February 2016 Open thread

More thread.

More like this

By popular request. Comments from Brent and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by Brent and responses to comments by Brent should go in this thread. I can't move comments in MT, so I'll just delete comments that appear in the wrong thread.
By popular request. Comments from El Gordo and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by El Gordo and responses to comments by El Gordo should go in this thread. I can't move comments in MT, so I'll just delete comments that appear in the wrong thread.
This thread is for people who wish to engage Ray in discussion. Ray, please do not post comments to any other thread. Everyone else, please do not respond to Ray in any other thread.
By popular request, here is the Jonas thread. All comments by Jonas and replies to his comments belong in this thread.

Just read #19 last page July
2013 open thread.
Very much agree Jeff Harvey.
There is a write up in
skeptical science
called the little ape that could,
that fleshes out some aspects
of that comment very well,
and frankly, im feeling damn
pessimistic.

Thankyou Lionel A
for doing those links
to 2 great bits of writing.

Worth seeing article over at Climate Denial Crock of the Week displaying climate change another way: Painting Climate Change

and in the next article above we see John Christy spinning down into AGW denial in another testimony this time at 02/02/16 House Science Committee, spinning down as Curry has done earlier.

http://carbon-sense.com/2013/12/08/ocean-thermometer/

Just experimenting with posting a
link, and though to make it something funny.
If it works.
The writer outlines an indicator
and utterly gets it wrong what that
indicator is indicating.
Is there some sort of scientific
technical psychology term for
such a thing?
It fair took my breath away.

Yay. It worked.
Im sure most of us have seen
SLR charts over the years.
That link i did is about as close
to an own goal as its possible to
me.

'The Carbon Sense Coalition' features at DeSmog and SourceWatch

but what total tosh as anybody who has read 'Rising Sea Levels: An Introduction to Cause and Impact' by Hunt Janin and Scott A Mandia and/or watched the presentation by Jerry Metrovica knows things are not as simple as using the oceans as a temperature gauge.

Besides, what is disappearing the cryosphere? Those devious, obfuscating fools are trying to avoid considering that temperature is not heat and that the rise, or fall, of mercury in a thermometer is a proxy for temperature change. Do they understand the difference in heat energy of water in the field around the triple point of, say, water and the effects of pressure - some impact on how continental ice sheets behave. Atkins on Physical Chemistry will inform them also that ice has a number of different phases depending on the pressure — temperature relationship.

Moving around the blogs I have, via Stoat, just been reminded of <a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100048085/i-come-to-b… nasty Delingpole really is.

And Delingpole's advisory committee (Pugh, Pugh, Barney Magrue, Cuthbert, Dibble & Grub - alias Pielk, Pielk, Christy, Spencer, Curry & Michaels) or you could ring the changes from this little lot have been crying foul over some comments about the late, latterly not so great, Bob Carter.

Drat,

Moving around the blogs I have, via Stoat, just been reminded of how nasty Delingpole really is.

And Delingpole's advisory committee (Pugh, Pugh, Barney Magrue, Cuthbert, Dibble & Grub - alias Pielk, Pielk, Christy, Spencer, Curry & Michaels) or you could ring the changes from this little lot have been crying foul over some comments about the late, latterly not so great, Bob Carter.

That fucker pushes my triggers yeah.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 09 Feb 2016 #permalink

GSW, the deep thinker from deep in the backwoods of Sweeden, has found more thought provoking stuff: a communist with long hair.
After a long period of contemplation...he's got it!!
The guy has long hair: ergo, communism is bad.

I get 'Access Denied' on each of those 'evernote.com' links.

Yeah, sorry Lionel, I stuffed up. Looks like Evernote only links the images to me, when signed in, or other Evernote users sharing. Start from #22 where I found an open image hosting site.

GSW denies anthropogenic climate change because 'communism'. The link is obvious: wingnut insight is special

The world *is* turning to shit.
50 years ago, Syria's population was 5million.
50% of Syria's now-22million-strong population has now been displaced by a civil war that is being fuelled by failed systems of governance (totalitarianism, tribalism, islamism, marxism) but which was instigated chiefly due to climate change.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00059.1

Similar shit will hit the fan in Bangladesh as a result of salinification caused by rising sea levels. Their population is 160million.
Should 50% of them emulate the Syrians, a population movement four times larger than the entire population of Australia will take place....

So, which system of governance do we want in place to help cope these future challenges?
The system that gave us broad gains in human productivity and development leading to atomic physics, inter-planetary travel, the germ theory of medicine and modern banking and finance? Some other already-tried system which has never led to prosperity in the past? Or shall we tear down our society and cross our fingers that from the chaos an as-yet-untried system will magically appear and solve all our problems?

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 16 Feb 2016 #permalink

Or shall we tear down our society and cross our fingers that from the chaos an as-yet-untried system will magically appear and solve all our problems?

We will not have to consciously tear it down for it will disintegrate of its own accord and not even the 1% of the 1% will escape the fallout as environmental and ecological services collapse.

Have a read of Jane Meyer's 'Dark Money' reviewed here: Dark Money review: Nazi oil, the Koch brothers and a rightwing revolution for a perspective on how society's wealth distribution has been further skewed over recent decades and governments stripped of power. The book covers the US but we see similar across the world in the UK and its one time colonies.

The likes of the Kochs, and their snivelling boot licking lackeys such as Tim Phillips are little better than socio-paths with crimes against humanity on their heads.

Here is some insight into how the US and the world got into the socio-economic-environmental mess it is in today through the lens of the US of A. Do read down as far as Maddow v Phillips.

" which system of governance "
First thought is that its rather outside
ipcc auspices.
Second thought. Got fuck all to with science,
excepting possibly discussion of political systems that are
supportive of scientific endevour and REACT
POSITIVLY to what science says and take
it into SERIOUS consideration when formulating
policy.

Ive been thinking a little on something.
SLR of about 100 mm between 1880 and
1950. ( much faster curently of course
unless one is one them SLR deniers who
are just about the looniest of all)
Wondering what the specific causes were
of SLR in that period?
Pretend you are a SLR researcher in 1950
and want to know exactly why its been rising.
Im not going wanker WTUWT mindset!
Just curious for knowledge.
If anyone knows the answer.

Oops. Spelling.
i ment of course WTFUWT.
and the intitial quote is from
#34, for context.

@Lionel

So, just making sure I understand your argument, because the Koch brothers father manufactured some equipment for an oil refinery in Germany in 1934, our western, capitalist democracy "will disintegrate of its own accord" (?) ?

That argument just doesn't make sense Lionel. In fact, I wouldn't even call it an argument.

Admittedly you also babble on about "society’s wealth distribution", "snivelling boot licking lackeys" and "the socio-economic-environmental mess" - We did that before, if you want to talk about bad environmental stewardship, see the China, DPRK and Bolivia links previously - even ideologically blind jeff wouldn't agrue with that.

Also, by way of balance ( and I still can't see what difference it makes anyway),

"Koch Executive Disputes Book’s Account of Founder’s Role in Nazi Refinery"
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/12/koch-industries-…

"The cracking unit was one of 39 built by Winkler-Koch from 1928 to 1934, he said. The company also had projects in England, Scotland, France and Canada, according to Mr. Robertson"

“To cherry-pick one project among hundreds during this time frame and then use it out of context in order to further an agenda-driven story line is grossly inaccurate,” he said.

Well indeed.

That argument just doesn’t make sense Lionel. In fact, I wouldn’t even call it an argument.

That isn't even the 'Wowism' argument you clown!

“To cherry-pick one project among hundreds during this time frame and then use it out of context in order to further an agenda-driven story line is grossly inaccurate,” he said.

Now who is cherry picking. 'tis you you twerp regurgitating some nonsense from a Koch apologist who tries to ignore the bulk of the arguments in the book.

Have you read the book GSW? If not then 'Wowism' off.

"a perspective on how society’s wealth distribution has been further skewed over recent decades and governments stripped of power. The book covers the US but we see similar across the world in the UK and its one time colonies." - GSW doesn't get paid to answer that.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 16 Feb 2016 #permalink

@Lionel

That doesn't alter the fact Lionel that you bizarrely stated,

"We will not have to consciously tear it down for it will disintegrate of its own accord"

Then posted a link about the Koch brother's father supplying a "cracking unit" to a german oil refinery in 1934 for some reason(?)

I think that's a logic fail Lionel if you see this as somehow "heralding" the downfall of capitalism, and, if anything, the intervening 80yrs years have proved otherwise.

#41 With your level of reading incomprehension, GSW, logic fails must appear to you everywhere.

@Nick

Thanks for joining in. If Lionel thinks that free market capitalism is likely to diappear anytime soon because of something the Kochs have done(?), he's going to have a long wait.

Go on Lionel, when do you foresee the coming Capitalaggedon? I'll make a note in the diary.
;)

If Lionel thinks that free market capitalism is likely to diappear anytime soon...

That is not what I am pointing at at all you bloody clown. My comment is about the whole edifice of (irony alert) civilisation collapsing of its own accord.

And my link was to an article which describes SOME of the reportage of a wider ranging book than the Kochs let alone Alfred Kochs early oil ventures.

Have you read the book cited? I suggest you do for you then may, just may, stop making yourself look a bigger fool than you do as of now.

Strewth! What's that saying about nailing jelly to the wall?

Further more I'll finish this statement:

...the intervening 80yrs years have proved...

diddley squat in the context of the future which is going to be oh so different to the present let alone the past. If you cannot grasp why you are wrong then you must be cognitively challenged suffering from dissonance of that faculty.

"even ideologically blind jeff wouldn’t agrue with that"

... says our right wing clown, who is blind, deaf and dumb when it comes to politics....

Thanks for skewering him Lionel. I've done my share of hammering GSW, and its good to see others here doing the same. His '80 yr' comment is straight out of a comic book. The planet's ecological life supprot systems are being torn apart, wealth is being concentrated more than at any time in human history, and laws are being forced upon the public to accept unlimited corporate expansion. GSW is such an utter twerp that I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the simplicity of his comments and knowledge base.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 17 Feb 2016 #permalink

Another lesson on how warming is biting us in the but and yet clowns like GSW fail to understand the huge message within this: Epidemics, warming oceans rock lobster, sea star populations and of course Zika is just one tool in the box of one of the four horsemen. I wonder if GSW has ever heard of Pandora?

@Lionel #45

"My comment is about the whole edifice of (irony alert) civilisation collapsing of its own accord."

I wouldn't have thought that read any better Lionel, go on then, when in "Lionel world" is civilization going to end?

which takes us back to Craig's original comment,

"So, which system of governance do we want in place to help cope these future challenges?"

and I think we're still interested to see what you have by way of an answer.

"when in “Lionel world” is civilization going to end?"

It already is - in slow motion. The evidence is all around if you bothered to take your butt out of your you-know-where. Climate change alone is exceeding rates at which humans (and especially the ecological systems that sustain us) can adapt. Proxy wars are breaking out all over the planet - one person in eight now lives in a conflict zone. Wealth is being concentrated more than at any time in human history, and the US political system is virtually imploding. The world stands on the cusp of a major war because the global hegemon cannot be seen to have feet of clay with respect to Syria and the situation is eerily remiscent of August 1914. TTP and TTIP are meant to further empower corporate elites at the expense of just about everyone else. Redman, Tainter and others have described in detail the collapse of previous civilizations which fell at a time when they appeared to be at their zenith. Our airwaves are now dominated with lurid stories about celebrity gossip while the general populace is dumbed down more than ever by the mainstream media which acts as nothing more than a stenographer for state/corporate power. Banks are out of control, and along with the corporate sector have created systems based on socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.

The list goes on and on. The future is indeed bleak unless we change course dramatically. But we are not evolutionarily equipped to do so. Response to gradual, incipient collapse is just not programmed into our genomes. The global hegemon has built military bases over much of the planet in order to ensure that the benefits of capital flow remain largely uni-directional, but the rest of the world see through it. Resistance to a political system intent on enriching the privileged few is growing, and there is much discontent and unrest brewing. If the general populace can wake up in time and regain power from the few is anyone's guess. But right now things look pretty bleak.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 17 Feb 2016 #permalink

GSW asks:

“So, which system of governance do we want in place to help cope these future challenges?”

Well first of all it would db nice to get a government which was honest towards it constituents. Secondly, corporate funding of politicians and their parties should be ended.

It is interesting that one of the first things the newly elected NDP government in Alberta did was to ban all corporate political donations. To balance things they also banned donations from unions, their main supporters.

Till we can get honesty back into government we are in big trouble, not just from climate change but other negative effects from large multi national corporations such as pollution, problems with our food supply and dismantling of regulatory agencies.

Our governments have become toadies for large corporations.

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 17 Feb 2016 #permalink

I wouldn’t have thought that read any better Lionel, go on then, when in “Lionel world” is civilization going to end?

Sooner than you think you clueless fuck-knuckle. Some gravity wave from colliding black holes has clearly sucked out all your capacity for rational thinking and thus the ability to process information.

It is at that stage, information, that you are stuck on the

data — information — knowledge — understanding — wisdom continuum

but expressing such will have no effect on you for you will clearly be unable to process such a concept.

Apologies #51,

From your post, I don't think your politics are that different to mine, or I suspect Craig's; Honest Government, curtailment of undemocratic "special interest group" influence, whether it be corporations, unions, environmental NGO's etc.

The only thing left is, "capitalism" vs "the state". Should private individuals/corporations run/own businesses? or should everything be State run/owned/controlled?

Well, I think we did that experiment, and "the State" version lost a.k.a "there's no virtue to poverty". jeff/Lionel may bang the Marxist/Leninist/Fatalist "drum", but the real world just ain't getting the memo.
:)

You know, I get the "ignore Craig's #34 question" thing, but it's a Good, if not THE, Question "So, which system of governance do we want in place to help cope these future challenges?"

GSW asks the wrong question: "The only thing left is, “capitalism” vs “the state”. Should private individuals/corporations run/own businesses? or should everything be State run/owned/controlled?"

No you dumb schmuck, that is NOT the only thing left. The real question is: should transnational corporations and banks be accountable to democracy and for their actions and how much should they be regulated?

Right now, banks and big corporations are doing everything they can to avoid/undermine/control etc democracy because they see democracy as a threat to the way that they do business. They are not democratic institutions in the first place but are legally obliged to maximize the bottom line irrespective of the costs to society and to the environment.

None of this is new, but GSW is so dumbed down by his corporate media that he doesn't know it or else slyly avoids discussing it. There are piles of examples of governments and the corporations that buy and pay for them undermining democracy and doing all they can to influence internal decision making processes in countries to ensure they benefit from capital flows. But GSW prefers to stay in the sandbox with his either/or scenarios.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 18 Feb 2016 #permalink

"Should private individuals/corporations run/own businesses? or should everything be State run/owned/controlled?"

Regulated. What is sorely needed is separation of state and corporation.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 18 Feb 2016 #permalink

So, which system of governance do we want in place to help cope these future challenges?

An egalitarian, inclusive, enlightened and compassionate system - one far removed from the trans-border plutocratic-oligarchy currently in charge which is represented by the Kochs and vulture capitalists of the world. Besides Jane Mayer's book, did you miss the links to Greg Palast and cites of Mark Curtis and John Pilger?

