Guest opinion by Robert McCarter
This is an apology to all those commentators over the years who pronounced on the underlying Marxism in the debate over climate change. I am a scientist by training and have tried my best not to sully the argument with politics, when commentary turned to ‘watermelons’ I turned to another article. Naively I thought the argument would be settled by data not dogmatism.
I recently attended a seminar given by a professor emeritus from UBC on ‘Global Population, Growth and Sustainable Development’, with an introduction by Rex Wyler co-founder of Greenpeace International. Sure that was a clue I was entering the dark lands, but my training make me want to cut out the middlemen and see things for myself.
The softening up started with the idea of social constructs that were artificial and could be replaced with ‘truer’ constructs, as an example the anthropogenic climate change construct that is ‘truer’ than the climate denial construct.
Then came the ‘ain’t is awful’ exponential population graphs, collapsing resource graphs, overflowing carrying capacity graphs and the de rigueur CO2 graph that I can summarize as ‘we’re all doomed’. Note that the population graphs only showed a global trend, and did not display how wealthy nations are getting their populations in order and limiting their growth rates such that increases are largely dependent on immigration. When reminded of this, the lecturer quickly dismissed it – ‘wealthy people are more selfish and do not want to share their wealth with their young’.
What followed was a litany of doom and gloom, how terrible things are now (longevity increasing?, health improving?, poverty decreasing?), that fracking fracking and don’t expect Elon Musk to come to the rescue (I finally agreed with something) with his electric cars and semis and emigration to more hospitable Mars – not a mention of the possible benefits of GMOs (Greenpeace after all), greenhouse greening or small modular reactors. The lecturer implied that billionaires were greedy and did little to share, ignoring that billionaires invest their money and only get a proportion of the great wealth that they create for others.
Having sufficiently depressed the audience it was time for the reveal. We are not doomed if only we change those arbitrary social constructs like capitalism. Roll back your expectations by 75%, have your governments share your wealth with the poor of the world. Hmmm he seemed to have missed the ‘give a man a fish … teach a man to fish …’ proverb. How about Cicero’s “It is human nature that what starts as gratitude, becomes dependency and ends as entitlement.”
But of course he was concerned about all of those extra resources being squandered on the hoi palloi – I get it now!
So having had doubt about climate change being a political rather than scientific problem I am now a bit wiser. Here is another guise for the Marxists, the warmunista peddling their bureaucracy controlled, idealistic sharing in a world driven by more basic motives like if ‘I work harder I gain more’. Sure capitalism has problems and has created problems but it has also created solutions. Our skies are clearer, our water safer, energy more abundant, wildlife is more protected and the future has potential for those willing to work.
ps As a Canadian I apologize for Naomi Kline.
History records ample evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was a time when agriculture thrived in Europe, Greenland, and China. The Little Ice Age was a time when crops became much less reliable.
My awakening came when Dr. Michael Mann tried to use his hockey stick to refute recorded history. If the alarmists have to stoop that low to make their case, they don’t have a case.
It’s amazing how different things look when the shades come off.
Hey I’ve been awake for a while now about AGW – its the rabid socialism behind it that comes as kind of a shock.
It’s amazing how different things look when the
shadesscales come off. linkHUH?
If there’s no “C” in “CAGW?!?!
Then why all the fuss about “Coal trains of Death!”?
Ever see any of Al Gore’s home videos?
I don’t believe you are dense enough or stupid enough to actually believe what you just said is true.
But you are dishonest enough to say it anyway.
OOPS!
meant as a reply this comment, not the original post.
Robert McCarter, stay honest with the science and keep your eyes open.
Gunga Din, can you please provide me with a link to a scientific study in a reputable journal that expounds the “C” in the AGW hypothesis.?
There is another talk scheduled next week.
Mark S Johnson
Can you provide a credible, empirical study that demonstrates CO2 causes the planet to warm?
troll johnson, show me a politician who limits his “evidence” to peer reviewed studies.
PS Gunga Din, you know full well that ” Al Gore’s home videos” are not published scientific studies.
Mark S-san:
You are correct. Algore’s hilarious propaganda film was devoid of scientific fact and empirical evidence, but it was an important Leftist tool to advance the disconfirmed CAGW scam…
As I mentioned in an earlier post, “The vast majority of mankind accept appearances as though they were reality, and are influenced more by those things that seem than by those things that are..”~ (Machiavelli The Prince)…
Yes, “An Inconvenient Truth” was laughable, but it was extremely effective in deceiving millions of naive people into believing a lie…
Mark S Johnson, have you ever been to Venezuela, or any socialist country? Do you have any idea of what you are talking about?
SMC, I live in the USA which is socialist, and I’ve been to England…..so the answer to your question is “Yes I have.”
Now your brain has really gone off the reservation, johnson. !!
No you obviously HAVE NOT been to a real socialist country.
No idea WHAT SO EVER, have you johnson.
A real world traveler you are.. So your answer is, ‘No I haven’t.’
