On the Carbon Tax point, companies don't see it as a profit incentive. They see it as another expense, and thus, simply pass that expense onto consumers.
It doesn't work in theory, or in practise.
David Mitchell's a hilarious guy, but he got that bit wrong.
Oh David, you silly sod. If you "knew" that a furniture company would "always be there", they would know it too, and as such would stop innovating, or even giving a shit. This is the core principle of monopolies; declining quality of goods and services at increasing prices. Take a course on Austrian economics. It'll do you good.
That's why you need half a dozen perpetual furniture companies. If one stops giving a shit, swap to another. Combat monopolies with competition, I always say.
@Qw3rtypop Well not to be combative, but it's the perpetual that causes the problem. The only way for a company to be perpetual is via government fiat; with failure out of the picture there is no real reason to innovate. it's the wolf at the door that keeps men busy.
As someone noted after hurricane Katrina in the US "I accept that the Army Corps of Engineers failed; what bothers me is that they are still in business". Guaranteed perpetuity breeds laziness and mediocrity.
It's a company of perpetual furniture, not a perpetual company of furniture. If it doesn't do its job people could just unsubscribe. The wolf is still at the door, but the wolf is failing to please the customer. While the company may always be there, profit margin is still up for debate. Naturally, in order to maximise said profits, the company would have to maintain an expected level of service.
And Katrina reference is lost, I'm not American so I don't have a deep knowledge.
@Qw3rtypop1:53 I'm sorry, I thought he said "what if there was a company, which you had confidence would always exist...the perpetual furniture company".
Ok, I may have deviated slightly, but always existing doesn't mean always being profitable. It's not like tenure, where you have a constant wage. Nowhere did David say that it should be government backed. Profit would still be dependent on the quality of service, thereby encouraging good service provided that they aren't the only option. I stand by my points.
@Qw3rtypop Again, not to be combative, but by what means would a company stay in business with any degree of certainty whilst not remaining profitable, other than by fiat and subsidy?
I have a few vague ideas, but I'm tired not confident enough in my own knowledge of business to say that they'd work. I do think that someone more experienced would be able to get a working model going. I'd imagine that it would be based around automating as much as possible, using minimal staff. But as I said, I'm hardly an expert. Now I have to sleep I'm afraid, sorry. Thanks for the thought puzzles! :)
@Qw3rtypop Short version: ACE is a gov't agency that build levies, which failed, destroyed New Orleans, still "in business" so to speak. Protected from failure, forever.
He talks as if politicians care about sustainability or improving the economy. He said it at the beginning: people want to buy cheap stuff and being responsible would lose votes, that's where the discussion ends for politicians, "let's not be responsible then because it would lose votes". This is why democracy is fucking shit.
I do not understand why the air line companies would not just offload the costs of an additional tax onto the consumer. This carbon tax would most likely just kill the airliner industry, hurt general electric, Boeing, airbus, and every airline in the short term. In the long term it might provide innovation, but at a huge short term cost.
A more effective solution would be government investment into green industries, or even just in NASA, towards development of greener aircraft engines.
@TH3G0ODGUY Actually, the airlines would only offload a portion onto the consumer, because the more they make consumers pay, the fewer people with fly with their airline. The airline would have to shoulder at least some of the burden, lest they lose most or even all of their market share due to uncompetitive prices.
Also, asserting that a single additional tax will "kill the airliner industry" is awfully melodramatic, no? I question what substantiation you have for such a claim.
@darconisbob Yeah you are correct "kill" could be a gross exaggeration. That being said we are speaking in completely hypothetical terms unless specific numbers are presented it is difficult to determine the impact of said tax. A single tax could easily damage an industry.
I guess to me it just makes more sense to increase funding of aeronautics programs to inspire innovation (such as NASA) than it does to negatively impact an industry that is so incredibly important.
@TH3G0ODGUY There's a cash flow problem with that, though. As a government, your capacity to fund anything is limited, and the US is deeply in debt already. By contrast, a carbon tax would bring all the resources of these large corporations to bear on the problem by shifting the incentives, plus it would raise revenue instead of piling on more debt. If you're squeamish about the short-term costs, just start with a very low tax and slowly ramp it higher, giving the companies time to adjust.
@darconisbob Or you could you know, like not have 40% of the worlds military spending/6 times the Chinese Budget, and instead invest in NASA, point being the US could and should re-purpose many of its funds. But yeah, there are various ways of doing it, I just think that no negative impact is better than a negative impact.
The corporations are just too greedy, If you tax them more they will, cut benefits, increases prices, and lower salaries of workers. Anyways, nice chat.
@TH3G0ODGUY paying research groups to invent better and more efficient aircraft is the easy bit. Convincing the airline companies that they should buy these new airctaft is the hard part.
You need both push and pull factors. The pull is the new shiny aircraft. The push is that the old traditional aircraft are burdended with taxes. You do need taxes to ween the airline industry off their current fleet of jets.
The most cost-effective way for a business to make money on air travel under a carbon emissions tax is to pay the politician to remove the carbon emissions tax. The money is what re-elects politicians, not the people.
While I agree in principal I must point out that a carbon tax is an open invitation to increased wage slavery. The real problem is that we all emit carbon when we exhale and as such the proponents of the carbon tax wanted to tax us for simply existing. It might be said that you could just drop that part but if I have learned anything from living in the land of unending laws it's that they always get extended beyond their original mandate eventually. Better to use cleaner tech than tax us further
@RethysTarrent Th... This is a joke, right? You don't honestly think that people are going to be taxed for breathing, do you...? You do know that when people talk about carbon emissions, they mean releasing copious amounts of the cumulatively collected carbon of millions of years within very short time, which the planet wouldn't normally experience? Right? Please tell me you don't honestly think that breathing has ANY form of impact on the environmental scale at all. Please...
@HenleyMotorhomeHire Unfortunately no, it isn't a joke, it really was in the original carbon tax write up. This is not my belief, but someone was trying to use the ignorance of the masses to pull one over on us all. The bill was thankfully defeated, but the point of my comment was that there are people out there that will try to find any excuse to take more of what you have worked hard for, this is no exception.
I always liked what Michael Braungart said about sustainability, "If you asked a friend how his relationship with his wife was, and he replied, 'sustainable', you would find that terribly sad."
And, of course, his solution to the problems which sustainability are meant to solve, are so elegant. He thinks that products should be designed to be disposable; designed properly so that, like all the fruits of nature, waste becomes food for something else.
I've just got to 1:58 and realised that I haven't listened to anything he's said since 0:28 when he said wankey and since I've been trying to figure out if there is a meaning to the word wankey that I don't understand and I've come to the conclusion that he must've meant swanky...however, I am willing to use the work wankey in place of swanky from now on :)
Or you could not raise your Rottweiler to be a "Vicious Rottweiler" at all, you could raise it properly, so it is a loyal family dog which is great around children due to their rather sedate inherent nature. They are calm dogs because they are big and heavy and it takes them a lot of energy to run around and cause mischief and hurt people... My rottweiler was raised properly and I never saw any signs of aggression from him, never even heard him growl. Also, "Rockweilers" don't exist.
@minimacca999 your second point, if true, is fair enough. I assume it is true, too, even if only because airlines presumably have more opportunity to minimize their tax than drivers, partly in that they can choose (up to a point) what tax regimes they buy their fuel in. Moreso than drivers, anyway.
@minimacca999 sure, flying is about as efficient as 1 person in a four man PRIUS, but I deliberately chose that Prius to illustrate the misconception (about flying being fuel inefficient). A fully loaded 737 (realistic) is actually more efficient than my car with 5 passengers (unrealistic). Admittedly i drive a 1988 mazda 626 which drinks 12L to 100km (more with 5 adults, but I dont know the figures because, to my shame, I so rarely drive with 5 adults).
