Why is capitalism well suited or not well suited to protect and conserve resources?

The US became a super power under the Constitution and Capitalism. We are losing that power now that we have adopted many Marxist philosophies, such as the income tax, Obamacare, and social security. At the same time what did Russia contribute to humankind, other than misery?

Stalin killed many more people than Hitler did. And Hitler was horrible. But the greenies emulate Hitler's propaganda machine as do the communist countries.

In fact we have a regular on this site, Prico, that salivates over Hitler's gas chambers. Just imagine what kind of carbon footprint those ovens had. This is one of Prico's heros, Harncutt, "I propose that the death penalty is appropriate for influential GW deniers."

That is definitely not a Capitalist philosophy. It is more in line with a Communist philosophy. You see, Capitalism sees a new born baby as an asset.

One who will either assist in building or advance technology. Communism sees it as a liability. One who the government will have to feed and care for.

So it is only natural that Communism will pollute more than Capitalism because Capitalism has a higher respect for humankind in general. EDIT. Keep digging, Prico.

Your hole is up to your neck. Pretty soon you'll be in over your head. I particularly like that part about you being your own man.

You have to be the puppet of someone, because no one can be that stupid and live. Well, maybe you can. Dork is a great example of that.

OK, no one, except Dork, could be that stupid and live. Also you say you are your own man. Then why do you emulate Goebbels so much?

Joseph Goebbel If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

You are following the course he laid out. Facts and data that don't fit your agenda are meaningless to you. Yet you keep on with that same old un-provable tripe.

You emulate who you admire, or more exactly, who your hero is.

That's hard to quantify since you're trying to compare an economic model with a political one. Moreover, most of the environmental initiatives taken over at least the last several decades have been greeted with complaints of creeping socialism. And finally, if you look at the most progressive countries around the world in terms of environmental protections, most of them are, by many measures including your own in declaring the U.S. 'about 60% of the way to full socialism...' socialist.

In fact, two of the biggest polluters-Russia and China-have long been described as Communist, although one could argue that recent surges in their development are as a result of responding to capitalist influences and adopting those practices. BTW, I am a capitalist. And a pretty good one by most measures.

EDIT: No, I'm not misinformed, but I could have put it a little clearer. What I was trying to say was quantifying two different systems in terms of environmental impact was difficult to do. Actually I did say that...it's like the comparison between socialists and communists.

It theory communism, socialism and capitalism are one thing (each) but in practice something often entirely different than the theories that define them. You say it yourself in your analysis of the United States as being '60% socialist." Arguably, the U.S. is one of the most progressive countries in the world in terms of environmental protections-equally good cases can be made for many European countries.

Was it an economy based in capitalism that drove that...social policies and legislation, or a combination of both? Look at the argument from the other side of the spectrum with countries like Russia and China, which are utilizing principles of capitalism more to develop and are among the worst polluters on the planet. What drives that?

The failure of (communism or socialism), or the development of capitalism as an economic driver. Then look at 100 years ago vs. today...and compare stages of development irrespective of calendar dates...you can see the difficulties your question imposes. I don't think it is necessary or appropriate to call someone uniformed when the question is so broadly open to interpretation and you have no more idea who you are talking to than I do.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.