Bolivia Climate Proposal: We want to abolish Capitalism – so Give Us All Your Stuff

Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff and Bolivian President Evo Morales meet in Caracas, Venezuela. Author Roberto Stuckert Filho/PR, source Wikimedia

Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff and Bolivian President Evo Morales meet in Caracas, Venezuela. Author Roberto Stuckert Filho/PR, source Wikimedia

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.

Read more: http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/INDC/Published%20Documents/Bolivia/1/INDC-Bolivia-english.pdf

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.

Advertisements

296 thoughts on “Bolivia Climate Proposal: We want to abolish Capitalism – so Give Us All Your Stuff

  1. 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

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

    • 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.

  2. The amount of history and current events one needs to ignore in order to believe that crap is staggering. I’m currently speechless. Unbelievable.

    • 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:
        https://legionofandy.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/bagge-rand.jpg
        Tom Fuller also has an interesting take:

        Kevin Trenberth, valiantly reprising the role of Robert Stadler in Atlas Shrugged (I read it so you don’t have to–the politics in that books are as functional as first generation climate models and the characters make Marvel Comics look like Dostoevsky. Atlas Shrugged remains relevant to the debate on climate change not because skeptics think of themselves as heroes in an Ayn Rand novel, but because the Klimate Konsensus continuously acts like Ayn Rand villains.)–oh–where was I?

        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

  3. 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

  4. Seems a perfect match for the Naomis and socialists of the CAGW movement. Alarmist type climate “science” is a tool for these people.

  5. I bet he rides a bike to work every day and his palace is powered with a solar panel !! Right ??? sarc…

  6. 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).

      • Gloateus Maximus
        You seem to have made a typographical error by writing

        Socialism is theft and coercion.

        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

        On another thread the courtneys tried to make the claim that socialism is the only economic system that spreads freedom.

        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

        Freedom Monger:
        You claim to be a “monger” of freedom.
        Nobody can sell freedom
        but totalitarians steal freedom
        and socialists share freedom.
        Nothing good comes from totalitarianism and much good comes from socialism.
        I suspect you knew all of that.
        Richard

        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

        MarkW and JohnKnight:
        It would be helpful if you were to read the explanation I linked instead of spouting offensive misrepresentations that are only appropriate at a *** meeting.

        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

        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.

        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?

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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

        If capitalism is so bad how did all the evil capitalismists get the stuff that everyone else wants in the first place?

        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

        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.

        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

      • @ MarkW – November 9, 2015 at 4:21 pm

        Capitalists got their stuff by stealing and killing from others?

        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

        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.

        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

      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.

      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.

      • 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.

        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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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).

    • 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.

      • 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

      • MarkW:
        You rightly say of the old “If you don’t give me all your stuff then you’re just greedy” ploy

        It works best when you have more guns than the other guy.

        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

        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.

        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?

  11. 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

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

    • 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.

  14. Was that incoherent diatribe from the Bolivian government or a policy statement by the Australian Greens?

  15. 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!

  16. 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.

  17. “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.

  18. ….transforming water, earth, the environment, the human genome, ancestral cultures, biodiversity, justice and ethics into goods.

    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.

    • 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.

  19. 8. Allocate the resources of the military machinery of the imperial powers and the war-mongers,/b> to finance the activities of the peoples against climate change.

    Get back to me after ISIS throws a few bucks into the bottomless pot.

  20. Mother earth! Oh! What ever shall we do? The guilt! .. for the children for God’s sake!
    Got anymore crap. First whatever we’re doing doesnt/isn’t causing the climate to change. Second, get a life. Fix your own problems. I see how well your system that’s working for you. It’s a freaking model of what not to do. All those people who are pouring across the border, they’re voting with their feet. Nobody on this planet wants to live in brutal poverty.

  21. So, he doesn’t think that people should benefit from the product of their labor. Instead, he proposes a return to feudalism where people serve at the pleasure of their leaders.
    Are Bolivians pro-choice? This has the tell-tale signs of that unprincipled cult.

    • Most Bolivians are pro-life. Morales’ MAS Party (Movement Toward Socialism) has tried to get the law changed to allow abortion on demand, rather than only in cases of rape or incest, but has so far failed to get bills to that effect passed.

  22. These slimeballs want to both rob us blind and destroy democracy, all in the name of “saving the planet”.
    It is an outrage.

    • Bruce
      It’s interesting that you say in the name of “saving the planet”. The spin has moved on. It will be far easier to sue for impacts to public health. Im pretty sure you’ll hear far more about that in the future. You can see it when you dig into the local NGOs that are affiliated with the larger ones. Their webpages are full of those connections.

  23. Thanks, Eric Worrall.
    In the picture caption:
    “Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff and Bolivian President Evo Morales meet in Caracas, Venezuela.” [with president Nicolas Maduro]
    They head the still surviving (barely) South American governments representing the elusive “Foro de Sao Paulo”.
    I chronicle the Venezuelan crisis in the link under my name.

  24. Just this morning I was considering the real problem of the UN; it’s leadership is filled with dictators and racists from 2nd and 3rd world counties seeking the destruction of the United States of America.
    Yep.

  25. “The structural cause that has triggered the climate crisis is the failed capitalist system.”
    Correction – There is no climate crisis and capitalism has not failed, but crony capitalism has become endemic in the western developed economies, just like in Bolivia.

    • Communist countries contributed massive amounts of CO2 to the air before the fall of the Soviet Union and now ostensibly communist China is the biggest offender.
      CO2 growth has nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with industrialization. Capitalist countries can afford to limit pollution, unlike China (real pollution, that is, not beneficial CO2).

  26. Ya know Mr Morales little country has tremendous natty gas reserves. Of course that makes my ears tingle when I read his diatribe. So perhaps it can go like this.
    I own an assload of fossil fuel. I join a movement to condemn such fuel and people btw still need it. The price goes up eventually. All “bad” things that people need go up in price. In the meantime, you pay me for because my neighborhood hasn’t used as much of the bad stuff as you have. I get paid twice. You pay me now for being bad and you pay me later when I sell you what you need.
    The cocaine trade might have taught Mr Morales a thing or two about how to do business.

  27. Bolivia is scheduled to have a referendum this February on ‘reforming’ their constitution. Current polls are mixed, but some report a narrow plurality rejecting the change. They currently report economic growth, but if they pursue crony socialism a la Venezuela, they are likely to experience similar outcomes. Venezuela is clearly a basket case whose misery cannot continue much longer.
    https://dolartoday.com/fin-de-la-pesadilla-socialista-mayoria-de-bolivianos-rechaza-la-reeleccion-de-morales/

    • Thanks for that link.
      Let’s hope that Pagina Siete has public opinion correct, with 52% opposed to the constitutional amendment permitting Evo another term, and only 42% in support.
      ¡Ojala!

    • Juan, you write: “Venezuela is clearly a basket case whose misery cannot continue much longer.”
      I agree with your general assessment, the “basket case”, but according to Carlos Alberto Montaner; Los dos planes de Nicolás Maduro, 7 de noviembre de 2015, at http://www.gentiuno.com/07/11/2015/carlos-alberto-montaner-los-dos-planes-de-nicolas-maduro/
      “The course of the future of Venezuela will start defining in only 28 days during a parliamentary election to be held on December 6 of this year.
      By midnight on that date, when Tibisay Lucena, rector of the National Electoral Council (CNE), announces new members of the Parliament (aka National Assembly or AN) for the next five years, it will be clear if the Government resorted to its Plan A or B as explained by Carlos Alberto Montaner, a Cuban journalist and writer, in his article “The two plans of Nicolás Maduro” published in the news site Gentiuno a couple of days ago.”
      From there, Montaner raises the likelihood that the Government has a plan A and B for December 6.
      He explains that Plan A will consist of “winning the election or accept defeat by a minimum amount of votes. How does it pull it off? By imprisoning or prohibiting opposition leaders that may talk many of their compatriots into casting their ballot on December 6 from participating in the election. That is the case, among others, of Leopoldo López and María Corina Machado. By manipulating voting machines. By generating false ID cards. By modifying constituencies to favor its own candidates. By abusing the media. By obstructing the voting process of the opposition in a thousand different ways.” And warns that the purpose of this Plan is “to discourage democrats not to vote. They reckon that with all these tricks the election can be won or lost by a narrow margin. And, if they lose, they will buy a handful of dishonest lawmakers from the opposition at any price and thus continue hanging on to power.”

      • Andres,
        You are right in expecting Maduro to do whatever he can to retain power. But, unless there is a huge turnaround in petroleum prices, I think we will soon see total economic collapse, followed by social collapse. With the country dependent on imported food and the nation literally broke, the stores will be empty and no amount of standing in line will put food on the table. Hungry people can be dangerous, and they are not going to just sit and watch their kids starve.
        But they won’t be too worried about climate change.

