I mean there is the difficult but not acquiescent solution, that coincidentally carries parallels to the real world, of unionizing your work place and using the power of collective bargaining to demand better conditions. This is hard work and takes time and effort, but instead of recognizing that and trying to help, people check out. And those pushing for it are called unrealistic tools of the bad manager and that we demand perfection, while every year the 'lesser evil' manager gets a bit more touchy with his subordinates.
Further in the real world analog of this, the 'lesser evil' manager is bombing children, and driving us towards climate catastrophe. Yes democratic politicians are better then republican ones, but that doesn't negate the point of the meme. They do not give a fuck about you, and they will drive us off the climate cliff, they will bomb more children, they will give more tools to the police state, and they will hire more ICE agents. With such stakes we need to do the hard thing and demand better.
They actually can't they've just spent decades packing the judicial system that was meant to hold them accountable, while their opponents watched and did nothing.
I'm getting pretty tired of this conversation though if we are at the point of arguing if, the choices of state own energy and public transit companies, following state directives, are not planned.
I disagree, but to the more important point you still seem to dance around the fact that market economies have had decades to align with the incredible wealth of science describing the problems we are facing, and failed to do anything more then gesture at solutions.
Like genuinely, what good is all this 'efficiency' if it's killing us and refusing to change?
They are not responsive and they are not adapting anywhere near what is needed because there is no profit in doing so. China is still largely a market economy, but the centrally planned aspects allow it to push much harder towards a de-carbonized economy compared to the west.
Externalities exist in all systems. Im not sure why you are mentioning them in this case given they are not unique.
I bring them up because they demonstrate my point. Externalities need to be taxed because profit is the only need markets respond to, which was my point.
The reality is markets respond much more rapidly and accurately than planned economies can. This might change if AI becomes a reality but right now planned economies will continue to be less efficient.
Only using a contorted definition of efficiency that favors markets, namely maximizing GDP. It does not speak to the efficiency of throwing away food, cutting up old clothes, letting people die from curable illness, or to reiterate the point, making the only planet we've ever seen sustain life unsuitable for us because it's simply impossible to convince market economies to seek anything other than profit.
Not really and again it isn’t as if environmentalism has been the focus of the Marxist states IRL either. The USSR was devastating to their environment.
Agreed, the USSR was also going through rapid industrialization. The difference is market economies have an absolute global hegemon, and still cannot meaningfully address the reality of climate change because it would effect profits.
Markets find the need of a market and respond to it only when there is profit. It is completely uninterested in other needs, this is why externalities are a problem.
I don't hold it to the standard of perfect, but markets are simply not effectively dealing with the realities of climate change.
Industrialization is definitely an issue, the larger issue is that with economies exclusively driven by markets, even when every knowledgeable person on the matter is aware of an issue like climate change, markets need to be fought and bent against their very nature to deal with the fact that it's less profitable to take care of the environment.
Markets respond only to profit changes, and even then they are far from perfect. It's simply an economist fiction that they are uniquely good at adaptation, one proof being the utter failure of markets to handle the global catastrophe climate change is going to cause.
This is a strawman. Centrally planned does not mean immutable, and markets are no more able to predict the future than anyone else. What it does allow is the disregard of the only quantity markets are capable of maximizing, profit.
Absolutely, but if one has no idea what they are talking about, they might massive brain worms about the US debt and it being caused by our budget deficit. Then they look at all these other countries and learn about the 'deficit' we have with them and that's the same word, same thing, ezpz. Now you simple get a solid 50% debt to income ratio by dividing the two and cutting it in half, check mate economists.
Putting on my best swiss cheese brain, maybe they are treating it 'like a business' and trying to do debt to income ratio? So our deficit is the debt then they look at tariffs on the imported goods as the income.
Do you know if this holds for other countries too?
You have a strange definition of perfection.