Is capitalism ruining society or lifting it up? Vote now and let your voice be heard!
✍️ Share your thoughts in the comments, but remember to keep it civil, no matter how heated the debate gets! Let's hear your opinions!
Yes, capitalism is the engine of progress that has created wealth and improved lives around the globe.
No, capitalism exploits the masses, concentrates wealth in the hands of a few, and causes social and environmental destruction.
Japan is an example of a capitalist country declining due to lack of economic growth and lack of population growth. Japan's economy has been almost completely flat for 30 years. The minimum wage in Japan is currently AU $10, not much more than it was 30 years ago. In comparison, the Australian minimum wage has quadrupled over the same time period. The Japanese government is now the most indebted in the world, and the question of how it is going to pay the pension for the most elderly population in the world is unanswered.
The reason Japan is in the situation it is currently in due to all the bail outs of the big banks after their real estate bubble burst in the 90's. Had they let the banks fail (The Capitalist Way), they would have been much better off today.
They rely on continual economic growth
Capitalism just means free markets. Buyers and sellers are free to trade on their own terms without outside interference. There is no reliance on anything outside of that. Growth is a byproduct of trade which is a good thing, but it is not a dependency. This is a myth perpetuated by socialists who don't seem to grasp what a free market actually is.
So, in the end, all capitalist economies are doomed unless they find a way out of the cycle.
Free markets are self-correcting, because when allowed to be free, unsustainable business will fail and be replaced by better businesses that work. Failure is part of the model, but socialists don't seem to be able to grasp that this is a good thing.
ah yes, richard m nixon, notorious for his unbiased and totally grounded in reality views on economics
Both? It's not a zero sum game, that's just divisive American talk. You can have and support both capitalism and socialism. The US leans more the capitalism and France leans further to socialism. In my opinion Australia is a decent balance of both socialist and capitalist policies but need a bit more of a socialism push - there's a free market but there's still relatively decent access to welfare, healthcare and education but they could all use a little more funding. You want enough capitalism to drive and reward ambition and progress and enough socialism to keep humanity, distribution of wealth, environmental and fairness in check.
I think Scandinavian countries like Sweden that follow the Nordic model of government aka "cuddly capitalism" nail the balance in that they are capitalist countries, but with strong publicly-funded services and good workers' rights.
Strangely, none mention that we are [most of the Western countries] under crony capitalism.
Crony capitalism, sometimes called cronyism, is an economic system in which businesses thrive not as a result of free enterprise, but rather as a return on money amassed through collusion between a business class and the political class
As the governments demonstrate it many times over the past ~30yrs or more. They bail out big corp that did dodgy thing under the blah blah blah excuses.
Under true capitalism [ which is for most medium & small businesses ] the market correct itself. "You done stupid & unprofitable things ?" Bankruptcy you go.
And like all things, capitalism works until it doesn't.
Some things are not sustainable.
The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting the picture.
But I do not know a better system. Yet.
And like all things, capitalism works until it doesn't.
Er what?
Unlike Socialism, Capitalism actually works.
Capitalism actually works.
Until it doesn't.
I am not proposing we adopt Socialism - this has the same issue, it works until it doesn't.
Until it doesn't.
When is this exactly?
Because Socialism has failed every time, but capitalism has never failed. On the contrary it that produced the most benefit to the most humans in the entire history of humanity.
this has the same issue, it works until it doesn't.
No it doesn't. It never works and it always fails. They are the opposite of each other.
When is this exactly?
To answer that we'd need to agree on what is the measure of "works".
Capitalism works well to keep people working in a system that promotes technological advancement that mostly benefits the benefactors of capitalistic oligarchs.
As a system, capitalism works very well.
But the longer I'm alive the less I see how that benefits me - the typical work'n dude.
Capitalism absolutely works.
Please don't think that when someone criticizes capitalism that they're anti capitalists or are promoting socialism - there are not only two choices, there may be new systems that also work well.