  28. “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.”
    So basically the tax payers of countries that have their $h!t together should continue to pay for them but turn control over to “the people” presumably “represented” by this International Climate Justice Tribunal.
    I guess if we are all stupid enough to pay for a military then give it to a bunch of thugs so that they can use it to do whatever the heck they want (likely nothing good considering how well they treat their own) then we deserve exactly what we get.

    • Now you’re in the swing of it. Throw in a Yeti cooler and perhaps one of those Green Egg grills and we’ll even let you hang out to enjoy our culture.

  29. Perhaps if the Bolivian government were to prioritise straightforward economic development and consumerism

    The truth is that the ruling elite has no clue how to promote exonomic development, and if they did, would bot be able to understand why they should. After all, they themselves are quite rich, so there is no problem.
    Developing a country rich in natural resources is so easy, even I could do it, it just is not that hard.

  30. 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.

    The way that is worded, it sounds like Bolivia wants to finance people who are against climate change. Apparently, the Koch brothers aren’t giving enough. 🙂
    But how is Bolivia going to get “the imperial powers” to beat their swords into plowshares and give them to Bolivia? Are they planning to go to war against the “war-mongers” and force them to do it? Or are they just going to guilt-trip them into feeling sorry for Bolivia by continuing to starve the people with their crappy crony capitalism that only benefits government elites and their friends?

  31. Hey, doesn’t point #5 in the manifesto indicate that everyone needs to turn over their climate models to the public domain?

    • Only when they contribute enough so he can arm to get the job done.
      Then they’ll become exactly what they criticize everybody else of being.
      These aren’t very smart people, are they?

  32. Once again pure comedy gold.
    #2 construction of a climate system..
    Oh Yeah.
    If we are going to go off the deep end into climate wars, I am with the CO2 addition brigade.
    Flame thrower division.(Yes Sarc)
    Of course any time idiots attempt to impose their ideology upon others, CO2 emissions will rise, conflict always ups emissions.

  33. Yup…capitalism is sooooo bad, everyone in Bolivia and the other socialist hell holes in South and Central America is busting a move to get up here.
    The Bolivian head of state is a loon, but Maduro in Venezuela is absolutely coo coo for Cocoa Puffs.

    • The problem is that once they arrive here, they start voting to instill in the US, the same system they just fled in their home countries.

  34. I can explain the existence of this ludicrous manifesto.
    This was clearly the result of a short period of education comprising only repeat viewing of the movie Avatar whilst stoned on extremely potent herbal intoxicants.
    I blame the parents.

    • The list forgot to demand:
      11. The creation of a system of large floating mountains. Mountains that defy gravity and serve no necessary purpose within the plot.

  35. On the one hand it is written like a Jesuit document calling for sustainable environmental polices to be imposed, with a Climate Tribunal and enforcement on English speaking Protestant countries;
    but on the other hand, it also could translate as the familiar, “Yeah man back to nature and make love not war. End the materialistic western culture based on plastic man.” So either an Argentinian Jesuit or a hippie could have written this Bolivian proposal for the indigenous tribes people. I can’t decide.
    (Note to natives: Environmentalist NGOs. They are always there when they need you.)

    • IMO both Communist Evo and Liberation Theologist Francis ripped off the Unabomber Manifesto. Ted Kaczynski should sue them.

      • The original “Ted Talk”, Kaczynski’s opus “Industrial Society and Its Future”, aka the Unabomber Manifesto, was apparently all his own work, written on a typewriter in his remote Montana cabin.

  36. It could be worse.
    If we don’t succeed, we run the risk of failure.
    Al (I used to be the next President of the United States of Bolivia) Gore

  37. The Dilmas have not really achieved much in South America. Bolivia’s Dilma – ZILCH.
    The other one took an economy that was looking OK and improving and WRECKED it (Brazil).

  38. When all our stuff is gone whose stuff will they go after next? Without the US to protect them their stuff, reduced to raw materials, will go to Chinese conquerors.

  39. At the end of the day, Evo Morales leaves with the prize for most ludicrous comment.
    However, there were many close contenders in this thread!

  40. Obama said “Capitalism doesn’t work. It has never worked”. He then set out to make sure it never does. The Bolivians are his heroes.

  41. Guilt: Something decent people have but dont need, and something scoundrels dont have but do need.
    (see also ‘white guilt’ ‘socialism’ and ‘Christianity’)

  42. Modern history is littered with failed socialist Marxist states that have killed millions.
    It’s quite funny that one of the world’s worst socialist economic basket cases, Venezuela, holds the largest reserves of the fuel that drives capitalism. They could have used that vast wealth to diversify their economy and make Venezuela the jewel of South America.

  43. There is no a priori reason why capitalism is best for the bottom 40% you know. Capitalism is a creed nowadays without concern for the victims of it. Social housing is being abolished, Areas of cities are being ‘socially cleansed’, it being better to sell houses to foreign investors who leave them empty than letting citizens of your own country have a place to live in.
    I’m no supporter of the carbon dioxide nonsense, but I do know this: if you want cleaners, nurses, social workers, teachers, bus drivers, refuse collectors, road repairers, child minders, gardeners, retail staff, deliverers of post etc etc, then you have to create communities where those people can afford to live and that life must have sufficient dignity to it to make you worthy of having them contribute to your community life.
    If you don’t want the socialism that this site so abhors, then you’d better make damn sure that capitalism is better for the 40% at the bottom than under socialism. And that means under socialism which isn’t threatened with war, sanctions etc etc by warmongering capitalists who have no confidence they can beat socialism through peaceful means.
    The 21st century reality is that neither socialism nor capitalism works at their logical endpoints. There ARE things which are best owned communally and there ARE areas of life where capitalism works best.
    Our genetic heritage should be communally owned, as no-one alive invented it, created it or husbanded it. All those doing a bit of genetic engineering used pre-existing life to do so. Even those trying to build a new organism from scratch did so using DNA from pre-existing organisms, which they have no right to own. Seed companies creating sterile variants should not be allowed to try and wipe out other fertile crop strains for purposes of seed monopoly. However, if someone creates a genetic variant for a specific purpose not intrinsic to life (like cleaning up oil spills) that is different. The world has a choice whether or not to use it and life will go on, pretty much, whether they do or not. That’s the test for private ownership: can life go on, for better or worse, without it? If the answer is NO, then private ownership is dangerous without stringent regulation.
    Choosing whether to buy tomatoes from one of one hundred different growers is precisely what capitalism is for. Humans get to eat tomatoes, for better or worse, whether they buy from supplier A, B or C (assuming they produce reasonably OK tomatoes). The better suppliers start to charge higher prices and prosper. Making movies is something we can benefit from or not, without lose of life, love or health. Who we buy a car from the same.
    Then there are areas where the economics predicts that a natural monopoly will occur due to investment costs etc. In such situations, it makes sense for a community, a state, a nation to own it communally, since everyone knows monopolies have no risk so make super-profits through risk-free extortion. It is logical to allow capitalism to produce the best solutions in competition, then the product to be acquired through communal purchase when monopoly starts to appear. The capitalist investors gain a return on their money but are not allowed monopoly super-profits in perpetuity. It’s what America is supposed to agree with. It really doesn’t in reality, does it??
    The only things which are really intrinsic to life are:
    1. A home, however frugal, heated sufficiently not to endanger health in the winter.
    2. Food and water.
    3. Clothing.
    4. Child-birth – since without this, humanity dies out within 100 years.
    5. Nurturing children to independence, since you can give birth to as many children as you like, but 100% of them will die if you don’t nurture them until then can look after themselves……
    After that, everything is a choice.
    And the reality is that some people prefer to take total responsibility, whereas others prefer to pool it. For those without wealth to hire reams of experts and time to negotiate hard-ball, delegating responsibility for many necessities to communal groups makes sense.
    That is what a national health service was about: it emerged from communal schemes of working class families paying weekly from their wages into a pot for insurance – it just made it control supply centrally rather than involve a horse-trade between insurance companies and private healthcare. There’s no ‘good or evil’ there, just two choices. You have to decide which works better for which types of people.
    Communal schooling is the same: if parents have to work 8 – 10 hrs a day, they don’t have the time to educate children themselves, although they may help at the margins. If you are a self-sufficient farmer in a self-sufficient community, as say the Amish are, then maybe you don’t need that: you educate your children in how to run the farm as you do your daily chores and gradually they become capable of running their own farm. But you’ve not educated them for anything else, so if you don’t want your children do what you did, communal schooling makes sense, assuming they actually learn something at school that adds to what they get at home.
    Building a transport system is the same: everyone knows that some bits are more profitable, some of the time, but if you only build the profitable bits, then over a 50 – 100 year cycle, the economy does worse overall, because you limit the economic possibilities of the majority for the benefit of the tiny minority of investors. You sacrifice strategic flexibility for narrow profit. It’s not always the right call……and when bankers only have a time-to-payback of 15yrs or less, you eliminate all possibilities of repayment over 50 – 200 years, which is what railways will always be.
    Capitalism is about selling state assets off at below market prices to your mates so they can take the profits off the back of the investments of the state. When representatives of the public do that, they are not representatives, they are criminal robber barons. The private sector wants the state to take the risks, make the upfront investments, then hand it to the private sector so they can take the risk-free profits.
    That’s neither equitable, moral nor American, is it??
    Or do you finally want to admit to the world that the American morality is that of the warmongering robber baron??
    Why do you think the world would want you to rule over them if that is what you are????

