Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 9

On November 20 2016 00:07 thewh00sel wrote: theres a valid skeptical stance on it and huge government incentive for global warming to exist, so i'm ok with his non-interventionist stance. The free market will adjust to global warming if its a real threat.

can you elaborate on the last part? how could a free market adjust to global warming if it's a real threat?

On November 20 2016 04:46 jeremy5408 wrote: Show nested quote + On November 20 2016 00:07 thewh00sel wrote: theres a valid skeptical stance on it and huge government incentive for global warming to exist, so i'm ok with his non-interventionist stance. The free market will adjust to global warming if its a real threat. can you elaborate on the last part? how could a free market adjust to global warming if it's a real threat?

consumer choice, the reason why people buy cruelty free, non-gmo, organic, etc stuff.

On November 20 2016 00:07 thewh00sel wrote: theres a valid skeptical stance on it and huge government incentive for global warming to exist, so i'm ok with his non-interventionist stance. The free market will adjust to global warming if its a real threat.

For the free market to adjust, we can't have presidents of the second most polluting country on earth saying it's not a threat. If you want a non-state-interventionist approach to this, then Trump has already done significant harm simply through being a hugely influential figure who claims it's not a big deal.

I agree that there's a valid skeptical stance regarding how to best deal with global warming, whether you want to limit emissions as much as possible or focus resources on damage control. There is however no valid skeptical stance regarding whether or not it's happening and whether or not humans play a significant role- and this is a generous interpretation of Trump's stance.

On November 20 2016 04:54 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On November 20 2016 04:46 jeremy5408 wrote:   On November 20 2016 00:07 thewh00sel wrote: theres a valid skeptical stance on it and huge government incentive for global warming to exist, so i'm ok with his non-interventionist stance. The free market will adjust to global warming if its a real threat. can you elaborate on the last part? how could a free market adjust to global warming if it's a real threat? consumer choice, the reason why people buy cruelty free, non-gmo, organic, etc stuff.

Which is like saying the markets adjust themselves to depressions/recessions, and we should just let it be and do nothing about visible bubbles, because the market will adjust.
Makes no sense.

On November 20 2016 18:56 uiCk wrote: Show nested quote + On November 20 2016 04:54 Baalim wrote:   On November 20 2016 04:46 jeremy5408 wrote:   On November 20 2016 00:07 thewh00sel wrote: theres a valid skeptical stance on it and huge government incentive for global warming to exist, so i'm ok with his non-interventionist stance. The free market will adjust to global warming if its a real threat. can you elaborate on the last part? how could a free market adjust to global warming if it's a real threat? consumer choice, the reason why people buy cruelty free, non-gmo, organic, etc stuff. Which is like saying the markets adjust themselves to depressions/recessions, and we should just let it be and do nothing about visible bubbles, because the market will adjust. Makes no sense.

i don't think that's what he's saying.

but even if it were, letting "markets adjust to depressions/recessions" isn't even that controversial of a sentiment in economics.

On November 20 2016 21:13 jeremy5408 wrote: Show nested quote + On November 20 2016 18:56 uiCk wrote:   On November 20 2016 04:54 Baalim wrote:   On November 20 2016 04:46 jeremy5408 wrote:   On November 20 2016 00:07 thewh00sel wrote: theres a valid skeptical stance on it and huge government incentive for global warming to exist, so i'm ok with his non-interventionist stance. The free market will adjust to global warming if its a real threat. can you elaborate on the last part? how could a free market adjust to global warming if it's a real threat? consumer choice, the reason why people buy cruelty free, non-gmo, organic, etc stuff. Which is like saying the markets adjust themselves to depressions/recessions, and we should just let it be and do nothing about visible bubbles, because the market will adjust. Makes no sense. i don't think that's what he's saying. but even if it were, letting "markets adjust to depressions/recessions" isn't even that controversial of a sentiment in economics.

its not controversial, because it's factual. They do adjust to depressions and any other variable(s). The point being, is that you can avoid certain bubbles/events or reduce their impact on the market; which is what you need to do?

I'm confused on your stance, do you want government intervention during moments of recession or do you want the free markets to adjust to it?