This is another excellent speech. Unfortunately in this case he doesn't understand the broader picture. I can still appreciate the quality of the writing of this rant, but I have to disagree with its content. David has based this on the assumption that CO2 is a problem, which is fundamentally incorrect. I wish influential well spoken people like this would refrain from spouting watermelon propaganda, it's not fair on normal people who don't realise it's not true.
@Catrionaify The vast majority of the scientific community realises that a public statement endorsing AGW on their website is necessary to receive the government funding which they rely on for research. Most of this majority prefer not to say anything else on the subject if they can avoid it. We now know from Climategate that even the tiny core of alarmist scientists who are vocal on the subject, know that it's a lie but it is too late for them to admit it without looking very silly indeed.
@au51emu Even in anonymous surveys that have been carried out numerous times, most scientists are found to believe in AGW. One survey shows people working actively in climate change have around a 90% acceptance of it. What is found is that though is that climatologists are more likely (by far) to accept AGW that meteorologists (~50%). The latter concerning themselves with how to convince the public AGW doesn't exists (not sure about views on GW in general)
@DazNoobs I think David Mitchell's view of a world government would have someone more like a Big Brother figure than a democratically elected president. How about 'Supreme Leader of the People's Democratic Republic of Earth.'
agree, but unfortunately people most of the time buy what they can afford, sometime the best available to them is shit because of there meagre buying power... cyclical consumption....
this is symptom of the ineptitude our current monetary system.
neeeow! I'm the head of a major airline! oh shit! president mitchell's new carbon tax is really fucking my balance sheet up! Bribe a few emissions investigators, check. Jack up the cost of a ticket 20% cos everyone else is doing it, check. hmm create a holding company to buy up some ficititious forests in Poland as a carbon sink and buy the resulting offset credits? Free market wins yay!
MDF and hope.. ha ha XD brilliant. This goes for everything else in this money-based economy - planned obscolescence. Cars, electronics, lightbulbs etc. etc. Start your research here, when it all cracks down: Google; The Venus Project
What's wrong with communism, it's community coming together? When people think of communism they think of a fascist dictators and military and everyone being unhappy.... Bit that's called tyranny, you don't have to have tyranny with communism, it's just pure coincidence that certain communist country's in the past who have gone the communist route, have had fascist tyrannical dictators, and then that's been preyed upon by media to show the general public in democratic societies to make out it's
@SpunkeyMonkey Mainly because every single communist country in our known history has fallen under the hands of a single tyrant who's manipulated the system to pour the nation's benefits and resources into his hands, and the hands of his cronies. Or, at best, to use arbitrary rules to force the people to work in sub-par conditions rather than admit a downturn.
Then again... Maybe it's just that Communism, as a political system, doesn't work outside of actual communities.
@AdamaGeist hmm didnt agree with you at first but understand what your saying. I guess capitalism is just a reflection of the relatively selfish society we live in (UK). I think communism would work well in a smaller closer nit country maybe like lebanon or cameroon, with complete transparency ideally.
Communist Russia was originally a set of commune districts with a representative democracy, The idea being that each representative could bring in their problems or surpluses, and as a whole the nation could figure out sharing things. Then Stalin began his rise to power, and made sure everything was centralized in him, and his cronies. And thus, the Russia we knew. It's very hard to empathize with the problems of people you've never met, after all.
@doobeedoobeedooo The problem is, Capitalism does work, because it assumes we're all selfish people who only work to help each other if it will benefit ourselves. Communism doesn't work, because it assumes that everyone is altruistic and will help each other freely.
Then again, we don't live in capitalistic nations. We live in crippled capitalism, where a minority of people are allowed to say, 'I don't think they REALLY want x, they just think they do. Let's take it away for their own good.'
@AdamaGeist Crippled capitalism; I like that. Crony capitalism, neo-merchantilism, or creeping fascism, alternately. Not remotely free markets, that's for sure.
@SpunkeyMonkey I think you'd call the dictator in charge of a communist country a communist dictator. Stalin and Hitler were similarly evil, but the root of their politics were not similar at all. The big mistake every socialist makes is thinking that it would really work if the right leader was in charge. It's not just a coincidence that they all turn out to be complete bastards.
There's a lot of this going on at the moment (sustainability and carbon counting I mean). By the Financial Times' best estimates, the global carbon market was worth $142bn industry last year. Quite incredible. But there's still a lot of confusion. What does sustainability mean for me? And *how* can we make our businesses sustainable?
There are some really good guides published by 2degrees called Essentials. If you search youtube for '2degrees Essentials' you'll find them.
Funny how many people mentioned Ikea furniture coming apart after few days/months/years... I have an Ikea wardrobe that I inherited from my sister, it's 9 years old, has been moved twice from flat to flat and still good as new. Obviously one needs basic DIY skills to put it together, but if you do it once properly, it will last longer, than 7 years. Not to mention that transporting platpacked furniture from factory to store to home is just so much more efficient cotswise and emissionwise.
Name one passenger airplane that emits more carbon per person per km than a Prius with one passenger. You can't. Sure, it isn't as efficient as a bus or train, and you tend to travel a long distance, but flying is more efficient than driving.
THANK YOU! I've been saying this for years. That all the products that are made today, electronics, kitchen appliances and furniture, they are deliberately made cheap and expected to work for 1 year at most. We still have kitchen appliances from the 80s that work fantastic (we haven't bought an electric mixer and blender since the 80s). Quality has died immensely since then.
Wenger you pedo! Have fun scrapping for a Europa League place this season! Only a matter of time before Van Persie, Szczesny and Wilshire leave! hahah Wenger you child-fondling twat
@WKaliberr OR just stop having so many kids? if everyone had max 2 per couple you wouldn't have to make stupid suggestions. Same goes with poverty in other parts of the world; if your too poor to look after yourself why have 18 kids knowing full well that some of them will die a horrendous death before they turn 5?
@OASISriffs Well because they are poor and uneducated and lack a condom or birth control. Yet, theyre still horny, so what wins out? Its human nature to fuck, its animal nature to fuck. Notice that the richer the country is, the better education it provides, the children per family ration goes down dramatically.
I dont give a shit about other parts of the world, especially Africa. 18 children will be born, 3 will survive past 15. It all evens out at the end.
@WKaliberr I agree for the most part about being uneducated and horny + it's in their nature to fuck without consideration of the consequences, but if a 'family' had 18 kids, WAY MORE than half will survive and it wont equal out in the end, it will just make the next famine or disaster even worse as there are more ppl involved, and the survivors in turn will have even more kids, it's an exponentially vicious circle, I hate ppl that make out it's because someone didn't give enough to Oxfam!
@OASISriffs I would argue that Oxfam makes it even worse, because poverty is relative. When some Africans get things from Oxfam and others dont, it creates inequality that hasnt been there before.
@WKaliberr I actually dislike Oxfam for other reasons, I fully appreciate poverty is relative, the way most ppl see it is 'they are poorer than us therefore they suffer poverty' and don't consider inequality WITHIN the recipient country itself. Oxfam inadvertently increase the total number of live births, most of them have shit lives, the new ppl cause more births and Oxfam 'aid' is needed even more. no consideration for the resources required for this le alone the continued hardship.
@OASISriffs Oxfam is a leak y bucket with many many holes. Its like carrying water in a colander. The water, being people's contributions, monetary or otherwise, and the colander being the bureaucracy and the organization itself. I can bet that out of every 1 dollar I would give to Oxfam, only 5-10 cents would actually go towards helping anyone, other than the employees and contractors.
