Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Bolivia, a country whose basket case centrally planned economy should be an example to us all, has boldly proposed that we solve the Climate crisis by giving them all our stuff.
According to Bolivia;
The structural cause that has triggered the climate crisis is the failed capitalist system. The capitalist system promotes consumerism, warmongering and commercialism, causing the destruction of Mother Earth and humanity. The capitalist system is a system of death. Hence, capitalism is leading humanity towards a horizon of destruction that sentences nature and life itself to death. In this regard, for a lasting solution to the climate crisis we must destroy capitalism.
The capitalist system seeks profit without limits, strengthens the divorce between human beings and nature; establishing a logic of domination of men against nature and among human beings, transforming water, earth, the environment, the human genome, ancestral cultures, biodiversity, justice and ethics into goods. In this regard, the economic system of capitalism privatizes the common good, commodifies life, exploits human beings, plunders natural resources and destroys the material and spiritual wealth of the people.
…
As a result of implementing the Bolivian index proposal, non- Annex I countries [e.g. Bolivia] would have a total of 89% of the [future emissions] budget and Annex I countries [like America] only 11%. Also, to perform monitoring and sanction non-compliance with international commitments involves establishing an International Climate Justice Tribunal.
…
Extreme poverty in Bolivia reached 17.3% of the population in 2015, and this will be erradicated by 2025. However, this is not possible if there are no actions to fully develop the national economy and reduce the impacts of change climate. Thus, Bolivia has prioritized a linkage of mitigation and adaptation actions in complementarity with the holistic development in the areas of water, energy, forests and agriculture as part of its 2025 Patriotic Agenda, and national development plans.
…
Structural solutions to the climate crisis
1. Adoption of a new model of civilization in the world without consumerism, war-mongering, and mercantilism, a world without capitalism; build and consolidate a world order of Living Well that defends and promotes the integral rights of our peoples, undertaking the path of harmony with nature and respect for life.
2. Construction of a climate system based on responsibility to Mother Earth,the culture of life and the full realization of humanity in their holistic development, humanizing the economy, surpassing the simplistic approach to decarbonization of the economy.
3. Protection of the Rights of Mother Earth in an articulated and complementary manner to the rights of peoples to their development.
4. Defense of universal common goods such as the seas and oceans,water,atmospheric space, as well as the technological monopoly, promoting people’s access to the common heritage.
5. Elimination of patents on technologies and recognition of the human right to science and technology of life.
6. Effective implementation by governments of the human right to water.
7. Establishment of the International Court of Justice Climate and Mother Earth to enable countries to fulfill their international commitments to climate change in a context of respect for the rights of peoples and of Mother Earth.
8. Allocate the resources of the military machinery of the imperial powers and the war-mongers to finance the activities of the peoples against climate change.
9. Eradication of commodification of nature and carbon markets promoting business climate millionaires, which do not solve the problem of the climate crisis.
10. Decolonize natural resources environmental colonial biased views that see the peoples of the South as forest rangers of Northern countries and communities as enemies of nature.
…
Bolivia has a vast abundance of valuable natural resources – their poverty is a political failure, not a lack of opportunity.
Perhaps if the Bolivian government were to prioritise straightforward economic development and consumerism, and enthusiastically embrace profit making, rather than whining about all the stuff other people own, and talking up their national love of nature, they might actually help the 17.3% of their people who are currently suffering extreme poverty, instead of having to keep stringing them along with implausible national poverty eradication plans plans.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Yup they are heading for a great starvation like the USSR and China.
After the purges in the USSR under Stalin its difficult to accuse capitalism of anything worse “The capitalist system is a system of death”
Cheers
Roger
http:llwww.rogerfromnewzealand.com
“Bolivia! What could there possibly be in Bolivia that anyone would want?”
Natural gas. Lithium. Tropical hardwoods. Cocaine.
Alligator ceviche. Banana varieties. Baby goat ribs. Argentine style beef. Bass fishing. Even wine, grown at the highest elevation of any vineyards in the world.
Bolivia would be richer than Chile, the only Latin American country officially First World (a member of the OECD), if it were run by Chileans. Instead, Chile took its coastal province away from it in the Great Pacific War.
Lol. Ya think you put enough dynamite in there Butch?
Where will we go?
What will we do?
Maybe just fade into Bolivian?
https://youtu.be/6tLrIkPK8kg
When I first watched “Mike Tyson Mysteries”, I thought they were making fun of him. But he does talk like that (Fade into Bolivian)!
Does Bolivia have ties to Cuba like Venezuela does? That would help eliminate capitalism.
Eric,
Yes. Morales owes a lot to Cuba as well as Venezuela.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALBA
Yet, note that Ecuador’s real currency is the US dollar.
