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:
Dolan wrote:I'm not particularly interested in fiscal policies. The subject kinda becomes necessary to discuss, though, when issues such as "economic inequality and ways to fix that" come up.
Not in your opinion, though?

Exactly. Most of the time when I am in the position of discussing such topics it's not because I think they are consequential to the issue at hand, but because people believe them to be so. And so, it becomes necessary to touch on those subjects simply because one needs to dispel some misconceptions first, to clear the way for a proper discussion.
It's also the reason why I'm often in the position of explaining the reasons behind why "things are the way they are" in the current establishment, even though this makes me appear like I'm defending the establishment or I'm supporting it, which I'm not. It's because people are so uninformed, unfortunately, and they do not understand how things work. And I don't say this with any degree of arrogance or conceitedness -- there are good reasons why they don't understand: they are too busy with their own lives and jobs and don't really have the time or the interest to follow everything that happens in politics or finance. Or they do follow to some extent, but they just lack the practical experience, so they come at it from very philosophical and idealistic angles. Some of them even fall for the cheapest conspiracy stories, as we've seen during the Trump-Clinton electoral clash.
I'm not talking about increasing taxes. There are many other ways to reduce inequality FYI.

Such as?

Among other things: Social security, health care reform, higher standards in public education, higher minimum wage.

The world has made huge progress on all those fronts, during the last decades or even last two centuries. For example, a few indicators:







Minimum wages have also been going higher and higher, though that's a less relevant indicator, it should be collated with purchasing power stats. Purchasing power has also been going up, with the exception of the lowest level of income since the 2008 crisis. But that's another story, because nobody really knows how to fix the current state of economies around the globe. There's a paradigm vacuum that officials don't want or like to admit. In many ways the world economy is in unchartered territory, with authorities still trying to make it work like in the pre-2008 era and scratching their heads when it doesn't work anymore according to the prevailing textbooks.

But anyway, the point I was trying to make here is that there's way too much negativity around the subject and we often forget the huge progress the world has made during the last two centuries. We forget where we came from, a place where poverty was way way more widespread, where infant mortality was very high and most people were living on under $1.70 per day (in purchasing power equivalent).

That idea already exists in practice, as I've mentioned before, it's called profit-sharing schemes. I was just proposing to extend it to every kind of business and standardise it as a way to improve workers' participation in the economy (not just to "reduce inequalities", which is a rather vague and fanciful objective).
A lot of things exist in practice. That doesn't mean introducing it everywhere is realistic. And it's not.

Simply saying it's unrealistic doesn't make it so.

It works fine, just not in the USA (among other places). For many reasons, one of which is that SCOTUS set a disastrous precedent in the citizens united case. Sure, it's hard to stop people from using money to support their favourite candidate, but there are plenty of ways to discourage it, including and not limited to explicitly forbidding it.
So yeah, the US tried it, SCOTUS fucked up, and their decision should be rectified by the legislature. In most other developed economies it works just fine.

Does it really work fine though? For example, the Netherlands is known for its very permissive legislation which allows corporations to declare their registered offices there and move their profits to foreign subsidiaries which are most of the time fiscal paradises. This enables lots of corporations to get away with lots of shady operations that work on a global level. One such recent case was the Bayrock BV corporation registered in the Netherlands which apparently operated as a joint venture by Trump and some Kazakh/Russian associates. The story was reported by the left-wing investigative arm of a Dutch TV station (Zembla, part of Omroepvereniging VARA).

When I think of lower classes I think of people living in poverty or barely making do while working 3 jobs. A common sight in the US. Factories in China put there by big Western corporations to reduce production costs also come to mind.

And yet, overall the world has made great progress in eradicating poverty:



This was New York sometime at the start of the 20th century:

Image

Dunbar, Louisiana, March 1911:
Image

Child labour in a USA cannery in Dunbar, Louisiana (1911):

Image
Image
Image


In 1910, the USA was one of the biggest world economic powers, by 1920 it was the supreme economic power, after displacing the UK at the top spot.
And yet, pictures from its most developed cities show a level of development and public services that was comparable to Soviet-era run-down backwaters.

Fast-forward one century later, primary education is compulsory for everyone, public goods have improved massively, basic public health indicators are probably at their highest level ever, etc.
But since people have not experienced those times, they tend to project their unhappiness on differences in relative wealth, because people are naturally competitive animals and can't stand if someone is doing better than they are. Or, for those of leftwing leanings, they can't stand that there's always some segment of the population that is always doing worse compared to other segments. Which is how things have been ever since the dawn of this species, as far as we can tell.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by Goodspeed »