@WKaliberr even though charities like Oxfam have an easier job in getting/guilt tripping people to donate, with the pictures of hungry children (which should be banned before the watershed), which they probably indirectly caused. Imagine what could be done with all those billions by local charities?
there are millions more sustainability problems, a lot global warming/polution OR if you don't believe in it - energy goes to waste on transport. think about it, things get manufactured in China, shipped to US, then sold and shipped to Europe. or to Europe and then US. also there are millions of same products including food that get exported between same two countries. double jobs double jobs and once again everywhere you look - double jobs
It's really a matter of the "feckless" slob,isn't it? If folks would simply adopt the attitudes of yore,where money spent on something was considered an investment,and care was taken of said investment,then even the MDF rubbish would last longer.
I'm sure David said lots and lots of wise things per minute in this video. But since I'm Swedish I had a hard time getting over the fact that it said "sustainability" but in Swedish on the instruction leaflet.
I have my great grandmother's kitchen table. It's metal and wood and still going strong, I could probably pass it on to my grandkids one day. They don't make them like they used to.
Global Warming came first, then, wehn it was hideously evident that the planet wasn't getting hotter, and the ice caps weren't acutally melting, it was conveniently switched to Climate Change. Now it's 'Carbon This' and 'Carbon That', whilst there is still no definite proof that man-made addtions to the CO2 levels in the atmosphere are actually contributing to any change at all, and historical charts show that the planets climate was cyclic long before humans came along with heavy industry. Yawn
@kevinscales - Not at all, but you provide me with evidence from 6 scientists proving man-made climate change exists, and I can provide you with evidence from 6 scientists proving man-made climate change doesn't exist.
That makes it inconclusive, and a theory. I refuse to be taxed on a theory. You seem to think it's ok though...
@a8vip I'd love to see that evidence that man-made climate change doesn't exist. Scientists are supposed to be skeptical so it's no surprise that some have another view, but the consensus among climate scientists is undeniable. Quick search:
Ex-NASA scientist Dr Roy Spencer - drroyspencer(dot come slash)global-warming-natural-or-manmade/
Study of solar radiation affecting Earth's climate - arxiv(dot org slash)PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1102/1102.4763v1.pdf
Dr David Bellamy - theaustralian(dot com dot au slash)news/the-price-of-dissent/story-e6frg7b6-1111118127677
Dr Ivan Giaever - thenewamerican(dot come slash)tech-mainmenu-30/environment/8996-physicist-resigns-in-opposition-to-claims-of-manmade-climate-change
@a8vip It is not "hideously evident" the ice caps aren't melting, in fact in many places the sea level has already risen much faster than it was expected to. You use the word "convenient" but clearly it's convenient for you not to believe in climate change because if everything's ok, you don't have to change your lifestyle. There's no way you can say that there aren't too many people in the world using up too many things far quickly or that it wouldn't "be a better world if things lasted longer"
@gooseberryjaml - Well, thanks for taking time to read my comments. Oh wait...
At no point did I say I didn't believe in Climate Change. I do - but I agree with the principle that it's cyclic [this is proven] and that man's input has no effect on this cycle. Secondly, I never disagreed with the principle of sustainability either. There is indeed a finite amount of resource on the planet, but my argument is taxing people on their carbon emissions because they affect the environment.
@a8vip I know that climate change is cyclic, but the rate at which it is happening will (and already does) have terrible consequences for us, there's no reason that we shouldn't do something about it. Just watch David Mitchell's next soapbox. Cheers
@gooseberryjaml - As for the 'melting ice caps' and 'rising' sea levels, from 2004 to 2009, the median sea level rose just 1.25 CENTIMETERS... and from 2009 to present, median sea levels have FALLEN 0.5cm per year, so almost back to the 2004 figure.
icecap[dot us slash]images/uploads/msl_serie_en_global_ib_rwt_nogia_adjust-1.gif
Also, artic ice has already started to grow this year, therefore has 'bottomed out' higher than the 2007 figure.
ijis.iarc.uaf(dot edu slash)en/home/seaice_extent.htm
Think something like a piddly little carbon tax will do anything over a few years the price of oil went from $20 to $140 a barrel with no reduction in consumption. In order to reduce consumption a carbon tax would have to be the equivalent of $200 a barrel or more and few will like the fact that when fossil fuel is expensive enough to reduce use, the result is an economic depression worst than the 30's. Any fossil fuels you or your country abstains from will be gobbled up by someone else anyway.
So many conversations could be had here... but all off topic.
I shall confine myself to my original point: in order for your carbon tax to be effective, it would have to tax the precise value of the external cost; It would have to do so everywhere in the world simultaneously.
Anything other than that inflicts more damage than it *potentially* repairs, and this level of precision is beyond the dreams of the most arrogant macroeconomist.
... So you'll trust politicians who are interested in getting money over corporations interested in profits. And you'll trust the green lobby who represents green companies who want legislation to make non-green stuff more expensive... so they can profit. Why the double standard?
I could cite Al Gore with his massive financial interest in green legislation, but I don't begrudge people their profit motive. I do begrudge rent-seeking on the back of taxing me, which this is.
And all politicians are interested in is... what? Being nice?
As for the hundreds of scientists, this is why the socialist calculation debate is relevant, 80 years later. In the instance of a negative externaltiy, taxation can reduce production to a more socially optimal point assuming:
- the negative externality exists and has the magnitude they say it does
I very well understand that his furniture examples were illustrations of a principle that he applies to fossil fuel combustion.
And it is about relative prices. He proposes a carbon tax placed on companies will force them to internalize the alleged negative externality of emissions, thus reducing their usage and encouraging the use of "green" energies. Again, as I said: as if the government knows better. Again: socialist calculation debate folly, circa 1930.
@minimacca999 I'm not going to correct you any more as this is obviously a joke, either that or you are genuinely illiterate in which case I feel sorry for you.
once tried leaning on an ikea table, i was 'amused' (fucking furious) when it cracked apart that it was basically a cardboard lattice betwixt two very thin sheets of wood! I now own solid oak shizzle that gets better as it ages, with an oiling every year, and it it gets knocked or scratched it doesn't matter, it just oils/sands out rather than causing a warp core breach. Best thing is solid oak stuff isn't THAT expensive (shop around), it's just people who are too cheap.
Isn't furniture from Ikea sourced from renewable forests? I would imagine after 5-10 years you'd be tired of your current furniture anyway. But the tax on flights are ridiculous, my recent flights had about 60% tax :(
Are you kidding? Your perpetual furniture company would go out of business because there are important market factors upon consumers- the reason your grandmother's ghost insists upon beize, tablemats, and saucers. Alternatively, the perpetual furniture company would have the ability to use licensing terms to shift too many responsibilities back onto the consumer, resulting in degraded consumer experience, e.g. laptop/phone warranty. If something happens, moisture sensor, too bad.
He didn't. He proposes the government change relative prices.
He compares expensive durable goods and inexpensive fragile goods; he proposes a tax on fragile furniture: this changes the relative prices for the consumer, and relative cost for the producer. Similarly, taxing fossil fuels makes "green" energies relatively less expensive.
When he wants the government to tax specific things, he wants them to set the relative prices. Does that clear up the point I was making?
Nothing new here - taxing emissions IS the accepted theory and every politicians knows this. Problem is that it means higher prices for consumers and less profits for the industry which is justified but the electorate would accept it. Tony Blair tried to do something along these lines and hauliers blockaded petrol stations until he had to give in for example.
Who new there were so many people dumb enough to not understand this.... the tax would not be for the consumer, but a tax on the supplier. Therefore the less the supplier emitted, the less they were taxed and the greener the world would be. The suppliers it would effect are global and successful, so they are not just going to rise prices, they will find a new way to sell their product in an environmentally sound way... I don't know what im telling you this though.. there's a video doing the same
@mufasahootenanny That is correct because all big corporations are warm cuddly teddy bears who just want everything to be splendid. Of course they won't raise their prices just because their production costs have gone up, they'll just roll over and accept lower profit margins because that's how lovely they are. Their competitors in other countries who aren't being taxed won't take advantage of this and undercut them either, because all competing companies are actually best friends forever.
