There is something very odd about Warren Buffet investing in reinsurance right as damages related to global warming begin to accumulate - because he also invested in ConocoPhillips at market peak, particularly related to oil sands development in Canada, where several pipeline corporations are also positioned to make a killing - and those are projects that will only amplify global warming.

My understanding is that Buffet is getting into the reinsurance business because he thinks there will be consolidation in the industry. If he backs the last reinsurance company standing, then he could make big bucks, despite the rise in GW related claims.

Nothing per se, but if you're talking about entrusting a task to some monolithic organization like the Corporate State, that has a history of grotesquely exacerbating the problems it addresses, because of its size, its centralized organization, and its mission (to get larger and more powerful and to divert taxpayer money to its sponsors), then you need at some point to consider Einstein's advice to quit doing the same thing and yet expect a different result.

While the state does plenty of things badly, it does other things relatively well. Providing health coverage to all citizens (not in the US, obviously, but there are plenty of European examples) and administering the social security program are two cases in point. And there are also things that are very difficult for any other institution to pull off, such as maintaining a military.

We certainly agree about that, but it is instructive is it not, to note how the Corporate State handled the problem of WMDs in Iraq? How many corporations and individuals were enriched at taxpayer expense, and how many Americans and Iraqis were killed or maimed, and how many America-hating jihadists were recruited because the American public entrusted their physical security, vis a vis Iraq, to the US Government?

Iraq was, and is, a disaster, no question. But if the government does not maintain the military, who would?

Based on its lengthy track record, there is not only the possibility, it is the virtual certainty that the US Government will see to it, just as in the case of Iraq and in the current bailout, that the members of the Military-Industrial Complex and other corporate interests will be the primary beneficiaries of any taxpayer-funded efforts to conserve energy.

Quite possibly, yes. But since no other institution is up to the task, then either we resign ourselves to massive die-off, or we accept the inevitable waste and corruption as part of the price we pay for saving ourselves.

You're overlooking the possibility that the Bailout of the Banksters is the Bailout of the Corporate State, i.e., it is bailing out itself.

I don't dispute this - the elite is coming to its own rescue. But if it's a case of (as I believe), they go down, we go down too, then that's the price you pay. I'm not one to cut off my nose to spite my face. I've said repeatedly that I don't like it - the financial house of cards should never have been built to begin with. But it's all water under the bridge now.

Have you ever noticed how similar to a Rorschach Inkblot Test purely visual electronic correspondence can be? Although my words may have belied it, I was actually pretty far removed from anything like an apoplectic fit whenever I've responded to your posts. :^)

OK, sorry again for reading your posts the wrong way.

There was a lot to like in the Galbraith article. I have to say he's an economist with a clue, and that is a hopeful sign.

That means it would be possible to split off the ecologically and democratically disastrous piece and that there's time to find a replacement for it.

I didn't get that at all. Two points:

1) it is primarily the real economy that is ecologically disastrous. The bankers have very little to do with it. People burn fossil fuels doing just about everything, from driving to work to taking a shower. It's economic activity that matters, not how it is financed.

2) In the Great Depression, it was the governement that took over the role of employer and financier of last resort, and Galbraith is just suggesting we do that again (a good idea). But those functions didn't just go away - they were simply taken over by the governement.

Finally, while I liked his ideas a lot, I still have a profound disagreement with Galbraith. He seems to think we can move on to a better, brighter future by making the right investments. We can't, although we might be able to improve upon our future existence from what it would be otherwise.

The human population is in overshoot, and there will be a reckoning. We're too far along to avoid it. Even if we solve the energy problem and the climate problem, we will run into other limits if we try to maintain our current standard of living. There are just too many impacts on the earth now. Living sustainably will necessarily mean a reduction in the population or a reduction in our standard of living, or both.