Are all Climate crisis deniers conspiracy theorists?

[iceaura]

Nonsense. It happened everywhere, with or without governments.

No, it didn't.
As your inability to provide evidence or argument illustrates.

Better stop make a big deal out of irrelevant differences (irrelevant because my argument stands even with your original word).

It does not. (You have no visible argument, for starters. The exact meaning of the word I used is central to my observation and claim, for another.
I think that's why you don't use it, and why you so often do that - especially in matters of which you are ignorant and politically agenda driven (like AGW).
You have to misrepresent what other people say, or your "replies" make no sense even to you.

The ownership was determined before I have bought it.

The seller's ownership.
Yep. In a capitalist system, remember? That was your assumption.

Market exchange changes ownership. It doesn't establish it.

? Same thing. In a market capitalist system exchange of capital establishes your ownership of the good - you bought it, in the vernacular. That is the central and defining feature of a capitalist system.

Of course, in a market capitalism, exchange of capital goods should be allowed.

Exchange of capital is "allowed", in market capitalism, by definition.

You admit yourself that ownership can exist also in societies without a capital market:

Admit? I insisted on that, repeatedly, over your objections. I defined different economic systems by the different ways they establish ownership - feudalism vs capitalism, for a clear and recent and significant example. (Inherited wealth, the economic core of feudalism, is quite obviously owned, and quite obviously not acquired by exchange of capital.)
Now I am trying to get you to pay attention to that fundamental characteristic of economic systems.

(What holds for legal markets in relation to ownership - the ownership of the seller has to be established before it can be sold

In capitalism one acquires ownership by purchasing things, handing over money or some other measure of capital in exchange - this is so basic to capitalist systems that in most of them any entity capable of purchasing something can acquire ownership: in the US even corporations, legal structures with no material existence at all, can buy and own stuff.

All of which muddles the issue you are trying to muddle - your simultaneous advocacy of both AGW denial and various conspiracy theories which at first glance seem unrelated, thereby providing anecdotal evidence for an underlying relationship of some kind as the thread implies. In your case the anecdotal evidence appears with extensive postings in explanation and defense of both the AGW denial and the conspiracy theories, which providentially suggest mechanisms for what seem at first glance to be unrelated phenomena not only in your posting but in that of the many others sharing your basic viewpoints.

 

[billvon]

which is: Are you lying, or are you stupid?

So your answer is - no, you still can't imagine a steady state economy persisting through half the participants failing. And then you claim _I'm_ stupid. Great stuff; you definitely belong on the Internet.

 

[iceaura]

So your answer is - no, you still can't imagine a steady state economy persisting through half the participants failing. And then you claim _I'm_ stupid.

That's what, the fifth consecutive idiotic misreading you've posted as a paraphrase? (I claimed you were either lying or stupid. I didn't bet. Could even be a combination of some kind.)

And the third of fourth time you have been warned against paraphrasing like that - directly warned, with illustrative examples quoted

I'm perfectly willing to entertain some other explanation for this display of yours - but these are not complicated posts, and the failures of paraphrase are basic.

But you could always show me up by moving on to a topic - you could, say, post an example of this situation you are insisting I can observe at any time.

To remind you of what you are trying to post an example of:

There are lots more stable equilibria in generically capitalist systems than that. I doubt that one is even stable - it's hard to imagine a steady state economy persisting through half the participants failing, and even harder to imagine a strictly capitalist one maintaining a given state after a few rounds of half the sequentially participating piles of capital "succeeding". How were the effects of accumulation leveled?

Poker games do not maintain steady states, for instance.

Notice that I even explained and illustrated my objection, briefly (didn't want to insult beyond necessity).

You could use that to start from: in your alleged steady state capitalist economic system with its 50% success/failure rate, how were the effects of accumulation leveled? You can use the example you post to illustrate.

 

[billvon]

That's what, the fifth consecutive idiotic misreading you've posted as a paraphrase? (I claimed you were either lying or stupid. I didn't bet. Could even be a combination of some kind.)
And the third of fourth time you have been warned against paraphrasing like that - directly warned, with illustrative examples quoted

What will you do, call me more names? Believe me, I am quaking in my boots!

you could, say, post an example of this situation you are insisting I can observe at any time.

I did - failure rate of new companies. I know you don't understand it. That's fine.

You could use that to start from: in your alleged steady state capitalist economic system with its 50% success/failure rate, how were the effects of accumulation leveled? You can use the example you post to illustrate.

At this point it's clear that you do not want a discussion - you want a platform to demonstrate your perceived intellectual superiority. I'll leave you to your stage; I can see how much you like it.

 

[Schmelzer]

It does not. (You have no visible argument, for starters. The exact meaning of the word I used is central to my observation and claim, for another.
I think that's why you don't use it, and why you so often do that - especially in matters of which you are ignorant and politically agenda driven (like AGW).

I have used it, in the corrected version, it remains valid.

? Same thing. In a market capitalist system exchange of capital establishes your ownership of the good - you bought it, in the vernacular. That is the central and defining feature of a capitalist system.

No. Even if the ownership of a lot of things is gained via the market, there are other ways to gain ownership. Namely all the other ones which are present in societies without such a market.

Exchange of capital is "allowed", in market capitalism, by definition.

Exchange is not establishment. For an exchange, the ownership of the exchanged thing already has to be established. The exchange only changes the particular owner.

Admit? I insisted on that, repeatedly, over your objections. I defined different economic systems by the different ways they establish ownership - feudalism vs capitalism, for a clear and recent and significant example.

No problem. Feel free to define capitalism by the existence of a market for capital goods.

