Direita é o que escolhemos na política e capitalismo é a engrenagem que a faz girar. Enquanto alguns direitos não forem concedidos a economista na projeção do futuro eu acredito que iremos falhar. 😊😊😊
It's a bit more complicated than that... BTW, the obsession is with growth, not with wealth (GDP measures economic flows not wealth). Yes, humans seek to accumulate, to have, to enjoy, to control ever more "stuff" and when the stuff is somewhat durable (real estate, financial instruments, cars, land, capital-at-large) this constitutes wealth. But the tragic reality is that the vast majority of humanity -- and this includes primarily people who are not wealthy by many standards-- has a way of life which is incompatible with planetary limits. Today, even the poor people in OCDE and in "emerging" countries live like PRINCES of centuries' past. All aspects of modern life are the direct product of massive use of energy and resources and are a very recent phenomenon: reduced duration and physicality of work (long studies, retirement, vacations, weekends...), extended life expectancy (was under 45 in the USA in 1900), comfortable and affordable dwellings, travels, food security and "purchasing power"... While there are vast disparities in people's condition, the fact is that returning to a more sustainable way of life would entail significant reductions of what people consider basic comfort and necessities. This situation explains why politicians, even those who talk big on saving the planet, keep selling us promises of economic prosperity based on their individual philosophy: taxing the rich, cutting social programs, reducing barriers to business, subsidizing schools or oil companies or agriculture or airlines... Until a broader part of the population shows GENUINE interest for a new narrative, one that will involve efforts and pain, but might also bring meaning and satisfaction we'll have to make do with the usual platitudes.
2:36 - 2:46 Wow that is a great point. A football team could have a strong offense but still a horrible defense just like how even though the GDP is strong humans are still losing because of the negative effects/consequences on their home.
Despite that countries will probably still do nothing until the weather affects people directly that voters don't want to ignore it (floods from rising sea or violent storms from increased air temperature) since it usually takes a disaster for change to happen.
A metáfora sobre futebol demonstra que as consequências estão sendo sentidas pelas pessoas que não estão relacionadas ao futebol, mas assiste o jogo do mesmo jeito.
Its called an externality, which can be both positive and negative (although more often negative), and I don't think he was the first person to think of that idea.
Great video. I do not understand how the big fish on this planet cannot live with the same amount of money they made last year. Growth is madness. It is not like the big corpo invest in the ozon layer or the wonder battery or the universal guaranteed weekly payment... I really wish to move planet.
Of course, as anyone knows, organizations are not fluid, and as pressures increase toward breaking their structures, the cost and importance of every small increase in pressures grow more explosively than the pressures. That's inherent in the meaning of "threat," the limit of danger that becomes fatal.
Could have cut the "jokes" to squeeze in more insight because the tone was so hit and miss and grating. Could have done without it. What we're all really here for are the amazing contents of that brilliant man's works.
Se ele começar a falar você vai dizer que está entediado. Foi que nem o vídeo do garoto querendo me mostrar como funciona o clima 8 horas de vídeo? Eu não assisto isso. Eu não sou capaz de mudar o tempo.
As empresas não podem te taxar mais do que já fazem, pois é lei. Exemplo: ninguém pode te cobrar água se o produto não tiver água, se ele está pensando em cobrar mais pela água será um tiro no próprio pé.
❤️ Thanks for your endless love and support you have shown me. I’m forever grateful. I really appreciate your unconditional love and support towards me... Where are you watching from?
Fun video, but hardly anything new, we’ve known about the problems of using GDP as a measure of wellbeing for decades and have understood market externalities, the tragedy of the commons, and the free rider problem since the dawn of the study of economics. Knowing these things is not the issue, choosing to reconfigure our personal and cultural priorities is the real issue. Chances are that a democratic movement will opt for immediate comfort long before considering long term or even the next days issue of survival. Almost makes one yearn for an enlightened Hobbesian Leviathan.
Pay for what you use. Is like coming out of the fog we live in where we currently killing ourselves to feed our greed. So yes companies will charge more for a product and in so doing will create there own demise. Giving the room for new companies to spring up that can actually atune to the new requirement.
