Can Our Planet Survive Capitalism: Climate Change and Capitalism part 1

Can Our Planet Survive Capitalism: Climate Change and Capitalism part 1


So I thought I would cover the argument by
Francesca Fiorentini on capitalism relative to that of the environment. “Can we keep capitalism
and stop climate change?” As I touched upon before, the failure of socialism to the environment,
I gave the example of the Aral Sea; the disaster that the Soviet Union caused redirecting the
rivers that fed the Aral Sea; I even gave you the example of the Mexican state owned
oil company that caused a massive spill in the Gulf of Mexico. “I’m Francesca Fiorentini
and in this episode we’re looking at the failures of profit driven climate change solutions
and why the cooking of our planet is becoming a recipe for socialism.” Another thing that
really frustrates me, of course, and it’s a bit off topic; the reason why I was a long-term
admirer of Jenna Marbles is because that just really is naturally her personality, you know,
she really acts that way and there’s something, you know, genuine about herself. “Right now,
the trends tend to be skewing hard towards the 90s, which is the only type that trend
that I am here for.” Then you see these other YouTubers like that of Nicole Arbour: “Time
to expose Nicole Arbour.” The way that she comes across, her persona is just so copied
from that of Jenna Marbles. You know, this Francesca Fiorentini, whether she came from
a TV background or wherever else, it’s so irritating, you know? Why can’t people just
be themselves? “Can we have Amazon and the Amazon? What about if the boxes doubled as
levies? Please!” Anyway, let’s just move on. “Once again, we’ve broken global temperature
records with July being the hottest month recorded since the invention of recording
temperatures.” Well, like I’ve said, she doesn’t look at things from a far lengthier time period.
We’ve actually been in a cooling period, we’re in a mini ice age. If you were to contrast
that to, you know, thousands of years ago, even back to the time of the Roman Empire,
the earth was far hotter back then than it ever was today; you could even look at a period
on the planet when there was no ice there, there was no ice and yet there was no extinction.
She mentions about that of the temperature increase, what we can see is where they take
their information from, the computer models. The computer models are completely and wholly
inaccurate. What we can see is that from what NASA had stated themselves, they mentioned
that there was a temperature decline in 2004. Now, the reason why that is so important is
because it contradicts their narrative with CO2 driving the temperatures. Over the course
of 800,000 years, yes, you can see, it may seem that way that CO2 has been pretty much
level in pattern with that of temperatures and therefore, you might think to yourself,
okay, well that must mean it’s CO2 is driving what the temperatures are. The truth of the
matter is, it’s actually the temperature that’s driving CO2 and the reason for the sharp spike
in the CO2 over the past century was actually because of burning all the fossil fuels. “‘The
Libs never want to talk about the Hadean age when the earth was molten lava. Typical.’
It’s so hot that Greenland is losing ice that wasn’t supposed to melt until 2070. The Arctic
is on fire and I’m pretending I belong at random pool parties.” What she completely
ignores, the Antarctic ice has actually been increasing. Now, isn’t that convenient? They
look at one side of the story, they look at the Arctic, but they don’t even bother looking
at the Antarctic. So, that’s why I don’t even take these people seriously. “So, now seems
like as good a time as every other moment prior till now to talk about climate change.
The planet has already warmed by 1 degrees celcius since the time we started burning
all these fossil fuels.” Actually, folk, in one of the most industrialised periods of
our history, we saw temperatures decline, we saw that even post World War II when temperatures
for 4 decades would decline. So, again, that contradicts this narrative about the rise
in temperatures, no there hasn’t, the temperatures have been declining. Maybe in certain years
you’ve seen hotter days and whatnot, but even to look at things from a short graph and a
short time period really isn’t rational. If you want to measure temperatures and how things
have changed, compare that over millions of years and then we’ll see. “and we’re on track
to warm by 4 degrees possibly as soon as 2060. According to the most recent U.N. study, even
2 degrees of warming would mean millions more refugees doubled the lost of food harvest;
10 centimetres of sea level rise and an obliteration of all coral reefs.” And again, folk, it’s
another one of these myths saying that the rise of temperatures results in that of the
higher sea levels. “In order to get people to take action about climate, climate alarmists
like to use imagery which invokes primal fear. The fear of drowning is one of humans most
fundamental instincts, so alarmists create pictures like this one showing Manhattan under
water. There’s nothing new about this, alarmists were doing the exactly the same thing in 1934
showing Manhattan under water as a result of the Arctic melting. April 12th, 1934 while
melting icebergs engulf the world and look, there’s the Empire state building under water.”
But they wish to push this narrative as usual and scare folk into this narrative. “Which
means, we’ve got 12-years to have a shot at a keeping the temperature to a still bad but
manageably terrifying one and a half degrees celcius of warming.” You seriously have to
cringe at these people who think that in the grand scale of things on this planet earth
that 12-years is really going to make a difference, given the fact that, you know, when you see
things like volcanic eruptions take place, you end up seeing more CO2 being emitted into
the earth’s atmosphere than that of what you see from mankind and apparently the CO2 is
causing such great damage. To believe that, you know, 12-years time we’re going to make
some manageable difference. These people would make your life misery. “So yeah, banning plastic
straws ain’t going to cut it, even though it’s fun to watch so-called liberal paper
straws trigger our President into doing this: ‘As campaigns started selling Trump themed
plastic straws so that you can buy a pack of 10 for $15.’ $15 for 10 straws, that’s
