[Part 2/5] Adair Turner on Why Capitalism and Climate Change are Not Enemies

[@Intelligence-Squared]

"Capitalism can come in many forms and we can choose the one we want." Adair Turner What do you think?

[@Nine-Signs]

What do I think? Capitalism currently has humanity consuming around 80 billion tonnes of various materials from the planet per year. Which is 30 billion tonnes of materials beyond the capacity of the planet to sustain without ecological damage. Capitalism requires a 3% global avg consumption driven growth rate, too long under that for any myriad number of stupid reasons and return on investment is not as expected, sentiment changes, and recessions or worse do come, capitalism must grow perpetually, or else it collapses. That 3% growth rate may not sound like much, but over roughly 30 year periods capitalism incentivises the doubling of its consumption of many types of energy and materials in order to sustain the perpetual growth demanded by capitalism. Due to that perpetual consumption fueled growth requirement, capitalism will have us taking around 150 billion tonnes of materials from a world that can only sustain 50 billion tonnes indefinitely, by 2050. Perhaps you will now understand, ecological collapse is not being driven by climate change, but by over consumption of resources. Ecological collapse and climate change as a result of global warming, are symptoms of the driving force behind it, consumption driven perpetual growth capitalism. So would any of you like to explain how a socioeconomic belief system can outrun the immutable physics of a finite world or are you finally starting to understand why Einstein was not in favour of nor a proponent of capitalism. Capitalism, is simply not compatible with what physics demands of humanity, for humanity to have a viable future. This system is altering the planetary systems to a state that will not be conducive to complex organised life, and we are almost out of time before the future is set in stone due to the mistakes we are making today in pursuit of human stupidity and greed via capitalism. No amount of solar panels, wind turbines, electric cars, regulations, taxes, green growth agenda's, nor any technology today, nor any technology coming down the road, will ever be able to allow a consumption driven perpetual growth socioeconomic belief system such as capitalism, to out run the immutable physics of a finite world. You can have all the fluffy talks about the wonders of capitalism you like in effort to blow smoke up certain areas, but physics does not give a damn and will continue to do what it is doing in response to what we as a species have done and continue to do. Either global capitalism ends in favour of something resembling a steady state democratic resource based economy, or capitalism will end much of if not all of human civilisation. Capitalism must go. There is no alternative no matter how inconvenient many may find that reality. kzbin.info/www/bejne/rXnaaKp3qKiGqqc kzbin.info/www/bejne/hIbWpaB8Zc2fb5o kzbin.info/www/bejne/m6m7c3p-raZneKc p.s. Re: "capitalism can come in many forms" = incorrect, capitalism can be managed in many ways, but it only ever comes in 1 form, a top down, systemically unstable, anti democratic organisation of people for the production of goods and services, where democracy is not present in 70% of life most spend working in such fashion, and where the decision over what to do with the wealth all in a company helped create, is undemocratically given to a tiny handful at the top who give as near to a stagnant wage as they can get away with, back to workers, while those on top pocket the lions shares which they use to bend governments to their will before any other. The rich then pile that self awarded cash into assets such as stocks, bonds, property, plus compound interest on all that, all of which pays back far more money over time for no work that the salaries of the rich alone, massive amounts of income for no work, extracted from those who did most of the work, and to add insult to injury, that unearned income is taxed lower than waged labor, because under capitalism, working hard for a living is no longer a guarantee of a comfortable life and as mentioned, in a top down anti democratic economy, those with accumulated wealth will always use their wealth and assets to secure their interests above the needs of society and planet. So as you can see, capitalism is not only incompatible with physics, but with democracy itself. Capitalism, indeed any top down economic system, corrupts any form of governance attached to it over time.

[@TrevKen]

How about, (and I know it's not popular to be pragmatic these days) we use state-socialism, market-socialism and regulated capitalism?? A mixed economy.

[@Nine-Signs]