I realize the need to reach a broad an audience as possible -- why a famous Hollywood actor was used -- but more detail would have been helpful. For instance, why isn't "pay for what we use" already included in the price of, say, a hamburger? At the least, a link in the description that has a more formal and mathematical treatment would have helped.
I'm going to have to read the review... Is he suggesting that consumers should pay higher prices for food that are produced in less environmentally sound ways? Because unfortunately it's usually cheaper to produce food that way. Or is he suggesting that governments add taxes onto ... pesticides, for example? He may have the answer to everything but this clip leaves me none the wiser as to what that answer might actually be. For anyone else who is now curious to see what the report says - it's available online. Am I going to read it? I have barely the attention span to read 6 paragraphs, nevermind 600 pages...
If goods reflected the true cost on the environment, perhaps we wouldn't waste them so wantonly. 30-40% of the food we purchase, for example, just gets thrown in the garbage and is wasted. We'd think twice about wasting so much if we had to pay the true cost of that food. Since the 1950's we've laid waste to animal populations, plant diversity, topsoil, water, etc. Look at what's happening to the Lake Mead and the Great Salt Lake. That's our future. If you keep on using resources like there is no tomorrow, you'll find those resources get depleted rapidly until they are gone.
@@Michilar I agree there is a massive problem of waste in our world, and not just with regards to food. But there is also a massive problem of wealth and income inequality. Increasing the price of food is not a viable solution when you have so many people in even the well-off parts of the world turning to food banks and soup kitchens to feed themselves. I completely agree that we need to reduce waste, it is an urgent problem. But I am completely opposed to any measures which would increase the cost of essentials and so have a much worse impact on the people with lower levels of income or wealth.
Em primeiro lugar o que você faz na vida aumenta as taxas, mas um economista vai aumentar taxas dessa forma ? É claro que não esse é o princípio da economia. Concorrência. Como um economista não vai estudar uma forma de ajudar o meio ambiente e fazer o que ele tem que fazer ? Que é manter o país funcionando. Mas isso é complicado porque os pontos que você cita são baseados em erros que até hoje não ouvi ninguém falar que tentou, só você que me contou isso agora. 😂😂😂
E sim. Se quiser entender exatamente a proposta dele vai ter que ler 600 páginas, pois isso pode ter mudado o capitalismo e até hoje ninguém mexeu nessa engrenagem só a direcionam. E que se lasque o resto. 😂😂😂
How about we address income inequality first across cultures and nations too. Pay for it sounds like a regressive tax, no issue for the rich who will Continue to drive markets towards ecological ruin, while the poor and middle class struggle even more. The real problem is exploitation is profitable. So let’s address the profit motive first, or we really will need to eat the rich.
Greed is the problem. The top 20% of the wealthiest people globally consume 80% of the worlds resources and they will always be able to afford those luxuries. Poor people can't actually afford the real value of things, so this would never work, unless greedy people pull back on their consumption. Consumption of phones, food and all the 'stuff' they need and want. Also the wealthiest countries contribute heavily to over population as the elderly live much longer, with each person consuming 20 more years of 'stuff', food, plastic etc. In poor countries the average age is 55 years old, 20 years less than developing countries. So the balance for climate change does not come by uplifting the poor. Yes, of course we need to do that by upskilling and building entrepreneurs, but at the same time we need a campaign to teach the wealthy to pull back on the amount of 'stuff' they 'need'.
God Create us ALL... And he Knows the answear for everything but we dont. We have to read and learn more. Nós criamos oportunidade para os nossos filhos viverem, mas mais e mais não estamos mudando nada, só deixando para o futuro lidar com isso.
❤️ Thanks for your endless love and support you have shown me. I’m forever grateful. I really appreciate your unconditional love and support towards me... Where are you watching from?
