[removed]

So you agree?

> We passed there being more jobs in “Green” energy than fossil fuels back in 2017 in the us.

So capitalism is making change! That sounds much more than “nothing,” huh?

> GG you’re just showing that you’re not only constantly requiring assumptions for your arguments to be expressed you’re now just a flat-out liar.

You’re the one who said capitalism only focuses on growth and can’t address climate change.

So far it looks like capitalism can address climate change, and that the problem isn’t inherent in property rights.

Maybe I should run for President of the Russian Federation?

Good afternoon, citizens of the Russian Federation.

Today, I am honored and humbled to stand before you and announce my candidacy for the Presidency of the Russian Federation.

I am fully aware of the immense responsibility that comes with seeking the highest office in our great nation. However, I believe that I possess the necessary qualities, experience, and vision to lead our country towards a brighter and more prosperous future.

My fellow Russians, I am running for president because I am committed to improving the lives of all our citizens. I believe that every Russian deserves access to quality education, affordable healthcare, and safe living conditions. As President, I will work tirelessly to make this a reality.

I also believe in promoting democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. I am committed to upholding the principles of our Constitution and ensuring that our government serves the interests of the people, rather than the other way around. I believe that a strong, free, and independent press is crucial to our democracy, and I will work to protect and promote the freedom of the press.

We live in a rapidly changing world, and Russia faces many challenges, both at home and abroad. As President, I will work to strengthen our economy, create new jobs, and support small and medium-sized businesses. I will also prioritize the development of our infrastructure and the protection of our environment.

But my vision for Russia extends far beyond our borders. I believe that we have a critical role to play in the global community, and I am committed to promoting peace, stability, and cooperation around the world. I will work to strengthen our relationships with our neighbors, as well as with our partners and allies in Europe, Asia, and beyond.

My fellow Russians, I am running for President because I believe in the power of our people and our nation. I believe that together, we can overcome any challenge, and build a brighter future for ourselves and for generations to come.

I ask for your support in the upcoming election, and I pledge to work tirelessly to earn your trust and to serve as a leader who will always put the interests of the Russian people first.

Thank you.

I asked chat gpt to pretend it was Aaron Sorkin and criticize your speech: :

Well, isn't this a textbook example of a generic political speech? I'm not sure if the goal was to put the audience to sleep or inspire them to take action.

The opening is as bland as a glass of water, and the rest of the speech doesn't fare much better. I mean, who doesn't know that America has its challenges? And, if you're running for President, shouldn't you have a little more to say about how you plan to tackle them?

The statement "I believe in America" is hardly groundbreaking. It's like saying "I believe in the sky being blue" or "I believe in the sun rising in the east." While it's great to have faith in America, the speech would benefit from more concrete examples of how the speaker plans to harness that belief to drive change.

And, let's talk about that closing line. "Let us work together to build an America that we can all be proud of." I'm sorry, did I just stumble into a fourth-grade class project? The speaker is running for President, not captain of the kickball team. If they want to be taken seriously, they need to offer a more compelling and inspiring vision for the future of our country.

In short, if this speech is any indication of the speaker's vision for America, we might want to start looking for a new candidate.

I would vote for you lol.

We passed there being more jobs in "Green" energy than fossil fuels back in 2017 in the us.

​

GG you're just showing that you're not only constantly requiring assumptions for your arguments to be expressed, you're now just a flat-out liar.

Yeah, exactly my point. Too normal imo

[removed]

Pretty normal speech, it seems.

The following submission statement was provided by /u/OvermoderatedNet:

This may be a hot take, but as long as they aren't overused and therefore don't interfere with walkable cities modern/electric vehicles have the potential to be really good for humanity. What else can act as not only transportation but shelter, backup battery, and increasingly even media center/AI companion?

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/11534ro/nissan_leaf_evs_will_power_evacuation_centers_in/j8zdiue/

It's great how AI can identify the cliches of the time.

> I think they would invest in research and switch to green energy instead of spending 30 years lying to the public about it.

Green energy doesn’t require nearly as many workers. Why would they vote for that?

They are the owners of the company. If the current owners wanted to lie, why wouldn’t they? They’re the owners too.

Workers aren’t “inherently better people” or something. They’re just like billionaires and billionaires are just like them.

> Your second point is literal nonsense.

How so?

> I know you don’t understand my point. Its clear you don’t understand a lot of whats being said here. I gave you all the clues you need, I told you where to go for record profits and still workers getting the axe. You live in a fantasy.

No, no I understand your overall point. It was that specific sentence that wasn’t communicated well enough. What were you trying to say about video game companies?

[removed]

I think they would invest in research and switch to green energy instead of spending 30 years lying to the public about it.

​

Your second point is literal nonsense.

​

I know you don't understand my point. Its clear you don't understand a lot of whats being said here. I gave you all the clues you need, I told you where to go for record profits and still workers getting the axe. You live in a fantasy.

​

Hope you have a good weekend.

> Many of those things have been delayed for years or decades by interested groups in capitalism.

What do you think the workers is a fossil fuel company would do under a socialist economy?

