Trump's Dumb Economics - Page 77 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15051848
late wrote:1) Tariffs are tariffs are tariffs. Ask a farmer.


To a farmer, maybe, but not to everyone else. The idea that "all tariffs are bad" simply isn't true. There are always winners and losers when tariffs are levied (the company I work for is getting helped out by the tariffs for example). The funny thing about America is that, I remember a time in the 90s where leftists were against globalization and free trade. Now we have a president that is placing what is arguably anti-free trade policies in place, and these same people don't like it. :lol: Of course, it's because this is about politics, and not principles. This is one rare area where I side with TRumpsters.

Anyway, with that said. Personally, I don't think the US should be putting up tariffs against our neighbors (Mexico). We should be fostering the absolute best relations with our neighbors. Because they are our neighbors, but also because it's better for the environment to trade more with your neighbors.

With respect to China tariffs, I have mixed feelings. On one hand, the US (and west) in general does have a bone to pick with respect to things like IP theft (seen it with my own eyes many times), on the other hand, I don't believe there's really anything anyone can do to stop that so why rock the boat with tariffs? At the same time, at least according to business news sites I read. The tariffs have sped up the process of western companies and governments decoupling their supply chains from China, and also Chinese companies and the government decoupling their supply chains from the west. What I'm going to say next, is probably an over-speculation, but if we have this decoupling completely happen, it means either side will be more happy to go to war with each other since there are no dependencies economically. :hmm: I'm a firm believer in the idea that one of the main things that prevents war, is economic interdependence. Take that away, and ...



A side note:
Seems like China's hegemonic ambitions are becoming far more apparent to the general global populace than in decades past. Governments and connected/intellectuals/educated people have known this for decades, but it's becoming more understood by "regular" people. Global distrust of the Chinese is on the rise (see the Philippines, rejecting Chinese "help" to build island, see the shenanigans with Sri Lanka and the Maldives, etc. etc.). Given this, it's not going to be business as usual going forward after Trump is out and the tariffs are lifted. This is a permanent fundamental change in how the rest of the world interacts with China. Who the fuck knows where all of this is going? :?:

10-ish years ago, I recall having lots of lunch table conversations about China's future ambitions. Especially their behavior around IP theft (I work in the tech industry). I recall us always saying "Right now, it seems like no one really cares cause it's not a real problem yet. At some point, somethings gotta give." Kind of feels like we're getting closer to that point where "something will give". I don't know what the something is yet. :lol:
#15051857
late wrote:1) Tariffs are tariffs are tariffs. Ask a farmer.

That's a tautology followed by a non-sequitur.

late wrote:2) Those were sanctions, not tariffs.

Either way, the Soviet Union could not maximize its comparative advantage in trade with the United States while China can.

late wrote:3) Look into what happens if China dumps a trillion dollars. Here's a hint: the word crash will be in there.

The US dollar will decline in value relative to the Chinese Yuan and the excess liquidity will translate into lower interest rates for US dollar denominated debt instruments. In other words, China will kill off its number 1 export market, increase US exports to the rest of the world, and lower US dollar-based interest rates at the same time. Dumb ideas like this appeal to Marxists, but more intelligent people game this out and consider the consequences. That is why they don't do it.

late wrote:4) Actually, we are taxed less than a lot of European countries. The difference is that they get a lot more for their money.

Why do I care about European tax rates? If they want to live under socialism, that's their choice. My choice is to live under freedom.

late wrote:5) How many ways can you fail with a single sentence? Turns out there's a lot. Guys like Ike and Truman built this world to try and avoid another world war. And look, we haven't had one. Turns out it's also good for the economy, if the country is properly managed. Tariffs are beyond dumb. Working on the basics every country needs, good infrastructure, good schools, etc, is what is needed.

WWI and WWII could be thought of as the First World War I and First World War 2--they were fought between first world powers. In the aftermath of WWII, wars were fought all over the world--just not in first world countries. Have a look at the following list, and it's just to 1989 when the Warsaw Pact collapsed.