@au51emu No corporations and indeed anyone providing a product or service are not warm and cuddly nor is there any need at all for them to be. To expect them to be is no different than expecting a chair or a table to love you. There are a multitude of strategies of dealing with the problem of a foreign market undercutting your business.. Look up Herbert Dow.
Companies don't pay taxes, it just doesn't work that way. If they could, especially at the rates they're charged, they'd go out of business.. But businesses don't pay taxes any more than your car does. They get taxed, they raise prices, or fire workers, or cut benefits etc etc. It is how it works, and no man or woman, no matter how communist they consider themselves would accept any different when actually put in the spot of a ceo.
@au51emu Ok numb nuts.... the point is not that if you tax more on cooperation to continue what they are doing they will rise prices.. its that if you tax them more to do what they are doing,give them a lower tax incentive to make it sustainable any high school grad can tell you that in the long run they will profit. Production costs go down, tax goes down, prices stay the same, yet competitors who don't change have price rises, therefore more business for those who follow the INCENTIV
@minimacca999 It's spelt doesn't not doenst and sense not sence. Also it would be were, not was. Come back when you've passed primary school level English.
If people genuinely cared about environmental factors, they would be willing to pay more for a product that is greener anyway. Look at the car adverts nowadays emphasising how green their car is - it sells. If people care about the environment, then the best way for a business to make money is to protect the environment. The thing is that people don't seem to care about the environment, so we've taken to forcing them to care anyway.
On the Carbon Tax point, companies don't see it as a profit incentive. They see it as another expense, and thus, simply pass that expense onto consumers.
It doesn't work in theory, or in practise.
David Mitchell's a hilarious guy, but he got that bit wrong.
Sevadonn2 9 hours ago
He is a pretty smart guy.
dxaxxx 10 hours ago
David dont fuck with my cheap flights. My relatives are scattered over the world and I'm poor.
TheRealSmacker 1 day ago
Oh David, you silly sod. If you "knew" that a furniture company would "always be there", they would know it too, and as such would stop innovating, or even giving a shit. This is the core principle of monopolies; declining quality of goods and services at increasing prices. Take a course on Austrian economics. It'll do you good.
032125 5 days ago
@032125
That's why you need half a dozen perpetual furniture companies. If one stops giving a shit, swap to another. Combat monopolies with competition, I always say.
Qw3rtypop 2 days ago
@Qw3rtypop Well not to be combative, but it's the perpetual that causes the problem. The only way for a company to be perpetual is via government fiat; with failure out of the picture there is no real reason to innovate. it's the wolf at the door that keeps men busy.
As someone noted after hurricane Katrina in the US "I accept that the Army Corps of Engineers failed; what bothers me is that they are still in business". Guaranteed perpetuity breeds laziness and mediocrity.
032125 2 days ago
@032125
It's a company of perpetual furniture, not a perpetual company of furniture. If it doesn't do its job people could just unsubscribe. The wolf is still at the door, but the wolf is failing to please the customer. While the company may always be there, profit margin is still up for debate. Naturally, in order to maximise said profits, the company would have to maintain an expected level of service.
And Katrina reference is lost, I'm not American so I don't have a deep knowledge.
Qw3rtypop 2 days ago
@Qw3rtypop 1:53 I'm sorry, I thought he said "what if there was a company, which you had confidence would always exist...the perpetual furniture company".
032125 2 days ago
@032125
Ok, I may have deviated slightly, but always existing doesn't mean always being profitable. It's not like tenure, where you have a constant wage. Nowhere did David say that it should be government backed. Profit would still be dependent on the quality of service, thereby encouraging good service provided that they aren't the only option. I stand by my points.
Qw3rtypop 2 days ago
@Qw3rtypop Again, not to be combative, but by what means would a company stay in business with any degree of certainty whilst not remaining profitable, other than by fiat and subsidy?
032125 2 days ago
@032125
I have a few vague ideas, but I'm tired not confident enough in my own knowledge of business to say that they'd work. I do think that someone more experienced would be able to get a working model going. I'd imagine that it would be based around automating as much as possible, using minimal staff. But as I said, I'm hardly an expert. Now I have to sleep I'm afraid, sorry. Thanks for the thought puzzles! :)
Qw3rtypop 2 days ago
@Qw3rtypop Cheers
032125 2 days ago
@Qw3rtypop Short version: ACE is a gov't agency that build levies, which failed, destroyed New Orleans, still "in business" so to speak. Protected from failure, forever.
032125 2 days ago
This is ridiculous. Ridiculously SENSIBLE!
GoblinXXX 5 days ago
He talks as if politicians care about sustainability or improving the economy. He said it at the beginning: people want to buy cheap stuff and being responsible would lose votes, that's where the discussion ends for politicians, "let's not be responsible then because it would lose votes". This is why democracy is fucking shit.
CowLunch 1 week ago
@CowLunch So what's the option?
zamander 1 week ago
The fact that the Swedish word for sustainability was on the cover on the instrucions was a really nice touch. Made me giggle ^^
snakesruleLMR 2 weeks ago 6
Wow, I have that exact same cupboard/book case/wardrobe/ladder at home!
RarelyEvil 2 weeks ago in playlist Series 3
I do not understand why the air line companies would not just offload the costs of an additional tax onto the consumer. This carbon tax would most likely just kill the airliner industry, hurt general electric, Boeing, airbus, and every airline in the short term. In the long term it might provide innovation, but at a huge short term cost.
A more effective solution would be government investment into green industries, or even just in NASA, towards development of greener aircraft engines.
TH3G0ODGUY 3 weeks ago
@TH3G0ODGUY Actually, the airlines would only offload a portion onto the consumer, because the more they make consumers pay, the fewer people with fly with their airline. The airline would have to shoulder at least some of the burden, lest they lose most or even all of their market share due to uncompetitive prices.
Also, asserting that a single additional tax will "kill the airliner industry" is awfully melodramatic, no? I question what substantiation you have for such a claim.
darconisbob 2 weeks ago
@darconisbob Yeah you are correct "kill" could be a gross exaggeration. That being said we are speaking in completely hypothetical terms unless specific numbers are presented it is difficult to determine the impact of said tax. A single tax could easily damage an industry.
I guess to me it just makes more sense to increase funding of aeronautics programs to inspire innovation (such as NASA) than it does to negatively impact an industry that is so incredibly important.
TH3G0ODGUY 2 weeks ago
@TH3G0ODGUY There's a cash flow problem with that, though. As a government, your capacity to fund anything is limited, and the US is deeply in debt already. By contrast, a carbon tax would bring all the resources of these large corporations to bear on the problem by shifting the incentives, plus it would raise revenue instead of piling on more debt. If you're squeamish about the short-term costs, just start with a very low tax and slowly ramp it higher, giving the companies time to adjust.
darconisbob 2 weeks ago
@darconisbob Or you could you know, like not have 40% of the worlds military spending/6 times the Chinese Budget, and instead invest in NASA, point being the US could and should re-purpose many of its funds. But yeah, there are various ways of doing it, I just think that no negative impact is better than a negative impact.
The corporations are just too greedy, If you tax them more they will, cut benefits, increases prices, and lower salaries of workers. Anyways, nice chat.
TH3G0ODGUY 2 weeks ago
@TH3G0ODGUY Bad punctuation! *shoots TH3G0ODGUY with a silenced pistol*
darconisbob 2 weeks ago
@darconisbob is that what the wee star thingy is for?
lawndog6794 1 week ago
@TH3G0ODGUY paying research groups to invent better and more efficient aircraft is the easy bit. Convincing the airline companies that they should buy these new airctaft is the hard part.
