I have more confidence in their ability to turn it around faster than Western countries. Apparently they tend to underpromise and overshoot on declared reduction-targets, unlike the west. — ChatteringMonkey

Why more confidence?

Capitalism has made few far more richer than others, but it also has improved our prosperity far more than central planning of socialism ever did. — ssu

So the fact that China's kicking our ass in growth means what exactly? That's not central planning? Or is that not socialism? We don't have "central planning" in the US? On the contrary, there is massive state intervention and direction in the economy, at all levels -- from the Fed on down.

Give me a break.

So the fact that China's kicking our ass in growth means what exactly? — Xtrix

It means that they changed their socialism to controlled capitalism, basically fascism, and then they got their take off. The Great Leap or the Cultural Revolution didn't bring more prosperity and economic growth. Even India got it's rapid growth when it left socialist programs out.

Socialist central planning is literally doing away with the market mechanism. It doesn't work. It's totally different from having let's say "an industrial policy" as many capitalist countries have had. South Korea, Taiwan are great examples how industrial policies have been successful transforming a poor country to a wealthy one.

Hence the real question is, how awesome would China be if it had similar economic growth as Taiwan has had?

And it also has the ability to decrease it's emissions, which it actually has. And likely can take the example from some states that have been more successful than others. The frightening aspect is WHEN China get more and more wealthier. There's a lot of more potential demand both in China and India than there is in the US, hence those countries are crucial here. — ssu

Again, the most important issue is to deal where the growth is. Not where positive reductions are taking place, even if continuing that trend is important. — ssu

Well yes absolute emissions matter for climate change, and so everybody will have to reduce its emissions.

India and China are crucial just because they have the largest populations by far. That's why growth there is such a big issue.

Reduction in emissions have been meager in the US and in Europe. This has been the result of some 'low-hanging-fruit' policies that didn't have to hurt. The question is will they continue to find democratic support for more drastic measures?

China may be more resolute and effective in implementing the energy-transition because of it's governance-structure, it doesn't need democratic support. And India, yeah, don't know about them.

Why more confidence? — ssu

This may sound a bit unfounded because the numbers aren't there yet... but they are on the rise, they seem to have the confidence and will to get things done as a society right now.

The west on the other hand? Well we all know the story, a lot of political and societal uncertainty... can we still muster the political will to get projects on such scale done?

The west on the other hand? Well we all know the story, a lot of political and societal uncertainty... can we still muster the political will to get projects on such scale done? — ChatteringMonkey

When we do muster the political will, the standard response is that it isn't enough. We sideline positive news. Our critical media is showing us where we fail. In China that critical media isn't tolerated. Needless to say, for example the smog problem is far more difficult in China than in let's say West European large cities or even New York. London doesn't have the famous smog as it had earlier. There is pervasive bias that shows in the ecological reporting from a totalitarian country and a Western democracy.



For example the air quality in New York is multiple times better than in Chinese Mega-cities. Just think how American media would treat politicians if it would be the other way around.



The Soviet Union and Communist China have literally pillaged their environment and environmental issue were not all important under Marxism-Leninism. The problem is that there were none of those safety-valves that a democracy has. There are no watch-groups or simply private landowners to make notice. When everything is owned by the state, who cares what happens?

(A smelter surrounded by an ecological disaster zone in Norilsk.)


Environmental protection isn't at all anywhere in large Asian countries as China (and India) where it is in the West. Just to give an example, think about the large river systems:

Up to 95 per cent of river-borne plastic polluting the world's oceans pours in from just ten rivers, according to new research.

The top 10 rivers - eight of which are in Asia - accounted for so much plastic because of the mismanagement of waste.

About five trillion pounds is floating in the sea, and targeting the major sources - such as the Yangtze and the Ganges - could almost halve it, scientists claim.

Probably you could be interested on reading this article: Madrid plans urban forest.

Despite the fact Madrid is the second city of the world with the most trees planted, I am happy our Mayor is motivated to keep planting more than 100.000 of many species. I guess it is important not only because our health and living but to show how a developed European capital city should look like.

I really want to see more green in this picture of my city!

It's really nice when cities turn green. And in many ways city planning has improved especially from the 50's and 60's. But the most important thing is to have a plan. Cities growing without any plans are the problem.