Now stop being a Koch-sucker GSW and go educate yourself. But I suspect it is something worse than ignorance, or even wilful ignorance, behind your blatherings. You are willingly using mock stupidity to cover up your lack of a moral compass.

As I have trouble posting comments over at Eli's I'll add to the recent The Morality of Existence by remarking I see Tom is still Fuller-shit.

I could not post at Eli's either, but here is what I would reply:
Tom's comment can be summarily dismissed. He's not a scientist, doesn't understand the basics of global change biology, and clearly doesn't have the acumen to see that humans and the natural world that sustains us are on a major collision course. He's one of those people who think that humans are exempt from the laws of nature, and that a slash-and-burn mentality to the biosphere can be sustained forever. I am a scientist and work partially at least in the relevant fields. Cornucopians live in their own dream-state realities. Few understand cause and effect relationships in ecology and environmental science. Their ranks are populated by people like Bjorn Lomborg who cannot ell a mole cricket from a giraffe. Many people clearly do not like to face up to the facts: that our species is sleepwalking towards extinction. We are decimating our ecological life support systems at increasing rates, and currently sit on the cups of a 500 year process of rampant plunder and overconsumption. Tainter, Redman and other historians have chronicled the collapse of previous civilizations that did so at the apparent peak of their prosperity. This time we are intent on taking much of the planet down with us, thanks to our worship of a political ideology, nakedly predatory capitalism. I am not a pessimist, but a realist, and I am equipped to see where we are heading.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 20 Feb 2016 #permalink

More on some of the foetid corruption at the heart of so called democracy: Scalia's Black Beemer.

I also have noted echoes of the decades around the turn of the nineteenth — twentieth century in today's world of recent decades and look at my grandchildren and shudder as to what life is going to do to them. Already their parents are struggling to keep a roof over their heads and rise to the other financial challenges of a system increasingly skewed.

It does not help when those divorced from reality such as this example of simplistic thinking: Lord Bichard: Retired people could do work for pensions spouting asinine nonsense.

Bichard has clearly not caught up with life in the twenty-first century where grandparents work hard and organising children's attendance at school, provide them with an evening meal all this because the parents, one a Chemistry PhD and the mum, my daughter, having a Chemistry First which she used in industry and also for the environment agency and they still have a struggle where both have full time jobs. The daughter is now a Primary School teacher and can be tough, especially when the school is in a deprived area (in Tory heartland so chances of getting the politics here changed are slim to none) the inability to vote with effect is sadly a hole many are in with this 'first past the post' system. The school have to keep spare clothes on the premises because the children turn up without proper apparel for the climate. This is the reality of Britain - not that the local MP cares much - career politicians parachuted in from elsewhere have no connect with local issues.

What will become of their four boys? One is now at university studying zoology and has been selected for a field trip to India - which he is keen to follow up - but this will of course cost. So much for the science gravy train.

Other daughters are in top positions in the NHS, one a senior sister with renal specialisation and the other a senior midwife. Once again this attainment didn't come cheap but that is how the secretary of state for health one Hunt is treating them - with cheap shoddy contract twisting tricks.

One Oliver Letwin is on record as saying,

the “NHS will not exist” within five years of a Conservative election victory.

See:

Oliver Letwin: a career in gaffes.

Here the curtain was briefly twitched open to reveal how their nasty little minds work.

And it is not just the UK Tories that deserve such exposure but those of another political stripe who set out to deceive as Mark Curtis and John Pilger reveal in their books.

Before you comment further here GSW then do go learn how the world really works on a socio-political level, otherwise you will remain FOS.

#58 Fuller is really just a brazen ratbag. He has zero sciences knowledge and credibility and is a second-rate rhetorician, and I'm astonished he still bothers to 'interact' with science and science policy discussions. Can't let go, I suppose.

His involvement in pushing ill-informed, misleading, bad faith readings of the 'Climategate' emails was appalling.

Lionel gives us,
"An egalitarian, inclusive, enlightened and compassionate system – one far removed from the trans-border plutocratic-oligarchy currently in charge which is represented by the Kochs and vulture capitalists of the world."

OK, so one option is the system we have now, but with better regulation. Presumably an end to tax havens. And some kind of mechanism so that corporations are no longer encouraged to employ their workers in whichever countries have the lowest-costing worker entitlements.

Ian gives us,
"corporate funding of politicians and their parties should be ended."

OK, again, the current system, but improved (as per Alberta's example). Still the sticky situation of post-political corporate jobs for politicians to deal with...

All seems very reasonable.

I'd go a step further and suggest a mandated pay scale where the corporation can set the value of the pay "unit", but the government sets the maximum differential in pay "units" between Directors, Managers, and the janitor.
At the same time, increase politicians' pay.
This should drastically re-balance the relative competence and power between politicians and the corporations.

The following story might hearten Jeff, by reminding him that even in the USA, the government is capable of making corporations stop their "expanding":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 21 Feb 2016 #permalink

At the same time, increase politicians’ pay.

Not carte blanche, make it performance related and with penalties if malfeasance is exposed, e.g. fraud, insider trading, tax dodging etc., etc.

If this type of regime were applied to many corporate bosses of the last several decades they would now be broke and doing community service instead of enlarging their carbon footprints with exec' jets, yachts etc.

And then there is FIFA and its ilk.

We were talking about Venezuela, Bolivia and their Marxist/Leninist leaders earlier, so by way of an update,

Venezuela: A nation on the brink
"The Chavez revolution in Venezuela is in trouble. Food shortages are hurting the poor, inflation is at 141% per cent, and the economy in meltdown. John Sweeney reports."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03k9w65

And Bolivia,
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/22/bolivia-tensions-rise-as-e…
"But critics accuse him of an authoritarian streak and of favouring his own Aymara majority over other indigenous groups.

The election has done little to dispel such fears. Six people died on Wednesday when demonstrators from Morales’ MAS (Movement Towards Socialism) party set fire to an opposition-run town hall in El Alto. Despite being a traditional stronghold of support for Morales, enraged residents protested outside the burned-out building, vowing to “punish” Morales at the ballot box.

Many voters were uneasy about allowing the president to extend his period in office."

Bizarre how things turnaround in politics, it was only last week that someone was touting Bolivia/Morales as some sort of "paragon" that the rest of world should aspire to, but no, Capitalism wins out again.
;)

I have never tried to link from a facebook post across to a blog.
I hope this works.
I was motivated to try because of Craig's question.
It's titled 'The world's economy explained with cows'
It's amusing but also clever.
I think my favourites were 'bureacratism' and "venture capitalism" but there are about 16 and they're all quite funny.
:-)
https://www.facebook.com/MikeHoskingBreakfast/photos/pcb.10084257058576…

"Lionel A

February 23, 2016
Ayup Spangles: Millennia of sea-level change, pick the tide gauges out of that!"

Fig.5 looks like a lot of fun...

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 23 Feb 2016 #permalink

Remember Murray Salby?

His dismissal from Macquarie University has just been ruled on by the Federal Circuit Court (Salby v Macquarie University & Anor [2016] FCCA 3).

He wasn't prepared to put to any Macquarie witness that his dismissal was because of his climate change views: and the court found unequivocally that his dismissal was because he wouldn't take up his teaching load, and because he misused his uni credit card.

He went off travelling for five weeks of a semester's work, after he had been denied approval for the travel and after he had been told to cancel any travel arrangements made through his uni credit card. And tickets are never allowed to be paid by uni credit card - Macquarie only allows its preferred travel agents to arrange air tickets.

Joanne Codling (Jo Nova) was among the many who repeated Salby's claims that his arrangements were only challenged after he had already left, and that Salby's climate change speeches were the cause. But the judgment shows this was always false, and Salby knew it.

No doubt we'll soon hear how the Australian courts have joined in a conspiracy to suppress Salby's views. An acknowledgment from those who trumpeted Salby that he was sacked properly, for cause, and because of his bad behaviour, not at all because of the climate change views he tried to use to protect himself from the consequences of his actions? You'd have to be dreaming!

By Christopher H (not verified) on 23 Feb 2016 #permalink

GSW seems to be describing the US... a nation on the brink if ever there was one. But he's so utterly pig ignorant about politics and the world that he thinks he makes useful points every time he comes on here. Lionel and I have destroyed every argument this schmuck has ever made; on climate, on biology, on politics, on economics.

Just saw a post on Finland on Fb, a socialist country thriving with the best education system on Earth. Yet GSW is intent on comparing rapacious capitalist nations with poor nations in the south who have been victims of plunder and looting for generations.

GSW, give it a rest. You've been ritually humiliated. Lick your wounds and go back to the crowd at WUWT and JoNova where idiots like you hang out.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 24 Feb 2016 #permalink

Yes jeff, the "someone" touting "paragon" Bolivia/Morales (the Marxist/Lenist) was you.

And now Finland is your model. I don't know how to break this to you jeff, but their economic system is" Free Market Capitalism" ! I never thought I'd ever see you embrace any form of Capitalism nevermind the Free Market kind. You're nothing if not inconsistent.

Jeff the "Free Market Capitalist" - whouda thunk it.
:)

All we need to do now is cure you of your anti-US hate speech e.g. Capitalism's only truely bad when it has the letters US in front of it.

The US one from the link @#65 is also amusing.

“Communism is not cool kids. #BBCdp ”

So you don't take days off or have holidays nor use any communally financed institutions such as the police, courts or fire services?

Or are you a hypocrite?

"We were talking about Venezuela,"

You're using the "royal wee", right?

How about Cuba? You know, the country that's invented a cure for one cancer and is giving it to everyone in the country free and is being asked for their expertise for it?

"50 years ago, Syria’s population was 5million."

And Europe in 50 years went and quadrupled their numbers. That was a while ago, so you probably don't know or care.

After all, the problem is those third world people who are having children, and if they stopped it, you wouldn't have to cut back yourself on your little trinkets.

Tell you what, you go and cut back to the average citizen's CO2 footprint in Syria and THEN come back to us with complaints that now the problem is in their court.

" At the same time, increase politicians’ pay.

Not carte blanche, make it performance related and with penalties if malfeasance is exposed, e.g. fraud, insider trading, tax dodging etc., etc."

Here's the problem with the mindset here, though.

The leaders and bosses get the mantra of "We pay them more, they'll do better and be less corrupt or corruptible", yet workers get the mantra of "You are in a competitive market and you either accept the offer or leave and get no unemployment benefit. And don't you DARE do something slightly dodgy or we'll fire you with reason".

Politicians should be sacked for fraud or malfeasance irrespective of pay.

And if they don't want to accept a pay cut, there's thousands of people who'd take the job on less.

Same for the executives: outsource to cheap countries.

Wow, wow: hear, hear.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 24 Feb 2016 #permalink

"Wow
February 24, 2016
“Communism is not cool kids. #BBCdp ”
So you don’t take days off or have holidays nor use any communally financed institutions such as the police, courts or fire services?
Or are you a hypocrite?"

He might be a hypocrite. It would most likely be irrelevant to his sure knowledge that Communism is a disaster.

I crossed the Iron curtain. Communism was definitely not cool at all.

And we here in Democratic countries manage to have publicly-funded services without resorting to Communism, which has never worked.

Even Kim Philby saw first-hand that it didn't work:
"Kim believed in a just society and devoted his whole life to communism. And here he was struck by disappointment, brought to tears. He said, 'Why do old people live so badly here? After all, they won the war.'"
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/31/spy-kim-philby-disillusion…

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 24 Feb 2016 #permalink

"He might be a hypocrite. It would most likely be irrelevant to his sure knowledge that Communism is a disaster."

There's no "might" about it, I feel. Or might behind it, either.

All we know is that communism is as corruptible from its theory to its practice as capitalism is. We've had where it fails for both and where it succeeds for both.

So the problem can't be the ideology. They are the same whether it works or not.

The only thing that changes is the people implementing it.

"I crossed the Iron curtain. Communism was definitely not cool at all."

I've been to the USA. Capitalism was definitely not cool at all.

I've not been to Cuba, but from what I hear, it appears that Communism is cool.

"Even Kim Philby saw first-hand that it didn’t work:"

And everyone can see that it does work:

http://www.happyplanetindex.org/countries/cuba/

So again, the problem isn't communism.

Do we look at AT&T in its "Ma Bell" period and proclaim that free markets don't work?

I'll leave it to Noam Chomsky and Richard Smith to destroy GSWs right wing piffle:

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/14980-noam-chomsky-will-capitalis…

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/19872-capitalism-and-the-destruct…

GSWs puerile, child-like understanding of politics and the environment is akin to Paul Ehrlich's famous riposte to right wing business economist Julian Simon: its like someone jumps off the top of the Empire State Building, falls 70 out of 100 floors, looks up, smiles and says everything is fine!

There is superabundant evidence that the current dominant political-economic system, under the guise of capitalism, is destroying our ecological life-support systems. Bear in mind that GSW does not have a clue about this field, because he's never studied it. Like other ignorants, he then dismisses it. But its not really capitalism, but the anti-democratic version under the guise of the 'Washington Consensus' that is annihilating nature at ever increasing rates. Thus far, humanity has largely (but not completely) avoided the worst costs of this destruction because natural systems have thus far been resilient enough to withstand the onslaught and to continue to deliver a suite of supporting and regulating services that permit humans to exist and persist. But we are pushing these complex adaptive systems towards a threshold beyond which they will be unable to sustain life in a manner that we know. Scientists like myself, educated in the relevant fields know it, but dopes like GSW who have absolutely no formal education in these fields do not. Instead of trying to learn about the predicament, they wallow in their pit of ignorance and dismiss arguments that are beyond their comprehension.

I honestly find GSW one of the easiest people to vanquish, simply because his knowledge base is so piss-poor. On the other hand, dealing with his kind of insidious stupidity on a constant basis is tiring and at some point a waste of my time. He cannot tease apart regulated capitalism and the dominant current form, whcih is essentially predatory. He clearly does not understand even the basics in the field of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, and the inexorable link with the material economy. For me, I'd one day like to debate this schmuck in front of a large audience, destroy him, and get it over with. He's a troll of the worst kind, and I am sick of him.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 25 Feb 2016 #permalink

I crossed the Iron curtain. Communism was definitely not cool at all.

But then that was not true communism on parade there now was it (look to Cuba for that) just as:

And we here in Democratic countries manage to have publicly-funded services without resorting to Communism, which has never worked.

we don't have true democracy in e.g. the UK, US or Oz (where the last wizard is dead, long live the wizard as they to inhibit CSIRO.

As for publicly funded services, WRT UK let us see:

Post office (telephones) and Royal Mail — privatised
Water utilities — privatised
Rail system — privatised (and I have cracking references that demonstrate the greedy folly that was)
Electricity and gas supplies — privatised
Health care — privatisation by stealth
Education — also privatisation by stealth.

All increasingly beholden to shareholders (mostly corporate, banks and city slickers - not forgetting pension funds for those lucky enough) where profit is king and never mind the collateral damage which in some areas is as lethal as the air strikes in Iraq, Syria, Kosova, Afghanistan etc. etc.