You need both push and pull factors. The pull is the new shiny aircraft. The push is that the old traditional aircraft are burdended with taxes. You do need taxes to ween the airline industry off their current fleet of jets.
soundslave 2 weeks ago
Apart from all the stuff David Mitchell finds socially awkward, I agree with pretty much everything he says.
gotsda 3 weeks ago
The most cost-effective way for a business to make money on air travel under a carbon emissions tax is to pay the politician to remove the carbon emissions tax. The money is what re-elects politicians, not the people.
Chasmodius 3 weeks ago
While I agree in principal I must point out that a carbon tax is an open invitation to increased wage slavery. The real problem is that we all emit carbon when we exhale and as such the proponents of the carbon tax wanted to tax us for simply existing. It might be said that you could just drop that part but if I have learned anything from living in the land of unending laws it's that they always get extended beyond their original mandate eventually. Better to use cleaner tech than tax us further
RethysTarrent 3 weeks ago
@RethysTarrent Th... This is a joke, right? You don't honestly think that people are going to be taxed for breathing, do you...? You do know that when people talk about carbon emissions, they mean releasing copious amounts of the cumulatively collected carbon of millions of years within very short time, which the planet wouldn't normally experience? Right? Please tell me you don't honestly think that breathing has ANY form of impact on the environmental scale at all. Please...
HenleyMotorhomeHire 3 weeks ago
@HenleyMotorhomeHire Unfortunately no, it isn't a joke, it really was in the original carbon tax write up. This is not my belief, but someone was trying to use the ignorance of the masses to pull one over on us all. The bill was thankfully defeated, but the point of my comment was that there are people out there that will try to find any excuse to take more of what you have worked hard for, this is no exception.
RethysTarrent 3 weeks ago
@RethysTarrent You are such a twat...
samorasquid 3 weeks ago
I always liked what Michael Braungart said about sustainability, "If you asked a friend how his relationship with his wife was, and he replied, 'sustainable', you would find that terribly sad."
And, of course, his solution to the problems which sustainability are meant to solve, are so elegant. He thinks that products should be designed to be disposable; designed properly so that, like all the fruits of nature, waste becomes food for something else.
Jcolinsol 4 weeks ago
Come over here. In this libertarian paradise, it's $100 each way to get off the ground, and twice that to actually get anywhere...
(Seriously, why the hell are flights there so cheap? It's the first thing anyone who's been to Europe for any extended length of time...)
IoEstasCedonta 1 month ago
This is all very easy for millionaire celebrities to say.
RichyBMelodies 1 month ago
I've just got to 1:58 and realised that I haven't listened to anything he's said since 0:28 when he said wankey and since I've been trying to figure out if there is a meaning to the word wankey that I don't understand and I've come to the conclusion that he must've meant swanky...however, I am willing to use the work wankey in place of swanky from now on :)
FogNut2 1 month ago
Or you could not raise your Rottweiler to be a "Vicious Rottweiler" at all, you could raise it properly, so it is a loyal family dog which is great around children due to their rather sedate inherent nature. They are calm dogs because they are big and heavy and it takes them a lot of energy to run around and cause mischief and hurt people... My rottweiler was raised properly and I never saw any signs of aggression from him, never even heard him growl. Also, "Rockweilers" don't exist.
Pattoe 1 month ago
@minimacca999 your second point, if true, is fair enough. I assume it is true, too, even if only because airlines presumably have more opportunity to minimize their tax than drivers, partly in that they can choose (up to a point) what tax regimes they buy their fuel in. Moreso than drivers, anyway.
lucquardo 1 month ago
@minimacca999 sure, flying is about as efficient as 1 person in a four man PRIUS, but I deliberately chose that Prius to illustrate the misconception (about flying being fuel inefficient). A fully loaded 737 (realistic) is actually more efficient than my car with 5 passengers (unrealistic). Admittedly i drive a 1988 mazda 626 which drinks 12L to 100km (more with 5 adults, but I dont know the figures because, to my shame, I so rarely drive with 5 adults).
lucquardo 1 month ago
Funny how the cognitive dissonance sets in with the people who don't acknowledge Climate Change.
Carbon Taxing may not be the most ideal solution, but the concept is headed in the right direction: Hold Corporations accountable for what they do.
I'm not sure why this is such a harrowing idea for some.
Mathenaut 1 month ago
Man, David is so bright... how he's been sucked in by the socialist wasteland is just so far beyond me...
daPlumber702 1 month ago
This is another excellent speech. Unfortunately in this case he doesn't understand the broader picture. I can still appreciate the quality of the writing of this rant, but I have to disagree with its content. David has based this on the assumption that CO2 is a problem, which is fundamentally incorrect. I wish influential well spoken people like this would refrain from spouting watermelon propaganda, it's not fair on normal people who don't realise it's not true.
au51emu 1 month ago
@au51emu The vast majority of the scientific community disagrees with you, and agrees with David.
Catrionaify 1 month ago
@Catrionaify The vast majority of the scientific community realises that a public statement endorsing AGW on their website is necessary to receive the government funding which they rely on for research. Most of this majority prefer not to say anything else on the subject if they can avoid it. We now know from Climategate that even the tiny core of alarmist scientists who are vocal on the subject, know that it's a lie but it is too late for them to admit it without looking very silly indeed.
au51emu 1 month ago
@au51emu Even in anonymous surveys that have been carried out numerous times, most scientists are found to believe in AGW. One survey shows people working actively in climate change have around a 90% acceptance of it. What is found is that though is that climatologists are more likely (by far) to accept AGW that meteorologists (~50%). The latter concerning themselves with how to convince the public AGW doesn't exists (not sure about views on GW in general)
Src:Jan 2009 Survey(char lmt)
plukerpluck 1 month ago
@au51emu (part 2) annoyed at looking at (char lmt) it means I met the end of the character limit.
One source I was using was the 2009 surveys by Peter Doran but of course there are arguments against almost every survey that's been done.
But in the end you'll never convince anyone to change their views over youtube.
There are those who believe AGW doesn't take place and try to convince everyone why. And those who treat the former people like conspiracy nuts.
plukerpluck 1 month ago
david mitchell may i suggest you look up communism
steampunkerella 1 month ago
@steampunkerella He is a marxist.
Catrionaify 1 month ago
@steampunkerella To what end?
PhilJRose 2 weeks ago
@steampunkerella
An american, I presume...
ImaginaryMdA 2 weeks ago
@steampunkerella Any honest interpretation of social democracy should do it; no need to shoot all the company leaders as well.
Cloudtouch 2 weeks ago
@steampunkerella
I'm sure he knows that it reflects communism
muffin8or 2 weeks ago
this guy shouldn't be prime minster guys, come on that stupid...he should be president of the world!
DazNoobs 1 month ago
@DazNoobs I think David Mitchell's view of a world government would have someone more like a Big Brother figure than a democratically elected president. How about 'Supreme Leader of the People's Democratic Republic of Earth.'
au51emu 1 month ago
"A wanky new cafe"?...
Edmundajw 2 months ago
i am serious cat and this is a serious video.
bibbi18118 2 months ago
Comment removed
whiterabit09 2 months ago
agree, but unfortunately people most of the time buy what they can afford, sometime the best available to them is shit because of there meagre buying power... cyclical consumption....
this is symptom of the ineptitude our current monetary system.
whiterabit09 2 months ago
Do you think someone once told him he should wear red shirts?
lukderyck 2 months ago
YES! No more Bulldog!
TBlenx1995 2 months ago
I quoted and referenced David Mitchell from this video in my Product Design sustainability essay...