In capitalism one acquires ownership by purchasing things, handing over money or some other measure of capital in exchange - this is so basic to capitalist systems that in most of them any entity capable of purchasing something can acquire ownership: in the US even corporations, legal structures with no material existence at all, can buy and own stuff.

The point being? These are additional possibilities to gain ownership which are not present in feudalism. Fine. The other possibilities to gain ownership do not disappear. In particular, the usual way to establish ownership - by creating the particular good - does not disappear too. As well as the other possibilities to transfer ownership.

So, learn yourself to express your ideas in a clear form, instead of whining about misreadings of your confused writings.

 

[iceaura]

I have used it, in the corrected version, it remains valid.

When you replace my vocabulary with yours you change the meaning.

Exchange is not establishment. For an exchange, the ownership of the exchanged thing already has to be established. The exchange only changes the particular owner.

Exchange of capital establishes ownership, in a capitalist system. By definition.

No. Even if the ownership of a lot of things is gained via the market, there are other ways to gain ownership.

Whatever the government allows or sets up.
"In a market capitalist system - - " etc - - do try to keep up. You quoted that.

In particular, the usual way to establish ownership - by creating the particular good - does not disappear too.

The usual way to become an owner of something in a market capitalist system is by exchanging capital for it.

Creating a particular good does not necessarily establish ownership in a market capitalist system - depends on the law. In an industrial market capitalism, for example, "creation" of the good is almost irrelevant - few factory employees own what they make.
Purchasing it does, paying for its creation does, etc, by definition. Capital exchange.

Meanwhile, the answer appears to be "yes": all climate crisis deniers appear to be conspiracy theorists. In your case the conspiracy is the standard rightwing authoritarian media feed's "deep state".

 

[Quantum Quack]

Meanwhile, the answer appears to be "yes": all climate crisis deniers appear to be conspiracy theorists. In your case the conspiracy is the standard rightwing authoritarian media feed's "deep state".

Good point!
Many a AGW critic/denier will defend their position by claiming some sort of imaginary financial gain construct...
Deeps state, Cabal, you name it .

The real problem though is that there really isn't any money in denying it, in fact there could be more money in accepting it..
So we have a paradoxical position ...
Claiming a financial motive being behind AGW belief is absurd.

 

[Schmelzer]

When you replace my vocabulary with yours you change the meaning.

But in this case, the change was irrelevant because without the replacement my argument remains valid too.

Exchange of capital establishes ownership, in a capitalist system. By definition.

So we obviously use different definitions of "establishes". My interpretation of "establishing ownership" is that there was no ownership before. Either because the thing owned after the establishment of ownership did not even exist before (and was produced), or it existed by was not owned by anybody, so that everybody was free to take it and to own it. This is establishing ownership. Everything else is change of ownership.

The usual way to become an owner of something in a market capitalist system is by exchanging capital for it.

Becoming an owner is something different from an establishment of ownership. If I pay for something which is already owned by another person, no ownership is established, only the owner is changed.

Creating a particular good does not necessarily establish ownership in a market capitalist system - depends on the law. In an industrial market capitalism, for example, "creation" of the good is almost irrelevant - few factory employees own what they make.

Creating a particular good necessarily establishes ownership. Not necessarily of the guy who creates it, this would be only the simplest case. But there was no good before, now it exists, and it is owned by some well-defined person. Ownership has been established. Moreover, in a free market society it depends on the contracts between the participants who owns the piece they have created together. The law only establishes how much of it the government robs.

Meanwhile, the answer appears to be "yes": all climate crisis deniers appear to be conspiracy theorists.

Of course, this is self-evident. "Conspiracy theorist" is a propaganda label used against all those who reject the politically correct (or official government, but as long as Trump rules there may be differences) versions of whatever. Once the climate crisis theory is politically correct, those who reject it are automatically conspiracy theorists.

 

[billvon]

Claiming a financial motive being behind AGW belief is absurd.

Some people do have a financial incentive, like solar system manufacturers.

However, comparing the financials for AGW mitigation and the financial incentives for climate change denial are like comparing an elephant to a mouse, and then worrying that the mouse will be too heavy for your floor. Oil and coal companies in the US alone make a quarter trillion dollars in profit a year. That's just profit. Meanwhile, all solar companies in the US do about 70 billion dollars of business a year. That's total business, not profit. Profit would be closer to 5 billion, less than 2% of oil and coal companies.

 

[Schmelzer]

There are other things which decide about the money paid for lobbyism (the American word for bribery). Namely, how much of the profits depend on government subsidies. For green energy it is close to 100%, without the governments supporting them they would be in danger of bankruptcy. Oil and coal do not depend on subsidies (there have been such dependencies in some regions where coal mining was no longer efficient, given competition by other states, but this is afaiu irrelevant today). So they have no point in investing in climate science. What would be their point? If "climate deniers" win, the green energy firms go bankrupt. But they don't gain anything, the economy on subsidies does not go to coal and oil, but to other government programs, like the army or whatever. Instead, those oil firms which, for some diversification, also have some investment into green energy to gain some of the green government money, will even lose.

 

[iceaura]

But in this case, the change was irrelevant because without the replacement my argument remains valid too.

Your argument was directed at issues and claims that did not exist. The fact that it was also poorly reasoned and wrong - "invalid" - doesn't matter.

Oil and coal do not depend on subsidies

The huge US government subsidies for oil and coal dwarf those for almost any other industry - even discounting the military subsidy.

So they have no point in investing in climate science.

Exxon - among others - invested many millions in climate science, using the knowledge to help them redesign their ocean drilling platforms, guide their Arctic exploration and infrastructure, predict future markets etc.

They just kept it secret, in house and proprietary, for commercial advantage

and to avoid undermining their political campaigns against AGW mitigation via regulation and taxation of fossil fuels.