The graves of Butch Cassidy and/or Sundance Kid?
Bolivia also hosts many of the world’s largest tin deposits and no one is going to mine them with Morales in power.
The problem with socialist utopias – just one of the many problems – is the intellectually capable and the hard working loathe the mind numbing boredom, the corruption, the bloated kleptocratic bureaucracies and the pointlessness of life in them, so they vote with their feet. In other words, the good guys get filtered out of the system.
A classic example of this type of ‘peoples paradise’ in today’s South America is Venezuela – and as we all know, that worked out well!
One final thought: the ineptocrat and kleptocrat nations of the world are demanding huge reparations from the capitalist world at the Parisites’ meeting later this month. The last major treaty in Paris was the Versailles one in 1919, where enormous reparations were demanded from the losers of World War 1 – that also worked out well, as it led to the Great Depression and another world war.
Well il Presidente; you go ahead and abolish capitalism, in your garden of Eden, and we’ll promise not to come and make investments; which are capitalistic, after all, in your country.
But we are not going to give you jack; except of course in trade for some of your stuff. Well supposing of course you have some stuff we might be interested in.
Marxism is also capitalism – state capitalism !
It’s not whether Capitalism (the Free Market) is a good thing or a bad thing. It is the only thing, every other thing just regulates it. Regulate it enough and you get Marxism, or Socialism and that makes for lots of poor hungry people or worse. Any thing can be abused so the best regulation of anything is personal responsibility letting people take care of themselves absent corrupt Governments.
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
Roger,
Thanks.
It really is – “We screwed up (although we have some fine versifiers who can give ten [10, count them] structural solutions); and you didn’t – so give us all your stuff, plus the ideas behind them, so we can screw up on a super-colossal carp scale”, isn’t it. In spades and clubs and hearts and diamonds, and the minor Arcana, too, I guess.
Lots of rights, just not intellectual rights. Bit light on duties, though . . . .
And did you see ‘please’?
Auto, recovering from an open-mouthed spell.
The amount of history and current events one needs to ignore in order to believe that crap is staggering. I’m currently speechless. Unbelievable.
It doesn’t matter if you or I believe it. It only matters that Bolivians believe it – or are resigned to it.
Crazy as that was at least he got one idea right… abolish the carbon (sic) markets. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, eh?
Which makes it sounds like a highly qualified proposal that the UN will embrace
It is truly amazing, if not logical, why Atlas keeps shrugging. Thank you, Ayn Rand.
IMO Ayn Rand is perhaps the greatest philosopher ever, Her novels written in the 50’s are more prophetic than what’s written even a couple of years ago.
Bolivia’s problem is the same as most any 3rd world pisshole (and I’ve been to a lot of them). It’s a lack of intelligence. Not resources, opportunity, or colonialism, just pure lack of brains. That won’t change no matter how much money we transfer to them.
Any time anyone brings up Ayn Rand, I cannot but remember the Last Week Tonight funny short clip about her – Why is she still a thing?
She is still a thing because she was so prescient, having experienced Communism.
The clip is idiotic. Rand is not a heroine to “conservatives” in general, but to libertarians. Her opinions about abortion and God are shared by many libertarians. The Pauls do oppose abortion, but I’d be surprised if Mark Cuban does.
The comments about American Indians was taken out of context. She opposed reservations and tribal sovereignty, not the civil rights of Indians, who would indeed be better off as full citizens, without the socialist enclaves of reservations.
Here’s the best commentary I’ve ever seen on Ayn Rand:
Tom Fuller also has an interesting take:
https://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/obama-publicly-humiliates-kevin-trenberth/
BINGO! I am continually amazed seeing how ‘the looters’ continue to think that somehow, hurting the producers will somehow benefit everyone. While there may be a temporary positive effect, the end result is a collapse economy.
Jeff
Fossil fuel producers will pay their tithe to the church of CAGW. They’ll build it into their business model just like tobacco companies did. The world will still want fossil fuels, so the price will eventually go up. Anything you restrict access to does so. Some people will get a net check, others will have to pay. Those that pay wont rebel if what they have to pay is below the pain threshold. And, just like the fossil fuel producers they will pass that cost of living onto to someone else. The net result is we all INFLATE the cost of living for no apparent reason.
Does that all fall apart ?
Maybe. That then depends on the value of what you use for your cost of living. The UN is currently locked and loaded to use SDRs as the new fiat currency. It’s a painful exercise to think it all the way thru because it’s painful for people with some sense of integrity to know that “this” is all based on nonsense.
Knute, I beg to differ. Much depends on elections 2016. If Trump carries the white house and repubs retain control of congress, this crap will be unwound so fast it will make your head spin. If Hillary or Burnie take white house then you may be correct. Heaven help us for what else might happen if dems retain white house there will be a lot more to worry about than fuel prices.
Joe
This is a good website and it appears to be predominately GOP in nature. I’m not interested in debating why people choose political parties and I have my doubts about both parties. Personally, I have extensive experience with both, so I’m anecdotally jaded.
I know what base the Dems cater to and at least at this point, it’s obvious to any observer what they are up to concerning CAGW … they ultimately want to support CO2 based class action lawsuits for their voting base which are made up of a high percentage of protected classes. One of the big clues is watching unrelated NGOs mesh agendas in support of CAGW because ultimately they serve the same cash in the pocket goal. Its buy a voter on steroids.
I’ve watched the GOP Congress pull considerable punches concerning CAGW and it bothers me a great deal. They nibble around the edges when a throat punch is warranted. They are in charge of both investigative committees, have the power to get to the root of the lies, are slow even when they are headed in the right direction. Something is rotten in Denmark. They have the leadership, science and power to make a difference, but they stop short.
I banter around different reasons for why they stop short and the latest I see is that intel is rolling in that latinos will be the difference maker in this election. Latinos are big supporters of CAGW/CO2 legislation because many of them live in industrialized areas and “think” they would benefit from CAGW/CO2 compensation … sad to say. The GOP may be afraid of losing that vote if they attack the CAGW issue.
Thinking out loud.
Knute, thanks for the thoughtful post, as I have wondered why the republican effort is so half hearted. (In lots of areas BTW)
David
Glad I could add to your thought process in a meaningful way.
Maybe I should go fishing at the crack of dawn more often.
Thanks
Just out of curiosity, if they really want to embrace the natural world and end consumerism, and war and capitalistic society , why do they have any need of 89% of the worlds emissions budget? Couldn’t they achieve their goal and feel fulfilled by continuing the status quo? Seems to me that they are just begging for what they despise.
Exactly!
They are begging to get conquered and slaughtered by an army that wants their land and resources.
That is not at all a remote possibility.
All Brazil would need to overrun the Amazonian portions of Bolivia would be fuel for its armor and air. And IMO a majority of the population would welcome them, if they could keep their independence. Most people in Santa Cruz despise the Andean Indians who support Morales and have little in common with them. They call the Altiplano “Alta Peru” and identify culturally more with Argentina, hardly a paragon of good government.
The country makes little sense, as is true of so many states with idiotic boundaries.
They could sell them back to the USA et al and become a global rentier??
I think the key is likely to be found in the ideas of Eric Berne. In Bernian terms, you’re looking at this at the Adult level when what’s really happening is between the Child and the Parent.
Seems a perfect match for the Naomis and socialists of the CAGW movement. Alarmist type climate “science” is a tool for these people.
I bet he rides a bike to work every day and his palace is powered with a solar panel !! Right ??? sarc…
Just like the Pope did.
I thought he rode a Unicorn ????
Those that propose the end of capitalism are the ones who need to be giving their stuff away; notice how The Vatican opposes capitalism yet clutches their wealth close to their heart. If they really where consistent with their stated beliefs they’d give away all their property.
Whenever a socialist suggests that capitalism end I always ask them to immediately hand over their possessions such as computer, their phone, their clothing, their car, their bed, their lights, their heaters, their toothbrush, their books, especially their books on socialism, their cat, dogs, music, … as there are three billion people who need it more than they do and I’m better at allocating it than they are. So far no one has handed over their private or personal property (another false distinction they make).
Socialists only give away OTHER peoples money !!!!
Gloateus Maximus
You seem to have made a typographical error by writing
because the truth is
Socialism opposes theft and coercion.
Richard
Nope.
Correct as posted.
Socialists are highwaymen.
Socialism is impossible without sticking a gun at the head or chest of the people.
How could you imagine otherwise?
Capitalism creates. Socialism steals.
And capitalism is based upon freedom of choice. Economic freedom is the flip side of political freedom.
The people decide what they want to buy, rather than government goons and stooges deciding for them.
MarkW:
Please retract your falsehood that says
That is absolutely untrue! I have never – not ever – said “socialism is the ONLY economic system that spreads freedom”, and I am certain my son would also not assert such an untruth.
On another thread I here wrote
You and JohnKnight then ‘piled in’ with smears and falsehoods as you always do – and have in this thread – when totalitarianism is opposed. I concluded my defence of freedom in that thread saying
I now repeat that statement to you and to all members of the American ultra-right who choose any excuse – such as this thread – to spout their despicable totalitarian propaganda. If you had something worth promoting then you would promote it instead of feeling the need to misrepresent others at every opportunity.
Richard
PS The three * each replace a K but posting the original of *** makes a post go into moderation.