And no, I am not an admirer of the Taliban - another sect/entity which enslaves and mutilates women. As do the Saudis of course but our regimes, mostly, give them a free pass and even carry out arms deals with them.

There is superabundant evidence that the current dominant political-economic system, under the guise of capitalism, is destroying our ecological life-support systems.

Indeed Jeff, but the likes of GSW would rather have their brains turned to cake mix by a viewing diet of baking programmes and faux-celebrity making (e.g. in that latter The Voice and X-Factor). All very nice, introducers, 'experts' and judges dressed in smart and expensive togs on extravagantly created sets pushing out the same ol' same ol'. If the cookery programmes were about how to cook nutritious meals for your kids on a low budget and where, because you have two or three ill-paid zero-hours jobs, time and energy is limited.

What the Yaboos of our country (and that is a disgusting performance from Cameron and the Orcs on the benches behind him - just watch their smug faces) have never had to confront is the difficulties of modern life for the lower paid, or jobless, where lack of public transport, stripping out of banks and cash points from communities and the closure of many sub post offices (see above post for why), lack of local produce suppliers all adds up to problems. Then these 'nasties' in office have the gall to lambaste these poor people for not saving, creeping obesity (lack of nutrition choice) and not getting to job interviews or the job centres.

On that CSIRO, most of us are well aware of the dire effects of a start-up failing suite being in control but just in case GSW etc. have missed it there is an apposite post up at HotWhopper and another at Climate Denial Crock of the Week.

GSW et. al. please also take the time to watch that James Hansen interview just posted at that latter.

I guess its asking too much to expect that the trolls will learn anything from those articles.

" And we here in Democratic countries manage to have publicly-funded services without resorting to Communism, which has never worked."

Yes we did. Those features ARE communism.

There is superabundant evidence that the current dominant political-economic system, under the guise of capitalism, is destroying our ecological life-support systems.

And there is ample evidence that Communist regimes caused even worse ecological damage.

Wow, I've seen communism.
We don't have big tall walls and barbed wire to keep people in our public hospitals and libraries with guards posted around them to shoot escapees.

But then that was not true communism on parade there now was it

Wasn't it? A bunch of communists took over, stated their intention to setup a communist state and then spent 70 years calling it a communist regime. (And mass murdering people).
Are you saying we can't trust communists?

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 25 Feb 2016 #permalink

"And there is ample evidence that Communist regimes caused even worse ecological damage."

Nope. No there isn't.

Deepwater Horizon?
Exxon Valdez?
Dust Bowl?
Fracking ponds in Canada?
Acid Rain?
SF and LA Smogs?
London Smog?

China's current crisis is due to the drive to adopt capitalism, and our refusal to do anything about AGW in politics is because of capitalism.

And those are just off the top of my head, common and universally known examples.

Where's your evidence?

You just can't get over it. You only have what you have been told is the truth and it makes you comfortable, so you can't not keep your head shoved deep in that delusion.

"But then that was not true communism on parade there now was it

Wasn’t it?"

No.

Which is why it is called "Stalinist".

And there is ample evidence that Communist regimes caused even worse ecological damage.

Wow, I’ve seen communism.

I repeat

"We don’t have big tall walls and barbed wire to keep people in our public hospitals and libraries with guards posted around them to shoot escapees."

We do. At least as much as your claim is true of communism.

But it is a nonsequitur any way. Because we shoot escapees. Prisoners, we call them. We shoot kids with toy guns. We shoot people walking home and ignoring the police imperative demands to stop. We kill people because we think they're terrorists and lie about EVERYTHING they did to cover it up.

We bomb weddings because we can't tell north from south.

We support dictators and sell them chemical weapons to use then invade them and kill them because we have the receipts and have decided that they are no longer useful to us.

And so on and so forth.

Funny how denier scum never
bring up ocean heat content.

"But then that was not true communism on parade there now was it " - Nope, almost unadulterated fascism.
Am kinda veteran from the DDR, which symbolizes the Orwellian nightmare for me.

We're turning that way now, actually. Except there's a lot more spam on the walls and in the streets.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 26 Feb 2016 #permalink

"And there is ample evidence that Communist regimes caused even worse ecological damage."

There's a Fukushima for every Chernobyl...

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 26 Feb 2016 #permalink

Craig, I have seen communism too. Terrible system. But they did not have the technology to damage the environment the way unrelgulated capitalism is now doing across the biosphere. Not even close.

You know Craig, I think that you are a pretty bright guy with some clear blind spots. Like GSW, you appear to think that if someone points out the ecological costs of predatory capitalism, then by default they must be communists. Then you go on to point out what a rotten system communism is, as if that somehow vindicates the veritable ecocide being inflicted across the planet by the rich nations and unbridled capitalism. It doesn't.

GSW is beyond hope: idealogically blinkered combined with not even a basic understanding of environmental science. You should know better. You are defending the indefensible: a political system as currently defined that is taking us over the brink. You won't win debates with me or the others here by trying to defend a rapaciously unsustainable system by comparing it with a bankrupt alternative.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 26 Feb 2016 #permalink

"A bunch of communists took over, stated their intention to setup a communist state and then spent 70 years calling it a communist regime. (And mass murdering people)."

How about replacing the word 'communsit' with 'European settlers' in North America and their veritable genocide of native Americans? Or heck, Craig, you live in Australia where the white settlers massacred Aborigines; then again, look at European colonialism across Africa, Asia and South America where natives were murdered in industrial numbers by our 'civilized' cultures...

Craig, you do speak a lot of utter tosh....

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 26 Feb 2016 #permalink

Ah, no wonder you're so screwed up as an individual jeff if you think 'Capitalism' is about 'genocide of native' peoples.

Wiki link here,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

"According to economist Joseph Schumpeter, capitalism is the most successful economic system that has existed thus far; benefiting the entire population by raising their living standards."

Bizarrely no mention of 'jeff world' "genocide". Seriously jeff I marvel at just how dysfunctional you are; No Physics, no maths, no science, just hate speech and a loathing of everything that surrounds you.

How sad.
;)

"Ah, no wonder you’re so screwed up as an individual jeff if you think ‘Capitalism’ is about ‘genocide of native’ peoples."

That's even less accurate a conclusion than claiming you think that communism is about destroying the planet.

In short, your comment is retarded and you are retarded.

"benefiting the entire population by raising their living standards.”

The USA is seeing a level of poverty not seen since the great depression, and maybe not even then.

So who is this moron and why is he right in your mind?

#93 40 million in the US on food stamps...that must be a different kind of capitalism, eh.

Bwahahahahaha.
Although im rather anxious about
the future, sometimes i laugh.
Did a google search
" pattern recognition in physics "
Got the brief rundown on wikipedia.
Noticed on the same page something
by jonova and read that.
bwahahaha.
Absolutely typifies the fucked up
denier conspiracy mindset.

Ive seen them impovrished
yanks.
heaps of em have a
house just for their motorcar
to live in.

"Seriously jeff I marvel at just how dysfunctional you are"

A lot, lot less than you, GSW. As I said, I'd debate you face to face any day on any topic and annihilate you. You are a text book case of Dunning-Kruger: all talk, no bonafides. My scientific credentials alone put pay to your comment. There's no comparison.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 28 Feb 2016 #permalink

And of course, there are other academics who have a very different view from Schumpeter:

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/16887-the-structural-genocide-tha…

But since IMHO and that of many others GSW is a dishonest, incompetent liar, let's review his strategy on debating:

1. He expounds an opinion
2. He ignores a wealth of evidence on the other side, even if, as in the climate change debate, the vast majority is on the other side
3. In many instances, he will take single studies or opinions and then paste them here as if they now represent the 'bottom line'; witness his pasting Crockford's piece on WUWT about Polar Bears, in which she herself had selectively quoted pieces from an article by a scientist (Cronin) in a relatively low impact journal. The opposite conclusions in dozens of other studies in higher impact journals by more qualified researchers are then summarily dismissed.
4. He smears the qualifications of those he doesn't like or agree with while pasting up CVs of those he does agree with.

This type of kindergarten-level debating standard is not restricted, of course, to simpletons like GSW. I've seen all of the climate change deniers do it up here on Deltoid, as well as all over the blogosphere. He's now using it to defend the enormous human and environmental impact of unregulated capitalism.

I have said it many times and I will say it again: we are hammering him here, and yet he keeps coming back. In addition to his stupidity, he is clearly also a sucker for self-punishment.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 28 Feb 2016 #permalink

“According to economist Joseph Schumpeter, capitalism is the most successful economic system that has existed thus far; benefiting the entire population by raising their living standards.”

So says some over-privileged, blinkered academic who has never noticed the increasing gap in wealth between the top 1 % of the top 1% let alone between that latter and the rest of the populations. He clearly has never heard of the rising tide of homelessness and people relying on food-banks. We have drifted back to a Dickensian world that should have been left far behind.

Now some of us are well aware of how, in general, the leaders are allowed to let this, or actively encourage this to continue. The mask slipped just this last week to reveal the way these people think and what odious people are in charge, or doing THEIR master's bidding. Cameron may have unsettled his handlers with that faux-pass, we shall see.

jeff, you are going to be dysfunctional (socially and intellectually) if you listen to weirdos like garry leech,

"What Are We Waiting For? (Let the Revolution Begin) "
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9NUBKGwNjA

as you did in your #100, unblievable. No wonder you think Capitalism is about murdering people - you and garry don't even make enough sense to be considered "lunatic fringe". You're a sick man jeff.
;)

Another, literally, Oh $h!t event but don't worry everything is going to be just fine.

Gitter, why is it you always claim your problems on other people?

Is it your lack of imagination, so you can't think up anything yourself, you can only pluck from the accurate labels used against you that you found hurtful and unanswerable?

Fuck, even Trump is more self aware than you.

And will you stop with the belief that capitalism is out to infect children with AIDS, it's disgusting that you'd claim that in your hatred of the capitalist system.

I have to take it on the word of a right wing lunatic (GSW) that I am, in his words, "a sick man". I seriously take that as a compliment. If a wacko like GSW thinks I am sick, then I must be doing something right. Thanks for the compliment, you brainless schmuck. Note also how his only riposte to the Truthdig article was to smear the author. Remember folks, this is the same GSW who thinks that Anthony Watts and the crowd at WUWT are normal, and worships at the feet of people like Joanne Nova. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Gormless isn't even correct that capitalist nations have not committed mass murder in pursuit of nakedly political and economic agendas. Aside for the staggering death toll committed by the United States alone over the past half century (more than 10 million dead in its own imperial adventures) we have its capitalist proxies like Indonesia under Suharto, which slaughtered certainly upwards of a million including a third of the population of East Timor alone, as well as its client states across central and South America between the 1960s and 1980s. The list is far too big for me to list here. And it goes back even farther than that, if we listen to the famous quote of General Smedley Butler, who, when serving for the United States marines "Helped in the rape of half a dozen central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street; I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism". etc. Nothing more needs to be said.

Pretty well everyone on here knows that GSW is a brainless idiot. He adds further evidence with each of his posts.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 29 Feb 2016 #permalink

As for Gary Leech, he is a very well respected author and writer whose main crime in the eyes of Gormless is that he is a socialist. Note again how GSW is unable to critique what Leech says so he goes for the man himself with a vacuous smear. Is it no wonder that crushing GSW in debates is so bloody easy?

http://garryleech.com/

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 29 Feb 2016 #permalink

Look jeff, you chose to align yourself with this guy. Again for those that missed the full horror of the man last time,

“What Are We Waiting For? (Let the Revolution Begin) ”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9NUBKGwNjA

We've done the whole "Communism thing" and agreed it is really bad; impoverished people, environmentally catastrophic. Garry Leech's "Revolution" and "Social control over the means of production" is exactly that. - Wrap it all up in some anti US, anti free world bigotry and you call it an "ideology".

You're a sick individual jeff- intellectually weak, ideologically blind.
:)

Look you idiot, no matter how many times you proclaim capitalism's sole goal is to murder children, YOU ARE WRONG.

I am sick alright GSW - sick of you. You're an idiot with a kindergarten's level view of the world. You are clearly unable to elucidate trends, all of which show that the current dominant political-economic system is driving our planet towards a precipice. One in eight bird species is threatened with extinction, one in four vascular plants, and one in three amphibians. Ecological systems are fraying, and there's superabundant empirical evidence to prove it. Again, you think in only the present tense, because you are not intellectually equipped to think ahead. As I said, in a debate I would annihilate you. Pick an academic venue and I'd debate you anywhere on any topic. You hide behind your anonymous handle because it is all you have to camouflage your ignorance.

Wealth is being concentrated as never before in human history, democracy is eroding and power is being held in the hands of a tiny oligarchic elite who are intent on ensuring that this power remains in the hands of the privileged few.

People like you are actually scary because there are many out there who think the same way. Dumbed down by their corporate media and the elites who own it. You are an intellectual lightweight compared with most everyone else on here. When your rhetoric is exposed, you resort to vacuous smears. No substance.

As for the 'communist thing', it bears no relevance at all to the ravages imposed across the biosphere by unregulated capitalism. The US is also most certainly not free, at least politically. Trust a clot like you to suggest that it is. To make it to the White House one has to be rich, well connected to the banks, Wall Street and/or corporate sector and most importantly has to be one who does not threaten their interests. You won't see someone from the slums or economic no-go zones asecending high in the political ring over there. If the US was a remotely democratic as Haiti or Brazil I'd hold out a tiny shard of optimism, but as it is the country is a fully-fledged plutocracy and has been for quite some time. Run by the rich for the benefits of the rich.

Lastly, I am constantly surprised why a simpleton like you writes in here. What you write is seriously kindergarten-level stuff for anyone who has read even the basics. You truly appear to believe the piffle you write, and think that you are making some valid points. You aren't.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 29 Feb 2016 #permalink

"We’ve done the whole “Communism thing”"

We did? Where did you do it?

" and agreed it is really bad;"

No we didn't.

The USA tried the whole "capitalism" thing and it failed and we all agreed it was a bad thing. You may have heard of the failure: the great depression.

It was really bad.

Now the USA is hoping like hell it will work THIS time, but in the meantime you don't get to claim it's working. It already failed once, you're just trying the same thing again and expecting a different result.

Ok jeff, as you're clearly no going to dissociate yourself from the politics of this loathsome character (you brought him up in the first place),

“What Are We Waiting For? (Let the Revolution Begin) ”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9NUBKGwNjA

I'm going to assume you're "as one" on his anti US, anti free world, pro revolution, pro-marxist states - and we've all agreed they is bad - and more of your ideologically unsound, ill informed and bigoted rants aren't going to change that. How humbling for you, exposed at last.
:)

Look Gitter, stop regaling us with your fantasies about child molestation, it's sick.

Here we go again with this anti-US, anti-free world, pro-Marxist bull****. I might as well be debating a rabbit - that's how clued-in GSW is. Loathsome character? What? According to you, GSW? So now you have a monopoly on wisdom and ethics? It seems like from the video that Leech has a vision of a humane, equal society that seems to slip right by dorks like you.