> A form of socialism is probably the answer.

Just one?

“It’s capitalism” Is getting really ridiculous when you actually mean “It’s capitalism, market socialism, state socialism, etc.”

Kind of has a completely different meaning. It implies the problem is actually something shared between them.

> Workers would not demand growth at all cost if that growth came at the cut of their jobs.

Why would it come at the cost of their jobs? Demanding growth will secure their jobs and company.

>Look to the games industry’s recent success to see that doesn’t go the opposite way. All fantasy. You are all fantasy lol.

I don’t understand your point.

This may be a hot take, but as long as they aren't overused and therefore don't interfere with walkable cities modern/electric vehicles have the potential to be really good for humanity. What else can act as not only transportation but shelter, backup battery, and increasingly even media center/AI companion?

Yes things have been done as weve progressed, the bare minimum. Many of those things have been delayed for years or decades by interested groups in capitalism. Things arent white or black youre right.

​

A form of socialism is probably the answer. I don't know, Im not an economist. I only know that capitalism is the cause currently.

Workers would not demand growth at all cost if that growth came at the cut of their jobs. Look to the games industry's recent success to see that doesn't go the opposite way. All fantasy. You are all fantasy lol.

I was just going off that NOAA page I linked that says that lists several concerns with them. You can read them yourself.

I've also seen some wild claims being thrown around that they can kill or confuse whales, that NOAA said there was no evidence yet for, just a lotta dead whales for unknown reasons. Almost certainly bullshit (claims of it being wind related), but to claim there's nobody bringing up complaints is odd.

Also, while you may not think fishing sustainable, the coastal towns that rely on fishing may still feel that disruption of their way of life and loss of jobs to be a problem, and even destruction of coal mining towns and the fallout there is used politically.

> Capitalism does not focus on the environment, some companies claim to but you’ll notice nothing has been done to curb fossil fuel companies

A lot has been done, of all the new energy capacity the world is adding, 90% of it is renewable energy.

The downfall of fossil fuels is right around the corner. We’ve been working decades and the markets have finally won the battle to beat fossil fuel on pricing.

Things aren’t black and white, a lot of people are trying to make is feel that way, don’t buy into it.

> I never said anything about market socialism and there are more than two types of economic situation so again, silly assumptions wasint gour time

Well now I’m getting consumed with what ideology you do support.

I’m not sure why you aren’t defending it.

Your claim is that capitalism is the problem, so therefore market socialism should be a fairly valid solution under that premise, right?

> No, they wouldn’t because they wouldn’t have the shareholders unreasonably expecting growth at all costs so they can live the American dream.

Shareholders are just owners of the company.

Workers would be the new owners of these companies.

They would feel the exact same way as the shareholders because they would be in the exact same situation.

> Its capitalism because capitalism is the thing that demands growth at all costs.

People within every other ideology would aim for growth equally, unless specifically defined as being against it. That means capitalism isn’t the issue, as practically all forms of socialism, communism, etc, will have the same problems.

It’s like saying “We can fix our drug problem if we switch to eating healthier!”

So many assumptions Im about done with you.

​

a) Capitalism does not focus on the environment, some companies claim to but you'll notice nothing has been done to curb fossil fuel companies for example. Capitalism only focuses on growth at all costs because that's the way the system was designed.

B) I never said anything about market socialism and there are more than two types of economic situation so again, silly assumptions wasting our time

C) No, they wouldn't because they wouldn't have the shareholders unreasonably expecting growth at all costs so they can live the American dream.

​

Its capitalism because capitalism is the thing that demands growth at all costs.

[removed]

So we are the same. The only difference is color or geography?

> you just said because none of them prioritize the environment none of them will.

Oh it looks like you just misread. I’m not saying no one will prioritizes the environment. People already do that under capitalism.

My point is that there’s nothing inherent in other ideologies that increases the chance of environmental concern. In the past, Socialism originally promoted the equitable distribution of natural resources.

> New owners? Do you think getting rid of capitalism means keeping the same structure and just replacing the people?

No, the new owners under market socialism (the most popular form of socialism on Reddit), would be the workers.

Sorry if I wasn’t clear.

> No. Capitalism requires growth at all costs.

>I don’t know where your fantasy is coming from but if a company doesn’t grow, it eventually dies or gets bought out.

If the entire economy isn’t growing then they are just sustaining. That happens all the time with businesses. They even lose money some years.

They aim for growth because they want to and it can be achieved. Just like employee owned companies currently do. And just like employee controlled companies under socialism.

> You haven’t said anything about any other ideology for me to talk about you silly goose. You just keep screaming about the joys of capitalism

What? No I don’t, my comments are almost exclusively about other ideologies.

You just feel like I’m screaming and supporting capitalism because it’s easier to dismiss.

In fact, my whole point is that every other ideology would aim for growth equally, unless specifically defined as being against it. That means capitalism isn’t the issue, as practically all forms of socialism, communism, etc, will have the same problems.

It’s like saying “We can fix our drug problem if we switch to eating healthier!”

Impossible Soylent meats© now BOGO!