President Trump & the USA

[Detroit Blues]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

If you spur economic growth everybody benefits, that's tried and tested formula.

  

 Proposing policy that costs more that the GDP of the nation is funny though - not to mention effectively telling Hawaiians they are stuck on their island for eternity if they keep voting Democratic.

  

If you want to do something about climate change though stop flying and driving your car unless it's absolutely necessary, if you can't do that you are the problem. 

 

The elephant in the room on this issue it its going to involve wealthy Westerners telling the poorest people in the planet they are going to have to get even poorer.

 

I think tax cuts and "trickle-down economics" has been pretty thoroughly debunked. Wealthy people don't spend their tax benefit, and re-invest it into the economy. They hoard their wealth. Corporations used their new tax benefit not to reinvest in capital, or in their workers, but rather into stock buybacks and dividends. Keynesian economics would tell you that government investment has a direct positive impact on the economy, even if we produce debt to pay for that investment. The "New Deal" and WW2 production would be a pretty good example of debt financed government investment working to create a strong economy.

Personal consumer choices cannot fix the system. Unregulated capitalism is not what will fix climate change, because the economic cost to society is not factored into the price of putting carbon into the atmosphere. If we agree that there is now, and will be in the future, an environmental cost of putting more carbon into the atmosphere, then the only way to level the playing field between fossil fuels and alternative energy is taxing consumption. If alternative energy then cost less than or equal to fossil fuels, then the market itself will drive demand.

 

So we need technological investment in green energy, and we need taxes on fossil fuel consumption. The good thing is, taxes on fossil fuels can pay for government investment in green energy. The more we invest, the lower price we can supply consumers with alternative energy. In the short term, there will be pain. Consumers will bear the brunt of burden, as businesses will charge higher prices. But we know that companies that compete on price will seek investment in green energy to reduce their tax burden for using fossil fuels in order to gain market share by providing products at lower prices, and also to increase their profit margin. 

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

1 minute ago, MC Prussian said:

I like her, too. I just question her rationale and integrity. Had never voted prior to 2018 and described herself as non-political up until recently.

 

She's got a long way to go in order to convince me that she's the answer.

I dont know about her being the answer.  Just really fancy her

 

She's a touch nutty but talks some sense

 

 

 

 

[MC Prussian]

1 minute ago, Detroit Blues said:

 

I think tax cuts and "trickle-down economics" has been pretty thoroughly debunked. Wealthy people don't spend their tax benefit, and re-invest it into the economy. They hoard their wealth. Corporations used their new tax benefit not to reinvest in capital, or in their workers, but rather into stock buybacks and dividends. Keynesian economics would tell you that government investment has a direct positive impact on the economy, even if we produce debt to pay for that investment. The "New Deal" and WW2 production would be a pretty good example of debt financed government investment working to create a strong economy.

Personal consumer choices cannot fix the system. Unregulated capitalism is not what will fix climate change, because the economic cost to society is not factored into the price of putting carbon into the atmosphere. If we agree that there is now, and will be in the future, an environmental cost of putting more carbon into the atmosphere, then the only way to level the playing field between fossil fuels and alternative energy is taxing consumption. If alternative energy then cost less than or equal to fossil fuels, then the market itself will drive demand.

 

So we need technological investment in green energy, and we need taxes on fossil fuel consumption. The good thing is, taxes on fossil fuels can pay for government investment in green energy. The more we invest, the lower price we can supply consumers with alternative energy. In the short term, there will be pain. Consumers will bear the brunt of burden, as businesses will charge higher prices. But we know that companies that compete on price will seek investment in green energy to reduce their tax burden for using fossil fuels in order to gain market share by providing products at lower prices, and also to increase their profit margin. 

That's a bit of a stretch. Some or many people who are wealthy may hoard their money and get even richer in the process. But it's also true that there are enough examples of rich people aka investors willfully giving away a portion of their wealth in order to boost the economy and/or scientific research.

 

The New Deal and WW2 examples are extremes, given the historical context. The measures taken back then need to seen through the lens of the times. Half of the world lay in ruins, so in order to combat extreme conditions, one had to take extreme measures.

 

In the end, at the moment everyone is contributing to climate change. So, in order to reduce it to a certain extent or slow down its speed, maybe we should start with our own power consumption, the way we live in terms of energy waste. Reduce our own footprint first. Millions do that, and we're already one step ahead.

[Detroit Blues]

13 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

That's why I've been saying for ages, the US need at least another party to even things out, a party in the middle that truly stands for liberalism. Dems and Republicans in Senate and Congress are merely acting out. It's become a show on its own. The artificially created scandals and the media are accelerating a certain demise.