Does capitalism provide a framework that enables most people to live and feel they've lived a meaningful and enjoyable life? Is that still true today?
But the longer I'm alive the less I see how that benefits me - the typical work'n dude.
Ah well that's a different story. Free markets will never help all people all of the the time, no system ever can. But they will help more people than any other system, so that makes it the best system on offer.
there may be new systems that also work well.
There may well be, but I'm yet to hear of one, or more importantly see it demonstrated in real life. Because this is the important part, many other systems have been tried and they were all worse.
What is so irritating about the pro-socialists that have made a comeback in the last 10-15 years is that none of their dumb ideas are new. They are all old ideas that have been shown to fail.
If you have a genuinely new idea then I'm all ears, but taking more of my money to give to the government to waste on crazy programs that sound good but deliver worse outcomes ain't it.
Does capitalism provide a framework that enables most people to live and feel they've lived a meaningful and enjoyable life? Is that still true today?
I believe it does, because it's built on the very thing that brings the most enjoyment, freedom. I think a lot of the problems that people think they have in the Wealthy West are all self-inflicted, ie affluenza. A result of having a life so relatively easy (historically speaking) that they have to invent struggles to feel like their life has meaning.
I just finished reading a story about the Plantagenet dynasty in Middle ages England. For a few centuries it was a society of indentured servitude that faced endless war, pestilence, plague, or witch hunts almost every year for hundred of years. A truly horrific existence. I've also read books on Maoist China, Leninist Russia, Pol pot's Cambodia etc and they were all equally horrific. Capitalism brought us out of all that, we should at least recognise that although it may not be perfect, it has created a very comfortable life for billions and billions of people. The worst the average punter has it in this era is they may not be able to afford a house with 15kms of a capital city, and they can only afford a trip to Bali once a year. It's hardly the salt mines of Siberia though is it?
The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting the picture.
The fact is that under Capitalism, the rich are getting richer and the poor are also getting richer.
The data is clear on this: https://shortfall.blog/the-deep-optimism-manifesto-262f273c9…
That’s because we have Cronyism: collusion between government and private large companies. If it was true capitalism (like most small businesses operate) those who work and innovate would get richer and the lazy ones would be poor as f.
What other options are there that has worked ?
Do you think China is communist?
racism against blacks, etc
Last time I checked racism was illegal.
Is it not anymore?
And isn’t racism something that’s deployed against all races and not just one in particular. If you ask me, there’s a lot of anti-white sentiment everywhere I see these days.
I see job listings with written quotas for ‘people of colour’. Imagine if it was the other way around.
@AustriaBargain: They had black and white European slaves both coexisting in Africa under Muslim and non-Muslim black slave owners long before Americans ever went there.
Same thing happened in America too btw, whites and blacks were both enslaved in America. Blacks made much better and more productive slaves, so they would prefer black slaves over white or even Native American slaves.
It was evil and there’s a reason why so many whites, browns and blacks gave up their lives to abolish slavery almost everywhere on the planet.
You are using your morality and conscience of today to judge the evils of past when statistically if you would have been born back then, you would have easily condoned for the same thing. Hindsight’s a great thing.
You can add to this self-victimisation as we have been doing here in the west which’s only destroying even more black lives and furthering the divide.
Or you can use your head and realise that African blacks on an average now make way way more money than American blacks and whites in the USA.
Only bested by Asians, another oppressed class.
Oh well why didn't you tell me that slavery existed in Africa, so of course it was okay for Americans to enslave each other in that case.
Seriously?
I didn’t even come close to making that point but that slavery was a global thing and not just limited to one race or one continent. As that was the norm back in the day and people of all races were complicit in it.
Anyways, I wrote such a detailed comment and if you really wanted to have a discussion you would respond or atleast acknowledge the numerous points that I made in there.
Anyways, you wanna be hostile and disingenuous right now but I don’t. I give up. Good luck.
