The Partisan American... the real issue with American Politics

[Jarhyn]

In an ideal world the money supply grows at the same rate as the economy

Not only the growth of the supply itself, but in a healthy economy, the money supply in a healthy economy expands explicitly towards the segment of society doing the actual work.

The problem is that this is not the population which sees new money from the money supply; rather, the money supply grows almost exclusively within the pocket of the banks, guaranteeing a status quo.

 

[Derec]

I don't think the Dems are winning in 2024, even if Biden does step aside (economy... and some of the worst selling what in the heck the party was doing in the history of self promotion), but Biden not stepping aside definitely made things worse.

It would not be a slam dunk, sure, but Dems would have had a much better chance than with Kamala. At least if they did not screw up the choice in the primaries.
Yes, the economy was still suffering from the Pandemic effects, but it's not like Trump was exactly popular either. Even with Kamala coronation, the 2024 election wasn't a landslide.

It is the economy stupid.... or should I say (George HW Bush say?) it is how the people interpret the economy stupid. As I note in the OP, Biden's polling was bad.

Perceptions of the economy play a big role, yes. But it's not the only thing. Many things led to this outcome. Besides mismanaging transition from Biden, you also had the unforced error of prosecuting Trump for "felony misdemeanor" hush money misreporting, which made him more popular. And then there are things like Gaza attacking Israel and far-left and Muslim Dems embracing Hamas and not voting for Kamala over it. There was nothing sensible that could be done about that - one hallmark of the two party system is that your coalition will most likely include some very toxic people. You can't try to appease them, as it will never be enough.

 

[Derec]

Fewer emissions mean fewer emissions. Without the reductions by the US, there’d be more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This is not a difficult concept to grasp. The US is responsible for its economic activity.

US unilaterally cutting emissions even at the detriment to our economy would be disastrous for the US and would not do that much for the climate. Especially if carbon-intensive manufacturing is just shifted abroad and not eliminated, as that would lead to no net carbon emission reduction and likely would even lead to an increase due to laxer environmental standards in many parts of the world.

We need to do this internationally, which means requiring the likes of China and India to significantly cut their emissions too. Otherwise you are just pissing into the rainstorm.

 

[Derec]

No. They voted for things you agree with. That's why you sympathise.

Of course I agree with some of the things Trump proposed, just like I agree with some of the things any of the major party candidates proposed in any election. Only a mindless partisan would agree with 100% of the things from one party and 0% from the other. Which fits well with the topic of this thread.

I haven't voted for Trump in any of his elections. That's because I agree with him only on some things, not the majority, and because I know that even for things I agree with him on, he is likely to mess it up. Like him TACOing the Iran war.

But at least you can say nigger on twitter X again, amirite?

Other than casting aspersions, you have nothing. *Yawn*

You also ignored my next sentence.

I do not think 77M people are all "vile cunt who fantasises about being as cruel and despicable as he is".

That you think they are is a sign of you being a hyperpartisan.

 

[laughing dog]

Fewer emissions mean fewer emissions. Without the reductions by the US, there’d be more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This is not a difficult concept to grasp. The US is responsible for its economic activity.

US unilaterally cutting emissions even at the detriment to our economy would be disastrous for the US and would not do that much for the climate. …

I didn’t suggest anything like that.

We need to do this internationally, which means requiring the likes of China and India to significantly cut their emissions too. Otherwise you are just pissing into the rainstorm.

It’s called leading by example. We continue to reduce our emissions like we have at a sensible pace and cajole, induce and embarrass other countries to join as well.

Unless you think we or the world is going to conquer China or India to reduce emissions, there is no mechanism to require and enforce such agreements.

 

[Toni]

Fewer emissions mean fewer emissions. Without the reductions by the US, there’d be more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This is not a difficult concept to grasp. The US is responsible for its economic activity.

US unilaterally cutting emissions even at the detriment to our economy would be disastrous for the US and would not do that much for the climate. Especially if carbon-intensive manufacturing is just shifted abroad and not eliminated, as that would lead to no net carbon emission reduction and likely would even lead to an increase due to laxer environmental standards in many parts of the world.