    • No, rjt–the American morality is NOT that of the warmongering robber baron. You’ve been brainwashed by a bunch of people that like to distort reality to justify criminal behavior. Their mantra is to take from those that have worked hard and invested wisely to acquire the necessities (and even some of the luxuries) of life.
      It’s call thievery.
      Now, you may accurately point to the Democrat Party in the USA and their abhorrent ideology that’s just short of the Communist Manifesto, which ideology has been proven to be a disaster to everyone who has ever participated in it (except the gang at the top that makes a mockery of that social structure, but that’s why it doesn’t work). Transfer the rights of the individual to the collective and that’s what you get, every time!
      But that’s not capitalism.
      Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness doesn’t mean a person has the right to take from others who apply themselves and are more industrious. Your assertion that “Capitalism is about selling state assets off at below market prices to your mates so they can take the profits off the back of the investments of the state” is a false definition. What you describe is “crony capitalism”, which is really “crony socialism” and distorts the basic meaning of the word “capitalism”.
      Such devious assertions expose you for what you believe–illogical and criminal.
      And nobody that’s a true capitalist wants to rule over anybody–again, you distort the definitions to achieve your nefarious argument.

      • The robber barons were neither robbers nor barons. What they were, were people who created new companies that made things cheaper and better than their competitors did, and as a result got very rich.
        In the process they improved the lives of everybody, and created millions of new, good jobs.
        Yes, the jobs aren’t as good as modern jobs, but they were still better than the other jobs available in that day, which is why they had no trouble filling those jobs.
        It was technology that created the ability to create new and better jobs, and it was the so called robber barons who developed that technology.

    • Socialized housing has been a utter failure. If you want to lift the bottom 40%, the only system capable of doing that is capitalism.
      BTW, what is the “socially cleansed” nonsense? A lot of cities are failing because they tried to implement socialism, and as a result, the producers left.
      So, you really think that by having all plants “communally owned”, in other words owned and controlled by the govt. You can make the world better off?
      As far as being warmongers, nobody holds a candle to the socialists of this world.
      I tried to penetrate the communist haze of your hysterical screed, but sorry, the incredible ignorance of it was just more than I care to deal with today.

  44. The lead post is just more evidence that it is not a coincidence that the fundamental concepts of socialism share the same premise as the fundamental concepts of pseudo-scientific CAGW alarmism. They are both based on the conviction to persistently keep on minimizing private property and at the same time to persistently maximize forced collectivization of wealth.
    It is property theft.
    John

    • John Whitman:
      Your post consists solely of falsehoods and nothing else.
      Anybody who wants to know what socialism really is can read my account on WUWT here.
      Richard

      • Anybody who wants to know what socialism really is can read Gail Combs’ response to richardscourtney’s comment that he just referred to in his comment above, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/#comment-1387615.
        Human nature hasn’t changed much since the early 1600’s when Bradford’s group first tried socialism, that failed, before successfully re-organizing their commerce under private property ownership, that took into account real human nature.
        Today’s people are no different. The lazy slackers of today who insist on living on a govt check of now borrowed money are just like the young people described by Gov. William Bradford in Gail’s comment.
        Richard’s linked post may factually describe the history of socialism and communism, but in the end, the post consists solely of wishful thinking about human nature. Socialism is property theft by government force, and that has NOT changed historically.
        Another facet of socialism is socialists never give it up, despite it’s obvious and numerous failings.
        The CO2 scare is an attempt to jerry-rig economies with another market bubble (carbon) in favor of those who hold the purse strings and power in governments.
        You naive socialistic CO2 bubbleheads don’t seem to realize that if you get your way, living standards around the world will drop to pre-industrialization levels, and if that is your goal, you are truly evil for all the suffering you wish to inflict on humanity by going down that road.
        Richard, you are certainly free to spout whatever you wish about socialism, but don’t expect to gain any converts here. I see you as an intelligent man, yet naive like many warmists, many who see things the same way you do, believing in a socialist utopia that never arrives. I am not in favor of ceding control of life on Earth to basically insane leftists.
        Caveat- I wouldn’t want anyone to think that I am all in favor of the dirty dealings of finance capital, led by the Federal Reserve system owners and their machinations in here and worldwide… The whole object of their methods is to reduce humanity down to powerlessness, capable of doing only what the puppeteers allow.

      • Bob Weber:
        Yes, Gail Combs did make some good contributions – not only the one you link – to that discussion, but it is a distortion to read only her post that you link and not subsequent debate of it.
        Richard

    • richardscourtney on November 10, 2015 at 3:18 am @ John Whitman
      – – – – – – –
      richardscourtney,
      Socialism as a political program/ concept is not fundamentally defined by any person’s preferred set (like yours) of social benefits that the coercively collectivized private property/wealth is spent on. Socialism is the fundamental conviction to persistently keep on minimizing private property and at the same time to persistently maximize forced collectivization of wealth regardless of the social programs any ‘socialist’ variant wants to spend it on.
      Nor does actual historical or current political implemented socialism depend on the countless historical or current justifications of why the money should be coercively collectivized. It is the coercive collectivization by government that is political socialism.
      There is no issue of freedom about what a group of people with preferred sets of social programs do privately with their own protect / wealth without government coercion.
      John

      • John Whitman:
        I am sure you intended to say something.
        Please try again but this time in English because I don’t understand gobbledygook.
        Richard

      • richardscourtney on November 10, 2015 at 6:43 am
        I am sure you intended to say something.
        Please try again but this time in English because I don’t understand gobbledygook.
        Richard

        richardscourtney,
        Coercive collectivization of people or property or wealth is socialism. It doesn’t matter what socially focused goals are given for spending it on . Nor does it matter what justification is given for using coercion to get it. It is theft as a political principle.
        If a bunch of citizens get together voluntarily to use their own private property or wealth to implement, strictly in the private sphere, their social goals then it isn’t the politics of socialism, it’s called charity.
        John

      • Socialism is the system by which those who don’t want to work, use govt to take what they want from those who do work.

  45. The cult of CAGW is a key component of the global government madness. We are living in a surreal Ayn Rand novel with multiple weird twists, with multiple layers. There is no CAGW issue to solve. Every scientific premise in the IPCC reports is incorrect.
    The cult of CAGW paradigm is that to avoid the end of the world due to CO2 increases (the CO2 increases due were due to natural reasons – there are no fossil fuels, there is no energy crisis, the deep earth extrudes CH4 as the core solidifies, the continents float on CH4 – not due to anthropogenic emissions, the planet is about to abruptly cool, almost the entire warming in the last 50 years is due to solar cycle changes, the solar cycle has been interrupted) we must spend trillions and trillions of more deficit dollars (there are no surplus funds to ‘invest’) on green scams that do not work (significantly reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions.)
    Ignoring reality does not change reality. Almost every developing country is spending more public funds every year than then they take in revenue. Never ending deficit spending ends very, very, badly.
    http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21577348-gloomy-convincing-account-developed-worlds-problems-horror-story

    When the Money Runs Out: The End of Western Affluence. By Stephen King. Yale University Press
    The terrifying title of Stephen King’s latest book will tempt some people to dismiss it as an exercise in scaremongering to be filed alongside the efforts of his horror-writing namesake. But Mr King, the chief economist of HSBC, is not the kind of run-of-the-mill Jeremiah who calls for citizens to buy gold and shotguns and retreat to a mountain hideout; his book is well-written, thoughtful and highly convincing.
    …That is a problem because people in the rich world have grown accustomed to rising standards of living and governments have promised them benefits that may not be affordable (William: There is no may. The US spending on health ‘care’ is on track to exceed the entire US budget). Some countries are struggling to pay those benefits as well as service the debts they owe to foreign bondholders. (William: The problem is the foreign bondholder is our own countries and the entire world banking system. This is a massive shell game.) “Governments are strongly incentivised to defraud their international creditors (William: and the entire banking system, see quantitative easing, printing money) if the alternative is to damage the interests of voters,” he writes.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-06/imf-says-brazil-economy-to-shrink-3-in-2015-on-political-crisis

    The International Monetary Fund forecasts Brazil’s economy this year will contract more than expected by economists as President Dilma Rousseff’s administration is engulfed by the deepest political crisis in more than two decades.
    The IMF said in its World Economic Outlook released Tuesday that Latin America’s largest economy will shrink 3 percent this year. That’s double the 1.5 percent contraction published in its July outlook, and worse than the median 2.85 percent forecast from about 100 economists in the central bank’s weekly Focus survey.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-25/venezuela-economic-crisis-to-only-get-worse-barclays-says