@AustriaBargain: Do you care about the estimated 1 million slaves in Indian today, in 2023?
Or would that be racist to point that out?
Or not racist?
Please enlighten us.
@MementoMori: Apparently this is an inappropriate area of discussion so I don't have any other comments to make on the matter.
Imagine if in the US black Americans had enslaved all white Americans, how outrageous that would be!
There were more white slaves taken to Africa than Black slaves take out of Africa, so we don't have to imagine.
Now what does this say about the people who are crying the loudest about such things? The victim industry knows no limits…
What major party has racism against blacks as part of its policy???
@Almost Banned: He’s a sensible dude with integrity and would surely tell you the political party that invented and fought for segregation, KKK and planned parenthood centres in black neighbourhoods to ensure limiting the population of black babies or as the current American president calls them - ‘roaches’ 🪳.
@Gervais fanboy: Let's talk about the most recent Republican President of the US:
Trump was sued by the Justice Department in the 1970s for alleged racial discrimination in his rental properties.
In 1989, Trump called for the execution of five black and Latino teenagers, known as the Central Park Five, who were wrongfully convicted of rape and assault.
In 2011, Trump pushed the conspiracy theory that Barack Obama was not born in the United States and thus not eligible to be president.
Trump referred to Haiti, El Salvador, and African nations as “shithole countries” in 2018 during a meeting with lawmakers on immigration policy.
In the aftermath of a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017, Trump said that there were “very fine people on both sides” of the rally, which included neo-Nazis and members of the Ku Klux Klan.
In 2013, Trump tweeted that he had a “great relationship with the blacks”.
In 2016, Trump told African American voters “what do you have to lose?” during a speech in which he criticized Democrats for allegedly taking their support for granted.
Trump has been criticized for his handling of police brutality and racial justice issues, including his calls for “law and order” and his deployment of federal troops to cities during the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020.
Trump was accused of racism by several Black professional athletes, including LeBron James, when he called NFL players who protested police brutality during the national anthem “sons of bitches”.
Trump has been accused of using racially coded language and promoting racist stereotypes, such as when he referred to Mexican immigrants as “rapists” during his presidential campaign.
@AustriaBargain: Sounds like you just dont like Trump instead of the US republican party. I remember him being independent originally and going to Republican because the Democrat party was choosing between Sanders and Clinton. He didn't care what side he was on, he just wanted to be president.
Anyway enjoy debating US politics on an Australian bargain hunting forum.
@AustriaBargain: I'm glad you put you case in writing, because now it makes it so much easier to debunk:
Trump was sued by the Justice Department…
Simply suing someone doesn't mean anything. That case was settled out of court so no guilt can be applied (unless your are a crazy person with an agenda)
In 1989, Trump called for the execution of five black…
Nope, wrong again. All Trump did was publish an ad calling for the death penalty for murder. No names were mentioned in the ad.
In 2011, Trump pushed the conspiracy theory that Barack Obama was not born in the United States…
True, but how is that racist? We had a similar situation here with section 44. It is a legitimate concern for all sovereign states.
Trump referred to Haiti, El Salvador, and African nations as “shithole countries” in 2018 during a meeting with lawmakers on immigration policy.
True, but they actually are. Have you been there? Would you chose to live in them? Some places are better than others, that is a fact.
In the aftermath of a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017, Trump said that there were “very fine people on both sides”…
Lol. You are a victim of fake news. He also said "I'm not talking about the neo-nazis and white nationalists becasue they should be condemned", but fake news don't want you hear that bit and people like you suck it up. Here's is the full transcript: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmaZR8E12bs
Also the rally was NOT a "white supremacist rally", it was a 'Unite the Right' rally to protest the removal of historical statues. Like any political movement there are multiple factions, and many of the people at the protest were not neo-nazis or white nationalists. The media tried to conflate the two, because that is what they do, and Trump tried to correctt the record. You have to learn to not just beleive what you are told by the man on the TV.