A proposta é por algo em cena para o show. Pois, como eu disse, o economista não tem voz ativa. E agora um economista resolveu se mobilizar e procurar uma forma de ajudar o mundo. O capitalismo tem que ser alterado, ou vamos sofrer horrores. Eu vi uma reportagem em que a moça falou sobre isso "Hoje você compra um carro em São Paulo e a chuva destrói ele. Haverá um tempo que será pior." O nome do podcast é "quero ouvir um podcast"
The narration terrible the message Vital, i suppose we need a kind of cheeky celeb to "Hip Out " interest to the calamity we are facing But i can tell you in our travels around this Pacific Canada we have seen and documented stark changes in the eco system and not is alarming how few note let alone care Thank You > 262
Has Partha accounted for future consequences? What if the guy eating the burger was a big environmental activist? Should he get a discount? You can think about things both ways. It’s impossible to track impact and effect clearly from an economic standpoint. The value of money itself has no true logic.
@Ginger Cat tem economista realmente que entram bem no assunto. Não discordando do que você disse é anti América. 😂😂😂 Vamos ver. Tem um economista que falou que o capitalismo irá devorar o próprio capitalismo um dia. Pois produzimos muito e se ninguém comprar ? Até hoje todo mundo compra ou a empresa não produz mais que o necessário.
This is a new low in triviality. On the style, why are you so embarrassed about speaking seriously about serious issues that you have to try to be funny and have a waltz in the background? On the substance, the solution is not a solution because we have to STOP using fossil fuels and many many other things. It doesn't matter if someone's paying to do them or not. At a deeper level, the attempt to see nature in economic terms is part of the reductive thinking that got us into this mess. Sad to see this video. Try harder, New York Times.
Você está usando a mesma tecla que as montadoras estão lutando para que aconteça, carro híbrido. O que acontece na verdade, as pessoas não tem dinheiro pra pagar 100 mil no carro híbrido e as que tem dinheiro vão salvar o mundo sozinhas ? E se elas fizerem isso vai dar certo ? Não, é uma nova tecnologia ou seja usa muito para fazer o carro funcionar dessa forma, as montadoras vão investir mais dinheiro, mas vão cobrar mais dinheiro. Vamos dizer que você produza 80% de poluição com carro antigo. Com o carro novo caiu para 60%. ❤❤❤ Mas eu sei o quanto as montadoras estão tentando.
@@danstrayer111 Wrong. We will stop using fossil fuels in one of two ways. Either we'll get smart and stop. Or we won't and civilisation will break down along with the infrastructure for extracting them. Of course there will always be some residual use but this will be on a tiny scale compared with today.
Until you measure everything defined by math like this: 10,000,000,002,023 you are not conscious you are not conscious. Partha, everything that is, began, so, please describe the moment you gained consciousness. Remember, you can only be conscious of what you measure to be. Partha cannot prove he is conscious, because I can prove he is not.
Na verdade não. Pensamentos vem de sentimento. Como saber o que você sentiu ? Pode ser desde os 3 anos de idade que ele pensa assim, mas só com estudo ele foi capaz de se comunicar e qual foi o meio usado por ele ? Economia. Estou fascinado. Economista só limpa a merda que os políticos fazem, mas ele tem uma sugestão que eu gostaria de ouvir e estudar mais.
We need to stop the obsession with wealth. Our society is falling apart because money has become the answer to everything.
Direita é o que escolhemos na política e capitalismo é a engrenagem que a faz girar.
Enquanto alguns direitos não forem concedidos a economista na projeção do futuro eu acredito que iremos falhar. 😊😊😊
It's a bit more complicated than that...
BTW, the obsession is with growth, not with wealth (GDP measures economic flows not wealth).
Yes, humans seek to accumulate, to have, to enjoy, to control ever more "stuff" and when the stuff is somewhat durable (real estate, financial instruments, cars, land, capital-at-large) this constitutes wealth. But the tragic reality is that the vast majority of humanity -- and this includes primarily people who are not wealthy by many standards-- has a way of life which is incompatible with planetary limits.