List of wars: 1945–1989

Crantag wrote:On the discussion of tariffs being replaced by income taxes (ala BJ), while this is historically accurate, it doesn't follow that you can re-replace income tax with tariffs. Tariffs were a primary form of generating revenue at a lower stage of economic development. For some developing countries, they are still a relevant means. (Again, this is more talking to @blackjack21 ) tariffs at some point become detrimental in the course of economic development, and advanced countries are for the most part beyond a point at which they are beneficial, in most circumstances (particularly for revenue generation). Tariffs are usually counter-productive in terms of generating revenue, because they are detrimental to business, and thus lead to lower corporate and income tax receipts.

A few points:

1) High taxes of any kind become detrimental in the course of economic development.
2) Lower tariffs were principally popular with the British Empire, because raw materials were imported to Britain and finished goods were exported; hence, intra-empire free trade.
3) Tariffs on finished goods from the manufacturing heart of other empires is part of what made European powers hostile to each other.
4) Tariffs were not as harmful to the United States then or now, because the United States was of the scale of an empire. It could consume the advanced manufactures it produced.
5) Income taxes replaced many excise taxes.
6) Excise taxes were generally on tangible goods, not intangible things like "profits."
7) Income taxes (employment taxes) disfavor low skill employment in advanced economies, leading to mass unemployment and homelessness of low skilled people in advanced countries.
#15051861
@blackjack21 wrote:


Why do I care about European tax rates? If they want to live under socialism, that's their choice. My choice is to live under freedom.


First Relampaguito, you got to stop thinking you are the average earner American worker. You are not. And second, the Europeans didn't just 'decide' that socialism was important and let us go for that. Older societies coping with class structures have to go for more advanced forms of organizing society. Socialism is a more advanced form. They already tried heartless capitalism and it led to loss of people, social unrest and violence. Trying to charge people bombed by Nazis from the sky for medical care would have made the government at the time highly unpopular so covering everyone with the NHS and universal health care was done. Not out of the goodness of their hearts but because of pragmatism and political survival BJ.

The USA is going to have to do the same. You might think it is freedom being screwed over with health care, and not having decent public educations? But it is not for the vast majority Relampaguito.

For most workers freedom means? Having a secure job and not being laid off periodically in recessions and depressions, owning the means of producing, and knowing you can feed your kids, keep your roof, get your kids a vocation or a profession, and knowing if you have a tooth ache, or need an emergency service and have not paid your insurance premium that month you are not going to be dead or broke. True freedom. The freedom that people in the six figure income bracket have with no ex wives or children to support and who have a lot of money in general don't represent the entire world.

Unfortunately it is common to struggle hard for most people to just get food on the table. That is so in Mexico, in Latin America, Africa and many parts of Australia, Europe and the Middle East and large parts of Asia too. Poverty is very very common.

Freedom and Poverty are not tiwns. Lol. Even though the pro Capitalists like you are BJ keep saying they are because the type of horribly practiced capitalism worldwide doesn't really do much for many.
By late
#15051864
Rancid wrote:
1) To a farmer, maybe, but not to everyone else. The idea that "all tariffs are bad" simply isn't true. There are always winners and losers when tariffs are levied (the company I work for is getting helped out by the tariffs for example).

2) The funny thing about America is that, I remember a time in the 90s where leftists were against globalization and free trade. Now we have a president that is placing what is arguably anti-free trade policies in place, and these same people don't like it. Of course, it's because this is about politics, and not principles. This is one rare area where I side with TRumpsters.

3) Anyway, with that said. Personally, I don't think the US should be putting up tariffs against our neighbors (Mexico). We should be fostering the absolute best relations with our neighbors. Because they are our neighbors, but also because it's better for the environment to trade more with your neighbors.

4) With respect to China tariffs, I have mixed feelings. On one hand, the US (and west) in general does have a bone to pick with respect to things like IP theft (seen it with my own eyes many times), on the other hand, I don't believe there's really anything anyone can do to stop that so why rock the boat with tariffs?

5) At the same time, at least according to business news sites I read. The tariffs have sped up the process of western companies and governments decoupling their supply chains from China, and also Chinese companies and the government decoupling their supply chains from the west. What I'm going to say next, is probably an over-speculation, but if we have this decoupling completely happen, it means either side will be more happy to go to war with each other since there are no dependencies economically. :hmm: I'm a firm believer in the idea that one of the main things that prevents war, is economic interdependence. Take that away, and ...



