US Politics Megathread

This is for discussions about news, politics, sports, other games, culture, philosophy etc.
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by Dolan »

Goodspeed wrote:that there's something seriously wrong with US campaign finance law and it needs changed. Your only point seems to be that it's hard to prevent corporate interests from influencing politics regardless, which I never disagreed with. In my opinion, an important step is at the very least making it explicitly illegal to use money to promote your favourite candidate, which it currently isn't after the supreme court ruling. Do you disagree?

I don't disagree, of course it would be great if private interests wouldn't simply control political candidates via donations. But I am also aware that the USA has a very different political, social and economic culture, as I previously explained. Such a ban on private interests financing political candidates would be seen in a very different light over there compared to how it would be seen in Europe. It would be very likely that private interests would contest such a decision at the Supreme court, arguing that it encroaches on their freedom of speech. The 1st Amendment has already been used by private interests in the USA to defend some of the most ridiculous claims, such as the right of pharma companies to promote off-label uses of their drugs to doctors. For example:
In 2011, the Supreme Court struck down a Vermont statute that prohibited pharmaceuticals companies from getting access to information about the prescriptions doctors were writing—information that the companies then used for marketing purposes. The Vermont legislature saw the law as a run-of-the-mill privacy protection. But to six Supreme Court Justices the Vermont law amounted to an unconstitutional restriction on speech: by restricting the information that pharmaceuticals sales reps could gather, it limited what they could say while marketing the drugs. The case—IMS Health v. Sorrell—exemplified a newfound willingness among federal judges to view drug promotion as an issue of free speech. Now when large companies lose advertising-related battles in the legislature, they can resurrect the fights as lawsuits.

There's only one step from how this case was used to frame pharmaceutical companies' right to advertise off-label uses of their drugs in terms of freedom of speech to extending such understanding of the 1st Amendment to political issues. Private interests could argue that such a ban on funding electoral campaigns is abusive, because it restricts their freedom to express their support for a political candidate by funding their expenses. It might sound weird or crazy, but since there is a precedent in jurisprudence with the pharmaceuticals' right to promote off-label uses of their drugs as an issue of free speech, then all the more so this could be construed as an issue of restraining private interests' freedom of speech. It's America we're talking about here... as I previously explained, it's a country that was built on a constitution (a set of basic principles) and goldrush greed. Every time they have a major, intractable social/legal issue they refer to their constitution in order to solve it. They don't have any other means of solving social disputes.

I think you are underestimating the effect that such permissive legal arrangements in the Netherlands have in other countries.
What do you base this on? I have been arguing from the beginning that capitalism in general needs to be regulated much more than it currently is. Making it harder for people or companies to park their money in tax havens overseas is a great idea, obviously.
But do you honestly think that it's going to have a significant effect on American campaign finance, and that fixing this has higher priority than changing local campaign finance law in this context? Then, I disagree. The richest corporations/individuals will have less money, but part of the money that they do have will still be spent on influencing government. It's legal. Politics are simply a worthwhile investment to make, and that won't change even with the complete disappearance of tax havens.
Sure, maybe you managed to get a grip on how electoral campaigns are funded locally, but you are missing the point about how your country enables global corporations to have undue influence in other countries' politics.
No, I hear you, just don't consider it either a priority or realistic to get rid of tax havens, compared to fixing local campaign finance law.

I think these issues need to be fixed starting from their root causes. And the fact that fiscal paradises exist is one such root cause. It enables lots of fraudulent behaviours among companies and private interests. They can avoid paying taxes, they can fund whatever political interests or media projects they find useful to influence public opinion and political decision-making. A first step would be to make sure there are no such global sanctuaries where private interests can hide their money from being taxed and from being scrutinised for undue influence in a country's political life. But then, again, given what I argued about how private interests in the USA would be likely to defend their right to fund political candidates based on freedom-of-speech legal arguments, maybe such a measure wouldn't have much of an effect in the USA.

I was only commenting on this ridiculous argument:
Dolan wrote:I mean, if you hate the party and criticise it, why join it? Aren't you better off outside a corrupt party? Why would you join it if it's disreputable?
And pointed out that you are ignoring the fact that the USA has only 2 electable parties. Spankyou and n0el did the same.
With that, I am not assuming any position in the "is AOC a PR stunt by the democratic party?" discussion. I'm just pointing out possible flaws in your thinking.

There's always a time for changing the bipartite system. If these people are so fresh and revolutionary, what could possibly stop them from launching their own party and actually succeed at it? Why do they need to piggyback on the two sclerotic and compromised parties?
I thought these people are genuine heroes. Didn't AOC just run her campaign "out of a paper grocery bag hidden behind a bar", while working at a taqueria in New York? And yet she defeated the pre-ordained candidate of the Dems' establishment. Against all odds. If they are so heroic, why don't they just start their own party and push it through any obstacles all the way to the congress?
I guess it's one thing to create a stir in the media and quite another to actually change anything substantial in real life.
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by Dolan »

n0el wrote:
Dolan wrote:@spanky4ever

Nope. What's gonna happen is gonna happen. An asteroid could crash into planet earth tomorrow and no amount of political squabbling could change that.

We should focus on things that we can realistically change. On climate change, maybe we could have some degree of impact. However, that will very likely make less developed countries poorer, since it will increase the costs of business. It's actually less developed or developing countries that pollute the most these days. For example, Europe's footprint on plastic pollution of the oceans is almost insignificant and yet we are the first to take radical measures on this front. It's a bit ridiculous considering we're not gonna save the planet this way.