Dolan wrote:
Goodspeed wrote:
Dolan wrote:I'm not particularly interested in fiscal policies. The subject kinda becomes necessary to discuss, though, when issues such as "economic inequality and ways to fix that" come up.
Not in your opinion, though?
Exactly. Most of the time when I am in the position of discussing such topics it's not because I think they are consequential to the issue at hand, but because people believe them to be so. And so, it becomes necessary to touch on those subjects simply because one needs to dispel some misconceptions first, to clear the way for a proper discussion.
It's also the reason why I'm often in the position of explaining the reasons behind why "things are the way they are" in the current establishment, even though this makes me appear like I'm defending the establishment or I'm supporting it, which I'm not. It's because people are so uninformed, unfortunately, and they do not understand how things work. And I don't say this with any degree of arrogance or conceitedness -- there are good reasons why they don't understand: they are too busy with their own lives and jobs and don't really have the time or the interest to follow everything that happens in politics or finance. Or they do follow to some extent, but they just lack the practical experience, so they come at it from very philosophical and idealistic angles. Some of them even fall for the cheapest conspiracy stories, as we've seen during the Trump-Clinton electoral clash.
I think you do say it with a degree of arrogance and conceitedness. You apparently don't realize that your opinion on this matter is just that: an opinion. And yeah, a lot of people are clueless on both sides, but there are also plenty of people much more informed than you who are arguing for taxing the rich more. And no, not just politicians who are trying to get votes. You try to hide your own bias by appealing to authority, when you have little to no authority to speak of. Your "everyone who doesn't agree with me just doesn't understand how the world works" attitude in this is partly why I'm not at all interested in getting into it. It's a recipe for a repetitive and fruitless discussion.
The world has made huge progress on all those fronts, during the last decades or even last two centuries.
For sure. But importantly America, among other places, has been lagging behind and in many ways going the wrong direction. And that is worrying. The rise of authoritarian regimes across the globe is also worrying.
But anyway, the point I was trying to make here is that there's way too much negativity around the subject and we often forget the huge progress the world has made during the last two centuries. We forget where we came from, a place where poverty was way way more widespread, where infant mortality was very high and most people were living on under $1.70 per day (in purchasing power equivalent).
It's just that we have the resources, the infrastructure, and the knowledge to be doing much more than we are doing. The fact that we are making progress in the grand scheme of things doesn't invalidate concerns about the speed of that progress or the many problems that still exist, some of which are showing no signs of improving.
That idea already exists in practice, as I've mentioned before, it's called profit-sharing schemes. I was just proposing to extend it to every kind of business and standardise it as a way to improve workers' participation in the economy (not just to "reduce inequalities", which is a rather vague and fanciful objective).
A lot of things exist in practice. That doesn't mean introducing it everywhere is realistic. And it's not.

Simply saying it's unrealistic doesn't make it so.
No, it being unrealistic makes it so. I'd love to be proven wrong about this in the future, but I don't see it happening before widespread automation forces us to adopt very different legislation.
It works fine, just not in the USA (among other places). For many reasons, one of which is that SCOTUS set a disastrous precedent in the citizens united case. Sure, it's hard to stop people from using money to support their favourite candidate, but there are plenty of ways to discourage it, including and not limited to explicitly forbidding it.
So yeah, the US tried it, SCOTUS fucked up, and their decision should be rectified by the legislature. In most other developed economies it works just fine.

Does it really work fine though? For example, the Netherlands is known for its very permissive legislation which allows corporations to declare their registered offices there and move their profits to foreign subsidiaries which are most of the time fiscal paradises. This enables lots of corporations to get away with lots of shady operations that work on a global level. One such recent case was the Bayrock BV corporation registered in the Netherlands which apparently operated as a joint venture by Trump and some Kazakh/Russian associates. The story was reported by the left-wing investigative arm of a Dutch TV station (Zembla, part of Omroepvereniging VARA).
We were talking about campaign finance.
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by Dolan »

Goodspeed wrote:I think you do say it with a degree of arrogance and conceitedness. You apparently don't realize that your opinion on this matter is just that: an opinion. And yeah, a lot of people are clueless on both sides, but there are also plenty of people much more informed than you who are arguing for taxing the rich more. And no, not just politicians who are trying to get votes. You try to hide your own bias by appealing to authority, when you have little to no authority to speak of. Your "everyone who doesn't agree with me just doesn't understand how the world works" attitude in this is partly why I'm not at all interested in getting into it. It's a recipe for a repetitive and fruitless discussion.

I think what I say is a bit more than a random opinion. First of all, I have a degree in political science and a post-graduate course in financial management, as well as a master's degree in something that's no longer of interest to me (something related to political communication). Secondly, I have worked for a few years in this field (both at a national and supranational level), and I did work with such or similar data. Thirdly, I am always talking based on evidence, using data that has been produced by some of the most credible sources, using high standards of collection and aggregation. Are there people out there with much more experience than me? Sure, there are. Are there people out there with more academic experience? Sure there are. But this is no particle physics, social sciences are not particularly known for having a high degree of predictive power, since we're far from being able to predict aggregate human behaviour. So, anyone who has a basic training in this field, a modicum of practical experience working with the data and a capacity to make syllogisms can say something relevant on these subjects. And it's often the case that not the most tenured academics or the ones with the longest experience in the field are able to make the best predictions. Roubini was just some random New York professor when he predicted the 2008 crash. After he gained more media attention, he's now considered a leading commentator on economic trends. This means that while a layman wouldn't have been able to make such predictions, you don't have to be a Nobel laurate to make the most accurate predictions or analyses. Once you have some basic training (a degree etc) and some practical experience, you are able to work with data and make relevant inferences.

