'How dare you': Greta Thunberg tears into world leaders over inaction at U.N. climate summit

Yeah, your terms betray you. In Amish country if you aren't Amish, you are "English". So, if I'm not all for your concepts, I'm a "neoliberal". Functionally it serves as the term for "other".

There are two wings to the modern Democratic Party: One represented by the Clintons, and the other currently represented by Bernie Sanders. (The Bernie wing is, itself, is split into two factions, the socialists and the social justice warriors, but for now they are allied.) The split in the factions dates back at least to the anti-Vietnam War New Left.

Sanders supporters were left very bitter by the DNC cheating for Hillary Clinton in 2016, and they’re determined not to let it happen again.

The Bernie wing is absolutely convinced that America is naturally a left-wing nation and that their triumph is “inevitable” thanks to changing demographics. George Soros and his ilk have been pumping money into this wing's infrastructure for over twenty years, and they believe that only the inertia and opposition of the Clinton wing (which they refer to as “neoliberalism”) has halted their inevitable rise. You in your "if you aren't with us, then you are with them" has you ascribing that epitaph to me, demonstrating a real paucity of imagination.

Before they can seize control of the means of production, the Bernie wing must first seize control of the Democrat Party. Only then can they assure that their personnel, and their ideas, take key positions. The Clinton Crony wing, more concerned with the immediate graft, and currently controlling most of the Party apparatus, stands in their way.

Just as the Bolsheviks purged the Mensheviks almost immediately upon taking power, the Bernie wing must push the corrupt wing out to seize control of the Party, something they were too poorly organized to carry out in 1972.

https://www.battleswarmblog.com/?p=43455

Greta is just exploited pawn in a grand game she has not understanding of while you guys play Game of Thrones

 

You argue for reward <according to the individual's ability to compete in the market>, with a 'safety net' that is destructive of individual morale.

That's the Conservative/ classical liberal/ Libertarian/Republican Right Wing side of the political spectrum.

I argue for an economy that works for everyone, that's the Sanders' "socialist" position.

Trump appears to have united the disparate Right Wing behind him; and so we have, inter alia, the "Rapturers" like Pompeo in command of policy, a dangerous development for the world.

In 2014, Pompeo told a church group that Christians needed to "know that Jesus Christ as our saviour is truly the only solution for our world".[162] In 2015 in a talk at a church, Pompeo said that "politics is a never-ending struggle ... until the Rapture.

But a split has appeared in the Administration over Trump's ME plan (which the Arab league officially rejected last weekend); Israel has now been told, in contrast to an earlier statement from Trump's team, it cannot simply annex the West Bank without reference to the American plan for a Palestinian state.....

...just to demonstrate both sides of the spectrum are "split".

Like I said, if it walks and quacks like a duck....

Re "seize control of"...(the party): just as Trump seized control of the establishment Republican party, none of whom thought it possible during the primaries in 2016. Michael Moore saw it coming before anyone, after Trump's famous "you are living in poverty" speech. That's because electorates everywhere are rejecting the establishment, in our economies wracked by failed neoliberal orthodoxy.

But "seized control of the means of production": that's your invention. Bernie wants to change the distribution of the production, so that the economy works for everyone.

Trump has had his innings. What has happened to the "4% growth" promised in 2016? What we do have is sluggish mean wage growth, with entrenched poverty and increasing inequality.

We won't have to wait long to see how the Bernie wing is doing....

The public, increasingly traumatised in regard to the frequency and severity of climate-related catastrophes as predicted by some climate scientists, are getting on board with Greta.

In the meantime, I ask you again: what is your policy to aid Brazil to retain what's left of its Amazon rain-forest?

[That's a tough one, I realise, for your <classical liberal> soul to confront].

 

Well said (my bold, in particular). These folk never factor in human nature. Not ever.

If you've convinced yourself that First World 'poverty' is not a choice, and then act according to that premise, the result will be disaster for all. These folk would find out very very quickly, that they were very very wrong. It would give it 12 months of a UBI (or similar) max, before productivity plummeted below functional level.

 

Like Zorro you argue for reward <according to the individual's ability to compete in the market>, with a 'safety net' that is destructive of individual morale.

That's why MMT sees the Job Guarantee as the way forward, rather than a UBI.

 

Doesn't matter what you call it, when it isn't COMPULSORY WORK, productivity will plummet.

And don't even bother mentioning your disnesque fantasy that all unemployed people are just waiting for that lucky break. Or that all will embrace the sweet little jobs you say they'll be able to pick and choose from - somehow, even though none will ever agree to clean the toilets. So all the people now cleaning toilets out of necessity, will quit in favour of your 'govt supplied' cushy non-toilet cleaning jobs. End result, complete system collapse. As per any disneyesque notions which ignore human nature.

 

Absolute nonsense. Humans love to be engaged in useful work, and we can all contribute to the nation's wellbeing, if those who are less able to compete in the competitive market side of the economy are given the chance in the non-market part of the economy. .