Today, even the poor people in OCDE and in "emerging" countries live like PRINCES of centuries' past. All aspects of modern life are the direct product of massive use of energy and resources and are a very recent phenomenon: reduced duration and physicality of work (long studies, retirement, vacations, weekends...), extended life expectancy (was under 45 in the USA in 1900), comfortable and affordable dwellings, travels, food security and "purchasing power"... While there are vast disparities in people's condition, the fact is that returning to a more sustainable way of life would entail significant reductions of what people consider basic comfort and necessities.
This situation explains why politicians, even those who talk big on saving the planet, keep selling us promises of economic prosperity based on their individual philosophy: taxing the rich, cutting social programs, reducing barriers to business, subsidizing schools or oil companies or agriculture or airlines... Until a broader part of the population shows GENUINE interest for a new narrative, one that will involve efforts and pain, but might also bring meaning and satisfaction we'll have to make do with the usual platitudes.
Nature is an important part of wealth.
2:36 - 2:46 Wow that is a great point. A football team could have a strong offense but still a horrible defense just like how even though the GDP is strong humans are still losing because of the negative effects/consequences on their home.
Despite that countries will probably still do nothing until the weather affects people directly that voters don't want to ignore it (floods from rising sea or violent storms from increased air temperature) since it usually takes a disaster for change to happen.
That's a great point? I thought it was common sense.
A metáfora sobre futebol demonstra que as consequências estão sendo sentidas pelas pessoas que não estão relacionadas ao futebol, mas assiste o jogo do mesmo jeito.
O futuro pode ser melhor se permitir que a economia ponha tudo na balança.
Isso dá trabalho e é claro que precisam de ajuda e incentivo.
Its called an externality, which can be both positive and negative (although more often negative), and I don't think he was the first person to think of that idea.
Não sei. Economista lê economia e não pensa nisso não. "É só não deixar os políticos destruírem o meu país." 😂😂😂
E sim. Se tem lado positivo também tem lados negativos. Temos que ler a proposta.
Great video. I do not understand how the big fish on this planet cannot live with the same amount of money they made last year. Growth is madness. It is not like the big corpo invest in the ozon layer or the wonder battery or the universal guaranteed weekly payment... I really wish to move planet.
King Charlse may be one of the few huge public figures who does bother to read, comprehend, and extoll the virtues of the report.
This is beautiful. This is what's called OPINION, so chill out with your dislikes!
Of course, as anyone knows, organizations are not fluid, and as pressures increase toward breaking their structures, the cost and importance of every small increase in pressures grow more explosively than the pressures. That's inherent in the meaning of "threat," the limit of danger that becomes fatal.
Look out for pEPR from the UK Govt.... We are starting to build externalities into pricing....
This is excellent! Thank you for sharing - hopefully it will open a lot of peoples' eyes
Could have cut the "jokes" to squeeze in more insight because the tone was so hit and miss and grating. Could have done without it. What we're all really here for are the amazing contents of that brilliant man's works.
Se ele começar a falar você vai dizer que está entediado. Foi que nem o vídeo do garoto querendo me mostrar como funciona o clima 8 horas de vídeo? Eu não assisto isso. Eu não sou capaz de mudar o tempo.
I believe his trying to pass a scary message in an interesting way because nobody likes to hear the truth.
@@Tanaka-Buchou if he is talking about more tax... i wont agree.
Like "ohhh But the owner of a company can pay more"... it is an old Idea.
This is a teaser; now it's up to you to look into what this is all about.
Our children will inherit the used up shriveled husk of a planet 🌏 we leave them. Feels hopeless. I’m sad now. 😩
then dont have kids, simple
The planet is fine. Will be fine. Why are you fearmongering?
Mas é a verdade que você fingi que se importa… mas não faz nada. Só fica falando "quero um lugar melhor prós meus filhos."
Here in the Philippines , senators are the massive polluters of our sea, they are reclaiming the sea and don't care about the aquatic sea impact :(
Ahh so your solution in these times of runaway inflation is to increase the cost of everything further- brilliant, mate, brilliant!
