Capitalism is ill-equipped to deal with climate change
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Burdens:
-By "equipped", Con must argue that our current economic system can realistically expect to be able to keep global warming temperatures below 1.5 degrees within the next twelve years.
-This includes "mixed economies" or capitalist societies where the state has a share in the means of production or intervenes in the economy.
Rules:
-This debate assumes that climate change is man made and poses a significant threat to human civilization.
- This is *not* a debate on capitalism vs socialism, not is it about any socialist alternatives to environmental protection,
-Burden of proof is shared
-No squirreling
-Be civil and follow the format.
Terms:
Capitalism: "An economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets" i.e The current international economic system.
ill-equipped: Incapable of achieving, in the context of this debate. Incapable of containing the global average temperature to below 1.5 C degrees within the next twelve years.
Climate change: Climate change is a change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns when that change lasts for an extended period of time (i.e., decades to millions of years). We will be focusing on anthropogenic climate change, climate change caused my humans.
Format:
Round 1: Acceptance only, no arguments.
Round 2: Opening Cases
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Closing closing cases/ Counter-rebuttals (Now new arguments)
Crisis:
According to recent reports from the UN and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, anthropogenic carbon emissions are projected to increase the global temperature to above 2.0 degrees Celsius. With the implications of such spelling potentially apocalyptic implications for our climate [1]. Including but limited to drought, flooding, extreme heat and increased poverty in the decades to come [2]. With the potential flooding of major world cities like Shanghai and Miami. The likes of which could cause a humanitarian crisis likes of which the world has yet to see. In order to prevent this disaster, climate scientists recommend curbing temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius. But to even reach 2 degrees requires unprecedented radical and unprecedented change in our global carbon emissions and how we consume energy [3].
Sources:
1. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2018/07/SR15_SPM_version_stand_alone_LR.pdf
2. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/world-was-just-issued-12-year-ultimatum-climate-change-180970489/
3. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SR15_Chapter1_Low_Res.pdf
Pillar One: Failure of the private sector
Well, for one, we have a long standing track record of climate change denialism being deliberately perpetuated by oil companies [6]. In 1991, for example, a group of coal utilities devised a propaganda campaign that would also recruit scientists to “reposition global warming as theory (not fact)” [5]
A decade later in in 2000, American Republican pollster Frank Lutz produced penned a memo for the energy industry and anyone else challenging the science of climate change. Lutz wrote:
Fossil fuel interests don’t just stop at denialism, but go further into lobbying government entities, directly interfering with the democratic process in some countries. For example, in the US. According to a 2018 article from the Yale School of Environmental studies, Fossil fuel interests have outspent green advocates 10:1 in climate lobbying. These corporations are willing to outspend the public by ten times to one-up any activist action in the American government,
“Special interests dominate the conversation, all working for a particular advantage for their industry,” Brulle told ThinkProgress. “The common good is not represented.” [11]
Sources:
4. https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2018/10/12/17967738/climate-change-consumer-choices-green-renewable-energy
5. http://fortune.com/2017/07/10/climate-change-green-house-gases/
6. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2015/mar/05/doubt-over-climate-science-is-a-product-with-an-industry-behind-it
7. https://research.greenpeaceusa.org/?a=view&d=2950
8. https://www.motherjones.com/files/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf
9. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22082017/study-confirms-exxon-misled-public-about-climate-change-authors-say
10. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa815f
11. https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fossil-fuel-interests-have-outspent-environmental-advocates-101-on-climate-lobbying
For example, the Kyoto protocol was one of the first internationalist efforts against climate, yet it quickly fell apart as certain countries failed to meet the goals set before them. As well as major world powers, such as the US and Russia, demonstrating an unwillingness to commit. [12]
History is repeating itself once more with the Paris Climate Agreement of 2016. As the US has once again dropped from the agreement. With the current American Trump proving himself to be a blatant climate change denier [13]. As of 2019, The Paris Agreement is failing. As the National Post puts it:
Coincidentally, it seems that the countries with the largest emissions have demonstrated the greatest failure to adapting. Such as Brazilian president Bolsonaro aligning himself with Donald Trump, a known climate change denier. As well as the Brazilian foreign minister describing concerns of Climate change as being part of a “Marxist plot” [15]
-Saudi Arabia has even gone as far as threaten to block the UN Climate report [16]. An interesting note here would be that Saudi owned oil company Aramco is one of the 100 companies responsible for 71% of greenhouse emissions.