Gloateus Maximus:
You provide the same type of falsehood and misrepresentation as MarKW when you write
Each of your statements is a falsehood. How could you imagine otherwise?
Please read my post to MarkW and its link before again posting such offensive falsehoods.
Richard
Y’all, let’s get over the Socialism-bashing. I’m certain that none of you would want to return to the Gilded Age, which is whay you get with pure capitalism. Capitalism and Socialism temper each other’s extremes to get a good balance, which is why almost the entire planet uses some mix of the two.
Y’all are against COMMUNISM, which is the extreme form of socialism for the masses with a wealthy dictatorial elite.
Big difference.
Richard, socialism gets what it passes out to others by stealing from those who produce.
You may want to hide your head from the ugly truth, but the truth doesn’t go away just because you run from it.
Ben, the so called Gilded age never happened, at least not the way the fiction writers have portrayed it.
Try learning some real history and some real economics.
BTW, if you think govt giving away favors to contributors is “real capitalism”, you know nothing of capitalism.
That’s socialism my friend.
Richard: The claim that socialism opposes theft and coercion could only be true if you define what other people have earned as theft, and taking it, isn’t coercion.
I know that a lot of socialists like to redefine terms, such as claiming that having too much money is theft from others. As long as individuals gave that money to the rich people voluntarily, then it isn’t theft, no matter how much that amount may be. And no amount of whining about how it’s unfair that some have a lot and others have little, won’t change that.
Socialists also seem to feel that as long as your mob calls itself a govt, that nothing the mob does can be wrong.
richardscourtney
November 9, 2015 at 11:09 pm
How could my statements, true on their face, possibly be falsehoods?
Socialism redistributes wealth, taking it by force from producers and giving it to consumers in return for their political support. How is that different from organized crime?
If capitalism is so bad how did all the evil capitalimists get the stuff that everyone else wants in the first place?
+ 50 likes
That also justifies the actions of Genghis Khan, Al Capone and Mohammed.
Peace be Upon Them.
As Ayn Rand would say.
Those guys didn’t create wealth by providing legal goods and services that people wanted at prices they could afford. They destroyed wealth, stole it or got it against the law.
Capitalists got their stuff by stealing and killing from others?
I have yet to meet a socialist who has even a clue how capitalism works.
Socialism is theft and coercion.
On another thread the courtneys tried to make the claim that socialism is the only economic system that spreads freedom.
Remarkable, since socialism requires a population enslaved by the state. Freedom is ultimately impossible under any form of socialism. Some forms abolish it immediately, but others kill it more slowly.
Freedom would already be extinct in the world if not for the capitalist USA, which nation now is itself suffering galloping socialism and tyranny. The election next year is the last chance for a rebirth of freedom.
Since Rand has been mentioned, might I cite a non-fiction equivalent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Serfdom
Cause evil always wins. That stuff about good always prevailing over evil, just fairy tales.
The Republicans are running a number of candidates who believe Prohibition is the answer to intemperance. Hasn’t that been tried before? And failed?
Tom in Florida:
You make a good point when you say
Of course, the answer is that capitalism is not “so bad” but President Morales needs to evade responsibility for the failures of his political party and attempts to ‘scapegoat’ “captalists”.
Such behaviour is common from political extremists wanting to excuse their failures. Indeed, it is demonstrated by members of the American ultra-right in this thread. For example, Gloateus Maximus here writes
That paragraph attempts to assert that freedom is kept alive only by the American extreme right and that “galloping socialism” is responsible for the failure of the politics he desires in the US. It is complete nonsense of the same kind – and for the same reason – as the assertions of Morales.
Richard
@ur momisugly MarkW – November 9, 2015 at 4:21 pm
And just where, how or from whom did those “others” acquire their “stuff” that you are accusing the Capitalists of stealing from them?
Samuel: Reread my post and note the question mark at the end. I was replying to that claim by someone else.
richardscourtney
November 9, 2015 at 11:27 pm
Do you really believe that the UK could have defeated the N@zis without the USA?
Could NATO have defeated the Communists without the USA?
To me it seems obvious that there would be no freedom on earth without the USA. I wonder how you can suppose otherwise.
Britain would be either a fascist or a communist puppet state now without the titanic productive capacity of the capitalist USA.
Socialism. Give us your vote so we can take other peoples money (and not actually give it to you guys either).
Socialism: Having your head in the clouds and your hand in someone else’s pocket.
Socialism: Focussing on how the world in your opinion ought to be, and ignoring completely how it actually is (see climate science).
Socialism: Selfishness for losers.
Socialism: Greed egotism resentment and jealousy disguised as altruism.
Socailsim: The opium of the people.
