One percent produce 20 times more Greenhouse gasses than 50% of population - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15202381
late wrote:
You don't seem to realise how far to the Right America has gone. Look at the way Republicans, at their masters command, limit even modest reform. And stop anything that would bother them...

The reality is until we get a Carbon Tax, we are just making teeny tiny moves to make it look like we're doing something.

Big Oil keeps burying the country in crap, this is just more of it. It's just another distraction. All I am trying to do is remind people there is a real world out there, in the hopes they will one day get off their ass and fight for their lives.



Party politics, ladies and gentlemen.


Rancid wrote:
The obvious solution is to make as many people as possible poor. :)



Driving the race to the bottom.
#15202386
ckaihatsu wrote:Extreme heat is worse in redlined neighborhoods


Anyone that grew up in a poor neighborhood knows this. Where I group up there are no trees, no green spaces, just lots of asphalt and concrete. Pretty wonderful.

I'm proposing we redline the fuck out of the global population.
#15202417
QatzelOk wrote:The huge demand for oil and cars comes from oil companies and car companies. They have ways of making us use their products, and they are headed by the 1%.

How do they force us to use oil? By continually making cars more gas efficient and creating hybrid and electric cars people don't buy in large quantities?
#15202422
Unthinking Majority wrote:
How do they force us to use oil? By continually making cars more gas efficient and creating hybrid and electric cars people don't buy in large quantities?



*This* is how:



Summary

Between 1938 and 1950, National City Lines and its subsidiaries, American City Lines and Pacific City Lines—with investment from GM, Firestone Tire, Standard Oil of California (through a subsidiary), Federal Engineering, Phillips Petroleum, and Mack Trucks—gained control of additional transit systems in about 25 cities.[a] Systems included St. Louis, Baltimore, Los Angeles, and Oakland. NCL often converted streetcars to bus operations in that period, although electric traction was preserved or expanded in some locations. Other systems, such as San Diego's, were converted by outgrowths of the City Lines. Most of the companies involved were convicted in 1949 of conspiracy to monopolize interstate commerce in the sale of buses, fuel, and supplies to NCL subsidiaries, but were acquitted of conspiring to monopolize the transit industry.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_M ... conspiracy
#15202472
late wrote:This isn't France, for all their flaws, they don't see people as disposable.

But that's pretty much what we are doing.

Pretty much, we will need a strong Progressive movement.

"(The author) focusing primarily on British Columbia’s “textbook” revenue-neutral carbon tax. By 2007, warmer winters in the province had eliminated the extreme cold needed to control the mountain pine beetle, now wrecking highly visible and widespread damage on British Columbia’s prized forests. Responding to public alarm, Gordon Campbell from the centrist Liberal Party campaigned on a carbon tax, inserting it as a “wedge” to win election in a three-way race.[4] Campbell quickly enacted and rapidly implemented[5] the tax, initially set at $10 (Canadian)/tonne CO2 and scheduled to rise to $30 in $5 annual increments. In 2009, Campbell handily won re-election, in what amounted to a referendum on the carbon tax. In addition to its remarkable popularity, several credible analyses concluded that BC’s carbon tax was even more effective than expected at reducing emissions, while BC’s economy grew faster than the rest of Canada.[6]

The popularity and durability of BC’s carbon tax is widely attributed to Campbell’s decision to guarantee return of all carbon tax revenue via direct distributions, tax cuts and credits to individuals and businesses. "

https://carbontaxnetwork.org/2018/05/15/book-review-can-we-price-carbon/


I gave you a like.

I didn't ask if a carbon tax would reduce emissions.
I asked if one would reduce emissions *enough* to fix ACC if it were adopted world wide.

So, I still want to see about a carbon tax that is that high.

Otherwise, we agree.

OTOH, if the Progressive movement has the power to enact a high enough carbon tax, if might have the power to enact a rationing plan that clamps down on the rich far more than the rest of us and let rural people use more gas.
BTW -- I realize that the top 50% of Americans are something like (off the top of my head) the top 2% world wide. So, the top 50% are part of the rich we need to clamp down on.
.
#15202480
Steve_American wrote:
the top 50% are part of the rich we need to clamp down on.
.




How meritocracy harms everyone — even the winners

A new book challenges one of our most persistent illusions.

By Sean Illing@seanillingsean.illing@vox.com Updated Dec 14, 2019, 11:10am EST

Share this story
Share this on Facebook (opens in new window)
Share this on Twitter (opens in new window)
SHARE
All sharing options

The belief that we live in a meritocracy is one of our oldest and most persistent illusions.

It justifies the gaping inequalities in our society by attributing them to the skill and hard work of successful people and the incompetence and shortcomings of unsuccessful people. But this has always been a fantasy, a way of glossing over how the world actually works.

A new book by Yale Law professor Daniel Markovits, The Meritocracy Trap, is a fascinating attempt to poke holes in our conventional understanding of meritocracy and, in the process, make the case for something better.

We typically think of meritocracy as a system that rewards the best and brightest. For Markovits, it is merely “a pretense, constructed to rationalize an unjust distribution of advantage.”



https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/10/ ... -markovits
#15202525
Steve_American wrote:
I gave you a like.

I didn't ask if a carbon tax would reduce emissions.
I asked if one would reduce emissions *enough* to fix ACC if it were adopted world wide.

So, I still want to see about a carbon tax that is that high.

Otherwise, we agree.

OTOH, if the Progressive movement has the power to enact a high enough carbon tax, if might have the power to enact a rationing plan that clamps down on the rich far more than the rest of us and let rural people use more gas.
BTW -- I realize that the top 50% of Americans are something like (off the top of my head) the top 2% world wide. So, the top 50% are part of the rich we need to clamp down on.




