that Musk and Apple are leading by example, and at the same time don't want government to step in and take a bigger role to help them? They're not mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

I think it's really good politics to criticize the government on this deal, bc the public sees the headline and thinks it's a bad deal. There are no repercussions for condemning the move.

There is also clear interest for massive companies to want the US to commit to these things, because they can comply with massive & expensive regulations whereas up and coming competitors struggle to do so
 
Julio3000 said:
Greenwashing is way cheaper than meaningful change. Lobbying and paying fines is cheaper than adjusting your business model significantly. Same in finance as in fossil fuels. Why would you expect any different?
Click to expand...

Volkswagen is a great example of this—and they would've gotten away with it, too, if not for those meddling governments.
 
weso1 said:
By definition corporatism doesn't exist without the state. I'm not necessarily anarcho-capitalist. I'm just making an argument which system is more moral at its core. Although I do think that as technology advances, government will become less relevant in a capitalist society.
Click to expand...

Explain this, or actually define corporatism—whichever you prefer. If you just mean that governments issue certificates of incorporation, which enjoin companies to certain stipulations and also confer certain benefits—well that's a pretty tautological definition that isn't how most people would understand "corporatism".
 
jpx7 said:
Explain this, or actually define corporatism—whichever you prefer. If you just mean that governments issue certificates of incorporation, which enjoin companies to certain stipulations and also confer certain benefits—well that's a pretty tautological definition that isn't how most people would understand "corporatism".
Click to expand...

I think you understand that corporatism is the state intervening with business, providing subsidies and bailouts and making specific laws to benefit.

That is our system.

It is NOT capitalism.

And it is what leads to your wealth gap you complain about.
 
sturg33 said:
I think you understand that corporatism is the state intervening with business, providing subsidies and bailouts and making specific laws to benefit.

That is our system.

It is NOT capitalism.

And it is what leads to your wealth gap you complain about.
Click to expand...

That's not the generally understood meaning of "corporatism" (sociopolitical organization around large mutually-interested groups), but I'm fine if you want to proceed with it for the purposes of this discussion.

In our system, it most certainly is an instantiation of capitalism—even if it isn't the mostly-unfettered, minimal-state-apparatus capitalism that (I believe?) you want, nor the pure, totally stateless anarcho-capitalist version that we all know weso secretly wants. But it's still a form of capitalism.

Nonetheless, I'd love to read how either of these purer capitalist formulations would assuage this wealth-gap that you assure me is the product of the interventionist bugaboo (and not, as I surmise, a result of the unrelenting profit-motive baked into capitalism's core structuring).
 
weso1 said:
The free market did discover a better alternative to lead. It was suppressed in large part by the collusion between large corporations and government. Corporatism was the main economic driver behind the leaded gasoline phenomenon. Lead possibly would have never been an issue in the first place had government not gotten involved.
Click to expand...

Um, could you thumbnail that for me?
 
18920319_10158981682230724_6866957704063725232_n.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top