So, we shouldn't take on challenges that are too hard or could make people poorer? Even if the alternative is that those people likely are forced into mass migration to Europe or there are large scale outbreaks of civil war and resulting death?

I don't see how you arrived at this conclusion based on what I said. Like, what's the link between climate change and Europe's migration crisis (which is kinda over anyways)? Most of those who migrated to Europe were coming from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and to a lesser extent from Africa. Most of them were economic migrants that were looking for a more comfortable life than they could have ever got in their own country. Some of them were actually genuine refugees fleeing warzone areas (Syrians, for example).
Climate change is a complex phenomenon that is behind, or at least it's claimed to be so, as different effects as floods, droughts, desertification, Arctic caps thawing etc. But most migrants to Germany, for example, came from Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq, countries that weren't particularly hit by floods/droughts/desertification lately as a potential effect of climate change. You could argue that this might be the case with those coming from some parts of Africa. But then, China too has been heavily hit by floods during the last few years. And yet, you don't see that many Chinese migrating en masse to Western countries because of climate change, do you? So, it's obvious that the real, major cause of such massive displacement of population is not really climate change. The Syrian civil war provided an alibi for all kinds of economic migrants to claim they were fleeing conflict zones in an attempt to gain asylum and citizenship in developed countries like Germany, Sweden, the UK. They saw it as a ticket to a more comfortable life, at the end of a risky adventure.
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by Dolan »

umeu wrote:Because we outsourced most of the polluting industries elsewhere. You're answer is ignoring other parts of the picture. As usual...

Western, developed countries = bad people
Developing countries = good, innocent but exploited people

No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by deleted_user0 »

Dolan wrote:
umeu wrote:Because we outsourced most of the polluting industries elsewhere. You're answer is ignoring other parts of the picture. As usual...

Western, developed countries = bad people
Developing countries = good, innocent but exploited people



No, not all. But that doesn't mean you get to ignore or distort the facts. Stop trying to make everything into a dichotomy. Not everyone divides the worldinto halves and then picks a side based on myths of some never existent past or biological reality.

So next time, dispute my argument, rather than trying to insinuate memes into my words.
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by Dolan »

Welp, you tried to paint a simplistic picture of "the evil West outsourcing its pollution to developing countries", so I responded in kind. :^|
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by deleted_user0 »

Dolan wrote:Welp, you tried to paint a simplistic picture of "the evil West outsourcing its pollution to developing countries", so I responded in kind. :^|


Not at all. Show me where I said that? Quote the words evil in my post. Quote any value judgment in my post. This just you assuming that people who oppose you think in simplistic sides, perhaps because you do it yourself. If anyone is coming with moralistic terms, it's you. Evil this, good that. Good West, bad Rest. It's so boring. And it's a stereotype. Stereotypes aren't always entirely wrong. They're always entirely incomplete. Which is what I said.

The only thing I said is that your claim about Europe's (because your post was about Europe, not about the "West", unless you mean North-Western Europe, because let's get it really right then...) pollution footprint is ignoring global economy (not to mention waste export). Focus on that. Breathe. Try not to go into some rant about left vs right. Try not to bring religion into this. Try not to make this about sides... And then, maybe... post something meaningful.
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by Dolan »

So you want me to make the argument for you and bring all the evidence to support it? I mean, you're just making a claim without bringing any evidence that the high level of pollution in developing countries is caused by outsourcing.

Are you saying Taiwan's TSMC and South Korea's Samsung are products of Western outsourcing? What about Huawei? What about China's massive mining and construction sector? What about India's huge water pollution problems? How much of their industrial output is due to outsourced Western production facilities?
You need to flesh out your argument.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by Goodspeed »

Dolan wrote:
Goodspeed wrote:that there's something seriously wrong with US campaign finance law and it needs changed. Your only point seems to be that it's hard to prevent corporate interests from influencing politics regardless, which I never disagreed with. In my opinion, an important step is at the very least making it explicitly illegal to use money to promote your favourite candidate, which it currently isn't after the supreme court ruling. Do you disagree?
I don't disagree, of course it would be great if private interests wouldn't simply control political candidates via donations. But I am also aware that the USA has a very different political, social and economic culture, as I previously explained. Such a ban on private interests financing political candidates would be seen in a very different light over there compared to how it would be seen in Europe. It would be very likely that private interests would contest such a decision at the Supreme court, arguing that it encroaches on their freedom of speech. The 1st Amendment has already been used by private interests in the USA to defend some of the most ridiculous claims,
I'm aware. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
Justice Kennedy's majority opinion found that the BCRA §203 prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech.
It's up to the legislature to pass new laws that force the court to rethink the issue.