(How about that waste management? Street in Lagos after rains)

Environmental protection isn't at all anywhere in large Asian countries as China (and India) where it is in the West. Just to give an example, think about the large river systems — ssu

One shouldn't forget that China is relatively late to the industrialization-party. Of course they are worse at dealing with it if you only take a snapshot of where we are today, they have had far less experience with it than we have.

Anyway I would even agree with the statement that communism isn't any better, or maybe even worse, at dealing with environmental problems. People get antsy very fast if they are confronted with environmental problems in their backyard, there I would agree that democratic societies are more responsive in solving those issues. But climate change isn't just any environmental problem. What sets it apart is precisely that we don't experience any direct adverse effects from it, and that it requires some foresight, some vision to deal with it.

Because I've been immersing myself in this issue a lot lately, I've been harassing people with it, maybe a bit to much... . Usually their response is essentially that they won't do anything about it if it costs them anything. They are waiting for the government to take action, to take some policy-measure to support renewables or some other government incentive that addresses the issue... but the government generally won't do anything if it isn't something that would be supported by a large part of the population, which is only democratic I suppose. But then you end up with a catch 22 where no one will take initiative to solve the issue if it "costs" something.

So here is the nub of the matter, things like overall change of the climate aren't valued in our system because it only has indirect, long term effects on us. Of course that's not to say communism is necessarily any better in dealing with it, it's not. They value mostly in the same way we do, as they too are bound by the same world-economy logic for the most part. What is different is that China at least have the capability of a longer term vision because they aren't bound to a 4 or 5 year democratic election cycle... and in a system that allows for longer term vision there is at least the possibility that climate change is something that can be valued. The CCP knows climate change will come back to haunt them because they think they will still be in power when the effects become apparent... A Trump or a Biden on the other hand don't really care because it probably won't matter one iota to them.

Anyway I would even agree with the statement that communism isn't any better, or maybe even worse, at dealing with environmental problems. People get antsy very fast if they are confronted with environmental problems in their backyard, there I would agree that democratic societies are more responsive in solving those issues. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, there is something positive about the NIMBY.

Now the socialist system did have a lot of committees and so on, yet what was lacking was the huge thing that turns people to behave differently: when they are landowners. Might sound funny, but there's a big truth to this. Let's say a person is working in a student body as a student. He or she has then some incentive as a student on what the body does. Now put him or her to be a landowner and the issue about the use of his or her land. Likely he or she won't take it so lightly. Socialism needed for people to be as devoted to the "common thing", the country, as an individual landowner can be to his or her land. That is a big thing to ask from people and that's why some refer to what the Soviet Union did to it's environment as Ecocide.

Usually their response is essentially that they won't do anything about it if it costs them anything. They are waiting for the government to take action, to take some policy-measure to support renewables or some other government incentive that addresses the issue... but the government generally won't do anything if it isn't something that would be supported by a large part of the population, which is only democratic I suppose. — ChatteringMonkey

The basic problem is that people are OK with restrictions, limitations or fees when they aren't personally affected. Yet they can and will go with draconian measures if everybody goes with them. The pandemic response has been a good example of this. My best friend died last year (not of Covid) and in his funeral there was only the priest, his mother and father and one uncle. He had more friends than me and more relatives. Now to argue that the government here could decide that more than five people cannot meet would have sounded quite incredible few years ago. But here there were no complaints about it, perhaps in all two or three small demonstrations have happened in the whole country.

Yet for draconian measures, you need a big catastrophy.

What is different is that China at least have the capability of a longer term vision because they aren't bound to a 4 or 5 year democratic election cycle... and in a system that allows for longer term vision there is at least the possibility that climate change is something that can be valued. The CCP knows climate change will come back to haunt them because they think they will still be in power when the effects become apparent... A Trump or a Biden on the other hand don't really care because it probably won't matter one iota to them. — ChatteringMonkey

I think it matters at least to the Democrats. Let's not forget Al Gore and his favorite subject.

Yet notice that a lot in the environmental standards and environmental protection happens in the US in the state level with California having a big role. If California sets some standards, manufacturers apply to them. You could argue that on the federal level there for example hasn't been a true energy policy or industrial policy, yet the US can do a lot even without the White House getting involved. Don't think that one person, the US President, actually can do much. A lot happens without him too.