6) A side note:
Seems like China's hegemonic ambitions are becoming far more apparent to the general global populace than in decades past. Governments and connected/intellectuals/educated people have known this for decades, but it's becoming more understood by "regular" people. Global distrust of the Chinese is on the rise (see the Philippines, rejecting Chinese "help" to build island, see the shenanigans with Sri Lanka and the Maldives, etc. etc.). Given this, it's not going to be business as usual going forward after Trump is out and the tariffs are lifted. This is a permanent fundamental change in how the rest of the world interacts with China. Who the fuck knows where all of this is going? :?:

7) 10-ish years ago, I recall having lots of lunch table conversations about China's future ambitions. Especially their behavior around IP theft (I work in the tech industry). I recall us always saying "Right now, it seems like no one really cares cause it's not a real problem yet. At some point, somethings gotta give." Kind of feels like we're getting closer to that point where "something will give". I don't know what the something is yet.



1) Didn't say all tariffs are bad. They are quite useful to a developing economy to protect their delicate young industry.

2) For some people, I imagine that is true. You might say we have been overly indulgent to China and Japan. That require adjustment, not the mindless moves Trump has been doing.

3) We've been abusive to peoples south of the border for over a century, so I emphatically agree.

4) China has a new IP court, and it's working. The situation sucks, but I doubt it's any worse than our domestic IP problems, at this point.

5) I agree. Most of the economist over the last couple hundred years would also agree.

6) Once Trump screwed up, other Asian countries started making nice with China, quickly. When you add that to their economic initiatives like Silk Road and BRI, they are on track to be the Asian hegemon within a decade (roughly). I don't think we can unring that bell.

7) We are going to have to come up with a new relationship with Asia. Revanchism is just another word for war in this case.

Thanks, I see so many posts that are utter crap, it's nice to see someone that knows what they are talking about.
#15051916
Rancid wrote:The funny thing about America is that, I remember a time in the 90s where leftists were against globalization and free trade. Now we have a president that is placing what is arguably anti-free trade policies in place, and these same people don't like it. :lol: Of course, it's because this is about politics, and not principles. This is one rare area where I side with TRumpsters.

As a former Republican, it's a political position that has changed for me. The irony of it is that I do very well--better than most--with free trade, but I'm willing to sacrifice some of my prosperity for the benefit of my fellow countryman. I just happen to think that the way to do that is via tariffs not income taxes. Obviously, people like late are either naked capitalist shills hiding behind some sort of cover of "Progressiveness", or they uncritically accept political rhetoric if it is from a trusted source. I used to do that when I was a Republican too. I've just watched what free trade and open borders have done to California over 30 years, and I simply do not accept what the major parties have to say anymore. I'm committed to their destruction.

Rancid wrote:Personally, I don't think the US should be putting up tariffs against our neighbors (Mexico). We should be fostering the absolute best relations with our neighbors. Because they are our neighbors, but also because it's better for the environment to trade more with your neighbors.

Mexico and the US have had rocky relations up until the late 1980s. NAFTA was part of the international capitalist cabal's fantasy of a hemispheric trading bloc that didn't take into account other critical factors. Free trade with China was predicated on a whim that China would be democratic by now--it's not, and getting obviously much worse and wanting to export the nastiest part of Chinese politics to the rest of the world.

Rancid wrote:On one hand, the US (and west) in general does have a bone to pick with respect to things like IP theft (seen it with my own eyes many times), on the other hand, I don't believe there's really anything anyone can do to stop that so why rock the boat with tariffs?

IP theft is sanctioned by the Chinese government. Something can be done to stop it. Increase tariffs on Chinese-made goods and reduce trade with China. There are other problems too--like China exporting fentanyl to Mexico and then shipping it across the US-Mexico border to kill Americans. China doesn't have human rights. They can stop that straight away. They are doing it, because our leaders have been bought off. Only wrecking China's economy would make the Chinese leadership realize it's not worth it.

Rancid wrote:The tariffs have sped up the process of western companies and governments decoupling their supply chains from China, and also Chinese companies and the government decoupling their supply chains from the west.

That is exactly what I want to see happening, and that's why I want the trade problems to persist.