Leo Smith. Someone who doesn’t have a clue so regurgitates untrue soundbites of others.
Richard
Richard
Pure socialism may well follow your beliefs but in reality doesn’t seem to . The long time socialist country in which I live has always raised “solidarity” taxes as and when it needs money for it’s very stupid projects. Like closing nuclear power stations or sending nurses to old peoples houses when it’s hot (which it never did). Socialism may well have worked well back in the bronze age but human failures mean it won’t work now. Unless of course you can name a successful socialist regime.
Definition of success revolves around quality of housing, infrasructure, energy, health care food supplies and so on.
Stephen Richards:
Thankyou for making a sensible post in opposition to my views.
I copy all of your post to me in the (probably forlorn) hope that less rational people will learn from your example. You say to me
There are countries in Scandinavia that have a “successful socialist regime” and who are listed among the 30 most prosperous countries in the world.
Richard
MarkW:
You have attempted to deflect from the fact that you posted an offensive, personal and abusive lie by saying
Socialism provides what each individual needs so far as is possible and thus society is a whole is enriched and every member of society benefits.
You clearly want to hide the glorious truth by adding additional falsehood as a method to avoid apologising for your earlier lie.
And your falsehood I have quoted here is blatantly untrue because those who were suffering from the “stealing” would leave the society for somewhere else.
Richard
Richard, the examples you cite, Scandinavia, have unique properties that are more powerful than socialism itself. It is these properties that cause socialism to naturally arise.
Small nations, homogenous populations in both culture and genotype, isolated from the rest of the world by natural barriers, and sub-arctic meaning they die if they don’t cooperate.
Socialism is thus better than dying, but not perhaps by a lot.
More importantly, they chose it. You would be surprised at what freedoms they give up. For instance in Sweden it is illegal to continue to work after your mandatory retirement age.
Recent immigrants get more benefits than pensioners, and the pensioners are prohibited from working.
Their problems are many and socialism is on the brink of collapse because the immigrants break the single most important predictor (IMO) of social success: Homogeneity.
I lived for two years in Iceland. They have many laws routinely ignored by nearly everyone, and it’s okay because culture and law are nearly identical. You don’t need to KNOW the laws. It is, or was, what the United States claims to be — a government of the people. The way the people actually lives becomes law, not the other way round.
In the United States it cannot be that way. It will be impossible. Shall the nation live like the Amish? Only the Amish already live that way; the rest must be forced to it at gunpoint. Who then shall be the pattern by which all Americans should live? Whatever you choose, the rest must be forced to it.
So it was in the USSR. It had too much cultural diversity. Diversity is the enemy of socialism.
Ruchardsc,
That is only true in a society where every member provides his/her share of the goods and services that are required for sustaining and/or enriching the lives of every member of said society. Like the per se “back-to-nature” Hippie Communes of the 60’ and 70’s.
But, America and others have morphed into a nation of “troughfeeders” that now constitute a majority of the “voting populace” who produce nothing of value for sustaining and/or enriching the lives of the other members of their respective populations …. but whose primary concerns and actions are directed at sustaining and/or enriching their own lives.
When the “troughfeeders” outnumber the “producers” then that society or nation is doomed to self-implode and collapse.
Capitalism promotes ……. “a day’s pay for a day of productive work”.
21st Century Socialism promotes ……. “a day’s pay …. regardless of whether or not one works or even bothers to show up for work”.
Being productive at aiding in the sustaining and/or enriching of the lives of the populace is not a requirement of Socialism.
Bolivia depends upon natural gas from Amazonia.
No wonder that the capitalist Amazonian regions want to secede from the communist Andean regions. The Altiplano Indians grow the cocaine that the entrepreneurial lowlanders then distribute to the world.
From the eastern gas fields, one pipeline runs to Argentina and the other to Brazil.
Without fossil fuels developed by capitalists, Bolivians would be worse off than under the Incas.
This IS tied to the UN 2030 Vision, but Bolivia is also describing the Latin American Bariloche model created in 1976 by the Club of Rome. It was another one of those projects tied to Donella Meadows as basically a follow-up to Limits to Growth. http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/forging-new-categories-of-consciousness-globally-to-make-political-power-the-key-determinant-of-21st-century-life/
This matters because in the 80s this initiative was pushed by the Belaton Group created by Dennis and Donella Meadows and others on both sides of the Cold War abyss. None of these toxic ideas goes away.
They also all continue to have their basis in what Karl Marx envisioned as a Human Development Society where people would have a right to have their needs met. That vision remains the driving force of everything coming out of the UN and what is called the South. Needs must be met within countries and across countries as well, even if that means an unfettered right to open borders migration. That’s the official UN policy now and it’s all laid out in their Rapprochement of Cultures initiative and this International Decade that began quietly in 2013 (until 2022).