Yes, the CCP has had quite successful 5-year plans and has long term plans. But note that such have been there with other capitalist countries, that have been quite successful.

In all, we need cooperation, yet as this is a case of "learning-while-doing", it can be also good that countries adapt various policies as then we can see what have been the best ones. There is no silver bullet: our climate is such a complex maze that we will be learning new things and lessons as we go. Many things that we now look to be good ideas might later be showed to have been disasters.

So the fact that China's kicking our ass in growth means what exactly?
— Xtrix
It means that they changed their socialism to controlled capitalism — ssu

The standard line of most people still stuck in capitalist propaganda. So it has to mean that. Why? Because socialism "never works." End of discussion.

They are ruled by the communist party. But magically, the gains they've achieved is "capitalism"?

China, like the United States -- but more so -- directs and intervenes in their economy. Without state intervention, there would be no "capitalism."

There’s plenty of literature on the true history of development: Ha-Joon Chang, Alice Amsden, Robert Wade, many others. The fact that from England, to the US, to Europe and Japan and the recent Asian “tigers,” large-scale state intervention and radical interference with markets has been a leading factor in economic development. In the US it’s so extreme that it’s laughable.

Socialist central planning is literally doing away with the market mechanism. — ssu

China massively interferes with markets. As does the United States. The former has a communist government, the latter a republican government. China is outpacing the US in GDP, by far -- so that must be capitalism. Heads, I win; tails, you lose.

As I'll say a thousand times: free markets are fantasies. They don't exist. You're simply doing what all capitalist apologists do: when something succeeds, call it capitalism. When it fails, call it socialism. No matter the context or details or history.

What next? Pointing to Venezuela as an example of a "socialist nightmare"? I can hear the same thing on Fox News.

The standard line of most people still stuck in capitalist propaganda. So it has to mean that. Why? Because socialism "never works." End of discussion.

They are ruled by the communist party. But magically, the gains they've achieved is "capitalism"? — Xtrix

The official line is that they have 21st Century Marxism and it works just well as they aren't fixated to dogmatic principles or take Marxism as a religion. Others would say that it is government controlled capitalism as they do use the market mechanism and there is private property.

Yes. China opening up was important. Starting from the Shenzen area opposite to Hong Kong. Actually it was the typical rags to riches story that has happened in many countries.

With socialism, they got their atomic bomb and intercontinental missile, yet then there was the possibility of famine still. Today this isn't so.

Yes, marxism-leninism, stalinism or maoism didn't work so well. They really genuinely sucked. You have even two countries with similar culture, heritage and history that were divided with one part being capitalist and the other socialist. These examples leave nothing in doubt.

Yes, there is something positive about the NIMBY.

Now the socialist system did have a lot of committees and so on, yet what was lacking was the huge thing that turns people to behave differently: when they are landowners. Might sound funny, but there's a big truth to this. Let's say a person is working in a student body as a student. He or she has then some incentive as a student on what the body does. Now put him or her to be a landowner and the issue about the use of his or her land. Likely he or she won't take it so lightly. Socialism needed for people to be as devoted to the "common thing", the country, as an individual landowner can be to his or her land. That is a big thing to ask from people and that's why some refer to what the Soviet Union did to it's environment as Ecocide. — ssu

Property works yes, but it's not the only thing that can get people to care about something, and it need not be on the level of the individual either. You'd be surprised what sportsfans would do for 'their team', yet there's no property-relation of any kind... there just needs to be some identification. That's maybe easier said than done, sure, but it's possible to have this kind of relation without property.

I'd certainly agree Sovjet-communism didn't get there, there was a sense of everybody knowing that everybody knew that it was a bit of a farce. And I think this applies to some extend to governments of western societies too at this moment. Kings and statesmen of old maybe still had some sense of the country being 'their country', a sense of ownership and the responsibility that comes with that... Now most politicians seem predominately careerists and are mostly only concerned with that.

The basic problem is that people are OK with restrictions, limitations or fees when they aren't personally affected. Yet they can and will go with draconian measures if everybody goes with them. The pandemic response has been a good example of this. My best friend died last year (not of Covid) and in his funeral there was only the priest, his mother and father and one uncle. He had more friends than me and more relatives. Now to argue that the government here could decide that more than five people cannot meet would have sounded quite incredible few years ago. But here there were no complaints about it, perhaps in all two or three small demonstrations have happened in the whole country.