We need to do this internationally, which means requiring the likes of China and India to significantly cut their emissions too. Otherwise you are just pissing into the rainstorm.

I don’t think you’ll get any arguments here about the need to attack emissions internationally.

Two things though:

1. Not doing the right thing because others are not doing the right thing is stupid. At our best, we in the US strive to lead by setting a good example.

2. Why don’t suppose that China and India are not doing more to cut their emissions? They are concerned about hurting their economies and losing whatever ground they have in the international economic field.

Here is where the US and other nations can show true leadership: cut emissions and at the Dave time. Use alternative energy sources and become more energy efficient. Europe is ahead of us on energy efficiency. We need to look at how Europe dies ( some) things and adopt (some of) the same measures.

We also ought to do far more to eschew Reaganism with the push towards a consumer oriented Ted economy and conspicuous consumption. Among other ills, it is disastrous for the environment.

We need to grow past school yard ‘strategies’ of You first when it comes with necessary changes and also not let our egos get in the way of acknowledging some superior strategies and adopting them.

 

[Derec]

I don’t think you’ll get any arguments here about the need to attack emissions internationally.

I always get arguments from ld, but I reckon that this has mostly to do with his compulsion to always gainsay whatever I write.
Thanks for engaging with my arguments in detail though.

1. Not doing the right thing because others are not doing the right thing is stupid. At our best, we in the US strive to lead by setting a good example.

The point is that the "right thing" is very costly. Imposing major CO₂ cuts (as envisioned by AOC's Green New Deal for example) without #1 emitter also going along puts a lot of strain on US economy (and EU economies) without doing that much for the climate, since any cuts by developed western nations get negated by an increase in cuts by developing countries. That is especially true if part of US/EU emission cuts is realized by moving even more carbon-intensive manufacturing abroad.
Btw, it is high time to stop pretending that China should still be counted among "developing" countries. They are a superpower, and they should start being treated as such when it comes to international responsibilities.

2. Why don’t suppose that China and India are not doing more to cut their emissions? They are concerned about hurting their economies and losing whatever ground they have in the international economic field.

Exactly. But western countries imposing deep cuts on our emissions gives an unfair advantage to the likes of China and India.

Here is where the US and other nations can show true leadership: cut emissions and at the Dave time. Use alternative energy sources and become more energy efficient. Europe is ahead of us on energy efficiency. We need to look at how Europe dies ( some) things and adopt (some of) the same measures.

According to the graph I posted, we have been reducing our emissions in the US. But over the same period, China increased their emissions not only more than we reduced, but they increased their emissions by more than our total emissions.
And yes, we can adopt some things Europe does. But some are specific to European geography. For example, US is far more spread out and therefore a dense passenger rail network will never happen here.
And again, my point is that all of this will have very limited impact if other major emitters are not held to account.

We also ought to do far more to eschew Reaganism with the push towards a consumer oriented Ted economy and conspicuous consumption. Among other ills, it is disastrous for the environment.

What would be an alternative to a consumer-oriented economy? And who is Ted?

We need to grow past school yard ‘strategies’ of You first when it comes with necessary changes and also not let our egos get in the way of acknowledging some superior strategies and adopting them.

"You first" is exactly what you and ld want to impose on US and other western countries. My point is that it should happen with international frameworks, so no country derives an unfair advantage by not being bound by these standards.

 

[Derec]

I didn’t suggest anything like that.

Yes, you did.

It’s called leading by example. We continue to reduce our emissions like we have at a sensible pace and cajole, induce and embarrass other countries to join as well.

But deep cuts are damaging to the economy while giving those not subject to the same cuts un unfair advantage. And again, China increased their emissions by more than US total emissions since the early 2000s. Therefore, no emissions cut program that does not include China is worth the paper it is printed on.

Unless you think we or the world is going to conquer China or India to reduce emissions, there is no mechanism to require and enforce such agreements.

That mechanism is trade policies. That would actually be a sensible use of Trump's beloved tariffs. Impose a carbon tariff on any import with automatic adjustment based on relative emissions.

 

[Toni]

I don’t think you’ll get any arguments here about the need to attack emissions internationally.