He learned how to speak with a forked tongue very well.
Of course, Morales’ non-capitalist Incan forefathers didn’t do any warmongering, natch.
No Human sacrifices either !!! sarc..
The Guarani of the Amazonian lowlands are quite possibly the most warlike people on earth. While most associated with Paraguay, they populate much of eastern Bolivia, too.
War is the natural state of man. For such-like peoples you mention, their greatest fear, as far as I understand, is the threat of ambush by known tribes contesting regions or resources, or maybe leaders just having personal grudges.. All very human.
Robert,
True.
The Aymara majority on the Altiplano were losers, subjugated by the Incas and the Spanish, while the Incas never defeated the Guarani and the Spanish and Portuguese had their hands full against them for centuries. In the Bolivian-Paraguayan Chaco War, the Guarani cleaned their clock.
The Bolivians used PoWs to build roads in the mountains which they were incapable of constructing themselves.
Of course, Morales’ non-capitalist Incan forefathers didn’t do any warmongering, natch.
why go back that far? little Paraguay knocked the crap out of them in the “Choco” war during the 1930s. If it was not so tragic it would be comical
A little bit on Bolivian politics and war making
http://www.greatmilitarybattles.com/html/the_chaco_war.html
michael
Oops Chaco war not Choco, And I saw I had made the typo earlier sigh
The fighting prowess and persistence of Paraguay was even more evident in the 19th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraguayan_War
For years, Paraguay held off the combined might of Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay. Its resistance is comparable to the South fighting to the bitter end against the North for two more years after 1865, losing over two thirds of its adult male population in the process, virtually every single white Southern man.
Gloateus Maximus November 9, 2015 at 3:10 pm
True, I have read the high end of the death toll was 90% of the male population of Paraguay in that war.
michael
You’re right. It was at least 70%, but probably more, and “adult” included a lot of teenagers.
Construction of a climate system
Good grief, their megalomania increases. No longer is it adequate to control the current climate system, they now want to construct a new one!! (Maybe shift the planet about a bit, change the tilt?)
I sometimes wonder whether politicians and sundry demagogues don’t ever listen to what comes out of their mouth.
Photo-op with James Cameron to follow soon.
The old “If you don’t give me all your stuff then you’re just greedy” ploy.
And why shouldn’t Bolivia try it? It often works.
It works best when you have more guns than the other guy.
+100
MarkW:
You rightly say of the old “If you don’t give me all your stuff then you’re just greedy” ploy
Yes, that is when it works best; for example when Henry Ford employed Al Capone and his organisation to break a strike.
But earlier in this thread you disputed it saying
As always, a member of the American ultra-right changes tune to suite whatever propaganda he wants to spout.
Richard
How does “Breaking up a Strike” equate to “Stealing for prosperity?”
As far as I know breaking up unions should be every capitalist’s activity to crush those rent seekers. Since Unions are incompatible to a global economy. (Mostly parasitic in nature)
Richard: I know that you have to embarrass yourself in order to defend the indefensible, but for crying out loud, do you have to be so darned good at it?
You seem to make the same mistake that socialists generally make. IE, assuming that anyone who has money, is a capitalist. As I said, the biggest problem socialists have is that they have at best cartoon level understanding of both capitalism and socialism.
Regardless, you seem to feel that there is something evil about breaking a strike? Why?
Hey, they take 89% of my stuff and I will do 89% less. Where will their share be then? If they think the developed world is going to work hard just to pay 89% to them, they might as well starve. They screwed up their own economy and now they want us to pay for it. Not bloody likely.
Capitalism is the ONLY system that actually generates wealth from nothing. Get rid of capitalism and the world will be on the same downward spiral that took down the USSR. Communism—socialism run by a gang—only works until you run out of other people’s money. –Margaret Thatcher
He did YOU a favor. Instead of flanking initiatives or shrouded strategies, he told you what he wants. Since he is on the receiving end of the check, he told you what CAGW is all about. And since CAGW will be executed at the local level based on CO2 compliance, he told you what to expect in the first tier nations.
DB has posted the graphic on temperature changes several times in the previous thread. If you had awaken from a 100 year slumber and been shown that graphic, you’d yawn and move on to the next interesting subject. Yet, here we are a few weeks away from drums beats about a decarbonization (papal nonsense) of the planet.
Logically insane, unless someone like Mr Morales reminded you why.
I wonder whether their prediction of the end of extreme poverty by 2025 will be any more accurate than the predictions / projections / whatever you call them of the warmist “scientists”. Haven’t those been all totally incorrect? Maybe this could give some hint of a clue to President Morales of how right (or wrong) his scientific advisers are likely to be.
