Free Markets or Central Planning?
Clearly the choice between free market and centrally planned economies is a false one. Yet these are the options in the minds of many people I talk to and many of our members. I think this is a limited way of thinking about organizing societies and a mistake.
The real question is: What's so great about "markets" to begin with?
The real question is: What's so great about "markets" to begin with?
Comments (68)
I choose free markets because I cannot think of anyone or any group, past or present, with the knowledge and foresight to plan any economy. Only I know what goods and services I need to purchase, and therefor only I am the one competent enough to make that decision.
The great thing about "markets" are that they represent the space in which goods and services can be bought and sold. Without markets there is no such space.
As long as all costs are internalized among those who voluntarily agree to assume them, and are paid to do so in good faith and fair dealing, then I'm good with that.
Quoting NOS4A2
I'd just like to take this opportunity to interject a distinction between "want" and "need." If you want a cheep piece of Chinese plastic shit, then I don't care what you want, or if the markets will allow you to get it; You should be denied. I'd be happy to centrally plan that denial. I've got the knowledge and foresight to do that. I'm competent to tell you that you don't need that. Because, really, you are just benefiting from communism and we all know you are not a communist. This analysis extends likewise to the purchase of products from sellers who benefit from dictators, fascists, misogynists, homophobes, corporate polluters and others who externalize their costs in the product of the widget that you want. Yeah, I can do that. Make me King and I'll make sure you do run afoul of your own standards or my standards.
What's so great with central planning?
In fact, the real question is why are the most successful and wealthy countries mixed economies?
Start with the facts, not ideology.
(Ok, I get it, this is a philosophy forum. But still guys.)
You lack the data to make such decisions. That's ok, though, everyone lacks that knowledge.
And what's so great about buying and selling things?
Quoting NOS4A2
But we already have a planned economy. It's planned internally, in the corporation, and by massive intervention by the state in the form of subsidies and bailouts. It's planned -- it's just planned by the wealthy. The "decision" you give is an illusion. The public largely favors public transportation, which isn't an option. Your choices are between Ford, Toyota, GM, etc. The largest voting bloc in the US are independents -- yet we get the "choice" of two factions of a business party.
Your ideas reduce the individual to be a consumer/chooser of what's presented to him. That's a mistake, in government and in business.
And rose again in the 1970s, and which has dominated corporate and political governance ever since. From the boardrooms of Wall Street, to Capitol Hill, to the White House, this ideology of "free enterprise" has prevailed. To stop our historical analysis with the crash of 1929 and its aftermath is incomplete.
Quoting ssu
Nothing whatsoever -- in fact I'm against it.
Quoting ssu
Some of the poorest are also mixed economies. Why? Because nearly every economy in the world is mixed -- from China to India, to Japan and New Zealand, to Canada and Belize.
Quoting ssu
That's exactly what I did, by pointing out that the choice between centrally planned economies and free market economies is a false one.
Interspersed with collectivist stuff like Obamacare and now Biden's infrastructure bill.
Data! Data! I don't need no stinking Data!
Trade has been an important aspect of humanity since time immemorial. It's probably hard-wired into our DNA. Whether good or bad its just what we do.
I'm well aware that there is no free trade in the world, but that isn't to say that there should or shouldn't be. The fact that slavery was commonplace was no valid argument that abolition wasn't possible.
Obamacare isn't "collectivist." Obama was a neoliberal as well. Notice what the country really wanted -- a public option -- was quickly removed from the table. Obama is just as much dominated by this free market ideology as Clinton.
So has rape. I didn't ask about its ubiquity or its history.
Quoting NOS4A2
And I'm asking: "What's so good about it?" Or is it good at all? Plato and Aristotle had some things to say about them, things which were far different from people you often parrot -- Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, Hayek, etc -- had to say about them.
Market fundamentalism has destroyed this country over the last 40 years. Right along with shareholder value theory and trickle-down economics. All in the name of "freedom" and "individualism."
Meanwhile, the only result is the very wealthy have gotten wealthier. And they can always count on the false consciousness of people like you in continuing to defend it.
I’m looking through this thread and I don’t understand how some here are saying current policies are “collectivist” (whatever that means). Capitalist economics is extremely planned with constant input from governments, central banks, venture capital or private equity firms like Bain Capital or Goldman Sachs. Even further down the supply chain most stores know how much production is needed to fulfill certain requirements of production, my time in grocery stores we knew pretty much down to the hour the amount of stock we would need to fulfill the needs of the people that walk through the door. What makes those levels of administration and direction any more promoting of freedom than government or networks of distributors and administrators?
