Sadly, he’s head of the WWF:
The capitalistic economy needs to evolve. Right now it’s shareholder capitalism: there’s private profit and public loss. That needs to change into what some people call a capitalist stakeholder approach, where the stakeholders, the people, are benefitting, not the shareholders.
A capitalistic approach has produced fossil fuels, which have generated benefits for people, but now they are ultimately hurting society. That has to change. The same is true for intensive agriculture.
From an ideological perspective, I would agree [that you can’t stop biodiversity loss within a capitalistic economy]. But if you take a pragmatic approach, vis-a-vis the urgency of the need for change, we have to focus on making the existing system more socially and ecologically orientated.
Consumers benefit from capitalism by being able to consume…….
Why do professional wrestlers came about climageddon and blaming capitalism? Has the long march finally reached them?
By getting rid of intensive agriculture and stopping people consuming, his plans would reduce the human population by what, 95%? I wonder if he sees himself in the 5% or the 95%.
Yeah, the Soviet non-capitalistic method was *soooo* good for the environment, wasn’t it? Loons.
The question for almost all eco-loons is simply “Why haven’t you committed suicide?”
I refer you to my post and link in the thread about Porsche.
This has serious credence amongst the illuminati.
Translation: “Give me power.”
Answer: “Fuck off.”
My only comment is to agree with your succinct, accurate assessment of this towering er, tosser…
So the carboniferous era was capitalistic …
I can just imagine T Rex as CEO of Cargill orTyson Foods
They never compare the rates of ‘biodiversity loss’ between the capitalist and non-capitalist countries.
I think it is because they suspect it wod not look good for the commies.
john77 – Flesh.
(Turns out Pat Mills is only 73.)
The problem with this stakeholder capitalism malarky is that those “stakeholders” are seldom either the investors or the deserving, but some political proxy where there’s cash a going or where its just about getting a nice cushy role, the usual suspects of Tristan and Jacosta, i.e. kids of somebody connected via patronage.
So stakeholder capitalism ends up just being good old crony capitalism for the left.
At least when results were measured purely off profitability you had a very transparent black-and-white way of determining success or failure. Stakeholder capitalism and DIE measures are just Marxist ways of muddying the waters to hide he grift.
There’s nothing stopping “stakeholders” having a say in business by buying a chunk of it.
Agamammon, the “non-capitalist” countries either do not give a flying hoot about the Opinions of the WWF ( see also FemiNazi/Rainbow Activists’ activity in say… Iran, Indonesia, Pakistan, Afghanistan… ), or are Victims of Brutal NeoColonisation by Capitalist Bastards.
And this particular mouthpiece of the WWF doesn’t actually care about, or for that matter has any actual knowledge of, what biodiversity actually is.
The WWF is a corporate zombie that has nothing to do with its original purpose anymore and is now only a vehicle to maintain itself and its perks.
Like any and every large and long-running organisation.
And AndyF, these peeps always envision themselves as the “5%” and consider themselves basically immune to any repercussions from their actions.
Like the old french aristocracy, they cannot imagine the commoners picking up those pitchforks and torches, because in their eyes we have no right to do so.
And what happened in France is but one example, even in “modern history” about how utterly wrong they are.
Does capitalism use force to stop me because I might influence others and destroy demand for capitalism?
Troll question.
No. Governments do that.
‘ Right now it’s shareholder capitalism: there’s private profit and public loss.. ‘
No that’s called Social Democracy aka Fascist economics.
The alternative to shareholder capitalism is State capitalism = Socialism, which was tried in the UK 1945 to 1980 with such enormous success. Then ‘workers own the means of production’ to be directed by the State in the interests of the State was swapped our for ‘private ownership of means of production’ directed by the State in the interests of the State – see Mussolini’s manifesto for definition.
We call it Social Democracy to pretend it’s not the State crony, technocratic tyranny that characterises Fascism.
@JG
“At least when results were measured purely off profitability you had a very transparent black-and-white way of determining success or failure. Stakeholder capitalism and DIE measures are just Marxist ways of muddying the waters to hide he grift.”
Yes. I know not a lot of people in the comments are a fan but this is one reason Timmy is keen on Pigou taxes to correct externalities – then you solve much of the problems of a firm’s profit incentives being misaligned with the value it actually produces for society, without having to add a new layer of “stakeholder” cronyism with their own self-serving incentives.
Socialism, which was tried in the UK 1945 to 1980 with such enormous success
It appears to be making a comeback.
surely the interesting question is whether “government” would have ever produced the private motor car, or the mobile phone? For the latter the more specific UK question is whether the old public utility would have even managed the wireless landline!