Show hidden quotes

There's always a time for changing the bipartite system. If these people are so fresh and revolutionary, what could possibly stop them from launching their own party and actually succeed at it? Why do they need to piggyback on the two sclerotic and compromised parties?
They're not that revolutionary. Their point of view is probably that for the democratic party to reconnect to their base, the party needs to change, or rather go back to its roots. And they figure they are that change. Starting a third party would be effectively giving up on the democratic party, and it seems they aren't ready to do that. And they have a point. It would be unwise, imo.
No Flag deleted_user
Ninja
Posts: 14364
Joined: Mar 26, 2015

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by deleted_user »

I think it's hilarious you kids think you can keep up with Dolan.
User avatar
Great Britain Horsemen
Jaeger
Posts: 2998
Joined: Sep 24, 2018

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by Horsemen »

I'm no kid
No Flag deleted_user
Ninja
Posts: 14364
Joined: Mar 26, 2015

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by deleted_user »

Horsemen wrote:I'm no kid

i kid
User avatar
Great Britain Horsemen
Jaeger
Posts: 2998
Joined: Sep 24, 2018

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by Horsemen »

deleted_user wrote:
Horsemen wrote:I'm no kid

i kid

ok, kid
No Flag deleted_user
Ninja
Posts: 14364
Joined: Mar 26, 2015

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by deleted_user »

Horsemen wrote:
deleted_user wrote:
Horsemen wrote:I'm no kid

i kid

ok, kid

I kid, kid. Got it?
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by deleted_user0 »

Dolan wrote:So you want me to make the argument for you and bring all the evidence to support it? I mean, you're just making a claim without bringing any evidence that the high level of pollution in developing countries is caused by outsourcing.

Are you saying Taiwan's TSMC and South Korea's Samsung are products of Western outsourcing? What about Huawei? What about China's massive mining and construction sector? What about India's huge water pollution problems? How much of their industrial output is due to outsourced Western production facilities?
You need to flesh out your argument.


Seriously dude, all this bragging about how many degrees you have and what not, and you can't simply read a sentence without injecting all kinds of biased assumptions into it.

I didn't say anything about other countries. Although I seriously wonder if you've ever set foot in a "developing" country, as most of what you say seems to come right out of a textbook, an outdated one at that, rather than from experience. Can you answer me this question, please?

What I said solely referenced to your claim about Europe's pollution footprint. It's the second time I have to spell this out for you... I didn't say that every problem in every other country in the world is caused by the "the evil west". Stop making a fool out of yourself.

I'm also not making an argument. I'm correcting a statement you made by presenting a fact, one which I don't see how you can dispute it, unless you're intentionally trying to distort logic. Let's take a page out of your book, and appeal to authority here. I followed a post-graduate course in ecology, as well as ecosophy. Two of my best friends have double master degrees in the field of sustainability, either related to policy-making or city planning. My uncle also often travels abroad to give lectures to people in "developing" countries, as you'd call them, about sustainable agriculture. So you can rest assured that whenever I'm with friends or family, the topic of climate change, sustainability and ecology gets debated at length, with people who know a lot more about these fields than both of us combined. Furthermore, I have extensively travelled through South East Asia, and I've lived there for the past 2 years as well. So I've seen first hand what some of the causes and effects are of the worst pollution to be found anywhere on this planet. I've seen what the different kinds of responses of the locals are, and how authorities in different countries deal with the problem. I've met locals, as well as expats, who try to come up with solutions and who try to tackle this problem on the ground. Finally, I work for a company which has incorporated the ideal of global citizenship into its curriculum, and one of its pillars is sustainability, which I've had to teach to pre-teens and teenagers, so I've also seen how some of the next generation responds to the idea of sustainability. None of this precludes me from observing that Europe is at the forefront of sustainability when it comes to businesses, and although there is more awareness in the general population compared to SEA, people generally aren't as "green" as they would like to believe. Nonetheless, there's a lot more technology and infrastructure in place to deal with the problem of for example waste management, which means that even if the awareness had been poorer, the problem would never become as big as it is in SEA. That doesn't exclude the fact that Europe would pollute a lot more if the industries which are required to sustain our consumerism, the waste which is a byproduct of the things we consume, and the waste which is a result of overconsumption and overproduction, as well as some of our toxic waste and other trash, would be located/processed in Europe, rather than mostly exported/located elsewhere. This is simply the conclusion of unbiased thinking, something which, it seems, is very difficult for you.
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by Dolan »

>Although I seriously wonder if you've ever set foot in a "developing" country

I kinda live in one, thanks for not giving me any credit on personal experience.

>What I said solely referenced to your claim about Europe's pollution footprint

You didn't say this specifically either. You just throw a one-liner followed by an ellipsis. And I'm supposed to understand everything you implied by that.

>ecosophy

Really, is this a thing now? :lol:
Sounds like gender studies applied to plants.

>That doesn't exclude the fact that Europe would pollute a lot more if the industries which are required to sustain our consumerism, the waste which is a byproduct of the things we consume, and the waste which is a result of overconsumption and overproduction, as well as some of our toxic waste and other trash, would be located/processed in Europe, rather than mostly exported/located elsewhere.

I think you are conflating some things here. Lots of countries export their waste, for example the UK. Until recently China was maybe the largest importer of recyclable waste. The reason why they imported waste was because they have one of the largest manufacturing sectors in the world too, so they needed recyclable waste to source some of the raw materials at a very low cost from recycling other products. Recently, in 2017, China imposed a ban on imported waste, except for some higher quality recyclable waste, because they don't need as much as they used to anymore, since their local market consumption has increased significantly so they can just rely on recycling the waste that they produce themselves. So what happens now is that other countries, like Poland, Malaysia, are some of the new destinations for waste recycling. So, the picture is a bit more mixed than moralists would want it to look like. Some waste is being exported in Europe actually for recycling, some to Asia. And that exported waste doesn't really contribute much to pollution, because it's being recycled into new products. So it's actually a very cheap source of raw materials (or fuel). I don't know all the reasons why the UK is exporting its waste, it could be because they don't have the capacity to process it, or it could be because their manufacturing sector has shrunk so much there's just no usage for recycled plastics, for example. So, the cheapest solution was to just export it to other countries that had a better use for it. But anyway, this kind of waste is not a major source of pollution like plastics which are discarded directly in the environment. And that's where Asia is indeed a world leader. India's and China's rivers are screaming with discarded plastics and those don't come from imported waste.