    Venezuela Economic Crisis to Only Get Worse, Barclays Says
    Venezuela is suffering the deepest economic crisis in its history with output expected to contract 9.1 percent this year, Barclays Plc said Friday.
    The economic contraction will likely reach 16.5 percent between 2014 and 2016, while inflation over that period will exceed 1,000 percent, Barclays wrote in a note to clients.
    “It is impossible to understand why the government is not reacting to this reality, why it has not taken measures to alleviate the economic distortions that are destroying the real income of Venezuelans,” Barclays said.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/business/an-echo-of-argentina-in-greek-debt-crisis.html

    If Greece Defaults, Imagine Argentina, but Much Worse
    There may be a one-word explanation for why Greece will ultimately capitulate to European demands for more austerity:
    Argentina.
    Greece is hardly the first nation to face the prospect of defaulting on its sovereign debt obligations. Argentina has defaulted on its external debt no fewer than seven times since gaining independence in 1816, most recently last year. But it’s Argentina’s 2001 default on nearly $100 billion in sovereign debt, the largest at the time, that poses a cautionary example for Greece.
    Should Greece default, “Argentina is an apt analogy,” said Arturo C. Porzecanski, a specialist in international finance at American University and author of numerous papers on Argentina’s default.

    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2015/04/28/spain-has-reason-to-be-concerned-at-its-latest-unemployment-figures/

    The bad news is that, in seasonally adjusted terms, this increase is only half the increase in the previous quarter. The annualised rate of growth of seasonally adjusted employment has gone down from 3.3 per cent in the last quarter of 2014 to 1.7 per cent in the first quarter of 2015. The unemployment rate seasonally adjusted went down to 23.1 per cent from 23.6 per cent.

    • The common factor in Venezuela, Argentina, Greece and Brazil is populist or socialist economic non-policies.

    • William
      Fine post. Mass movements blossom because the members of the mass movement find a common need being fulfilled. I often wonder what is the common need that is attracting so many to the CAGW movement.
      What do you think it is ?

  46. Sounds like Bolivia is a mash-up of Socialism and Paganism. You can see this at any college campus in America, but it can only survive off-campus at PETA, Earthfirst, Sierra Club, Natural Resource Defense Council, etc. For now.

        • Many a lobbying firm uses similar enforcement tactics as gangs do. Perhaps far less blood in the streets, broken bones or overt brutality but equally effective intimidation techniques. Quid pro quo … anyone.
          I remember this quote, just don’t remember who said it … “you don’t have to actually DO something to someone to make them do what you want, they just have to know that you can”.
          I think even the staunchest defenders of any “ism” knows it can be corrupted.
          Checks and balances.
          They seem to be an essential piece to anything mankind does.
          Even then, its pretty dang hard to keep it on the up and up.

  47. Failed capitalist system? Capitalism is a proven system for creating wealth and lifting the standard of living for people on this the planet. Now, it can be agreed that some people may have abused capitalism in the interest of themselves, but that has happened under socialism and communism, two systems that fail to deliver the benefits of capitalism.
    Now the United Nations want the world to adopt a new ‘ism’ … the ideology of environmentalism. But that ideology is designed to make the wealthy countries poorer and it poses the greatest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity as we have known it.

  48. I would take anything a south American leader says *except chile… possibly with a huge pinch of salt. I understand that Bolivia is actually booming economically currently due to free enter[rise highest growth in Latin America 2015. Lot of these fellows TALK left and act right ie LULA brasil ect

    • MarkW:
      It is sad that you cannot read. I again refer you to what the extreme form of individualism called socialism really is. It boils down to provision of the unique needs of each individual so far as that is possible. For example, it would offer you a course in reading comprehension.
      Richard

      • Bob Weber:
        I have been extremely courteous – and patient – in reply to the falsehoods and offensive personal lie from MarkW.
        Perhaps I need a course in rudeness to provide more appropriate response.
        Richard

      • Richard I really don’t know where this is going for you, but let’s agree that we disagree. The truth is, history is replete with bad examples that shouldn’t be followed. Since no one has put into practice a perfect system, we all have the right expect a better system, I just don’t think socialism is that answer as you do. I can cut you some slack for standing up for what you believe, but just realize it’s an impasse, and it’ll stay that way.

      • Bob Weber:
        You say to me

        I really don’t know where this is going for you, but let’s agree that we disagree.

        Of course we can disagree. I am not the one demonising others because they have a different political adherence. I am the one defending against untrue and unfounded attack.
        This is going nowhere for me because I value truth and diversity. The rabid right-wing mob ranting in this thread want totalitarianism which is a denial of both truth and diversity.
        But it matters because their raving drives away any except the rabid right. Opposition to the AGW-scare is independent of position on the political spectrum everywhere except the US, and the rabid ranting from the right is destroying any hope of coherent opposition to the scare.
        You linked to a comment of Gail Combs. I point to another of her comments in the same thread where she says

        milodonharlani,
        May I suggest you watch this presentation to at a Tea Party Meeting by a dyed in the wool California socialist on UN Agenda 21 or read what she has to say in the essay THE POST SUSTAINABLE FUTURE. She also shows not all socialist are communists and not all are statists. (It was a bit of a surprise to me.)
        I am a capitalist but I feel that if we don’t quit the “Lets you and he fight ” that our mutual enemies keep stirring up and open up some genuine lines of communication then TPTB will win.
        Thanks to the internet I am seeing much more awareness of the political maneuvering behind the scenes than I saw five years ago. This is in ordinary people I chat with in the grocery store or at the burger place and this gives me hope.

        That seems eminently sensible to me.
        Richard

      • Richard, the problem is, when you boil it down, your statement actually boils down to my statement.
        You claim that socialism provides each person their unique needs. In other words, it provides free stuff for people who want it.
        As to reading comprehension, it appears I should be lecturing you on that subject.

      • richardscourtney
        November 10, 2015 at 8:15 am
        It appears that you are unfamiliar both with the history of socialism and with libertarianism, which is the opposite of socialism and totalitarianism. Socialism requires totalitarianism sooner or later, before its internal contradictions finally cause it to fail. Britain is a good example, where individual liberty is being further eroded decade by decade.
        I haven’t read anything here by rabid, Right-Wing conservatives. IMO most commenters here are libertarians, who recognize that state power is always evil. A certain amount of its evil is necessary, but,libertarians are convinced that the government which governs least governs best.
        We want to limit state power, not make it absolute. Power resides ultimately in the people. It should not be concentrated in an omnipotent central regime, but spread among regional and local governments, private associations, such as churches, families and individuals.
        I don’t know where you got an idea so divorced from reality.

      • Gloateus Maximus:
        You say

        Socialism requires totalitarianism sooner or later, before its internal contradictions finally cause it to fail. Britain is a good example, where individual liberty is being further eroded decade by decade.

        That is absolutely untrue.
        We here in Britain know freedoms that many in the US yearn for; e.g. freedom from poverty for every individual irrespective of health, inheritance and disability.
        Indeed, our freedom is one reason why so many rich Americans settle here: it is not our weather.
        And you say

        IMO most commenters here are libertarians, who recognize that state power is always evil.

        Replace “recognize” with “mistakenly think” and we can agree.
        Misuse of state power is always evil.
        And removing the state power that is Rule Of Law is always evil. Indeed, it is the mistaken thought that state power itself is always evil that induces America’s maniacal gun laws.
        Most important of all is the totalitarianism so clearly demonstrated here by American right-wing extremists. I will do all I can to defend their right to have whatever form of government they want, but I object to their desire to inflict it on me and all others.
        This thread demonstrates attacks, misrepresentations and even downright lies being used by American right-wingers attempting to defame those who don’t share their paranoia about proper government (which they think is “always evil”). Frankly, the behaviour of the American right-wingers here is shameful, harmful and disgraceful.
        Richard