The current policies of Canada, China and Russia could drive our global temperatures to a disastrous 5 degrees Celsius is the status quo kept according to the scientific journal Nature Communications. [17}
13. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46351940
14. https://nationalpost.com/news/world/to-date-we-have-failed-worldwide-nations-struggling-to-meet-goals-outlined-in-paris-climate-agreement-two-years-ago
15. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/jair-bolsonaro-brazil-environment-climate-change-amazon-deforestation-a8663596.html
16. https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/saudi-arabia-threatens-to-block-key-un-climate-report
17. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-07223-9
Conclusion
The problem of climate change cannot be pinpointed to an issue of individual lifestyle or character, the vast majority of emissions come from just 100 companies. All of whom are more interested in making a profit than lowering emissions. The private sector has consistently shown a complete inability and at times, an active opposition to any practical action against global warming. The liberal capitalist model of either market forces or state intervention as a means to handle climate change has shown time and time again to be a complete failure. Thus showing that capitalism, as we have it now, is ill-equipped to deal with climate change. With that, I rest my opening case.
On to you Con.
Capitalism is an economic system where private entities own the factors of production. The four factors are entrepreneurship, capital goods, natural resources, and labor. The owners of capital goods, natural resources, and entrepreneurship exercise control through companies. The individual owns his or her labor. The only exception is slavery, where someone else owns a person's labor. Although illegal throughout the entire world, slavery is still widely practiced.
The Center for Climate and Life is a program housed at Columbia’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. Its focus is channeling climate change research toward tangible impacts. The work both informs the scientific community and is conducted with the hope of educating the public, which will ideally bring about policy changes.Programs like the Center for Climate and Life have historically been kept afloat through a variety of funding outside of the university. Researchers seek grants from a variety of public and private sources. Public and government sources are anything but stable–some years the funding is plentiful, other times it’s more meager–and programs like the Center for Climate and Life continually look for private funding so it does not have to rely on changing political climates.
The struggle to combat climate change brings out the best and worst of capitalism. Decarbonisation of the economy requires alternatives for coal and cars that run on diesel, and that plays to capitalism’s strengths. Innovation is what capitalism is all about, and there has been staggeringly rapid progress in developing clean alternatives to coal, oil and gas. The cost of producing solar- and wind-powered electricity has collapsed. Great advances are also being made in battery technology, which is vital for the new generation of electricity-powered vehicles. Humans are endlessly creative. In the end, they will crack climate change.
Burden of Proof:
Before I begin my rebuttals this section has two purposes
A) To create a criteria to evaluate RM’s arguments
B) To address several fallacies and red herrings have been made.
In RM’s case, he veered off quite a few times from what the debate was originally about, at one point very blatantly shifting the burden of proof. Therefore, I’ll address these fallacious steps here and move one. But first, to quote from the rules of the debate that my opponent has accepted
“By "equipped", Con must argue that our current economic system can realistically expect to be able to keep global warming temperatures below 1.5 degrees within the next twelve years.”
Pro gives his own definition for what it would mean to be equipped, and while that definition does not conflict with mine, it does leave out one fundamental component. Not just on whether Capitalism has the means to combat climate change but whether it realistically can. It’s simply enough to show that Capitalism has the means to combat climate change, but can we expect it too.
Now to address where Pro shifts the burden of proof. As was explicitly stated in the debate rules
“This is *not* a debate on capitalism vs socialism, nor is it about any socialist alternatives to environmental protection,”
It’s here that Pro has veered the most off track, he has an entire argument where he tries to compare capitalist’s deal with climate change to socialism.