RodneyRiv 2 months ago 45
@RodneyRiv Please tell me how you got on
AgentMcgeek 1 month ago
OH MY GOD I WANT 70% OF AUSTRALIANS TO WATCH THIS... they go on and on about the carbon tax and yet do not understand it what so ever!!!!!
darthesgoobis123 2 months ago
neeeow! I'm the head of a major airline! oh shit! president mitchell's new carbon tax is really fucking my balance sheet up! Bribe a few emissions investigators, check. Jack up the cost of a ticket 20% cos everyone else is doing it, check. hmm create a holding company to buy up some ficititious forests in Poland as a carbon sink and buy the resulting offset credits? Free market wins yay!
littlegreenpills3 2 months ago
MDF and hope.. ha ha XD brilliant. This goes for everything else in this money-based economy - planned obscolescence. Cars, electronics, lightbulbs etc. etc. Start your research here, when it all cracks down: Google; The Venus Project
alberghahn 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A decade?! Yeah right! Got meself a St. Bernard.
I'll have you know it DOES need replacing more often than IKEA furniture!
Ligermorph 3 months ago 2
Comment removed
Ligermorph 3 months ago
1) Increase tax on the emissions of planes
2) Airlines increase prices
3) Less people fly
4) Economy collapses
t0f0b0 3 months ago
@t0f0b0 Haha. Simplifymuch? Surely you could just make it:
1) Increase tax on the emissions of planes
2) The sky falls
KidSampsonsGhost 3 months ago
Aussie Labour Party should hire him to promote their emmisions tax
tjwhalan 4 months ago 12
Come to the US, where our bargain is your standard, and your bargain is our SNL sketch.
(NB: this only applies to airfare; we are thoroughly on the cheap furniture bandwagon.)
IoEstasCedonta 4 months ago
Comment removed
IoEstasCedonta 4 months ago
No seriously, David Mitchell for Prime Minister!
=D
doobeedoobeedooo 4 months ago 2
What's wrong with communism, it's community coming together? When people think of communism they think of a fascist dictators and military and everyone being unhappy.... Bit that's called tyranny, you don't have to have tyranny with communism, it's just pure coincidence that certain communist country's in the past who have gone the communist route, have had fascist tyrannical dictators, and then that's been preyed upon by media to show the general public in democratic societies to make out it's
SpunkeyMonkey 4 months ago
@SpunkeyMonkey Mainly because every single communist country in our known history has fallen under the hands of a single tyrant who's manipulated the system to pour the nation's benefits and resources into his hands, and the hands of his cronies. Or, at best, to use arbitrary rules to force the people to work in sub-par conditions rather than admit a downturn.
Then again... Maybe it's just that Communism, as a political system, doesn't work outside of actual communities.
AdamaGeist 4 months ago 2
@AdamaGeist hmm didnt agree with you at first but understand what your saying. I guess capitalism is just a reflection of the relatively selfish society we live in (UK). I think communism would work well in a smaller closer nit country maybe like lebanon or cameroon, with complete transparency ideally.
doobeedoobeedooo 4 months ago
@doobeedoobeedooo
Communist Russia was originally a set of commune districts with a representative democracy, The idea being that each representative could bring in their problems or surpluses, and as a whole the nation could figure out sharing things. Then Stalin began his rise to power, and made sure everything was centralized in him, and his cronies. And thus, the Russia we knew. It's very hard to empathize with the problems of people you've never met, after all.
AdamaGeist 4 months ago
@doobeedoobeedooo The problem is, Capitalism does work, because it assumes we're all selfish people who only work to help each other if it will benefit ourselves. Communism doesn't work, because it assumes that everyone is altruistic and will help each other freely.
Then again, we don't live in capitalistic nations. We live in crippled capitalism, where a minority of people are allowed to say, 'I don't think they REALLY want x, they just think they do. Let's take it away for their own good.'
AdamaGeist 4 months ago 2
@AdamaGeist Crippled capitalism; I like that. Crony capitalism, neo-merchantilism, or creeping fascism, alternately. Not remotely free markets, that's for sure.
032125 2 days ago
@SpunkeyMonkey I think you'd call the dictator in charge of a communist country a communist dictator. Stalin and Hitler were similarly evil, but the root of their politics were not similar at all. The big mistake every socialist makes is thinking that it would really work if the right leader was in charge. It's not just a coincidence that they all turn out to be complete bastards.
au51emu 1 month ago
@au51emu congratulations, you know nothing about socialism or communism.
trollinirl 2 weeks ago
a perpetual furniture company? I think you're describing communism...
simiansapiens 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There's a lot of this going on at the moment (sustainability and carbon counting I mean). By the Financial Times' best estimates, the global carbon market was worth $142bn industry last year. Quite incredible. But there's still a lot of confusion. What does sustainability mean for me? And *how* can we make our businesses sustainable?
There are some really good guides published by 2degrees called Essentials. If you search youtube for '2degrees Essentials' you'll find them.
benduncan87 4 months ago
Funny how many people mentioned Ikea furniture coming apart after few days/months/years... I have an Ikea wardrobe that I inherited from my sister, it's 9 years old, has been moved twice from flat to flat and still good as new. Obviously one needs basic DIY skills to put it together, but if you do it once properly, it will last longer, than 7 years. Not to mention that transporting platpacked furniture from factory to store to home is just so much more efficient cotswise and emissionwise.
bogi18 4 months ago 2
Name one passenger airplane that emits more carbon per person per km than a Prius with one passenger. You can't. Sure, it isn't as efficient as a bus or train, and you tend to travel a long distance, but flying is more efficient than driving.
lucquardo 4 months ago
David, you just talked at me about wood for the last 4 minutes... get it together man.
thecatwith9lives 4 months ago
David Mitchell should be prime minister :)
JAGuar18858 5 months ago 69
@JAGuar18858 I'd vote for him! (Well not really. As an American, I am not permitted to vote in British elections)
gunterdak 3 months ago
@gunterdak i'll vote twice for both of us
actually, that wouldn't work either xD i'll find a way ^_^
JAGuar18858 3 months ago
@JAGuar18858 He could meet with Dara when doing diplomacy with Ireland.
LeafyLarry37 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
David, You may have just helped me a bit in doing my construction college coursework :P
Ashl3yRul3s 5 months ago
Smashing!
SchmuzzyHead 5 months ago
THANK YOU! I've been saying this for years. That all the products that are made today, electronics, kitchen appliances and furniture, they are deliberately made cheap and expected to work for 1 year at most. We still have kitchen appliances from the 80s that work fantastic (we haven't bought an electric mixer and blender since the 80s). Quality has died immensely since then.
PumpkinEskobarr 5 months ago
@PumpkinEskobarr Planned obsolescence is a real bitch, eh
TheHappydead 4 months ago
@TheHappydead Hell yeah.
PumpkinEskobarr 4 months ago
What the hell happened to his face?!
adrianmarcais 5 months ago
David Mitchell has a beard. Your argument is invalid.
shallotson 5 months ago 3
"The Perpetual Furniture Company" sounds like a Douglas Addams thing...
KatyMightBeCrazy 5 months ago 3
Hahaha
Blackburn 4-3 Arsenal
Man Utd 8-2 ARSEnal
Wenger you pedo! Have fun scrapping for a Europa League place this season! Only a matter of time before Van Persie, Szczesny and Wilshire leave! hahah Wenger you child-fondling twat
WKaliberr 5 months ago
The biggest problem with sustainability is overpopulation.
OASISriffs 5 months ago
@OASISriffs thats why we need another Holocaust
WKaliberr 5 months ago
@WKaliberr OR just stop having so many kids? if everyone had max 2 per couple you wouldn't have to make stupid suggestions. Same goes with poverty in other parts of the world; if your too poor to look after yourself why have 18 kids knowing full well that some of them will die a horrendous death before they turn 5?
OASISriffs 5 months ago
@OASISriffs Well because they are poor and uneducated and lack a condom or birth control. Yet, theyre still horny, so what wins out? Its human nature to fuck, its animal nature to fuck. Notice that the richer the country is, the better education it provides, the children per family ration goes down dramatically.