 

As far as I can tell, the US under Trump haven't started a war abroad yet. In fact, they're about to pull out troops out of Syria.

 

At present, I simply see the Democrats distancing themselves from the voting public with each new election. Their representatives to challenge Trump in 2020 don't fill me with a lot of confidence. And overall, not just with regards to the Democrats, it's as if we're further and further drifting towards the movie "Idiocracy". Politics in the US need a serious reshuffling, I think after 200+ years it's about time.

 

With regards to Green Energy, I think you can or should have both - pay the indirect cost (because as a citizen or user, you're still contributing to the phenomenon) AND invest in alternative energy models at the same time, albeit at lower rates.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the US now for the first time in decades self-sufficient in terms of energy supplies, as indicated by Trump himself during the Union Address?

 

 

 

 

The problem is, the current system is set up for only two parties. A new party would likely allow one of the other two parties to dominate by chipping away at their support. For example, if it was center left, it would pull votes from the democrats and then the republicans would dominate elections. The only way is to hijack a current political party, and drive the party platform in the direction you want. The tea-party did a good job of hijacking the republican party, and then Trump did something similar with his populist support. Similarly, Bernie Sanders forced the Clinton campaign further left.

 

I am not sure about Trump's claim to be energy self-sufficent. I know in the last ten years we have invested a lot of money into producing oil - through off shore drilling and shale production. That is why gas prices here are so low, compared to 2000-2010. Right now, I pay something like $2-2.50 a gallon, vs I have paid as high as around $4 back 10-15 years ago. This upset the oil cartel in the middle east, so they tried to purposefully lowered their prices to try and put the US shale oil producers out of business. 

 

 

 

[Guest MattP]

9 minutes ago, Detroit Blues said:

 

I think tax cuts and "trickle-down economics" has been pretty thoroughly debunked. Wealthy people don't spend their tax benefit, and re-invest it into the economy. They hoard their wealth. Corporations used their new tax benefit not to reinvest in capital, or in their workers, but rather into stock buybacks and dividends. Keynesian economics would tell you that government investment has a direct positive impact on the economy, even if we produce debt to pay for that investment. The "New Deal" and WW2 production would be a pretty good example of debt financed government investment working to create a strong economy.

Personal consumer choices cannot fix the system. Unregulated capitalism is not what will fix climate change, because the economic cost to society is not factored into the price of putting carbon into the atmosphere. If we agree that there is now, and will be in the future, an environmental cost of putting more carbon into the atmosphere, then the only way to level the playing field between fossil fuels and alternative energy is taxing consumption. If alternative energy then cost less than or equal to fossil fuels, then the market itself will drive demand.

 

So we need technological investment in green energy, and we need taxes on fossil fuel consumption. The good thing is, taxes on fossil fuels can pay for government investment in green energy. The more we invest, the lower price we can supply consumers with alternative energy. In the short term, there will be pain. Consumers will bear the brunt of burden, as businesses will charge higher prices. But we know that companies that compete on price will seek investment in green energy to reduce their tax burden for using fossil fuels in order to gain market share by providing products at lower prices, and also to increase their profit margin. 

It hasn't been debunked at all. In the countries it has been tried the poorest have mobile phones and satellite television, in those that have avoided it we still see food being rationed. It a very curious part of the West now that instead of reforming capitalism some want to trade it for something that is far worse. 

 

Personal consumption is actually the only way it will be solved, as I've said, wealthy Westerners may be able to use big government to make themselves feel better but good luck doing that across poorer nations desperate to enjoy what you already enjoy. 

 

Although this is probably pointless anyway, China and India are far more important in the long term than the USA and I can only see the influence of the states on the World becoming less and less.

[Detroit Blues]

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

It hasn't been debunked at all. In the countries it has been tried the poorest have mobile phones and satellite television, in those that have avoided it we still see food being rationed. It a very curious part of the West now that instead of reforming capitalism some want to trade it for something that is far worse. 

  

Personal consumption is actually the only way it will be solved, as I've said, wealthy Westerners may be able to use big government to make themselves feel better but good luck doing that across poorer nations desperate to enjoy what you already enjoy. 

  

 Although this is probably pointless anyway, China and India are far more important in the long term than the USA and I can only see the influence of the states on the World becoming less and less.

 

Correlation =/= Causation. 

 

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, MattP said:

It hasn't been debunked at all. In the countries it has been tried the poorest have mobile phones and satellite television, in those that have avoided it we still see food being rationed. It a very curious part of the West now that instead of reforming capitalism some want to trade it for something that is far worse. 