You should trying visiting a socialist utopia sometime. It would be enlightening… maybe… assuming you are capable of understanding what you’re seeing, the differences between the USA and a country like Venezuela and why those differences exist.
The USA is socialist, yet, thank God.
The USA isn’t…
dang fat fingers. 🙂
AndyG55 & SMC…..
…
USA……
…
1) Social Security
2) Medicare
3) Earned Income Credit
4) Subsided medical insurance.
5) Food Stamps
6) CHIPS
7) Pell grants
8) TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families)
9) WIC and Head Start
…..
You guys crack me up….oh…by the way, the government owns most of the roads and highways, which if I am not mistaken is “government ownership” of the means of transport.
Oh, yeah, I forgot, a lot of oil and coal companies have to pay the Federal government royalties for extracting mineral resources (fossil fuels) on the land they lease from said government.
johnson misinterprets responsible capitalism for socialism
Has no idea what real socialism is. DOH !!!
His ignorance continues unabated.
By the way SMC & AndyG55, are you telling me that the bailouts of ……oh…….corporations like GM, and AIG are “capitalist?”
Please AndyG55, tell us all what “socialism” is.
“responsible capitalism” …..oh…….tell me, how much $$$ does Pfizer spend on treating opioid addiction treatment?
I can’t fix your ignorance , johson.
No-one can, you are NOT rational.
Your mind is obviously on thought distorting drugs of some sort..
In a capitalist system there is no such thing as “too big to fail.”
…
So why is AIG still around?
Off you trot to North Korea or Venezuela.. I dare you..
…. or are you comfortable in your inner city capitalist haven?
AndyG55, in a capitalist system there would not be any institutions such as “Fannie Mae” and “Freddie Mac.”
…
Without government support, corporations like General Dynamics would cease to exist. That doesn’t happen in a capitalist system.
AndyG55, you seem to be confused. North Korea is a totalitarian system. That is a political organization. Do you know the difference between “economic” and “political” systems?
Since there is some confusion about socialism and capitalism, let’s start with definitions.
so·cial·ism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
synonyms: leftism, welfarism, radicalism, progressivism, social democracy,communism, Marxism, labor movement
policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
(in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.
cap·i·tal·ism
ˈkapədlˌizəm/
noun
an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
synonyms: free enterprise, private enterprise, the free market; enterprise culture
Thank you SMC
…
Now, your problem is to show how the USA is not socialist
Off you trot to Venezuela.. I dare you..
…. or are you comfortable in your inner city capitalist haven?
Or do you rent your abode from the government.. or sponge off the taxpayer in public housing ?
Save money for your substances.
So funny watching you try to DENY that you live in a mostly capitalist society, where capitalism is used to help those who can’t/won’t help themselves. (like you, I suspect)
You think that is socialism…. really ?
Amazing twist of reality.
Bend it to what your “feelings” say you want it to be.
Here is the problem SMC…..
you posted in your “definition” of socialism: ” or regulated by the community”
….
Last time I checked, most banks were “regulated” by the Federal Reserve.
Last time I checked, most airlines/airplane makers were “regulated” by the FAA.
Last time I checked, most telcom/cable outfits were “regulated” by the FCC.
Last time I checked, most shareholder owned companies were “regulated” by the SEC.
Last time I checked, most insurance companies were “regulated” by the states they did business in.
Last time I checked, you couldn’t sell a newley manufactuerd automobile that didn’t meet Federal “regulations.”
…
Geez….hard to find gasoline without ethanol in it these days…..
….
So….get the picture?
LOL @ur momisugly AndyG55: “capitalism is used to help those who can’t/won’t help themselves”
…
In capitalism, if you don’t work, you don’t eat, and you die. In Capitalism, a paraplegic would be left to die. No part of capitalism would support a paraplegic. Capitalism does not provide ANY charity.
Hmmm, well, that’s a toughy…Not. The US government does not control Ford or US Steel or Budweiser or Exxon or goodness knows how many other companies or corporations of various types big and small.
In, let’s say, Venezeula, the government controls PDVSA, the paper mills, food distribution and production, the brewers, the distillers, etc… All government controlled. All have failed. Which is why Venezuela is in the mess it’s in.
Governments, regardless of type and organization exist to provide the political direction and control over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states.
LOL @ur momisugly SMC: “The US government does not control Ford ”
…
Really?
…
So tell me SMC, why on earth does Ford put those stupid catalytic converters on their trucks and cars? They are not necessary for the vehicle to move down the road, they are an unnecessary cost to install, and they decrease the efficiency of the vehicle. Ford could make more profit by not putting them on cars and trucks.
Capitalism would very much support paraplegics and does.
It is called HUMANITY. You should try to find some in your life.
Your backwards views on what capitalism is are REALLY DISGUSTING.
No wonder you are trying to twist the USA into a pretend socialist state that suits your putrid little mind.
.
