Show of HandsShow of Hands

Mark3 June 3rd, 2017 2:04pm

Capitalists will and do, do more to lower "greenhouse emissions" than socialists?

9 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
06/04/17 8:50 am

Capitalists only care about profit. Externalities vary in degree and severity. It is hypothetically possible that reducing pollution is an externality of following the profit motive, although historically speaking this has rarely been the case. However socialists are interested in the needs of the people, rather than themselves. Pollution has a negative effect on the people, so socialists fight against it.

Mark3
06/04/17 12:58 pm

DW, another swing and a miss.

When efficiencies in production procedures are planned for to the extent of estimating the cost of rewards for them that is internalizing them. Nothing external about that at all.

Again, efficiencies in fuel use are expected and happen and are normal in a capitalist system.

N Korea not so much.

Mark3
06/04/17 1:00 pm

Socialists care about the needs of the people. Yeah, we see that all the time.

You've turned comedian. Same person write your and Kathy's material.

Mark3
06/03/17 11:54 pm

Well, we all hate money.

jlevine19
06/03/17 2:57 pm

Anyone who voted yes clearly has never heard of Denmark or Sweden

Mark3
06/03/17 3:04 pm

Wait!
I think I heard of them!

jlevine19
06/03/17 3:05 pm

So have you also heard that both of those nations are two of the closest to carbon neutral in the world and how we are second to last in that nature?

Mark3
06/03/17 3:07 pm

There you have me. You see, I'm carbon positive.

ccc1 Georgia
06/04/17 8:39 am

And until l you get china and India on board everything is POINTLESS. Who cares about the carbons. You can more than double and we'd be at the Jurassic levels. If you greenies want to focus on a real problem look at the trash in the oceans.

sfcren Wyoming
06/03/17 1:24 pm

Only when it becomes profitable to do so.

abusara i drink and i know things
06/03/17 12:17 pm

Ah yes, seat belts are purely because of capitalism. Government had nothing to do with it. 🙄

Capitalism is about making money. If there is no market incentive capitalism doesn't give a damn about greenhouse gases.

Reply
Mark3
06/03/17 3:05 pm

You think it might care about fuel costs?

OrangeCoconut Connecticut
06/03/17 9:59 am

True in that a capitalist market will encourage safe energy while a socialist one will probably result in a safe energy plan where regulations limit everything.

Mark3
06/03/17 3:21 pm

Market economies have a cost feedback that limits fuel use and looks to efficiency. Socialism has no such built-in regulator.

44YY Boston, MA
06/03/17 4:04 pm

Capitalism contains 0 incentives to reduce pollution

Mark3
06/03/17 4:09 pm

Then it doing so must be entirely by accident, huh?

If you had a business you wouldn't want to reduce fuel costs?

Your competition is going to do so, so you lose.

44YY Boston, MA
06/03/17 4:11 pm

Of course you want to reduce all costs, but you will not reduce costs enough reduce your production and you will not invest any money in renewable energy sources because It is expensive. You are thinking to simple and too short term

Mark3
06/03/17 4:14 pm

Do it again and this time in English so I can tell what you are trying to say.

Try reading before you hit post.

44YY Boston, MA
06/03/17 4:15 pm

What I said was completely comprehensible. Try reading again

Mark3
06/03/17 4:15 pm

Notice you've pivoted away from your first claim.

44YY Boston, MA
06/03/17 4:16 pm

And I did not pivot. How could you interpret me pivoting if you couldn't understand what I said?

Mark3
06/03/17 4:19 pm

Listen up.

I WAS REFERRING TO YOUR CLAIM THAT CAPITALISM CONTAINS NO INCENTIVE TO CUT POLLUTION, FOLLOWED BY AN ADMISSION THAT IT HAS REASON TO CUT ALL COSTS.

That would presumably include fuel costs?

Mark3
06/03/17 4:21 pm

Of course you want to reduce all costs, but you will not reduce costs enough reduce your production and you will not invest any money in renewable energy sources because It is expensive.

I submit that is not comprehensible.

44YY Boston, MA
06/03/17 4:25 pm

Your claim is that capitalism reduces pollution by reducing fuel consumption is very close minded. Any economic system will use as little fuel as possible. Of course a company isn't going to use more fuel than is necessary. Capitalism contains incentives to Reduce costs and therefore reduce fuel consumption, but that has nothing to do with reducing pollution. Therefore capitalism has no incentives to reduce pollution. My other claim that you can't seem to understand is that of course companies want to reduce costs in capitalism, therefore they will not spend the extra money necessary to create and use renewable sources of energy.