All unemployed people want above poverty participation in the economy. That's not "a lucky break", it's a basic right (see UNUDHR art. 25).

The plan relies on local councils matching local social needs with people who are not currently employed and want to work.

Nonsense. If a person already has an above poverty job cleaning toilets, he will keep it.
But it is time society paid a decent wage for toilet cleaners...I guarantee you would have no shortage of toilet cleaners if a "utility" allowance was added to the wage.

OTOH, what is the CEO of coca cola worth? He/she is actually contributing to the obesity and diabetes epidemics that are destroying our societies' health...In Australia the alcohol industry alone is worth $30 billion....add to that the associated prison, correctional, advertising and 'health' ie sickness industries, we already have $100 billions of mis-directed resources.

Cleaning gutters? Or chatting to old people in nursing homes? I might stick with cleaning toilets, if paid fairly.

The JG refers to a variable pool of workers paid at the minimum above poverty wage.

No, only a revaluation of absurd CEO wages.

 

All complete fantasy. If people are told they can earn the same money by NOT cleaning toilets, then that's exactly what they'll do. No one will take the crappy jobs, if they have govt willing to give them a job of their preference. Why are you so unable to grapple with human nature? Your proposition is so absurd it defies reasonable language to critique. What you're suggesting is the equivalent of asking a room full of people to choose anything they want from a buffet which has two meal options: fillet steak and rich dark chocolate cake, or boiled cabbage and an apple.

Meantime, be sure to let us know how it goes when you start penalising CEO's for their sacrifices and determination. That you think they'll just keep doing that very demanding work for modest returns, is hilarious.

 

Utterly and entirely untrue.

Many unemployed people merely want the rewards of above poverty participation, without earning it. That is pure greed, and not one jot morally superior to the CEO wanting his fat salary.

 

I said pay them appropriately, and you will have an excess of applicants.

Humans like above poverty work, and if you pay sufficiently for the crappy jobs, you will have an excess of applicants.

Absurd to you, because you are blinded by your <reward according to ability to compete in a market> ideology.

Nope, if the latter choice comes with a $100 note under the plate, there will be plenty of takers.

Their garbage producing factories should be closed down, so we can release resources for the GND, and then they can do something useful.
But as expected you are barracking for overpaid CEOs and their less than worthless (ie negative) contributions to society.

Well, faced with the mind-numbing reality of much which passes for "work", I suppose most of us WOULD like the rewards of above poverty participation, without having to turn up to such work.

But we all accept that ain't going to happen, so we turn up nevertheless.

Nothing to do with greed, but everything to do with facing reality.

 

So you'll take money from CEO's and give it to toilet cleaners ... and you legitimately don't think this will completely alter the economic and social climate? and not in ways that you've ever considered, nor in ways you're going to like?

Bless you, but your naivety is astounding.

 

Well in some cases the toilet cleaners are contributing more of value to the community than CEO's, which was my point.

I believe the social democrat Bernie Sanders CAN maintain the legitimate interests of CEO's while creating an economy that works for all.

 

BOTH are needed, that's the point. But no one will be willing to be a CEO if the pay grade is equivalent to a cleaner's. HUMAN NATURE - ignore it at your peril.

As for Bernie saving the world, that's good comedy. The man hasn't the first clue of how to manage a massive First World capitalist economy. If he's elected, and your senate doesn't stop him from implementing the crazy stuff, you can look forward to a dramatically reduced lifestyle. All the changes he wants to make must be paid for, and it's the people who will pay for it - first via loss of the capitalism which funds the freedoms and benefits you currently enjoy, and then via what remains of your wages. At best, you'll end up with a Second World lifestyle with few choices - as per socialism. At worst, complete system collapse.

 

No, not the people, but the wealthy few who can afford to bet trillions in the financial derivatives casino, the same mob who caused the GFC and who had to be bailed out by governments.

The parasitic financial industry, of little value to the real economy, is so vast (the consequence of 3 (!) people in the US having as much wealth as the bottom half of the population, that a small financial transaction tax will raise sufficient money to pay for debt free tertiary education and much more.

 

But they are lower with hydrogen than with gasoline, so you are wrong.

 

Go ahead, take their money and use it - for the short period that it lasts. What do you plan to do when no one bothers to engage in enterprise for profit anymore, because there's no profit to be kept?

 

Dear me. And you claim to be something other than an ideologue!

"Take their money and use it..."

A disgraceful misrepresentation of a financial transaction tax affecting mostly the one-percenters.

 

Blah blah .. tell us what you and Bernie are going to do when the money dries up because no one is engaging in commerce anymore?

If you've never bothered to think through these very obvious implications, you need to go away and think about your position. Come back when you have an answer to the above question. WHAT WILL YOU DO WHEN THE MONEY DRIES UP? What is the plan?

 

I'm disappointed in you, since you seem to be able to deal with detailed knowledge of relatively complex topics (such as Georgism).

Didn't you listen to the video?

"Using hydrogen as a fuel for ICEs is a really dumb idea"

Note the diagram to the left of the lecturer; poisonous oxides of nitrogen are emitted as a result of combusting hydrogen in an ICE.