Yet for draconian measures, you need a big catastrophy. — ssu

It depends on the particular culture I suppose. Fins probably are more reasonable then most. In the US for instance there was more resistance to relatively non-intrusive measures like wearing a face-mask.

I think it matters at least to the Democrats. Let's not forget Al Gore and his favorite subject. — ssu

It became his favorite subject after his career as a politician was basically done, is my reading of it.

Yet notice that a lot in the environmental standards and environmental protection happens in the US in the state level with California having a big role. If California sets some standards, manufacturers apply to them. You could argue that on the federal level there for example hasn't been a true energy policy or industrial policy, yet the US can do a lot even without the White House getting involved. Don't think that one person, the US President, actually can do much. A lot happens without him too. — ssu

Sure states can do a lot, but California probably isn't all that representative for the states of the US, as they have an atypical demographic and culture. But okay maybe we can get there if general culture everywhere shifts along the same lines... it's kind of crossing our fingers though and hoping that we will get there in time.

In all, we need cooperation, yet as this is a case of "learning-while-doing", it can be also good that countries adapt various policies as then we can see what have been the best ones. There is no silver bullet: our climate is such a complex maze that we will be learning new things and lessons as we go. Many things that we now look to be good ideas might later be showed to have been disasters. — ssu

I will say sometimes you just got to push something through. The writing of renewables is on the wall, some sectors and political factions are just holding onto something that had its time. It's like the coal-mines in the seventies or eighties that were struggling to survive in my country. We pumped in tons of money in an effort to preserve the industry and the jobs it provided, only to have to shut them down anyway a decade later. If they had the vision to transition earlier by investing in other industries, it would have been better for everybody involved.

There maybe is no one silver-bullet, but there are some no-brainers like transitioning the energy-sector to renewables as fast as possible. I would bet money on countries transitioning early being better off in the long-run.

Property works yes, but it's not the only thing that can get people to care about something, and it need not be on the level of the individual either. — ChatteringMonkey

Of course not!

You'd be surprised what sportsfans would do for 'their team', yet there's no property-relation of any kind... there just needs to be some identification. — ChatteringMonkey

Being a fan of a sports team is something that can bind the rich man and the poor man. These kind of issues that both the poor and the rich can both support are unfortunately quite rare. Yet they are extremely essential. One thing that usually works, is patriotism. Assuming the whole country doesn't work at all and simply sucks. Even Stalin as a shrewd politician understood this an made the fight against the Nazi "the Great Patriotic War" for those who ought to have been globalists at heart.

But okay maybe we can get there if general culture everywhere shifts along the same lines... it's kind of crossing our fingers though and hoping that we will get there in time. — ChatteringMonkey

A good reference would be then to look at what Texas is doing. If things there change, that is important.

It's like the coal-mines in the seventies or eighties that were struggling to survive in my country. We pumped in tons of money in an effort to preserve the industry and the jobs it provided, only to have to shut them down anyway a decade later. If they had the vision to transition earlier by investing in other industries, it would have been better for everybody involved. — ChatteringMonkey

That is the real obstacles for the change needed. People that worry that they will become paupers, that everything will stop and die where they live. The fear for example in the rust belt in the US is real and that fear basically gave us Trump. I think this political clash will obviously grow larger in the future.

For the industry I think reality has dawned on them. Just like BP preaches to it's workers that it now stands for "Beyond Petroleum" the writing is on the wall. Hence the desperation in the old coal mining areas is real and hence the voters there will give their votes to any Trump there is that promises them help.

It's a similar fear of the people who get their income farming in Brazil in the new areas claimed from the forest. They see the outside pressure as literally something stealing their livelyhood. Hence for a populist like Bolsonaro it's easy to choose what strings to pull.

Hence articles which depict the situation in Brazil are like this:

Carlos Rittl, a Brazilian environmentalist who works at Germany’s Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies, said the numbers were “humiliating, shameful and outrageous” – and a clear sign of the damage being done to the environment since Bolsonaro took office in January 2019.

"This is an area a third the size of Belgium – gigantic areas of forest that are being lost simply because under Bolsonaro those who are doing the destroying feel no fear of being punished,” Rittl said.