Rancid wrote:I'm a firm believer in the idea that one of the main things that prevents war, is economic interdependence. Take that away, and ...

Yeah, people think that's the case. Yet, people like to comment on IBM, GM, Coca-Cola, and so on doing business with Nazi Germany. The economic interdependence was already there, and we went to war anyway. Economic interdependence does not necessarily lead to peace.

Rancid wrote:Seems like China's hegemonic ambitions are becoming far more apparent to the general global populace than in decades past. Governments and connected/intellectuals/educated people have known this for decades, but it's becoming more understood by "regular" people.

Today's Nazi sympathizers are pro-China--like LeBron James, or Larry Page and Sergey Brin. They simple drop "don't be evil" and become evil, because it's financially beneficial for them to do so. Their morality is no different than that of slave traders, war profiteers, or Nazis. They simply do what's in their immediate interest and do not care fuck all for anyone else.

Rancid wrote:Given this, it's not going to be business as usual going forward after Trump is out and the tariffs are lifted. This is a permanent fundamental change in how the rest of the world interacts with China.

Yes, and it needed to happen.

Rancid wrote:At some point, somethings gotta give." Kind of feels like we're getting closer to that point where "something will give". I don't know what the something is yet. :lol:

One thing that is giving is that people do not trust the mainstream media or establishment politicians anymore. You do have shills for them like drlee or late--different flavors, but still defending the same system. However, the masses don't trust the establishment now. That's also something that spans Trump's economic policies and the US. It's pretty clear to the Gilets Jaunes as well--same problems, different locale.

Tainari88 wrote:First Relampaguito, you got to stop thinking you are the average earner American worker. You are not.

Oh, I have no illusions about that. If I were married to someone that earns like me, we would be considered rich. As it is, I'm upper middle class.

Tainari88 wrote:Older societies coping with class structures have to go for more advanced forms of organizing society. Socialism is a more advanced form.

I don't agree that socialism is more advanced.

Tainari88 wrote:They already tried heartless capitalism and it led to loss of people, social unrest and violence.

There is no doubt that capitalism has resulted in the loss of a lot of life, but it has also resulted in the greatest explosion in human survival rates such that even in the wake of the most bloody of wars--WWI and WWII--we still found ourselves with an overpopulation problem due to collapsing infant and child mortality rates and increased life expectancy.

Tainari88 wrote:Trying to charge people bombed by Nazis from the sky for medical care would have made the government at the time highly unpopular so covering everyone with the NHS and universal health care was done.

They did charge people anyway, just with taxes. The NHS is anything but free.

Tainari88 wrote:Not out of the goodness of their hearts but because of pragmatism and political survival BJ.

Pragmatism that then becomes a political trap--like heroin, once you start using it, it's difficult to stop.

Tainari88 wrote:The USA is going to have to do the same.

The US can't do the same, because the cost structure of healthcare is too high to be socialized. It would collapse the US economy, and thereby collapse much of the global economy. It's not something to wish for if you're not living in America.

Tainari88 wrote:You might think it is freedom being screwed over with health care, and not having decent public educations?

We have the money for decent public education. We just have a corrupt education system rife with degenerate socialists.

Tainari88 wrote:For most workers freedom means? Having a secure job and not being laid off periodically in recessions and depressions, owning the means of producing, and knowing you can feed your kids, keep your roof, get your kids a vocation or a profession, and knowing if you have a tooth ache, or need an emergency service and have not paid your insurance premium that month you are not going to be dead or broke. True freedom. The freedom that people in the six figure income bracket have with no ex wives or children to support and who have a lot of money in general don't represent the entire world.

Actually, owning your own home without property tax creates a lot more security than a secure job. However, that job security can be helped along by tariffs, regulatory schemes, government jobs and the like. It doesn't cost anywhere near as much as people get charged to fix a broken tooth or even set a broken leg. Without a free market, prices will go higher. In the US, almost everything gets cheaper except for government, education, health care, education and real estate. These big four have to be addressed.

late wrote:2) For some people, I imagine that is true. You might say we have been overly indulgent to China and Japan. That require adjustment, not the mindless moves Trump has been doing.

