Greta and the aristocrat sail the high seas to save the planet.

KyussB

Tuisceanch wrote: »

Could you condense that into a tweet with an emoticon attached?

GND is clear, renewable infrastructure/R&D + living wage Job Guarantee. Ideological opponents unconvinceable.

No monetary 'cost' in terms of fixed pot of money, government pot limited by max GDP, isn't fixed.

Real cost is the environmental/social/etc. one of not acting.

AlekSmart

gozunda wrote: »

SNIP
And get out of here with 'the message greta is trying to communicate'. She's a teenager - apparently prone to tantruns and exaggeration and getting her own way. And yet hilariously we have those who would hold her up as shining light. But you know that already.

Neither holding the tenets of the new religion of GND or believing that saint greta is the new guru bringing the message of salvation to the masses are necessary for logical scrutiny.
SNIP

In the era of mass instant communication,every message needs it's Greta.

Those who make,manage and manipulate any given message,will all compete to get their figurehead in place,and with Greta Thunberg they have struck gold.

What all of this entails for Greta herself,as a person,is still undecided,but it's fair to speculate on whether Climate Change alone would be her chosen issue or in it's absence which other apocalyptic human carry-on would she have been allocated.

Greta,like avery other member of our species,will age,mature and perhaps even alter her opinions on a vast number of issues,it's what makes Humanity...well...Human ?

By the time Greta gets to 40,she may have met a partner who's not as focused on cataclysmic events as she.
Her parents,or close influencers may well pass-on and/or her followers may thin out.
Who knows,she may develop a liking for a Koenigsegg.

What way her personal development is being compromised in all of this remains open to conjecture,but as it appears to fit in with her parents life choices,I have to accept she's also cool with it.

Now,...i DO like the look of that Koenigsegg.....http://www.topcarrating.com/power.php?brand_id=123

Tuisceanch

:mad:

KyussB wrote: »

GND is clear, renewable infrastructure/R&D + living wage Job Guarantee. Ideological opponents unconvinceable.

No monetary 'cost' in terms of fixed pot of money, government pot limited by max GDP, isn't fixed.

Real cost is the environmental/social/etc. one of not acting.

Damn right the government's pot should be limited until they fix the economy. Ordinary honest working Joe ain't got no time for smoking pot when there's real work to be done. Lynch the lot of them.

Tuisceanch

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Climate saint Greta Trunburg is settling sail for UN climate talks in New York to demand that governments socially engineer and tax the little people into oblivion to save the planet.

The premise of the argument put forward in the OP seems to centered on the text in bold. It could be interpreted that the opinion of the OP is that the action of a 16 year old girl is designed to pressurize world leaders to socially engineer and tax a certain section of the human population,although it might be construed that her actions are solely directed at dwarfs, the result of which will lead to their demise.



Presumably the mechanisms,although not explicitly referenced,that bring about this dystopian future, are a reference to market-based incentives,such as carbon tax plans or cap and trade and also more broad based plans such as the Green New Deal, which while not yet fully formed, promises jobs and economic security, as part of a drive to get greenhouse gas emissions to net zero and organizations such as the 'United States Climate Alliance' http://www.usclimatealliance.org/.

The arguments against these proposals seem to range from their ineffectiveness,their undesirability (sometimes attributed to an unspecified fear of being forced into a communist nightmare)
to an opinion that no such action is required because the threat of climate change is grossly exaggerated and in some people's opinion not related anyway to human activity.



Leaving aside the position that no action is required it would be interesting to hear from people who recognize that action is required but don't consider that current proposals are desirable,for whatever reason,and what proposals they would consider more effective and desirable.

KyussB

KyussB wrote: »

GND is clear, renewable infrastructure/R&D + living wage Job Guarantee. Ideological opponents unconvinceable.

No monetary 'cost' in terms of fixed pot of money, government pot limited by max GDP, isn't fixed.

Real cost is the environmental/social/etc. one of not acting.

mONeY IsnT ReAL!

KyussB

Deleted User wrote: »

mONeY IsnT ReAL!

Yea, that's why long-form posts are better than tweet-form, for some topics...having detailed every aspect of the argument in the long-form post, making such dismissals hard - unsurprisingly the TLDR/tweet-form post is chosen, to dismiss...