Mark3
06/03/17 4:49 pm

The truth or falsity of your post rests on the claim that any economic system will use as little fuel as possible.

I claim that in a free, unplanned economy, the individual production facilities in competition with one another are constantly looking for new efficiencies. I experienced that ongoing search at IBM and Pratt and Whitney production facilities, people rewarded over and over for minor and major beneficial changes

In an unfree centrally planned economy no one cares. I experienced that in the military.

The comparison can be summed up in pictures of Wal-Mart versus the Gum department stores in Soviet Russia.

The only thing that reduces pollution in a planned economy is it's failure to produce much of anything, but what it does produce is is dirty because, again, no one cares.

Mark3
06/03/17 4:51 pm

And what do you really think of your claim that reducing fuel consumption doesn't reduce pollution?

You're in over your head, and you're saying silly things.

44YY Boston, MA
06/03/17 4:58 pm

I did not say that reducing fuel consumption doesn't reduce pollution. I said that an incentive to reduce fuel consumption is not the same as an incentive to reduce pollution

44YY Boston, MA
06/03/17 4:58 pm

There's no need to be rude here. Capitalism reduces pollution only enough to reduce costs. There is no incentive to reduce pollution at all.

Mark3
06/03/17 5:00 pm

ER, ah, if the one causes the other they still don't amount to the same thing? Why'd you bother with that?

Mark3
06/03/17 5:01 pm

And I repeat, then why is it happening?

44YY Boston, MA
06/03/17 5:03 pm

I live in a small village in Africa. I have an incentive to consume food. I do not have an incentive to reduce the amount of food available to others. I consume food and therefore reduce the amount of food available to others even though I had no incentive to do so.

Mark3
06/03/17 5:04 pm

It's okay to be a socialist as a child or as someone in their early or middle teens. Teens especially are herd animals.
But a concern for your fellow man means you can't remain one in the face of how the two systems exhibit in the world.

44YY Boston, MA
06/03/17 5:04 pm

You said that I didn't back up my original claim so here I am backing it up. Then you say it doesn't matter? I'm confused now as well

Mark3
06/03/17 5:08 pm

You've been confused all through this. American business has reduced pollution a lot for a long time now. It will undoubtedly continue, although not enough for those who only want to carp.

Mark3
06/03/17 5:11 pm

Stop making up artificial distinctions so you don't have to admit defeat.

The world doesn't work like you think. Learn.

44YY Boston, MA
06/03/17 5:13 pm

Capitalism has reduced pollution in some aspects. I never denied that

Mark3
06/03/17 5:14 pm

What! Without incentives to do so?

Capitalism as pure altruism. I never heard it explained that way.

44YY Boston, MA
06/03/17 5:19 pm

Yes it's called an externality. It is a basic concept of economics and it has nothing to do with altruism

Mark3
06/03/17 5:21 pm

Now go from that to admitting American companies have reduced pollution a lot.

44YY Boston, MA
06/03/17 5:24 pm

I can't say that and that also has nothing to do with your original claim

Mark3
06/03/17 5:29 pm

And you're wrong again. It has quite a bit to do with my original claim.

Mark3
06/03/17 5:48 pm

Finally, when companies encourage and pay people for coming up with efficiencies, that is the very opposite of an economic externality.

Terms that sound good but which you do not know only further separate you from those whose arguments should be considered at all.

Bye.

evoecon nearest binary system
06/03/17 8:08 am

Depends on what the definition of "socialism" is. See, socialist do not believe all socialist are socialist. You can simply self-identify as a socialist. According to socialist, there are good socialist and bad socialist. For example, many socialist on SOH, will adamantly fight that failed socialist are not actually socialist. These failed socialist are simply using the guise of socialism to deceive the ignorant and the stupid. So, China is not really a socialist or communist country. Therefore, China's bad actions should not be included in the analysis of socialist results.

Mark3
06/03/17 8:09 am

Well, that was a useless post telling people what they already know.

Mark3
06/03/17 8:29 am

I counted eight instances where you should have used the plural, socialists.

Notice I never mentioned China, and understand that I wasn't even referring to other countries, although I didn't make that clear.

Finally, why should anyone care about socialists internal bickering about who is and who isn't? We live in the world as it is and not in someone's theory.

evoecon nearest binary system
06/03/17 8:57 am

Did not mean to trigger anything. I believe the free market is the best mechanism to prevent environmental damage. Sorry to set you off.

Mark3
06/03/17 7:06 am

All without anyone being forced to do anything.

Reply
Mark3
06/03/17 7:13 am

Just one of the many amazing things about a market.