@@TrevKen That is not just pragmatic but logical. To my mind, capitalism goes wrong when the enterprise gets too large, capitalism incentivises maximisation of profits at any cost to other people, which is often done via mergers and acquisitions and off shoring of jobs, all making large entities even larger. The only people who benefit are those at the top of such organisations such as the board, upper management and major shareholders, a tiny fraction of the overall workforce. However if you look at German capitalism, where most of their firms are small and medium sized, family ran and owned businesses, the dynamics are reasonably different, workers are mostly happier, they have more say and are even given positions on the board for workers to elect their own to the seats. But even in Germany, inequality is soaring and corporations are growing ever larger and more powerful. So, sure, have a mixed economy for the first time, unlike what we are always told. But I would have a law in place that limits the size of capitalist organisations to 200 workers. At the point of crossing 200 workers my law would state that the board either have to give the workers the right to buy and thus democratise the company, paid for by low interest loans from public infrastructure banks not private banking. Capitalism, is a top down anti democratic organisation of people for the production of goods and services. "Mom & pop" stores are great but once they get to the size of "Mon & Pop Stores will fuck your community and the planet globally corporation" then no good ever comes from them without a shit load of bad. Without such restrictions, small entities that start in a community serving them, grow over a century to become nation devouring giants that decimate communities and planet and put small firms out of business in order to gobble up market share and thus maximise profits. I would also have a maximum income that could be earned by anyone just as FDR did. He set taxes so that after $400,000 in today's money, for every additional $1 dollar earned you got to keep 6 cents. Here is how to fix the current shit show of a global economy we have. It's called democracy, in 100% of life, not the 30% we currently get when we leave work, only to find the wealth we all created, being used by those who get most of that wealth, to bend democracy to their wishes. kzbin.info/www/bejne/bqmqimmCmJxkpNU www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf

[@gagamba9198]

_capitalism incentivises maximisation of profits_ How is this done? By using resources more efficiently, finding alternate materials, developing new technologies and methods, etc. _the enterprise gets too large_ Size often allows economies of scale, i.e. fewer resources used to produce each item. How many businesses are "too large". In there US, the are 4500 publicly traded companies, which are often very large. There are more than 30 million businesses. About 85% of businesses have 20 or fewer employes. More than 96% employ fewer than 100. And 99% employ fewer than 500. You might want to read up on socialism. Not only inefficient and downright wasteful, but also the worst polluting system.

[@Nine-Signs]