      • Sorry Richard, but I don’t see the connection to totalitarianism here amongst this crowd that you do on this thread. But I think a real problem for people who back socialism are the feelings of those who don’t, and the feelings and behaviors of those who are on the receiving end of socialism.
        When those who receive their largess, their livelihood, their sustenance from others are encouraged and egged on to DEMAND and COERCE their fellow neighbors that they, the supposed oppressed, are owed more and more from said neighbors, we as a world have a problem. I have never seen a grateful recipient of govt largess who didn’t want more, who didn’t think they were owed more, and that the evil corporations and millionaire small-business class weren’t just completely greedy and giving everyone the shaft. I have never seen such people show any awareness of the regulations, costs, and demands put upon businesses of all sizes by all levels of govt. It’s as if the receivers of socialistic benefits have no regard for the burdens imposed on the businesses supporting them.
        I see the warmists the same way. They have no regard for the burdens they demand we allow them to impose on the world. Those who are making such demands are the true totalitarians here, the warmists who want to change the world’s economic system away from private property ownership to a low-energy ecology-based economy. The warmists are DEMANDING of and COERCING everyone here.
        The warmists are the true totalitarians in this picture.
        The warmists are trying to make the third world countries feel victimized by the developed world over our energy use, using the climate as the hook – some slight warming over a century, and some extreme events mostly from a decade or more ago.
        Obama and Kerry have spent a lot of time blaming the west’s energy use for climate issues in order to develop a constant demand for climate reparations by the third world country govts – its a cynical way of buying votes for the treaty. When the UN convenes, their loud voices are going to start making demands, they’re going to try to coerce the nations to fork over money for something that isn’t true, the falsehood of AGW. Since they were promised money in advance of the Paris conference, their votes are assured. They were bribed by American politicians who didn’t have the authority to make such promises in the first place, who had not (yet) secured the monies needed for this payola racket.
        This is the same tactic used by the more socialistic members of the political class – drive wedges between people to set one side against the other – when it comes to other issues than climate – to get people to pay for more otherwise unjustified programs.
        So the socialists and the vulture capitalists are playing the same games against the middle, to get the middle to pay for all their newly demanded ‘reparations’ and uneconomical alternative energy sources. In that sense I agree with Gail – we’re being ‘played’. She has a way about making her point, doesn’t she?

      • richardscourtney
        November 10, 2015 at 1:15 pm
        Government is always evil because it is composed of people seeking to advance their own interests and subjugate others.
        US gun laws aren’t maniacal. They recognize that every person has an inherent right of self-defense and that an armed citizenry is the only antidote to state power. Americans trust themselves, ie the people, and rightly distrust the government.
        Where has there ever been a government that wasn’t inherently evil? The less evil ones are those where the officials and bureaucrats fear the people more than the people fear their would-be masters.

      • Richard,
        You write: “We here in Britain know freedoms that many in the US yearn for; e.g. freedom from poverty for every individual irrespective of health, inheritance and disability.”
        Are you serious? No one in America yearns for British socialism. Our “poor” are so well fed, clothed and housed that they are among the fattest people on earth. Millions live off disability payments, to such an extent that it’s a scandal. The “poor”, who would be lower middle class in the UK, get all kinds of free stuff not provided by your welfare state, such as phones.
        I wonder if you have ever actually been to the USA, to harbor such a false, cartoonish image of our far too generous social safety net. You can easily live well in the US without working.
        I also wonder how you came up with the notion that libertarians favor totalitarianism. This is downright daffy. Socialism tends to totalitarianism, but libertarians are the farthest possibly removed from it on the political spectrum.

      • richardscourtney
        November 10, 2015 at 8:15 am
        I’d like to ask Gail how a socialist can possibly not be a statist?
        Does she know what “statist” means?
        Socialism requires an all-powerful state in order to take from the productive and give to the slackers.

      • All members of the baying right- wing mob:
        OK. I have tried to defend rationality, diversity, truth, compassion and justice against the unprovoked and unsolicited falsehoods, distortions, misrepresentations and lies of a rabid mob of right-wing extremists baying their paranoia and calling for imposition of an unpleasant form of government on everybody.
        Members of the mob mislead by calling themselves “Libertarians” when their every statement opposes liberty. They call for totalitarian imposition of selfish people forming an armed mob to replace the Rule Of Law because – they say – they are paranoid about all government (which they think is always evil).
        Such right-wing desires for the power of the mob are not new; for example, they were fulfilled on kristallnacht. Pandering to such desire has always enabled truly evil governments to take and/or to operate unbridled power; e.g. Rome under Caligula, Germany in the 1930s, China at the ‘Great Leap Forward’, etc..
        I have provided information that refutes every statement members of the right-wing mob in this thread have made (madness is easily refuted) but other right-wing extremists have joined the baying of the mob. It seems the mob is only interested in fostering lies with intent to spread their fear and hatred. To that end they have abused the generosity of our host in providing WUWT.
        Impartial onlookers can see what has happened here. Sadly, the baying of the extremist right-wing mob in this place can only have hindered opposition to the AGW-scare in the run-up to the Paris CoP. Few would want to be seen as being associated with them and promoters of the AGW-scare can point to the baying of the mob in this WUWT thread and say, “That is the nature of opponents of action to combat AGW”.
        Richard

  49. The CAGW madness is hiding the upcoming fiscal nightmare, that is going to affect all countries. Why did the US government print money (Aka quantitative easing)? What is going to happen to the world economy when US interest rates starting to rise above near zero?
    The following table is an excerpt from a table in the Oct 31- Nov 6, 2015 ‘The Economist’ Magazine.
    Country, Yearly Budget Deficit as % of GDP
    US, – 2.6%
    China, – 2.7%
    Japan, – 6.8%
    Britain, – 4.7%
    France, – 4.1%
    Spain, – 4.4%
    Greece, – 4.1%
    Brazil, – 6%
    Australia, -2.4 %
    Germany, + 0.7%
    Denmark, + 5.9%
    What are the consequences for the countries that run never ending yearly budget deficits?

    • William, obviously the West (US, et al) is living on borrowed time financially. The govt warmists have tried to get their world govt climate treaty for several decades, to create a new market bubble to cover the sins of their past QE bubble(s). We can safely say, for at least a few more weeks anyway, until Paris, that this effort has thus far failed to allow them to cover these huge losses with new financial mechanisms such as the carbon trading schemes under development.
      Our selected/elected officials are playing brinksmanship with everyone’s long-term well-being by driving us deeper in the hole with their boundless need to control the world.
      That is why the big (world) govt mouthpieces like Obama, Gore, Clinton, Bush and their lackeys are vilifying anyone who dares get in their way. The stakes are very high for them. They have made way too many promises here and abroad, and they’ve cried wolf on the climate for far too long to be credible, considering that temps aren’t through the roof, and extreme events have declined in number and severity for over a decade. The carbon emissions trading system would be just another bubble… that also pops.

    • William
      You piqued my interest and I think you are correct in focusing on the monetary aspect of CAGW.
      The overwhelming majority of participants in a community tolerate nonsensical decision making by insulating themselves from the community. It’s a rather normal reaction to things you can’t control. This group is sometimes referred to as the silent majority.
      The silent majority knows that you can’t sustain running a community on borrowed money forever because they know that they can’t run a household that way. It’s simple, clearheaded thinking that goes on at many dinner tables across communities.
      The silent majority will also tolerate relatively small increases to their cost of living because they have no choice. I’m guessing that a 10% increase in the cost of living due to increased energy will be tolerable for this group. Anything more than that will make them vocal. CAGW supporters know this, so they bury the costs associated with the policy by spreading it around in government issued debt, shakedowns of wealthy corporations and realignment of other expenditures.
      Obviously, if you spend your money on things that are not real, eventually the negative consequences of that become realized in the things you should have spent your money on. This consequence holds true if you have a limited wealth base.
      Almost all countries base their fiat currency on a promise to pay. That promise to pay is based on the ability to make more debt, realign expenditures, produce something of value or liquidate an asset. You get the idea. If you don’t produce growth you have to eventually liquidate in order to defend the viability of your paper.
      As I walk thru the post in my head, I can see it will be too long so I’ll cut to the quick.
      By making CO2 bad and then controlling how much is allowable, the controller gets to establish a new asset. The controller gets to be the “house” which creates the exchange rate for its fiat which is then based on that asset. The mostly likely candidate for that is the UN/IMF. They have the structure, the global representation and already have the name for the fiat currency … SDRs.
      My little brain thinks that insiders are aware of this and are positioning themselves for a piece of the action.
      CO2 bad.
      “They” control how much of it is bad.
      I have to pay and build my cost into any business I do.
      Others are doing exactly the same.
      “They” take what I pay them and do whatever they want with it.

      • Knute,
        That’s it exactly. The central motive for the “climate change” scare is passage of a carbon tax.
        A carbon tax would sharply raise the cost of all goods and services, without any offsetting rise in incomes. The result would be a massive influx of money into the government. That would be great for the federal bureaucracy, but hell on everyone else. It would be worse (more expensive) than the EU’s Value Added Tax (VAT).
        When the income tax was proposed in the early 20th Century, Americans were promised that it would never exceed 1% of their income. How did that work out?
        The very same thing would happen with a carbon tax. At first it would be relatively small, in order to set the precedent and get taxpayers used to the idea. But just like the income tax went from a top tax rate of 1%, up to the current 39.6%, a carbon tax would quickly skyrocket. Anyone who doesn’t think so does not understand human nature, or how governments operate.
        The gov’t is lying, folks, for the oldest reason in the book: to take in more money. Your money, and lots of it. That’s why they’re pushing the “climate change” narrative, and I doubt if one scientist out of twenty really believes it.
        Either we open our wallets wide, or we reject a carbon tax. That’s the only choice we have.