a $1.50 per straw.” People like herself do not understand a single thing about economics,
for example; how many people have I met out there who seem to think that privatisation
means expensive costs. Private ownership has got absolutely nothing at all to do with cost,
what’s that got to do with it? You know, that’s got nothing at all do with it. Cost is determined
by the laws of supply and demand. So, of course, if you’re sitting with paper straws then there’s
going to be a shortage of that of those straws and if there’s going to be a greater demand
in ratio to what is in supply, then the cost does go up. You would think that would be
obvious if you understand prices, but to people like this, words cannot even describe just
how ignorant people like this are. I mean, why is it so difficult to find solutions to
problems, for example; look at what they’re doing in England where they grind down the
plastics and they put it into roads, why can’t we do that and fix all the potholes in the
roads? Isn’t that a great idea, rather than paper straws. “If that’s how much Trump thinks
straws cost, how much is his dealer charging him for Aderol. ‘Yeah, that’ll be $700,000.'”
This person seems to go on about that of the drugs and saying “Oh, you know $700,000,”
well, maybe if you actually removed the third party-payer system and maybe if you actually
removed the government from the healthcare system and maybe if you actually go and study
the American Medical Association monopoly, maybe then you’ll discover that it was your
socialist government interventionism through restricting the market and taking away consumer
demand in the market, in other words, taking away capitalism and then monopolising the
cost into a third party and then questioning why you a collusion with costs of medicine
driving through the roof. I’m not bloody well surprised, that’s what happens when you introduce
socialism into the economy. “Part of the reason we’re at such a breaking point is thanks to
years of shallow solutions, solutions often divised by the same corporate interests that
got us into this mess in the first place.” No, what got us into this mess today is because
people such as yourself thought it was such a great idea to get government involved in
the economy. That’s precisely, that is 100 percent the very reason why your economy is
in the mess that it’s in today. We’ve got the statistical and historical evidence there
that to prove that before the antitrust laws, those so-called companies you accused of holding
monopolies, did not hold monopolies, they were benefiting the consumers. But because
people like you don’t know history and because people like yourself, Francesca Fiorentini,
are stubbornly ignorant of that history, you want to continue on blaming it all on capitalism
and so what do you do? You continue on supporting the very things that led to the rise of all
the costs of goods and services soaring through the roof because that’s what happens; what
does the higher price in the market mean? It means a shortage; it means that demand
far exceeds that of supply. So, how did your government benefit in that matter? It didn’t,
it just drove people’s costs of living through the roof and crippled them. It’s the very
reason why the American healthcare system today is so morally bankrupt. It’s bankrupt
because your socialist government interventionism engineered it. “One of those solutions is
carbon cap and trade which tries to get polluters to pollute less by limiting the amount of
carbon any corporation can emit.” Here we come with all of these caps being imposed
on industry. If you honestly think that is a solution to such a problem, the inevitable
consequence of your silly actions, not only are you going to harm productivity, you will
harm innovation because you will restrict companies from, you know, not just how much
they can produce, you will restrict them from innovation. So, they won’t be able to innovate
the same and technologically improve. You know, solutions to actually improving things,
right, so that’s number 1. The second thing and this is the special point, right, because
you went on about the $700,000 cost, well guess what? The higher price is a signal to
tell you there’s a shortage, the only way that you can create a monopoly is by restricting
productive output, right, that’s it. So, esseentially what you’re wanting to do, you want to restrict
their productive output. You basically want to drive up their costs of goods and services
because that’s 100 percent what that will lead to because you’re restricting how much
they can produce, because you’ve just basically said you want to set down caps. Now, another
thing is that and you can pretty much see where this is going because this is exactly
where it always goes with you socialists because you just don’t understand economics, you don’t
even understand real world solutions to problems. A real world solution to a higher cost is
produce more to bring the cost down so that, you know, supply can keep up with demand,
that’s what you do. However, people such as yourself wish to impose caps, that is to say;
price ceilings and what does that result in? Shortage problems. You end up seeing the real
cost going through the roof, this is what I mean about people such as yourself, Francesca
Fiorentini, you don’t even understand basic economics. You see, that sitting over there
is what you call ‘Basic Economics,’ right? That there, go and read it, go and get Thomas
Sowell’s book ‘Basic Economics’ and study it. Hell, even within the first few chapters
it talks about prices and explains this in plain English for you.

3 Comments on "Can Our Planet Survive Capitalism: Climate Change and Capitalism part 1"


  1. Capitalism is like having ice cream in many flavors. Socialism AKA slavery is one flavor that is so nasty that it is never to be thrown out and left to rot and parasiticly spread like cancer aka govt oppression. Good video Scotty 😎🇺🇸💯💯💯🔫 to socialism

    Reply

  2. I don't get why socialist want to talk about global warming then proceed to just take about unfairness in a business or capitalism in general. This is a big deal and you acknowledge it as so, then why would you talk about that. It's like if were to talk about marginal tax rates in a middle a catastrophic meteor. Doesn't seem like you're taking the threat seriously

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *