The function of a market is not the movement of goods, but the movement of prices.

This particular market is not functioning, or at the very least, it’s not functioning like a market for a commodity that has no particular resource limitations.

Makes me think of the classic yes minister national service scene, https://youtu.be/ahgjEjJkZks

Yeah, and not like it needs to eat radiation to be successful, all it has to do is survive in a place where everything else dies, and suddenly it has no competitors or predators, and is free to grow explosively.

Your image shows US as 434 billion and china as 285, which is a smaller gap than my source, but not completely different. It’s weird it’s not listed in order.

My source is:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-which-countries-are-historically-responsible-for-climate-change/

As far as I know carbon brief are well respected and not a Chinese puppet, but I admit I that doesn’t mean they’re completely correct.

Edit: I see now that’s a little out of date. 2021.

They have an updated one from 2024, https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-emissions-have-now-caused-more-global-warming-than-eu/

Which doesn’t change my original assertion about the US having higher cumulative emissions, but does change the scale of the difference a bit, and discusses whether China will ever overtake the US (looks like it might be a toss up)

Worth noting the US is still ahead on total cumulative emissions, and if you adjust per capita (which is only fair), China doesn’t even hit the top 20.

Meanwhile, they installed more solar than the rest of the world combined last year.

Like, I’m not absolving them, they could be doing more, but right now they’re embarrassing us on how fast they’re pivoting.

If I could wire a calculator into my brain I would have cheated on all the maths tests tbf

Afaik that is handled through tool use in modern models (ie they didn’t learn to do maths, they learnt to use a calculator), assuming that’s true and I haven’t missed some advance, their conclusions are likely still relevant

Edit: though the article does seem to discard the chain of thought techniques a little readily, feels like they could come close to fitting the role of executive control, but perhaps that’s just the article lacking detail from the original work.

That’s true. I guess you just have to think you can keep up with the market, not necessarily beat it.

Not trying to be smug, just pointing out that a system that encourages self selection will tend to select for self belief, justified or not.

It’s inevitable, anyone wise enough to doubt their ability to outplay the market chooses not to try, the remainder all think they can

I think that’s a traditional part of anti-monopoly laws, shame nobody enforces those anymore