I always get arguments from ld, but I reckon that this has mostly to do with his compulsion to always gainsay whatever I write.
Thanks for engaging with my arguments in detail though.

1. Not doing the right thing because others are not doing the right thing is stupid. At our best, we in the US strive to lead by setting a good example.

The point is that the "right thing" is very costly. Imposing major CO₂ cuts (as envisioned by AOC's Green New Deal for example) without #1 emitter also going along puts a lot of strain on US economy (and EU economies) without doing that much for the climate, since any cuts by developed western nations get negated by an increase in cuts by developing countries. That is especially true if part of US/EU emission cuts is realized by moving even more carbon-intensive manufacturing abroad.
Btw, it is high time to stop pretending that China should still be counted among "developing" countries. They are a superpower, and they should start being treated as such when it comes to international responsibilities.

2. Why don’t suppose that China and India are not doing more to cut their emissions? They are concerned about hurting their economies and losing whatever ground they have in the international economic field.

Exactly. But western countries imposing deep cuts on our emissions gives an unfair advantage to the likes of China and India.

Here is where the US and other nations can show true leadership: cut emissions and at the Dave time. Use alternative energy sources and become more energy efficient. Europe is ahead of us on energy efficiency. We need to look at how Europe dies ( some) things and adopt (some of) the same measures.

According to the graph I posted, we have been reducing our emissions in the US. But over the same period, China increased their emissions not only more than we reduced, but they increased their emissions by more than our total emissions.
And yes, we can adopt some things Europe does. But some are specific to European geography. For example, US is far more spread out and therefore a dense passenger rail network will never happen here.
And again, my point is that all of this will have very limited impact if other major emitters are not held to account.

We also ought to do far more to eschew Reaganism with the push towards a consumer oriented Ted economy and conspicuous consumption. Among other ills, it is disastrous for the environment.

What would be an alternative to a consumer-oriented economy? And who is Ted?

We need to grow past school yard ‘strategies’ of You first when it comes with necessary changes and also not let our egos get in the way of acknowledging some superior strategies and adopting them.

"You first" is exactly what you and ld want to impose on US and other western countries. My point is that it should happen with international frameworks, so no country derives an unfair advantage by not being bound by these standards.

We could do much better with passenger railways. Certainly throughout cities and into suburbs but I would also advocate for passenger lines between cities, including smaller cities there is finally more than one passenger train a day that passes through my town and it has decent ridership from my observation ( don’t have access to numbers of passengers). There are talks of speed rail lines between major cities such as Chicago and Minneapolis. I hope they invest in that. When I lived just outside of DC, I made use daily of commuter busses and trains to get to/from work and sometimes on the weekends. Very convenient and relatively inexpensive—I could actually afford it. I’ve ridden the L in Chicago a few times: very convenient and easy. I’ve run down the subway in Boston: Same. I’d happily use trains much more often if they were available, especially as I am older.

I agree re: carbon taxes. I think domestically we need to do even more re: water use, particularly with data centers exploding across the landscape. They make almond trees seem very economical in their water use.

 

[laughing dog]

I didn’t suggest anything like that.

Yes, you did.

To be clear, I was referring to your "US unilaterally cutting emissions even at the detriment to our economy ". In fact, in the response to which you replied below, see the bold-faced part. There is simply no way to sensibly interpret that as cutting emissions even at the detriment to our economic . But, to be fair, you should be able to produce a quote from posts in this thread to substantiate this claim.

It’s called leading by example. We continue to reduce our emissions like we have at a sensible pace and cajole, induce and embarrass other countries to join as well.

But deep cuts are damaging to the economy while giving those not subject to the same cuts un unfair advantage. And again, China increased their emissions by more than US total emissions since the early 2000s. Therefore, no emissions cut program that does not include China is worth the paper it is printed on.

Unless you think we or the world is going to conquer China or India to reduce emissions, there is no mechanism to require and enforce such agreements.

That mechanism is trade policies. That would actually be a sensible use of Trump's beloved tariffs. Impose a carbon tariff on any import with automatic adjustment based on relative emissions.

I never mentioned "deep cuts". Why do you feel the need to introduce such straw men?

