Venezuela 🇻🇪 vs. Guyana 🇬🇾 Watch Thread - Essequibo/Esequiba/Esequibo

[Professor Emeritus]

like, why are you afraid of Guyana using its own natural resources?

I think every country should have natural resources, it's great.

I think every country should use its own natural resources, and sustainably. Again, great.

I think every country should strive for a balanced economy, not one powered predominantly by natural resource extraction. Because, unfortunately, petrostate economies are typified by relatively large profits and relatively small workforces, followed by relatively large imports and little internal production, which is a recipe for political corruption, outside interference in internal politics, lack of economic diversification, lack of female employment, lack of labor force empowerment, unreliable economic support due to fluctuating commodity prices, environmental degradation and devastation, an increase in social ills due to easy cash on the ground in a highly male-dominated social scene, and a significant increase in the possibility of major conflicts.

None of that is controversial. It's not guesswork, it's what we've watched happen over and over again. I wonder if you think CATO is a bunch of hateful leftists? Then again, by this year you've proven well to the right of even CATO, so maybe you do.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/petrostates-changing-world

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I think every country should have natural resources, it's great.

I think every country should use its own natural resources, and sustainably. Again, great.

I think every country should strive for a balanced economy, not one powered predominantly by natural resource extraction. Because, unfortunately, petrostate economies are typified by relatively large profits and relatively small workforces, followed by relatively large imports and little internal production, which is a recipe for political corruption, outside interference in internal politics, lack of economic diversification, lack of female employment, lack of labor force empowerment, unreliable economic support due to fluctuating commodity prices, environmental degradation and devastation, an increase in social ills due to easy cash on the ground in a highly male-dominated social scene, and a significant increase in the possibility of major conflicts.

So?

This is a lot of excuses for Guyana and needlessly worrisome for someone who claims to support a poor country developing its natural resources.

None of that is controversial. It's not guesswork, it's what we've watched happen over and over again. I wonder if you think CATO is a bunch of hateful leftists? Then again, by this year you've proven well to the right of even CATO, so maybe you do.

You think Kamala Harris is a republican. Yeah, I’m to the Right of YOU.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/petrostates-changing-world

You went through numerous responses attacking the sources of my links and references only to post a libertarian think tank article?

Tsk tsk

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Degrowth: We can't let it happen here!

We won't help the environment or the poor by valorizing poverty and decline.

www.noahpinion.blog

Stop shytposting things you find on Google that you haven't read.


There is absolutely zero chance you read that article. The last three times you posted articles I tore you a new one because two of the articles AGREED with my position and the other one was just Twitter posts written by a random social media pundit who had no experience in the field and no clue what she was talking about.

Everyone saw through you years ago, which is why you're so epically counterproductive in pushing your desired positions. ALL you do is spam google for titles that sound good and spam social media for random-ass people who agree with you. You don't read your own shyt, hardly anyone else reads your shyt, you don't even know what purpose you serve here anymore.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Stop shytposting things you find on Google that you haven't read.


There is absolutely zero chance you read that article. The last three times you posted articles I tore you a new one because two of the articles AGREED with my position and the other one was just Twitter posts written by a random social media pundit who had no experience in the field and no clue what she was talking about.

Everyone saw through you years ago, which is why you're so epically counterproductive in pushing your desired positions. ALL you do is spam google for titles that sound good and spam social media for random-ass people who agree with you. You don't read your own shyt, hardly anyone else reads your shyt, you don't even know what purpose you serve here anymore.

I read everything Noah Smith writes. I maintain a literal RSS feed in 2023.

You didn’t read this, so this is again indicative of how you keep responding when you get exposed.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

You went through numerous responses attacking the sources of my links and references only to post a libertarian think tank article?

Yes, pointing out that you're further to the right and more pro-oil than a libertarian think tank should cause you to pause for a moment.

Remember, two of your OWN sources have already said we need to transition away from oil. That's partly an indication of what an idiot you are for thinking otherwise, and also more proof that you don't read jack shyt from what you post.



