Plants flourish when there's higher levels of C02 in the atmosphere.

Mars was once a planet full of life

No it wasn't. Or at the very least, you have no evidence for it.

If a factory produces so much Co2 that folk start getting sick and dying in the area, so do the workers and that makes it unprofitable to the owner, since the factory is permanently shut down when it's running.

Yea, that works in china uh?

No it wasn't. Or at the very least, you have no evidence for it.

There is strong evidence showing it.

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


But again that's mostly under research still, but we found life there in the celular form already.

Edited 5/19/2016 04:18:37

Well, that's false.

Here's the facts: Global warming is occurring. As such the environment in which organisms are living is being rapidly changed. This rapid change shoves some critical organisms within an ecosystem into a zone of intolerance, in which it cannot survive leading to its extinction in that habitat(Congrats, a full dead species every time this happens). The disappearance of said organism disrupts the ecosystem's cycle of energy, killing off those dependent on said organism for food, and allowing the one's it preyed on to rapidly expand in population, which throws the entire ecosystem out of wack, and changes it, but this change is now so rapid the organisms cannot adopt in time survive. This in turn leads to more extinctions, which cycles through the ecosystem yet again. Basically mass extinction is such a system is becoming cyclical, and allowing for more invasive species to arise as former blockers to their spread are removed, which results in the ending of native species, and so on towards more extinctions. It is theoretically possible that if global warming increases enough that the earth would approach temperatures seen on Venus, which would obviously wipe out life on Earth. As we stand, its highly likely that at this point what we are doing is effectively damage control. I never claimed it was going to kill off everything, and I currently believe that world leaders can band together to stop such an event from occurring. However, I believe that it is highly likely that global warming has already caused some extinctions, and will most likely lead to many more. On top of that, global warming heats the average temperature of the sea, which leads to more hurricanes, and as such more dead people. There's probably more damage just beyond that, but its a pretty good starting point for wiping out all life.
http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
Yeah, if a mass cycle of species extinctions isn't killing a bunch of things, I don't know what is.

Standard Oil could compete better than the other competitors, so why disband it?

That's the thing, society can keep evolving, but if someone breaks it apart, the human terrible part can still come back.

Maybe you're right, but it seems like there is already some way to break society, but it's not done often, as it's not good in a holistic way.

If a factory produces so much Co2 that folk start getting sick and dying in the area

It's not just in the area, it's very hard to convict, and in short: this never happens. Thank the government for thinking ahead - China is the leader in alternate energies, but wouldn't have happened without government meddling. Any environmental regulations - thank the government for them.

In many areas, producers that refused to sell received death threats, had their oil cut off from the refinaries (transportation was under standart oil) and many other criminal things. Standart oil didn't compete better than it's competitors, it literally killed the competition.

BUT SURE, THAT SEEMS FAIR TO ME!

Standard Oil could compete better than the other competitors, so why disband it?
I dunno, maybe because they literally controlled so much of the market that they could set the price of oil, and no one could contest that?

Here's the facts: I never said global warming isn't occurring.

Your entire argument is predicated on Global Warming , one, being such a sudden change that it will start killing off species, and two, that it is going to be worse than it has been throughout history, which it won't be. The earth has been much hotter and much more Co2 filled than now.

Communism and capitalism can ultimately be said as a debate between (forced) cooperation and competition. Competition has drive, but can often tragically take lives away, often pointlessly, while cooperation pretty much is way better, but promotes one way of thinking and doesn't really have drive.

However, those species had literally millions of years to adapt. The rate of increase today is just way too dramatic, there has never been in global history where at the very least temperature has risen by 1 Kelvin in a span of 200ish years(some scientist think we have already hit 2 Kelvin). It's not the temperature, but rather the rate of change of the environment that is probably going to lead to a mass extinction.

In many areas, producers that refused to sell received death threats, had their oil cut off from the refinaries (transportation was under standart oil) and many other criminal things. Standart oil didn't compete better than it's competitors, it literally killed the competition.


No evidence for these death threats.

BUT SURE, THAT SEEMS FAIR TO ME!

Alright, so you built a company from the ground up, worked hard day and night, lowered prices intensely to beat competitors , and now you have to break up your company or we will shoot you. THAT SEEMS PERFECTLY FAIR TO ME.

Standard had 150 competitors in 1911 when the government broke them up, and did not have the monopoly power to raise prices to strangle the consumers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller#Monopoly That ought to address your question. Basically he did horizontal integration of all related industries, and vertical integration in his own industry.

Edited 5/19/2016 04:37:19

Capitalism is based on peaceful exchange of goods , with producers being able to compete with one another. While one can argue this results in homeless folk or something like that, it can't be said that mass threats of violence to force cooperation and folk carrying out that violence if their wants are not met is more peaceful.

http://chartsbin.com/view/oau

If standard oil was raising the prices of oil ridiculously, then why doesn't this chart show it?

Having a lot of competitors doesn't mean that they're all big enough to threat you. The world has many armed forces, but would you say that any has the power to overthrow the american power?

For Standart Oil, over and over ppl try to defend Rockefeller for some reason or whatever. Working hard isn't the problem, Hitler worked hard too, will you tell me now that working hard gives someone the right to conquer europe and burn jews?


I'll just quote the previous quote I posted:

In 1904, Standard controlled 91 percent of production and 85 percent of final sales.

A company that controls that many of a sector can already manipulate prices. Gosh, corporations already do that with way less percentage. Also there is no evidence that Standart would just stop at 91/85%, probably they would have take over all of it soon enough.


Also for the Oil prices, the raising wasn't global, but it was spreading out. Standart raised the prices in every area it had a monopoly and lowered in competition areas. Globally it would be a consequence of a monopoly a final price raise when they had the hole market. That's the way profit works...

Edited 5/19/2016 04:43:45

You're comparing someone who met the needs of the consumer peacefully, to someone who killed millions, and say they both should hav been treated pretty much equally? Insanity.

The Standard Oil case was another example of your favorite government intervening in business on the side of a bad business and weakening another party for competing. Standard Oil could not enforce a monopoly while raising prices, because it would have to constantly compete with other companies.

Not entirely true. When you have horizontal integration into other industries, such as rail, you could literally dominate certain regions, as creating a competitive rail to counter such a monopoly over a certain region would be costly prohibitive.

It most likely wouldn't be able to completely dominate against foreign oil.

Back to the main subject, the empire is fairly unsustainable. Even the neocons will have to admit this, as the empire falters.

Empires work, you just can't give into the people who call for them to disband. Most empires have been destroyed because a) multiculturalism (see Rome), b) forced to disband due to international pressure (Portugal, UK, France), or c) tried too much and made others angry and got gangbanged (Japan, Nazis, Italy, Hapsburgs). To avoid failing, therefore, ignore international pressure, do not try to get too large and do not embrace multiculturalism.

The Soviet Union collapsed due to economic pressure. The Roman Empire didn't fall to multiculturalism, they were always somewhat multicultural, I believe you're referring to them hiring up too many auxiliaries, which is something that ended up hurting them. If you're referring to the Gothic Uprising, remember, corruption was most likely the biggest factor in it, due to Roman officials selling food off instead of delivering it to the famine afflicted areas.

Edited 5/19/2016 16:18:28