For GSW, its not loathsome for the USA to wage resource wars against poverty stricken countries that leaves millions dead in tgheir wake; for US-based corporations to plunder lands of the poor and to pollute them. I am sure that GSW thinks that elite politicians like Bush, Romney, Trump, Cruz and their ilk are honorable men. He thinks that the US political system is 'real democracy'.

Get lost, dope. I don't want to waste any more time on a nincompoop like you. The soil microbes I work with have more common sense.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 29 Feb 2016 #permalink

Seriously, folks, GSW is so utterly stupid that it makes me cringe. He's reached the anoxic zone with some of his latest musings. The world is so simple to people like him; and that's what makes him appear so utterly ridiculous. What's obvious is that he's hardly read a thing in his life, aside from commentaries by Charlies Karuthammer, George Will and the Koch Brothers. I have met some narive and ignorant people in my 58 years, but GSW is vying for pole position. He's THAT dumb.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 29 Feb 2016 #permalink

Yeah I was actually beginning to feel sorry for GSW..

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 29 Feb 2016 #permalink

I also find it amusing that GSW calls me 'bigoted'.... what he means by that is anyone's guess. I sure am bigoted against brainless blowhards like him, so that might be his drift...

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 29 Feb 2016 #permalink

I am amazed by the way some who I once thought rational are rooting for The Donald whilst at the same time holding the cognitive dissonance position of being pro-life (that is against abortion) and yet at the same time argue against gun control and express anger at those who suggest a need to bring in such measures, e.g. Obama. Oh! And many of them appear to have demonstrative Christian beliefs. No wonder the world is going to hell in a handcart.

I really fear what will happen if the next incumbent in the Whitehouse is a Republican for I see no chance of moderation of profligate behaviour or continuance of those research projects currently yielding the climate data that so un-hinges the likes of Lamar Smith (watch and groan at the obsequiousness evident in Smith's face at the beginning) there was something quite chilling about that facial tic and Ted Cruz.

's called 'projection', Jeff. Use it :)

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 01 Mar 2016 #permalink

So who cares what that dopey bitch says?

How do you know it's correct?

Oh dear, it turns out even OA has been overblown,

"Scientists ‘are exaggerating carbon threat to marine life"
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environment/article4702412.ece
"An “inherent bias” in scientific journals in favour of more calamitous predictions has excluded research showing that marine creatures are not damaged by ocean acidification, which is caused by the sea absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere."

"“In some cases it was levels far beyond what would ever be reached even if we burnt every molecule of carbon on the planet,” Howard Browman, the editor of ICES Journal of Marine Science, who oversaw the review, said. He said that a handful of influential scientific journals and lobbying by international organisations had turned ocean acidification into a major issue. The bias in favour of doom-laden articles was partly the result of pressure on scientists to produce eye-catching work, he added."

Howard Browman,
Principal Research Scientist (equivalent to an academic rank of Full Professor), Norwegian Institute of Marine Research (since March 1998)
1989 Ph.D. in Systematics & Ecology (Limnology, with Honours), University of Kansas.
1985 M.Sc. in Biological Oceanography, McGill University.
1982 B.Sc. in Marine Biology, McGill University.
http://www.imr.no/om_havforskningsinstituttet/ansatte/b/howard_browman/…

So now we don't even have to be concerned about that, another "non-issue" put to bed.
:)

Oh dear, Gitter seems to have gotten it all wrong, again. When the scientists say it's a problem, he doesn't believe them. When some scientist says it isn't, he does.

Hardly the actions of someone with a working brain.

Jeff says, "Wealth is being concentrated as never before in human history, "

I'd be interested - how poor were poor people in, say, 1300?

And how rich were the rich people? And how many rich people were there?

Because from my reading of mediaeval history, the poor people were exceedingly poor. By contrast, today's poor people often have smartphones, can access medical care, have had smallpox removed from their lives, and receive cash aid/food aid for joblessness/harvest failures.

The population of Europe was reduced by 30% by one disease alone in about 1350, back when poor people were really poor, and before rich people "concentrated" enough wealth to setup universities and develop some useful knowledge which has made poor people's lives so much more comfortable.

This oppositionary gut reaction to "wealth concentration" is a naive rejection of the 10,000-year-long development of job specialisation. This naivety is reflected in what happens when communists come to power: wealth isn't un-concentrated, it simply vanishes.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 01 Mar 2016 #permalink

Oh no, here we go again with GSWs "I'll pick one study out that contrasts with dozens of others with very differing conclusions, then trumpet the qualifications of the writer to make it look like the bottom line".

We've demolished GSW on this abuse of science before, and yet he returns again with it.

"Earth to moron; Earth to moron: science does not work this way".

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 02 Mar 2016 #permalink

Craig, I am not advocating communism. Will you please desist from this stupid argument, as if the only alternative to the current dominant ecocidal system is communism? I am saying that capitalism, at least the current non-democratic, rapaciously predatory kind, is driving the planet and our ecological life support systems towards the brink. Like Bjorn Lomborg, you appear to think that human well-being and the health of natural ecosystems that sustain us are unconnected. What I am saying, supported by volumes of evidence if you bothered to look, is that free market absolutism and the Washington Consensus version of capitalism is enabling humanity to take care more out of natural systems than those natural systems are able to replace. We are living as a species in deficit, and the only reason the consequences of this thus far have not been more severe is because of in-built redundancy in nature that enables these systems to still function effectively when much of the biodiversity that makes it up has been lost. But there's no guarantee that we can continue to consume ever increasing amounts of nature and not expect at some point critical thresholds to be crossed where the systems break down, taking with them a suite of important services upon which we depend.

I noted yesterday that a new study reports that 20% of pollinators are threatened with extinction. The corporate media largely gave this bit of terrifying news a bye, as it often does, and in the Dutch papers it was consigned to tiny columns on the back pages alongside the news of the death of Elvis Presley's presonal physician. This illustrates the depths to which the mainstream media dumbs down the populace.

The scientific literautre is full of studies showing how man's assault on natural systems, increasing in pace and scale, is reducing the capacity of these systems to function effectively. Like it or not, the current version of capitalism is responsible for much of the damage. Capitalism can work if those holding the reins of power in the corporations are accountable to democracy. But they have used their wealth and power to avoid and even subvert democracy when it intereferes with their ability to maximize profits. The US version of democracy is a charade. The corporate sector controls every lever of power there. Its a plutocracy, through and through. Government and industry are revolving doors. This is a bastaridized version of capitalism that will accept no limits to short-term profits. And its this that we need to bring down.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 02 Mar 2016 #permalink

A few final points to GSW and his inability to understand how science works. First, Howard Browman is not a big name in his field. On the ISI Web of Science since 1986 he has 106 papers with just over 2000 citations and an h-factor of 25 - meaning it goes up less than once a year since his first paper. You are so fond of bashing me, but I have 170 papers since 1993 with 4900 citations and an h-factor of 41. In other words, you smear who you don't like and bloat the bonafides of those you do like. Pathetic.

Second, as I said, one study does not constitute the 'bottom line'. Many others draw very different conclusions, and there will be rejoinders of this one for sure. Your strategy is a simple one: 200 studies draw one conclusion, then one new study draws another, and you pound your chest and say, "therefore no problem". In an academic lecture hall you'd be laughed into oblivion. But you don't inhabit academic lectrure halls because you're not good enough.

Third, nice to know that you are on first name terms with deniers. It seems so fitting for a clown like you.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 02 Mar 2016 #permalink

One final point: the impact factor of the journal which published Browmans paper is 2.377. This places it in the bottom tier of ecology journals. One wonders why he didn't go for Ecology Letters (IF 13) or Global Change Biology (IF 8) or many others with IFs over 3. I'll tell you why. Probably because it would have been rejected. Lower IF journals have much more lenient standards for acceptance.

Note how the denialati though focus laser-like on any study, no matter where it is published. Browman's study, not surprisingly, is doing the rounds in the right wing corporate media and denier blogs. This is why IMHO they are a dishonest bunch of liars for the most part.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 02 Mar 2016 #permalink

"How do you know it’s correct?" - Australian corporate-fascist regime, go figure.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 02 Mar 2016 #permalink

"Jeff says, “Wealth is being concentrated as never before in human history, ”

I’d be interested – how poor were poor people in, say, 1300?"

Craig, I'd be interested, how rich were rich people in, say, 1300.

You don't seem to understand this word: "DISPARITY", ever heard of it you fucking retard, "DISPARITY"! "DISPARITY!!!!"

When the rich people had three nice robes and a shitter that had an entrance inside the house which the poor didn't, the disparity was pretty damn slim.

"Craig, I am not advocating communism. Will you please desist from this stupid argument, "

Remember, Jeff, to morons if you're not agreeing with them you must be agreeing with a position they are opposed to.

This is (one facet of) Craig's problem. You're not blind to the problems of capitalism, AND TALK ABOUT THEM, therefore you "must" be pushing communism under a stalin regime.

Because to the intellectually incapable, they cannot hold more than two viewpoints at the same time, and nuance cannot be contained in the limited confines of their ego.

" I think citizen apathy for “non issues” is finally having an effect"

Too bad this apathy GSW refers to does not apply to foreign resource wars or coercion in which the US is involved. But then again, its obvious that public opinion is either manipulated or else ignored when the powerful interests of the ruling elites and corporations is threatened. Hence trillions will continue to flow from the public to support the military industrial complex, which benefits only the privileged few, whereas climate change, which is a profound threat humanity but which is instead perceived only through the narrow lens of the profit margins of the fossil fuel industries, must therefore be ignored or ridiculed.

The agendas are clear, but, as expected, GSW is just too patently stupid to understand them.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 02 Mar 2016 #permalink

Thoughtful piece in today's American Thinker,

"A dose of reality about socialism for Sanders supporters"
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/03/a_dose_of_reality_about_soc…

"The virtually complete takeover of public and higher education by the left has resulted in a vast cohort of the American public completely ignorant of the failure of socialism everywhere it has been applied."

Yes, we know. Quoting Garry Kasparov,

"I'm enjoying the irony of American Sanders supporters lecturing me, a former Soviet citizen, on the glories of Socialism and what it really means! Socialism sounds great in speech soundbites and on Facebook, but please keep it there. In practice, it corrodes not only the economy but the human spirit itself, and the ambition and achievement that made modern capitalism possible and brought billions of people out of poverty. Talking about Socialism is a huge luxury, a luxury that was paid for by the successes of capitalism. Income inequality is a huge problem, absolutely. But the idea that the solution is more government, more regulation, more debt, and less risk is dangerously absurd."

The article continues,

"Perhaps in response to those who claim that Sanders is really more about Scandinavian-style socialism than the actual ownership of all means of production by the state, Kasparov wrote:

Yes, please take Scandinavia as an example! Implementing some socialistic elements AFTER becoming a wealthy capitalist economy only works as long as you don't choke off what made you wealthy to begin with in the process. Again, it's a luxury item that shouldn't be confused with what is really doing the work, as many do. And do not forget that nearly all of the countless 20th-century innovations and industries that made the rest of the developed world so efficient and comfortable came from America, and it wasn't a coincidence. As long as Europe had America taking risks, investing ambitiously, and yes, being "inequal," it had the luxury of benefiting from the results without making the same sacrifices. Who will be America's America?"

Bright chap Kasparov, what right minded person would take issue with his wise words?

It's a pretty reliable indicator that it;s worthless when you claim it's "thoughtful", since you only like to think thoughts you already want to believe in the first place.

And this was no exception.

Jeff, "Like Bjorn Lomborg, you appear to think that human well-being and the health of natural ecosystems that sustain us are unconnected."

That hurts. Where have I ever said such a thing? My point is that you are only seeing the downsides of what I consider to be a successful system for governance. It is successful because it is full of compromises. Nobody is fully happy, but the most people are happy to a point. Unlike other systems for governance, there is feedback - when the papermill dumps bleach into the river and kills all the fish, shit hits the fan and the democratic process provides for improving things. I understand that this process has failed to protect West Papuans from FreePortMcMoran. So far. Maybe activists who spend so much time worrying about economic migrants could spend more time addressing the genocide in West Papua and we'd get some progress?
Capitalism has provided the wealth with which problems can be addressed. Democracy provides the mechanism whereby the wealth can be applied in a constructive way.

Wow,
"Remember, Jeff, to morons if you’re not agreeing with them you must be agreeing with a position they are opposed to.
This is (one facet of) Craig’s problem. You’re not blind to the problems of capitalism, AND TALK ABOUT THEM, therefore you “must” be pushing communism under a stalin regime."

If you are advocating the end of capitalism, you must advocate an alternative. You are exceptionally vague on what the alternative is - which, in practice, and from the lessons of history, tells us you are advocating some mixture of chaos/communism as per previous real-world examples.

If you want some respect for your apparently naive opposition to capitalism and promotion of an infinitely inferior option, you'll need to provide some detail on what could replace it and deliver better real-world outcomes.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 02 Mar 2016 #permalink

Wow
"Craig, I’d be interested, how rich were rich people in, say, 1300.
You don’t seem to understand this word: “DISPARITY”, ever heard of it you fucking retard, “DISPARITY”! “DISPARITY!!!!”"

Having studied mediaeval history, I am aware the disparity was huge.

What I don't know is how that compares with today.

Do you have any quantified information about this comparison?
Or are you happy to throw abuse from a position of studied ignorance?

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 02 Mar 2016 #permalink

"That hurts. Where have I ever said such a thing? "

When has Jeff said that communism was great? That was an accusation you'd made to him earlier. Didn't seem to care about direct quotation there...

"Having studied mediaeval history, I am aware the disparity was huge."

Having studied it, you should be aware the disparity was pretty damn small compared to what the difference is today.

Since your claim is opposite to that, you really have just shown that you haven't studied it. You just made up a story in your head that helped you feel good about yourself

"Do you have any quantified information about this comparison?"

Well, if you're going to demand numbers, then there were only 16 people in London that had a net worth of £1000 or more in the 1500s.

Before then, money really didn't mean anything since nobody earned money or used money, except in international negotiations, even trade was a minor economic activity, frequently being done in a barter system rather than coinage.

But it's rather odd that you demand quatified figures so late in the game here when you've really done nothing other than wave your ideological blindness in everyone's face. Not really been one for the "quantified information" when it's you who has to supply it...

So, got any quantified numbers for your claims? Or is this just an avoidance tactic you're going to play up despite it being pointed out to you, because you have no shame whatsoever?

"If you are advocating the end of capitalism,"

And if I'm not? Maybe you need to stop listening to the voices in your head and reading what you see behind the eyes and start listening outside your own thought bubble.

Wow asks, "So, got any quantified numbers for your claims? "

Gosh, from habitually going off half-cocked you've progress to the completely un-cocked.

What claims? We are discussing the claim that current concentration of wealth is unique in history. I am questioning those claims, which were supported with zero facts.

My question centred around 1350. You claim nobody used money prior to that, which is incorrect. The rich did.
The *poor*, on the other hand, had little troq with money. They worked wage-free for half their working week, earning subsistence for the remainder. Except when crops failed and they starved to death.

