Climate Crisis: Are we doing enough?

[Pblakeney]

Why would I (or anyone with a brain) take notice of what politicians say?

It's an example. Capitalism is all about profit. More and more profit. Growth.
I cannot ever imagine a CEO ever saying "We are doing fine, making enough profit, let's just stick.".

 

[First Aspect]

Hate to tell you but the market isn't a sentient being so it can't care. However the tax from the increased profits and economic activity can be used by politicians to fund things. Hence it's better for all concerned for governments and politicians to get out of the way as far as possible.

Well thank god that someone from the right of politics has finally acknowledged that the market isn't sentient.

 

[BoldonLad]

It's an example. Capitalism is all about profit. More and more profit. Growth.
I cannot ever imagine a CEO ever saying "We are doing fine, making enough profit, let's just stick.".

CEOs are part of the system, they are not THE system. Nothing is cast in stone, it is like Nature, a constantly evolving picture.

 

[Pblakeney]

CEOs are part of the system, they are not THE system. Nothing is cast in stone, it is like Nature, a constantly evolving picture.

The system is like a cars on a motorway, and the CEOs are the drivers.
Drivers who want to go faster and faster.

 

[BoldonLad]

The system is like a cars on a motorway, and the CEOs are the drivers.
Drivers who want to go faster and faster.

If you say so. But, on the motorway, each driver is, to an extent, constrained by the other drivers (among other things), unless, of course, it is an empty motorway (monopoly?)

 

[Pblakeney]

If you say so. But, on the motorway, each driver is, to an extent, constrained by the other drivers (among other things), unless, of course, it is an empty motorway (monopoly?)

Businesses are in competition with other businesses (unless it's a monopoly) so, yes.
They all still want to go faster though.

 

[BoldonLad]

Businesses are in competition with other businesses (unless it's a monopoly) so, yes.
They all still want to go faster though.

I don’t think your motorway scenario is sound, because, not all drivers want to go faster.

Anyway, I am not suggesting that Capitalism is perfect (it clearly isn’t), but, by it’s very nature, it is adaptable to changing circumstances.

I am off to talk shite face to face with my drinking pals and a few bottles of red now, so, over and out, for now. 😂

 

[Pblakeney]

I don’t think your motorway scenario is sound, because, not all drivers want to go faster.

Anyway, I am not suggesting that Capitalism is perfect (it clearly isn’t), but, by it’s very nature, it is adaptable to changing circumstances.

I am off to talk shite face to face with my drinking pals and a few bottles of red now, so, over and out, for now. 😂

It was a quick, easy and fallible analogy. 😉

Capitalism is adaptable but constantly seeking growth.

Fair point, well made. Cheers!

 

[Psamathe]

To add to what BoldonLad says, a lot of our pensions and managed investments are tied up these companies which are allegedly just in the hands of a few wealthy investors.

Pension fund investments vary and pension pots are a variable mix of less stable/higher returns and more secure and that mix changes over time. All my (several) pension funds default to as you get closer to retirement the investments move to higher %age of secure investments eg Guilts.

Ironically the mIn beneficiary of my pension pots are the wealthy fund managers who getthe same cut irrespective of how well the find performs. My pension pots are doing disastrous compared to my other investments, all growing but pensions more than order of magnitude worse and my non-pension investments are not "high risk" (though are offshore".

Ian

 

[Psamathe]

CEOs are part of the system, they are not THE system. Nothing is cast in stone, it is like Nature, a constantly evolving picture.

The system is like a cars on a motorway, and the CEOs are the drivers.
Drivers who want to go faster and faster.

Maybe a good example is BP which was moving to a longer term policy not so focused on hydrocarbons (given climate challenges we face). But shareholders wanted short term returns rather than longer term stability/growth so Chairman goes and company reverts to a policy more damaging to society and more damaging to climate (but shareholders get their higher dividends).

Ian

 

[BoldonLad]

Maybe a good example is BP which was moving to a longer term policy not so focused on hydrocarbons (given climate challenges we face). But shareholders wanted short term returns rather than longer term stability/growth so Chairman goes and company reverts to a policy more damaging to society and more damaging to climate (but shareholders get their higher dividends).

Ian

In which case, the change was not actually “driven” by the original CEO, was it? The “shareholders” are a mix of probably thousands of individuals (including me), and various financial institutions. There is not a “Mr BP” stuffing his pockets with dollars.

 

[Stevo 666]

Well thank god that someone from the right of politics has finally acknowledged that the market isn't sentient.

Only because someone didn't appear to grasp that rather obvious point.