“Bolsonaro’s great achievement when it comes to the environment has been this tragic destruction of forests which has turned Brazil into perhaps one of the greatest enemies of the global environment and into an international pariah too.”

So does the media report on the things in Brazil. Yet what are the feelings in Brazil among those who support Bolsonaro?

The standard line of most people still stuck in capitalist propaganda. So it has to mean that. Why? Because socialism "never works." End of discussion.

They are ruled by the communist party. But magically, the gains they've achieved is "capitalism"?
— Xtrix
The official line is that they have 21st Century Marxism and it works just well as they aren't fixated to dogmatic principles or take Marxism as a religion. Others would say that it is government controlled capitalism as they do use the market mechanism and there is private property. — ssu

"Government controlled capitalism." That's state-capitalism, which is the only capitalism that exists. It's what exists in the United States as well. Government direction and interference on every level. No "free market" fantasies. So to attribute China's gains to "capitalism," despite their government being communist, is saying exactly nothing.

Yes, marxism-leninism, stalinism or maoism didn't work so well. — ssu

Actually they worked just fine, by many metrics. They also had plenty of problems -- major ones. The United States has plenty of problems, too.

The most vicious, most brutal, and most lethal of all, of course -- if this is the game we're going to play -- has to be capitalism, by far. So perhaps include that on your list of things that "haven't worked so well."

They really genuinely sucked. — ssu

I agree. Capitalism really, genuinely sucks too -- and in many ways is far worse.

You have even two countries with similar culture, heritage and history that were divided with one part being capitalist and the other socialist. These examples leave nothing in doubt. — ssu

They leave plenty to doubt -- about your depth of analysis.

Again, way not just point to "Venezuela"? Nice and easy, and no need to think. Throwing around terms like "capitalism" and "socialism," when you have no idea what they mean, is pointless. All that has existed is state capitalism, and there are many measures of what's considered successful or not, and many reasons for the successes or failures. If pointing to East/West Germany, calling one capitalist and the other socialist, really settles it for you -- then you're welcome to that.

Is it already too late? — Xtrix

Life thrives in warm water. Which is going to increase with climate change.

The fish shall inherit the earth. Dolphins will evolve thumbs and be the dominant intelligent lifeform in the future on waterworld.

"Government controlled capitalism." That's state-capitalism, which is the only capitalism that exists. It's what exists in the United States as well. Government direction and interference on every level. No "free market" fantasies. — Xtrix

The government doesn't interfere all the time and everywhere. Housing prices, the prices of taxi cabs and many other prices are usually left alone. The vast majority of companies and corporations are privately owned. The Western Mixed-Capitalism model is really different from China.

There is a difference when you compare China to other countries:


For example in the UK, you do have the occasional partly-owned BP, but otherwise...

Actually they worked just fine, by many metrics. They also had plenty of problems -- major ones. The United States has plenty of problems, too. — Xtrix

Let's start with the famines in the US. How many have there been thanks to US economic policy been inflicted to the American people?

The government doesn't interfere all the time and everywhere. — ssu

That's like saying the law doesn't interfere all the time and everywhere. That doesn't mean we're lawless. Likewise, if one can point to instances where markets are somehow not influenced by government, that doesn't mean we have "free markets."

Housing prices, the prices of taxi cabs and many other prices are usually left alone. — ssu

Sure, and we're "left alone" sometimes too. When driving, and there's no police around -- for example.

Furthermore, there are some instances of "free markets" throughout the world and throughout history. Maybe Egypt or Greece? Even there it's dubious.

When it comes to countries and their governments, however, the state is always involved -- on every level. I can't think of a time in modern history where that isn't true. If you know of one, I'll be happy to look at it.

Take your housing example. The government doesn't "usually" interfere? What's "usually"? Of course they do -- nearly all the time. How? Through the control of interest rates and money supply. Whether and how banks are regulated matters a great deal. Look no further than 2008, not that long ago. Yes, the corporate world -- specifically the financial sector -- had a big responsibility themselves (perhaps a taste a "free markets"?). But it wouldn't have happened without government essentially allowing it.

Regardless, whether housing prices are up or down is very much a matter of fiscal and monetary policy.

The vast majority of companies and corporations are privately owned. The Western Mixed-Capitalism model is really different from China. — ssu

Different, not "really different." There's massive state influence here, there's massive state influence there. Both can be "capitalist" or "socialist," depending on what you want to believe.