It is difficult to see how somebody who is (quite rightly, sceptically) questioning somebody else's unsupported claim can be labelled a "retard" prior to any facts being given.
It's little wonder that even the retarded climate deniers have learned to view Wow as a source of clownism and amusement which rapidly becomes extremely tiresome and pointless.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 02 Mar 2016 #permalink

"Wow

March 2, 2016
“If you are advocating the end of capitalism,”

And if I’m not?"

Good to see you agree with us that Jeff is wrong. *If* that's what you are trying to communicate here. Maybe you can be a bit clearer to ensure the "retards" among us don't get the wrong end of the stick in future?

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 02 Mar 2016 #permalink

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
(Table 4: Share of wealth held by the Bottom 99% and Top 1% in the United States, 1922-2010.)

http://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-to-statisti…
"...the share of before-tax income that the richest 1 percent of households receive ... has climbed to levels not seen since the 1920s.

This all seems to directly contradict Jeff's claim.

However, it seems a very one-dimensional view on what exactly is "wealth", anyway.
What about collective wealth?
The "bottom" benefit from assets such as transport infrastructure, educational and health systems that are superior today than in the past. Also, there are international organisations, eg the UN, which provides collective benefits through a raft or Commissions that address disease, conflict and catastrophe to reduce their occurrence and mitigate their impact, all of which benefits the poor.
A true measure of "wealth" should include all the things that provide a benefit....

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 02 Mar 2016 #permalink

And perhaps this helps put me scepticism into context:
http://ftp.iza.org/dp8157.pdf

" when it comes to the study of long run inequality the
availability of any data at all is often the binding constraint."

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 02 Mar 2016 #permalink

"Altogether, this analysis shows that with respect to the development of inequality almost all countries display a secular decline in top income shares over the twentieth century up until around 1980. This decline is substantial: top percentile shares drop from around 20 percent of total personal income at the beginning of the 1900s to between 5 and 10 percent around 1980.
In many countries much of this decline is concentrated around the World Wars and the Great Depression. Around 1980 the decline in top shares stops and in most countries they start to increase. "

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 02 Mar 2016 #permalink

OK, best figures I can find has post-industrial wealth inequality:
http://ftp.iza.org/dp8157.pdf

P143 shows that Australia's top1% had 35% of the nation's wealth. This fell to 6% in the 1960s and 1970s, and has since doubled.

European countries show a similar pattern, though the recent growth in inequality is less steep.

So, Jeff is wrong.

Where Jeff and I will surely agree: the current trajectory of wealth inequality is undesirable.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 02 Mar 2016 #permalink

Craig, you are lost in your own rhetoric. I am saying that the rich nations maintain their status by looting resources from the south. I am also saying that the current form of predatory capitalism is driving our planet's ecological life support systems to hell in a handbasket.

Its time you sat up and tried to understand how developed countries can maintain ecological deficits in their economies. Its called plunder; looting; theft; coercion etc.

Finally, NAFTA has created massive economic no-go zones in its wake. To claim that the poor are better off in America now than they were just 50 years ago is ridiculous. I won't even bother to address it. Again, you are an intelligent person with numerous blind spots. Post after post of statistics whereas if one looks at the world today, they see a planet of slums. The poor in the south from rural zones have flocked to the cities in the desperate hope of finding employment there as western economic policies effectively starved them out of existence. And there's bundles of evidence for this, too.

The current trajectory of wealth inequality is not only undesirable. If its not reduced dramatically then we are on the long, slow road to catastrophe, quoting economist Tom Athanasiou in his book, "Divided Planet: The Ecology of Rich and Poor".

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 03 Mar 2016 #permalink

GSW quotes Gary Kasparov. Enough said, No riposte required except to say that Sanders is no socialist. In Europe he'd be considered center-right.

As for bringing down capitalism, I have no qualms in saying that the current form as described well by people who ought to know like John Perkins is utterly devoid of humanity and is destroying tour planet's ecological life support systems. If we don't make radical changes in addressing poverty in the south and in the massive disparity between the rich and poor then we are heading to disaster. As said above, Craig's view about it being 'undesirable' understates the situation by about a factor of ten thousand.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 03 Mar 2016 #permalink

Well THAT was certainly a load of horseshit there, Craig. Got anything that ISN'T from the Ayn Rand catalogue?

"Wow asks, “So, got any quantified numbers for your claims? ”

Gosh, from habitually going off half-cocked you’ve progress to the completely un-cocked."

Non sequitur. Does not actually propose any answers nor point to ones given earlier and missed, but pretends to do so.

This is a LOT like Gitter, Stupid et al. You sure you're not a sock of those morons?

"“If you are advocating the end of capitalism,”

And if I’m not?”

Good to see you agree with us that Jeff is wrong. "

Yup, inside the insanity of the rightwingnutjob, everything they hear is what they internally insist it must be.

NO, FUCKFACE.

I'll post the fucking thing again, since despite quoting it, you STILL haven't read a fucking thing:

Remember, Jeff, to morons if you’re not agreeing with them you must be agreeing with a position they are opposed to.
This is (one facet of) Craig’s problem. You’re not blind to the problems of capitalism, AND TALK ABOUT THEM, therefore you “must” be pushing communism under a stalin regime.

YOUR insanity is NOT my problem, moron.

"What claims?"

Yup, 100% Stu2 going on there. What a fucking lunatic you are, Crag Asshat mcStu-pid.

So you've made no fucking claims at all, and therefore have nothing in ANY of your posts.

@jeff

You can't just dismiss Kasparov, he's a respected author and political activist! Also, HE has first hand experience living within the sort of regimes you advocate. Again,

"In practice, it [Communism] corrodes not only the economy but the human spirit itself, and the ambition and achievement that made modern capitalism possible and brought billions of people out of poverty."

Firstly that's bad, and secondly there is enough real world evidence to show that is undeniably true. There's nothing more "equal" than universal poverty - the fact they are "equal" is no big draw I can assure you. You can get a copy of Garry's book here,

"Winter is Coming"
http://www.amazon.com/Winter-Is-Coming-Vladimir-Enemies/dp/1610396200
"Why Vladimir Putin and the Enemies of the Free World Must Be Stopped"

You and your ilk are firmly in the "Enemies of the Free World" camp, as is your favoured author and political activist, Garry Leech,

“What Are We Waiting For? (Let the Revolution Begin) ”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9NUBKGwNjA

Again jeff, we did that experiment in the 20th Century. there is no longing to return these distopian societies in the naive hope that they will somehow be better this time around with a bit of "tinkering" and corporate rebadging of the "toxic" brand "Communism", get used to it!

@jeff

You don't seem to be able to "get" this for some reason(?). Today's spectator covers the subject as well,

"Britain needs a museum of communist terror"
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/britain-needs-a-museum-of-communist-…
"Put this all together and you come to realise that, across the world, the biggest man-made disaster of the 20th century was the terror and death inflicted by communist regimes."

"But awareness of this is fading. The generation that has grown up since the collapse of the Berlin Wall does not seem to understand the connection between communism and terror. Today, they are able to think that communism is the ultimate form of egalitarianism, a perfectly amiable ideology. In Britain and America, the far left is experiencing a surge of popularity."

Everyone else "gets" it jeff, why are you so slow on uptake?

@jeff

You can’t just dismiss Kasparov, he’s a respected author and political activist! Also, HE has first hand experience living within the sort of regimes you advocate. Again,...

Only if you mischaracterise Jeff's position and overlook Kasperov's mischaracterisation of the Soviet system. But then you have been called on this so many times now thus you are either too thick to appreciate nuances of political spectrums or a dishonest repeater of known, to you, garbage. I figure that latter by being evident in your citing of crap from the American Thinker.

Kasparaov is IMO a quack. An uber right wing quack, that is. Some good pieces parody him:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/11382
http://www.counterpunch.org/2007/12/05/why-murdoch-s-journal-loves-kasp…

He's beyond funny. Some of the stuff Kasparov says is truly hilarious if not alarming. The guy is constantly banging the drum for the US to engage in bigger confrontations with Russia. He loved Reagan, who was a venal, vile president that supported death squads murdering hundreds of thousands across Latin America and which embraced some of the most despicable butchers in the region like Rios Montt in Guatemala, various monsters in El Salvador as well as the Contras in Nicaragua.

Kasparov is a darling of the far right in the US, hence its no surprise why GSW pastes up some of his bilge.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 03 Mar 2016 #permalink

Then GSW cites an article from the Spectator. Is he truly serious? The gravest threats to humanity at present are environmental. No ands, ifs or buts.

With respect to Craig's posts, I was wondering if he had ever heard of the terms 'ecological deficit' or 'ecological footprint'. Has he ever read anything from Mathis Wackernagel or William Rees? Does he understand the concept of lag effects and the extinction debt? I've provided enough clues here for him to figure out that environmental trends are alarming; we are talking about our life support systems and the unsustainable use (overuse) of natural capital. To many cornucopians, its like these terms do not even exist. They cannot see beyond the ends of their noses; everything is based on NOW. And f*** the future. The prognosis for humanity is dire, as we are overconsuming natural capital. We've cut down half of the world''s trees (from 6 trillion to 3 trillion; see Crowther et al., Nature, 2015) in the past several centuries. We co-opt mosre than 50% of freshwater flows and 40% of net primary production. More than 60% of critical regulating and supporting ecological services have been degraded severely. The num,ber of species threatened with extinction is rising linearly and is truly alarming. This week it was reported that 20% of pollinators are threatened with extinction in the coming decades. Other species that perform vital services are being lost, either at the species or population level.

Corporate profit driven agendas do not recognize limits to economic growth and profit-based expansion. They ignore underlying trends in the health and vitality of natural systems that permit humans to exist and to persist. We sit on the cusp of a 500 year rampage across the biosphere. The current dominant system acts as if the planet's resource base is infinite. Ecological services are externalized in economic pricing, something the corporate sector has fought hard to maintain for decades.

Against this we have people who clearly cannot fathom the abyss towards which we are headed in what appears to be slow motion. They think humans are exempt from constraints imposed on natural systems. The current form of capitialism, driven on the basis of short-term proft and damn nature, is pushing systems towards the brink. Corporate CEOs do not plan 10 or even 5 years ahead. They think solely in quarterly, half year of at most one year in advance portfolios. And since the time of Reagan and Thatcher, more and more power has been allotted to corporations in the drive for deregulation. The consequences have been an unmitigated disaster for nature, one that will rebound on us (it already is). When the shit really hits the fan is hard to tell, but speaking as a scientist I can say that we are headed in that direction. This unfettered power of the private sector needs to be reined in. And soon.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 03 Mar 2016 #permalink

All you have written is so frighteningly true Jeff.

Never mind (1) catastrophic global warming how about adding to that

(2) catastrophic shortage of water suitable for agriculture, drinking and hygiene needs

which brings us to

(3) catastrophic spread of diseases

(4) catastrophic shortage of food

all of which will weaken the populations across the globe compounding the effects of all the others and bring on

(5) war, especially propelled by (2) and (4)

which will certainly lead to apocalyptic conditions before sea level rise bites hard to exacerbate things further.

There is one other factor ticking in the background and that is the cocktail of man made molecules floating around the environment causing reproduction, developmental and other health problems. Read Our Stolen Future: Are We Threatening Our Fertility, Intelligence, and Survival?, if you don't believe me GSW.

Many of us have seen this coming and if The Donald happens to become the next POTUS then humans and fellow travellers of Earth are going to have a very rough ride as we move towards all that.

The armed gangs everywhere will maybe get by for awhile but like Lee van Cleef will eventually succumb, probably from disease brought on by lack of sanitation and or wounds turning sceptic.

I'm curious jeff, what do think is wrong with you? (I'm thinking it's loads)

This, is, not, hard; Kasparov has real world experience of Communism, that is why HIS opinion has value. You on the other hand, have spent your time "looking in" with misguided admiration and thinking it some type of Utopia, from the safety of the pages of "Socialist Worker".

Stu and Craig have eloquently related their "first hand" experiences also, and you just can't seem to "get" that either(?). Again, it's not hard, you need to move on Comrade, real world experience, that sort of thing.

Kasparov's insightful quote above (#35) pretty much gets it,
"Talking about Socialism is a huge luxury, a luxury that was paid for by the successes of capitalism."
As is the free speech you enjoy, the standard living you enjoy, and the contempt for the "free world" you enjoy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Cuba
It's not gone unnoticed that you've used these contemptable "freedoms" to make a complete arse of yourself on blogs whenever you can.
Enjoy jeff!
:)

I just clicked on your links jeff.
:)

Even for you that's hilarious, your Kasparov "dismissal" is just link thru's to Mike Whitney's blog posts from 2007. Yeah, Mike Whitney/SmirkingChimp -tagline News and Commentary from the vast left conspiracy -i.e. not a serious individual. It's like getting your politics from a children's entertainer.

Mike's a big Putin fan and Garry, like the rest of the western world in 2007, happened to notice the Russian elections were rather dubious see,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Russia#Criticism_of_recent_e…

"Since Vladimir Putin became President of Russia there has been increasing international criticism of the conduct of Russian elections. European institutions who observed the December 2007 legislative elections concluded that these were not fair elections. Göran Lennmarker, president of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), said that the elections "failed to meet many of the commitments and standards that we have. It was not a fair election."[7] Luc Van den Brande, who headed a delegation from the Council of Europe, referred to the "overwhelming influence of the president's office and the president on the campaign" and said there was "abuse of administrative resources" designed to influence the outcome. He also said there were "flaws in the secrecy of the vote." "Effectively, we can't say these were fair elections," he said at a news conference.[8]"

Mmmm.... even the EU doesn't think those elections were up to much. - Maybe the whole EU's a right wing conspiracy. wadda ya thunk jeff? All those "transnational elites" out to get you again no doubt.
I never cease to be amazed at how you struggle with stuff; physics, maths, science, arse, elbow and the politics of "Coco the Clown" vs the rest of the world.
:)

Craig has a point in you being "vague" (his #35), - time for you to consult your back copies of "Socialist Worker" for a last ditch Ideological argument..
:)

One problem GSW: Putin's not a socialist. He runs a very corporate state. Not remotely communist. There are more billionaires in present day Russia than most anywhere in Europe. The country is full of corrupt oligarchs. You are so utterly stupid that you can't tell up from down and right from left. Craig hasn't got me at all, and neither have you, you utter clot. Both of you seem that to criticize nakedly predatory capitalism makes one a communist. Yes Deltoid readers, this is GSWs level on simian intelligence. He is so dull that he cannot think that any other systems exist other than free market absolutism/unregulated capitalism and state capitalism/communism. Heaven only knows what ecological economists would make of his gibberish. Laughing for sure, but otherwise pity.

Kasparov's problem is that he doesn't apparently like anyone except himself and a senile old dead president. He hates Trump, Jeb Bush, Obama etc. Not that I like these three guys either, but who the hell does he like? I am sure he looks in the mirror every night and swoons at his own greatness.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 03 Mar 2016 #permalink

And to reiterate: if GSW thinks something is wrong with me, I am more than happy with that. It means I am on the right track. GSW is a right wing ignoramus. If we actually agreed on something, anything, I'd seriously have to question my integrity. But happily this is not the case. The real question, as I have asked before, is why on Earth GSW writes in here with his crapola? Quoting people like Kasparov, Anthony Watts, Joanne Nova, Marc Morano and any other number of nincompoops he admires on blogs. He literally swoons at the feet of the Swedish meatball, now banned to his own asylum blog.