You STILL keep claiming that I'm singularly focused on oil and think transitioning from oil will solve all our problems, while you're simultaneously trying to prove I'm a degrowther (the opposite of someone who thinks transitioning from oil will solve our problems), and in order to prove I'm a degrowther, you keep posting people who say the alternate solution to degrowth is.....transitioning away from oil, which will solve all our problems.

I can't tell whether you still haven't realized what an idiot you are, or whether you realized you were wrong and are now just blowing smoke because you think a couple posters like @88m3 still respect you.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Wait, wait, I just thought of something. Since your first two "degrowth is wrong!" guys said we need to transition away from oil, I wonder what the third thinks?

Yup, yup, article after article telling us we need to transition away from oil.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

www.bloomberg.com

Carbon Taxes Won’t Do Enough to Slow Global Warming: Noah Smith - Canadian Energy News, Top Headlines, Commentaries, Features & Events - EnergyNow

By Noah Smith With crowds taking to the streets to call for action on climate change and activists haranguing the United Nations, the issue of global warming is once again front and center. The equivocation of former years seems belatedly to be giving way to a general realization that something...

energynow.ca

The Weekly Anthropocene Interviews: Noah Smith

An Exclusive The Weekly Anthropocene Interview

sammatey.substack.com

https://www.mcall.com/2014/11/04/noah-smith-bad-energy-good-energy-choose-side-in-moral-fight/

"The best solution, everyone agrees, is to shift from a fossil-fuel-based economy as quickly as possible."


"The answer to climate change is not to overthrow capitalism or to reduce the rate of growth or shrink rich economies, or any of this crazy stuff that people in the UK like to talk about. Instead, it’s just going to be that we’re going to switch to clean energy, and that’s going to be the solution. And so, that means getting rid of coal, eventually getting rid of gas, getting rid of oil as well."


That's 3 for 3 now. EVERY source you've quoted attacking degrowth says the only alternative to degrowth is....transitioning away from oil.


This whole conversation started because I once said we need to transition away from oil, and you called me an anti-oil hater....not realizing that all your fukking sources say the exact same thing.

But maybe you never read Noah Smith saying clearly, over and over, that we need to transition away from oil?

I read everything Noah Smith writes.

What a self-own that is. Goddamn you're pathetic.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Wait, wait, I just thought of something. Since your first two "degrowth is wrong!" guys said we need to transition away from oil, I wonder what the third thinks?

Yup, yup, article after article telling us we need to transition away from oil.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

www.bloomberg.com

Carbon Taxes Won’t Do Enough to Slow Global Warming: Noah Smith - Canadian Energy News, Top Headlines, Commentaries, Features & Events - EnergyNow

By Noah Smith With crowds taking to the streets to call for action on climate change and activists haranguing the United Nations, the issue of global warming is once again front and center. The equivocation of former years seems belatedly to be giving way to a general realization that something...

energynow.ca

The Weekly Anthropocene Interviews: Noah Smith

An Exclusive The Weekly Anthropocene Interview

sammatey.substack.com

https://www.mcall.com/2014/11/04/noah-smith-bad-energy-good-energy-choose-side-in-moral-fight/

"The best solution, everyone agrees, is to shift from a fossil-fuel-based economy as quickly as possible."


"The answer to climate change is not to overthrow capitalism or to reduce the rate of growth or shrink rich economies, or any of this crazy stuff that people in the UK like to talk about. Instead, it’s just going to be that we’re going to switch to clean energy, and that’s going to be the solution. And so, that means getting rid of coal, eventually getting rid of gas, getting rid of oil as well."


That's 3 for 3 now. EVERY source you've quoted attacking degrowth says the only alternative to degrowth is....transitioning away from oil.


This whole conversation started because I once said we need to transition away from oil, and you called me an anti-oil hater....not realizing that all your fukking sources say the exact same thing.

But maybe you never read Noah Smith saying clearly, over and over, that we need to transition away from oil?