I mean, just take a look at this river in India:



See that white stuff floating on the river? It's foam, it's formed by a toxic mixture of pesticides, heavy metals, and human waste. And this is the Yumuna river, which is considered sacred in India. And yet, this is how they treat it. They throw their waste in it, they shit in it, they bathe in it, they fish in it, they use the water for irrigation and so on. How is this caused by other countries' consumerism exactly?
I'm sure some of it might be caused by some production facilities that, among other things, might be making products for some developed countries. But most of this pollution in Asia is purely locally produced by their own lack of proper water and waste management, by their sheer disregard for environment and because they have more serious issues there than just caring about this stuff. When you live in a country with a population of more than 1 billion and you barely have a place to live in and can barely make both ends meet, environmental concerns are probably on the bottom of your list of priorities.

> This is simply the conclusion of unbiased thinking, something which, it seems, is very difficult for you.

Ok, so what is my bias here? I live in Eastern Europe where some of this waste produced in other countries is imported for recycling. Why should I be biased towards finding excuses for what Western countries do with their waste or with their production? On the contrary, I have all the reasons in the world to criticise them, to point out that they tend to export anything unpleasant and cherrypick all the advantages that a service-based economy brings. In practice, though, it's not that simple, because you know nobody forces those countries to accept waste imports or to accept manufacturing goods for more developed countries. They do it because they have something to gain from it. This is how China has been growing until now, based on attracting manufacturing orders from other countries. In fact, I'm all in favour of pulling out all manufacturing facilities that some developed countries have built over there (like the Dutch company Philips, which makes light bulbs and other home appliances there). But that will mean everyone will have to pay a lot more for their products. And then, who is going to complain about rising costs of living?
I've already pointed this out to Goodspeed that you guys in the West have been really pampered until now, you've had the best deal of all worlds. And you were still complaining about all sorts of things, like not enough work-life balance, not enough rights for X category and so on and so forth. But outside of your developed bubble, life has always been tough and cheap.
Recently, though, China has been trying to change their economic model and focus on increasing purchasing power in their own country, so that their consumption-based economic boom can be sustainable without trading. They have been considering this way before even Trump got elected, so it's not something that was triggered by the newly imposed trade tariffs. Their economic model, which has been based on cheap labour and undervalued currency, has hit a threshold and it's starting to show diminishing returns. For this reason, the Chinese have been trying to encourage domestic consumption more (through credit) so that they don't have to rely as much on external demand. So, they're starting to rely a lot more on their own consumerism and less and less on foreign consumerism.

So, yeah, there's a lot of stuff to say on this subject, but it's not really something you could summarise in a one-liner such as: hurr, our consumerism is what makes Asia such a polluted place.
User avatar
Norway spanky4ever
Gendarme
iwillspankyou
Posts: 8389
Joined: Apr 13, 2015

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by spanky4ever »

deleted_user wrote:I think it's hilarious you kids think you can keep up with Dolan.

Kind of agree, cos he is cheating :cry:
When his arguments doesn't work anymore, he tends to
bring in some randomly associated arguments,
to derail the conversation
or diminish other ppls arguments, saying they are stemming from feelings or the subcortical emotional brain :P
or giving us some weird statistics, and nitpicking them, and never show the whole picture.

so you are right, there is no way you can "win" an argument with a person who debates in this manner.

This thread is about 2020 Democrat election - and see where we are now :idea:
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
User avatar
Norway spanky4ever
Gendarme
iwillspankyou
Posts: 8389
Joined: Apr 13, 2015

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by spanky4ever »

lets get this train on the track again ;
https://youtu.be/dcWlZtALZpw
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
User avatar
Norway spanky4ever
Gendarme
iwillspankyou
Posts: 8389
Joined: Apr 13, 2015

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by spanky4ever »

When Bernie Sanders announces his candidacy, it will be a big upset ;) Wait for it
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by deleted_user0 »

I kinda live in one, thanks for not giving me any credit on personal experience.

You live in Romania, right? So kinda, not really... Have you been to SEA or Africa? Talked to any of the people who live there, not the few who get to travel abroad.



You didn't say this specifically either. You just throw a one-liner followed by an ellipsis. And I'm supposed to understand everything you implied by that.

Honestly... read before you reply. I quote myself.... again. These are from the two posts prior to the one you quoted.


The only thing I said is that your claim about Europe's (because your post was about Europe, not about the "West", unless you mean North-Western Europe, because let's get it really right then...) pollution footprint is ignoring global economy (not to mention waste export). Focus in that



Because we outsourced most of the polluting industries elsewhere


You just don't read the actual words and instead go off on a tangeant based on assumptions you have about other people's beliefs.

Really, is this a thing now? :lol:
Sounds like gender studies applied to plants


Its good to know youre the kind of person who mocks something before he knows what it is, solely because he doesn't understand it. It's a a trait commonly found in narrowminded people. But I guess I shouldnt be surprised.