I dont give a shit about other parts of the world, especially Africa. 18 children will be born, 3 will survive past 15. It all evens out at the end.
WKaliberr 5 months ago
@WKaliberr I agree for the most part about being uneducated and horny + it's in their nature to fuck without consideration of the consequences, but if a 'family' had 18 kids, WAY MORE than half will survive and it wont equal out in the end, it will just make the next famine or disaster even worse as there are more ppl involved, and the survivors in turn will have even more kids, it's an exponentially vicious circle, I hate ppl that make out it's because someone didn't give enough to Oxfam!
OASISriffs 5 months ago
@OASISriffs I would argue that Oxfam makes it even worse, because poverty is relative. When some Africans get things from Oxfam and others dont, it creates inequality that hasnt been there before.
WKaliberr 5 months ago
@WKaliberr I actually dislike Oxfam for other reasons, I fully appreciate poverty is relative, the way most ppl see it is 'they are poorer than us therefore they suffer poverty' and don't consider inequality WITHIN the recipient country itself. Oxfam inadvertently increase the total number of live births, most of them have shit lives, the new ppl cause more births and Oxfam 'aid' is needed even more. no consideration for the resources required for this le alone the continued hardship.
OASISriffs 5 months ago
@OASISriffs Oxfam is a leak y bucket with many many holes. Its like carrying water in a colander. The water, being people's contributions, monetary or otherwise, and the colander being the bureaucracy and the organization itself. I can bet that out of every 1 dollar I would give to Oxfam, only 5-10 cents would actually go towards helping anyone, other than the employees and contractors.
WKaliberr 5 months ago
@WKaliberr even though charities like Oxfam have an easier job in getting/guilt tripping people to donate, with the pictures of hungry children (which should be banned before the watershed), which they probably indirectly caused. Imagine what could be done with all those billions by local charities?
OASISriffs 5 months ago
there are millions more sustainability problems, a lot global warming/polution OR if you don't believe in it - energy goes to waste on transport. think about it, things get manufactured in China, shipped to US, then sold and shipped to Europe. or to Europe and then US. also there are millions of same products including food that get exported between same two countries. double jobs double jobs and once again everywhere you look - double jobs
arseniyonline1234555 5 months ago
you can combine the both and burn old furniture and convert heat into energy =-D
arseniyonline1234555 5 months ago
If you're taxing people based on personal consumption, then you shouldn't have all of society fund individual's education and healthcare either
MAKootage 5 months ago
What the hell were those instructions building?
RageTreb 5 months ago
Thumbs up for "the ghosts of house-proud women... have the ghosts of kittens."
mandydax 5 months ago
It's really a matter of the "feckless" slob,isn't it? If folks would simply adopt the attitudes of yore,where money spent on something was considered an investment,and care was taken of said investment,then even the MDF rubbish would last longer.
teufelstaub 5 months ago
I'm sure David said lots and lots of wise things per minute in this video. But since I'm Swedish I had a hard time getting over the fact that it said "sustainability" but in Swedish on the instruction leaflet.
gitsays 5 months ago 2
I have my great grandmother's kitchen table. It's metal and wood and still going strong, I could probably pass it on to my grandkids one day. They don't make them like they used to.
EgalMatreaux 5 months ago
David Mitchell has a new beard. The Doctor has a new coat. WHY DO THINGS NOT STAY THE SAME?
KingOfWaffles 5 months ago 41
Please learn why socialism doesn't work. The problem is that you are tragically ignorant of political economy.
P.S. You are not using "market forces" properly.
marekknowak 5 months ago
Tell me you're familiar with the Zeitgeist Movement?
seanrobson 5 months ago
I was with you until you implied all Rottweilers are vicious...
DeanGoulding 5 months ago
@DeanGoulding But he said "vicious rottweiler", the use of the adjective implying that some rottweilers are not...
TheMetalPenguin 3 months ago
@TheMetalPenguin The word 'vicious' is always tagged with 'Rottweiler', implying they're inherently vicious dogs.
DeanGoulding 3 months ago
Global Warming came first, then, wehn it was hideously evident that the planet wasn't getting hotter, and the ice caps weren't acutally melting, it was conveniently switched to Climate Change. Now it's 'Carbon This' and 'Carbon That', whilst there is still no definite proof that man-made addtions to the CO2 levels in the atmosphere are actually contributing to any change at all, and historical charts show that the planets climate was cyclic long before humans came along with heavy industry. Yawn
a8vip 5 months ago
@a8vip Yawn to you too. Do you just distrust scientists or are you ignorant of what they have discovered?
kevinscales 5 months ago
@kevinscales - Not at all, but you provide me with evidence from 6 scientists proving man-made climate change exists, and I can provide you with evidence from 6 scientists proving man-made climate change doesn't exist.
That makes it inconclusive, and a theory. I refuse to be taxed on a theory. You seem to think it's ok though...
a8vip 5 months ago
@a8vip I'd love to see that evidence that man-made climate change doesn't exist. Scientists are supposed to be skeptical so it's no surprise that some have another view, but the consensus among climate scientists is undeniable. Quick search:
sciencemag(dot org slash)content/306/5702/1686.full
tigger.uic(dot edu slash)~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
pnas(dot org slash)content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract
skepticalscience(dot com slash)global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
kevinscales 5 months ago
@kevinscales -
Ex-NASA scientist Dr Roy Spencer - drroyspencer(dot come slash)global-warming-natural-or-manmade/
Study of solar radiation affecting Earth's climate - arxiv(dot org slash)PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1102/1102.4763v1.pdf
Dr David Bellamy - theaustralian(dot com dot au slash)news/the-price-of-dissent/story-e6frg7b6-1111118127677
Dr Ivan Giaever - thenewamerican(dot come slash)tech-mainmenu-30/environment/8996-physicist-resigns-in-opposition-to-claims-of-manmade-climate-change
a8vip 5 months ago
@a8vip It is not "hideously evident" the ice caps aren't melting, in fact in many places the sea level has already risen much faster than it was expected to. You use the word "convenient" but clearly it's convenient for you not to believe in climate change because if everything's ok, you don't have to change your lifestyle. There's no way you can say that there aren't too many people in the world using up too many things far quickly or that it wouldn't "be a better world if things lasted longer"
gooseberryjaml 5 months ago
@gooseberryjaml - Well, thanks for taking time to read my comments. Oh wait...
At no point did I say I didn't believe in Climate Change. I do - but I agree with the principle that it's cyclic [this is proven] and that man's input has no effect on this cycle. Secondly, I never disagreed with the principle of sustainability either. There is indeed a finite amount of resource on the planet, but my argument is taxing people on their carbon emissions because they affect the environment.
a8vip 5 months ago
@a8vip I know that climate change is cyclic, but the rate at which it is happening will (and already does) have terrible consequences for us, there's no reason that we shouldn't do something about it. Just watch David Mitchell's next soapbox. Cheers
gooseberryjaml 5 months ago
@gooseberryjaml - As for the 'melting ice caps' and 'rising' sea levels, from 2004 to 2009, the median sea level rose just 1.25 CENTIMETERS... and from 2009 to present, median sea levels have FALLEN 0.5cm per year, so almost back to the 2004 figure.
icecap[dot us slash]images/uploads/msl_serie_en_global_ib_rwt_nogia_adjust-1.gif
Also, artic ice has already started to grow this year, therefore has 'bottomed out' higher than the 2007 figure.
ijis.iarc.uaf(dot edu slash)en/home/seaice_extent.htm
a8vip 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you wonder what it says on the cover of the book in the beginning it says sustainability in Swedish :)
Regnet35 5 months ago
If you wonder what it says on the cover of the book in the beginning it says sustainability in Swedish :)
Regnet35 5 months ago
If you wonder what it says on the cover of the book in the beginning it says sustainability in Swedish :)
Regnet35 5 months ago
Think something like a piddly little carbon tax will do anything over a few years the price of oil went from $20 to $140 a barrel with no reduction in consumption. In order to reduce consumption a carbon tax would have to be the equivalent of $200 a barrel or more and few will like the fact that when fossil fuel is expensive enough to reduce use, the result is an economic depression worst than the 30's. Any fossil fuels you or your country abstains from will be gobbled up by someone else anyway.