Well, it's funded with increased taxes and mandates insurers to accept those with preexisting conditions without extra charging.
I generally agree, but this gets back to the debate the framers had in the 1780s. Given our current economy, you cannot avoid disaster without a central bank.
What the real problem is isn't markets, but ideology -- namely, our current conceptions of capitalism. Socialism and communism -- and slavery, and feudalism, etc -- had markets. Markets existed in ancient Greece and Rome.
What we have suffered under since the 70s is free market fundamentalism. Ideas like the "efficient market hypothesis," and things to that effect. All of it has lead to exactly the facts we see around us: huge income inequality, stagnant real wages, loss of unions, more precarious work, gig economies, corporate consolidation, stock buybacks, shadow banking, government bailouts, etc.
Yes, when it should have done what the people wanted, and joined the rest of the civilized world: universal health care or, at least (and as promised), a public option. Neither of which happened, thanks to the pressure from insurance companies.
For me trade is good because it is the only means with which I can buy and sell goods and services. There are other means to acquire goods and services, for instance through robbery and coercion, but I oppose such activity for moral reasons. Perhaps you have a better idea? Or do you expect things to fall in your lap?
I still see nothing wrong with wealth. A wealthy person presents an opportunity to me. Wealth isn't a zero-sum game so you shouldn't have much to fear save for your own envy.
I know what trade means. I'm asking why it's good. Your answer: "trade is good because it's trade."
Nevermind -- go back to sleep, as usual.
Quoting NOS4A2
Quoting NOS4A2
Can't help dragging out tired slogans from your brainwashed cold war youth, can you?
Yes, it must be that I am envious of wealthy people and expect things to "fall into my lap." :lol:
I think theyre lauded for their self regulation.
Think of a village that collects water. In order to help them, you build a large asphalt highway between the village and the creek.
Later, to your dismay, you find that the villagers never use your feature. Instead, they walk through the forest where it's cool and pick persimmons and rabbit tobacco on their way.
The wisdom you learn is to watch what people do naturally instead of trying to dictate their actions. What they do naturally evolves in keeping with the environment.
A friend says, "Hey, mind selling me that coffee mug?" I say, "Sure, 3 dollars", and we both have full free will to accept, amend, or reject the trade.
This is a pretty good thing. Imagine a world in which I had to also add 8% tax, fill out a form and receipt, and make sure the cup passed some standard regulation before offer of sale.
Now does a completely free market scale as you introduce more people? Of COURSE not. But when we can keep aspects of free markets where possible, it makes trade more manageable for the seller. Since its less work to sell, less time and effort is needed to do business, thus increasing profits.
Then perhaps it's better to make a more specific questions. Let's look at markets. They can either function well or not so well in an economy. And there can be a plethora of reasons why it is so. Is the market controlled by a monopoly or by monopolistic competition. Are there functioning institutions or not? Are there logistical problems? Who are the suppliers and how do they perform? How integrated the market is to the outside? Are there subsidies or other forms of assistance, transfer payments being given or gotten? What are the political aspects of the market?
The question how much the government controls or supervises some market is only one limited question. It broadly starts from issues like just how well the society itself functions.
I never said that. Trade is good because it is one of the few means to acquire goods and services without resorting to immoral behavior.
The “wealthy get wealthier” is a play on a saying from Hanoverian England. “Trickle-down economics” is a democrat sneer from the 80’s. “Market fundamentalism” is a neologism from the 90’s. Your sloganeering is quite diverse.
I’ve never experienced the free market.
Pretend that current conditions are such that economies are a mixture of state intervention and private trade. You don’t like the current conditions, so you’d like to see it go in a different direction. Which direction would you like to see it go?
2008, for example. Self regulation did wonders there.
Quoting tim wood
There are no free markets in the modern world. So don't hold your breath.
Quoting ssu
Markets are another word for transactions between people. There's nothing wrong with trade. My problem is with free market fantasies, and the very idea that markets are something to be worshipped. They should be one small part of a society, and nothing more.
Markets are elevated to the point of holiness by a merchant mentality, where everything is about transactions, monetary value, and profits. I think we can aspire to more than that.
Quoting NOS4A2
Said what?
There is a quote feature.
So that entirely refutes the argument?
Socialism doesn't work because USSR. Zing.
And “free to choose.”