In 2013, Trump tweeted that he had a “great relationship with the blacks”.
Well he does. He has the highest black vote of any Republican since 1960. Are you claiming that it's racist to have black people cote for you? Because that would be really bizarre.
In 2016, Trump told African American voters “what do you have to lose?” during a speech in which he criticized Democrats for allegedly taking their support for granted.
I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make here.
Trump has been criticized
By who, the Left wing media?
Trump was accused of racism by LeBron James
Cool story. Poor old LeBron… my heart goes out to him, What else do you have?
Trump has been accused of using racially coded language…
By who? The Left wing media? You gotta do better than that…
So in summary, your entire case is built on stories from left wing media that are taken out of context or are outright lies.
Here's two facts that will hurt your ears:
Black Americans were better off under Trump, both from the employment record and income record
Trump had the highest amount of Black voters since 1960
Switch off the MSM, it's rotting your brain…
I need to do no2
Toilet: Scan da face first https://twitter.com/songpinganq/status/1652806585448812544?s…
Communism 🇷🇺
Did it work for the people and are they happy with it ?
I'm not saying Russia is communist but they did build a bunch of apartments to stop people freezing to death
It’s only killed a a few 100 million people so far, I guess..
@deme: Far less and regardless you are the product of capitalism yourself mate, acknowledge your privilege as I do mine.
You can comfortably practice and preach Communism in a capitalist state but you can never practice and preach Capitalism in a Communist state.
Btw, in lieu of being respectful and honest. Ofcos a communistic economy sounds great, not denying that at all.
Heck I was a fan of it in my teens.
And it would work if we humans innately weren’t as flawed as we all are, most of us need an incentive and thorough open market competition to keep us all honest. That’s just the anticlimactic bitter reality we need to come to terms with.
@Gervais fanboy: @Gervais fanboy sounds like you are answering a different question there mate with a true American take on the world. Freedom of speech is one value. It is not the value that is superior to everything else. Just because u cant talk about capitalism in a communist state doesnt make it exclusively better or worst.
@FlyingMiffy: Most would argue that freedom of speech is a foundational concept on which other "free" concepts are built.
Most would argue that freedom of speech is a foundational concept on which other "free" concepts are built.
Bingo!
It surprises me that so many people fail to grasp this. Our education system needs improving…
How many people has capitalism killed?
The impact of capitalism on global poverty reduction and improvements in living standards cannot be overstated.
Has lifted billions of people out of extreme poverty and greatly improved their quality of life. Many millions of lives have been saved.
@deme: By creating jobs, generating wealth, and providing affordable goods and services.
This allowed people to access basic necessities like food, shelter, and healthcare.
Also the wealth generated by capitalism enabled societies to invest in education, healthcare, and infrastructure, further boosting living standards.
@trapper: Is that why USA's life expectancy has been declining and SF looks like this https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2022/08/30/16/61874263-0-image-…
@deme: What do you think would happen to all those drug addicts in soviet times? The state would have murdered them all.
@trapper: Do you mean the kommunalka?
Are you suggesting Capitalism will help drug addicts without them forking out $$$?
@deme: Not suggesting anything other than what I said.
You seemed to think capitalism was the cause of those drug addicts. It was a bit confusing what your point was actually.
You seemed to think capitalism was the cause of those drug addicts. It was a bit confusing what your point was actually.
Can you point to that?
@deme: Yes, it's right above.
Is that why USA's life expectancy has been declining and SF looks like this
As I said, it's confusing what your point was. You seemed to be asking if capitalism was the cause of those drug addicts.
USA's life expectancy has been declining
As immigration rates increase. See that pattern here?
SF looks like this
San Francisco/California is the most socialist cohort of American society. The problems you show are a direct result of these policies. See the pattern yet?