“Socialist regimes have basically done nothing good for the environment and are never, not even once, the Green Party Communist type. From USSR to modern day Cuba and North Korea, the environment is nothing but a means to an end and wastage is... well, it's a 'waste' to deal with for them”
On the subject of fallacies, right after this argument, Pro tries to shift the burden of proof
Points of contention
To summarize this point. Pro argues that it is Capitalism that has allowed for public organizations like NASA to produce the equipment required to research climate change. He then brings the example of Guy Callendar, one of the pioneers of modern climate science, arguing that his private endeavours are what allowed climate science to enter the mainstream.
Two problems with this argument. One, it’s nonsensical to solely attribute innovation to an economic system and two, the individual pursuits of one scientists doesn’t say much about the economic system in question. If anything, that fact that Callendar faced opposition and backlash from the wealthy and governments of his time only further proves the point that the private sector and the state are uncommitted to any meaningful action. The fact that this consistent pattern of pushback from the bourgeoisie can be seen as far back as the birth of climate science itself simply speaks volumes.
Secondly, it’s nonsensical to attribute the technologies of a time purely to it’s economic system. For example, it’s like accrediting the invention of the printing press to monarchy or the first roads to the kings of Sumeria. Now, one can argue that the conditions capitalism creates is one that encourages innovation, and thus you can attribute it to Capitalism, but does it? To bring back my previous example from before, ExxonMobil clearly understood the effects of climate change, but actively sought to mislead the public. To quote said source again
1. https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fossil-fuel-interests-have-outspent-environmental-advocates-101-on-climate-lobbying
2. https://www.fastcompany.com/3067566/how-wealthy-private-investors-might-save-climate-research
3. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2018/10/03/the-energy-202-big-oil-and-gas-companies-are-winners-in-trump-s-new-trade-deal/5bb39b531b326b7c8a8d17cc/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.eb64ac7ab2c1
2. Pro goes further to state:
“Imagine if we were still in the days before science and medicine being officially developed. Anarchy, pre-society proper Communism or proper anarchy where we had no economical hierarchy and were fending for ourselves. Let's imagine that we stayed ignorant, do you realise how much pure good luck it is that if we'd left things as they are we'd have lived? Look at the dinosaurs, they got murked by not knowing enough or having the tech to stop the climate change that made them extinct, right? It was only after we used resources from the environment, invading territory of other animals and taking the Earth to be our own that we were able to pinpoint what is positive or negative climate change.”
The problem with this argument is simple, Capitalism had nothing to do with the Agricultural revolution. The agricultural revolution was over ten thousand years ago, Capitalism as we know it today didn’t start developing until the 15th century. Furthermore, if the agricultural revolution never happened or human societies remained as “pre-society proper communism”, then anthropogenic climate change wouldn’t be happening in the first place. It also absurd to attribute the very concept of civilization to capitalism.
3. “Even if that isn't sufficiently achieved, the point is that it's not going to be saved or achieved by sticking our head in the sand and saying 'leave the trees be, let all animals roam and pray that the environment isn't changing negatively despite us refusing to be economically productive or technologically advanced in a privately-funded sense'.”
Pro here is presenting a false dichotomy, implying that the only alternative to capitalism is essentially sticking our heads in the sand. Whilst this isn’t a debate on socialist alternatives to dealing with climate change, his is still nonetheless fallacious. Now would also be an appropriate time to demonstrate just how terrible the private sector is at disaster management. In fact, it is a consistent pattern for markets to always find clever was exploiting traumatized regions during times of disaster. Perfect example of this would be during Hurricaine Katarina.
- The Private Sector hasn't successfully saved the environment when it's acted against it.
- The Government hasn't sufficiently intervened by and large and even when it does, it is unable to do much as parties etc are funded by Corporations that have anti-environmental motives.
Concession from Pro:
By admitting that Capitalism will “deal with this problem as late as possible” RM admits that such urgent change, as advised by IPCC, is unlikely to occur. For all intents and purposes, RM has conceded his central point, and has essentially conceded to this debate.