I think you are conflating some things here. Lots of countries export their waste, for example the UK. Until recently China was maybe the largest importer of recyclable waste. The reason why they imported waste was because they have one of the largest manufacturing sectors in the world too, so they needed recyclable waste to source some of the raw materials at a very low cost from recycling other products. Recently, in 2017, China imposed a ban on imported waste, except for some higher quality recyclable waste, because they don't need as much as they used to anymore, since their local market consumption has increased significantly so they can just rely on recycling the waste that they produce themselves. So what happens now is that other countries, like Poland, Malaysia, are some of the new destinations for waste recycling. So, the picture is a bit more mixed than moralists would want it to look like. Some waste is being exported in Europe actually for recycling, some to Asia. And that exported waste doesn't really contribute much to pollution, because it's being recycled into new products. So it's actually a very cheap source of raw materials (or fuel). I don't know all the reasons why the UK is exporting its waste, it could be because they don't have the capacity to process it, or it could be because their manufacturing sector has shrunk so much there's just no usage for recycled plastics, for example. So, the cheapest solution was to just export it to other countries that had a better use for it. But anyway, this kind of waste is not a major source of pollution like plastics which are discarded directly in the environment. And that's where Asia is indeed a world leader. India's and China's rivers are screaming with discarded plastics and those don't come from imported waste.

I'm not conflating anything. Just the fact that not all exported waste contributes to excessive pollution doesn't mean some does. It's a very simple thing I'm saying here. If it's not somewhere else, but instead it's in Europe, there would be more pollution in Europe. It's really simple. Almost like 1+1. The only reason you're not accepting it, is because you want to make this into a West vs Rest thing, Good vs Evil. You seem to enjoy divides a lot. And you project this on everyone you speak to. But just realise, that I haven't mentioned morality once. It's just you who keeps bringing it up.The picture is indeed more mixed than moralists would like people to believe, these moralists include yourself, whether you want to acknowledge that or not. And that's why I brought my first comment up in the first place.

I mean, just take a look at this river in India:

I don't need to see pictures. I have seen it with my own eyes.

See that white stuff floating on the river? It's foam, it's formed by a toxic mixture of pesticides, heavy metals, and human waste. And this is the Yumuna river, which is considered sacred in India. And yet, this is how they treat it. They throw their waste in it, they shit in it, they bathe in it, they fish in it, they use the water for irrigation and so on. How is this caused by other countries' consumerism exactly?
I'm sure some of it might be caused by some production facilities that, among other things, might be making products for some developed countries. But most of this pollution in Asia is purely locally produced by their own lack of proper water and waste management, by their sheer disregard for environment and because they have more serious issues there than just caring about this stuff. When you live in a country with a population of more than 1 billion and you barely have a place to live in and can barely make both ends meet, environmental concerns are probably on the bottom of your list of priorities.

Nothing I said denied any of this. There's no need to bring this up unless you think it serves some kind of point? Must I quote myself again? Ok... Here it goes.
I didn't say anything about other countries.
Next time, please read my post.

Ok, so what is my bias here? I live in Eastern Europe where some of this waste produced in other countries is imported for recycling. Why should I be biased towards finding excuses for what Western countries do with their waste or with their production? On the contrary, I have all the reasons in the world to criticise them, to point out that they tend to export anything unpleasant and cherrypick all the advantages that a service-based economy brings. In practice, though, it's not that simple, because you know nobody forces those countries to accept waste imports or to accept manufacturing goods for more developed countries. They do it because they have something to gain from it. This is how China has been growing until now, based on attracting manufacturing orders from other countries. In fact, I'm all in favour of pulling out all manufacturing facilities that some developed countries have built over there (like the Dutch company Philips, which makes light bulbs and other home appliances there). But that will mean everyone will have to pay a lot more for their products. And then, who is going to complain about rising costs of living?
I've already pointed this out to Goodspeed that you guys in the West have been really pampered until now, you've had the best deal of all worlds. And you were still complaining about all sorts of things, like not enough work-life balance, not enough rights for X category and so on and so forth. But outside of your developed bubble, life has always been tough and cheap.
Recently, though, China has been trying to change their economic model and focus on increasing purchasing power in their own country, so that their consumption-based economic boom can be sustainable without trading. They have been considering this way before even Trump got elected, so it's not something that was triggered by the newly imposed trade tariffs. Their economic model, which has been based on cheap labour and undervalued currency, has hit a threshold and it's starting to show diminishing returns. For this reason, the Chinese have been trying to encourage domestic consumption more (through credit) so that they don't have to rely as much on external demand. So, they're starting to rely a lot more on their own consumerism and less and less on foreign consumerism.

Again all kinds of assumptions about what I believe, and apparently also about my upbringing and living conditions, without them being in my post, or actually anywhere on the internet, followed by a bunch of basic well known or irrelevant facts. I'm not sure what you want me to say to this? I guess I can just copy past the previous... Nothing I said denied any of this. There's no need to bring this up unless you think it serves some kind of point? Must I quote myself again? Ok... Here it goes.
I didn't say anything about other countries.
Next time, please read my post.


So, yeah, there's a lot of stuff to say on this subject, but it's not really something you could summarise in a one-liner such as: hurr, our consumerism is what makes Asia such a polluted place.
[/quote] That's true. I totally agree. And that's why I never said it. Please go through my post, and quote exactly the parts where I said anything that comes even close to this. Honestly, I'm starting to wonder what the university you graduated from. Did they teach you how to read? Or is this some nasty vice you picked up later?
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by Dolan »

>You live in Romania, right? So kinda, not really... Have you been to SEA or Africa? Talked to any of the people who live there, not the few who get to travel abroad.