@trapper: It's also put millions into extreme poverty. Visit a developing country like Philippines and you'll see high rise apartments of the ultra rich right next to the slums of the dirt poor.
As much as I agree that communism is flawed due to human corruptibility, at least when Philippines was under Marcos everyone had the basics of food and shelter. You can't say that now.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/culture-online/case-studies/2022/sep/d…
However, the communist ideology, which argues that the current ‘capitalist’ system is unfair and that it is possible to challenge it, has therefore ‘worked’ in the sense that it has inspired people to push for social change: communists have therefore been among trade unionists using political and industrial pressure to secure fairer working conditions, and campaigners for health services, equal opportunities, and a fairer global economic system.
Socialism
Imagine you and your co worker doing exact same jobs . He never turns up to work but he gets paid no matter whats because it's a socialism.
You were hard working when you started. Will you still be motivated to do more after knowing the above ?
I am not against lifting people out of poverty or giving for the poor and needy.In fact I strongly advocate it
What? How does this have anything to do with socialism?
What do you think communism is?
@deme: All I am saying is both capitalism or socialist ideology by itself does not work. I'm not a 100% capitalist supporter ether
May be something like compassionate capitalism will work but its hard to achieve
@treekangagaroo: Exactly the same thing can and should be said about capitalism.
It cannot work as expected period, because you cannot defy physics. Nor can you buy it.
It's impossible to have endless growth, with finite resources. We are already approaching the tipping point on forests, water and arable soil. What lies ahead is walking the plank with our eyes wide open ( kudos to Gotye)
@Protractor: We don't have "finite resources". We have a whole solar system and beyond of untouched resources.
@Scrooge McDuck: Do you really believe this? Surely you understand that cheap and available resources are finite.
@Scrooge McDuck: Until we can actually harvest it, those being there is like it never existed.
That's why I'm a big advocate for a communist-style of international cooperation when it comes to launching satellites, and space-travel for starters. And finding a means, through any monetary system, to develop technologically.
The first goal is to send unmanned drones to mine and harvest rare materials from drifting asteroids. The main goal is to develop a massive asteroid deterrence system, so we don't go the way of the dinos. The end goal is to become a space-faring society, but that requires developing worm-hole travelling, cryostasis, hyper-speed travel, and development of terraforming techniques.
@Scrooge McDuck: I see what you did there. Very impressive (deliberately obtuse) . You forgot "and they all lived happily ever after."
Exactly the same thing can and should be said about capitalism.
Only if you don't understand what Capitalism is 9 (ie free market, that's it)
It cannot work as expected period
It works every time you buy or sell something without someone else interfering in the transaction
We are already approaching the tipping point on forests, water and arable soil
What does this mean exactly?
@1st-Amendment: You know what resource depletion is?
You know what permanent drought,dead aquifers are?
You know what the result of feeding capitalism the forests lungs means via impacts?
Capitalism can't defy physics.Infinite growth VS finite resources is impossible to sustain. And as I said, and you failed to grasp, we are there now in many places , and this issue grows exponentially. Across the tropics greedy capitalist industry is engulfing land,forest and water. Capitalism (to survive) will follow the last vestiges of water,forests and arable land.Period.
As if the majority of share holders GAF.
The term 'free' market is the spittle on natures grave in that it denies impacts by insinuating it is free. But of impacts,it aint.
You know what resource depletion is?
You know what permanent drought,dead aquifers are?
You know what the result of feeding capitalism the forests lungs means via impacts?
Yes, yes, and yes. And when I look around the world I see that all the best managed environments are in capitalist developed nations, and all the ravaged lands are in poor communist ones. Do you see the pattern?
Compare the Aral Sea to the Great Lakes, which do you think is managed better?
Infinite growth VS finite resources is impossible to sustain
Cool story, but what does that have to do with free markets? You seem to be conflating two different concepts here.
we are there now in many places
Where exactly?