Quoting frank
Yes. They’re not lauded for their self regulation, as was your claim. When an industry is deregulated, you see what happens over and over again. The financial sector is an obvious example, but there are plenty of others.
But I’m talking about the real world, not about a hypothetical village somewhere. So there’s that defect, I suppose.
But I don't think you can have a large society without some degree of planning - how central it should be, is hard to say. We probably want less central planning than more of it, as a rule, but I think one can make a case for exceptions.
As for markets. Well what is a market? It's spoken of frequently, but it's not clear to me what they are. Nevertheless, I think they have a place in society. Preferably a much smaller one than what they currently have. But I don't see anything intrinsically wrong with having a market in a society.
It's a bit too abstract to say much that doesn't already involve presuppositions and ideological baggage, which we all have.
Cutting corners to save money and thus increase profits. Another great example of unregulated capitalism.
When anything becomes to be worshipped, just ignore the worship and the worshippers. What you are describing is when it has become an ideology, a pseudo religious mantra. Then it's just basically a religious sermon, a declaration of faith, what these people preach. Hardly worth listening, because these people aren't open to discussion or any new ideas.
And it's a kneejerk response usually to suggestions of supervision of market participants or simply about upholding existing laws. Have you actually noticed that the most vociferous defense of the free market is given as a response to defend basically either a monopoly or a tight oligopoly situation?
Comes to mind what an economic historian who had written the history of British Petroleum (BP) remarked: when BP is doing good and the UK government thinks about taking more profits or doing something other with the company, the company reminds of it being an independent corporation. When BP is in a tight spot, let's say a possible take over bid is looming, the company reminds the government who how strategically important it is to the UK and it's government.
Markets have been the real world since the end of the Bronze Age. I don't think you're taking a particularly serious approach to your own question.
I'd love to, if not for the fact that they run the world -- and that's not an exaggeration. This dogma (really more akin to a religion) is espoused by corporate and political leaders to this day. The dogma says that markets know best, that they should not be interfered with by the pesky state, that anything negative in history can be reduced to state interference, and so on. It's all very self-serving, especially when a "market" has been very good to you.
Of course this is never admitted. Instead we're given lectures about how "government is the problem." The government is somewhat democratic. So where does the solution come from?Business. Naturally we're supposed to hear "mom and pop stores" and "the middle class" when this is stated, but it's not that -- it's big business, and that means (in today's world) multinational corporations.
Quoting ssu
What other options do we have? Revolution? I'm all for that. But since it's not happening, we're left only with rational discourse -- and that's probably for the best anyway, given the imbalance of military power.
Quoting ssu
Yes.
Quoting ssu
An important point, yes. Reminds me of Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, etc. But also Exxon, Chevron, etc. All want a strong welfare state -- for their interests.
I have not once argued that markets are not part of the real world.
"Free markets," like those that "self-regulate," are fantasies. There is no invisible hand.
I think with a grid system, you can get anywhere on the grid just making left turns, as long as there are no dead ends. Could be wrong.
One should remember that a lot of this public discourse is what in the old days is called propaganda. Or jargon, lithurgy. Intended for some target audience for some reason.
Let me give you another example,
When there still was the Soviet Union, Finnish politicians and businessmen were quite apt in speaking "the lithurgy", the politically correct way to speak publicly (or to the Soviets, how to speak with any westerner) by allways praising the brotherhood of the nations, noting always the Agreement of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance between Finland and Soviet Union and so on... This made the discourse totally confusing to an outsider, but it was of the uttermost importance when talking to Soviets! If you know anyone who has lived behind the Iron Curtain, they will remember it quite well. Now it's hilarious.
And I think this is happening here too now ...when people speak publicly, on the record. Have them speak privately and you can see they usually are totally aware of the problems and call them by their actual name.
You’re absolutely right that this is a gigantic problem, but I feel like the left is currently going through a dilemma on how to address it. A Bernie Sanders style social democracy would solve a lot of this and is way better than the neoliberal bullshit we’re dealing with now, but is it sustainable? F*ck no if you ask me (and I’m sure you probably know why) but is revolution going to happen any time soon? Also no. I’m interested in hearing some more pragmatic solutions and your thoughts on this. You might disagree and I hate to say it, but I think voting in FDR style democrats is merely a compromise the capitalist class is more than happen to welcome for a few decades before chipping away it again
When Norway, lead typically by social democrats and having a huge wealth from oil revenues, doesn't spend as much money as the US does in health care per capita, you know there is a problem. And everybody else spends less than the US and Norway.