Humanity and capitalism are two distinct and different things. They are not related in any way.
…
Stop confusing an economic system with your personal feelings.
AndyG55: “Capitalism would very much support paraplegics”
…
Nope, before the government stepped in, the only way they survived was with charity. There is no profit in supporting paraplegics, in fact, it is more profitable to let them die.
“they survived was with charity.”
PRECISELY.. thanks for proving my point.
“they survived was with charity” does not prove your point. Capitalism does not provide any charity. There is no profit in charity which is why there is not in capitalism.
“they survived was with charity” does not prove your point. Capitalism does not provide any charity. There is no profit in charity which is why there is none in capitalism.
You really are a twisted, sick-minded, evil, little piece of hatred, aren’t you, johnson.
“You really are a twisted, sick-minded, evil, little piece of hatred”
…
If you cannot conduct a civil discussion of the facts, and need to resort to ad-hominem attacks, goodbye.
Mr Johnson sir (and with all due respect)
There is a vast difference between Socialist and Socialized,
and apparently a Vas Deferens between your brain and your mouth.
so·cial·ist
ˈsōSHələst/Submit
noun
1.
a person who advocates or practices socialism.
synonyms: left-wing, progressive, leftist, labor, anti-corporate, antiglobalization; More
adjective
1.
adhering to or based on the principles of socialism.
“the history of socialist movement”
so·cial·ism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/Submit
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
synonyms: leftism, welfarism; More
policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
synonyms: leftism, welfarism; More
(in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.
so·cial·ize
ˈsōSHəˌlīz/Submit
verb
past tense: socialized; past participle: socialized
1.
mix socially with others.
“he didn’t mind socializing with his staff”
synonyms: interact, converse, be sociable, mix, mingle, get together, meet, fraternize, consort; More
2.
make (someone) behave in a way that is acceptable to their society.
“newcomers are socialized into orthodox ways
A person (or nation) can be Socialized without being Socialist
AND
A Socialist Nation and be anti-social
I’ve read through your discussion so far and find you’re missing a great deal of what the USA has become since FDR brought Fascism here with his New Deal and changed everything.
Fascism is an economic system that unlike Communism that the government owns everything and controls everything from products being produced to production quantity and quality to distribution to the population where the elite take from the top and leave the rest for the masses that are required to work to produce the products in a purely Marxist Socialism System.
Fascism has the population owning the property and the products production and industries, that are extremely regulated and taxed by the government to control the products production and quality and quantity and what is and isn’t produced or allowed. Thereby the government is funded to support the Socialist benefits of distribution of benefits through the taxation, licensing fees and fines imposed upon those whom are in noncompliance of regulations.
You cannot have Communism or Fascism without the base of Socialism. The USA has not been a Free Enterprise system (Capitalism) since the New Deal was adopted by the Democratic Party that brought regulations, taxation and socialism into the Federal Government. This was called the Progressive Movement in both Europe and the USA. It should be noted that Fascism shouldn’t be confused with Hitlerism in the atrocities he committed.
And yes, what is going on in Venezuela is a repeat of what Lenin, Castro and Mao did that led to mass starvation and oppression to their populations by Socialism faithfully followed.
Mark S Johnson
“SMC, I live in the USA which is socialist, and I’ve been to England…..so the answer to your question is “Yes I have.””
Excuse me?
I live in what you would describe as England, which is in fact the United Kingdom relative to it’s political structure.
If you have indeed visited, you clearly took no notice of the country, it’s people, nor it’s political system.
It”s like saying “I went to California, and now understand how America works”.
Take your size eleven out your mouth mate.
The AGW narrative was instigated and is now perpetuated by the UN and the globalist cabal. Various of its’ members have openly said AGW is about wealth redistribution …. the catch phrase du jour of Marxism/Socialism ….. and has nothing to do with temperature. They are getting more bold and open about their intent as the AGW farce is failing and the science is brought to light. I don’t understand why more people don’t see this obvious attempt to gain political control using the AGW bogeyman.
As a bit of supporting evidence, see the link below from a UN press release. It quotes Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of UNFCCC, describing the desired intentional transformation of the world’s economy:
“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history”, Ms Figueres stated at a press conference in Brussels.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.”
http://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally
Mark S Johnson
You are a clown Of course the government owns the roads the schools and hospitals in most capitalist countries .In New Zealand they sold the railways and then brought them back .Part of the railways is the Cook Straight Ferry s . A small trucking firm could not get their trucks across the straight in the nineties so Jim Barker started his own ferry service This is Blue Bridge and is in direct competition with the government .Without competition the rates to cross the straight would be astronomical .I applaud Jim Barker a capitalist who once ran a fish and chip shop in Auckland .
Thank you gwan for showing that the government “owns” the roadways…….but..the government does not own all of them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_highways_in_the_United_States
@ur momisugly Robert McCarter,
You told us what everyone else thinks…….yet your arguments seem half-hearted.