MrMonkeybat 5 months ago
You need to come to Australia and save us from right wingers.
eedobee 5 months ago 2
MAJESTIC BEARD.
Y2JRGC 5 months ago
@minimacca999 I'll take that as a compliment.
badboi0800 5 months ago
@minimacca999
So many conversations could be had here... but all off topic.
I shall confine myself to my original point: in order for your carbon tax to be effective, it would have to tax the precise value of the external cost; It would have to do so everywhere in the world simultaneously.
Anything other than that inflicts more damage than it *potentially* repairs, and this level of precision is beyond the dreams of the most arrogant macroeconomist.
mlcavey79 5 months ago
BEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRDDDDDD!!! Beard.
StuperUser 5 months ago
@minimacca999
... So you'll trust politicians who are interested in getting money over corporations interested in profits. And you'll trust the green lobby who represents green companies who want legislation to make non-green stuff more expensive... so they can profit. Why the double standard?
I could cite Al Gore with his massive financial interest in green legislation, but I don't begrudge people their profit motive. I do begrudge rent-seeking on the back of taxing me, which this is.
ThreeSeatStarboard 5 months ago
@minimacca999
And all politicians are interested in is... what? Being nice?
As for the hundreds of scientists, this is why the socialist calculation debate is relevant, 80 years later. In the instance of a negative externaltiy, taxation can reduce production to a more socially optimal point assuming:
- the negative externality exists and has the magnitude they say it does
- they apply the *precise* magnitude of tax
- the tax itself has no negative externalities.
Brave assumptions, those.
ThreeSeatStarboard 5 months ago
@minimacca999
I very well understand that his furniture examples were illustrations of a principle that he applies to fossil fuel combustion.
And it is about relative prices. He proposes a carbon tax placed on companies will force them to internalize the alleged negative externality of emissions, thus reducing their usage and encouraging the use of "green" energies. Again, as I said: as if the government knows better. Again: socialist calculation debate folly, circa 1930.
ThreeSeatStarboard 5 months ago
make your own furniture from foraging in skips
gollumlikesfish 5 months ago
@minimacca999 I'm not going to correct you any more as this is obviously a joke, either that or you are genuinely illiterate in which case I feel sorry for you.
badboi0800 5 months ago
once tried leaning on an ikea table, i was 'amused' (fucking furious) when it cracked apart that it was basically a cardboard lattice betwixt two very thin sheets of wood! I now own solid oak shizzle that gets better as it ages, with an oiling every year, and it it gets knocked or scratched it doesn't matter, it just oils/sands out rather than causing a warp core breach. Best thing is solid oak stuff isn't THAT expensive (shop around), it's just people who are too cheap.
Elastane 5 months ago
Isn't furniture from Ikea sourced from renewable forests? I would imagine after 5-10 years you'd be tired of your current furniture anyway. But the tax on flights are ridiculous, my recent flights had about 60% tax :(
Kurru 5 months ago
bloody adverts - can't just impart your rant, you have to sell our minds to dell or whoever for a quick dollar
sheeze!
(nice post though ; D)
brixtonbluebeat 5 months ago
The Australian federal Labor party should really hire David to sell the carbon tax
MrAngstrom87 5 months ago 4
Best one in ages! someone in power please listen to this man
greatsayain 5 months ago
Are you kidding? Your perpetual furniture company would go out of business because there are important market factors upon consumers- the reason your grandmother's ghost insists upon beize, tablemats, and saucers. Alternatively, the perpetual furniture company would have the ability to use licensing terms to shift too many responsibilities back onto the consumer, resulting in degraded consumer experience, e.g. laptop/phone warranty. If something happens, moisture sensor, too bad.
krazyket2 5 months ago
@minimacca999
He didn't. He proposes the government change relative prices.
He compares expensive durable goods and inexpensive fragile goods; he proposes a tax on fragile furniture: this changes the relative prices for the consumer, and relative cost for the producer. Similarly, taxing fossil fuels makes "green" energies relatively less expensive.
When he wants the government to tax specific things, he wants them to set the relative prices. Does that clear up the point I was making?
ThreeSeatStarboard 5 months ago
Nothing new here - taxing emissions IS the accepted theory and every politicians knows this. Problem is that it means higher prices for consumers and less profits for the industry which is justified but the electorate would accept it. Tony Blair tried to do something along these lines and hauliers blockaded petrol stations until he had to give in for example.
qwert4327able 5 months ago
Dave, umm, you've got some...hair...on your face...
TheEnormousBoon 5 months ago 4
In order to lower the tone completely; that beard, I'm honestly weak at the knees.
BrianMayniac 5 months ago
David Mitchell for prime minister!
TheDave000 5 months ago
Who new there were so many people dumb enough to not understand this.... the tax would not be for the consumer, but a tax on the supplier. Therefore the less the supplier emitted, the less they were taxed and the greener the world would be. The suppliers it would effect are global and successful, so they are not just going to rise prices, they will find a new way to sell their product in an environmentally sound way... I don't know what im telling you this though.. there's a video doing the same
mufasahootenanny 5 months ago
@mufasahootenanny That is correct because all big corporations are warm cuddly teddy bears who just want everything to be splendid. Of course they won't raise their prices just because their production costs have gone up, they'll just roll over and accept lower profit margins because that's how lovely they are. Their competitors in other countries who aren't being taxed won't take advantage of this and undercut them either, because all competing companies are actually best friends forever.
au51emu 1 month ago
@au51emu No corporations and indeed anyone providing a product or service are not warm and cuddly nor is there any need at all for them to be. To expect them to be is no different than expecting a chair or a table to love you. There are a multitude of strategies of dealing with the problem of a foreign market undercutting your business.. Look up Herbert Dow.
daPlumber702 1 month ago
@au51emu
Companies don't pay taxes, it just doesn't work that way. If they could, especially at the rates they're charged, they'd go out of business.. But businesses don't pay taxes any more than your car does. They get taxed, they raise prices, or fire workers, or cut benefits etc etc. It is how it works, and no man or woman, no matter how communist they consider themselves would accept any different when actually put in the spot of a ceo.
daPlumber702 1 month ago
@au51emu Ok numb nuts.... the point is not that if you tax more on cooperation to continue what they are doing they will rise prices.. its that if you tax them more to do what they are doing,give them a lower tax incentive to make it sustainable any high school grad can tell you that in the long run they will profit. Production costs go down, tax goes down, prices stay the same, yet competitors who don't change have price rises, therefore more business for those who follow the INCENTIV
mufasahootenanny 1 month ago
@minimacca999 It's spelt doesn't not doenst and sense not sence. Also it would be were, not was. Come back when you've passed primary school level English.
badboi0800 5 months ago
David Mitchell is the bomb. I wish people here in Australia were this articulate.
DeafFret 5 months ago
OhMyGod, David. That beard.
...take me now.
toastysock 5 months ago
If people genuinely cared about environmental factors, they would be willing to pay more for a product that is greener anyway. Look at the car adverts nowadays emphasising how green their car is - it sells. If people care about the environment, then the best way for a business to make money is to protect the environment. The thing is that people don't seem to care about the environment, so we've taken to forcing them to care anyway.
TMOvids 5 months ago