Do you think all money is physical cash or in commodity/gold form, sitting in a bank vault or something?

I think you've derailed this thread to your hobbyhorse enough, but rest assured I'm au fait with the basics of wealth creation theory, future value of money concept, the arguments for capital investment from exchequer funding, relevance of the low rate on govt bonds for same, yadda, yadda, yadda

their relevance to this thread is nil

the basis for your belief that capital govt spending is to all intents and purposes cost-free is fantasy

listen though, why has greta thunberg been platformed to the extent where she is performing show-trial level diatribes to important international policy makers?

not to keep asking, like.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

I think you've derailed this thread to your hobbyhorse enough, but rest assured I'm au fait with the basics of wealth creation theory, future value of money concept, the arguments for capital investment from exchequer funding, relevance of the low rate on govt bonds for same, yadda, yadda, yadda

their relevance to this thread is nil

the basis for your belief that capital govt spending is to all intents and purposes cost-free is fantasy

listen though, why has greta thunberg been platformed to the extent where she is performing show-trial level diatribes to important international policy makers?

not to keep asking, like.

She hasn't been 'platformed'.
She hasn't 'performed show-trial level diatribes' to anyone.

Next.

AlekSmart

Deleted User wrote: »

Listen though, why has Greta Thunberg been platformed to the extent where she is performing show-trial level diatribes to important international policy makers?

not to keep asking, like.

Good question,all the same....Out of nowhere...one girl on strike from school somewhere.

Something just isn't right here,but in the maelstrom of media concoctions,once we have the skeleton we can hang a lot more upon it.....

https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-10-10/how-did-teen-climate-activist-greta-thunberg-rise-fame-so-quickly

But Thunberg is not the first young person to take a stand against environmental injustice.

And many who came before have been Indigenous activists and activists of color.

“There are all these really tremendous activist leaders who are similarly positioned to Greta Thunberg, but who haven’t gotten the spotlight,” said Joe Curnow, an assistant professor at the University of Manitoba who’s been studying the youth climate movement for five years.

The US youth climate movement has many young women of color at the helm, including Jamie Margolin, co-founder of the Zero Hour movement, Isra Hirsi, executive director of the US Climate Strike, and countless others.

“So, I’m like, why Greta? And I think that has a lot to do with questions of race and racism,” Curnow said. “I think her whiteness is very much an asset for why the media, why governments, why the UN has been willing to feature her.”

The environmental movement, overall, has been criticized for being too white for a long time. The spotlight on Thunberg may be an opportunity to change that, argues longtime environmental justice activist Mustafa Santiago Ali, who spent years at the Environmental Protection Agency and is now with the National Wildlife Federation.

“I hope as much attention will be given to a number of kids of color who have been literally, not just standing on the front lines, but living in the front lines for decades now,” Ali said.

Thunberg has tried to share the spotlight. This week, she visited the Standing Rock Indian Reservation to show solidarity with Indigenous activists, and routinely mentions in speeches that those on the front lines of climate change are feeling its effects more acutely than her.

“It is something that comes up a lot, the fact that Greta is a white, [privileged] girl,” Bastida said. “But we are not resentful at all. We just are thankful that the movement has gotten to where it has needed to be for a long time.”

Greta's star will wane in time,the World will find something else to be concerned over,but as can be seen above,Greta may well simply find another topic to be motivated by...it's all quite odd really....odder and odder...

KyussB

Deleted User wrote: »

I think you've derailed this thread to your hobbyhorse enough, but rest assured I'm au fait with the basics of wealth creation theory, future value of money concept, the arguments for capital investment from exchequer funding, relevance of the low rate on govt bonds for same, yadda, yadda, yadda

their relevance to this thread is nil

the basis for your belief that capital govt spending is to all intents and purposes cost-free is fantasy

listen though, why has greta thunberg been platformed to the extent where she is performing show-trial level diatribes to important international policy makers?

not to keep asking, like.

If your synonym of 'cost', is that it requires spending money - then no, it's not cost free, obviously.

If your synonym of 'cost', is that the government has a fixed pot of money, and spending has a fixed numerical limit - that is wrong - the limit is hitting maximum GDP, it is not limited by an arbitrary numeric limit. There would be a 'cost' by spending past maximum GDP, not by spending past an arbitrary fixed monetary limit.