"Mindless moves" is an alliterative phrase, which gets me thinking you didn't come up with that yourself. Trump's policies are not mindless by a long shot. Trump's general tariffs have been on steel and aluminium only. Otherwise, Trump has targeted China.

late wrote:4) China has a new IP court, and it's working. The situation sucks, but I doubt it's any worse than our domestic IP problems, at this point.

Great. China should not mind having tariffs on their goods until as much in tariffs on Chinese goods have been paid into the US treasury as China has stolen from US firms.

late wrote:6) Once Trump screwed up, other Asian countries started making nice with China, quickly. When you add that to their economic initiatives like Silk Road and BRI, they are on track to be the Asian hegemon within a decade (roughly). I don't think we can unring that bell.

It's in the interest of other Asian states to take advantage of the trade dispute between the US and China.

The forgotten victims of China’s Belt and Road Initiative
In the run-up to the event, many critics have highlighted the projects’ negative impacts on host countries, such as debt traps, land seizures, corruption and environmental degradation. Some have pointed out the difficulties of establishing fair methods for resolving the many disputes that are arising between China and its new partners. A few have criticized the failure of certain projects to create adequate jobs for locals.

Indeed, the Chinese are doing things like building ports and staffing them with Chinese rather than local workers. It looks just like colonialism. Free money is not free.

The recent federal criminal conviction of a Chinese construction firm executive for subjecting workers in New York to forced labor is a case in point. According to trial testimony, prior to leaving China, the workers signed contracts promising to not interact with locals, to not leave their residence without permission and to return to China after completing their multi-year assignment — at which point the bulk of their salary would be paid. Each worker was required to post a security deposit of more than $20,000 to guarantee his compliance. Once in New York, workers’ passports were seized and they were required to work long hours and live in unsafe conditions. Fear of losing their security deposit and not collecting their earned wages essentially handcuffed them from escaping this exploitation.

China is a slave state, and we should not be trading with them. It's just immoral.

late wrote:7) We are going to have to come up with a new relationship with Asia. Revanchism is just another word for war in this case.

So? War is a pretty natural thing. Do you think war is just going to disappear if you have the "right" ideas?
By late
#15051936
[quote="blackjack21"



"Mindless moves" is an alliterative phrase, which gets me thinking you didn't come up with that yourself.

[/quote]

So that's what you call it.

I can write.

Btw, you are far too modest, you want much more than the destruction of political parties. Assuming you want to destroy more than one, about which I entertain doubts.
#15051940
@blackjack21 wrote in response to my comments:

One thing that is giving is that people do not trust the mainstream media or establishment politicians anymore. You do have shills for them like drlee or late--different flavors, but still defending the same system. However, the masses don't trust the establishment now. That's also something that spans Trump's economic policies and the US. It's pretty clear to the Gilets Jaunes as well--same problems, different locale.


That is because trying to keep the system going is a difficult endeavor when it doesn't do what needs to be done to make it stable. There is an absolute refusal to make it stable. Because it is about LETTING GO OF CONTROL. And the ones who are greedy and control freaks can't trust people whom they see as the 'rabble' with running their own lives and working with some control. They can't do it. Just as the ones who loved slavery kept saying that without slavery as an institution the world can't cope. Yes it did. And this is another form of ineffective way of dealing with humanity and human labor. It has to change Relampaguito. It has an expiration date.

Oh, I have no illusions about that. If I were married to someone that earns like me, we would be considered rich. As it is, I'm upper middle class.


So what is good for you and the rich is going to work for the majority? It won't. I don't want to live in a society where people live from fear, never get educations, don't go to the doctor out of fear of being bankrupted, and who believe they have no say so in their own societies. That kind of living is terrible. Again, you suffer from lack of empathy in a big way BJ. I have to be honest with you Relampaguito? Intelligence is worthless without heart. It is. If intelligence is not coupled with heart and empathetic policies that are the best road for the vast majority of humanity? Then it is a shallow intelligence. It won't do much. It never will. El corazon is the reason that true change does stay. You are right about pragmatism. But self interested people who don't empathize with the many? And lack flexibility in thought and society? They can be incredibly intelligent living alone, and without real connection. In the end? That is a wasted life truly.

I don't agree that socialism is more advanced.