 

[It's my unfortunate lot to have to deal with blind ideology such as this, but I suppose someone has to do it...]

So we have a variation on Maggie's famous piece of nonsense: "The problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other peoples' money".

She forgot to add: the problem with capitalism is you eventually run out of people with money....

https://www.forbes.com/sites/noahki...ottom-50-of-country-study-finds/#7bc3b6363cf8

The 3 Richest Americans Hold More Wealth Than Bottom 50% Of The Country, Study Finds

“If left unchecked, wealth will continue to accumulate into fewer and fewer hands, a trend we’ve been witnessing for decades,” wrote Josh Hoxie, one of the study’s co-authors".

 

I'm not a big fan of slandering folks for their religious beliefs or claiming that a Christian occupying high office "is a dangerous development for the world." It seems to me that critiques should be fact and policy based, rather than statements of bigotry directed at their religious beliefs.

Are you confused about what topic you are on, you seem to have swerved off the road, gone down a gully and rolled the car.

Yes

Presuming the point isn't a particularly effective communication strategy.

No it isn't.

If you have the power to distribute it, you control it, and no matter what is claimed, once this power is achieved, it will be distributed to cronies, not "everyone".

Trump's worst year beat Obama 5 out of 8 times.

Do you double check anything before you pronounce it?

I'm looking at this graph and I don't see a 3 year section, of the last 60 years that I'm certain is steeper than the last 3 years.

Global Weather Losses are trending DOWN, not up.

What aid are they requesting?

Here in the US we have more trees than we did a hundred years ago.

What's with the snark and the brackets and the <>? Just make your points, you don't need that other crap.

 

It all depends of the type of Christian...

In 2014, Pompeo told a church group that Christians needed to "know that Jesus Christ as our savior is truly the only solution for our world".[162] In 2015 in a talk at a church, Pompeo said that "politics is a never-ending struggle ... until the Rapture.

cf. Thomas Paine, a true 'man of the enlightenment', who would be horrified:

"The World is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion".

That sounds very like Christ's own Great Commandment: Love God and love one-another.

Trump of course is pleased to latch onto the absurd literalist beliefs of the likes of Pence and Pompeo, to grab the votes of the Conservative evangelical Christian Right.

So he has a philosophical backing for his policy, just released, of endlessly upgrading his nuclear arsenal, while cutting Medicare.
You talk to me about "policy" and "bigotry"...

Trump already has that "power to distribute".... it's called government....and he chooses nuclear upgrades over Medicare.

Obama was poorly advised by his incompetent neoliberal advisers, after the GFC

https://www.epi.org/publication/ame...is-four-decades-of-slow-and-unequal-growth-2/

Since 1979, however, average wage growth has decelerated sharply, with the biggest declines in wage growth at the bottom and the middle. The same pattern of slow and unequal growth continues in the ongoing recovery from the Great Recession.

Your graph refers to the average, not mean wages; everyone knows CEO wages have been spiralling upwards during this period.

https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/global-climate-2015-2019-climate-change-accelerates

The largest economic losses were associated with tropical cyclones. The 2017 Atlantic hurricane season was one of the most devastating on record with more than US$ 125 billion in losses associated with Hurricane Harvey alone. On the Indian Ocean, in March and April 2019, unprecedented and devastating back-to-back tropical cyclones hit Mozambique.

None, because Bolsonaro would rather harvest the forest for a quick quid, like all Conservatives.

[Not that the globe has a WTO with the necessary rules that could deal with such issues, in a global environmentally sustainable manner]

My point is: your 'every man for himself' ideology is the problem.

(commas OK?)

1. Classical liberalism goes off the rails when it posits individual liberty above community well-being.
2.Your ideology is the base for neoliberal economics, in which reward is conferred according to ability to compete in "invisible hand" markets.

 

I don't disagree. Hydrogen is an idiotic fuel, especially in a complex-cycle engine.

Or hydrocarbons. So?

 

But hydrogen is a superb fuel for fuel cell vehicles, in which hydrogen is combined with oxygen from the air (in the fuel cell) to produce electricity, with water vapour being the only exhaust emissions. [Fuel cell cars are really EVs with a fuel cell instead of a battery].

A hydrogen industry based on green-powered electrolysis, has potential to be worth $2 trillion by 2050 according to Australia's chief scientist, 2 days ago.

And hydrogen powered gas turbine technology is proceeding apace.

Not sure of your point. Any engine that emits poisonous gases is unacceptable.

 

Terrific. And when the top 1% stops trying to make mega bucks because it'll only be taken from them anyway .. where will the money come from THEN?

None one of you has answered this incredibly important question. When you kill enterprise by confiscating the proceeds, you are biting the hand that feeds you. Biting it so hard it will never again attempt to feed you.

 

Yet that's exactly the ideology you subscribe to. You insist on your capitalist/exclusivist 'private' domicile and lifestyle, not using any of it for the betterment of those less able.

You are living that ideology, 100%.