The hottest 14 days ever recorded are the last 2 weeks

I'm just fascinated with how brains like yours work. Assuming any of this is in good faith, that is.

I am a connoisseur of discussion. A man who enjoys discourse. But indeed what I stated are my firm beliefs. And those beliefs have not yet failed me.

It's like you just refuse to accept new information that may change how you view things.

It always depends on the information. Some information just has less weight to it.

You're so resistant to admitting (to yourself, it seems) that you might be wrong, that your brain has "mechanisms" for making sure you never even have to consider the possibility.

Now I feel like I've been put on the spot. This might apply on some of my standpoints. But none so far in our discussion here.

Every single point anyone makes, you are able to come up with some "counter" that, in your mind, confirms that you've always been right (it doesn't),

Oh, just because the Information I have given, does not convince you or support your standpoint, doesn’t make it invalid. I’d like to pull up the Infinite Monkey Theorem at this point. A few false informations can also lead to the correct outcome. But now I have lost the thread.

and everyone who's arguing with you is just trying to trick you into admitting you were wrong, or that you learned something.

And are you not trying to prove me wrong? Is it not, that you claim my standpoints to be somewhat flawed, and yours must be the ultimate ratio?

It can never just be, "hey I didn't know that about my country, that's interesting. Maybe I should reconsider..."

I do reconsider when it’s to my benefit. But as said before, my standpoints have yet to fail me.

Because, you know, Germany has been the most financially successful EU nation basically since he inception of the Union, so your counter that worker stake in companies doesn't work is not based in reality. They're fucking thriving.

Average wealth per person in Germany is lower than in Italy or Greece. some german article to back up my claims Germany are not thriving. The German government is thriving.

You (allegedly) live there, my guy. Learn about why your own country is so successful.

Because it has the highest and second highest taxes in many sectors. And the government uses this money to influence other countries to their benefit. My people are not thriving. I wished for a concept similar to Switzerland. Still high taxes, but the money stays in the country without attempts to control European politics.

The lengths you will go to avoid learning something new or admitting you might have been wrong about something... Like it's protecting itself from new information. It's fascinating.

From my standpoint of course, this is the opposite standpoint.

Have you considered that this too might be an 'experiment'?

Yes. It very well might be. But todays world is so strongly interwoven. Tons of conflicts are constantly challenging the system. And it has yet to break. The final test will be the sudden termination of economic growth. This will be the point, where it will be shows how resilient capitalism rly is.

Defenders of monarchy and the divine right of kings used to argue the exact same thing - that we tried democracy before and it failed in the Roman Republic and Ancient Greece - so clearly feudal monarchy is the best, right?

Tell me which system to try next. But pls don’t suggest to repeat another one again.

Yet here we are, experimenting again.

And that’s a good thing.

Why is this joke of a system the ideal? It doesn't produce innovation - most of the stuff that led to the internet and modern computing came out of DARPA and various govt funded universities.

That was maybe the start. But big companies managed to elevate the importance to another level. The complexity of everything was reinforced and elevated drastically, driven by private companies. Just take a look at AI at this point. AI is innovation, mainly driven by private companies.

All of our space advancements were from state-run NASA and the Soviet space programme.

Because most of it was useless. What kind of innovation did. space exploration bring to humans?

The wealthy CEO types only start 'innovating' after taxpayers fund most of the R&D.

As I already stated, this is not the case. Especially pharma, medical and IT is heavily driven by big corporations. Basic research on the other hand, there you are right. As it usually does not feature real world appliances, means that it’s mostly founded by tax payers and the government.

Same with medical advancements,

Especially medical innovation is heavily driven from the private sector. Pharmaceuticals as well. There is not much involvement of any government or tax payer.

material science, physics - almost every single positive innovation has come from state-run, taxpayer-funded, or non-profit institutions.

But as I said, mostly for the basic research. Without much interest in application.

Maybe try reading a little bit more about all this innovation you seem so fond of: https://academic.oup.com/ser/article/7/3/459/1693191 https://demos.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/files/Entrepreneurial_State_-_web.pdf https://yewtu.be/watch?v=oLLxpAZzy0s

I have a good understanding of sciences. Especially in chemistry and physics. Thanks.

I don’t believe that those scenarios are that plausible.