Counter Rebuttals:
RM has made another unwitting concession to my point during his rebuttal of my second pillar:
My counter to pillar 2 is twofold. First of all, government intervention happening while Capitalism is happening is proof that there are ways to keep them 'in check' but furthermore, the entire notion that the government intervention is too corrupt or inefficient to stop the abuse to the climate isn't about Capitalism being equipped to deal with climate change... It's about the government being incapable of harnessing the sufficient equipment.
The entire point of my second argument was that public institutions traditionally associated with “checking” the private sector has failed in this regard to influence from the private sector. Government institutions that are tasked with the responsibility of environmental affairs are constantly faced with budget cuts, lobbying from the private sector and hostile administrations (see previous rounds for sources). Not only is this a point that my opponent has failed to address but has also come to agree with me about. While these intuitions may have the means to do something, does not make them sufficiently equipped.
I’ve kept these counter-rebuttals short in order to avoid repeating the same semantic point too much. RM has shifted to his own definition of “well-equipped” whilst ignoring the actual burden of proof that he has in this debate, most of his counter arguments are based of that definition, therefore, I’ll simply refer you back to my first counter point I made in this section.
Conclusion:
It seems that the only relevant disagreement between RM and I is on the conclusion that can be made.
Capitalism has failed in the past to deal with climate change, capitalism is currently failing to deal with climate change, so my conclusion is, it will continue to fail at doing so in twelve years. RM seems to agree to everything I said in the last sentence except for the last part. But has still failed to prove why.
That sums up my side of the debate. Your turn Con.
yeah uther won
Ok.
These votes would and will be removed on any moderated debates; There are only a very limited number of circumstances in which we remove votes from unmoderated debates: for the reason that they are unmoderated.
In this case the default policy is not to remove votes: however, the benefit of this policy is that others can review the vote and counter it: in a way that itself would not be prohibited on other debates.
The issue here is not bias, it’s the policy we have for unmoderated debates. While I am sympathetic to your issue (and we are still discussing it); the
Voting policy for unmoderated debates has been in place since the start of Dart, and the expectation from these debates are that votes will not be removed. Whilst you likely have a point that there is an argument to be made about changing the rules, that’s not something I can decide without wider input from the community given current debate and vote expectations.
RationalMadman put that same exact reason on one of my debates "Rap Battle 6" it was an unfair vote because he did it since he dislikes me and he even mirrored Club's vote on that debate, so whenever you get through, it was also a troll vote. The same energy you're putting into deleting votes that doesnt go with CoC, the same should apply to me. I have a feeling Pinkfreud's votes will never be deleted and same wit RM. This site has nothing but bias and unfair treatment when it comes to mods. It doesnt matter if its a rap battle and it being an "unmoderated" debate. A b.s vote is still a b.s vote.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: TheGreatGameLord // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points to pro
>Reason for Decision: I feel as if Uther-Penguin was the better debater here. They added the definitions in one of their rounds which I know is really hard to do. Also RM made a grammatical mistake.
Reason for Mod Action> This voter is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
Saying that: the vote was also insufficient on all points awarded. Please review the CoC for RfD requirements here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
*******************************************************************
just finished reading. Great debate 10/10
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Our_Boat_is_Right // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Decision: Conduct to con for the forfeit by pro. Con kept it respectful throughout and din't have poor conduct, but pro forfeited which was bad for the debate and con as con didn't have an argument to go off of and didn't know clearly what pro's position was.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter cannot award points merely on the basis of a single forfeit unless the voter is also awarding argument points, which they are not.
************************************************************************
Capitalism isn't the cause of climate change. Assuming that humans have affected climate change drastically by carbon emissions, though I will withhold my own opinion, then industrialization and the resulting status quo are at fault. Instead of just burning coal and oil for light and heat, we have been also using it to produce electricity for over 100 years.
China was/is roughly equal to/a greater consumer of coal during its communist era than the U.S.
Russia is #5 in oil consumption.
So capitalism isn't the cause of climate change, nor is an alternate system the solution.