You asked me if I ever set foot in a developing country. I answered I live(d) in one. According to the IMF, Romania, alongside a great number of other countries, is a developing country. Some big car manufacturing facilities from Western Europe and from North America have been relocated here (Renault from France, Ford from the USA), and yet that hasn't increased pollution footprint in any significant way. Our only significant pollution issue is with landfills and waste management, which is something that has existed even before we joined the EU or any major manufacture relocated here. The point is that industrial outsourcing or manufacturing relocation doesn't necessarily translate into increased pollution. But that may be because we're part of the EU, so there are some constraints arising from EU regulations.

Your original post was:
>Because we outsourced most of the polluting industries elsewhere. You're [sic] answer is ignoring other parts of the picture. As usual...

This was in response to my reply to spanky that fighting climate change will probably affect developing countries more since they pollute a lot more than, say, Europe. Europe was just an example of how misguided our policies are, in the sense that here in Europe we're always the first to take proactive measures, even though we're not the biggest polluters. Then you replied I'm ignoring the bigger picture. Then I asked for evidence that outsourcing is the cause of Asia's higher level of pollution. And then you just brought some anecdotal evidence, basically saying that you've been living there, that you've been discussing such topics with your friends etc. You never actually brought any aggregated evidence, any statistical evidence that would support your point that manufacturing relocation or outsourcing is the primary source of higher pollution in Asia or at least a significant driver of it.

>ecosophy

This seems to be some kind of philosophy applied to environmental issues. Not sure sure what's new about this, except for the high-sounding moniker. I mean, considering that these days philosophy can be equated with general-purpose reasoning, non-scientific arguments about principles etc. I suppose it's a non-scientific kind of debate on principles related to environmental issues? I kinda grew wary of these po-mo study fields after the Sokal affair, tbh.

> Just the fact that not all exported waste contributes to excessive pollution doesn't mean some does. It's a very simple thing I'm saying here. If it's not somewhere else, but instead it's in Europe, there would be more pollution in Europe. It's really simple. Almost like 1+1. The only reason you're not accepting it, is because you want to make this into a West vs Rest thing, Good vs Evil. You seem to enjoy divides a lot.

Maybe, I'm not saying you're wrong or completely wrong. Maybe you could make this argument, though it needs more evidence. Maybe you're partially right and you need to establish to what extent your argument is right. Could that relocated or outsourced manufacture contribute by about 15% to Asia's overall pollution? 18%? 50%? Who knows, this needs to be established using data. And this is what I've been asking for. And your response so far has been along these lines: you're biased, you're ignoring the bigger picture, I've been talking about this with friends and I've been living there, etc etc. I'm not dismissing your familiarity with the subject, I'm just asking for some evidence.
For example, did Taiwan make any assesment of how much TSMC (aka Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd, the biggest semiconductor foundry in the world, which makes chips for lots of electronics that are sold all around the world, including both developed and developing countries) contributes to Taiwan's pollution? Did Samsung make such an assesment? Foxconn? Why don't we get down to the actual details of Asia's microeconomics? You know, actual data. Because philosophising about this and just talking in general terms is not going to clarify anything. I'd be more than happy to hear some data relating to these huge manufacturing facilities in Asia and their record on pollution and how much of their economic output is contracted by developed countries and how much is locally contracted. This is the kind of arguments that would be relevant in such a discussion, imo.

>I'm starting to wonder what the university you graduated from. Did they teach you how to read? Or is this some nasty vice you picked up later?

It's no Ivy League or Oxbridge, if that's what you're wondering. I had no intention of bragging about academic credentials here, I don't even think mine are particularly great, I was just answering spanky's question on my background. In fact, I think the field in which I took my degree is absolutely ridiculous these days and it barely has any scientific credibility. It did make me more familiar with the foundations of political and economic thought, but that's about it. You learn a lot more by actually working in the field, by working with real political and economic data and trying to make inferences which are relevant for decision making. If you take it seriously, it's similar to metalworking, since the most obvious correlations are not the most useful, you have to work that data like a metalworker to get something that has some significant predictive/descriptive power.
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by deleted_user0 »

You asked me if I ever set foot in a developing country. I answered I live(d) in one. According to the IMF, Romania, alongside a great number of other countries, is a developing country. Some big car manufacturing facilities from Western Europe and from North America have been relocated here (Renault from France, Ford from the USA), and yet that hasn't increased pollution footprint in any significant way. Our only significant pollution issue is with landfills and waste management, which is something that has existed even before we joined the EU or any major manufacture relocated here. The point is that industrial outsourcing or manufacturing relocation doesn't necessarily translate into increased pollution. But that may be because we're part of the EU, so there are some constraints arising from EU regulations.

You haven't lived, or apparently been to, any of the countries we were talking about. Which is all I needed to know.




This was in response to my reply to spanky that fighting climate change will probably affect developing countries more since they pollute a lot more than, say, Europe. Europe was just an example of how misguided our policies are, in the sense that here in Europe we're always the first to take proactive measures, even though we're not the biggest polluters. Then you replied I'm ignoring the bigger picture. Then I asked for evidence that outsourcing is the cause of Asia's higher level of pollution. And then you just brought some anecdotal evidence, basically saying that you've been living there, that you've been discussing such topics with your friends etc.