Actually they worked just fine, by many metrics. They also had plenty of problems -- major ones. The United States has plenty of problems, too.
— Xtrix
Let's start with the famines in the US. How many have there been thanks to US economic policy been inflicted to the American people? — ssu

Or we could start with slavery in the US. As capitalist as it gets. Or the huge income inequality. Millions of Americans are in poverty, homeless, hungry or food-insecure (around 35 million). As far as economic growth, China beats us by far in GDP.

It's convenient to highlight the flaws, mistakes, and failures of other countries and ignore our own. To attribute the great Chinese famine to "socialism," but not slavery to capitalism, is an interesting trick -- but not worth taking too seriously.

There's massive state intervention in all "capitalist" societies, and nothing like the free market fantasies that ideologues have dreamt up. Capitalism is defined by private ownership of the means of production, usually, but is unique in its employer-employee relationship -- which is a better definition of it. Socialism, likewise, can mean state ownership of production. That's one strand, and one definition. A better one, in my view, is simply democracy at the workplace, where there's no employer-employee dynamic, and where the employees own and run the company democratically, as many co-op models demonstrate. Neither China nor the US has a system which is predominantly socialist, then. What actually exists is state-capitalism -- which is really just capitalists (employers, owners, especially organized in the form of the multinational corporation) more or less controlling the state. In China, one could argue the state has more power than the corporate sector, but the influences are there as well. They're just as capitalist as America, in this respect -- the difference being that the state runs things rather than the multinationals.

Hardly socialism. Or "pure" laissez faire capitalism.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/09/climate/climate-change-report-ipcc-un.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

The big IPCC report— pretty sobering.

Looks like warming is already locked in and there’s no time to waste to prevent even worse effects.

We’re not alarmed nearly enough.

Take your housing example. The government doesn't "usually" interfere? What's "usually"? Of course they do -- nearly all the time. How? — Xtrix

There is a perfect example of this from my own country. The government brought in price controls in the 1970's which basically crushed the rental market and basically made a structural over demand for rental homes. My great aunt remembered being as a land-lord that people were so desperate that they even sent the first monthly payment through mail. In the 1990's if you put an announcement in the paper, you would start getting phone calls right from the morning with 40 to 100 calls daily. The demand was far more than the demand and public housing was only for the most poor or unemployed and basically didn't do anything to counter the demand.

Then the government deregulated the market. No caps for prices, total freedom in the writing of rental agreements. And what happened? Companies sprang up that rented flats and a lot of supply for rental homes appeared. Now if you put an announcement up, you'll get a couple of inquiries. And unlike with the housing prices, the rental prices have gone up only modestly basically with inflation. Suddenly a supply has emerged that wasn't there before. And this is what many don't understand at all from the importance of a market mechanism.

Furthermore, there are some instances of "free markets" throughout the world and throughout history. Maybe Egypt or Greece? Even there it's dubious. — Xtrix

Actually, modern Egypt is the perfect example why people are poor and stay poor in Third World countries: when a normal working family cannot get a loan to buy a house, no wealth is created when they have rent all their life a home. And once when people are poor and stay poor, there isn't that important domestic demand that would create jobs and growth.

Or we could start with slavery in the US. — Xtrix

And the US got rid of it in the 19th Century. Obviously not an inherent part of capitalism.

Last famines in Western Europe were in Ireland and Finland, actually, in the 19th Century. Yet the Chinese and Russians saw famines in the 20th Century directly because of the implemented socialist programs. The famine because of the Great Leap Forward killed an estimated 30 to 55 million people. North Korea has seen famine in our lifetime in the 1990's and likely even in this Century. What is common to all is the implementation of socialist central planning that really didn't work. Even North Korea has had to veer of from strict socialism. So it's a bit different, really.

As far as economic growth, China beats us by far in GDP. — Xtrix

When you start from far poorer state, naturally growth is far more rapid. Let's remember that the US nominal GDP is larger than China's GDP, even if China has three times more population.

The big IPCC report— pretty sobering. — Xtrix

Living basically as north as Alaska is, the collapse of the Gulf stream would have an effect here. "Nicest" outcome would be just hotter summers and colder winters. Oh well, Anchorage isn't so bad.

The ocean current responsible for western Europe’s temperate climate could be at risk of collapse due to global warming, according to new research.

