It’s always problematic if you start of an enquiry by expressing contempt.

Looking at some of your articles, I can see there is flaws in many of them. Your ‘explanation’ of economic concepts for instance is wholly abstract, textbook stuff. Taking the concept of a ‘market’ for instance and then proceeding how it should work theoretically does not teach anyone anything. You state that the reason distribution is unequal is because there are too many distortions, while there is quite a broad school of economic thought which has proven that markets need political guidance at the very least, otherwise the idea of ‘trickle-down’ economics completely fails. Instead, we see huge concentrations of wealth precisely because there is too little regulation. The idea too that so-called ‘free’ markets equate to freedom for individual people is laughable. Free markets means the strongest, predatory forces rule — de facto creating dictatorship of sorts.

Anyhow, to come to your question. This article is not a guide for strategy. It explores some of the ideas which are gaining ground amongst growing groups of people. My ideas start from the premise on what is needed to effectively tackle our environmental challenges and draw on ideas which are out there and to some extent, are being proposed. So to answer your question: yes, i do think it is possible to convince people that radical changes are necessary. It has been achieved before. Strong government will indeed be required to achieve some of these measures, but I do not see how that necessarily needs to be totalitarian, especially not if these governmental measures are the result of mass mobilizations etc. I think America has needed some structural changes to its institutions for a long time now. Perhaps the younger generations can bring it about. I certainly hope so.