Was the prediction of eradication referring to extreme poverty, the rate of 17.3% or the population?
When they cannot eliminate extreme poverty by 2025, they’ll just blame it on bad weather and they’ll come up with another 5 and/or 10 year plan. It worked for the USSR when they had, what, 25 years of failed grain harvests.
/snark
Morales doesn’t know or care about the science. Like many other predatory opportunists governing third world countries he sees a great opportunity to receive huge amounts of “compensation” for nothing. The foolishness of first world governments who have bought the “limits to growth” idea lock stock and barrel have given him this opportunity and he would be a fool not to embrace it. What we need to understand is not the phony climate “science” that this impoverishment of the west is allegedly based upon, but why our own leaders of government,science, business and industry have so whole-heartedly embraced it and how we can fight them.
“Extreme poverty in Bolivia reached 17.3% of the population in 2015, and this will be erradicated by 2025.”
The similarities to climatecrap don’t stop there. There is no definition of “extreme poverty” (there is no definition of extreme weather, but it is referred to repeatedly for effect). The definition of “extreme poverty” will change as the political requirements warrant.
There is no real comparison of the rate/percent of extreme poverty in the past; what was it in 1995, 1950, 1925, or 1895?; Just as temperature records are manipulated (or to be kind, interpreted), the historic poverty rates in Bolivia are “interpreted” in a manner that helps the socialists in charge make whatever point they are trying to make.
The future prediction of “extreme poverty” eradication includes a qualifier (However, this is not possible if there are no actions to fully develop the national economy and reduce the impacts of change climate….) that is impossible to obtain or measure; as such they can’t ever be wrong, but they need unlimited funds to go after the lofty goal.
Finally, and obviously from some of the above and below posts, they have their own useful idiots to help them carry the torch.
Was that incoherent diatribe from the Bolivian government or a policy statement by the Australian Greens?
I know some gringos that would gladly do the trade (with other people’s money of course).
Just how much of this crap does it take and how long will it take for Americans to wake up and see what the real agenda with Climate Change is all about? Our country, our future, our children’s and grandchildren’s future is in grave danger!
Well, with luck we’ll elect a president with gonads next year who’ll just say KMA. (first word is kiss).
Aw hell, who am I kidding?
The first word might also be “kick”.
Shows why Bolivia mostly doesn’t count (its head thinks US defense spending should be sent to him as ‘penance’), and the UN (majority comprised of likewise nutters such as Maldives, Nicaragua, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Tuvalu… coming readily to mind) shouldn’t. UN charter was peace and health. So Russia annexes Crimea and invades eastern Ukraine, nothing done. Ebola devastates equatorial Africa, WHO totally drops the medical ball, and UN does nothing except prepare for gay Paris.
Thanks for exposing the hypocrasy. BTW, Paul Homewood is doing the same, major country INDC by INDC. Gems all, over at his blog. Hypocrisy everywhere, pre COP21.
Applaud India. They at least had the chops to say they would increase coal 2x by 2020 cause need development, and do nothing about renewables unless ‘bribed’ by the Green Climate Fund.
“10. Decolonize natural resources…”
It’s best to hang on to a tree on a hillside while doing that. Good to have a wipe available also.
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid – arrive in BOLIVIA!
I guess it hasn’t changed much…
“What could they have here that you could possibly want to buy?”
I stand corrected.
Yeah, I dare say the Greens always feel a lot better too after they’ve robbed a few taxpayers!
When Adam delved and Eve span, they were common goods (poetically).
Would anyone like to argue in favour of bought ethics or bought justice?
Or bought biodiversity?
Or bought ancestral cultures? (Is that too close to the knuckle in the USA, or just the Southern States?)
The answers may be controversial – debate the proposed policies – but the questions are valid.
Capitalism is not divine.
Only countries made rich by capitalism can afford to worry about biodiversity.
Slavery in the New World resulted not from capitalism but from mercantilism, the early modern period version of socialism, wherein the state granted monopolies.
Socialism from the beginning has been imperialist and racialist, as with Bismarck-era German socialists, and later National Socialists, Fabians in Britain, Americans like Jack London, and ostensibly international socialists like the Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese and Cambodian Communists and Maoists.
Slavery of course was prevalent among pre-Columbian American Indians, too, as everywhere else on earth, millennia before even mercantilism.
Of course the indigenous Americans didn’t just enslave their fellows, but ate them.
And I might add that only after Britain became capitalist rather than mercantilist did the anti-slavery movement take off. The capitalist North defeated the neo-feudalist, agrarian South in the so-called Civil War (which the conflict wasn’t, since it was not fought to decide which side would control the Union, but to split it up).