If your synonym of 'cost', focuses on something 'bad' happening as a consequence of government spending - then that 'bad' thing, is not determined based on an arbitrary numeric limit - it is determined based on the social/environmental/etc. consequences of spending vs not spending - and from this point of view, the only cost is through not spending to act on ending our contribution to climate change.

If the discussion is about averting climate change - which it is... - and if government spending is arguably the best method for doing that, then it's perfectly relevant.

sorry man, i understood you perfectly well, there's really no need to keep repeating yourself. You just didn't make any sense- repeating it again won't help either, before you set off.

if you have to invent a three paragraph definition of what "cost" means in order to tell people why things don't "cost" anything, then people will tend to see through that- or do you find otherwise?

it's an interesting approach though.

KyussB

KyussB wrote: »

If the discussion is about averting climate change - which it is....

its actually a thread about the highly questionable platforming of greta thunberg

that people who don't want this discussed keep trying to divert it into a discussion about climate change denialism, the sources of funding of any writing they disagree with, the imaginary number theory of government capital finance, the morality of people being allowed to disagree with them, and the certain success of collective socialist planned economies if only the denialistas could be crushed is cute.

but it doesnt change what this thread is about.

Tuisceanch

KyussB wrote: »

If your synonym of 'cost', is that the government has a fixed pot of money, and spending has a fixed numerical limit - that is wrong - the limit is hitting maximum GDP, it is not limited by an arbitrary numeric limit. There would be a 'cost' by spending past maximum GDP, not by spending past an arbitrary fixed monetary limit.

Isn't this essentially synonymous with quantitive easing where in this case, as opposed to what happened in the 2008 crash when the increased money supply was used to purchase the bad assets of the banks,liquidity is injected into the economy to fund government infrastructure projects whilst closely monitoring the costs of inflation.

If quantitative easing itself loses effectiveness, fiscal policy (government spending) may be used to further expand the money supply. In effect, quantitative easing can even blur the line between monetary and fiscal policy, if the assets purchased consist of long term government bonds that are being issued to finance counter-cyclical deficit spending.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

its actually a thread about the highly questionable platforming of greta thunberg

that people who don't want this discussed keep trying to divert it into a discussion about climate change denialism, the sources of funding of any writing they disagree with, the imaginary number theory of government capital finance, the morality of people being allowed to disagree with them, and the certain success of collective socialist planned economies if only the denialistas could be crushed is cute.

but it doesnt change what this thread is about.

Its v telling that people don't want to discuss climate change but instead try to shoot the messenger using all sorts of nonsense to try to undermine the message.

Thankfully, it seems to be getting through, C4 are hosting a 1 hour debate tied in to the UK election tonight where the topic is solely the climate.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

Its v telling that people don't want to discuss climate change but instead try to shoot the messenger using all sorts of nonsense to try to undermine the message.

Thankfully, it seems to be getting through, C4 are hosting a 1 hour debate tied in to the UK election tonight where the topic is solely the climate.

this thread is about what messenger is chosen to deliver what message.

it's not a thread to discuss climate change.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

this thread is about what messenger is chosen to deliver what message.

it's not a thread to discuss climate change.

Deflect. Deflect. Deflect.

Discussion is happening. Finally.

James Brown

If it takes a gimmick, (a girl giving everyone stink eye) fine.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

Deflect. Deflect. Deflect.

Discussion is happening. Finally.

it's incredible tbh.

why wouldn't you just go start a thread for the topic you want to discuss?

a: because what you want is for nobody to ask any questions about the little climate goddess.

the accusation that anyone else is the one deflecting is gobsmacking.

Matt Barrett

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If it takes a gimmick, (a girl giving everyone stink eye) fine.

Matt, despite the countless accusations, the projection, the insults, the statements by kyuss a few nights back that he couldn't back up (but won't retract):

I can respect the above.

But people should be able to discuss the gimmick aspect and what the implications of it are (for the movement, in the short and long run; for how the campaign is run, and by whom; for the child involved; for what it says about those swallowing it so furiously that they attack any sceptics; etc) without the level of attack, deflection, derailing, projection etc etc in this thread.