I mean it’s not like we are planning the future of civilization or anything 🙂
Sarc/
AndyG55: There is no profit in supporting a paraplegic, so you are wrong to assert that capitalism will support a paraplegic.
You truly do lack any sort of HUMANITY, don’t you , johnson
No AndyG55, I simply prefer a SOCIALISTIC system that takes care of the less fortunate (i.e. paraplegics) as opposed to a capitalistic system that would cast them out and let them die.
You really are a twisted , sick-minded evil little piece of human hatred and despite aren’t you.
Has the world REALLY treated you that badly ??????
Andy, it is not Mr Johnson which lack humanity, it is capitalism. You seem to fail to realise that it is capitalism that lacks humanity, by definition. The more you demand an unregulated free market system, the less humanity you will get because the dollar is the be-all and end-all driver of society.
It seems that you would favour some kind of “mixed economy” where pure capitalism is tempered by a degree of “humanity”. In reality all modern states are such a mix and the argument is about where to draw the line.
I see Greg has the same hateful opinion of society.
Sad.. and very socialistic of you both.
So you really think socialism help those worst off, like you two seem to think you are.?????
They suffer more, because everyone is dragged down to your level.
Greg
You should read more Bastiat. His most famous idea is the Broken Window Fallacy but it goes a lot deeper. The blind pursuit of profit that most people think Capitalism is (unless you actually read Adam Smith) is unsustainable because there are secondary effects. These effects are humanity itself. Social cooperation is a trait that has more benefits that drawbacks – the key is how you do it. Smith talks about the rich giving back to society, much like the farmer who rotates crops for the long term.
To add to my point. If you pursue capitalism you very quickly hit upon the idea of opportunity cost and the compromise between instant and delayed gratification. Bastiat is most famous for this.
Greg like troll johnson have failed to get what they want out of life.
Instead of blaming this failure on themselves, it’s easier to blame the system.
Mark S Johnson.
You are spouting absolute nonsense .I have lived in New Zealand all my life and have traveled around the world .You don’t seem to know the difference between a capitalist system or a socialist system .I went to school in the 1950’s and our country was not wealthy at that time but any one leaving school who had the will to work has done very well .A number like myself went farming and were able to buy small farms and then work towards larger holdings .One classmate founded an engineering company that built thousands of front end loaders for tractors plus other machinery ..Another took over a two truck operation and now close to retirement has a large number of semi trailers and other assets .Under capitalism those who work hard and take risks with smart ideas can prosper .I have got to know a Vietnamese family who run a bakery seven days a week and working over ninety hours a week .They are working for themselves to make a new life under a capitalist system but why should it be limited to a small family concern .If they want to start up a chain of bakeries that is what capitalism is all about .The governments in capitalist countries tax the population to provide roading hospitals schools and social security but socialist governments want to go much further and control commerce.and industry .The free market has its flaws but it is amazing how well it works without big brother telling every one how to run their lives.I cannot comment on The USA but many countries including New Zealand are moving slowly towards socialism with a big push from the Progressives who seem to be mainly in the universities
I guess he would have loved to have lived in NZ at the time Herr Clarken Fuhrer reined. Anyone earning more than NZ$60k was “rich” and suddenly had to pay more income tax.
The Chinese Communists figured out that government needs free enterprise to create the wealth to tax, and indeed just to feed, clothe and house its subject peoples, so that they don’t revolt.
Eventually economic freedom brings political freedom. The ChiCom regime has managed to hang on, but its privileged elite see the writing on the wall, so are buying up property in the US for when they need to flee the angry peasant mobs demanding their heads.
And of course for two generations now they’ve been sending their kids to study and work here, both for espionage and to serve as immigration anchors apres le deluge.
Mark S Johnson
AndyG55: There is no profit in supporting a paraplegic, so you are wrong to assert that capitalism will support a paraplegic.
“The astonishing enrichment of the world in the past 50 years, when extreme poverty has fallen from more than 50 per cent to below 10 per cent of the world population, could not have happened without free commerce and the innovation it delivers. No serious economist denies this. The liberalisation of world trade since the Second World War has been responsible for making the world not just wealthier but healthier, happier and kinder too. If that sounds incredible to millennials, then perhaps they should ask their professors to give them some less Marx-inspired reading matter.” http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/free-markets-and-free-trade/
And I suppose Stalin and Mao cared about paraplegics.
Much of the support for the Para Olympics and various other disabled sporting events comes from commercial organisations.
troll johnson as always demonstrates that he has no understanding of anything.
In troll johnson’s world paraplegics and their families have no money, so obviously there is no profit in taking care of them.
Also in troll johnson’s world, capitalists have no heart and never, ever do anything that doesn’t directly profit them.
Sorry to point out obvious “Marxist” reality to you but billions wealth comes from the work of others, not a philanthropic, hurculean personal effort by the billionaire.