Ikr, there must be a more sensical way to resolve some of it
As empresas não podem te taxar mais do que já fazem, pois é lei. Exemplo: ninguém pode te cobrar água se o produto não tiver água, se ele está pensando em cobrar mais pela água será um tiro no próprio pé.
that's right. You want a huge truck to go to the store? You pay 9 bucks a gallon for gas, which is what it should have been for years.
Italy was the greatest root for our growth and for that we are forever grateful, Off with the kings head!!!🍕
Excellent - Thanks - m.
❤️ Thanks for your endless love and support you have shown me. I’m forever grateful. I really appreciate your unconditional love and support towards me... Where are you watching from?
We did it, almost!
Fun video, but hardly anything new, we’ve known about the problems of using GDP as a measure of wellbeing for decades and have understood market externalities, the tragedy of the commons, and the free rider problem since the dawn of the study of economics. Knowing these things is not the issue, choosing to reconfigure our personal and cultural priorities is the real issue. Chances are that a democratic movement will opt for immediate comfort long before considering long term or even the next days issue of survival. Almost makes one yearn for an enlightened Hobbesian Leviathan.
‘Our’ ? And last I checked an authoritarian undemocratic regime was the worlds most polluting
NY times and time are different at times.
Yep.
Pay for what you use. Is like coming out of the fog we live in where we currently killing ourselves to feed our greed. So yes companies will charge more for a product and in so doing will create there own demise. Giving the room for new companies to spring up that can actually atune to the new requirement.
Nada a temer então. Só novas empresas vão nascer e novos empregos. 😂😂😂
Se ele tentar taxar, não irá fazer nada de novo.
@@kaligibbs3633 You would be surprised what the consumer actually needs as aposed to actually wants.
I realize the need to reach a broad an audience as possible -- why a famous Hollywood actor was used -- but more detail would have been helpful. For instance, why isn't "pay for what we use" already included in the price of, say, a hamburger? At the least, a link in the description that has a more formal and mathematical treatment would have helped.
You could also go on and find that information yourself - be proactive!
It's 'Dr.' Dasgupta
Genius video.
PAY FOR WHAT WE USE
Exactly 💯
Pay it to who though? The bees? The Trees? The cows? The Rivers? How much do we owe them? What does it cost? How is that figured out?
@@humanhelp3969 Funny you should ask, there is a very long and detailed explinaiton
@@humanhelp3969 assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/957292/Dasgupta_Review_-_Abridged_Version.pdf
@@incoprea 🤣
Why put the music so loud in the background? It spoils the video...
WoW..❤
Am I going deaf or is the background music too loud?
yes
Music is too loud and distracting.
Basically GDP generally does not incorporate negstive externalities.
I'm going to have to read the review... Is he suggesting that consumers should pay higher prices for food that are produced in less environmentally sound ways? Because unfortunately it's usually cheaper to produce food that way. Or is he suggesting that governments add taxes onto ... pesticides, for example?
He may have the answer to everything but this clip leaves me none the wiser as to what that answer might actually be.
For anyone else who is now curious to see what the report says - it's available online. Am I going to read it? I have barely the attention span to read 6 paragraphs, nevermind 600 pages...
Sounds like it yep.
If goods reflected the true cost on the environment, perhaps we wouldn't waste them so wantonly. 30-40% of the food we purchase, for example, just gets thrown in the garbage and is wasted. We'd think twice about wasting so much if we had to pay the true cost of that food. Since the 1950's we've laid waste to animal populations, plant diversity, topsoil, water, etc. Look at what's happening to the Lake Mead and the Great Salt Lake. That's our future. If you keep on using resources like there is no tomorrow, you'll find those resources get depleted rapidly until they are gone.
@@Michilar I agree there is a massive problem of waste in our world, and not just with regards to food. But there is also a massive problem of wealth and income inequality. Increasing the price of food is not a viable solution when you have so many people in even the well-off parts of the world turning to food banks and soup kitchens to feed themselves. I completely agree that we need to reduce waste, it is an urgent problem. But I am completely opposed to any measures which would increase the cost of essentials and so have a much worse impact on the people with lower levels of income or wealth.