Tuisceanch

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Climate saint Greta Trunburg is settling sail for UN climate talks in New York to demand that governments socially engineer and tax the little people into oblivion to save the planet. Accompanied by her film maker father who lives vicariously through her, a filthy rich aristocrat from Monaco and some German bloke the trip will no doubt vastly increase the wattage of her halo before she lectures us all about impending climate Armageddon in New York. Hopefully snaps from the trip will make it into Hello! Magazine.

Apart from the text in bold the rest of the OP is comprised of slurs against herself,father and an unnamed aristocat and German bloke (seems very mean spirited and prejudiced to me) mixed in with some conjecture, so the argument seems to be about the socioeconomic impact of climate change which is what some people are discussing. If it was meant to be about who is financing her activism and their motivations then the OP should have mentioned that. Is there a restriction on how many threads can be open on the subject of Greta Thunberg? because surely there's an opportunity to create a new one in order to frame that argument more coherently. Anyway what's the problem if a thread broadens the discussion. Isn't that the purpose of this site? Surely the opportunity to engage other people from different walks of life and experiences in intelligent reasoned debate is the hallmark of a healthy democracy. Do people not want that? And why can't people who solely want to focus on Greta Thunberg's role not just discuss it amongst themselves?

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

Matt, despite the countless accusations, the projection, the insults, the statements by kyuss a few nights back that he couldn't back up (but won't retract):

I can respect the above.

But people should be able to discuss the gimmick aspect and what the implications of it are (for the movement, in the short and long run; for how the campaign is run, and by whom; for the child involved; for what it says about those swallowing it so furiously that they attack any sceptics; etc) without the level of attack, deflection, derailing, projection etc etc in this thread.

You can't take any response in defense of Greta's position with claiming it as an attack.

If anyone questions the source of anti-climate views, the accusation is 'Oh you're attacking me' 'I'm entitled to be a sceptic'. It's all very snowflakey isn't it.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

You can't take any response in defense of Greta's position with claiming it as an attack.

If anyone questions the source of anti-climate views, the accusation is 'Oh you're attacking me' 'I'm entitled to be a sceptic'. It's all very snowflakey isn't it.

you're unable to make a point without telling the target what they think, even when you veer away from the innacurate decrying of anyone not buying the snake oil as a climate change denier or the borderline ad-hom that seems to be a whisker away whenever anyone questions thunberg & entourage

it's very charmless stuff, tbh, even just that first part alone.

i mean "anti climate views" is such a snake oil term, can you not take an honest defence of your position at all?

good lord.

Tuisceanch

Tuisceanch wrote: »

Apart from the text in bold the rest of the OP is comprised of slurs against herself,father and an unnamed aristocat and German bloke (seems very mean spirited and prejudiced to me) mixed in with some conjecture, so the argument seems to be about the socioeconomic impact of climate change which is what some people are discussing. If it was meant to be about who is financing her activism and their motivations then the OP should have mentioned that. Is there a restriction on how many threads can be open on the subject of Greta Thunberg? because surely there's an opportunity to create a new one in order to frame that argument more coherently. Anyway what's the problem if a thread broadens the discussion. Isn't that the purpose of this site? Surely the opportunity to engage other people from different walks of life and experiences in intelligent reasoned debate is the hallmark of healthy democracy. Do people not want that? And why can't people who solely want to focus on Greta Thunberg's role not just discuss it amongst themselves?

so instead of a thread of questioning the rather puzzling and quite high-level platforming of thunberg as 2019s cause celebre, this thread should be about anything that three posters can drag it to?

and the thread about thunberg should start another thread about thunberg?

i think youve made very good contributions to this thread on climate change, not that i welcome the discussion in this thread, but does that request not strike you as a little rich?

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

She hasn't been 'platformed'.
She hasn't 'performed show-trial level diatribes' to anyone.

Next.

Just to keep the Panto analogies re seven dwarves etc going - Oh Yes she Has!

Professor Moriarty

Akrasia wrote: »

Now that you’ve told us what the solution isn’t, please tell us your own brilliant idea to reverse the accumulation of greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere within the next couple of decades?

I’m genuinely fascinated to hear your insights

Tumbleweed...