What a self-own that is. Goddamn you're pathetic.

like most autists, you didn’t read the article i just posted and all of the links you shared are 4 years old with one being 9 years old.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Neocons tapped in

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

If India says something it’s UP

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

 

[Professor Emeritus]

all of the links you shared are 4 years old with one being 9 years old.

Do your favorite political commentators change their mind on critical global issues every other year?

I'm glad you admit that he's been preaching our need to divest from oil for a decade. Why haven't you listened to him, if you like him so much?

You've posted three different bloggers attacking this ambiguous "degrowth" term that I've never even used, and ALL THREE have explicitly written "We have to divest from a fossil fuel-based economy", which is the ACTUAL claim that a I DID make that we had been arguing since the beginning.

And every time I point that out, you plug your fingers in the air and start spamming again.

Spoiler

And of course I read the first article back when you first posted it - well, at least half of it, then skimmed to the bottom to see if he was going to say anything new. He's an economics blogger who clearly doesn't understand environmental issues. The only shyt he discusses the entire time is carbon. If you spend any time dealing with actual environments, biodiversity, land use, pollution, etc., you realize that global warming isn't even our biggest environmental issue yet. It will be, probably, but right now it's not even top 3. (Habitat destruction, biodiversity loss, and agricultural pollutants are probably the three most threatening at the moment, though industrial pollutants and a collapse of ocean ecosystems due to a range of factors are up there too.) Capitalism-driven overconsumption destroys environmental sustainability at MANY more levels than by producing carbon alone, and merely switching one form of overconsumption for another addresses none of those other factors.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Do your favorite political commentators change their mind on critical global issues every other year?

I'm glad you admit that he's been preaching our need to divest from oil for a decade. Why haven't you listened to him, if you like him so much?

You've posted three different bloggers attacking this ambiguous "degrowth" term that I've never even used, and ALL THREE have explicitly written "We have to divest from a fossil fuel-based economy", which is the ACTUAL claim that a I DID make that we had been arguing since the beginning.

And every time I point that out, you plug your fingers in the air and start spamming again.


And of course I read the first article back when you first posted it - well, at least half of it, then skimmed to the bottom to see if he was going to say anything new. He's an economics blogger who clearly doesn't understand environmental issues.

who gives a flying fukk?
Are you the environmental expert? Greta? And now economics doesn’t impact the climate economy?!

why are you so shameless?

axiomatically this works in reverse…environmentalists can’t comment on the economy either if this is the sort of bargain basement rhetoric you want to defend

The only shyt he discusses the entire time is carbon. If you spend any time dealing with actual environments, biodiversity, land use, pollution, etc., you realize that global warming isn't even our biggest environmental issue yet. It will be, probably, but right now it's not even top 3. (Habitat destruction, biodiversity loss, and agricultural pollutants are probably the three most threatening at the moment, though industrial pollutants and a collapse of ocean ecosystems due to a range of factors are up there too.) Capitalism-driven overconsumption destroys environmental sustainability at MANY more levels than by producing carbon alone, and merely switching one form of overconsumption for another addresses none of those other factors.

@Rhakim be like:

"Its so weird why I keep being called a degrowth leftist…anyways here’s another degrowth talking point encouraging people to eat paper in order to save the climate"



Yeah. You’re a degrowther. You’re focused on “capitalist overconsumption” as a means of addressing climate change. Yeah because you want the economy to slow down to fix climate change.

Do yall not see this shyt?


@88m3 @ADevilYouKhow @wire28 @dtownreppin214 @Leasy @Neo The Resurrected ONE @MAKAVELI25
@wire28 @BigMoneyGrip @Dameon Farrow @re'up @Blackfyre @NY's #1 Draft Pick @Skyfall @2Quik4UHoes

 

[Professor Emeritus]

who gives a flying fukk?

You based your entire argument on what these online bloggers say, but you don't give a fukk what these online bloggers say.

You're the one who posted them as your authoritative sources, and ALL THREE of them said we need our economy to divest from oil, which the EXACT point we were actually arguing, and you don't care.