Trade policies cannot enforce reductions in emissions. They can induce reductions in emissions, but if one party reneges, the emissions do not get reduced.

 

[ZiprHead]

Police arrest far-right extremist Jake Lang after vehicles drive onto sidewalk in Minneapolis. Minneapolis police arrested far-right extremist Jake Lang and others on probable cause riot after driving onto a sidewalk near City Hall, impacting public safety.

MINNEAPOLIS — Minneapolis police arrested far-right extremist Jake Lang and several others Tuesday after two vehicles drove onto a sidewalk toward a crowd gathered near Minneapolis City Hall, according to police.
At approximately 11:50 a.m., Lang arrived near City Hall with other people traveling in two vehicles, the Minneapolis Police Department said.

Police said both vehicles drove onto the sidewalk in front of City Hall, where a crowd of people had gathered.
“Anytime there is crowds of people gathered the last thing we want to see is vehicles driving toward them when we don’t know their full intentions and that’s what started this whole situation today," said Minneapolis Interim Police Chief Bill Peterson.
Mayor Jacob Frey said people could have been or hurt or killed.
Officers moved in and directed the vehicles away from the sidewalk and out of the area.
“It was not safe for us to make any sort of arrest on those individuals in that large crowd. The best thing from my perspective was for what did occur and let those vehicles leave the area, which essentially de-escalated things and then from there our public safety partners helped us make arrests," Peterson said.
Officers then tracked both vehicles after they left the area.

 

[RVonse]

It’s called leading by example. We continue to reduce our emissions like we have at a sensible pace and cajole, induce and embarrass other countries to join as well.

Unless you think we or the world is going to conquer China or India to reduce emissions, there is no mechanism to require and enforce such agreements.

Asking the US to lead by example will not work!. It is like asking Elon Musk to lead by example somehow motivating the world will no longer develop dangerous AI. It is foolish to expect one player to commit suicide leading by example during an extreme competitive environment when others will not follow.

But given the proper motivation, the world has shown it can actually agree to use the same rules. For example pretty much every country now agrees that using chemical weapons during war is a bad idea for the world. Not using chemical weapons during war did not happen because the US led by example. It happened because the whole world agreed to the politics abiding not to use them.

A similar worldwide agreement must happen with emissions as well or the world will never fix this issue. It certainly won't happen with a declining superpower attempting to drive even further into the ditch by "leading by example".

 

[laughing dog]

It’s called leading by example. We continue to reduce our emissions like we have at a sensible pace and cajole, induce and embarrass other countries to join as well.

Unless you think we or the world is going to conquer China or India to reduce emissions, there is no mechanism to require and enforce such agreements.

Asking the US to lead by example will not work!.

It was working until Trump.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It’s called leading by example. We continue to reduce our emissions like we have at a sensible pace and cajole, induce and embarrass other countries to join as well.

Unless you think we or the world is going to conquer China or India to reduce emissions, there is no mechanism to require and enforce such agreements.

Asking the US to lead by example will not work!. It is like asking Elon Musk to lead by example somehow motivating the world will no longer develop dangerous AI. It is foolish to expect one player to commit suicide leading by example during an extreme competitive environment when others will not follow.

But given the proper motivation, the world has shown it can actually agree to use the same rules. For example pretty much every country now agrees that using chemical weapons during war is a bad idea for the world. Not using chemical weapons during war did not happen because the US led by example. It happened because the whole world agreed to the politics abiding not to use them.

Proper motivation was mutilation and death, and if one side used it, it would be used in retaliation. A lot of suffering was to be had to provide "proper motivation". Humans don't do proactive things very well.

A similar worldwide agreement must happen with emissions as well or the world will never fix this issue. It certainly won't happen with a declining superpower attempting to drive even further into the ditch by "leading by example".

The West was pumping CO2 in the air from the last 19th Century onward. We've been contributing to the problem for longer than the third word. So enough of the, but they need to join up too first.

 

[RVonse]

It’s called leading by example. We continue to reduce our emissions like we have at a sensible pace and cajole, induce and embarrass other countries to join as well.