I don't know... you didn't give me a lot of time to consider this. Only 106 days? How can I possibly manage?
In all seriousness, give me reminders and I'll get to this.
I've been procrastinating this one because the vote time is so long. I promise I'll take a look and feel free to remind me if I forget.
would appreciate a vote from either/both of you a lot.
“It is better that you think you are tricking me as for some reason you bother to do things like give me the conduct vote here and such.
So, let's say you're right and I'm delusional as somehow you play nicer than you otherwise would since I shut up about it.”
I’m thinking you meant this:
“It’s best you think you are tricking me: as this way you seem to give me some points.
Let’s just keep thinking I’m delusional - you behave better when I don’t harass you for it.”
As quite frankly deciphering what you meant is a bit of a crap-shoot.
It is better that you think you are tricking me as for some reason you bother to do things like give me the conduct vote here and such.
So, let's say you're right and I'm delusional as somehow you play nicer than you otherwise would since I shut up about it.
The last 16 times I have voted for you - it’s 12-3-1. I have voted you to win at a rate of 75%, - which is actually better than your win ratio. I’m voting you to win a higher percentage of the time than debates you have actually won.
The draw - there were 2 other votes someone else voted a draw, and someone else voted against you: so my vote was more in your favor than the decision. Out of the times I voted against you in these 16 last debates - one was the only vote (but another voter indicated they would have mostly voted the same way. Two other times were in a rap battle (where supa also voted against you), and a 2 for 2 against an EDM debate.
So not only do I vote for you at a better rate than your overall win rate (so by definition I’m doing better than average), over the last 16 times I’ve voted for you, but every time I’ve voted against you, someone else has too (or at least agreed)
The fact that you appear overly sensitive and appear to be misremembering facts, tells me that this is simply your unwillingness to accept your arguments were not as good as they should have been - that’s what I always vote on.
the thing is every single debate you voted against me lately, everyone else is voting for me on or neutral on. This is teaching me indeed, just not what you think it is.
They were not bad. They were not non-topical. You just think they are; justify why they are. :)
I voted against you because your arguments were either bad or non topical. The only real arguments on topic, that had any validity on the topic was that capitalism has innovation - which even if I accept this as true it doesn’t prove the resolution - and the idea that capitalism will deal with the problem at the last minute: this was partially refuted and cast into doubt by an argument in the shock doctrine you didn’t really respond to, and fundamentally undermines by the urgency and the fact that you never justified why “as late as possible” was unlikely to be “too late”, which was necessary for me to accept the argument.
You keep repeating these same errors of topicality repeatedly, you can either learn from the vote - or keep making the errors and being voted against.
Unfortunately - the reason for your anger and paranoia is your personal overassessment is your abilities rather than my underassessment of your arguments.
I vote on the debates in front of me.
If I wanted to vote against you, I wouldn’t have awarded conduct here, and would have dinged you on sources. You’d also be in 3rd right now - as I could have easily voted against you in multiple troll and actual debates against Type1, which would have massively harmed your current rating.
Fortunately for you, my motivations are voting on merits
I used to think it was my error in understanding voters but as the population of the site is increasing i realise now it's not just your inability to understand my logic but intentional voting against me and hatred of my ego that's motivating your votes.
Your flawed voting style may pass for now, and heck it may pass for the entirety of your time on the site, but when you ask 'so what?' 'what does that mean?' to diminish my brilliant rebuttals in every single debate I flawlessly debate and do the polar opposite for my opponent, it's kind of pathetic since it's blatant cherypicking and toxically motivated sabotage of a person with higher rating than you.
Pro pointed out that capitalist governments seem to be easily controlled by billion dollar corporations - nothing said here refutes that by con
Con also neglects to provide a refutation to pros example both that innovation isn’t
Necessarily tied to capitalism (and it’s occurred in other systems), and that innovation from capitalism is mitigated by its inherent harm.
Pro round 4:
So pro points out that con argues capitalism will deal with the problem as late as possible: pro claims con concedes the debate (I don’t think this is literally true), and I feel he could have done a bit better to summarize how capitalism inherent last minute solution would be too late, but he points it out well enough to build on cons inherent lack of warrant.