Em primeiro lugar o que você faz na vida aumenta as taxas, mas um economista vai aumentar taxas dessa forma ? É claro que não esse é o princípio da economia. Concorrência. Como um economista não vai estudar uma forma de ajudar o meio ambiente e fazer o que ele tem que fazer ? Que é manter o país funcionando. Mas isso é complicado porque os pontos que você cita são baseados em erros que até hoje não ouvi ninguém falar que tentou, só você que me contou isso agora. 😂😂😂
E sim. Se quiser entender exatamente a proposta dele vai ter que ler 600 páginas, pois isso pode ter mudado o capitalismo e até hoje ninguém mexeu nessa engrenagem só a direcionam. E que se lasque o resto. 😂😂😂
How about we address income inequality first across cultures and nations too. Pay for it sounds like a regressive tax, no issue for the rich who will
Continue to drive markets towards ecological ruin, while the poor and middle class struggle even more. The real problem is exploitation is profitable. So let’s address the profit motive first, or we really will need to eat the rich.
Interesting information
Well hello there (this may or may not have been written by ChatGPT)
Greed is the problem. The top 20% of the wealthiest people globally consume 80% of the worlds resources and they will always be able to afford those luxuries. Poor people can't actually afford the real value of things, so this would never work, unless greedy people pull back on their consumption. Consumption of phones, food and all the 'stuff' they need and want. Also the wealthiest countries contribute heavily to over population as the elderly live much longer, with each person consuming 20 more years of 'stuff', food, plastic etc. In poor countries the average age is 55 years old, 20 years less than developing countries. So the balance for climate change does not come by uplifting the poor. Yes, of course we need to do that by upskilling and building entrepreneurs, but at the same time we need a campaign to teach the wealthy to pull back on the amount of 'stuff' they 'need'.
GoJo! GoJo! GoJo!
Strange things happen on a Friday night 😂
"The answer to life the universe and everything" .... -> Entropy ... balance.
How to apply it?
This is so sad actually...
Only an insane God would've created this planet...and it's people.
God Create us ALL... And he Knows the answear for everything but we dont. We have to read and learn more. Nós criamos oportunidade para os nossos filhos viverem, mas mais e mais não estamos mudando nada, só deixando para o futuro lidar com isso.
which is good evidence that god is nonsense.
Why won't we die?
Nanomachines, son!
2030 Immortality prediction.
42?
So can we afford the rich?
GDP doesn't include resale. Think about that.
❤️❤️❤️
❤️ Thanks for your endless love and support you have shown me. I’m forever grateful. I really appreciate your unconditional love and support towards me... Where are you watching from?
That‘s not exactly news .. was discussed some 40 years ago. still true however
A proposta é por algo em cena para o show. Pois, como eu disse, o economista não tem voz ativa. E agora um economista resolveu se mobilizar e procurar uma forma de ajudar o mundo. O capitalismo tem que ser alterado, ou vamos sofrer horrores. Eu vi uma reportagem em que a moça falou sobre isso "Hoje você compra um carro em São Paulo e a chuva destrói ele. Haverá um tempo que será pior."
O nome do podcast é "quero ouvir um podcast"
The wall throughout the whole thing is a bit much...
Eu sabia que um economista pensou nisso mesmo não sabendo o que eu pensava. ❤❤❤
Greed killed the planet and we are doomed :) Collapse is here for the last 30 years and let's have fun and trash this place to the END!
nice
ICEMAN BRAD!!! ON NARRATION LETS GOOOOO “SHOULD OF ROLLED INTO BATTLE WITH A SWORD BRAD THAT WOULD OF ROCKED”
Thanks for sharing, loved the video. Background music is too loud though. Cheers
You're too loud
@Scv the background music is fine
So Alex is not gracing us with his presence ☹️I’ve been tricked
The narration terrible the message Vital, i suppose we need a kind of cheeky celeb to "Hip Out " interest to the calamity we are facing But i can tell you in our travels around this Pacific Canada we have seen and documented stark changes in the eco system and not is alarming how few note let alone care Thank You > 262
দাশগুপ্তা
*SUNSET CORPORATIONS - The time to waste is over*
Someone has to Tell you what happens in the world, not what you want to read. 😂😂😂
And A Earnest...? More secret A'AM'MY listening... Special for People...