@@gagamba9198 You said: "capitalism incentivises maximisation of profits How is this done? By using resources more efficiently, finding alternate materials, developing new technologies and methods, etc. " My Reply: You only give half the picture. Capitalists are incentivised to maximise profits by lowering costs, the largest costs to the vast majority of enterprises are in workers and materials, and in a world with the internet, the jet, and shipping containers, that is how capitalism has caused the mass off shoring of good paying jobs from the west to poorer parts of the world, screwing over millions left behind and devastating their communities, towns, and cities. Just look at detroit, 1960 it was the beating heart of western capitalism and its population hit a peak of 1.9 million people. Today its mostly a desolate wasteland that was having problems with wild dogs left behind by all the citizens who went elsewhere for work as ever more jobs were moved abroad, in order to maximise profits. The population today is 650K and they are far from alone in that story. As for materials, if capitalists can utilise a cheaper material they will, even if it effects the longevity of the product which inevitably results in massive amounts of additional consumption of materials to replace shit that used to be built well that is no longer. They also demand subsidies to remain in nations where production is expensive, which they then use to automate away jobs which increases the profits retained by the enterprise which in turn jacks up dividend payments to those at the top of it. All that, you either failed to see or did not want to describe. --------------------- You said: "the enterprise gets too large Size often allows economies of scale, i.e. fewer resources used to produce each item. How many businesses are "too large". In there US, the are 4500 publicly traded companies, which are often very large. There are more than 30 million businesses. About 85% of businesses have 20 or fewer employed. More than 96% employ fewer than 100. And 99% employ fewer than 500." My reply: You can still have large companies but instead of them being anti democratic top down organisations where the majority who create the wealth have no say over that wealth nor their working conditions as those decisions are undemocratically handed to a tiny cartel at the top of each entity, you democratise the bloody things and turn them over to all who work in them for the benefit of all who work in them. Democracy at work, the 70% of life where capitalism prevents it from entering. A fine example is the Mondragon worker Co-Op, roughly 90,000 joint owner employee's, they elect their own bosses and board and can fire them if need be, no one earns more than 8.5 X the lowest paid resulting in above average wages in the localities they are based, a 23 billion euro book value with 15 billion euro turnover per year from advanced manufacturing and services across 3 continents, democratically ran and owned by all for the betterment of all within it. They decide what to produce, how to produce, where to produce, and what to do with the profits, together, via democracy, something capitalism will never do, because the moment it does, it is no longer capitalism. If a new machine is to be brought in to automate a process in a socialist worker co-op they use it to either raise wages or lower hours worked while maintaining pay, i.e. the socioeconomic benefits of automation are shared by all. Under capitalism, the socioeconomic benefits of automation are shared primarily by the handful of major investors and the board as they use it to get rid of workers which of course increases profits retained which raises dividends to the already rich, for no work. Dividends which themselves are taxed lower than waged labour, if at all depending on arrangements. --------------------------- You said: "You might want to read up on socialism" My reply: I've done plenty of reading over decades on many systems and economists, I've worked on behalf of the richest 1500 people on this planet and the poorest imaginable, you should not be so presumptive of those you do not know. -------------------------------- You suggested socialism is inefficient and wasteful, Well we have already gone over how capitalism causes massive amounts of additional consumption by incentivising a race to the bottom on quality making it ever more wasteful over time, but on efficiency it doesn't win either. Here is a full study on the topic of worker owned enterprises as modern socialists proscribe and advocate for, proving it is more efficient, more productive, handles downturns better, and provides far better conditions and more equality for those within them than conventional top down capitalist enterprises. www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf If you claim to be an advocate of democracy then why advocate for a top down economic system that prevents democracy in the majority of peoples lives that they spend at work, and that concentrates the wealth all create into the hands of few at the top, who use that wealth to bend the remaining bit of democracy the people get when they leave work, to the interests of the rich and corporations before any other, regardless of the damage to people and planet, which they should not be blamed as individuals for, as capitalism is what incentivises them to behave so abhorrently, in order to maximise profits. To advocate for democracy in government and advocate for capitalism which prevents democracy in the economy where most of life is spent, is hypocrisy. ------------------- You said: "but also (socialism is) the worst polluting system" By what measure are you judging that, given that for the first 300 years of the last 450 years under this system capitalism was dominant and even when it had a competitor from the turn of the 20th century to the end of it, was and is still the globally dominant system of production in our age. My reply: As mentioned above, which you've completely ignored, capitalism demands, an average 3% global growth rate, too long under that rate = return on investment is not as forecast, sentiment changes, and recessions or worse do come. I do not have historical data at my fingertips but if you check the second page at the top of the column it will show you the global growth rate as a % over the last 4 years to prove what I say. www.oecd.org/economy/outlook/global-growth-weakening-as-some-risks-materialise-OECD-interim-economic-outlook-handout-march-2019.pdf That 3% = a DOUBLING of the consumption of many materials and many forms of energy over just 30 years. We are already taking 30 billion tonnes of materials from this earth than the planets ecological systems can sustain and due to that DEMAND for 3% yearly growth in order to keep global capitalism afloat, this system will have us clawing around 150 billion tonnes of resources from a planet that can only sustain 50 billion without permanent damage. We humans move 10 times the amount of materials across the surface of the earth per year than all natural processes combined, it takes the earth 20 million years to produce the fossil fuels we drag out of her and use in just 12 months. I mean for crying out loud, what will it take for you and others like you, well meaning as you may be, to understand we are too good for our own good with regards to accessing natural resources and capitalism incentivises us to take ever more the next year than we did the year before. In effect, Capitalism became unsustainable near 3 decades ago and has gotten worse from there and no "efficiency" via technology will ever be enough to counteract the insatiable demand of this system for growth and consolidation of wealth and power from that growth into the hands of few over many. As I say to many be I giving a talk to them or just to an individual such as yourself, please remember, physics does not give a shit if you or I find it terribly inconvenient that physics demands we fundamentally alter our economic system and way of life if we are to have a viable future. I mean this alone growing at 6% a year should give you reason pause given it is totally incompatible with the Paris climate agreement of limiting warming to 1.5oC which is already practically impossible. www.flightradar24.com/49.91,342.78/2 A 4oC warmer world by 2100, is not an inhabitable world for humans, and the warming will not stop there even if we stop warming the planet. Feedback loops will have long since taken over and whether it is within 50 years from 2100 or 200 years from then, the planet will continue to warm as the natural stores of greenhouse gasses continue to be released at ever greater rates. If we do not radically alter our path and soon, hothouse earth is inevitable, and that is an environment non conducive to organised life. The earth will survive, and thrive, but we will be just a memory, children doomed in the future by the mistakes their currently young grandparents are making today. kzbin.info/www/bejne/rXnaaKp3qKiGqqc

[@formerdogowner]

I think solving climate change is very complicated and therefore there is a case for state direction of the economy as that is simpler to manage. A capitalist world economy is hideously complex and responsibility is highly diffuse. State direction would simplify responsibility down to a dozen or so major economies who could also lend expertise and resources to smaller emitters. Unfortunately this does restrict freedom but expansive economic freedoms and solving climate change do not seem compatible. As has been said several times this is rather like a war emergency and mobilising the entire society and economy towards one aim of reducing emissions and putting modern societies onto a sustainable path is key. It would be a bit like everyone working for the civil service, military, nationalised energy companies, Nhs or bbc really. Not so unthinkable when put that way. But state direction would at least permit a series of detailed national plans. At the minute as I see it there is no plan just angst and talk. We kind of need to ban some things and invest massively in others.