Businessmen create the conditions in which others can make lots of money for said businessmen and gives a small proportion of the gain to those who do the actual work. The state provides physical security at both street and national level and takes a large proportion of the gain in the modern day equivalent of a feodal tithe payment: a kind of official protection racket.
You are perfectly correct. climatology is riddled with politics and has little to do with science. I hope that you are better versed in your own field of science than you are in politics and creation and meaning of wealth.
Do those people share in the risk that the business man has in starting the company? Does an employee take less money when the business doesn’t do well that year?
No. They sign up for certain working conditions. Any “benefits” comes out of their wages. They could contract instead and get paid more but at higher risk.
Greg
You labour under the illusion that wealthy individuals squirrel their money away in secret bank accounts when, in reality, the vast majority re invest their money into more businesses, creating more jobs, paying more taxes and benefiting society as well as themselves.
They take risks with that money you can’t comprehend, and they rely on finding people willing to work hard so they can also enjoy the fruits of their investment.
I wonder who you work for; a business that pays you well for your efforts from their profits; or perhaps the civil service, which ensures you profit from your daily toil thanks to the taxes paid on profits made by hard working businesses and individuals.
Capitalism has no compassion because capitalism is a system, it has no emotions, it’s the people within the system with emotions.
Your belief that only under socialism do people have compassion is insane, but then so are most socialists.
Under socialism, compassion is expressed by a bunch of people ordering government to take other people’s money and spend it on people the voters believe; to be more worthy. That isn’t compassion.
Please give an example of paraplegics being thrown out to die in the U.S .
Are there no hospitals ?
An enquiry from New Zealand.
That is because the US is not a purely capitalist state. It is what is called a mixed economy. There are many things that are based on socialist (dirty word, sorry) ideals, though they are not prevalent in the structure. Neither are most people in favour of a total dog-eat-dog society of pure capitalism.
It is not even a case of humanity or philanthropy, even the Chicago school of thought has abandoned the dogma that total unregulated capitalism is the most efficient way to run a country.
My enquiry was ironic.! It would be a good idea if Mark Johnson did not get his ideas from Wikipedia. as it seems he does from his posts. The internet is not a good place to look for basic information. It is by nature superficial
And he should ponder this from Joseph Crabtree
No set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated.
I also suggest a look at this site for Socialism in the Soviet Union after 1917 . How humanitarian their clearance of the peasants from their land to make collective farms.
The Soviet Union as it really was and not as it is idealised in young person’s minds these days.
.http://russiapedia.rt.com/
I remember Stalin but not a lot about him so it is useful to see some information from his own country.
Mark Johnson is not an isolated instance of a half educated young man , or self educated older man who likes to waste the time of others on the internet.
It was an ironic enquiry!
Perhaps Mr Johnson would like to ponder this.
Crabtree’s Bludgeon
No set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated
For the workings out of a Socialist State I recommend http://russiapedia.rt.com/
It isn’t a good idea to depend too much on information on the internet . Wikipedia does not have a good name in Science , for instance. Look up older text books and avoid new best sellers with startling titles.
No, USA is a humanitarian mostly capitalist state.
Socialism doesn’t do humanitarianism.
The “not so fortunate”, become even less so, as society drifts aimlessly downwards.
Only capitalist countries and afford to help the less fortunate.
Aren’t you lucky you live in a capitalist country, johnson.
I can only image where you would end up otherwise. !
typo.. “and afford” -> can afford
“that are based on socialist ideals”
Greg mis-interprets community and humanity for “socialist”
They are very different ends of the spectrum.
Yeah. The question is always ‘How much socialism is enough socialism?’, similar to, ‘How much government is enough government?’.
Funny thing, prior to the creation of these vast socialist boondoggles, the parapalegics weren’t thrown out to die either.
Pure capitalism is not dog-eat-dog. That’s actually a better description of socialism.
To bad socialists can only defend their desire to live off the labor of others by denigrating those who work.
I would like to point out that capitalism does indeed support humanity and philanthrophy. Capitalism virtually demans it. Under capitalism, your intent is to maximize profits. If you look at the balance sheet of any business, you will see that one of the largest items under assets is ‘intangibles’. That includes things such as name recognition and goodwill. Increasing that value comes from bring ‘good corporate citizens’. Go into a Publix or a Target and you will see signs posted of how many millions of dollars they have given to schools and charities. Go into smaller stores, and you will see plaques on walls honoring them for sponsoring little leagues, scouting, etc.
This isn’t done because corporations are altruistic. It is done because IT IS GOOD FOR BUSINESS, a way to distinguish yourself from the competition, and it increases the value of your business..
Clearly, there would be no such need for goodwill under a socialistic system. You have no choice as to where to shop.
Australian aboriginal Noel Pearson seems to be on the right track about the devastation caused by “sit-down-money”
http://aliceonline.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/2007-07-19-sit-down-money-aborigines-226.jpg
“sit-down-money” (welfare) is how the Democrat party in the US re-enslaved the black population (ie, physical slavery to political slavery). Does anyone remember president Lyndon Johnson’s (Democrat) comment that welfare (Great Society) would cause blacks to vote Democrat for 200 years?