 

Personal consumption is actually the only way it will be solved, as I've said, wealthy Westerners may be able to use big government to make themselves feel better but good luck doing that across poorer nations desperate to enjoy what you already enjoy. 

 

Although this is probably pointless anyway, China and India are far more important in the long term than the USA and I can only see the influence of the states on the World becoming less and less.

This isn't a dig at you Matt, but I'm reminded how enthusiastically we're prepared to take up arms when the foe is another human and how quickly we lay down arms when it isn't. Skewed priorities.

[Guest MattP]

14 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

This isn't a dig at you Matt, but I'm reminded how enthusiastically we're prepared to take up arms when the foe is another human and how quickly we lay down arms when it isn't. Skewed priorities.

That's probably because if your immediate security is in danger you react, if someone tells you every month fot years you have to do something right now you realise you actually don't and they might be exaggerating.

 

The problem with the debate on this is at times its hysterical, didn't Al Gore tell us the ice caps would melt by 2014?

[leicsmac]

22 minutes ago, MattP said:

That's probably because if your immediate security is in danger you react, if someone tells you every month fot years you have to do something right now you realise you actually don't and they might be exaggerating.

 

The problem with the debate on this is at times its hysterical, didn't Al Gore tell us the ice caps would melt by 2014?

You're right about the way humans react, and therein lies the fatal flaw: immediate threats from other humans can mostly be reacted to and defended against in the time necessary once they become clear, but by the time *this* threat becomes clear enough in the same way it may well be way too late to do much to defend against it.

 

I'm not against people being skeptical and desiring clear evidence of whatever type, but the fact is that waiting for that proof to arrive means the shitstorm is likely already underway and damage limitation might be moot.

 

Which means, as much as folks don't like the idea, some of this needs to be taken on faith that the scientists involved in all this, pretty much universally, know what they're doing, are trying to help out and have nothing to gain from what they say - which they don't, it would be much more personally profitable for them to follow the fossil fuel industry lines in the same way it was for certain scientists to align with the tobacco industry.

 

Edited 8 February 2019 by leicsmac

[Toddybad]

1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

That's a bit of a stretch. Some or many people who are wealthy may hoard their money and get even richer in the process. But it's also true that there are enough examples of rich people aka investors willfully giving away a portion of their wealth in order to boost the economy and/or scientific research.

 

The New Deal and WW2 examples are extremes, given the historical context. The measures taken back then need to seen through the lens of the times. Half of the world lay in ruins, so in order to combat extreme conditions, one had to take extreme measures.

 

In the end, at the moment everyone is contributing to climate change. So, in order to reduce it to a certain extent or slow down its speed, maybe we should start with our own power consumption, the way we live in terms of energy waste. Reduce our own footprint first. Millions do that, and we're already one step ahead.

A little bit of philanthropy doesn't make up for the hoarding of wealth (the richest twenty something people being ad rich as half the world combined). Even quite prominent capitalist thinkers don't deny that wealth is hoarded and something is wrong. 

The question isn't whether there's a problem, it's whether capitalism can be fixed to solve it or whether a new system is needed. 

[Toddybad]

31 minutes ago, MattP said:

That's probably because if your immediate security is in danger you react, if someone tells you every month fot years you have to do something right now you realise you actually don't and they might be exaggerating.

 

The problem with the debate on this is at times its hysterical, didn't Al Gore tell us the ice caps would melt by 2014?

The problem is that the scientific data is worse than the predictions in many cases, but we still have to deal with non scientists like you denying what scientists are telling us. 

[Guest MattP]

38 minutes ago, Toddybad said:

The problem is that the scientific data is worse than the predictions in many cases, but we still have to deal with non scientists like you denying what scientists are telling us. 

I don't deny the existence of climate change Matt you must be confusing me with somebody else.

 

Although a lot of the problem with a lot of the science is they are funded to come to these conclusions - if you set up a climate change department that's an immediate bias and contradicts what traditional science is actually about - maybe that's why the predictions are so eccentric.

[Toddybad]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

I don't deny the existence of climate change Matt you must be confusing me with somebody else.

 

Although a lot of the problem with a lot of the science is they are funded to come to these conclusions - if you set up a climate change department that's an immediate bias and contradicts what traditional science is actually about - maybe that's why the predictions are so eccentric.

Climate scientists are virtually in total agreement - so is there any basis to say that funding claims affect let's say even half of all climate science research? One or two examples doesn't cut it against the weight of evidence. 