        • DB
          If I can simply look at the ice cores from Greenland and see that mankind flourished during much warmer temperatures, my mind immediately relaxes concerning the risk. I hear CO2 and go, whatever. Case closed, what’s for dinner. Honey, your ass looks awesome in those jeans.
          Lindzen was right. Modern society did fall in love with scientists after WWII. She was young, vibrant and offered so many opportunities to make the world a better place. Like so many things that appeal to the ego, she fell in love with the attention, the admiration, the deification. Can’t blame her. We all want to be loved.
          Along the way, one of the single greatest things scientists didn’t do well was to explain the concept of risk. I don’t think they did it on purpose, although some obviously misled. It’s hard talking to people who aren’t as trained. It’s messy, emotional and distracts from the squiggly lines that might mean something.
          I think science is responsible for abdicating its role in explaining the degree of uncertainty in the things they discuss. Some do it on purpose. Some don’t do it because they cant be bothered. Far too many reap the benefit of untrained people abdicating their fears to them. When people are afraid, they listen to you. Instant relevance and attention. Love rekindled.
          CAGW will destroy the confidence of modern society in science. It’s not real. The risk isn’t there. Crying wolf. It will end the love affair. Trust broken is often hard to regain. And if a scientist thinks he will be spared because he was a skeptic, just try and think of whether your confidence in the banking is the same after the housing crisis.
          Perhaps the way out of this mess, is that scientists learn to communicate risk. Maybe it starts with one guy, then another and then a group or an NGO. Maybe that group of NGOs begets an audience. Who knows, but I’m pretty sure one of the effective tactics for science to bring clarity to the CAGW mess, is staring them right in the mirror.

  50. The facts are that Bolivia has an infrastructure problem with its agriculture system that is causing it’s crop yields to fall behind it’s population growth. And this can only be solved by embracing the many western agricultural technological innovations created by good old fashion capitalism. And further, without the additional CO2 in the atmosphere created by our civilization their crop yields would be even worse. We should send them an invoice for the plant fertilizer we are putting in the atmosphere.

  51. Sorry I had to roll around laughing @richardscourtney and his great view Scandinavian utopia. So I have to ask him besides the glossy poster pinup story that someone has sold him has he actually spoken to anyone in Scandinavia or visited his utopia and have first hand knowledge?
    He sounds like the wide eyed communists of the cold war era that wanted to defect to the West because it was the promised land, where just arriving at made you instantly rich.
    I trade with several companies in the Scandinavian block and have visited several times the latest last year to Bergen in Norway. What I got was a sense of countries in quite a deal of financial strain and the household debt figures are alarming and the current refugee crisis causing more pain. The fact the debt is private not government means you can’t qualitative ease your way out of it and the IMF has concerns and a paper out on the risks. I am expecting a net reduction in trade of around 10% with the zone as conditions tighten and it gets worse.
    There is an American expat who ran a fairly good blog on life in Sweden which I used to follow (http://swedenreport.org/) but he has headed back to USA you can read his reasons and his commentary of his time in the country and his fears for it’s future.
    The lesson here Richard is don’t put too much faith in a few graph and rankings put out by some organization. Compare Swedish ranking in that report to the actual report from someone living there in the Sweden report.
    So I would be interested do you have any actual experience or knowledge of life in Scandinavia to base you views on Richard?

    • LdB,
      That link is shocking, especially scrolling down to the previous posts in it. I didn’t know it was that bad.
      Sweden can do what it likes regarding redistribution. It’s their country, after all. But when Sweden gives top priority to citizens of other countries over its own citizens, whom it completely ignores, then there is something very wrong.
      While doing a quick search I came across this link. If it’s even partly true, I think the situation is beyond control, and Sweden is lost.

    • Norway runs its socialist utopia on North Sea fossil fuels. It is just a better-run Venezuela. When the oil and gas run out, so will the funds for the welfare state.
      Sweden lives on borrowed money, like that other socialist utopia, the USA, whose only advantage is that its currency is the world’s reserve, and it has merely doubled its debt in seven years, a piker compared to other socialist states.
      It’s hard for me to imagine how otherwise intelligent, adult people can believe in the socialist Santa Claus.

    • LdB
      You got my attention.
      I had heard it was bad, but not this bad.
      “As a current resident of Sweden, I sometimes find myself questioning my own sanity. All these problems I blog about are right there in the open for anyone to see and getting worse by the year, yet media and politicians act as if everything is hunky-dory. Most people on the street also appears to be completely oblivious to details like the enormous increase of burning cars in the ghettos, the 1472% increase in rapes and the ever bolder gangs choking their enclaves with drugs and violence.”
      Ya know, it’s been 7 years since the housing crash. I’m sure most readers here know that the overwhelmingly amount of crashes get retested. My NASDAQ and S&P trackers indicate net assets leaving the equities market since earlier this year. Last time I got a signal like that was pre housing crash.
      15K dollar Birken bags and a waiting list.
      Sweden in an unstable bubble.
      Signs ?
      The timing of crashes only happen when the majority of investors think it won’t.

    • LdB:
      You ask me

      Sorry I had to roll around laughing @richardscourtney and his great view Scandinavian utopia. So I have to ask him besides the glossy poster pinup story that someone has sold him has he actually spoken to anyone in Scandinavia or visited his utopia and have first hand knowledge?

      Yes, I have visited Scandinavia. The Scandinavians have a variety of lifestyles in their different countries. Most of those countries are socialist, few have many natural resources, and all are among the world’s richest countries.
      And you say

      There is an American expat who ran a fairly good blog on life in Sweden which I used to follow (http://swedenreport.org/) but he has headed back to USA you can read his reasons and his commentary of his time in the country and his fears for it’s future.

      I will continue to consider official and independent statistics in preference to the whinging of a businessman who ran back to America when he failed to make a success of a business he established in Sweden.
      Richard

    • From your link, for which, thanks!
      “A government spokesman, Joan Ramon Quintana, said the current palace was where “former governments despoiled the Bolivian state of its wealth, its heritage and its memory”.
      “He said that within the building, acts of betrayal, corruption, and murder had occurred…”
      Plus ça change…

    • Reduce moderate poverty to 13.4% in 2030 and eradicated extreme poverty by 2025, according to impact, among others, of the generation and energy coverage, including growth, distribution and redistribution of energy income.
      I can see the plan

  52. To support Richard Courtney, I think our cultures are doing some of the speaking here. As Churchill said, we’re divided by a common language.
    In America, the Socialist and related Communist movements are fringe elements of our society. But in the UK they comprise a large fraction of society (although maybe not as much as half). So the UK has a history of socialist activism, much more than the U.S.
    America was founded on economic (and related) freedom. With that kind of freedom, great wealth inevitably results. The flip side: that great wealth is not evenly shared. You can have economic freedom resulting in great wealth, or you can have economic equality. You can’t have both.
    I may be saying things that Richard disagrees with, but I susprct his motive is that he wants everyone to be provided for. His idea of Socialism isn’t the same as the examples I and others normally post here.
    The problem (IMHO) is that when Socialism is mixed with popular voting, the proles (or whatever label you assign) always vote more of other folks’ money into their own pockets. In fact, that becomes an accelerating process, as we see most everywhere. (And there are always despicable politicians willing to promise the earnings of the productive folks to the less productive.)
    There is an alternative system, as demonstrated by Singapore, for example. President Lee Kwan Yew was essentially a benevolent dictator for decades. He did not allow the earnings of successful people to be taken by those who merely had more votes. He also provided a great safety net, where no one starved or did wouithout the basics. As a result, Singapore is one of the richest countries per capita in the world. (The first American presidents did the same thing following the founding of the country. Singapore was just following our early example, and adding a safety net).
    But Americans want their votes, so that isn’t likely to happen here. Unfortunately, just the opposite is happening: the current Administration is confiscating ever more money from the middle class, and buying the votes of the “poor” with it. It has gotten so bad that the Administration has ordered the Border Patrol to essentially stand down, in hopes of getting the votes of millions more non-citizens.
    So Americans have a much different view of Socialism than many in the UK. If I’m not mistaken, Richard sicerely wants to provide for those who really need it. But socialism means equally poor, or at best equally mediocre economic results. On the other hand, most Americans understand that with economic freedom the economic pie grows much faster, making the country immensely wealthier than with something like Socialism. And also, the economic benefits will be shared unequally. That is the choice.
    That dichotomy is what rabble-rousers in the U.S. (Hillary, Sanders, etc.) are using against their opponents: Americans believe in freedom and equality. But cleverly, the far Left has altered “equality” from its original American meaning, from ‘equality of opportunity’ (“Equal Opportunity”), to “equality of results” (everyone must get a prize; Obamaphones; and everyone, citizens and non-citizens, gets to vote, etc., etc).
    “Equal Opportunity” is a good and worthwhile American character trait. But ‘equality of results’ is nothing more than Communism: ‘To each according to his need’.
    By corrupting the language, the Left in Amertica has convinced the average person that it is government-provided results that matter. But rational, thinking people here understand that the best economic results by far come from equal opportunity on a level playing field — and may the best man or woman win. That is fair. Equality of results is not fair, and it eventually destroys the economy and our culture.
    Anyway, Richard sees things from the perspective of his culture, while we are influenced by what has made America great. But The Left in America is working hard to convince folks that we should feel guilty because the results are not equal. That is their big lie. Because no one should feel guilty for a system that has made this country much wealthier than any other system — and that includes those at the bottom of the economic ladder.