Except Johnson didn’t say “blacks”.
Apology accepted.
Welcome to the club. I am intrigued by the quote from Cicero. If I remember correctly, he wrote it before the collapse of the empire.
https://twitter.com/JamesADamore/status/919015149532352512
There are people who wake up in the morning and think: today I am going to improve the world. They invariably muck up the lives of countless others.
There are other people who wake up in the morning and think: today I am going to improve myself. There is a chance that in doing so they also improve the lives of countless others.
The latter kind will work their socks of to create wealth, while the former end up devising traffic-calming measures.
There is only one motivator that makes people work hard, do anything, go the extra mile, and that is if it benefits you and your loved ones. The ‘common good’ is not one.
So what about that paraphlegic laying by the wayside? Perhaps you know the biblical story of the Samaritan who came to the rescue? The real message of that story to me is the crucial observation that the man could do what he did was because he had the resources to do so, he was rich. That paraphlegic is better off in a capitalist society of enterprising but caring people than in the much poorer socialist experiment. When Hugo Chavez was treated for cancer in his admired Cuba, the specialists had to be flown in from Russia. No such treatment available for the ordinary Cuban. Why? Because Marxist collectivism makes for poor peoples.
People invent better widgets, not because they want to better society, but because they want to benefit themselves and their families.
In the process, society is also benefitted, but it’s a side affect, not the primary purpose.
Mark,
my first 36 years I lived in Socialism. You cannot tell me what Socialism is, and how it takes care of its citizens. The SYSTEM was not there for us – we were there for the SYSTEM.
How many years of experience do YOU have living in your dreamed up Socialism?
I suggest you stick to things you know, not things you have no clue about.
johnson is one of those people who believes that the dictionary definition of socialism is what the end result will be. The many failures of socialism are merely the fault of the people who ran the system.
The next time it will work.
The main difference between capitalism and socialism (ignoring the obvious structure) is that capitalism provides an incentive for progress which socialism does not. The mantra “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need”, very quickly reduces the need to develop any ability to provide for oneself and leads to a culture of “expectation”, “dependence” and “rights”.
There was a Cicero quote up thread that alludes to the development of human nature from gratitude through dependence to entitlement.
Both systems have their problems and extremes, but where would one choose to live I wonder.
On one side there is the western based “democracy” under capitalism (or a version of). On the other, there are various “non-democratic” socialist versions known as China, Venezuela, N Korea, Iran, Daesh, ISIS. If you think this is unfair, then please give an example of a “socialist” system that hasn’t evolved into one of these extreme categories.
I was a socialist until my early twenties, then I realised that the system under which one lives has to make “a profit” in order to be able to provide benefits to those who are unable to generate their own “profit”. The difference being that one has to recognise the situation where one is unable to provide for oneself and accept what is given with no expectation of entitlement. This is a natural law of survival of the fittest (plus some “less fit”, when there is a surplus).
Could this be why the (albeit imperfect) capitalist model has been so successful, and socialist models have withered and decayed with no real progress.
This is how Nature works.
SteveT
If you are 18 and not a socialist, then there’s something wrong with you. If you’re 38 and still a socialist, now then there’s something really wrong with you.
My personal epiphany came when I was 18 and saw how the Soviet brotherhood came to Prague to protect their Tsecho-Slovakian brethren against bad influences. They came with tanks and pointed the guns at the good people of that city.
Yes, Lenin himself said this about Communism: It makes no money, ergo, it has to have capitalism to survive as it is a parasitic system. That don’t teach that in colleges these days. The reality, the ruse, the true intent versus the public proclamation… Govt. is always a Hegelian Dialect on steroids. As Ronald Reagan said the scariest works you will ever hear are: “We’re from the govt. and we’re here to help.”
johchi7 October 15, 2017 at 3:41 am said:
“State and district Gerrymandering has been a part of the election process from the very start and if you think getting rid of the Electoral College Vote will help elect more Democrats, you are living in a fantasy world. The majority of the big city population may be Democrats – Progressives, Liberals, Socialist and Communist – but the whole area outside of those cities win republicans more seats in both the state and federal congresses in the majority of the states. Having a few cities with high populations and/or states with high populations is exactly why the Electoral College was created to prevent them from ruling the whole country in every election, which a direct Democracy Vote would be gerrymandering on a federal level.”
I think you will find that the Electoral College was created because of the poor transport system of the 1770s. No railways, not aircraft, no telegrams, no email, no Internet, and the roads – such as they were – were abysmal in winter (remember, November to January) – snow, ice, and if warm enough, mud. As a result it could take weeks for a person elected in some of the more remote areas – and remember that most of the original States were remote – to get to Washington (or Philadelphia?) to deliver the result of his (no women, remember) electorate. Actually the electoral college – while nominally unique to the United States, reflects the situation elsewhere. In the UK voters elect members of Parliament, the MPs elect the Prime Minister. Ditto Australia. Ditto Canada. Ditto New Zealand (though NZ has borrowed Germany’s daft electoral system).