 

And far more money has been chucked in by oil companies that knew about this in the 60s and suppressed it. 

 

Science throughout history has been funded and reached conclusions but it is fact that reality is outstripping the science in terms of the effects of climate change. 

 

I'm not sure why you find the predictions eccentric - which ones from the UN reports? 

[leicsmac]

7 hours ago, MattP said:

I don't deny the existence of climate change Matt you must be confusing me with somebody else.

 

Although a lot of the problem with a lot of the science is they are funded to come to these conclusions - if you set up a climate change department that's an immediate bias and contradicts what traditional science is actually about - maybe that's why the predictions are so eccentric.

See above for argument re: could make much much more dinero toeing the fossil fuel industry line.

[MC Prussian]

It's a good day in US media, at least for the consumer:

 

Buzzfeed, The Huffington Post and Vice are about to lay off hundreds of "journalists" - investors pulling the plug:

https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/buzzfeed-layoff-15-percent-employees-1203116266/

https://ambcrypto.com/buzzfeed-layoff-and-huffington-post-layoff-hundreds-of-employees-fired-read-twitter-reactions/

https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/vice-media-layoffs-250-employees-1203125890/

 

Hopefully, these outlets will now focus on reporting what's really going on and resort from publishing non-profitable nonsense and biased claptrap altogether.

Edited 11 February 2019 by MC Prussian

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

It's a good day in US media, at least for the consumer:

 

Buzzfeed, The Huffington Post and Vice are about to lay off hundreds of "journalists - investors pulling the plug:

https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/buzzfeed-layoff-15-percent-employees-1203116266/

https://ambcrypto.com/buzzfeed-layoff-and-huffington-post-layoff-hundreds-of-employees-fired-read-twitter-reactions/

https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/vice-media-layoffs-250-employees-1203125890/

 

Hopefully, these outlets will now focus on reporting what's really going on and resort from publishing non-profitable nonsense and biased claptrap altogether.

Very much doubt it, it will still be finding kids in MAGA hats to call them Nazis.

[MC Prussian]

27 minutes ago, MattP said:

Very much doubt it, it will still be finding kids in MAGA hats to call them Nazis.

To a certain extent, yes. But the people can only take that much bullcrap from the media.

In the end, investors will grow tired of companies not coughing up enough profit or no profit at all, then pull the plug on leftist propaganda and pointless clickbait.

No product/bad product > no consumers > no revenue. 

 

Meanwhile, all the unemployed culture studies and gender studies majors can add to their résumé quite easily - just #learntocode.

Edited 11 February 2019 by MC Prussian

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

To a certain extent, yes. But the people can only take that much bullcrap from the media.

In the end, investors will grow tired of companies not coughing up enough profit or no profit at all, then pull the plug on leftist propaganda and pointless clickbait.

No product/bad product > no consumers > no revenue. 

 

Meanwhile, all the unemployed culture studies and gender studies majors can add to their résumé quite easily - just #learntocode.

I think a lot of people already have, trust in the major news outlets in the US and over here are already surely at an all time low.

The treatment of the Covington kids was a new nadir, just a few examples....

 

Anne Helen Petersen, a ‘senior culture writer’ at Buzzfeed said it was ‘the look of white patriarchy’, 

Kara Swisher of the New York Times, compared him and his friends to ‘Nazis’.

CNN’s Bakari Sellers suggested he should be ‘punched in the face’.

Another opinion writer at the Huff post  all the boys should be locked in their school and burnt to death.

The New York Times actually ran a story headlined: ‘Boys in “Make America Great Again” hats mob Native elder at indigenous peoples march’ and claimed ‘a throng of cheering and jeering schoolboys’ were ‘surrounding a Native American elder’ - complete and utter fake news as we found out later on.

 

These are major news organisations, it's no surprise people are losing their trust in them.

[Guest MattP]

Meanwhile, the Democrats are just starting to get their feet wet in the sewers of antisemitism, I predicted a while ago this leap to the hard left could see them take a similar route to the Labour party here and nothing I've seen so far leads me to believe I'm wrong.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/10/ilhan-omar-israel-aipac-money-1163631

[leicsmac]

33 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

To a certain extent, yes. But the people can only take that much bullcrap from the media.

In the end, investors will grow tired of companies not coughing up enough profit or no profit at all, then pull the plug on leftist propaganda and pointless clickbait.

No product/bad product > no consumers > no revenue. 

 

Meanwhile, all the unemployed culture studies and gender studies majors can add to their résumé quite easily - just #learntocode.