I know you don't. I don't think capitalism is worth the many millions of lives it has cost the world. Out of sheer callous exploitation, pollution of the environment, greed and not caring about others who are not from your country or from your bank account status. For me? You are asking for species extinction....begging the world to make you extinct with that mentality for sure.

There is no doubt that capitalism has resulted in the loss of a lot of life, but it has also resulted in the greatest explosion in human survival rates such that even in the wake of the most bloody of wars--WWI and WWII--we still found ourselves with an overpopulation problem due to collapsing infant and child mortality rates and increased life expectancy.


No, the human survival rate explosion was due to caring medical researchers and doctors like Dr. Silk and others who never intended to make huge profits from the discovery of Penicillin or other drugs that saved life or polio vaccines. Those type of individuals are the ones who don't believe medicine should primarily be about for profit. Once you buy that? You aren't really a doctor. Best to become a businessman or a banker instead. I shudder to think how you would treat people who could not afford medical care if you think it is ok to be a capitalist and waste millions in the process of what? Progress. Ay BJ, you disappoint me with your lack of corazon. It is consistent.

They did charge people anyway, just with taxes. The NHS is anything but free.


No BJ, I don't mind paying taxes to the state if the state is going to treat children, adults and elderly people regardless of ability to pay and give them decent treatments. Nothing is free in this world in terms of all things in life are wrapped in the art of struggle. But struggle by many many people's efforts, and then pooled to be just and equitable in saving the ones who need it more and protecting those needing protection is the reason why the strong are out there working on tough problems everyday. Why struggle to support elites and wasteful people and wasteful wars that never help much in general?

If you don't want to be responsible for society BJ? Try living alone and not talking to anyone for a year. Not seeing anyone for a year. Not being a part of society for a year? And then come back here and tell me that not having any relationship to another human at all and cutting off all responsibilities is really worth it as a sole person in a lonely world. It is not Senor. It never will be.
#15052417
Tainari88 wrote:I know you don't. I don't think capitalism is worth the many millions of lives it has cost the world. Out of sheer callous exploitation, pollution of the environment, greed and not caring about others who are not from your country or from your bank account status. For me? You are asking for species extinction....begging the world to make you extinct with that mentality for sure.


I believe that "capitalism" per say is not evil. When it works hand in glove with greed (which is most of the time) is when it degrades the planet and the life sustained by the planet. I call this predatory capitalism. I do not recall BJ#21 or any other "capitalists" giving the slightest acknowledgement to predatory capitalism. The "debate" is generally presented simplistically as "Capitalism or socialism" . Anything at all based upon capitalism is just fine while anything at all to do with socialism is evil evil evil.

Try to inject some common sense into the question of predatory capitalism and the billionaires who want another billion or so start crying about "over regulation". Don The Con and his billionaire buddies sing this sad song very well and over and over.

Species extinction? There were 2 billion people on this planet when I was born. Now? 7.6 billion. How about 15 billion? 30 billion? Extinction is simply a question of when. It is happening as I type.
#15052426
jimjam wrote:I believe that "capitalism" per say is not evil. When it works hand in glove with greed (which is most of the time) is when it degrades the planet and the life sustained by the planet. I call this predatory capitalism. I do not recall BJ#21 or any other "capitalists" giving the slightest acknowledgement to predatory capitalism. The "debate" is generally presented simplistically as "Capitalism or socialism" . Anything at all based upon capitalism is just fine while anything at all to do with socialism is evil evil evil.

Try to inject some common sense into the question of predatory capitalism and the billionaires who want another billion or so start crying about "over regulation". Don The Con and his billionaire buddies sing this sad song very well and over and over.

Species extinction? There were 2 billion people on this planet when I was born. Now? 7.6 billion. How about 15 billion? 30 billion? Extinction is simply a question of when. It is happening as I type.