And the whole notion that bubbles can somehow be avoided through due diligence is a false one. Bubbles happen because "perceived asset value" greatly diverge from "true asset value."

the mere fact that we are watching out for silicon valley tech bubbles and education bubbles are both indicators that they are probably not in the midst of a bubble. it's hard to have irrational exuberance or mis-valuations of both of those industries when there is an oped piece every week on both issues.

don't really have a stance on this issue, since it's a mix of gov intervention and markets repositioning themselves. i assume both your extreme "points" do not occur in reality (in isolation, in a recessionary environment)?


and you can alter "perceived values" to alter the effect of possible bubble. or is that not correct? (just the fact the population is aware of a possible bubble, alters those perceived values)

the predominant keynesian economic beliefs for most countries lead most governments to borrow money and spend domestically to get out of recessions.

japan is an example of government inaction which has led to the famous "lost decade" albeit it is closer to two decades of lost gdp growth.

On November 20 2016 18:56 uiCk wrote: Show nested quote + On November 20 2016 04:54 Baalim wrote:   On November 20 2016 04:46 jeremy5408 wrote:   On November 20 2016 00:07 thewh00sel wrote: theres a valid skeptical stance on it and huge government incentive for global warming to exist, so i'm ok with his non-interventionist stance. The free market will adjust to global warming if its a real threat. can you elaborate on the last part? how could a free market adjust to global warming if it's a real threat? consumer choice, the reason why people buy cruelty free, non-gmo, organic, etc stuff. Which is like saying the markets adjust themselves to depressions/recessions, and we should just let it be and do nothing about visible bubbles, because the market will adjust. Makes no sense.

Except that that every big bubble has been part of a non-free market, the 2008 housing market bubble for example and of course letting recessions run its course is far more better than keynesian stimulus bullshit but we are drifting way too far from the topic.

On November 19 2016 18:40 Liquid`Drone wrote: how do Trump supporters feel about his climate change position? Not talking about 'he thinks it's a hoax created by the chinese' (even if those are his own words), but that he's 'not really into that idea' or whatever. Asking because to me, that is the one absolutely indefensible aspect of him. (As anti-trump as I have been, if him and hillary swapped positions on climate, I might have favored him).

like I said I don't think the fate of the world hinges on the next 4-8 years, that's basically it, because climate is one of the positions I honestly have no idea where he actually stands. in other places I feel confident in following the clues (because unlike other politicians who walk a fine line saying nothing, he just says everything) and that I'm not just projecting what I want to see. on climate/the environment I have basically no idea what he's up to, except to say he probably won't have a groundbreaking response to global warming.

to the extent we're polluting I'd like it to be at least with domestic energy. trump says he wants "clean air and water" which sounds fine, and he likes nuclear energy which I do too.

the thing about global warming, as with most issues right now, is the left and right are unduly polarizing it. I'm actually skeptical of climate change in terms of what specifically the problems and answers are (mainly the contrarian I've copied on this is Freeman Dyson). we dump a lot into the atmosphere, CO2, methane, CFCs, and so on. it's not fair to the developing world to tell them to stay unindustrialized serfs, and it's not viable to pay for their green programs. it's not even viable to pay for our own, I don't like the feel-good politics behind "green." yes global warming is bad, no blowing the town budget to make city hall run on windmills isn't helping

I'm ignorant about this but what sounds good to me is something like
1) technology that expends electricity in some way to sweep methane/CFCs and such from the atmosphere, ozone that's not in the ozone layer
2) that electricity can be from nuclear, renewables, and even fossil fuels, meaning we can add to the CO2 problem to deal with other greenhouse gases
3) government regulated farms of genetically engineered superplants that use solar energy to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere
4) continuously fell excess plants once CO2 is lowered to stabilize it (can't lower CO2 to 0 because normal plants need it obviously)
5) turn dead plants into ethanol

I wonder if he actually goes through with the stop of TTIP talks and killing the deal altogether. That would be awesome. However, If his idea is to manage lobby, such action would backfire as lobbyists will only expand their work.


Santafairy, doesnt matter whats "viable " from a financial point of view. As thats not a priority on the topic when it comes to climate change, is it.

no, of course money isn't important, it's the apocalypse we're talking about, you have a license to spend whatever you like because you have good intentions

You re going into an extreme again.
There is no real dialogue on the issue whatsoever. Its the finances that are controlling this and its a HUGE problem. Obviously there will be people trying to take advantage of the situation and make huge profits out of it. That doesnt mean u should just label them all like that.