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

you're unable to make a point without telling the target what they think, even when you veer away from the innacurate decrying of anyone not buying the snake oil as a climate change denier or the borderline ad-hom that seems to be a whisker away whenever anyone questions thunberg & entourage

it's very charmless stuff, tbh, even just that first part alone.

i mean "anti climate views" is such a snake oil term, can you not take an honest defence of your position at all?

good lord.

I'm sorry, are you talking about me, or your good self?

Also, did you mean to say 'take an honest defence' or 'make an honest defence'?

If it's the former, that doesn't make any sense, if it's the latter, my position is clear.

There needs to be action on the climate.
Greta has done very well in publicising this and calling for the necessary action. She should be commended for doing so.

I can add to that, and this is why I have so many posts on this thread, I feel that those who are aiming to demean Greta are ignoring the need for the action which she is talking about or undermining the awareness which she is raising and neither action is of benefit to us and so I challenge it. It is an added bonus that these people are showing that their disagreement with her are almost entirely rooted in outdated thinking.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

If your synonym of 'cost', is that it requires spending money - then no, it's not cost free, obviously.If your synonym of 'cost', is that the government has a fixed pot of money, and spending has a fixed numerical limit - that is wrong - the limit is hitting maximum GDP, it is not limited by an arbitrary numeric limit. There would be a 'cost' by spending past maximum GDP, not by spending past an arbitrary fixed monetary limit. If your synonym of 'cost', focuses on something 'bad' happening as a consequence of government spending - then that 'bad' thing, is not determined based on an arbitrary numeric limit - it is determined based on the social/environmental/etc. consequences of spending vs not spending - and from this point of view, the only cost is through not spending to act on ending our contribution to climate change.If the discussion is about averting climate change - which it is... - and if government spending is arguably the best method for doing that, then it's perfectly relevant.

Way to many ifs and conditional pretexts in that to be in any way logical.

Yeah I reckon the daft idea of free money economies has been repeated many may times in this thread and it still makes absolute no sense whatsoever. The same didn't work in Cuba and it didn't work in North Korea either. But there we are ..

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm sorry, are you talking about me, or your good self?

Also, did you mean to say 'take an honest defence' or 'make an honest defence'?

If it's the former, that doesn't make any sense, if it's the latter, my position is clear.

There needs to be action on the climate.
Greta has done very well in publicising this and calling for the necessary action. She should be commended for doing so.

I can add to that, and this is why I have so many posts on this thread, I feel that those who are aiming to demean Greta are ignoring the need for the action which she is talking about or undermining the awareness which she is raising and neither action is of benefit to us and so I challenge it. It is an added bonus that these people are showing that their disagreement with her are almost entirely rooted in outdated thinking.

oh god

"i know you are but what am i"

"i dont understand what you mean by the term "take a defence of something, i mean what could that mean, oh im confused!""

and the kicker, your only actual position on this thread:

"the end justifies the means, and anyone who disagrees is a Bad Person"

the actual level of this stuff.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm sorry, are you talking about me, or your good self?
Also, did you mean to say 'take an honest defence' or 'make an honest defence'?
If it's the former, that doesn't make any sense, if it's the latter, my position is clear.
There needs to be action on the climate.
Greta has done very well in publicising this and calling for the necessary action. She should be commended for doing so.
I can add to that, and this is why I have so many posts on this thread, I feel that those who are aiming to demean Greta are ignoring the need for the action which she is talking about or undermining the awareness which she is raising and neither action is of benefit to us and so I challenge it. It is an added bonus that these people are showing that their disagreement with her are almost entirely rooted in outdated thinking[.

You may indeed 'feel' that. But unfortunatly that type of thinking comes across as simply deluded. The fact is that pointing out that greta is more or less a fairly typical teenager - albeit one that is being feted by others - is not demeaning to anyone nor ignoring any need to come up with positive solutions. The two are not synonymous by any stretch of the imagination. Oddly the only evidence of seriously outdated thinking are those engaged in an apparent cult of personality.

gozunda

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Tumbleweed...

Indeed. Rumpelstiltskin :pac:

The Brothers Grimm retold the story Rumpelstiltskin from folktales that they were told. This is the story of a miller who gets his daughter in hot water by falsely telling the King she can spin straw into gold. 

....

https://study.com/academy/lesson/rumpelstiltskin-story-summary-facts.html