A population crash is coming, but extinction is highly unlikely. The thing is, anthropogenic climate change or pollution are ultimately self-limiting - as the climate worsens or pollution degrades the food-web, this will affect the human race itself, by causing a mass die-off due to flooding, loss of habitat or famines. This will, ipso facto, reduce the level of climate change and/or pollution. This means that, long before the last human dies off, our industrial civilisation will have collapsed and the human population will have been reduced to, say, Iron Age levels. Problem solved. Lol. :)
User avatar
By Rancid
#15052431
Potemkin wrote:A population crash is coming, but extinction is highly unlikely. The thing is, anthropogenic climate change or pollution are ultimately self-limiting - as the climate worsens or pollution degrades the food-web, this will affect the human race itself, by causing a mass die-off due to flooding, loss of habitat or famines. This will, ipso facto, reduce the level of climate change and/or pollution. This means that, long before the last human dies off, our industrial civilisation will have collapsed and the human population will have been reduced to, say, Iron Age levels. Problem solved. Lol.


This is very true, human population and the impact we have on the planet forms a negative feedback system with hysteresis (I'm guessing our Trump lovers are too stupid to know what that means). As the population increases, the earth itself will put downward pressure on the population (via climate change). Because there's also hysteresis built into the system, it means that when we hit the trip point of climate change, the population decrease will not just be a decrease, but a crash.

You have a lot of insight.

@Potemkin, if we have a population crash, wouldn't that destroy capitalism, given that capitalism is predicated on the need for constant (and unsustainable) growth?
#15052436
Rancid wrote:This is very true, human population and the impact we have on the planet forms a negative feedback system with hysteresis (I'm guessing our Trump lovers are too stupid to know what that means). As the population increases, the earth itself will put downward pressure on the population (via climate change). Because there's also hysteresis built into the system, it means that when we hit the trip point of climate change, the population decrease will not just be a decrease, but a crash.

Indeed. And this is why the so-called 'Sixth Mass Extinction' will, in fact, be a damp squib. Unlike the other Big Five, this one will be self-limiting, by its very nature. The Earth actually has little to fear from us.

You have a lot of insight.

Of course I do. I am Potemkin. :smokin:

@Potemkin, if we had a population crash, wouldn't that destroy capitalism, given that capitalism is predicated on (unsustainable) the need for constant growth?

Good question. In my opinion, capitalism will likely survive. After all, it creates periodic economic crashes anyway, by its own nature, and in fact it requires these periodic crashes in order to 'clear the decks' as it were, ready for the next period of boom before the bust....
#15052443
Potemkin wrote:A population crash is coming, but extinction is highly unlikely. The thing is, anthropogenic climate change or pollution are ultimately self-limiting - as the climate worsens or pollution degrades the food-web, this will affect the human race itself, by causing a mass die-off due to flooding, loss of habitat or famines. This will, ipso facto, reduce the level of climate change and/or pollution. This means that, long before the last human dies off, our industrial civilisation will have collapsed and the human population will have been reduced to, say, Iron Age levels. Problem solved. Lol. :)


Yes, a good starting chapter for a science fiction novel where the Latin American people living simply survive all the collapsing....lol.

Good premise there to work with you gave me Potemkin! ;)
#15052444
Rancid wrote:This is very true, human population and the impact we have on the planet forms a negative feedback system with hysteresis (I'm guessing our Trump lovers are too stupid to know what that means). As the population increases, the earth itself will put downward pressure on the population (via climate change). Because there's also hysteresis built into the system, it means that when we hit the trip point of climate change, the population decrease will not just be a decrease, but a crash.

You have a lot of insight.

@Potemkin, if we have a population crash, wouldn't that destroy capitalism, given that capitalism is predicated on the need for constant (and unsustainable) growth?


Yes, Rancid, they all have illusions that the planet just naturally takes all that shit and never fights back. Lol. They are fools. We are products of that system. Not rulers. If they don't get that hierarchy Rancid they fail at any sense of order in natural law.

We are living within a system that is a living thing. Not something dead that doesn't respond. Unfortunately too many of these climate change deniers are still believing that there are no consequences for constant pollutions and problems without a remedy.

Dealing with hysteresis is too much for them. It is a loop the earth. They don't seem to understand that.

My son asks me good questions like, "Mommy where does gasoline come from? Plastic bowls? Glass? Furniture? Towels?" I make it quick, "Nature my son. It comes from Mother Nature." And he then says, "Then we got to be nice to Mother Nature. Without her we are not important." Yes, the eight year old figured it out. Yet we got some people who still are questioning if we have climate change or not. It is foolish.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15052446
Tainari88 wrote:Yes, the eight year old figured it out.