I think for a rich country as the US the Bernie Sanders style health care is quite sustainable. As long as you keep the private sector as competitive as it is now and take care of your financial system. The secret to social democracy is to keep the cash cow in good health! And not to shoot the cow (like the communists would do).
Like democracy, it relies on the assumption we are flawed. Democracy limits harm through inefficiency and the free market functions on people serving their own interest above others. The free market doesn't describe a value for society; I think that's where things take a turn. It is a system of exchange that relies on humans to be selfish when they want something. It's organic and works with the least proud aspects of human nature. Central planning isn't a thing; too many people doing too many things. Trying to organize a forest.
Such collective actions are necessary because the alternative would be social unrest and wars.
Yes, which is interesting. Unlike others on the forum and in media generally, who are reasonably skeptical about the level of public understanding, I think that the large majority of Americans fundamentally agree with each other that something is wrong. That's in spite of the propaganda that says everything is great -- like that the economy is great because the stock indexes have hit records.
The anger is not articulated well, but it's right under the surface because they live it every day. They sense something is wrong with this world and would like to see it changed. It's not envy, it's not entitlement. It's a sense of fairness in a world where the rules aren't at all fair. But who or what is to blame?
Unfortunately, when it comes to that question, many take out their unhappiness on immigrants, or "welfare queens," or the "inner cities," or China, or the liberal elite, or "big government," or whatever else you can imagine. That's where the propaganda you mentioned is very effective and comes in very handy for those with power, because the anger then gets diverted to everything but the source, or else distracted by superficialities of life, like fashionable consumption or pop culture.
Quoting Albero
Quoting Albero
I'm not sure what you mean by "sustainable." Fiscally sustainable, or in general?
If the latter, I agree -- a return to the New Deal era, which is all that Bernie is advocating really (although he's portrayed as the left of the left; in reality, on the world stage he's a moderate), is just setting us up for another swing to the right in 20 or 30 years.
But that's if we as people don't push any farther. I think if we ever have anything like the New Deal again, and so return to something like the 50s and 60s, where there was less wealth inequality, the American public has to be much more organized and push much harder. But for what? That's part of your question.
Pragmatic solutions should be thought of as short-term and long-term. I think it's important to have a long-term vision, as it informs the short-term decisions. But we don't want to be overly rigid, because we have no clue as to what the future brings.
In the short term, short of a revolution we're not getting rid of state-capitalism or private ownership, so Bernie's proposals are very good ones. I think strengthening unions is important, higher taxes, more regulations, and new legislation are important -- especially concerning things like stock buybacks, campaign contributions, etc. All that will be difficult enough. But then there are other solutions: encouraging worker co-ops is a huge move that could be made. Short of strong unions and worker co-ops is another option: worker representation on the boards of directors and in higher management.
In the long term, I think Parecon is a good model. There are historical examples of other modes of organization as well. The push should ultimately be a more anarchist society, where people control their lives, in politics but more importantly (and often simply overlooked as impossible) in the workplace as well. Not necessarily majoritarian democracy, a classless society, total equality, or anything like that, but simply more participation and equity.
My other thread about the co-op model gets into examples of this in terms of the workplace.
I focus more on economic matters because I think that's where most of the power comes from, whether we like it or not. I wish it were the government, because that's slightly easier to change. In business, there's not even the profession of democracy or fairness -- if it's private, they can do what they want.
Even people of the right are complaining about this regarding mask and vaccine mandates, and what they view as censorship on Twitter and Facebook. I think their rationale is absurd, but the general sentiment is correct: the private sector, major corporations, have too much power. (These are the same people totally fine with Trump authoritarianism and private businesses being allowed to discriminate against gays, but I digress.)
But this is a very narrow view of human beings. All you have to do is look around, and you see cooperation, solidarity, empathy, concern for strangers, etc. I agree with Nietzsche about overvaluing "pity" and compassion, and even Ayn Rand in terms of Christian-like altruism, but that's certainly not the problem these days. If anything, we could use a higher dose of that. We've gone way too far the other direction. The fundamental principle being followed the last 40 years has essentially been "greed is good," similar to Adam Smith's "vile maxim." We see how that's turned out.
We could just as easily say "part of human nature is love and concern for others" -- and that'd be true as well. Just look at families and friends. The picture upon which modern ideas of the "free market" rests is the assumption that human beings are sociopaths, and that the greatest goal in life is the accumulation of wealth. It's anti-social. Look closely at the assumptions, and you'll eventually arrive at this idea. Like I said, it's very narrow -- and fairly sick. A symptom of decadence.