Do us all a favor GSW: go away. You are like an itch that's hard to scratch a pesky gnat. Aside from Olaus, who would agree with a virion if it denied AGW, nobody here (even craig if truth be told) thinks much of you. So go away.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 03 Mar 2016 #permalink

jeff, jeff, jeff,
:)

These are responses to your issues(?nobody else cares about the follow ups) - noone said Putin was a socialist(huh?) - only that the elections were unfair - Kasparov made that comment, and you posted a link to an ultra left wing blogger (your guy somehow(?)) criticising him for it, even though it was blatantly true according to EU officials etc. You're the one promoting the ideologically "tainted" posts.

Everyone's being very patient and eloquent in their argument with you; Craig, Stu etc.When are you going to start being honest? Your outdated ideology is demonstrably bankrupt, we tried that, it was crap, there's a better way of doing, living, co existing with the environment, etc.

You can't expect people to keep explaining that to you, this is not a nursery for the politicaly naive. You can't take it? Fine, keep quiet, let the rest of us get on with the problems of the real world while you fester about "inequality" a.k.a I need to come with a bizarre reason why countries with avg wages of $30/month are better off/more equal than countries with avg wages of $3,000/month (the US for example).

Supplementary question jeff, what percentage of the world's $30/month population lose sleep at night worrying about the "inequlity" experienced by the worlds $3,000/month. I'm guessing it's pretty low/they'd all change places if they could, but maybe not you, cause you is weird.

But hey, you make the $30 good vs $3,000 bad case anyway, I'll get the popcorn. You're re-living the Communist ideals of your teenage years, your activism. Nobody else is going to join you in your venture. Good luck with that.
:)

Wow spluttered,
"“What claims?”
Yup, 100% Stu2 going on there. What a fucking lunatic you are, Crag Asshat mcStu-pid.
So you’ve made no fucking claims at all, and therefore have nothing in ANY of your posts."

Let me remind you what we're talking about. I'll type this extra slowly for you.

Jeff claimed wealth inequality is at an all time high.
Craig expressed scepticism and asked for data.
Wow butted in spluttering some nonsense about "retards" and demanding Craig justified his claims (which he hadn't made).
Craig found data which demonstrated that wealth inequality was greater 100 years ago.
Wow spluttered some more.
The man who couldn't admit he got confused and was mistaken about the seasons in opposing hemispheres isn't about to apologise for yet again being completely wrong.

Jeff says,"To claim that the poor are better off in America now than they were just 50 years ago is ridiculous. I won’t even bother to address it."
- according to the data I provided, the poor (measuring personal wealth only) are worse off than 50 years ago, and better off than 100 years ago.
Your claim appears to have morphed. From wealth inequality being unparalelled, you are now bemoaning the backwards steps taken since the 1960s.
I'd say the planning failures that have caused *this* bear thinking about: the wealthy are breeding at around replacement rate. The poor are breeding at a much greater rate.
In 3rd-world countries, they have been showered with medical technology that has dramatically reduced infant mortality and extended life expectancy. And yet, this boost to population among the poor has not been matched with anything to increase their wealth or decrease their fertility rates.

Our society has a long history of generating population-related catastrophe predictions. One day, one of them may come true, and if it does it won't be anything to do with capitalism - which increases everybody's wealth - it will be down to the Left-leaning whose interference in the 3rd-world is causing a massive imbalance between population growth and sustainability.

Anybody who won't admit that countries like India, Egypt, and Yemen need their populations halved, is somebody that isn't facing reality.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 03 Mar 2016 #permalink

@jeff.

The only reason you're "So go away" is that you're out of arguments; out of arguments when it came to the Science (See Jonas thread), out of arguments when it came to the observations (temp, polar bears, bees, frogs etc/ you were wrong/overstated everything), out of arguments when came to the policies (free market Capitalism bad/Communism good), out of arguments when it came to the politics (If we were all Communists, it'd be OK honest, because we'd all be poor and that's more equal).

You've lost every argument jeff, on every front, against every poster, Stu, Craig, Olaus, Jonas. Congrats, you did the lot; Reality 5 vs jeff 0.

Cheers.
;)

"Everyone’s being very patient and eloquent in their argument with you; Craig, Stu etc."

Stubborn and ignorant, you mean.

But given you both are arguing against whatever your diseased imagination thinks is being said, why not make up what other things you read, yeah?

"Let me remind you what we’re talking about. I’ll type this extra slowly for you."

Let me remind you that Stupid does this "I can't remember what I typed, please tell me precisely what post you're talking about so I don't have to bother remembering what I've said and make you do more work I can ignore at my leisure!"

YOU are saying that you've said nothing, therefore there's nothing to rebut. Your posts must obviously therefore contain as little information as I thought.

'Out of arguments when it comes to the Jonas thread' says Gormless.

(Ten minutes spent in hysterical laughter....)

OK, I am back. I won't even bother to spend much time on that inane comment as Jonas didn't do science; he'd clearly never been near a science lecture theater in his life. Some of his old claims e.g. about Arctic ice extent, glacial retreat etc. have since been buried.

And now you claim I've lost every argument against Stu2, Olaus, Craig, Jonas and you? In your dreams, dimwit. In your f****** dreams. You still cannot get it through your pin-sized head that there are alternative systems to unregulated capitalism that are not communist. I've never once defended communism on here, but you return to this meme every time. I'll give Craig a bye on the fact that he is intelligent but naive; the rest of you are dopes.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 04 Mar 2016 #permalink

"it won’t be anything to do with capitalism – which increases everybody’s wealth"

WRONG. And where it does reduce poverty, it comes at an enormous environmental cost, as is being proven by the empirical data via the IPCC, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and thousands of papers in the peer-reviewed literature. Craig is just too lazy/naive/ignorant to look it up.

Lastly, the median US wage has not increased since 1973; the planet's net economic output has increased by aboput 13 fold since 1950, and yet one in eight people on Earth is still malnourished, the rich elites control a massive disparity of wealth, especially in the south, and we have huge corporations from the quad looting resources in Africa and elsewhere. Thew Congo has 21 trillion dollars worth of minerals, yet its the second poorest country on Earth. Thirty eight corporations control the countries mineral wealth; alla re based on the G-8. Its all about plunder.

And Craig did not address my arguments about ecological deficits and footprints. He doesn't read declassified state planning documents which outline foreign policy agendas (I have and still do).

In other words, Craig cannot debate at all. If we were face to face I'd pin him on ecological deficits alone. He could not wriggle his way out of it. But he hasn't read anything about the field, that is clear. And, like his apparent hero Bjorn Lomborg, he thinks the material and natural economies are not connected. I am sure he thinks that capitalism as practiced by the US aims to life everyone from poverty and to create a world where everyone lives like the average European or American. Sure, and then we can all visit the Tooth Fairy together.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 04 Mar 2016 #permalink
By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 04 Mar 2016 #permalink

Here's the cruncher:

"The top 1% owned 41% of all the personal wealth in the world; the top 10% owned 86% and the bottom 50% of owned less than 1% of all the wealth".

And we are being told by Craig how capitalism makes everybody more wealthy and that inequality is being reduced. Excuse me while I reach for a barf bag.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 04 Mar 2016 #permalink

"Let me remind you what we’re talking about. I’ll type this extra slowly for you."

Lets see if you're as stupid and craven as StuPid or whether you have some tiny sliver of decency in you, Craig.

If I show you your claims that need substantiating, what will YOU do with this new information?

*I* know it exists and anyone who cares to look can see them plainly,. so there's absolutely NO NEED WHATSOEVER for me to show them, but you insist that you don't know they exist, so what will you do when you're shown that your memory is fucked completely up? What, in short, si there for me in dancing to your stupld little goldfish tune?

What I risk doing is showing that I'm dumb as rocks and making shit up.

What are YOU risking? All you need to do is the same gormless routine deniers do: either (a) ignore completely and pretend it never happpened or (b) post-hoc rationalise how it "doesn't count".

Lets nail down your gambit and your stake.

Then I;; show you up for the stupid little asshat you are.

...it won’t be anything to do with capitalism – which increases everybody’s wealth – it will be down to the Left-leaning whose interference in the 3rd-world is causing a massive imbalance between population growth and sustainability.

I am totally amazed that somebody I once figured as being informed and rational could come out with something exactly arse backwards. Have you never read:

'The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone' by Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson

'The Price of Inequality' by Joseph Stiglitz

those two just for starters.

and then there are the UNDP's of which the following is from the 'Human Development Report 2014 Sustaining Human Progress: Reducing Vulnerabilities and Building Resilience Page 21 (Note marker numbers removed):

Inequality
The 85 richest people in the world have the same wealth as the 3.5 billion poorest people. Between 1990 and 2010 income inequality in developing countries rose 11 percent. Inequality in health and education has been declining but remains high, particularly in some regions. Sub-Sahara Africa has the highest inequality in health outcomes, and South Asia has the highest inequality in education. Inequality is a considerable threat to human development, particularly because it reflects inequality of opportunity.

Also worth a look is the easily digestible The Little Earth Book, although now rather long in the tooth it makes the still very relevant points.

How about enrolling in a University humanities course Craig - you may just learn something. My degree course back in the 1980s had an element of that - the course lecturer had a reputation for being a stickler about assignments (essays), one of my co-mature students was in awe of him. Shortly after submitting the first I met him on stairs and he remarked - you can certainly write and have a good grasp of the material and ideas.

I also studied weather phenomena and systems allied to a science course covering many aspects of physics including nuclear, gas laws, to add to all the mechanics I had learned whilst training for life in the UKs Fleet Air Arm as an aviation engineer. That degree course ensured that I did not succumb to the crazy idea that being an engineer made one knowledgeable about all science - which latter seems the hallmark of many a AGW denier.

That inequality figure is now, IIRC, 64 people rather than 85.

For the top 1% there wasn't a recession at all.

64 rather than 85 Wow, does not surprise me, I just grabbed the info I had available on the adjacent Linux box having downloaded the doc concerned back in 2014.

jeff, you're rambling. Craig never said that "inequality is being reduced". All that is being claimed is that all people, even the poorest, benefit from being part of wealth creating societies.

Your alternative on the other hand, in Kasparov's words again,

"In practice, it corrodes not only the economy but the human spirit itself, and the ambition and achievement that made modern capitalism possible and brought billions of people out of poverty."

doesn't do that comrade.

Craig said this: "the current trajectory of wealth inequality is undesirable".

Well, given what I postred above, there is the understatement of the century. As for Kasparovm its easy for a millionaire to trumpet a system that has benefitted him, while half the world lives on less than 2 dollars a day; while corporations plunder countries across Africa, or else outsource production to countries with non-existent wage laws and lax environmental regulations. This 'lifting billions out of poverty' mantra is pure, unadulterated bullshit. Its written by the rich to ease their guilt. Tell those in the south at the receiving end of World Bank/IMF structural adjustment policies how they feel about capitalism lifting them out of poverty. Tell that to people in the Congo whose resource wealth is being repatriated to the bank accounts of investors in Switzerland, Britain and the United States. And let's see how ecological systems across the biosphere are responding to being ploughed, paved, dammed, dredged, slashed-and-burned, drained, and polluted for profit.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 04 Mar 2016 #permalink

To repeat, and to put pay to Craig's nonsense once and for all:

"This time last year, I outlined the results of the Global Wealth report published by Credit Suisse Bank (see my post, https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2013/10/10/global-wealth-inequal…). Compiled by Tony Shorrocks and Jim Davies, formerly at the UN, the report last year showed that the top 1% owned 41% of all the personal wealth in the world; the top 10% owned 86% and the bottom 50% of owned less than 1% of all the wealth. This staggering level of inequality certainly attracted interest and my post on this was the most popularly viewed one on my blog ever".

"Now Credit Suisse have published its 2014 report (cs_global_wealth_report_2014_vF) compiled by the same academics. According to the latest calculations, global wealth inequality has got even worse. Taken together, the bottom half of the global population still own less than 1% of total wealth. And the richest 10% still own more or less the same, now 87%. But the top 1% now own 48% of all global personal wealth! If you like a soundbite: the top 1% of adults in the world own nearly half of all personal wealth. There seems to be no stopping the growing inequality of wealth in the world".

These figures are abominable. 'Undesirable' as Craig says? No, they are sickeing, and herald the demise of humanity unless this massive disparity is reduced and soon. The top 1% own almost half of the planet's personal wealth; the top 10% own 87% of it. And the bottom 50% own less than 1% of it. And most importantly, THE DIVISION BETWEEN THE HAVES AND HAVE NOTS IS GROWING.

Bye bye, Craig and GSW. Back to you 'stats'.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 04 Mar 2016 #permalink

@jeff

"I couldn’t resist one last nail in Craig’s ‘wealth disparity is lesseining in the US’ remarks."

What? you're going to put "one last nail in" remarks that Craig never made?

I don't know what's more pitiful, the fact you fantasize conversations that aren't being had, or your rambling incoherent responses.

Good luck with the Neo-Communism comrade.

There seems to be an irritating hum around here, one with little resonance to anything factually accurate.

"What? you’re going to put “one last nail in” remarks that Craig never made?"

So YOU think, too, that Craig has said nothing at all??!?!

Welp, Craig, that seals it, you've said fuck all. Next time you want to say nothing, try not typing. It's VASTLY more efficient.

As Lionel said with respect to GSW, with one extra caveat. Craig goes on about the poor 'breeding' more than the ' rich' and being 'showered with medical care'.

When I read words like this, I puke. Literally. Moreover, the poor have not been showered with any kind of technology. Not unless they pay for it. Heavily. Therein lies the rub. The rich world hoards technologies. And, as I said, poverty is as deeply entrenched as ever. The old myth of free market absolutists was that capitalism lifts all boats; instead, it primarily raises yachts. The data prove it.

And then there are the massive ecological deficits maintained by the quad that can only be countered by the developed countries (1) reaching into poor lands and plundering their resources; (2) pursuing policies aimed at keeping the poor lands poor so that the plunder can continue; (3) ensuring that the rich nations do everything they can to control the internal levers of power in poor countries to ensure that capital flows remain largely uni-directional. Western planners and economists know full well that if everyone on Earth lived like the average European or American then we'd need 2-3 more Earth-like planets to sustain it. Hence if the poor lands were ever allowed to become as consumptive as the rich, then we'd have top greatly reduce our consumption (e.g. by about 80% or more), something that the elites resist. So to keep the plundering going, lip-service has to be paid to poverty eradication. Economist Patrick Bond writes quite elegantly about it in his book, "Looting Africa: The Economics of Exploitation".

Read declassified British or US state planning documents and the real agendas become clear: poverty eradication, freedom, human rights and democracy are rarely if ever mentioned. The main aims are how our countries can promote the interests of their corporations and investor's rights. I've read a pile of them and the real underlying agendas are laid bare. Our corporate media never discusses it, because its part of the problem. So it continues to peddle the myths of western basic benevolence.

