So they report.
Perhaps their success is mainly due to actually carrying on and mitigation.
The advent of duplicity in international relations, huh -- ? (grin)
Well considering I have repeated over and over again that I don't support private property, no that isn't the Capitalism I am asking for. All I am saying is Capitalism isn't entirely fundamentally flawed.
Yeah, save it for the battlefield, buddy.... (grin)
There are aspects of it that are better than say... I don't know... Socialism. Having said that, there are expects of Socialism that are better than say Capitalism. The solution is to take what works from both ideas and disregard what doesn't and base an economy around that. The best example today. THE NORDIC MODEL! And when the next set of contradictions come along that risks the economic model that you have, you repeat the process again. You don't just start from scratch every single time and look for the next vogue economic theory model and keep calling for a revolution to get it.
Well, the point I've been trying to impress upon you is that capitalism has too many *contradictions*, internally, to really be seen as a viable economics. Sure, professional administrative oversight / government could keep chasing after these, or not, to address them after-the-fact -- and after-the-damage, I would argue (as with the pandemic and/or Trump) -- or we could look to situate the political economy as being under the control of *workers*, collectively, for an overall collective 'co-administration' (see 'soviet democracy', from previously).
I also have to note the *human* cost -- it's not like global society is simply sitting on its hands, waiting for the next great political proposal to come along. What about Tigray, what about ISIS, what about Julian Assange, what about government-supported killer cops, the racist prison system, etc. -- ? Is capitalism worth keeping around for all of that? I'll remind that capitalism is inescapably a *class* system, and a class-based economics uses a *ruling class elite* to 'manage' its economics, non-neutrally.
As for your argument that people are moving their money into property, sure, why wouldn't they? It is a commodity that continues to rise in price and hence a safe bet. The reason it keeps on rising in price though is due to supply and demand. And for some reason you refuse to accept that simple fact and muddy the waters with BS that doesn't really need to apply to this argument. But I am not going to keep going over and over the same point that we need homes to live in and that the supply isn't sufficient for those who need the home currently hence the competition to bid up prices (and rent), as that point should be obvious to you by now. But given the solution of all this would be to just create a social housing program and to build more homes, I don't really know how else to explain that house prices will drop to affordability levels if you made supply exceed demand - regardless whether people are putting their money into housing as an investment today or not.
Okay, I can only repeat that *some kind* of commodity -- often housing / land -- will be speculated-on, with its face-value price *skyrocketing*, well beyond the 'organic' concept of supply-and-demand, to the *financial bubble* version of supply-and-demand.
Would you like to comment on the existence / use of financial *derivatives* at all -- ?
Size of market
To give an idea of the size of the derivative market, The Economist has reported that as of June 2011, the over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives market amounted to approximately $700 trillion, and the size of the market traded on exchanges totaled an additional $83 trillion. For the fourth quarter 2017 the European Securities Market Authority estimated the size of European derivatives market at a size of €660 trillion with 74 million outstanding contracts.
However, these are "notional" values, and some economists say that these aggregated values greatly exaggerate the market value and the true credit risk faced by the parties involved. For example, in 2010, while the aggregate of OTC derivatives exceeded $600 trillion, the value of the market was estimated to be much lower, at $21 trillion. The credit-risk equivalent of the derivative contracts was estimated at $3.3 trillion.
Still, even these scaled-down figures represent huge amounts of money. For perspective, the budget for total expenditure of the United States government during 2012 was $3.5 trillion, and the total current value of the U.S. stock market is an estimated $23 trillion. Meanwhile, the world annual Gross Domestic Product is about $65 trillion.
At least for one type of derivative, Credit Default Swaps (CDS), for which the inherent risk is considered high[by whom?], the higher, nominal value remains relevant. It was this type of derivative that investment magnate Warren Buffett referred to in his famous 2002 speech in which he warned against "financial weapons of mass destruction". CDS notional value in early 2012 amounted to $25.5 trillion, down from $55 trillion in 2008.
Trump is voted out. Did I mention I support Democracy? Given that climate change is a crisis, it is up to the electorate to vote out those who do not maintain their commitments if the issue is big enough for them. Besides, given the speed of renewable technology has advanced recently and the focus away from oil, my prediction is that in the next few decades we would have moved away from oil in many of things that rely on it today very much like coal in the 60s when compared to today and that the technology of renewable itself will be regarded the same way that we treat oil today. In other words, capitalism would have realigned its focus on this issue. And in that sense it is beneficial that the US commit to its climate commitments now, not just because of the environmental impact, but because if they don't their economy will be over taken by nations (EU & China) that are due to there understanding of said technology.
European coal phase-out could slow in 2021: OIES
Published date: 21 January 2021
The phase-out of coal-fired generation across Europe could slow in 2021 amid more favourable market conditions than last year, according to the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies (OIES).
The OIES' quarterly gas review predicts a "short-lived" and "marginal" recovery this year owing to firmer electricity demand and higher gas prices, making coal burn more competitive.
https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2179 ... -2021-oies
3D printers need programming. You seem to look at what can be made and forget that someone operates these things - let alone they need to be manufactured to begin with I might add. As I said, time will tell. I do not ever see the time labor is not needed. Reduced perhaps. But it always is needed in some capacity even if it was just for supervision.
Also, and you seem to keep ignoring this, a robot is only as good as its programming anyway and as such will always have limitations. Your Mac Machine for Example won't be much use at making a milkshake or a Quarter Pounder. And if someone asked for a burger without source and extra pickles, let's see what happens then.
To spell-it-out for you, technology, including robotics, gets increasingly *leveraged*, to the point where even a *baby* could initiate a nuclear reaction, for energy, if things *developed* that way, in that direction.
Consider the 'full-automation' of a smart home, for example, which, in my understanding, could be completely 'hands-off'. Yes, it took engineering and production and set-up, and so on, but if society was more *collectivized* in structure these kinds of things could be much more *societal*, universal, and effortless for *years* once initially set up. So it's not even so-much about 'programming' as it is about 'societal implementation'.