A more pro-social, healthier view of human beings should be assumed before we decide how to organize a society, its government and its economy. Perhaps going back and reading Plato, Aristotle, and even Adam Smith is a good idea.
I think the gut knows that the growth model is not sustainable, and the ability to keep bailing ourselves out is losing steam. When I say the "gut", I mean an "intuitive sense", not necessarily articulated the way I just did.
It's like the end of a kegger. There's still a lot of half-empty cups of beer laying around if you really want a drink. And the cool kids over in the corner still have wine and a secret stash of bottled beer. But the song is skipping, the sun's coming up, the neighbors dog is barking, that "ten" laying on the floor over there is looking more like a "three" and, well, it's just time to go home. It was fun, the open conspiracy of "fuck 'em if they can't take a joke" has worn out it's welcome. The joke is over. We need some sleep, in our own bed. Tomorrow is a work day.
You can see that obviously there is this sense of things not being right. There is this underlying anger in the country that can sometime erupt. The question is how it is vented out and by whom. Trump was basically this middle finger from part of the voters. Obama was someone that other people pinned their hopes. I remember when my friend had visited the US just when Obama was first elected, there was a lot of hopeful thinking. Yet unfortunately, this isn't something that just a President can change.
I keep coming back again and again to a simple goal: organization. Getting involved, on the local level, with anyone willing to listen and join in, or joining in with something already happening -- and there are some things happening here and there. But not particularly well, and not particularly prevalent or effective. Still, it's worth trying.
I liken it to all to someone complaining about how boring everyone around them is, how uninteresting their lives and conversations, etc., and yet never offering anything themselves, never speaking out, never leading discussions, etc. It's similar to "political hobbyism."
I think the emphasis on individualism needs to go out and being pro-social needs to come into vogue. There's no other way. If we continue pinning our hopes to the Obamas or Bidens or even Bernies, we're toast. That's limiting yourself to a vote, like restricting yourself to asking for a raise or quitting. When you think these are the only options, then you're both disarming yourself and limiting your circle of influence to your living room. That guarantees nothing changes.
To hell with these political leaders and these corporations.
Family, tribe, nation, the idea of loyalty and mutuality is widened, and it is only with "others" that one begins to trade and thus invent 'the market'. the market is a way of dealing with folk one does not care about.
Ummm.. should we call this representative democracy and forming new political parties?
Don't think you are bound by law to have just two. Even if they masquerade their "primaries" as part of the system, they are just two dominating parties and there is only one elections.
You quoted me out of context; ignoring the sentence directly following this one spoke to your entire complaint above. Do you have anything honest to say?
Right, and it works, but it's not easy to widen the circle of such love and compassion. The good news is, as Steven Pinker has documented, that human history seems to move in the direction of less violence. In the long term, mankind is getting more integrated and cooperative. Common religion, ideology or nationalism can help to some degree. Social mechanisms like laws, education, trade and workplace force us to be cooperative and considerate toward strangers, and we gradually internalize these attitudes. Mental capacity and flexibility seem to be important too, to be able to understand different people and interact with them fruitfully. The more people develop these traits the more they will be able to function like a family in larger groups.
Quoting unenlightened
We're all descended from people who turned to markets to meet the needs of communities when there was no Fatherland to organize things.
Markets have been incredibly important to humanity for thousands of years. We just live in a time where their power is outsized.
Good point.
Quoting Cheshire
It didn't, and you were not quoted out of context. Nor am I accusing you of taking this position. On the contrary, I think it's accurate. Those who tacitly hold this view of human beings are simply missing the bigger picture.
Don't want to be quoted, don't post.
You know it's interesting how people only seem to get upset when you accuse them of something they are guilty of.....Why not let whoever you are ranting at off the hook and let whatever punch line you are setting up hit the floor like the sorry sack of manure it surely resembles.
You quoted me out of context. Please don't quote me again.
Just one small example: A developer wants to build 50 houses. The local city/county wants the tax revenue. How does it happen that the developer, local government, and others do not notice that the land for these 50 houses is a flood plain? Building houses on flood. plains isn't planning -- it's gambling. People, insurance companies, taxpayers -- all sorts -- are losing this gamble too often.
Smart companies build sufficient warehouse capacity BEFORE they build out their wholesale or retail operation. Manufacturers build sufficient factory capacity before they attempt to go into new markets.