Craig and GSW haven't. So they stick to the tooth fairy and other tales.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 04 Mar 2016 #permalink

Interesting to see people referring to me when I haven't posted anything since the link on the previous page.
Craig.
I think Jeff Harvey's responses to you are a classic example of 'biting the hand that feeds you'.
At no point has anyone claimed that 'capitalism' or government systems based on democratic principles are the perfect utopian example.
What you have said is that despite parts being broken, that system (which has also supported the education of people like Jeff Harvey) has the better track record in achieving better outcomes accross the TBL & fostering progress to repair past mistakes or to fix what gets broken.

Interesting, you think that no conversation is valid if it contains your name but you're not the cause and participant in it.

This applies solely to you, though, so you're an egotistical jerkwad.

We already knew that, however.

PS where's the answer to BBD's question?

And yes:
Rapidly rising population in poorer nations is the elephant in the room.
In the governance systems that Jeff clearly despises, women have had access to education and the vote.
Emancipating and educating women is a key factor in keeping population at sustainable levels as well as holding governments to account for past mistakes.
I think Jeff needs to be careful about what he is wishing for as he might get it.

Wow.
Instead of engaging with silly personal abuse, it would be nice if you actually engaged with the CONTENT.

What you have said is that despite parts being broken, that system (which has also supported the education of people like Jeff Harvey)...

But what tossers like you don't get is that the powers that be are trying very hard to tilt the educational playing fields so that fewer have the knowledge to get uppity in future.

We see this with the so called Academies in the UK and the fragmenting of the education system — divide and rule in action and the Craigs of the world seem to fall for the Orwellian Phrases and doublespeak.

But there are worse, and GSW is one of those as the this ill-educated female bigot described here.

The US is set to explode if Trump becomes Captain America, another ill-educated rabble rouser who appeals to the worst elements of US society and those who, because of media blow-hards like Limbaugh etc, feel aggrieved about the ruin they see around them.

Capitalism is the ultimate divide and rule. Those that don't have want when stirred up by propaganda. The world saw similar unfold last century, my stamp collection had many devalued Deutsch devalued stamps over franked with new values.

There are so many dominoes set to fall and the populace cares more about the Superbowl, FA Cup of X-Factor results - distractions with hidden agendas.

Lionel A.
I actually agree that the populace care way too much about stuff like the Superbowl and the results of X-factor.
It is one of the downsides of western style democracies.
But the alternative that seems to be preached here is to completely dismantle a system that actually allows people to care about such things and to make choices about what they want to focus on.
Maslowe's hierarchy of needs goes some way to explain this.
This is one of many links on the subject:
http://www.businessballs.com/maslow.htm

"What you have said is that despite parts being broken, that system (which has also supported the education of people like Jeff Harvey)…"

Isn't the cause of his education.

Communism supported the education of many very intelligent people.

So, the political and economic systems are IRRELEVANT.

What you idiots don't get is that your arguments are specious at best, uneducated in almost all its entirely, and blinkered rigid partisanship at its core.

Moreover, with this increase in the cost of education and the erosion of universal education, capitalism is trying to pull up the ladder behind the last winners of the benefit, because, despite their gleeful acceptance of other people's money when they benefit from it, they LOATHE the idea of anyone else getting "their" money.

Stalinist Russia didn't do that, so on that facet communism, even the corrupted Stalinist style of it, does better than capitalism, at leas the corrupted Randian style the USA believes with ISIS-like fervour.

You whine and bitch about arguments against statements never made, yet you gleefully argue against Jeff, Lionel and others assumed claims that we must move to communism. DESPITE THAT NEVER BEING CLAIMED.

Hell, you assume, merely from dogmatic bigotry, that there are only two options, precisely the free market oligarchic capitalism you are for, or stalimist communism. AND that anyone not 100% in favour of expanding the libertarian idiocies of "free market capitalism" and blaming ALL of its failures on "government interference" must be demanding Stalinist pogroms be instituted.

Wow.
I believe that Jeff Harvey did gain his education via western democratic style systems?
Where did you gain yours?
Apparently you think you would've had better education opportunities in Stalinist Russia?

Thanks for demonstrating, once again, @#92 that you can only see in B&W El 2 Stu pid.

Ah,well, maybe I misremembered then. I didn't know it was 64 exactly, but could swear it was reported somewhere I heard it as sixty-something.

"I believe that Jeff Harvey did gain his education via western democratic style systems?"

I believe you're claim is still IRRELEVANT, since nondemocratic and nonwestern systems educate their people too.

Wow.
It's about access and quality of education.
You claim @#91 that even Stalinist Russia does better.
My original comment pointed out that the system Jeff clearly despises did indeed facilitate his education.
It also pays him as a professor to teach in a university.
Lionel,
perhaps you could reread Craig's comments above?
No one claims that there are not way too many people in abject poverty in the world.
The discussion was based on which govt systems have a better track record in alleviating poverty along with other issues.

"so on that facet communism, even the corrupted Stalinist style of it, does better than capitalism"

Is what I said, Stupid.

Why did you not read it?

"My original comment pointed out that the system Jeff clearly despises did indeed facilitate his education."

And your original comment is irrelevant, since it had no causal relationship to the scenario, since communist countries have professors too.

"No one claims that there are not way too many people in abject poverty in the world."

Lionel never complained that anyone was claiming there were not way too many people in abject poverty in the world.

He was complaining about the asinine and blinkered claims that poverty was getting better because of capitalism, when it's getting WORSE.

Wow.
You and Lionel are missing the point.
Craig's earlier comments were pointing out that the systems you are claiming are the WORST or getting WORSE are actually the ones with the better track records?
I'm reposting a link from earlier.
It is a comical set of slides but 2 of them, "Venture Capitalism" and "Bureaucratism" as well as being funny are quite clever.
Perhaps it isn't actually democracy or capitalism that's the real issue here, but rather the Venture Capitalism concept that theorises we can and should make a market and value add and tax absolutely everything, which bureaucracies actually love to do too?
https://www.facebook.com/MikeHoskingBreakfast/photos/pcb.10084257058576…
I also note that other than Jeff's highly dismissive comment @ # 84, everyone here is baulking from the elephant in the room that Craig raised re population and how that is contributing to those inequity equations.

Lionel,
perhaps you could reread Craig’s comments above?>/blockquote>

To what end for as seen here:

You and Lionel are missing the point.
Craig’s earlier comments were pointing out that the systems you are claiming are the WORST or getting WORSE are actually the ones with the better track records?

It is clear that you are misrepresenting the argument we are making, which is that Capitalism under so called democracy is a destructive system. Now I really suggest you try reading some of the many sources that Jeff and I have cited because without your doing that it is pointless having further discussion because you are arguing from incredulity.

If you don't believe me then 'perhaps you should read' the whole damned thread again.

What the under-informed seem to not understand is that any truly egalitarian socialist state in the world has been the target of destabilising operations, using military and economic weapons, with Latin America (Iran-Contra, Chile and latterly Venezuela and Argentina) providing many examples of interference from the US of A. The US of A will not allow such regimes to flourish because it may give the populace of the USA ideas, this besides the need for resource grabs and for a geographic buffer around the US.

In this world of covert ops nothing is what it seems, or portrayed by the Western media as Greg Palast has demonstrated:

Venezuela is Occupy Wall Street on its head: the 1% are out in the street, violently hoping to overthrow the government elected by working people. Are the Kochs involved?

See Chavez, Maduro and Venezuela the story they don’t want you to read

Now do follow those links in blue near the foot of the page and in particular 'Big Oil, Big Ketchup and The Assassination of Hugo Chavez' which has been updated as Vaya con Dios, Hugo Chàvez, mi Amigo where we find this:

As a purgative for the crappola fed to Americans about Chavez, my foundation, The Palast Investigative Fund, is offering the film, The Assassination of Hugo Chavez, as a FREE download. Based on my several meetings with Chavez, his kidnappers and his would-be assassins, filmed for BBC Television. DVDs also available.
...

Venezuelan President Chavez once asked me why the US elite wanted to kill him. My dear Hugo: It's the oil. And it's the Koch Brothers – and it's the ketchup.

which should lead you on to reading 'The Koch Brothers, Hugo Chavez and the XL Pipeline' which explains the dirt.

Stu, you are in serious need of corrective education.

And Cuba.

Just because there's votes from the people who wanted to rule others were told no and therefore left for the USA where they were allowed to do so, as long as it wasn't actually CALLED slavery.

Heck watch Newmann's "A history of Oil" and find out why Saddam was given a public beating by the USA and why Venezeula (of all fucking places!) was put on the "Axis o Evil" with NK, China and Iraq under Saddam.

USA losing power to own foreign countries. Can't have that.

"the system Jeff clearly despises"

This is why I am sick to the teeth of willfully ignorant people like Stu2. This kind of comment comes straight out of a comic book. It does not address my serious misgvings about a political economic system that drives social injustice, inequality, environmental destruction and poverty. A system that is pushing natural systems towards the brink. None of the capitalism defenders here seem to be able to separate the different types of capitalism, including the dominant form (e.g. neoliberalism and free market absolutism) that currently dominates. Why not? Let's get to the heart of the matter, as I have said; its not capitalism per se but unregulated capitalism that is taking us and the planet to hell in a handbasket. None of those on here defending the current, predatory form of capitalism is therefore intellectually equipped to discuss the topic. None. Stu2 for sure has shown time and time again how dumbed down he is by the corporate media, as evidenced not only by his wafer-thin comments (aimed to suggest my views are 'radical' and fall outside the mainstream) but when he put up thay absurd Sky News interview a few weeks ago with a 'reformed' jihadist. No suggestion from our intellectually challenged Aussie when we are going to see similar confessions from our own political and corporate leaders whose killing rate (using different technology) far exceeds those of the jihadists Stu2 was referring to in that embarrassing interview. Instead, what Stu2 is trying to intimate is that we are 'civilized'' whereas our opponents are all the barbarians. Good grief, the level of debate Stu2 and the other idiots on here like GSW stoop to has to be seen to be believed.

I have been busy with research the last few days and stayed away from here because I am fed up with the deep level of myopia evident in the comments of GSW, Stu2, Craig and one or two others. Its frustrating as hell reading such dumbed down rhetoric arguing that if one is opposed to the current type of political system they are commuinists by default. To the good people here, I simply do not have the time for this puerile kindergarten level discourse.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 08 Mar 2016 #permalink

What was a Isaying in my last post?

Here's Stu2 whining away:

"I believe that Jeff Harvey did gain his education via western democratic style systems? Where did you gain yours? Apparently you think you would’ve had better education opportunities in Stalinist Russia"

This kind of absolute stupidity makes me cringe as well as laugh. Its like saying that, no matter what damage we do to the environment, no dissent is allowed because communism was worse. No wonder people like Stu2 are anonymous entities on blogs. In the real world they'd be intellectually skewered for spewing this type of bullshit.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 08 Mar 2016 #permalink

More hilarity from brainless Stu2:

"I actually agree that the populace care way too much about stuff like the Superbowl and the results of X-factor.
It is one of the downsides of western style democracies".

Need to say any more? This is one of the doensides of western style 'democracy'? Please. My side is hurting from laughter. I cannot take much more of this piffle.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 08 Mar 2016 #permalink

"... .Apparently you think you would’ve had better education opportunities in Stalinist Russia”

This kind of absolute stupidity makes me cringe as well as laugh. Its like saying that, no matter what damage we do to the environment, no dissent is allowed because communism was worse.

It's also complete fabrication..

I say "Russia HAS an education system" and Stupid "hears" "Russia has a better education system.

I say "In one facet, Russia is doing better than the USA" and Stupid "hears" "Russia has a better education system".

Because anything other than complete agreement means whatever the moron thinks is least supportable or most objectionable to their idiotic indoctrinated vision.

Great points, Wow. Some great scientists were born in Russia during its time as a communist regime. Politics has nix to do with it.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 08 Mar 2016 #permalink

Seems like Karl Marx was right all along. By Chris Hedges:

Karl Marx exposed the peculiar dynamics of capitalism, or what he called “the bourgeois mode of production.” He foresaw that capitalism had built within it the seeds of its own destruction. He knew that reigning ideologies—think neoliberalism—were created to serve the interests of the elites and in particular the economic elites, since “the class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production” and “the ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships … the relationships which make one class the ruling one.” He saw that there would come a day when capitalism would exhaust its potential and collapse. He did not know when that day would come. Marx, as Meghnad Desai (http://www.voxeu.org/person/lord-meghnad-desai ) wrote, was “an astronomer of history, not an astrologer.” Marx was keenly aware of capitalism’s ability to innovate and adapt. But he also knew that capitalist expansion was not eternally sustainable. And as we witness the denouement of capitalism and the disintegration of globalism, Karl Marx is vindicated as capitalism’s most prescient and important critic.

In a preface to “The Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy” Marx wrote:

No social order ever disappears before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have been developed; and new higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself.

Therefore, mankind always sets itself only such tasks as it can solve; since looking at the matter more closely, we always find that the task itself arises only when the material conditions necessary for its solution already exist, or are at least in the process of formation.

Socialism, in other words, would not be possible until capitalism had exhausted its potential for further development. That the end is coming is hard now to dispute, although one would be foolish to predict when. We are called to study Marx to be ready.

The final stages of capitalism, Marx wrote, would be marked by developments that are intimately familiar to most of us. Unable to expand and generate profits at past levels, the capitalist system would begin to consume the structures that sustained it. It would prey upon, in the name of austerity, the working class and the poor, driving them ever deeper into debt and poverty and diminishing the capacity of the state to serve the needs of ordinary citizens. It would, as it has, increasingly relocate jobs, including both manufacturing and professional positions, to countries with cheap pools of laborers. Industries would mechanize their workplaces. This would trigger an economic assault on not only the working class but the middle class—the bulwark of a capitalist system—that would be disguised by the imposition of massive personal debt as incomes declined or remained stagnant. Politics would in the late stages of capitalism become subordinate to economics, leading to political parties hollowed out of any real political content and abjectly subservient to the dictates and money of global capitalism.

But as Marx warned, there is a limit to an economy built on scaffolding of debt expansion. There comes a moment, Marx knew, when there would be no new markets available and no new pools of people who could take on more debt. This is what happened with the subprime mortgage crisis. Once the banks cannot conjure up new subprime borrowers, the scheme falls apart and the system crashes.

Capitalist oligarchs, meanwhile, hoard huge sums of wealth—$18 trillion stashed in overseas tax havens—exacted as tribute from those they dominate, indebt and impoverish. Capitalism would, in the end, Marx said, turn on the so-called free market, along with the values and traditions it claims to defend. It would in its final stages pillage the systems and structures that made capitalism possible. It would resort, as it caused widespread suffering, to harsher forms of repression. It would attempt in a frantic last stand to maintain its profits by looting and pillaging state institutions, contradicting its stated nature.

