Changing the variables of a multiplication equation gets a different result, but it doesn’t invalidate the mechanism of multiplication. It doesn’t mean multiplication doesn’t exist. Regulations, political influence, bribes, whatever, are variables that change the outcomes of S&D, but the mechanism of S&D is still there. Monopolies and oligopolies stifle S&D but there’s a reason they don’t last forever. Pressures from S&D will always be there and eventually force them to collapse. Diamonds are a very successful monoploly but it is facing pressures from lab created diamonds and diamond alternatives. It won’t last forever. Oil has never been an enduring, successful oligopoly. OPEC sets production levels and after a few months they collapse because it is in the financial interests of members to cheat and make more money. It happens every single time.

Many people have a hard time wrapping their heads around this concept. I absolutely refuse to go into another long debate about it, so let the denialists have their last words. .

Capitalism certainly isn’t a panacea for all the world’s ills- it is the cause of most of the world’s most dire problems. What we call capitalism is why we are hurtling towards a ‘Great Dying’.

Capitalism- as practiced in the US, and elsewhere- is highly dysfunctional. It is NOT sustainable. It rewards short-term thinking, it comes with no responsibilities beyond the responsibility to maximize profits.

Supply and Demand is real- sometimes- but often it is an illusion. Cartels can manufacture scarcity to drive up profits (Diamonds and Oil are examples). In the opposite extreme, capitalism leads to the unsustainable exploitation of limited resources.

If you define capitalism as rigorous adherence to the laws of supply and demand, then we do not have capitalism in the USA.

We have a system that allows and encourages the wealthy to game the system. Regulations that the wealthy and powerful find too burdensome will lead them to buy a few congress-people to have those regulations removed.

We have a system that exploits people- your taxes pay for the tax-breaks for corporations, your taxes pay for the food-stamps their employees need because they are not paid a living wage- you help feed their employees so they can continue slaving away for the corporations.

After the upheaval of the pandemic there has been a litany of complaints from employers that ‘people don’t want to work’, no… people don’t want to work for slave wages. Corporations feel they should be exempt from S&D- if there is a shortage of workers, then the way to address that is to pay more and offer better benefits.

The climate crisis will not be magically solved by capitalism- it will be solved by international agreements and governments using their power to regulate heavily… with incentives as a carrot and with laws to prohibit damaging behavior.

Capitalism COULD be a great thing, if we actually had it- but what we actually have is a kleptocracy of psychopaths, and it leads to insanity like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuqemytQ5QA

If you were studying a troop of apes, and found a situation where one ape hoarded a million times the number of bananas it could ever eat, while the other apes starved would you think “Well, that ape must be better than the other apes to have ‘earned’ such a bounty!”? Of course not! You would wonder “What the fuck is wrong with that ape?!”, you would maybe study it to determine what caused such a pathology…
And then… you would shoot it.

I have never said that. S&D is real. It works well in many cases when left alone. Where it doesn’t it can be tweaked with regulations, massive regulations sometimes, to produce better results. I have said that many times.

I generally agree, but as always I think there’s a lot more gray area than your black and white assessment of the world.

I have no illusions that S&D will ALWAYS produce some favorable outcome. That is empirically untrue. All I have ever said is S&D exists. It’s real. And when it doesn’t produce positive results on its own, its mechanism can be harnessed to produce positive results by tweaking it through regulation. Also empirically true.

Human beings are capable of almost infinite ingenuity and adaptability. But these virtues are not always harnessed for the better, they are usually employed to increase profit, often at the expense of whatever is better.

As for raising taxes on Carbon, it once again demonstrates how there is no “Natural” Law of Supply and Demand. That is, simply left to itself, it does not immediately force an economy into a more efficient or beneficial condition. As you yourself point out, the only way you can harness it to produce a social good is by employing government coercion and taxation. I hope that didn’t go over your head.

Individual businessmen may have a conscience, or a sense of morality. But collectives, such as corporations, do not. They will sell repeating rifles to the Indians and moldy oats to the cavalry. Every time. You can count on it.

Fission is certainly one example. I have mixed feelings about fission reactors. Good for climate, dangerous for accidents and proliferation. In a perfect world there would be no national security concerns.

The rest of your suggestions are generally good and in fact many are being implemented much faster than people realize. I’m not sure restructuring our economy and redesigning cities will necessarily lead to lower lifestyles. Again, I believe you fail to think outside the box and take into account ingenuity, innovation, and yes, the profit motive. In a regulated environment people still want to make money within the parameters they are allowed to.

There’s low hanging fruit you missed. Natural gas creates about 10% of the carbon that coal does. I don’t remember the exact numbers I read but I think it was 80% of the world’s coal generated power comes from about a dozen gigantic power plants. Converting those dozen plants to natural gas in the short run would dramatically reduce carbon emmissions globally. It’s an idea worth pursuing as we continue to ramp up renewables.

It’s sadly obvious you are trying to bait me with your bogeyman. Whatever. Contemplate this: Raising taxes on oil will inevitably reduce oil demand — as you suggest. It merely demonstrates how results can be changed in a positive way using S&D to achieve desirable goals through regulation. I’m hoping that didn’t go right over your head.