Now consider a hypothetical country with 100 voters. They live in 10 equally populous constituencies. There are two large cities where Party A has an overwhelming majority – 9 to 1. That means 18 votes for Party A and only 2 for party B. In the rest of the country, (the other 8 constituencies) the mix is more even, in four cases 6 for Party B and 4 for Party A, in the other four there are 5 each. Here there are 24 plus 20 = 44 votes for party B and 16 plus 20 = 36 for party A. Total votes for party A are 54 votes, and 46 votes for party B. Assuming that where the vote is split 50/50, each constituency returns a half vote for each party (similar to Maine, Nebraska???) the constituencies return 4 for party B, 2 for party A, and 2 each from the evenly split areas. Total, Party B wins 6 to 4, even though the actual votes went 54 to 46 for Party A.
This is always the result where a majority – however large or small, “takes all”. It happened in South Africa in 1948, when the Nationalists won the election 5 to 4 while the United Party won the vote 5 to 4. The United Party piled up large numbers of votes in placed like Durban, but that did not give them any extra seats in Parliament. Same in many constituencies in England. Same in South Australia – where I believe that the electoral law has been changed – somehow – to provide that the party winning the most votes must get the most seas – I don’t know how this is done so I can’t help – perhaps some South Australians can help there.
The only way I know to fix this problem is to use multi member seats, and where votes have a Single Transferable vote, where the probability is that the seats won by the various parties will be more proportional to the votes cast. Not always, but much more likely, especially if the numbers of seats per electorate is of the order of 9 of 10.
But don’t knock the Electoral College, remember that there wasn’t much is the way of political parties in 1776 – the members of the college were supposed to use their brains and knowledge of the candidates to select the most suitable for the position of President. And the runner up was to be the Vice President! Just fancy, President Trump and Vice President Clinton (the mind boggles!)
Regards
Dudley Horscroft
In the early USA voting was mostly by the more affluent population that lived closer to cities and the more rural area’s population rarely knew there was an election to go vote in it….which left government more to the elite population making the political direction our country headed. Since there were a higher number of illiterates that was a good thing at the time. Senators were still elected by the states representatives for the Federal Congress Senate to represent the State’s, now they’re democratically elected like those in the House of Representatives and not beholden to the States interest. And at first the President was to be elected by the Congress…meaning the elites of the population. Frankly our whole Federal Government is made up of whom was more popular and the more elite and affluent and influential to get elected. Billy Bob and Mary Jo from the majority of the population really don’t have a voice in politics unless it’s voting for whomever is running for a seat that has the most money to get their campaign out to the population. It has always been a choice between the lesser of evils.
Without the electoral college, whichever side can steal the most votes wins.
With the electoral college, stealing votes only wins you a state that you were going to win anyway.
The reason for this is because the only place you can cheat reliably and expect to get away with it are those areas where one party or the other controls everything.
I would favor a system where the winner of each congressional district would get 1 vote and the winner of the state as a whole would get the two votes for that state.
Each stare creates their own voting rules to favor the majority that is more populated. Which is why the majority of people living in New York, New York that’s more Democratic overrule the rest of New York State that is more Republican. If there was a direct vote for elections in every election more people would get out and vote. Many people don’t vote because they feel their vote doesn’t count, because they have been overruled repeatedly in past elections by the other ruling party. When the majority of the big cities in the USA have been controlled by Democrats for decades to nearly a century in some of them and they’re the most corrupt and crime ridden places here…you’d think common sense would at some point, point out how much their Socialist Societies have failed to solve their problems. But the people like the benefits they get for doing very little will support the Democratic Party, while the rest pay more and they get less of the benefits tend to vote Republicans into office’s and are out voted. The Electoral College worked and only those that are the losers want it changed. They forget that the Electoral College worked in their favor more times in the last century than for the Republicans. The more they lean Left the less favorable they have become. People are starting to wake up because the media that has favored the Leftist is being exposed.
+1000
The Democrats would totally lose their blue wall of Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Probably lose most of the electoral votes in California and New York.
This is closer to the popular vote that the Democrats want since now a Democrat voting in Austin would have a vote that meant something same as a Republican in Northern California or upstate New York. But they would never go for it because no matter how much ballot box stuffing you do in a single district you would only net you 1-3 more electoral votes.
“dudleyhorscroft October 15, 2017 at 4:49 am
Ditto New Zealand (though NZ has borrowed Germany’s daft electoral system).”
Not only did NZ borrow that system, they screwed it up so much so that list candidates can enter parliament as MP’s without receiving a single vote.
A command economy can’t work, it’s probably impossible.
Free markets work. Everything else about communism vs. capitalism is religion.