Electric cars will not be enough.
Oh, yes, the solution is definitely to make poor people pay more for gas, groceries and electricity. That’s the result of increasing costs
Or we could, you know, just abolish capitalism worldwide.
Simple answer is stop the luxury. stop trying to make everything for research and trail .
The next planet is Mars 😂 let's build it scientifically and then ruin that lol 😂
Has Partha accounted for future consequences? What if the guy eating the burger was a big environmental activist? Should he get a discount? You can think about things both ways. It’s impossible to track impact and effect clearly from an economic standpoint. The value of money itself has no true logic.
😮 Will I'AmY not 🚫 one word! The open secret, four PEOPLE. And special exclusive, The Open Word All the!!!???[][][]😮
Se ele falar metade das coisas você vai falar que não vai funcionar, se ele fizer um vídeo de 1 dia você não vai assistir.
😊
The hypocrisy of the NYT refusing to pay a minor fee to have their Twitter account verified, while they beg people to pay for their garbage. 🤣🤣🤣
Funniest comment.
But that's just like, your opinion, man. Lol
Say more about that. What do you mean?
@Ginger Cat tem economista realmente que entram bem no assunto. Não discordando do que você disse é anti América. 😂😂😂
Vamos ver.
Tem um economista que falou que o capitalismo irá devorar o próprio capitalismo um dia. Pois produzimos muito e se ninguém comprar ? Até hoje todo mundo compra ou a empresa não produz mais que o necessário.
So, in essence, his theory is that we should just charge more for the products we use? Get real.
Wow this sucks.
This is a new low in triviality. On the style, why are you so embarrassed about speaking seriously about serious issues that you have to try to be funny and have a waltz in the background? On the substance, the solution is not a solution because we have to STOP using fossil fuels and many many other things. It doesn't matter if someone's paying to do them or not. At a deeper level, the attempt to see nature in economic terms is part of the reductive thinking that got us into this mess. Sad to see this video. Try harder, New York Times.
Você está usando a mesma tecla que as montadoras estão lutando para que aconteça, carro híbrido. O que acontece na verdade, as pessoas não tem dinheiro pra pagar 100 mil no carro híbrido e as que tem dinheiro vão salvar o mundo sozinhas ?
E se elas fizerem isso vai dar certo ?
Não, é uma nova tecnologia ou seja usa muito para fazer o carro funcionar dessa forma, as montadoras vão investir mais dinheiro, mas vão cobrar mais dinheiro.
Vamos dizer que você produza 80% de poluição com carro antigo. Com o carro novo caiu para 60%. ❤❤❤
Mas eu sei o quanto as montadoras estão tentando.
we can not stop using fossil resources. We may stop using them as fuel for everything, but the extraction of them cannot stop.
@@danstrayer111 Wrong. We will stop using fossil fuels in one of two ways. Either we'll get smart and stop. Or we won't and civilisation will break down along with the infrastructure for extracting them. Of course there will always be some residual use but this will be on a tiny scale compared with today.
Blablabla and its not funny. Besides, prices went up already, inflation skyerocketing and - Alexander is overpaid(lol). Not funny.
Primo!
Until you measure everything defined by math like this: 10,000,000,002,023 you are not conscious you are not conscious. Partha, everything that is, began, so, please describe the moment you gained consciousness. Remember, you can only be conscious of what you measure to be. Partha cannot prove he is conscious, because I can prove he is not.
Na verdade não. Pensamentos vem de sentimento. Como saber o que você sentiu ? Pode ser desde os 3 anos de idade que ele pensa assim, mas só com estudo ele foi capaz de se comunicar e qual foi o meio usado por ele ? Economia.
Estou fascinado. Economista só limpa a merda que os políticos fazem, mas ele tem uma sugestão que eu gostaria de ouvir e estudar mais.