Kids know this shit better than adults.

Hopefully the next generation of kids aren't entitled greedy fucktards like the money grubbing assholes (business and government elites) that run this country.
#15052852
Trump’s tariff justifications have often been self-evidently absurd — seriously, who imagines that imports of Canadian steel threaten U.S. national security? But there’s no obvious way to stop him from imposing tariffs whenever he feels like it.

And there’s also no obvious way to stop his officials from granting individual businesses tariff exemptions, supposedly based on economic criteria but in fact as a reward for political support. Tariff policy isn’t the only arena in which Trump can practice crony capitalism — federal contracting is looking increasingly scandalous — but tariffs are especially ripe for exploitation.
User avatar
By jimjam
#15052853
Tainari88 wrote: "Then we got to be nice to Mother Nature. Without her we are not important."


WOW! I would love to sit down to lunch with you and your family some day but, alas, I am grateful for an internet connect with very stable genius' like yourself and your son.
#15052858
jimjam wrote:WOW! I would love to sit down to lunch with you and your family some day but, alas, I am grateful for an internet connect with very stable genius' like yourself and your son.


My son is a sweet little boy. Eight years old. He is looking forward to Christmas season. He asks questions about science all the time. He likes baseball. Crazy about baseball and swimming. He likes dance and he likes to try his hand at guitar he says. So that is what I will be encouraging him to do.

I am deliberately limiting or eliminating all electronics. He plays with the neighbor kid at the park for hours, he reads books and I am encouraging books in Spanish for the next two years til his Spanish is as good as his English. Then I am dealing with sports, (baseball and swimming), music (guitar playing), and nature walks near the Mayan ruins with discussions about history. No sedentary stuff. I also have a special tutor Edna, who hangs out with him an hour and a half a day and after homework, she teaches him social skills like etiquette, and how to talk to older people, how to treat others with respect, table manners, etc. I also help him with that. I keep his school uniforms very clean. I am teaching him how to clean and put things away properly. How to comb his hair. Pick up after himself. When he is about 10 years old I will start on his financial education, how to live within his means, consuming and recycling and all that. Avoiding debt, credit cards, etc.

People neglect very important basic skills like Home Economics and Social Etiquette. I find that bad. You got to socialize children. Too much zombie time watching horrible games and crap on the screen. No one is going to love your child if all their time is spent with a machine. Time spent with friends and family and neighbors who love them? Not wasted time. They become family and love your kid. Machines don't love your kid. Why give a damn machine your child's precious growing up years? They don't love your kid. They are just there charging the parents money to keep the kid occupied so they don't ask any questions of the parents. The parents duty is to answer their curious child's questions about life! That is why you have a child to INFLUENCE THEM POSITIVELY so when you die? You leave the best of yourself with the child and the new family they have!
#15052869
Tainari88 wrote:He asks questions about science all the time.


I was thinking about your earlier comment. That intelligence is nothing without heart. I agree. However, I would phrase the point a little bit differently. I would say intelligence coupled with selfishness (i.e. no heart) is the most potent and dangerous thing. Intelligence coupled with selflessness (i.e. heart) is very good.
#15052913
Tainari88 wrote:I am deliberately limiting or eliminating all electronics


Image
Good. I took this ^ picture from my window many years ago when I lived in Gloucester, mass. Now the kids train to be "smart" phone zombies like their parents.
#15052929
Rancid wrote:I was thinking about your earlier comment. That intelligence is nothing without heart. I agree. However, I would phrase the point a little bit differently. I would say intelligence coupled with selfishness (i.e. no heart) is the most potent and dangerous thing. Intelligence coupled with selflessness (i.e. heart) is very good.


Extremely intelligent people with big hearts full of love and who love to serve and are always helping the society? They change the world Rancid. People remember them and honor them and want to be like them. Selfish people no one cares if they die. Who would? You don't feel loving towards people who have no love in their hearts for anyone but themselves.
  • 1
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
International taxation

There are two problems here. No, there is only o[…]

Provide evidence for this claim. You are asking[…]

What fraction of the PERPETRATORS were non-Norweg[…]

Who believes him?

If @Finfinder is arguing that Trump does not li[…]