Across the tropics greedy capitalist industry is engulfing land,forest and water
Australia is a capitalist nation that has vast territory in the tropics and they are among the best managed in the world. What are you talking about?
@1st-Amendment: LOL>
Cool fable
"when I look around the world I see that all the best managed environments are in capitalist developed nations"
Capitalist countries are raping forests in third world and developing countries without a social license at all. They have pretty much munted ours already. Over burnt, over logged, rife with diseases and feral animals.Heard about the highest extinction rates in the world?
The only reason our tropical region is partially screwed is First Australian population density acting as the custodians proxy to our greed. (ergo the places where less capitalist impacts are )Fracking Beetaloo will end the alleged 'healthy' outlook you have on the top-end, as will barrages of military hardware and war machines grinding wilderness into dust, and where even TO's won't be allowed to object. The expansion of the war machine has now been announced to foray into the pacific, and will include Torres Strait Islands etc. Basically we are being dragged back into a war footing circa 1940 to create jobs to keep the over bred human population (a) working and distracted and (b) sell military hardware.
Not conflating anything. "Free market' comes with a price tag on many fronts. Hence this thread.
Comparing Japans forests to ours, which do you think are managed best?
( Straya has been colonised by centuries and yet the amount of hardwood plantations to feed the timber industry is pathetic. Apparently an entire forestry industry in capitalist Australia can;t be arsed cos 'free forests to pillage first.
Capitalist countries are…
I asked for an example and you can't give me one.
First Australian population density acting as the custodians proxy to our greed
Are these the same first Australians that wiped out the Giant Wombat, Giant Kangaroo, or Thylacine etc?
Fracking Beetaloo will end…
So hasn't ended, you're just making stuff up again?
war machines grinding wilderness into dust
Where is this specifically?
Basically we are being dragged back into a war footing
What are you talking about,,, you seem to have drifted away form the conversation here….
Not conflating anything. "Free market' comes with a price tag on many fronts
Everything comes with a prices tag, and Capitalism cost the least and produces the most. Feel free to show an alternative that is better.
Comparing Japans forests to ours, which do you think are managed best?
They are both managed quite well, much better than in poor countries.
You didn't answer my question about the Aral sea. Do you think that is better?
Once you recognise the correlation between wealthy nations and environmental protection, you then look at how do we increase wealth to as many places as possible. And we all know the answer because the freer the market, the more wealth the nation has, and the more it protects the environment. Who doesn't want that?
@1st-Amendment: Aaagh, yes I recall vividly pictures of thylacines hanging dead upside down after a bounty was raised.
All non indigenous as I recall.
The giant mega fauna issue. We specualte that rapid environmental change and 'possibly' dingoes had an impact. BUT! nobody knows for sure other than the timing. It may also well be SE Asian islanders brought 'dogs' with them.
If you think Strayas forestry gets a tick, "They are both managed quite well, much better than in poor countries." Your moving into an apologist position.
Aral or the other lake? Who knows. I presume you have a loyalty point to prove there
The NT is now officially marked for war games across vast areas going fwd. Officially. So the Yankaslovakians can obliterate stuff in our 'wasted' wilderness.
Yes the state of the environment in the wealthiest countries we shop in other peoples messy tropical forests for timber and land for palm oil .There's nooooooooo carbon emitted in the US,Europe,UK,Straya.
All our rivers are pristine. Cats only eat a few million native animals per day. All our forests as they were since 1770. We don't waste finite ancient aquifers on silly people, we wash our shiny rocks on them so the stuff we ship OS is clean for the buyers.Or grow inedible crops like cotton,sandalwood and essential food like almonds.(WE export more water than most other commodities and we are the driest continent) We use a deck chair shuffling model called 'offsets' so we can wipe out precious ecology and swap it for a dead zone elsewhere. We pretend to rehab mining, but if it fails we don't get penalised, and we don't have to redo it. We also know there's no-one monitoring it.So why worry. (Oh yes there is SUPPOSED to be oversight and repercussions, but meh, no budget $$ in the govt depts, or too busy, too little staff)
Oh yes please the rapacious capitalism model on an overpopulated planet is so kind and sustainable to nature. Please sir, can I have some more
@Protractor: I tried to find an ounce of sense in your post to respond to but it was all gibberish.
