Brickbat: Supply and Demand

The British Labour Party is looking at forcing the the London Stock Exchange to delist companies that don't do enough to fight global warming if it comes back to power. "We've got to signal now that we're being serious about tackling climate change. And we're going to use every lever of government we possibly can to enable that to happen," said John McDonnell, the party's shadow chancellor of the exchequer. McDonnell said he would also like to see the criteria for listing a company on the stock exchange include its record on human rights and trade union rights.

Comments

[Illocust]

So London would like to make the London stock exchange irrelevant?

[Ray McKigney]

Wall Street says "thank you."

[Rossami]

That was my thought as well. It will take those companies maybe 15 minutes to move their listings to some other exchange. Many of them are already dual-listed. All this will do is hurt UK families and other small investors who will now need to buy internationally rather than in their local currency.

[sharmota4zeb]

Wall Street says “thank you.”

Paris, Frankfurt, Dubai, and Tokyo second that sentiment.

[msimmons]

How to stop a man-caused global warmist:

What is the correct average global temperature?

[sharmota4zeb]

I don't know. The planet has been getting hotter ever since I was born. It is silly for scientists to blame fossil fuel consumption.

[Radioactive]

I blame all those shadow parliaments...

[Fist of Etiquette]

We've got to signal now that we're being serious about tackling climate change.

Signal being the operative word.

[Jerryskids]

They're signaling now. When people tell you they hate you and want to kill you, you should take them seriously.

[Ordinary Person]

Thank you for the warning. Just keep signaling it so we'll know when the doom arrives.

[Leo Kovalensky II]

In my opinion, the conversation of whether AGW is real or not is merely a distraction. The real question should be what to do about it, if it is real. We, libertarians, should be making the case that government cannot solve the issue, just like they couldn't solve poverty or other "crises" in the world. It's merely an opportunistic power grab.

Just look at the Green New Deal. It's barely even about energy efficiency. It's primarily a bloated, redistribution laden bill. What does Medicare for all, "living" wage, or free college tuition have to do with CO2 emissions?

[Longtobefree]

IF it is real?
Well the fact of miniscule variations of the 'adjusted' temperature of the earth is probably real. The actual question is why should any of the earth's species do anything other than adapt as they always have, through ice ages and through warmer times?
Man, short of possibly total global nuclear war, cannot affect the operation of the earth in any meaningful way.
As you point out, then, the only goal of the panic mongers is totalitarian control of the human populace.
Welcome to the revolution. Punch a greenie each day.

[Zeb]

Man, short of possibly total global nuclear war, cannot affect the operation of the earth in any meaningful way.

That seems like a pretty big assumption without much to back it up.

[Longtobefree]

How about I claim 329 anonymous 'highly placed officials' of some unnamed organizations? Will that elevate me to the level of professional journalists? Like the last two years?
My assumption is based on observation of the history of man, and the failure of our efforts to date to seriously damage the planet in a way that can be detected two generations later.

For the Jews and Christians; God gave man dominion over all the earth. We are to subdue and rule it. (free paraphrase of Genesis 1:26) (I do not know what the Koran has to say on this)
For all others; Darwin's theory of evolution says to leave the earth alone to find it's own equilibrium.

[Overt]

Most serious policy arguments *DO* focus on what the Government ought to do about it. But you are going to lose the argument if you think you can debate whether government *should* do something about it. Whether you like it or not, the public automatically assumes that the government should fix our problems. This is their default assumption, and challenging that assumption is not easy. This default assumption transcends race and political orientation. On the right, you have the desire to "fix" our labor problems with immigration restriction and tariffs. On the left you have desires to fix poverty with welfare and -for-all.

This is why many arguments boil back to "Is there really a problem needing a solution." Because if you answer yes, then the public will largely give government the free ticket to do whatever the communist environmentalists want.

[Leo Kovalensky II]

This is their default assumption, and challenging that assumption is not easy.

But that's precisely my point. The political right, who I think libertarians can ally with in this fight, can't seem to get past the debate on scientific terms--something both sides of politicians are grossly incapable of debating--of whether AGW is real or not. To me, that point is moot in relation to whether or not authoritarianism is the proper way to address it. Whether it's real or not, libertarians and the political right should be able to make the argument that free people in free markets are much better equipped to deal with "crises" than government.