Scientists at Germany’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research found the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, or AMOC, could have reached a point of “almost complete loss of stability” over the last century. The AMOC is a system of ocean currents that acts like a conveyor belt carrying warm surface water from the tropics to the North Atlantic where it cools and sinks to the lower depths of the ocean. This colder water gradually moves southward several kilometers deep, before warmer ocean temperatures eventually pull it to the surface and the process begins again.

The Gulf Stream, the current of warm water flowing from the tip of Florida across the Atlantic toward Europe, is part of the AMOC and makes western Europe significantly warmer than it would otherwise be. Research has found the AMOC has “two distinct modes of operation” — strong and weak — and if it were to flip from its current strong mode to weak, it could have huge ramifications for the climate.

Lead author Dr. Niklas Boers said it could trigger “a cascade of further transitions” in other key components of the global climate system, such as the Antarctic ice sheets, tropical monsoon systems and the Amazon rainforest.

Take your housing example. The government doesn't "usually" interfere? What's "usually"? Of course they do -- nearly all the time. How?
— Xtrix
There is a perfect example of this from my own country — ssu

The government brought in price controls in the 1970's which basically crushed the rental market — ssu

Then the government deregulated the market. — ssu

And this is what many don't understand at all from the importance of a market mechanism. — ssu

This is completely irrelevant. It's also anecdotal.

So I'll repeat: government interferes all the time, on every level. There's no denying this. Whether this interference works out well or not is another question.

The "market mechanism" you refer to is more free market fantasy. So while you attribute the so-called successes of deregulation on the housing market, you apparently ignore another rather better example of deregulation: the crash of 2008. Deregulation caused the crash (small government), and then the companies that caused the crisis were bailed out (by big government). That's exactly the point, too. An excellent example of the results of neoliberal policies -- and the false consciousness of those who promote them.

Furthermore, there are some instances of "free markets" throughout the world and throughout history. Maybe Egypt or Greece? Even there it's dubious.
— Xtrix
Actually, modern Egypt — ssu

Given the reference to "throughout history," it should be fairly obvious I'm referring to antiquity. Modern Egypt and modern Greece are a different story.

is the perfect example why people are poor and stay poor in Third World countries: when a normal working family cannot get a loan to buy a house, no wealth is created when they have rent all their life a home. And once when people are poor and stay poor, there isn't that important domestic demand that would create jobs and growth. — ssu

Yes, and ask why they're poor in the first place, when they were a very wealthy country around the turn of 20th. Because textbook "capitalist" principles were forced upon them. So it's funny you should bring that up.

Or we could start with slavery in the US.
— Xtrix
And the US got rid of it in the 19th Century. Obviously not an inherent part of capitalism. — ssu

And China is no longer in famine, and are currently dominating us in growth. Obviously not inherently part of communism.

What is common to all is the implementation of socialist central planning that really didn't work. — ssu

It's as much attributable to socialism as it is to capitalism, if one is so inclined to define things that way. China and Russia also had very significant successes, which you will undoubtably ignore -- or will attribute to "capitalism," I suppose.

I'm not interested in defending the policies of China -- but I'm also not inclined to ignore the facts: they have a communist government that controls the market on levels even greater than the United States, and they're dominating us. So much for "communism" leading to nothing but famine and disaster. So then you try to either minimize these facts or else attempt to attribute them to "capitalism" -- which is completely absurd, on every level, even if you don't mean "free market capitalism" (which doesn't exist).

If China is beating us in growth -- shouldn't that mean they're MORE capitalist? Would anyone argue this? Quite a neat trick to pull.

As far as economic growth, China beats us by far in GDP.
— Xtrix
When you start from far poorer state, naturally growth is far more rapid. — ssu

China is not poor. They're the second biggest economy in the world. Their growth of 6% a year is more than the 2-3% for the US.

But I see where this is going with you: whatever happens that's good is capitalism, whatever happens that's negative is communism. Or else highlight the failures of the latter while ignoring the successes. So there's no reason in pretending to have a rational discussion. Stick with your dogma.

"Nicest" outcome would be just hotter summers and colder winters. — ssu

Yeah, I guess we can all believe what we want to believe. Personally I'd rather listen to the people who know what they're talking about. But that's me.