Here is south Germany, the climate change has led to mediterran plants growing here. The plant life for the climate already exist. And they are spreading (olives don’t make it through the winter yet).

Change is happening, but adapting to it is possible. And solutions for adaptation do not have to be invented, because they already exist.

You sound like a fragile personality. You might be in the wrong occupation.

Or you might be talking bullshit. Because I doubt that you would have internet on a submarine.

Technically most of the planet is Oxygen in the highest reductive state. Bound in ores of oxidases metals.

Second highest occurrence is silicon, also in an oxidated state as Silicon oxides. Then comes Iron and Magnesium.

None of them will burn.

What you are talking about burning is not the planet, but the biosphere. And 99.9% of the biosphere contains far too much water to actually burn.

So no. The planet does not burn. Only tiniest parts of its biosphere sometimes catch fire. And the smoke actually blocks sunlight and acts as a natural measurement against climate change.

I personally know people that endured the UDSSR. And those stories are not pleasant.

And seeing the anti capitalistic movement being accepting of radical ideas and the idea of using violence and the belief that the vote of the masses (who are in favour of Capitalism) is unimportant, just makes me believe that anti capitalistic movements all strive for what we saw in the UDSSR and today in China.

I only accept political ideas that have been viable for years in other countries without the occurrence of dictatorship. If you are a US citizen, then the wishful view to Western Europe is the only one I’d accept as reasonable.

And as a Western European myself, I can say that even though we currently face massive problems with immigration, life here is still more enjoyable than in the rest do the world.

Yea… I know what some environmental scientists are claiming.

But the earth has seen higher levels of carbon already. It has seen higher temperatures and lower temperatures. And we humans inhabit many climate zones already.

And yes, technology can save us. We have the means to control weather with highly reflective particles. Scientists are currently attempting to make fusion work (even though they are probably using a far too small magnetic field. They should have built it 10x larger in France).

And furthermore environmental scientists do not claim that we are fucked. They only claim that change is coming and that this change comes with a bunch of problems.

Also

This kind of futurist accelerationist thinking hasn't turned out well in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurism?wprov=sfla1 It always ends up feeding into Fascism. I wonder why.

Somehow double posted. So this is now a blank comment.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/12/03/asia/china-weather-modification-cloud-seeding-intl-hnk/index.html

It is already done. And the consequences are relatively easy to estimate. Much easier actually than the complex mechanics of world climate change.

Who or what is Raiden?

The rich would just leave the country and some other country would profit from their taxes.

This is an oft-repeated talking point but usually contradicted by data. Sounds smart but isn't smart.

Yes and No. it leads depends on the country and where it is still tolerable and where it is not. In Germany and France we already see people leave. link to a german article. you will need a translator.

Rich people are people and most people don't just up and leave behind places they've built their lives in unless under extreme pressure. A few billionaires might relocate to the Bahamas but they're not going to be able to take their mansions and penthouses with them - and they lose out on the markets, infrastructure, and other benefits of their home countries. That's a major incentive to just pay the taxes.

As I said, it depends on the country and the relative situation to other countries.

If you believe to know which ones are overvalued, then you should try to go buy short positions in them. Maybe you become rich then?

Who says I haven't done that already?

I do. Because you are still here. Arguing on the internet, a cesspool of morons, you and I included.

The stock market is relatively precise, it also projects potential into the future.

The stock market is not precise. I have data and papers discussing this - but there's no need for them. I'll instead leave you with a simple question: if the stock market is so precise, why is there a major crash every decade?

Because events, such as Corona and the ausraube war temporarily lower the estimated gains. Losses are expected. So the value weds to be corrected according to those losses.

Due to that many stocks to combat climate change have risen in popularity and a lot of money has been brought to said companies by purely capitalistic driven motives.

Sure, purely capitalistic motives, which is why a lot of these are impractical venture capital BS and outright scams. It is currently more profitable to greenwash than it is to actually solve the problem.

Companies such as Linde plc are no scam. They existed far longer than the climate drama. Their value just increased because demand in their products increased as well. Greenwashing is only done in media. Company winnings and numbers don’t lie. (Except if they do. Fuck wirecard)

You don't have to take my word for it: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/26/chamath-palihapitiya-esg-investing-is-a-complete-fraud.html

I will look later into that article.