[Brandybuck]

Oh it's real! The problem is that the Left is so insistent that they make everything about politics that they can't understand why people on the right, in the middle, and even many on the their own left, aren't on board.

Why don't people believe in the overwhelming evidence of climate change? Because Al Gore advocated banning the internal combustion engine! (While at the same time flying everywhere on his private carbon fueled jet).

People friendly to markets push back when the Left insists that the only solution to climate change is to get rid of markets. Geez, even Pelosi rolls her eyes at that one.

So yeah people, it's real. The evidence is there. There's consensus among scientists who've studied it. But dont' listen to the Left. The solution isn't dumping markets, the solution is going to depend on markets.

[Azathoth!!]

Why don’t people believe in the overwhelming evidence of climate change?

Because the 'threat' is meaningless.

The climate changes. This is the way of things. Many who bleat about the dangers of climate change do so from places that, had the climate not changed, would be under a mile of ice.

The climate changes and humans adapt.

As they always have.

Or are we denying that humans and prehumans have been through much hotter and much colder already?

[Greg F]

Why don’t people believe in the overwhelming evidence of climate change?

Because the supposed evidence is from faulty climate models.

The evidence is there.

Repeating this will not make it true which is why people usually follow up with:

There’s consensus among scientists who’ve studied it.

Could you show me where in the scientific method the idea of consensus is mentioned? Can you state what conditions would have to be satisfied to falsify the hypothesis?

[Conchfritters]

shadow chancellor of the exchequer

AKA - captain dipshit.

[AlmightyJB]

shadow chancellor seems appropriate but should have gone with Sith chancellor.

[Rich]

"We've got to signal now that we're being serious about tackling climate change. And we're going to use every lever of government we possibly can to enable that to happen," said John McDonnell

"Indeed, to show just how bloody serious, I am divorcing my wife because she hasn't done enough to tackle climate change."

[Ray McKigney]

"And I'm banging this hot grad student because she's all about tackling climate change. Take that, global warming!"

[Mickey Rat]

So blacklists are now back in fashion on the Left?

[loveconstitution1789]

Blackshirts sure are.

[Quo Usque Tandem]

I wonder what future historians will label these times?

The decades of mass hysteria?

[Conchfritters]

Generation ze, sie, hir, co, and ey.

[Brandybuck]

Are those the new gender-neutral-yet-respecting pronouns we're supposed to use?

[Longtobefree]

'gender-neutral' pronouns disrespect science and grammar.

[Rockabilly]

An unnamed source says Comrade John McDonnell, an elite member of the British Labour Party, is driven to work in a Rolls-Royce Phantom.

Comrade John McDonnell does not comply with the Labour Party's wishes that all members must walk to work.

With the above in mind, I recommend that Comrade McDonnell be reprimanded by Central Committee and his car be taken from him for the good of the people.

[Brandybuck]

Can't we just round up a group of unwashed college kids and have a Tribunal of the People?

"We are not here to determine your guilt or innocence. That has already been decided. We are only here to determine the scope of the charges."

[Quo Usque Tandem]

Let the struggle sessions ensue.

[Echospinner]

I would like to see them also list the companies by average employee height. I always try to invest in the tallest companies.

[Still Curmudgeoned (Nunya)]

Geek squad? That's what you went with to try and trick people into your malicious link?

[Conchfritters]

Go fuck yourselves Geek Squad. Seriously, how do you look at yourselves in the mirror before going to work? Tell me, who have you ratted out to the FBI today you fucking cunts?

[Quo Usque Tandem]

Can not someone do something about these fucking bots? I've never seen so many in one place. Feed them to the squirrels.

[Longtobefree]

Yeah, why would he think there were any Geeks here?
Let alone a squad of them.

[AlmightyJB]

They also rip off old people over software licenses they claim need paid for. More like Theft Squad.

[ace_m82]

You want to give the taste of human flesh? Or actually bot flesh? ...Wait, no, that's a really good idea!