This is completely irrelevant. It's also anecdotal. — Xtrix

Hardly. Price fixing simply doesn't work. What else is central planning that replaces the market mechanism?

So I'll repeat: government interferes all the time, on every level. There's no denying this. Whether this interference works out well or not is another question. — Xtrix

If you assume that having rules and legislation is "inteference", then I guess your idea that governments interfere all the time on every level is true.

Yet how typically people understand government interference, there is a huge difference between classic socialist countries and modern mixed economies.

But I see where this is going with you: whatever happens that's good is capitalism, whatever happens that's negative is communism. — Xtrix

Communism hasn't simply not worked. Marxism-Leninism didn't work. Maoism didn't work. Juche-ideology still doesn't work.

Besides, when you disregard the most successful and most popular branch of leftist thought (which is SO typical nowdays), then this is quite irrefutable.

This is completely irrelevant. It's also anecdotal.
— Xtrix
Hardly. Price fixing simply doesn't work. What else is central planning that replaces the market mechanism? — ssu

Simply repeating "market mechanism" ad nauseam means absolutely nothing.

Lots of things replace the "market mechanism," as I've stated several times, if by "market mechanism" we essentially mean free markets. The Federal Reserve is the most "central planning" you can get. What they do effects the entire economy in extreme ways. What China does is also "central planning" -- massive involvement in the economy.

Mixed economies is what we have. No free market fantasies.

If you assume that having rules and legislation is "inteference", then I guess your idea that governments interfere all the time on every level is true. — ssu

It's not simply regulations, laws, or rules. Although that's significant enough. It's subsidies, tax incentives, tax breaks, government contracts, and bailouts. It's also, of course, monetary policy -- of which the "central" bank is in charge. Where is this elusive "free market" system in this scenario?

Yet how typically people understand government interference — ssu

"How typically people understand"? Well then typically people are completely misunderstanding.

Communism hasn't simply not worked. Marxism-Leninism didn't work. Maoism didn't work. Juche-ideology still doesn't work. — ssu

Capitalism hasn't simply not worked. Neoliberalism doesn't work. Keynesianism hasn't worked. Etc.
(And to emphasize this air-tight argument, I can point to slavery, frequent economic crashes -- some devastating, income inequality, monopoly, the government bailouts, too big to fail, financialization, outsourcing, worker layoffs, shutting down plants, union busting, hundreds of legal violations and criminal convictions, ...and on and on -- all while ignoring the good that's come of a mixed economic system. Not a great way to argue, but I'll simply continue to mirror what you're doing until you come to understand its absurdity.)

Besides, when you disregard the most successful and most popular branch of leftist thought (which is SO typical nowdays), then this is quite irrefutable. — ssu

It's so typical these days that people ignore the most successful/popular branch of leftist thought -- which is what, exactly? By ignoring this leftist thought, it makes the statement "Communism has never worked" irrefutable?

I have no idea what you're talking about here.

Simply repeating "market mechanism" ad nauseam means absolutely nothing. — Xtrix

And if you don't understand how socialism worked in Soviet Union or China...

I have no idea what you're talking about here. — Xtrix

Seems so. And that's why you use socialism and communism as synonyms.

Besides, when you disregard the most successful and most popular branch of leftist thought (which is SO typical nowdays), then this is quite irrefutable. — ssu

What is this branch? Where can I get me some? Sounds successful and popular.

I have a question for you:
What am I supposed to do with freezer burnt, year old meat that is raw and I don't have a willing human to consume it.
BUT....I was told NOT to just throw it away but absolutely make use of the energy of the meat and not just waste it.
Waste the meat?
Waste the energy contained within the meat?
Waste the means to cook the meat?

I know this sounds absurd on a great deal of levels in my mind but these younger people, who also share the ranch with us are SERIOUS!

I had to talk them back from tossing it out into the desert because it draws more than seed eaters which are all I would really like attract since we have animals as pets.

Suggestions on how to achieve what they are shooting for?

What am I supposed to do with freezer burnt, year old meat that is raw and I don't have a willing human to consume it.... since we have animals as pets. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I'll bet you can think of something, and it needn't be a Julia Childs' solution.

I'll bet you can think of something, and it needn't be a Julia Childs' solution. — tim wood

Yeah, no. Our animals are on food that keeps their insides stable.
Any other ideas?