No, that's not how it went. I made that post, and then you didn't ask for any evidence, instead you immediately assumed that my post was a criticism of the "West". Rather than just what it was, a nuance you failed to insert in your post, in a way that you often do, to paint a black and white picture.
When I clarified even more that my post wasn't a criticism, and didn't talk about other countries' policies, you tried to double down, and pretend that I started to meme it. You tried to maintain this line until your previous post. This is the first serious post you've written. Took you long enough... But don't try to change the narrative, mate.

Just in case you need a memory refresher
[spoiler=your first 2 posts]
Western, developed countries = bad people
Developing countries = good, innocent but exploited people


Welp, you tried to paint a simplistic picture of "the evil West outsourcing its pollution to developing countries", so I responded in kind. :^|
[/spoiler]



You never actually brought any aggregated evidence, any statistical evidence that would support your point that manufacturing relocation or outsourcing is the primary source of higher pollution in Asia or at least a significant driver of it.
I haven't, because that's never been the point I was trying to make. I never said that the outsourcing/relocating of the waste products European consumerist lifestyle is the main source of pollution in other countries. How many times must I repeat this for you... seriously?


And this is what I've been asking for.


you haven't really asked for anything until you just made it up in this post.

Maybe, I'm not saying you're wrong or completely wrong.Could that relocated or outsourced manufacture contribute by about 15% to Asia's overall pollution?


You're focusing on the wrong country. It's not about the pollution levels in Asia. It's about the pollution levels in Europe. Let's make it abstract, so you might finally understand it...

Country A has no pollution footprint. They import the goods they consume from Country B, where they are manufactured. The manufacturing of these goods, as well as the shipping of these goods, are counted towards Country B's pollution footprint. Country B has a lot of pollution, the manufacturing of goods for Country A is part of that, but not all of it, or even the majority of it.

You say, country A has no pollution footprint, so why should they focus on fixing any of it. I say, you have to factor in the pollution caused by the manufacturing and shipping of the goods in Country B which are required to maintain the lifestyle of Country A, in order to accurately determine their pollution footprint. I also say, if country A produced their own goods, they'd have more pollution than when they don't.

You can bring up Taiwan and what not, but why don't you bring up Nigeria, The amazon, Borneo, Indonesia, or the Congo?

These are just simple facts. No need to turn it into some moralist story of how I'm painting Country A as the devil for causing pollution in Country B or whatever. Just. Stick. To. The. Facts.
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by Dolan »

Why are you assuming that nothing is manufactured in Europe anymore, though? You're making this argument about "exported pollution" (if I may summarise the drift of your argument here), as if most of the products we're buying in Europe are made elsewhere.

I got news for you, m9, most of the consumption taking place in Europe is of products and services made here, in Europe. Even Germany that has one of the highest ratios of trade/GDP in Europe (42.7% according to the WTO, source: http://stat.wto.org/CountryProfile/WSDB ... ountry=DE&) exports a lot more than it imports. Overall Europe's trade balance with the rest of the world is positive. So, if we took your argument literally, the rest of the world is exporting their pollution here, because we manufacture and sell more products to other countries than they do relative to us.

But let's follow your argument further and see what's the balance of trade between EU and some major Asian economies (I'll focus on goods, because that's what it could be argued to produce more pollution):

EU-India: trade balance is negative, so the EU imports more than it exports there. In 2017, the deficit was about €2.5bn, relative to a total €85 billion worth of trade between the two parties. India's GDP in 2017 was approx. €2326bn. So what could the EU's relative environmental footprint on India's economy be? About 0.01% of India's GDP. We're not going to take into account the total amount of trade between the two, because India also imports from the EU, so it could be said that they have almost as much of a footprint on the EU's environment as the EU does on India's.
Source: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countr ... ies/india/

EU-China: negative trade balance by about €-176.4bn in 2017. China's GDP in 2017 was roughly €10703bn. So the EU's potential environmental footprint on China's economy stands at about 1.6% of China's GDP.
Source: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistic ... statistics

EU-Taiwan: €-8.9bn trade deficit. Taiwan's 2017 GDP: €515bn. Potential environmental footprint: 1.7% of Taiwan's GDP.
Sources: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countr ... dex_en.htm
http://stat.wto.org/CountryProfile/WSDB ... Country=TW
It must be said here that Taiwan's trade/GDP ratio was about 62% of their GDP between 2015-17. And the EU's negative trade balance stands at about 1.7%. I wonder which countries are responsible for the 60.3% remainder...

EU-South Korea
: €-0.2bn trade deficit. It's so small, I'm not even sure it's worth computing the total potential environmental footprint on SK's GDP. Their GDP in 2017 was €1370bn. That's about 0.01459% of Taiwan's GDP.

These figures represent the maximum possible environmental footprint that economic exchanges between EU countries and some of the biggest Asian economies could generate. But this is a maximum threshold, it doesn't necessarily mean that all those economic activities which produce the goods that were imported to EU countries were actually polluting. In order to see the real footprint, one would have to actually dig even deeper in the breakdown of specific goods and how they were produced. The EU's site says that about 52% of Chinese imported goods were machinery and vehicles:

Image
Source: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistic ... with_China

So, if we're talking in absolute terms, then yeah, there is a degree to which the EU (I picked the EU, instead of Europe, because it's just easier to find stats and they represent the most powerful economies in Europe anyway) exports some of its economic activity that could theoretically generate pollution, but the percentage is so small, that even with its biggest trading partner, China, stands at about only 1.6% of their GDP. And that's the maximum threshold, the real contribution to China's pollution could be anywhere between 0% and 1.6%.

