The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[sendler]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Many converging bottlenecks coming at us. Globalization and automation are making the free market for labor no longer functional enough to provide an acceptable income for increasing numbers of people. People's numbers are increasing. The ER/EI of energy and resources is steadily downgrading. The environment is stressing. Soil and water are depleting. There will be less social surplus to go around. We will need a whole new way of distributing it so that everyone has at least enough.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sendler

Many converging bottlenecks coming at us. Globalization and automation are making the free market for labor no longer functional enough to provide an acceptable income for increasing numbers of people.

There is not evidence of that. The world's wealth per GDP has been on the rise with globalization and automation. An increasing number of people are no longer impoverished. Life expectancy is way up.

Perhaps resource shortages will pose a problem in the future, but that is a different issue than globalization and automation.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

There is not evidence of that. The world's wealth per GDP has been on the rise with globalization and automation. An increasing number of people are no longer impoverished. Life expectancy is way up.

Perhaps resource shortages will pose a problem in the future, but that is a different issue than globalization and automation.

Wealth per GDP is an average. And the last 20 years have seen an accelerating increased concentration of the wealth accumulating at the top few percent with less going to the middle and bottom. It is happening already. It has been happening for 40 years with globalization and automation will tend to finish it off. Along with all of the other bottle necks that are converging. We are already seeing near negative interest rates throughout Europe to keep the economy from crashing.
.
Everyone in the USA from about 60% and below makes less now than they did in 2000. The only saving feature is that globalization to areas of super cheap labor and reduced environmental regulations has reduced the price of gadgets and clothing so that the shrinking USA middle class can generally get by with less money. As long as they don't want a family or a car or a house or health care or secondary education or food.
.
The top 1% in the USA now takes 24% of the earnings. In 1976 the top 1% took 9% of the earnings.
.
https://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM
.
.

.
.

[oil pan 4]

I think the globalist won't stop till the 1% owns 99% of everything and takes 99% of the income.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by sendler

Many converging bottlenecks coming at us. Globalization and automation are making the free market for labor no longer functional enough to provide an acceptable income for increasing numbers of people. People's numbers are increasing. The ER/EI of energy and resources is steadily downgrading. The environment is stressing. Soil and water are depleting. There will be less social surplus to go around. We will need a whole new way of distributing it so that everyone has at least enough.

We are also facing unprecedented climate change - which Joe Scott mentions in the video, and covers in several other videos.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sendler

Wealth per GDP is an average. And the last 20 years have seen an accelerating increased concentration of the wealth accumulating at the top few percent with less going to the middle and bottom...

Everyone in the USA from about 60% and below makes less now than they did in 2000. The only saving feature is that globalization to areas of super cheap labor and reduced environmental regulations has reduced the price of gadgets and clothing so that the shrinking USA middle class can generally get by with less money. As long as they don't want a family or a car or a house or health care or secondary education or food.

As if money spent by the 1% spontaneously bursts into flames the moment they purchase something, never to be spent again by the oppressed 99%. I guess everyone is volunteering their time and don't get paid.

The global GDP per capita has been rising throughout the income distribution. The fact that the more wealthy have benefited more is entirely expected, as that is a feature of nature, that the big get bigger at a faster rate.

You've already mentioned why we're better off than in 2000; there's hardly anyone that would rather be living in 2000 than now.

It might be a problem that the very wealthy are accumulating a greater portion of the wealth (the top 20% of households pay 87% of the federal taxes); but the problem isn't globalization or automation. What are we going to do, de-globalize (isolate) and form an angry mob to tear down factories? We'd then go back to expensive goods AND the economy in the US would be much worse since other countries would continue with global trade and automation.

I've already stated my idea for closing tax loopholes and reducing political corruption, which is to eliminate tax deductions entirely.

Pointing out that globalization and automation have contributed to increasing resource consumption is like pointing out that penicillin has increased resource consumption through reduced deaths by infection. We're not going to abandon any of those things.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

The world's wealth per GDP has been on the rise with globalization and automation. An increasing number of people are no longer impoverished. Life expectancy is way up.

Perhaps resource shortages will pose a problem in the future, but that is a different issue than globalization and automation.

We're surfing on a breaker. Kowabunga.

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

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

We are also facing unprecedented climate change - which Joe Scott mentions in the video, and covers in several other videos.

According to the ipcc we are not.
Who do we believe the ipcc or a guy on youtube.

Plus the last inter glacial it was likely 8 degrees warmer.
So you can't say it's unprecedented.

[freebeard]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tul07hx8V8w

[sendler]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

According to the ipcc we are not.
Who do we believe the ipcc or a guy on youtube.

Plus the last inter glacial it was likely 8 degrees warmer.
So you can't say it's unprecedented.

NASA GISS from ocean cores shows only .8C warmer than today at the highest peak from the previous deglaciation 125,000 years ago.
.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_15/
.
.

.
.