Capitalists will and do, do more to lower "greenhouse emissions" than socialists?
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.
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.
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.
If there is money in it they will.
Well, we all hate money.
Anyone who voted yes clearly has never heard of Denmark or Sweden
I think I heard of them!
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?
There you have me. You see, I'm carbon positive.
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.
Only when it becomes profitable to do so.
You get it.
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.
You think it might care about fuel costs?
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.
Market economies have a cost feedback that limits fuel use and looks to efficiency. Socialism has no such built-in regulator.
Capitalism contains 0 incentives to reduce pollution
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.
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
Do it again and this time in English so I can tell what you are trying to say.
Try reading before you hit post.
What I said was completely comprehensible. Try reading again
Notice you've pivoted away from your first claim.
And I did not pivot. How could you interpret me pivoting if you couldn't understand what I said?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
ER, ah, if the one causes the other they still don't amount to the same thing? Why'd you bother with that?
And I repeat, then why is it happening?
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.
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.
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
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.
Stop making up artificial distinctions so you don't have to admit defeat.
The world doesn't work like you think. Learn.
Capitalism has reduced pollution in some aspects. I never denied that
What! Without incentives to do so?
Capitalism as pure altruism. I never heard it explained that way.
Yes it's called an externality. It is a basic concept of economics and it has nothing to do with altruism
Now go from that to admitting American companies have reduced pollution a lot.
I can't say that and that also has nothing to do with your original claim
Even the loony left greenie weenies do admit it.
And you're wrong again. It has quite a bit to do with my original claim.
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.
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.
Well, that was a useless post telling people what they already know.
Peace be with you.
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.
Did not mean to trigger anything. I believe the free market is the best mechanism to prevent environmental damage. Sorry to set you off.
All without anyone being forced to do anything.
Just one of the many amazing things about a market.