I couldn’t help but notice the mindless prattle from Mark S Johnson in the comments. Everyone needs to realize that he is a member of the flock of the religion of Secular Socialism; a faith in an all powerful supreme central collective with a promise of a socialist utopia on Earth. Versus arguing and providing facts about the failure of socialism and disparaging his deity the federal government, I think you would have an easier time arguing the virgin birth with an Evangelical.
In no way does a socialist economy produce equally shared misery. You don’t really think Nicolas Maduro or Kim Jong-Un are going hungry, do you?
Climate science and even renewables and sustainability have nothing to do with Marxism (a term too loosely thrown about without understanding) or leftists or progressives.
It is science or engineering or economics.
Any article ascribing and condemning it on grounds of Marxism is mere political opinion – and juvenile, prejudiced and ill thought out political opinion at that.
I am dismayed to see this sort of thing on a site which bills itself as a site concerning climate change.
Climate science is being used by the Marxists, Leftists and Progressives of the world as a device for increasing their wealth and power over the people of the world, so it is relevant to discuss climate science and its relationship to political ideologies on this website.
Btw, Capitalism = Free Enterprise. The communists invented the word Capitalism as a perjorative, in an effort to undermine and demonize the concept.
FREE! FREE! FREE! That’s where the focus should be.
Griff
You keep reciting this drivel, yet Christiana Figueres, amongst others, have stated otherwise.
You know this as I have posted it before, yet you keep posting this nonsense, like a child asking for an ice cream.
Facts only exist when they serve to advance the agenda.
Much like growing arctic ice doesn’t exist, but every downward dip in arctic ice is proof that we are all gonna die.
Heck, just ignore the quoted words of the party leaders.
Griff has spoken/
“mere political opinion – and juvenile, prejudiced and ill thought out political opinion at that.”
Griff describes the AGW agenda is a short sentence… Well done griff. 🙂
You know that AGW is basically just science-free garbage, why do you keep pretending and making up stupid unsupportable statements.
Troll Griff .
You know very well that the left push CAGW and declare the science settled .They rave on about that CO2 at 406 parts per million is the highest it has been for a million years .
When the two longest running temperature records in the world from 1880 to at least 2004 show no warming and also that it was warmer between in the 1930s and 40s than it is at present, questions have to be asked about compilation of records at this time .Are they sliced and diced to create the warmest year ever The medieval warm period has been eliminated from the records when it was a factual event over many years with temperatures higher than present .They are still not farming in Greenland as the Vikings did 1000 years ago.l
If the left where concerned about warming they would embrace Nuclear power plants which have negligible emissions in construction and operation .Modern society around the world demand energy . Only the left want to go back to the poverty of 100 years ago .
Both the “Poverty” and population levels
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
Griff wrote: “Climate science and even renewables and sustainability have nothing to do with Marxism”
Sustainability is a socialist plan for the world.
If it were science or engineering or economics, it would NOT exist.
10 cents worth of advice…
Griff,
If this site offends thee, go someplace else (DeSomg Blog would probably welcome you and their content would be unoffensive to your delecate nature)
(I wouldn’t suggest plucking out your eyes so you don’t have to read the content though)
I owe much to Universities, but didn’t major in Entitlement Studies or Self Righteousness. While I am sorry to say I haven’t been generous to my alma maters, I hope my lack of support is not missed in the flood of donations from the correctly educated.
Do not engage those who post just to be contrarian. They will disagree and bait you with every response because they are not here to have a reasonable discussion. It’s a waste of time to try and reason with such commenters. Silence is quite often the best response.
Says who?
🙂
Says me, you got a problem with that? ;*)
I will accept your apology for Naomi Kline if you will accept an American’s apology for Al Gore, Michio Kaku, and Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
Canada however has a lot more for which to answer than just Kline. There is David Suzuki, for instance. And everyone in Greenpeace who hasn’t resigned.
US federal government spending is about 25% of GDP
and state and local government spending is about 10% of GDP
— that adds up to about 35% government spending as a percentage of GDP.
I hereby declare the US to be 35% socialist and 65% capitalist.
Is there something else to argue about?
It’s close to 50:50 as to employment. If you add SS and other government payments to jobs, the number of people “working” for the state is a majority. Although the SS money is theoretically the recipients, mishandled for them by the feds, it no longer is, since it has all been spent by elected thieves over the decades.
For a while progressives scolded us about “global warming”, but it turned out that the warming they wanted to prove was not “global”. It was missing in places that it should not have been missing. Now we are just scolded about “climate change”
I don’t deny that less than 25,000 years ago northern Illinois was under a mile of glacial ice and about 1,000 years ago the Vikings in Greenland were growing barley to make beer. I don’t deny that from 1408 to 1814, the River Thames froze so solidly that 26 times in all those years a frost fair was held on the river. But that climate change does not count. Only some climate change.
When the solutions demanded by advocates of “climate change” all converge far more to socialism than to making a better climate for human habiation, I know what the real goal of “climate change” is, and it has nothing to do with the weather.