Pro reaffirms the second pillar by pointing out the link between the necessity of government intervention - and how its previous failure shows capitalism likely can’t be harnessed - this makes a little bit more sense to me now with that clarification.
Con round 4. Con summarizes what has already been said.
As a result, pro clearly casts sufficient doubt on capitalism’s ability to deal with the issue. Cons arguments were mostly non topical, and what scant topical arguments were made seemed not to be unwarranted, and picked about by pro.
Saying this, I felt pro could have done better picking some of this apart. Though it can be hard trawling through so much irrelevance. Pro did just enough here, but if he were against a better opponent I feel this could have gone differently.
Arguments to pro.
All other points tied: I would have given pro sources has he sources shock doctrine - that was a great argument.
Conduct to con for the first round forfeit.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: MrMaestro // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 2 points to pro for sources and 1 point to con for conduct
RFD:
Conduct:
I feal like Pro was "Moving the Goalposts". They changed the terms of the debate half way through, and they refused to debate alternatives to Capitalism. It feel that Pro was arguing in bad faith.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
It wasn't clear to me as a judge that discussing alternatives to Capitalism should be off the table. Con had the burden of proof, however an argument by elimination is still a valid argument.Con argued that non-capitalist societies are worse off environmentally. Therefore, comparing the environmental state of non-capitalist countries to capitalist countries makes sense.
>Reason for Mod Action: Conduct is sufficiently explained, though sources are not. In order to award sources, the voter is required to compare the sources. The voter needs to explain how the sources were relevant to the debate. This requires that the voter explain how the sources impacted the debate, directly assessing the strength of at least one source, and explaining how it either strengthened or weakened the argument it was utilized for
***********************************************************************
I accidentally submitted my vote too soon. I also wanted to point out that you were both very convincing. If we look at it from shared BoP then I would lean Con, but taking that away I have to give it a tie.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Alec // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con for sources and conduct
>RFD: Pro forfeit a round but arguments were comparable on both sides. Pro cited mostly biased sources.
>Reason for Mod Action: Conduct is sufficiently explained, though sources are not. In order to award sources, the voter is required to compare the sources. The voter needs to explain how the sources were relevant to the debate. This requires that the voter explain how the sources impacted the debate, directly assessing the strength of at least one source, and explaining how it either strengthened or weakened the argument it was utilized for
***********************************************************************
when you vote pls take note i meant smaller, not huger as i didnt realise i meant the 'ill'
The degree of 'ill' that the equipment of Capitalism is, with regards to Climate Change, is unimaginably huger in magnitude and proportion to that of Socialism and anarchy.
SMALLER NOT HUGER
That's your heart racing with displeasure and fear, mine's pumping my brain full of high IQ pathways of thinking and adrenaline rush for high-quality thrill.
Tick tock tick tock
But unless you're breaking alt-account rules, I'm severely confused who you are and how you know me.
Maybe you are Dermot from CD? You wouldn't fear me if you were Brontoraptor and the others I got beef with there are Socialist-sided.
I am taking your advice in your biography about evil enemies and not giving you a second chance. lol
Still waiting for the IPCC's claim that climate change will cause 50 million refugees by 2010. To this date, there have been zero climate change refugees. Thus, all the climate change predictions are total nonsense.
Interesting, 'somebody' has blocked me.
Quote - "This is *not* a debate on capitalism vs socialism, not is it about any socialist alternatives to environmental protection,"
If you put capitalism in the title, then, the debate is automatically preset to be about the only alternative which is socialism. Thus, you are a complete twit who doesn't have any inkling about politics or language usage. I wouldn't debate with a twit. Note - Communism is all about creating unfair rules and blocking fair play. Thus, I can see why you did this. lol
doesn't lack******
Tee hee
"It is in this type of crisis that the private sector, namely, major oil & energy companies,"
As if that's the only company applicable to capitalism... I'm sad to see you take the exact angle I hoped you would... This will be much easier than I thought.