However, considering that China's total trade/GDP was 19.1% in 2017, you can see how much of their pollution could have been generated by foreign countries importing goods from them and thus "exporting their pollution". (source for this figure: http://stat.wto.org/CountryProfile/WSDB ... Country=CN). Where is the 80.9% rest of economic activity that could have potentially generated pollution coming from? China's own internal market. With other Asian markets, the figure is even bigger, so in the case of India, Taiwan, or South Korea, the contribution of their own domestic consumption on their levels of pollution is even bigger than in China's case.

In conclusion, after looking at the data, you're right in principle, but wrong in terms of significance. Europe (metonimically called here EU) does export some pollution to Asia, but the percentage is so low, it's in the small under 1% digits.

So what should the EU do to remove any trace of environmental footprint on Asia's economies? Stop buying any product made in China, because that's where the bulk of Asian imports are coming from. If you're buying products made in more environmentall conscious countries like Japan, you could be contributing towards reducing Europe's environmental footprint on Asia's economies. I've already started doing that a few years ago, I'm hoping everyone else will follow suit.

Note. I've used https://www.x-rates.com/average/?from=U ... &year=2017 to convert historical USD-EUR rates for 2017.
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by deleted_user0 »

Im aware that stuff is produced in europe, my example was an abstraction, to clarify my point only. Which it seems it partially has.

You're still however, getting it the wrong way around. It's not about the 1% here or there in the other countries, that is if i'd accept your reasoning for those numbers, which i don't (i must clarify this, i dont mean i doubt your numbers, i just mean that as you said, you cant just convert dollars to pollution. Not all of the trade done is polluting, and things which might pollite a lot might sell for cheap and so dont seem significant in a multi billion dollar scheme) but it's about what those numbers add up to, and how they compare to what the amount of waste/pollution produced in the eu.

Trade deficits and such, is about money, which only represents the value people attach to it. So it can very easily be the case that what the eu produces, while more in value, is less in quantity, or less in pollution. Ofcourse this is a very complex issue, and i cant crunch all the numbers or discern all the variables, but it seems logical to me, that when you try to establish how much a person pollutes, you take into account not just the pollition they creaty directly, but also indirectly, by the lifestyle they maintain. So when amazon rainforest is cut down to produce goods, partially destined for the western market, this has to be added to that footprint. Same for cobalt mines, oil reserves, droughts caused by intensive monoculture agriculture etc etc. This is obviously not just true for europe, but also for the us, china, etc.
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by Dolan »

I have to make a few qualifying statements though regarding my argument.

1. This is just an abstract argument which calculates the potential footprint of EU's "exported pollution" via imported goods. In reality, the goods which are exchanged don't necessarily have an equivalent pollutant impact. So for example, if India imports whiskey and German cars and they export textiles, it's more difficult to evaluate which kind of product might pollute more. Which brings me to the next point.

2. Generally, since the EU has stricter environmental laws, products made in the EU are likely to generate less pollution. On the flipside, the EU also has strict regulations for imported goods, so companies from outside the EU which want to export here need to follow some environmental and product standards to be able to sell their products here. So, correspondently, it's very likely that products made in Asia for EU markets need to follow EU environmental standards (such as avoid using certain heavy metals or poisonous substances in making their products). You've probably often seen in EU shops products which were labelled "made using ethical standards in X country" (as guaranteed by Oxfam) (I know I've seen chocolate that was produced with cocoa sourced from African countries and it was specifically mentioned that the whole process of production was done in the most ethical way possible). This is just an example, but there are also more general rules, such as those which require companies which export products to the EU to label their products and follow environmental standards.

Since you brought up the Amazon forest example, it's illegal to import illegally harvested timber in the EU or products made using it.
It's also illegal to import endangered species, like some kinds of fish, without accompanying documentation which clarifies its origin:
Fishery products shall only be imported into the European Union (EU) when accompanied by a catch certificate as laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 (OJ L-286 29/10/2008) (CELEX 32008R1005), establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing.

Batteries which contain more than a certain amount of cadmium or mercury are also prohibited:
The placing on the market of the following batteries and accumulators containing hazardous substances is prohibited:
batteries and accumulators, whether or not incorporated into appliances, containing more than 0.0005% of mercury by weight;
portable batteries and accumulators, including those incorporated into appliances, with a cadmium content by weight of more than 0.002% (except for portable batteries and accumulators for use in emergency and alarm systems or in medical equipment).

Etc etc etc. There are tens of such EU regulations which impose environmental standards on the products that can be imported in the EU. And if you are forbidden from using more pollutant substances in a certain product, then you are also likely to use less pollutant substances during its manufacture.

You also have to bear in mind that some companies like Apple are publicly commited to reducing their environmental footprint, they actually use this as a marketing selling point. They claim their products are made using the highest possible environmental standards. So, very often, products which are sold on developed markets tend to follow much better environmental standards than those produced for the domestic consumption in their countries of origin.
User avatar
Norway spanky4ever
Gendarme
iwillspankyou
Posts: 8389
Joined: Apr 13, 2015

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by spanky4ever »

Guess who just announced running for Potus 2020 :love:
Not going to say I told you so, (but I did)
:lol:
(Visper Bernie Sanders)
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?

All-time

Active last two weeks

Active last month

Supremacy

Treaty

Official

ESOC Patch

Treaty Patch

1v1 Elo

2v2 Elo

3v3 Elo

Power Rating

Which streams do you wish to see listed?

Twitch

Age of Empires III

Age of Empires IV