Enjoy screaming at your TV for justice…
I'll be planting trees.Free
Extra CO2 has already increased global fauna by about 450 billion trees.
Capitalism wins again!
@1st-Amendment: Cute fairy tale.A pity education was not your winner. First 'assumptions. about mega FAUNA. Now 'fauna' via co2? Amazing. Now I recognise you as one of the the resident denier ABC trolls of the noughties.
Fauna is animals Mr Genius
Try flora. And it's not the number of individual plants 'only' that matters, but you just let other people worry about that.
And as for more plants 'because C02, heat extremes and growing ground/rain water defecits cancels out almost all flora gains.As does fire,flood and drought,and land clearing for development,mining, rainforest rape and urban sprawl.
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2022/01/27/how-climate-cha…
Fauna is animals Mr Genius
Yeah typo, you showed me….
resident denier ABC trolls
ABC, that explains everything. Do you have red framed spectacles and a cardigan?
And it's not the number of individual plants 'only' that matters
So more trees are now bad? Less trees bad, more trees also bad. Everything always bad. The man on the TV told me so!
And as for more plants 'because C02…'
C zero 2 eh? Don't you mean CO2? 🤣🤣🤣
Don't you find it odd that the news is always bad, but when you look outside it isn't?
Climate is the new Jesus. You should stop every once in a while and check outside if reality matches the hype…
@1st-Amendment: "Do you have red framed spectacles and a cardigan?"
I don't normally take offers of other peoples wardrobe as the spoils of victory. But in your case…
You deliberately misread for the sake of it?
More flora, at the loss of crucial species,habitat etc, is not a gain. Not a benefit. Not a solution. Loss needs to stop and catchup (reafforestation) needs to accelerate.
Outside? Now there's a concept.
Find a reputable (not denier crap) source for the state of our planetary vegetation,forests,flora and the life forms relying on them.
I'm glad you think that if you can't see the problem, it doesn't exist. Denial or apathy?
Haha, science is a religion? Acting to repair our mess is a commandment eh?
Well the old Jesus lost his influence, innit? (I suppose it's better than playing the Godwin card)
See in you in church (the outside world)
You deliberately misread for the sake of it?
You probably need a primer in the difference of opinion and fact. Repeating opinion doesn't turn it into fact.
Find a reputable (not denier crap) source for the state of our planetary vegetation,forests,flora
Once again you're showing up a deficiency to think clearly. Who decides what is 'normal' when it comes 'the environment'?
But sure here's one: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/greening-of-the-earth-mitigates…
And another: https://www.aims.gov.au/information-centre/news-and-stories/…
And another: https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2018/02/09/Tuvalu-is-growin…
And here's another: https://www.worldwildlife.org/species/polar-bear
So much for the crisis eh?
We've only had 10 years to save the planet for 40 years now: https://apnews.com/article/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0
How long do you flog this dead horse?
Haha, science is a religion?
Again you're confused. Science isn't a religion, the religion is passing off opinion as science, exactly like you just did here. Simply claiming something to be 'science' doesn't make it science. This is anti-science, since actual science requires evidence, not just wild and unsubstantiated claims that are always wrong.
@1st-Amendment: LOl.
Your a climate change denier. Which camp of the anti-science religion , is probably flexible.
Your first link, one end grew by 36%, the other lost 38%. That's a loss.
Your second link 100% supports what I said and linked to you> (a taste; "Climate change’s negative effects on plants will likely outweigh any gains from elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide levels)
Climate change = more storm. More storm waves.(and rising seas) Tuvalu growing in the short term is not a celebratory outcome.Many islands have already lost potable ground water to sea water infiltration, from storm extremes and climate driven sea level rises.