[@channelwarhorse3367]

Where r u from? I need icemakers to thicken ice cap this year. Block Blue Ocean Event attenpt. Are they interested in blocking Blue Ocean Event?

[@sifis172]

i'll add my stupid cent to this debate. essentially the fellow in his thesis, is saying that we should leave everything, with some regulations to the companies (corporations) on how they are to procced with the matter of solving the climate change (i couldn't watch all the vid, and i'll shortly explain why). we now have a "democracy", which is based on elections. in my language that is called "bouletic democracy" (which means represented by a elected corps.) can you have regulated capitalism which will change the climate catastroph that we are about to experience, i'd say no.but let's just say for the sake of it that it does. the next question is: can we have a democracy, while having a capitalistic model of economy? i'd say certainly not. democracy can't function where there is a clear purposed and structurializes system that is intended to keep the status quo. which is the great hasm (difference) between the "have" and the "have not". i really doubt that a nigerian diamond-gold mier will ever be in a position to make his dream of jumping in the middle class.

[@TrevKen]

How about, (and I know it's not popular to be pragmatic these days) we use state-socialism, market-socialism and regulated capitalism?? A mixed economy.

[@pickledirick8338]

The UK is already a mixed economy.

[@gagamba9198]

"market-socialism" There is no such thing. The market is capitalism and socialism demands the end of capitalism. And take a look at all the studies of the environmental destruction unleashed by socialism is Eastern Europe and Russia. When all power is monopolised, as it is under socialism, disasters happen.

[@laymantalks8113]

I hope you're not an American....

[@gagamba9198]

Because I know the contraction of you are is not your, what my nationality is is evident.

[@laymantalks8113]

@@gagamba9198 ...I was talking about Trev Ken....

[@heesanoice7637]

If they were really serious about being a more green world, go nuclear and stop burning all that coal. The grid would be more efficient and dependable, and carbon output would drop drastically. They could also consider NOT flying in those carbon belching airplanes to meetings where they tell us to drive our SUV's less.

[@dhammakusala7940]

What a great idea it is not exaggeration to say that we do have clear atmosphere if we want live

[@ninahijmans3594]

5:53 someone is ready for some naptime

[@andrewvezey]

Do we trust them speaker and his friends to follow his advice? Simply NO!

[@andrewvezey]

*the

[@celestialteapot309]

I thought this was supposed to be something Intelligent

[@laymantalks8113]

LoL. "Increasing total global electricity supply about four or five times...And all of that electricity must be zero carbon"...All without the use of Oil, Gas and Coal? To which your plan will require Oil, Gas and Coal...Where do you people come from?

[@brianbrown7982]

ok boomer

[@roelofjacobs5807]

Ok millennial?... Any point you're trying to make?

[@Bebopin-69]

There is generally a bigger probability that you will know more stuff towards the end of your life rather than at the beginning of it.

[@davidhodgson4685]

If only we could all demand a billion dollars worth of economic activity for our life, like Al Gore and other environmentalists do, then the environment would be far better off. But at least the virtuous-class (aka the middle-class) are slightly less vulgar.

[@johnnyblack2131]

Wales in Brexit Britain 🇬🇧

[@PeteV80]

Earth hasn't had co2 this low since Carboniferous 350 mya

[@Nine-Signs]

Quantitative calibration of Late Carboniferous (330-300 Myr ago) and Permian (270-260 Myr ago) lycopsid stomatal indices yield average atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 344 ppm and 313 ppm, respectively. www.pnas.org/content/99/20/12567 Current Co2 is 414ppm. That and we know Co2 has not been this high in the entire 3 million year cycle of our species and we know under natural forcings it takes the earths processes roughly 13,000 years to add or remove the same amount of Co2 we have added in just 269 years. And we know it takes only a drop of -5oC global average temperatures over thousands of years under natural conditions would send the planet into an ice age so what do you think +5oC in just 350 years via unnaturally adding massive amounts of various greenhouse gasses to the system will do to us... This is already not the version of earth you were born on.

[@roelofjacobs5807]

Well, it was lower a couple of decades a go. But yeah, it could be that during the Carboniferous the co2 levels were a lot higher. I do fail to see the point you are trying to make.

[@PeteV80]

@@roelofjacobs5807 only two periods in Earth's history where CO2 was below 400. Quarternary and Carboniferous. Average levels during periods of thriving life is 1500 ppm

[@PeteV80]

@@Nine-Signs what happened to Doggerland and who is to blame?

[@roelofjacobs5807]

@@PeteV80 The co2 levels were higher. The sun was shining slightly less bright (due to being younger). Other plants and animals were living. Gondwanaland was still a thing. Still don't get the point you're trying to make.