Unless you think we or the world is going to conquer China or India to reduce emissions, there is no mechanism to require and enforce such agreements.

Asking the US to lead by example will not work!.

It was working until Trump.

Since the Clinton administration, the US lost all of its industrial base "leading by example". Thus insuring the creation of MAGA and political instability. And as Derec already mentioned only trading US prosperity and emissions for China prosperity and emissions leaving the combined world atmosphere mostly unchanged. Nor has the global warming issue been resolved in any measurable way, US leadership or not.

I would argue Elon Musk has reduced atmosphere carbon far more than the US "leading by example". Because without his involvement the world (and especially China) would not even have the electric vehicles we have today.

 

[laughing dog]

It’s called leading by example. We continue to reduce our emissions like we have at a sensible pace and cajole, induce and embarrass other countries to join as well.

Unless you think we or the world is going to conquer China or India to reduce emissions, there is no mechanism to require and enforce such agreements.

Asking the US to lead by example will not work!.

It was working until Trump.

Since the Clinton administration, the US lost all of its industrial base "leading by example". Thus insuring the creation of MAGA and political instability. And as Derec already mentioned only trading US prosperity and emissions for China prosperity and emissions leaving the combined world atmosphere mostly unchanged. Nor has the global warming issue been resolved in any measurable way, US leadership or not.

There was progress (slow but steady) until Trump.

I would argue Elon Musk has reduced atmosphere carbon far more than the US "leading by example". Because without his involvement the world (and especially China) would not even have the electric vehicles we have today.

Musk had and has nothing to with innovation and adaptation of clean energy.

It is an interesting how you champion the “successes” raving racist dirtbags like Musk and Trump.

 

[Patooka]

Thus insuring the creation of MAGA

MAGA exists solely because a significant amount of people feel the need to be cruel cunts to complete strangers in order to feel better themselves . That's it.

I would argue Elon Musk has reduced atmosphere carbon far more than the US "leading by example".

I believe you.

Because without his involvement the world (and especially China) would not even have the electric vehicles we have today.

Well that's bullshit. If you think Musk is a pioneer of electric vehicles then all you are really saying is that you are too ignorant to contribute to such a discussion.

 

[ZiprHead]

Thus insuring the creation of MAGA

MAGA exists solely because a significant amount of people feel the need to be cruel cunts to complete strangers in order to feel better themselves . That's it.

I would argue Elon Musk has reduced atmosphere carbon far more than the US "leading by example".

I believe you.

Because without his involvement the world (and especially China) would not even have the electric vehicles we have today.

Well that's bullshit. If you think Musk is a pioneer of electric vehicles then all you are really saying is that you are too ignorant to contribute to such a discussion.

Musk did not create Tesla. They were an entity long before Musk came along. The creators of the company freely admitted their inspiration for the company was General Motors electric vehicles. GM should get the credit for the creation of the modern electric car.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I didn’t suggest anything like that.

Yes, you did.

It’s called leading by example. We continue to reduce our emissions like we have at a sensible pace and cajole, induce and embarrass other countries to join as well.

But deep cuts are damaging to the economy while giving those not subject to the same cuts un unfair advantage. And again, China increased their emissions by more than US total emissions since the early 2000s. Therefore, no emissions cut program that does not include China is worth the paper it is printed on.

Unless you think we or the world is going to conquer China or India to reduce emissions, there is no mechanism to require and enforce such agreements.

That mechanism is trade policies. That would actually be a sensible use of Trump's beloved tariffs. Impose a carbon tariff on any import with automatic adjustment based on relative emissions.

How about a CAT?

Carbon Added Tax. Figure the total CO2 from producing your product, that's your tax minus whatever your suppliers already paid.

 

[Patooka]

How about a CAT?

Carbon Added Tax. Figure the total CO2 from producing your product, that's your tax minus whatever your suppliers already paid.

You could ask Julia Gillard how that worked out for her politically. I'm not saying she was wrong - I'm saying the consequences of such a strategy are unfortunately pretty obvious. And it would be an even more uphill battle in the States. Eliminating subsidies to oil and mining companies might be a better direction but still will be a struggle to accomplish.