You do realize there are TONS of people that believe global warming is a hoax, including US president right? That propaganda wasnt done by trolls or randomly. It was the result of companies which goal is to only profit regardless of what happens to the environment

Well gladly Trump seems to have told alt right movement to stfu and changed his campaign position on climate change being that he "thinks there is some connectivity with human activity" and that it might affect the economy , giving a good blow to climate change skeptics and racist assholes everywhere who thought they finally had someone powerful on their side.
Either that or Trump's real good at telling people what they want to hear and is the ultimate level flip flopper.

On November 22 2016 19:37 uiCk wrote: Well gladly Trump seems to have told alt right movement to stfu and changed his campaign position on climate change being that he "thinks there is some connectivity with human activity" and that it might affect the economy , giving a good blow to climate change skeptics and racist assholes everywhere who thought they finally had someone powerful on their side. Either that or Trump's real good at telling people what they want to hear.

from my perspective Trump has pretty much done nothing to appeal to racists outside of 'build the wall' and 'vet muslim immigrants from conflict areas', both of which are positions that aren't exclusively held as being good ideas only by racists. if Bernie Sanders gave a speech in Detroit telling black voters they have 'nothing to lose' or talking about crime in Chicago I highly doubt they would try to frame it as being 'racist' to the same degree they did to Trump.

this whole press focus on the 'alt right' and a neo-nazi convention attended by like 70 people is just the media trying to attach racism to Trump more than an effect of Trump. going by my twitter feed it seems like a lot of people really believed that there was 0 neo-nazi's in America until Trump ran for president.

there's probably 100 neo-nazis listening to NPR and reading Politico as we speak, that doesn't mean NPR cater to neo-nazis any more than me following some ISIS twitter accounts on Twitter means I'm a jihadi.

On November 22 2016 19:45 nolan wrote: Show nested quote + On November 22 2016 19:37 uiCk wrote: Well gladly Trump seems to have told alt right movement to stfu and changed his campaign position on climate change being that he "thinks there is some connectivity with human activity" and that it might affect the economy , giving a good blow to climate change skeptics and racist assholes everywhere who thought they finally had someone powerful on their side. Either that or Trump's real good at telling people what they want to hear. from my perspective Trump has pretty much done nothing to appeal to racists outside of 'build the wall' and 'vet muslim immigrants from conflict areas', both of which are positions that aren't exclusively held as being good ideas only by racists. if Bernie Sanders gave a speech in Detroit telling black voters they have 'nothing to lose' or talking about crime in Chicago I highly doubt they would try to frame it as being 'racist' to the same degree they did to Trump. this whole press focus on the 'alt right' and a neo-nazi convention attended by like 70 people is just the media trying to attach racism to Trump more than an effect of Trump. going by my twitter feed it seems like a lot of people really believed that there was 0 neo-nazi's in America until Trump ran for president. there's probably 100 neo-nazis listening to NPR and reading Politico as we speak, that doesn't mean NPR cater to neo-nazis any more than me following some ISIS twitter accounts on Twitter means I'm a jihadi.

His rethoric during the campaign was warmly received by the alt right and racist nationalists in general.
Although I never thought the possibility of trump being next Hitler and popularising nationalism based on race, he DID campaign for these people, and used the existing racism(fear) in a lot of non-neo nazis.
His campaign rethoric was farming fear and everything surrounding it, directly or indirectly, for votes.

You make it sound like it wasn't and issue , when it actually was an issue, within the country, media and his own Republican party. Yes there are other reasons the "elites" didn't want trump, but this was one of them.

On November 21 2016 01:37 jeremy5408 wrote: the predominant keynesian economic beliefs for most countries lead most governments to borrow money and spend domestically to get out of recessions. japan is an example of government inaction which has led to the famous "lost decade" albeit it is closer to two decades of lost gdp growth.

Hard to say. Philosophically my stance would be more 'pure' and favoring 'purging' in general to achieve maximum efficiency.
But in real world, I have a hard time wondering what would of arised from 2008 if globally the strategy was non Keynesian. I expected (and still kind of do) that it would of been a hard depression after that financial collapse, and further expected the printing of money to cause the global financial entity to implode. None of which has happened (yet), so as the amateur I am, atm I'm more interested in what and how the exit will be from this "lost growth" era (my guess is AI and a radical shift in labour in the post human-labor-dominated industrial era)

On November 21 2016 05:02 Loco wrote:+ Show Spoiler +

oh god, we're all hopeless