The NASA links supports confirms everything I've pointed out. More trees are needed. Not just more "green things". But this later one (mine) goes further>
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/warming-makes-droughts-extreme-…
I'm not the one flogging (anything here) here. Except maybe a FREE wake up call.If you and everyone in your 'tribe' planted 1000 appropriate trees (species/location) per year,a plethora of problems find the simplest of solutions.
You sure you're not Graeme Bird?
Your a climate change denier
You mean you're? 🤣
Think about the term 'climate change denier' and how ridiculously anti science it sounds.
"Science is a culture of doubt. Religion is a culture of faith" - Richard Feynman
Your first link, one end grew by 36%, the other lost 38%. That's a loss.
Compared to what. What is officially normal? Post links
You sure you're not Graeme Bird?
I have no idea what you are talking about. It must the ABC bot script stuck in a loop… Can't answer questions… resort to obscure insults…
Yes, yes, and yes. And when I look around the world I see that all the best managed environments are in capitalist developed nations, and all the ravaged lands are in poor communist ones. Do you see the pattern?
Right on the money.
@treekangagaroo: People are only greedy & selfish because they are raised in individualistic cultures, like capitalist countries. In a state of nature, humans are caring and co-operative, working together in tribes to succeed. Capitalism poisons the human mind. It is very hard to de-program people who have been brainwashed into a capitalist mindset.
In a state of nature, humans are caring and co-operative, working together in tribes to succeed.
And those tribes went out to attack other tribes to take their things like land and animals and water.
The argument that we are nice and kind creatures by nature has been debated for a long time but if you've ever had to deal with children it seems like we need to be taught and encouraged to share and be generous.
@Thaal Sinestro: Have you ever lived with a few flat mates? Even that hardly ever works out without someone eating food they didn’t buy or not doing their share of the housework.
People are only greedy & selfish because
All things in nature are greedy and selfish. Nature is actually the perpetual state of competition.
In a state of nature, humans are caring and co-operative, working together in tribes to succeed
Lol… Do you have any real word examples to support this insane claim? Because even the tiniest bit of research in to anthropology will tell you the exact opposite. All animals work in groups when mutually beneficial, but then when not they then kill each other. This is nature.
What? How does this have anything to do with socialism?
You didn't quote so I can only assume you are referring to the GP's reference to reward vs effort?
Socialism is the centralised means of production, which means no competition. So in a free market where two people, who put in different amounts of effort, might get rewarded according to their effort, under Socialism they get rewarded the same. So the end result is that the people at the top stop trying, since there is no point, and society as a whole fails to progress. We don't have to guess at this, it is how it played out every single time it was tried.
What do you think communism is?
Is the supposed end result of socialism, and for the same reasons above it never works. Because who decides what each community member should receive?
I don't understand this comment at all. This happens right now in Australia under capitalism. I'm sure we all know people who do sweet fa at work and get paid a fortune. So what exactly does this prove?
In the US in 2021, the ratio of CEO-to-typical-worker compensation was 399-to-1 under the realized measure of CEO pay; that is up from 366-to-1 in 2020 and a big increase from 20-to-1 in 1965 and 59-to-1 in 1989. You think that is equitable pay based on effort or contribution?
http://www.salaryexplorer.com/salary-survey.php?loc=229&loct…
A person working as Chief Executive Officer in United States typically earns around 218,000 USD per year.
So where does 399-to-1 come from… hard to believe they are only paying their workers $546 a year.
@trapper: lfmao, you cannot think that is a correct figure, or that is a credible source of information. SMH
@lunchbox99: How about the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, will that do?
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes111011.htm
Employment estimate and mean wage estimates for Chief Executives: $246,440
The first rule of ponzi is to never talk about the ponzi