Amazon seems to do reasonably good medium range planning (2 decades out), which has enabled them to keep up with booming demand for home delivery. Target, surprisingly, seems to have had problems with its supply chain for several years. Bad planning, maybe.
I don't think switching to electric autos (140 million of them in the us alone) is a good idea, but at least there is talk of building out a coast-to-coast charging system, which will certainly be needed when we roll out more of the electric fleet.
On the other hand, there are all sorts of problems with building out a non-fossil fuel electric grid, and I don't see a lot of planning for that taking place. Mostly there seems to be a lot of dithering. But long range dithering doesn't count as long range planning.
Too big of an idiot, I see. That’s fine. Save your simplistic comments for elsewhere.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Why?
Assorted tantrums for reference only: Quoting Xtrix
Without 100% electricity sourced from wind, solar, nuclear, and hydro, electric vehicles is business as usual.
There are about a billion cars on the world's roads. If we were serious about global warming, we would not be devising plans to replace 1 billion internal combustion autos with electric ones. Aside from the energy to power these vehicles, there is an extraordinarily large energy requirement to recycle 1b old and manufacture 1 billion new vehicles. We do not have a global electric grid free of CO2 and methane emissions to power a billion cars (and more trucks, trains, planes, etc.)
We require transportation, BUT the choice is clear: either cars for all and failure at controlling global warming, or greatly reduced resource consumption and possible success at controlling rising CO2 levels (plus methane, etc.) and steady heating.
The existing global economic model is flat out unsustainable. We are failing at limiting global warming, which isn't just an inconvenience, it will eventually be an existential threat.
That's why.
Fine by me. The efforts of "these political leaders and these corporations" has been directed for many decades toward neutralizing the masses as a political force capable of pursuing their own interests.
That is why the best they can come up with for plans to save the planet is to convert 1 billion internal combustion engines to 1 billion electric motors -- overlooking the massive carbon output that will require.
Under capitalism, planning must be directed toward sustaining capitalism as the dominant paradigm.
Sure, but that doesn't happen overnight. I think it's good to transition to that, get the infrastructure up, and then work on sourcing electricity only from renewables. If we don't start getting that going, nothing will happen.
I'd rather there be a push for public transportation, but if that "can't" happen for political reasons, this is the only way I can see of transitioning.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Agreed.
At the rate the planet is warming, there probably won't be enough time left to implement much of the electrification plan. Having warmed up, it will take a very long time for the oceans to cool back down. Having warmed up, it will take an ice age to refreeze the tundra (which is busy leaking methane).
The kind of life-way that will result from global warming -- a life-way we are definitely going to find very unsatisfactory -- is not being planned for as a likelihood--nowhere, really, not just in the US. The key piece of an appropriate long-range planning process is the steady, continuous, and permanent rollback of consumption to 1880 -1900 levels and content.
Such a 120-140 year roll-back would be no sort of dark ages. People used to not consume as much non-food stuff as they have, ever since the 1920s. Less clothing, less household furnishing, less heating, less cooling, no cars, no planes. People walked, used public transit, or bicycled. Few people owned horses to just to ride around on. For longer trips, inter-city trolleys and trains were used.
Houses built for the working classes did not have huge walk-in closets and 8 drawer dressers, shoe racks, and so on for clothing. Even up to the 1950s many people bathed once or twice a week (not twice a day as some do now).
As long as we continue to expect increases in GDP every year and a "rising standard of living" whatever that means, no significant slowing or reduction in greenhouse gases is going to happen.
The people who adapt to it will think it's cool as shit. They'll be heartbroken when it cools down again. The worst part of the temperature spike will last about 1000 years, then it will be mostly back to normal in 10,000 years
Volatility is the problem, not so much the heat itself.
Over the last 400,000 years, we can assume that humans lived in some fairly difficult conditions, and those that were not dying in agony probably liked their lives well enough. That's true right now. Not dying in agony? Hey, it's time to party! So sure, no doubt there will be people on the Arctic Riviera who will think life is happiness indeed.
I've always assumed that humans, along with some other animals, insects, plants, fungi, bacteria, and viruses would make it through the thermo-culling event. And they will likely breed their way back to the global nuisance we have become to ourselves.
If things go badly, billions will not survive. The Arctic Rivera, Tierra del Fuego resort and casino, and the settlements on various mountains here and there, won't offer refuge for all that many people. So... exit stage left, right, front, and back.
There will be some gruesome times, I'm sure, but stress is fuel for creativity, as Harry Lime pointed out. Who knows what we'll come up with?