A Carbon Tax is the first step, when we join the real world. It's hardly the last. We're gonna have to do some things to buy time.

What is it with you and rationing? You've never seen it, economists hate it. I did see Nixon do rationing, it failed miserably. It's the government trying to manage the economy directly. We did it in WW2, but then we had to, still sucked, tho..
#15202532
late wrote:A Carbon Tax is the first step, when we join the real world. It's hardly the last. We're gonna have to do some things to buy time.

What is it with you and rationing? You've never seen it, economists hate it. I did see Nixon do rationing, it failed miserably. It's the government trying to manage the economy directly. We did it in WW2, but then we had to, still sucked, tho..


You asked, what is with me and rationing?

Then you go and answer for me.

Because it worked in WWII, and ACC is as much a crisis as WWII.

It doesn't matter if rationing sucks. Dealing with the results of ACC is going to suck. That is a given now. We have waited 30 years too long, or 50 years!

Of course economists hate rationing. It is the opposite of the market deciding who gets what. Economists worship the God-like power of the market.

late, you don't get it. Economics as a discipline belongs to the rich. Bought and paid-for for, at least, 40 years. Maybe someday your eyes will be opened to this truth.
.
#15202538
Steve_American wrote:
You asked, what is with me and rationing?

Then you go and answer for me.

Because it worked in WWII, and ACC is as much a crisis as WWII.

It doesn't matter if rationing sucks. Dealing with the results of ACC is going to suck. That is a given now. We have waited 30 years too long, or 50 years!

Of course economists hate rationing. It is the opposite of the market deciding who gets what. Economists worship the God-like power of the market.

late, you don't get it. Economics as a discipline belongs to the rich. Bought and paid-for for, at least, 40 years. Maybe someday your eyes will be opened to this truth.



Maybe some day you'll learn...

https://evonomics.com/
#15202557
The *problem* with rationing is that it's -- surprisingly -- *supply*-sided, just as much as any MMT / Keynesian approach. It says 'Let's see what the supply is, first, and then we'll put in some kind of rationing system / economy for the afterthought of *distributing* that a-priori 'supply'.

But here's the thing, SA -- why should anyone consider the 'supply' (of to-be-rationed goods and services) to be so *static* and *fixed*, in terms of being a variable -- ?

Why aren't we looking to the *demand* side as the independent variable, and then 'working backwards' to determine what needs to be done to *fulfill* that demand, as best as possible, with whatever material inputs ('supply') can be had, including *increasing* supply with potential additional production.

I developed my own model for a post-capitalist political economy that is *demand*-sided and *not* supply-sided -- it's the communistic *gift* economy:



-> So labor credits are just *money*! Communism is supposed to be moneyless!

No, the labor credits are actually *not* money, because they don't *function* like money -- there's no commodity-production, no finance, and no M-C-M' cycle of exchange-use valuations for profit-making. The work done by liberated labor per hour can simply be *fully valuated* in relation to other kinds of work-role-efforts, through the use of circulating labor credits being paid-forward for each work role, typically specified in a finalized policy package. All of the output of goods and services, to supply chains and the end-user / consumer, have already been planned-out in advance, through the iterations of proposals and then finalized policy packages that specify all work roles required, per project, with pooled labor credits to *organize* the participation of available-and-willing liberated laborers themselves.


*By definition* a revolutionary and post-revolution society would *not* be reliant on the market mechanism anymore


My framework [...] addresses the *outer reaches* of what a strictly moneyless communistic 'gift economy' could conceivably cover. Some on the revolutionary left have suggested that perhaps a *remnant* of the former markets could exist within a post-capitalist social order, to cover luxury / specialty production, since such might be *unaddressed* by the more mass-oriented mainstream gift economy.


However, a regular market-based approach to luxury / specialty production could very well be more cumbersome than it's worth -- it would be tolerating a kind of exchange-values-based 'black market' within an otherwise free-access social paradigm.

My 'labor credits' is meant to acknowledge a post-capitalist liberated-labor on its own terms, without resorting to backsliding to any system of exchange values.



https://web.archive.org/web/20201211050 ... ?p=2889338



Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show
Image



labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

Spoiler: show
Image


https://web.archive.org/web/20201211050 ... ?p=2889338


communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

Spoiler: show
Image


https://web.archive.org/web/20201211050 ... ?p=2889338
Last edited by ckaihatsu on 13 Dec 2021 15:19, edited 2 times in total.
#15202562
late wrote:Maybe some day you'll learn...

https://evonomics.com/


Thanks for the link.
I found it very interesting.

However, the 1st article I clicked supported my opinion that economics as a discipline is owned by the rich.

The article is ---
Snower Says Economics Nears a New Paradigm

The entire ecosystem of economics — the textbooks, the dominant journals, the places of higher learning, the prestigious conferences, the promising pathways to professional success, and the news media — is singing from the same song sheet, namely, the basic axioms of neoclassical and behavioral economics. The most important of these axioms are the following:

... snip --- a long list of the things they say you need to believe to be taken seriously. ...

Unless you accept these basic axioms and the Invisible Hand implication, you will not be taken seriously as an economist. This is important, since economics is particularly influential among policy makers, economic commentators and the general public — far more influential than the other social sciences.


OTOH, the site in your link claims to be an exception. But according to that article the authors on this site are not taken seriously in economics, because they don't believe the required things.
.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 18

How about Russia uses a battle field nuclear we[…]

@Tainari88 , @Godstud @Rich , @Verv , @Po[…]

World War II Day by Day

March 29, Friday Mackenzie King wins Canadian el[…]

Hmmm, it the Ukraine aid package is all over main[…]