Accusing capitalism of transforming the human genome still seems a bit of an over strong claim, to me.
I think the guy has been taking too much Bolivian marching powder.
Both Capitalism and Socialism are Adam-made constructs (Man-made). Greed and/or envy motivates both. Neither motivations are of God.
I disagree, Gunga.
War is the natural state of humanity and greed and envy are universal human emotions. You cannot separate our psychological and emotional being from our human being; they are part and parcel of the whole package. It’s rather wonderful, really, if you are an anthrodeist.
What I love about the ancient Greek gods is that they were all fundamentally human.
Marx’ so-called “primitive communism” never existed, even among small family groups. The best hunters got the most meat, wives and whatever other goods were available.
Besides their personal property, bands and tribes defended their private ownership of the “means of production”, ie hunting and gathering territory.
Socialism fails because it’s inhuman.
Capitalism isn’t a construct, it’s what happens when individuals are free to follow their own self interests.
As opposed to being forced to only care about the self interest of who ever is running the govt.
You think God wants mankind to live in squalor? Or in slavery? Neither are acceptable to a God-fearing person.
I have always thought Capitalism didn’t exist until Marx needed a straw-man to prop up his lazy philosophy.
The only time one can destroy the message by destroying the messenger is just by looking at the very life of Carl Marx. Lazy. Terrible with money, entitled and mooches off his friends and never pays his employees. (He blames everyone else but himself when he fails in life)
Nobody ever claimed that capitalism was divine, just that it’s the only system that works to make all of humanity richer, not just those who run the govt the way socialism and communism do.
As to bought ethics, I leave that to the socialists who buy theirs using other people’s money.
Capitalism is the worst economic system — other than all the others that have been tried. I’m still waiting for all these haters of capitalism to come up with something better. Obtaining a consensus from economists or getting output from economic models doesn’t cut it for me. I want to observe it in action. So, rather than “debate” the proposed policies and the theories behind them, why not let Bolivia implement their new economic system and demonstrate to the world how much better it is? Until they do that, I have no interest in their theoretical proposals.
I have seen Bolivia’s future in Venezuela, and it doesn’t work.
Churchill agreed about capitalism, but you know the rest of his thinking on this. But socialist pots always call the kettle black even though they can’t point to the ideal example s. state that is functioning as it is supposed to. The USSR, arguably the best educated population in the world, failed and the faithful argue that it would have been fine if it hadn’t been hijacked by thugs. If only Trotsky….but such systems are prone to this kind of hijacking. Socialists are now pointing with glee at China which, out of shock by USSR’s failure, quickly adopted a capitalistic model and with this genie out of the bottle, where do you think China is going to end up politically.
Anyway,
Churchill said that democracy was the worst system except for all the others. Don’t know what he might have said about capitalism.
The idea that prosperity only comes from one sort of economic system is not justified by evidence. Like climate change, it is a faith based system. Like climate change , challenging the faith gets the witch-hunters out with their pitch forks.
Earlier in the thread I urged people to actually debate the questions. But the faith was too shallow to allow for questioning. Interesting that.
Meanwhile, here is some evidence. A list of the 30 most prosperous nations on Earth. The Scandinavian countries do well, of course.
Thomas Sowell wrote an article comparing capitalism and socialism.
Despite the claims of the socialists, capitalism is not a dog eat dog race to the bottom. In fact under capitalism, it is those individuals who are best able to cooperate with their fellow humans that do the best.
On the other hand, socialism always favors those who are the best ass kissers, since under socialism, your advancement is determined by who you know, not what you can do.
To bad reality doesn’t support Richard’s religious convictions.
Economic freedom goes hand in hand with economic development. Low taxes and low regulations, ie capitalism will always beat high taxes and high regulations, ie socialism. This can be easily shown by examining all the countries of the world, not just a cherry picked few.
As a native of a Southern state I can’t recall buying my culture as I had no ‘effing money with which to do so. I was born to dirt, lost my mother at the age of three, was adopted by a family which was considered upscale as they had an indoor toilet and running water. It would have been easier to remain a ward of the state and grown to adulthood with no larger worry than when the next check arrived and raised a brood in my own image. But somewhere along the way I concluded that if I wanted something better I would have to get off my ass and get to work. Thanks to this capitalist system I was able to freely find employment, learn much at various jobs and take the leap to self-employment. I parlayed my self-taught education into a talent for which other capitalists were willing to pay well. Despite the socialists (American definition) taking more and more from the producers to give to the porch monkeys, I have done well for myself. At the age of 68 my talent, experience and knowledge are still in demand and I will continue to sell it as long as the mind and body hold firm. Capitalism may not be the best system but no one has offered any system that is better. Thank the diety of your choice that Orwell got the date wrong.