Marx warned that in the later stages of capitalism huge corporations would exercise a monopoly on global markets. “The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe,” he wrote. “It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere.” These corporations, whether in the banking sector, the agricultural and food industries, the arms industries or the communications industries, would use their power, usually by seizing the mechanisms of state, to prevent anyone from challenging their monopoly. They would fix prices to maximize profit. They would, as they [have been doing], push through trade deals such as the TPP (http://www.citizen.org/TPP ) and CAFTA (https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/cafta-dr-domini… ) to further weaken the nation-state’s ability to impede exploitation by imposing environmental regulations or monitoring working conditions. And in the end these corporate monopolies would obliterate free market competition.

Talk about being correct.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 09 Mar 2016 #permalink

Jeff Harvey.
You are seriously losing the plot and the point of the discussion.
I am starting to feel sorry for you.
I would suggest, of course with respect, that you could try and engage with the content of the discussion rather than defaulting to sneering and pointless personal attacks and accusations.
No one here, including me, has defended what you call 'predatory capitalism'.
Up thread I criticised 'venture capitalism' which is pretty much the same thing.
I also pointed out that this mindset is overly favoured by modern bureaucratic organisations.
Your assumptions about why I linked that interview are highly amusing along with your seemingly wilful misinterpretation of the very clear and simple message from the 'reformed' jihadist.

OMG, another loony feeling sorry for me. Thanks Stu2, from you thats a compliment as well as the similar remarks from GSW. If I am offending people like you, I must be doing something RIGHT.

I responded to your vacuous and idiotic comment based on my education, suggesting that I might have preferred to live in Stalinist Russia. Now when you have to stoop to this level of discourse, you have seriously run out of ideas. You are intellectually bankrupt. Because I argue - with plenty of evidence - that the current dominant political ideology under the guise of the Washington Consensus is driving poverty, inequality, and environmental destruction on a mass scale, the deeply thought our ripostes I have had from GSW, Craig, and now you, is that be default I must be a communist. Then you all wander off into monologues about the evils of communism, and how much better off we are to be living in the current system.

Yup, this is the level of debate I encounter on Deltoid. To says it is basal is a understatement. When I bring up the aspect of steady-state economics and economic systems that are accountable for their actions, as well as the important component of regulation in limiting excessive profits and wealth concentration, its back to the communist/Marxist jibes. You are just the latest.

As fort that interview on Sky News, Murdoch's channel, with the reformed jihadist, it was comedy gold. The kind of puerile journalism that dumbs down the masses and propagandizes them into believing that the world is simply down to 'we are the good guys' and 'they are the bad guys'. The reasons why young people become disaffected with the way the world is heading and are increasingly driven towards what we perceive as radicalism are rarely aired. Hence why I could take apart that interviewer in 5 minutes.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 10 Mar 2016 #permalink

One reason for the "radicalisation" of the youth is the inability of the current generation of old white guys who espouse conservatism and libertarian ideologies without the slightest idea what they're talking about (they've merely been programmed with this information, not understanding of it) have thrown out all attempt to realise a polyglot of ideas.

IOW Shrub's doctrine of "You're either with us or against us".

When ANY disagreement is immediately harped on as the extreme caricature of whatever diseased imagination of the old fart who hates to be wrong, doubly so when they are, why the hell bother to meet in a compromise?

The problem with arguing with Stu & co. is that they have the gall to accuse us of losing the plot or missing the point whilst never having understood the plot and the points raised by it in the first instance.

Instead of engaging with the material at sources which Jeff, Wow and myself cite in order to fill in their lack of knowledge and understanding they come back with these accusations. All this whilst accusing us of throwing out insults and personal attacks which accusation betrays a lack of understanding of the nature of such.

If a person comes across as an ignoramus from showing ignorance on a topic then stating that fact is not an insult.

It is that old continuum:

data — information — knowledge — understanding — wisdom

where Stu & co. are still stuck in the early stages of knowledge. Why? Because information is a tricky stage where ones cognitive framework can be skewed by propaganda (bad information). It is also the stage where,because of the propaganda, cognitive dissonance can arise by valid information being overcome by lies because the lies fit that cognitive framework with less discomfort.

Poor, or restricted, education can lay the foundations for such as we see with Mary Lou Bruner and Lamar Smith. Also, how else can we explain the Trump phenomenon?

Jeff Harvey.
I can only try to reword what I said at @#11.
You are claiming that people here support what you call 'predatory capitalism' and thereby via some wild stretch of logic that also means they don't care about the environment.
You also apparently failed to comprehend the very simple message from that 'reformed jihadist' or my reasons for posting that interview, despite your amazing education?
Along with Craig I questioned your penchant for directing people to sites that preach violence, revolution and the dismantling of modern governance systems. The questions and discussion were about the alternatives, they weren't about you or accusing you personally of being a communist or a socialist or whatever.
I also now seriously question your interpretation of 'mainstream'.
It appears that you think 'mainstream' science is not the same as the other 'mainstream' stuff and therefore somehow morally above the usual pitfalls?
Maybe or maybe not?
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2016/s4422975.htm
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/03/10/study-finds-researchers-…
As I commented upthread, I suggest you could be a little more careful about what you're wishing for, as you might just get it?

Stu2, you exasperate me with your very, very shallow comments. I am amazed that you are able to get dressed in the morning and feed yourself.

To bury your arguments: mainstream science is independent because it is primarily government funded. There are no penalties for coming to conclusions that support both the public and private sectors.

The mainstream media is primarily owned by a few large for-profit corporations that are pursuing agendas that aim at maximizing the bottom line. If you had read one page of the classic text, "Manufacturing Consent" by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky, you'd realize right away the massive difference between publicly and privately funded media. ver hear of the propaganda model? I thought not. Herman and Chomsky define it as, "The mainstream media inculcates and supports the social, economic and political agendas of the rich and privileged groups that dominate domestic society and the state". They then go on to define the 5 main tenets of the model, and provide volumes of evidence to support it. Later works along the same line reinforce the model. Try reading a few of these some time. You may finally learn something.

As for my 'penchant', that amounts to N = 1. And I admire Derrick Jensen whether you like it or not, because he clearly sees the abyss towards which we are heading based on the bankrupt nature of the current dominant political and economic system of predatory capitalism and free market absolutism. I also am a great supporter of Chris Hedges, who advocates non-violent resistance. Either way, the current system needs to be taken down. If we don't, we are committed to a long, slow road to catastrophe.

The problem with debating people like you is that we are debating on very different intellectual levels. My partner tells me this all the time, and she says that it must be very frustrating responding to people with a layman's view of the world but who nevertheless think that they are informed.

She is right.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 11 Mar 2016 #permalink

"You are claiming that people here support what you call ‘predatory capitalism’ "

And yes.

"and thereby via some wild stretch of logic that also means they don’t care about the environment."

And how do you get that "thereby"? That is YOUR manufacture.

"Along with Craig I questioned your penchant for directing people to sites that preach violence"

Which doesn't exist. That's another of your manufactures.

Look up "poisoning the well".

"The questions and discussion were about the alternatives"

Nope, they were about something else.

What YOU and the other retards were doing was asserting that there was only communism as an alternative and that everyone who complained about capitalism's failure must want communism.

You know, more manufacture of your own ego.

"they weren’t about you or accusing you personally of being a communist or a socialist or whatever."

Yes they were. Were you not reading your own drivel, or are you just lying and don't care?

"I also now seriously question your interpretation of ‘mainstream’."

Do so. If it's like any of your other questions, it'll be based on what you think you can argue rather than what was actually there.

"It appears that you think ‘mainstream’ science is not the same as the other ‘mainstream’ stuff and therefore somehow morally above the usual pitfalls?"

Yup, called it.

"study-finds-researchers-britain-and-australia-skip-truth-get-research-grants"

So did this study skip truth to get research grants?

And given that UK, Aus, Can, USA all had or have regimes that quash any investigation or talk about AGW, mitigation or problems and have cut off science funding and instituted government press channels that are required to be used or face disciplinary action, it would be rather odd that AGW be lied about in its favour rather than the much more lucrative lying about it's nonexistence.

Mainstream science != Mainstream media

because

Mainstream = Mainstream

but

science != media

It's really rather odd that you should be so dense on the subject. Nah, I totally know why.

Jeff.
Juxtapose your second paragraph with your last sentence in paragraph 4.
I still suggest you could be a little more careful about what you wish for.
Wow.
Mainstream is Mainstream.
According to Jeff Mainstream is OK if it's funded by govt yet govt needs to be dismantled because it's beholden to mainstream??????

Stu2, sometimes even I am shocked by your level of stupidity. You really are a simple guy with a very simple view of the world. Well done.

Mainstream science does not support an agenda. It seeks to determine the truth, as elusive as that often is, when testing hypothesis and conducting experiments. Results can go in any number of directions.

The corporate owned mainstream media, by complete contrast, has a very clear agenda. Profit maximization. I explained the propaganda model above, which is the last nail in the coffin. The profit motive means that the corporate media will twist, distort, lie and manipulate facts in order to bolster the interests of corporate advertisers or owners of the media outlets. They do this in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. The ultimate aim is to manufacture consent, as the book title by Herman and Chomsky says, a term originally coined by PR guru Walter Lippmann. This means the manufacturing of consent amongst the public for policies that certainly do not benefit the vast majority of people but for a tiny number of very wealthy members of the ruling and corporate elites.

I won't spend any more time on this because your head is apparently made of brick and does not allow for the entry of new information that shatters your myopic world view. Read a little bit and learn something and stop making stupid comments suggesting that government funded science and the privately controlled media are on the same page.

They aren't, and it isn't even close.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Mar 2016 #permalink

"Mainstream is Mainstream.
According to Jeff Mainstream is OK if it’s funded by govt "

According to YOU you mean. Jeff never said that or anything like that. YOU made that up and just ascribed it to Jeff because you MUST attack him but reality doesn't give you anything to do that with.

And you missed out

science != media.

2a!=2b

does NOT indicate that they are different 2s.

Even eleven year olds get it.

Here you go...I've copy pasted the comments for you.

Mainstream science does not support an agenda.
Mainstream science is independent because it is primarily government funded.
“The mainstream media inculcates and supports the social, economic and political agendas of the rich and privileged groups that dominate domestic society and the state”.
Either way, the current system needs to be taken down. If we don’t, we are committed to a long, slow road to catastrophe.

Thanks for copy-pasting my comments for me Stu2, although it shows how utterly bored you must be to do that. I promise you I won't do it with any of your ridiculously simple comments.

I do not understand the reason you did it, either. It is not like anything said in the copy-paste is wrong. You should read 'Trust Us: We're Experts' by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber. Its an expose of the public relations industries and the corporations that employ them. It illustrates, in part, the gulf between privately funded science and publicly funded science. In particular, as Edward Herman also showed in some of his work, its shows that scientific results of studies carried out by corporations on their own products are almost always favorable, or produce a positive outcome, whereas studies carried out by government-funded labs such as universities are much more critical. So whose science is more truthful and rigidly performed? I thin the answer to that question is obvious - or should be.

If you think that the corporate-state mainstream media is a reliable source of truthful information, then I think that you are seriously in need of medical attention. Once again, that wafer-thin Sky interview is manna from heaven for those criticizing objectivity and balance in mainstream media. As I said, the idea that 'our' policies are extreme, violent, and selfish, and they drive young people to become radicalized, is never mentioned. The Sky interviewer, to be fair, looked as dumb as a sack of potatoes. I am sure were I to challenge him on the myths of the basic benevolence of the industrialized nations, I would get a blank stare. One does not make it to become a journalist or a presenter/interviewer in the corporate-state media if their views conflict with the underlying myths that are perpetrated endlessly about out inherent goodness, and belief in freedom and democracy and human rights, which, if the truth were told, is utter bullshit.

Noam Chomsky was once interviewed by political correspondent Andrew Marr of the BBC. Marr, a fervent supporter of Tony Blair and a defender of the Iraq War, asked Chomsky of he thought that he was self-censoring or if he didn't believe what he wrote and said. Chomsky, in his inimitable style, said to Marr, "I am not saying that you are self-censoring or that you don't believe what you say. What I am saying is that if your believed something different, you wouldn't be sitting where you are". Jonathan Cook, another journalist who is highly critical of Israel's abhorrent treatment of Palestinians and who is now independent, said the same thing. His career in journalism and rise in the mainstream media was quickly cut off when he started challenging the basic assumptions of western benevolence I discussed above. Our media stinks. Its a simple as that. The propaganda model, which you so kindly repeated above, is undeniable.

What threatens your little myopic world, Stu2, is when you are confronted with and challenged by new information. You've rarely if ever read any media critiques, and your posts reek of establishment bias. You are unable to think outside of the box that you have constructed for yourself. As a result, any notion that the arguments presented in 'Manufacturing Consent' may be true is clearly something your mind cannot ponder.

Its this reason that I might as well be debating a brick wall. You just don't know much about the field.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 13 Mar 2016 #permalink

"Here you go…I’ve copy pasted the comments for you."

So which of them supports your claim (and which of them):

"According to Jeff Mainstream is OK if it’s funded by govt yet govt needs to be dismantled because it’s beholden to mainstream"

"It appears that you think ‘mainstream’ science is not the same as the other ‘mainstream’ stuff and therefore somehow morally above the usual pitfalls?"

Which one and why are the words you're gong to use to "justify" that decision nowhere in the text you quoted?

Jeff Harvey.
"What threatens your little myopic world, Stu2, is when you are confronted with and challenged by new information. You’ve rarely if ever read any media critiques, and your posts reek of establishment bias. You are unable to think outside of the box that you have constructed for yourself. As a result, any notion that the arguments presented in ‘Manufacturing Consent’ may be true is clearly something your mind cannot ponder. "

Says the bloke who lives and works in the holier than thou, publish or perish world of academia and who preached 'mainstream' science but 'underground' just about everything else you can possibly think of.
:-)
:-)
LOL!

What did you think when you fabricated that load of gobshite, stupid?

These idiots cannot resist that LOL can they. Maybe we should identify them as Lollers.

~lol~ <--- a denier drowning in their own bullshit.

And still insists it's a leftwing conspiracy. because they miss the "reds under the bed" scares.

As far as "predatory capitalism" and "red scare" goes... ask the good people of Iran, Nicaragua, Chile, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Philippines, Indonesia (oh, and East Timor), South Korea, Spain, Haiti, Cuba, Iceland, Colombia, and dozens of others.

Better yet, read this, then come back
http://www.amazon.com/Family-Jeff-Sharlet-ebook/dp/B000SFZK3Y/

(And if you wonder why liberals hate Hilary, note that she's in a prayer cell with Sam Brownback. She's bought and paid for, like Obama.)

Lol
You should follow that one by Sharlet, professor of creative non fiction, with the emphasis on creative, by reading something by Dan Brown or Eric Von Daniken perhaps.

Ask Iraq, Syria, Honduras, Somalia, Niger, Cameroon (hell, all bar three of the African states), Venezuela, Cuba, Grenada, Iran (remember, Western Captialism overthrew the democratic leader for a puppet and the Ayotollah's resulted from the reaction to THAT), Saidi Arabia, China (their problems are their increasing capitalism,the smogs were never as bad under communism), Vietnam, Antigua, Dominican Republic about how capitalism keeps trying to kill democracy and self rule.

Hell, ask the 27% of USians below or dangerously close to the poverty line how well capitalism has worked and how they don't feel predated on...