    • DB,
      The Labour Party was founded on the “lump of labour” theory, under which wealth is not created, so must be spread around more fairly. Of course, the spreading needs to be directed by someone, and who could be better than Labour Party politicians and their trade union paymasters?
      In Socialism Speak, “Power to the People!” means “Power to Me and My Mates!”
      So the government rather than investors should own major industries and provide the people their needs for food, shelter, clothing and healthcare, the better to make them dependent and subservient subjects of the state rather than free citizens?
      What could possibly go wrong with this arrangement of paradise?
      The majority of English voters have already seen through this racket, but regrettably it still has buyers in Wales and a messianic following in Scotland, now ruled by a National Socialist Party.

      • GM,
        I didn’t comment about government ownership of the means of production, but it’s part and parcel of the same anti-freedom mentality. When the gov’t owns something, the benefits are distributed according to this priority:
        1. What benefits the bureaucracy, and
        2. What benefits the most voters
        When the gov’t owns the productive assets, the benefits (meaning, in the end, wealth) is never distributed with the good of the country in mind.
        If wealth were distributed according to how it benefts the country, the most productive citizens would be rewarded, not the least productive.

      • A lot of British people who opposed socialism and despised trade unionists left the UK for countries where success is rewarded instead of punished.

      • DB,
        I should add that with its selection of a raving lunatic hypocrite as its leader, the Labour Party has clearly shown that it has no interest in winning elections, but only in ideological purity. Which IMO is a good thing.
        Britain can only be great again when Labour’s share of the national vote is on a par with the Greens. It’s headed for the dust bin of history. Thank God!

    • DB,
      Well said.
      The problem with the best of any man-made from of government or economic theory is that there are people involved.
      As Linus once said in a Peanuts comic strip, “Mankind? I love Mankind! It’s People I can’t stand!”

      • Gunga
        We all have heard the saying with great wealth comes great responsibility.
        I don’t know if you are a scientist, but if you are perhaps a new saying is worth considering
        With great knowledge comes the responsibility to accurately share ?
        We’re all highly flawed people. I know a little more than others about a few things, but I’m constantly reminded that I am part of a genetic code that is a conflicted mess.
        I’ve seen your posts. They are good.
        Keep on keeping on.

      • Which is why all governments are evil. Some are worse and others the worst, but all are evil because people are sinful, the more so in groups.

      • Thank you, Knute.
        I’m not a scientist. No field of “science’ would want to claim me if I said I was.
        One of my favorite secular quotes is something Will Rogers said, “Everybody’s ignorant….only on different subjects.”
        None of us knows it all. But we can and should “filter” what we hear and choose to believe.
        And be humble enough to admit that sometimes we got it wrong.

    • dbstealey:
      Sincere thanks for your post that provides your opinions and states how and why they are disagree with my own.
      Stephen Richards also disagreed with me in a sensible post that is in this thread here.
      I regret that the discussion in this thread has not been of the kinds you and Stephen Richards have provided.
      Yesterday morning I switched on my computer to discover that a mob of right-wing extremists were using this thread as an excuse to spew their bile including a personal lie about me. I attempted to defend rationality, diversity, truth, compassion and justice against the mob, but the baying of the mob got worse.
      This morning I have posted a summary of the behaviour of the mob and its effect.
      My summary concludes saying

      Impartial onlookers can see what has happened here. Sadly, the baying of the extremist right-wing mob in this place can only have hindered opposition to the AGW-scare in the run-up to the Paris CoP. Few would want to be seen as being associated with them and promoters of the AGW-scare can point to the baying of the mob in this WUWT thread and say, “That is the nature of opponents of action to combat AGW”.

      A good exchange of ideas, information and opinions could have happened here if people had made comments opposing socialism of the kinds provided by you and Stephen Richards. But that is no longer possible in this thread because the ‘well has been poisoned’ by the rabid mob. And such untrue baying continues ; e.g. this is in a response to your same post as I am replying

      Britain can only be great again when Labour’s share of the national vote is on a par with the Greens. It’s headed for the dust bin of history. Thank God!

      But there is no indication that the British Labour Party is headed for any dustbin: that assertion is falsehood aimed at misleading people. To obtain a government with an overall majority, the Labour Party only needs a 3% swing (from the Tories) of the share of the total vote Labour obtained in the election last May. And in the months since the election in May the Labour Party has tripled its Membership (yes, its Members have increased three-fold in the most recent seven months).
      Richard

      • Richard
        “A good exchange of ideas, information and opinions could have happened here if people had made comments opposing socialism of the kinds provided by you (DB) and Stephen Richards. But that is no longer possible in this thread because the ‘well has been poisoned’ by the rabid mob. And such untrue baying continues …. ”
        I spend an awful lot of time reading CAGW/CO2 supporter webpages. I’m having a really hard time identifying one that does not trumpet the clarion for forced (taxed or by lawsuit) redistribution of wealth associated with the generation of fossil fuels. I’m kind of thankful that they are not calling for war as the rabble sounds eerily similar to past propaganda when the call to war is made. Urgency, demonization, us v. them … it’s nasty.
        I go back because I am looking for the sweet spot in the bell jar of debate. I realize that there will be rabid defenders of the cause, but I’m looking for “the thing”, the morsel that triggers the reasonable reply. You know it when you see it. It’s like porn. The reasonable reply doesn’t pontificate about being all knowing, tries to stay above the ad hom , cherries and CnCs. Throws shade when they spout untruths irrespective of political affiliation. It’s rare to find it there.
        WUWT has its bell curve including extremes. It’s like other websites that way. It too demonizes, us v them and a call to urgency. I’m sure some even worry about the eroding safety in their world. I also see that WUWT tends to attract Republican supporters more than Democrats … the two parties of the States. It’s a complicating factor in objectivity because once you chose a party its hard to be objective about that party. Politics is an emotional issue, much like religion. What makes the separation of politics and science so hard is that at least WUWT tries to do so, while the warmists’ sites poor fuel on the fire. It’s a tough nut to crack because it’s a bait used to devalue the debate on the science. They know it, don’t care and cant wait to hook you. Skeptics know the science is nonsense and know CAGW is all political and know when they are being baited. How can you get to the science, when they dont care about the science, know its political and cant wait to derail any serious discussion on the socio economic ramifications of CAGW. Advantage warmists.
        Painful paralysis.
        I think the public senses this and I think that’s why they dont support CAGW en mass.
        The real conversation needs to be about what type of community do you want to live in, but that’s not the objective of WUWT.
        What WUWT does offer is a discipline of sorts. If I’m looking for the bull’s eye of a scientific issue concerning CAGW, I’m much more likely to find it here. There is a rigor here. It doesn’t exist all the time, nor do I expect it to, but I do find it. What’s equally telling is how anti WUWTers proclaim how WUWT is a place of lies, divorced from the facts, devoid of anything other than political bluster.
        It can be very exhausting to go back and forth but I don’t trust other people to think for me.
        And yes, there is alot of unproductive banter about political stripes, but that’s human. I find many Americans like to get muddy, get to the heart of the matter. They are passionate about freedom and the right to fail. It’s kind of attractive and alluring. Seems to strike at the core of what most of the world seeks.
        You seem like a fine person, interested in making the world a better place. A sense of integrity about you. It would be ashamed if you gave up on this place because you didn’t separate the wheat from the chaff. Be a fan of your preferred “ism”. It’s your right to freely choose.
        Just one man’s perspective.
        Hope that helps.

      • Knute:
        Thankyou.
        I have filed it for reference to remind me that when I am ducking thrown mud there are still people who seek truth .
        Richard

        • Richard
          Welcome. We ALL politicize and get emotional about it. At least at WUWT there is respect to agree to disagree, table the passion and move onto the issue.
          That’s no small thing.
          Glad you’ll be around.
          Thanks

          • “At least at WUWT there is respect to agree to disagree, table the passion and move onto the issue. That’s no small thing.”
            “Moving on to the issue,” all bolds original:
            Bolivia Climate Proposal: We want to abolish Capitalism – so Give Us All Your Stuff
            Eric Worrall / 3 days ago November 9, 2015
            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;
            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.
            Now the bolds, the subject of the article, and the abject failures of the centrally planned economy of Bolivia are the subject at hand. So if any one wishes to defend Bolivia’s demands and proposals, he should do so directly. Otherwise, he is essentially yelling at the people who are agreeing with the “subject at hand.”