While the arty snobbery of the UK establishment towards STEM is really frustrating, I'm not sure inverting it helps much either.

 

Science saves the world, our understanding of ourselves and creative expression makes it actually worth saving IMO. Knowledge and application of one doesn't really mean much without the other.

 

But seeing as we're on that topic, since when did those of the right side of the ideological spectrum start caring about coding and STEM in general and stop blocking crucial stem cell research and renewable energy development anyway?

[MC Prussian]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Meanwhile, the Democrats are just starting to get their feet wet in the sewers of antisemitism, I predicted a while ago this leap to the hard left could see them take a similar route to the Labour party here and nothing I've seen so far leads me to believe I'm wrong.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/10/ilhan-omar-israel-aipac-money-1163631

Yep, racism knows no political boundaries.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/02/10/us/ap-us-virginia-politics-blackface-the-latest.html

 

Shame the media aren‘t making such a meal of it like they did with Kavanaugh. I wonder why...

Edited 11 February 2019 by MC Prussian

[leicsmac]

AIPAC is AIPAC, it's reasonably obvious what they do and how they go about it - not entirely sure it's anti-Semitic to point out that it exists and its mode of operation in protecting Israel, though they don't directly funnel money to candidates itself.

 

In other news, could be another shutdown on the horizon:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47191959

[MC Prussian]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

While the arty snobbery of the UK establishment towards STEM is really frustrating, I'm not sure inverting it helps much either.

 

Science saves the world, our understanding of ourselves and creative expression makes it actually worth saving IMO. Knowledge and application of one doesn't really mean much without the other.

 

But seeing as we're on that topic, since when did those of the right side of the ideological spectrum start caring about coding and STEM in general and stop blocking crucial stem cell research and renewable energy development anyway?

Well, I'm not sure whether you understood the hints in my last post. As a follow-up to my text, yours doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

My last sentence was a follow-up on the Twitter backlash aimed at the "journalists" who complained about their misfortune, after having been involved in the publication in either nonsensical or politically motivated/SJW "reporting" themselves, sometimes even going as far as making things up and/or lying. That's what Karma does to you.

 

Nothing about social and gender studies is thoroughly scientific. These are modern fields that have been promoted in recent years and decades in order to "diversify" higher education. In the US education system in particular, it's about generating money. So universities are hungry for more funding, thus creating unnecessary or highly ineffective majors that lead to nothing upon graduation.

 

The #learntocode hashtag is/was the immediate response from other people online, teasing these "journalists" with regards to learning something that is actually worthwhile and contributes to society.

[leicsmac]

11 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

Well, I'm not sure whether you understood the hints in my last post. As a follow-up to my text, yours doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

My last sentence was a follow-up on the Twitter backlash aimed at the "journalists" who complained about their misfortune, after having been involved in the publication in either nonsensical or politically motivated/SJW "reporting" themselves, sometimes even going as far as making things up and/or lying. That's what Karma does to you.

 

Nothing about social and gender studies is thoroughly scientific. These are modern fields that have been promoted in recent years and decades in order to "diversify" higher education. In the US education system in particular, it's about generating money. So universities are hungry for more funding, thus creating unnecessary or highly ineffective majors that lead to nothing upon graduation.

 

The #learntocode hashtag is/was the immediate response from other people online, teasing these "journalists" with regards to learning something that is actually worthwhile and contributes to society.

Ah, well I thought it was just another Petersonesque jibe at those who "don't contribute to society" so I made the point that though often those on the arts have looked down their collective noses at the sciences, they have value in their own way - thank you for the clarification.

 

I certainly agree that the US university system has become a money behemoth, but at the same time I don't think that takes away from the validity of learning more about humans and their creativity - the idea of areas of knowledge being "more" or "less" useful is entirely subjective. Judgment about it should perhaps be made with that in mind, yes?

 

As an addendum to this and touching on the previous post, the journalists you refer to might (when they are wrong) threaten the reputations of a few individuals with their views and stories - fair enough, they should be held accountable if wrong. But what it isn't (and forgive the whataboutery here) is endorsing a worldview that stops a great many people getting medical aid that would make their lives better or gambling with the future because we're doing nothing to the planet and we shouldn't have to do anything to protect against how it will change.

 

It's a problem, but far from the biggest IMO.

Edited 12 February 2019 by leicsmac

[leicsmac]

https://longreads.com/2019/02/11/atlantic-city-is-really-going-down-this-time/

 

A long read (hence the site) but a good one on how a mix of climate change and competition is bringing down Atlantic City.