  53. United Nations is way out of line with their charter:
    ..
    United Nations climate fund releases $183m to tackle global warming
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/06/uns-climate-fund-release-183m-to-tackle-global-warming?CMP=share_btn_tw
    “The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is intended to be the major conduit for funding to flow from wealthy economies built on fossil fuels to those that will suffer most from climate change they did not cause.”
    $6.2 – wetland resilience
    $12.3m – early warning systems
    $7.6m – restore salinized land
    $40m – resilient infrastructure
    $23.6m – water shortage*
    $31m – improve water system
    $25m – off-grid solar power**
    $217m – energy efficiency bonds***
    ———
    And at the same time:
    ——–
    UNHCR launches appeal to aid refugees as winter hits Europe:
    http://www.unhcr.org.uk/news-and-views/news-list/news-detail/article/unhcr-launches-appeal-to-aid-refugees-as-winter-hits-europe.html#_ga=1.87569816.1238870587.1445506641
    “Harsh weather conditions are likely to exacerbate the suffering of the thousands of refugees and migrants landing in Greece and travelling through the Balkans, and may result in further loss of life if adequate measures are not taken urgently,” UNHCR spokesperson William Spindler said.
    “the UN refugee agency is appealing to donors for US$96.15 million in additional support for Greece and affected countries in the Balkans.”
    ..
    United Nations has failed to maintain peace and security in Syria. By misallocation of valuable resources United Nations is becoming a disgrace for modern civilization.
    By its charter United Nations were supposed to:
    – To maintain international peace and security…
    – To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples …
    – To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character,
    – To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
    United Nations – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has itself become an international problem of en economical and cultural character.

  54. I freely donate to Bolivia all my share of the US national debt. The Bolivians can have my one million dollar share created by the Maoist Obama. Cash, please. No Checks.

  55. “and destroys the…spiritual wealth of the people.”
    Speaking of the spiritual wealth of South America, I have discovered an author from Argentina who had the grace, wit, and intelligence to oppose communism and national socialism, as well as the Peron dictatorship during his lifetime (1899-1986).
    Jorge Luis Borges
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorge_Luis_Borges#/media/File:Borges_1921.jpg
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorge_Luis_Borges#Anti-communism
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorge_Luis_Borges#Anti-fascism

    “In a 1938 essay, Borges reviewed an anthology which rewrote German authors of the past to fit the Nazi party line. He was disgusted by what he described as Germany’s “chaotic descent into darkness” and the attendant rewriting of history. He argues that such books sacrifice culture, history and honesty in the name of defending German honour. Such practices, he writes, “perfect the criminal arts of barbarians.”[48] In a 1944 essay, Borges postulated,
    Nazism suffers from unreality, like Erigena’s hell. It is uninhabitable; men can only die for it, lie for it, wound and kill for it. No one, in the intimate depths of his being, can wish it to triumph.”

    Having been exposed in my youth by boomers to authors like Pablo Neruda (a communist sympathizer), I am happy to have found a South American author that was on the right side of history. He wrote fiction and poetry, which I read less of these days, but I thought this would be a good title to start with.
    http://www.amazon.com/dp/0140290117/ref=rdr_ext_tmb

  56. Re Carbon Tax/Protected Classes/ CO2 Emissions
    So I did some internet hunting. Pictures and all that good stuff. I picked the US because they officially regulate CO2, legislate protected classes (in this case I searched by race) and have the most developed class action industry. Take a look at the maps and see if you can tell where class action lawsuits are looking to set up shop first.
    http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/_p2/race_mapti/ancestry_distribution.png
    http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/great-new-google-earth-layer-maps-us-carbon-emissions.html
    The racial distribution is from 2000 and the treehugger is 2009.
    Those are the most recent I found with a quick search.

        • Tabasco is a must. One time my family had to put Tabasco on my clam chowder.
          But the point is that this map is almost entirely powder blue, that is, German.
          This would be a very unlikely outcome of any real study. Most Americans do not even have full-blooded grandparents. You may find a few full-blooded immigrants amongst great grandparents, but these then marry a nice hard-working Norwegian from the next county. And as we each have 8 great grandparents, we are talking about eighths and sixteenths and thirty-seconds in our lineage. Which comes out to Heinz 57.
          Now obviously it was best to leave Europe by the late eighteen hundreds, since Europe was such a freak show, with its dratted little monarchs, popes and prelates, and Kaisers. But many of us have ancestors who were here by the time of the American Revolution and even to within 10 years of the Pilgrims. And England took the fist 13 colonies from the Dutch, the Spanish, and the French. And then the Americans took them from King George III.
          So I don’t see how the Americans in the map are only down in the south (off yellow color).

          • Zeke
            Map makers make maps to show things, much like chart makers choose variables to show things.
            This is a map based on census questions. The social justice movement uses the census to locate where protected classes live. Protected classes are defined by the Civil Rights Act. Wiki actually does a good job describing which protected classes are covered by the Civil Rights Acts.
            Now, if you take the map I posted and overlay it with carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels zones, (CO2EFFZ) you begin to create a sort of business model for class action lawsuits.
            Sorry, I don’t have the overlay ability to do here.
            I only did a quick search and I’m sure some snazzy law firm has done this already.
            I looked on Google Maps for custom overlays that people did and couldn’t find one.
            Latinos (Mexicans on the census map) are generally located in areas identified with CO2EFFZ.
            I linked an article or two in other threads showing Latino support for CAGW/CO2. It discusses that they feel it is an opportunity to receive compensation for living in industrial areas.
            Here’s a good link I just found on google showing how fossil fuels are being targeted concerning emissions.
            http://environmentalintegrity.org/archives/8096
            Once you add CO2 to the list, you accelerate the viability of a class action.
            I’m just connecting a few dots. Moving away from the purely technical science debate and zeroing in on how lawyers would apply CO2 as a pollutant.
            Obviously Greenland’s ice cores demonstrate that this isn’t about science and I’m sure many here see it that way as well, so I figured I’d do a little deeper homework myself.

      • Zeke,
        I presume it goes by last name.
        I’m probably typical of the majority of Americans outside perhaps of the Northeast and parts of the Midwest. I have an English last name, but at the great-grandparent generation, there are just three English surnames, two German and one each Swiss, Scottish and Scots-Irish, so 3/8 Germanic and 5/8 British. But farther back there is enough American Indian and African ancestry to be detectable by genetic analysis.

        • G. Maximus says, “I presume it goes by last name.”
          You mean German names like Hessian?
          http://www.vondonop.org/images/deserters.jpg
          “The fate of the deserters and captured Hessians varied greatly. Some were paroled into American factories and farms, others were merely made to stand down …”
          Alright, I have had my fun with the blue county map 😀

    • I live up in the north and also have traveled extensively in the 13 western states, as well as most of the states across the Mississippi River.
      There are Americans in the Northwest, the Plains, the Southwest, and the Midwest, and New England — not just in the South.
      That is a nutty map! I think Knute got a little trigger happy in his image search. (:

      • Zeke
        Yup, the map means different things to different people.
        Hopefully, my explanation above frames it better.

      • Max
        Census data self identifies if I’m not mistaken.
        You, for instance can self identify as a Native American and get protected class status if your percent was high enough.
        It’s kooky to you, Zeke and folks like me but to whole industry of lawyers, political vote targeters and social justice folks it creates part of the basis for a strategic plan.
        Ya know, ice cores and science and all that stuff is irrelevant at this point.

      • Zeke/Max
        Here, I found this one. Has a strategic plan.
        Lots of refineries and oil production in the area so I googled combinations of NGOs, fossil fuels, BP, gulf coast, etc.
        These folks are interconnected with the larger groups that are pushing the CAGW/CO2 theme.
        http://www.gulfsouthrising.org/
        I don’t see legal firm names, but I’m sure they aren’t too far behind the veil.

    • Many years ago I came across a method of graphing one’s carbon footprint that many of my more envirotard acquaintances have found quite challenging.
      Since CO2 is approaching 400 we will begin with a line 4 meters long. Since over time the annual increase between 2-3 which would be about an inch on our 4 meter line. Now, when I first started doing this schtick the U. S. was considered to be responsible for fully a quarter of that inflation, but China has supplanted us and we are now barely good for a fifth. The current U.S. population is approaching 325 million, which brings us to each individual US citizen’s carbon footprint = !/ 325,000,000 of 1/5 of an inch. Of course the 4 meters is is only the CO2 which is parts per million so that the entire graph is 10 kilometers long. There is also a qualifier that using just a straight average of 1/ 325,000,000 vastly overstates most people’s contribution because the average is distorted by the inclusion of Algore, Barry & Mooch, Billary, and all their celebutard sycophants who bring the average quite a bit

  57. I’ve thought over Bolivia’s proposal,,,, and NO we won’t be doing that any time soon. Thanks for your input.

Comments are closed.