It's just that we have the resources, the infrastructure, and the knowledge to be doing much more than we are doing. The fact that we are making progress in the grand scheme of things doesn't invalidate concerns about the speed of that progress or the many problems that still exist, some of which are showing no signs of improving.

Of course, there's always room for more. But we should put things in perspective from time to time, just to realise how much better off we are compared to past centuries. It should be a humbling experience for most people today, who take things they get for free for granted. This is probably one of the most self-entitled generations to have ever walked the earth.
We were talking about campaign finance.

Yeah, it's an example that doesn't directly address the issue of money involved in national electoral campaigns, but it does show the extent to which political candidates like Trump were able to form dubious business relationships across the world, because countries like the Netherlands enable them to do so. So the point I was making is that it's hard to claim that some Western and Nordic countries are as pristine and innocent as Snow White in this narrative, when their business and legal environments enable these rich people to get away with a lot of such shady dealings.
User avatar
Norway spanky4ever
Gendarme
iwillspankyou
Posts: 8389
Joined: Apr 13, 2015

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by spanky4ever »

@Dolan want us to believe this:

But this is no particle physics, social sciences are not particularly known for having a high degree of predictive power, since we're far from being able to predict aggregate human behaviour.


and

This is probably one of the most self-entitled generations to have ever walked the earth.


while displaying pictures from poverty 100 years back.

Among the social sciences are also History.
History has the nasty habit of repeating itself on these issues. And history will tell you that no society has ever succeeded in remaining in power when inequality is this high, and so many ppl are suffering when those in power are not willing to make changes. That is why we had Brexit, and Trump was elected based on his stack pile of lies: that he was going to bring good paying jobs back, AND he was going to get everybody health insurance that was both cheap and covered everybody and every health issue. He did not mean that of course, he had plenty of help from Cambridge Analytica to form his campaign messages to fit what ppl really want. But even if he was cheating, and the same thing can probably be said about how Brexit conducted their campaign, it does not take away the great rumble from ppl left behind, saying they had enough of all the profit going to the top 1%, while their wages have been stagnant or declining for decades.

About the young ppl you so often want to slander; they are the first generation for a very long time, who will not have the opportunities that their parents had, for education, for a good paying job. They will be left with a climate that can be catastrophic for them and their children, and that my friend Dolan, will also have a catastrophic effect on the global economy. Do you wonder why there is such a big upset among millennials? seriously?

So things will change, and ppl are screaming for it to happen, and that is where your hated AOC Keyboard (as you like to call her) come into the picture. She is popular because she talks about the changes that need to happen, and may I add, really fast when we talk about the Green New Deal. You can quote me on that, further down the road.
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by Goodspeed »

Dolan wrote:
Goodspeed wrote:I think you do say it with a degree of arrogance and conceitedness. You apparently don't realize that your opinion on this matter is just that: an opinion. And yeah, a lot of people are clueless on both sides, but there are also plenty of people much more informed than you who are arguing for taxing the rich more. And no, not just politicians who are trying to get votes. You try to hide your own bias by appealing to authority, when you have little to no authority to speak of. Your "everyone who doesn't agree with me just doesn't understand how the world works" attitude in this is partly why I'm not at all interested in getting into it. It's a recipe for a repetitive and fruitless discussion.
I think what I say is a bit more than a random opinion. First of all, I have a degree in political science and a post-graduate course in financial management, as well as a master's degree in something that's no longer of interest to me (something related to political communication). Secondly, I have worked for a few years in this field (both at a national and supranational level), and I did work with such or similar data. Thirdly, I am always talking based on evidence, using data that has been produced by some of the most credible sources, using high standards of collection and aggregation. Are there people out there with much more experience than me? Sure, there are. Are there people out there with more academic experience? Sure there are. But this is no particle physics, social sciences are not particularly known for having a high degree of predictive power, since we're far from being able to predict aggregate human behaviour. So, anyone who has a basic training in this field, a modicum of practical experience working with the data and a capacity to make syllogisms can say something relevant on these subjects. And it's often the case that not the most tenured academics or the ones with the longest experience in the field are able to make the best predictions. Roubini was just some random New York professor when he predicted the 2008 crash. After he gained more media attention, he's now considered a leading commentator on economic trends. This means that while a layman wouldn't have been able to make such predictions, you don't have to be a Nobel laurate to make the most accurate predictions or analyses. Once you have some basic training (a degree etc) and some practical experience, you are able to work with data and make relevant inferences.
I don't doubt your opinions are based on data. I don't necessarily agree with the conclusions you drew. Qualifications change nothing about the fact that your opinion is an opinion, it just makes you more likely to appeal to authority and then say that anyone who disagrees doesn't understand how the world works, I suppose. The fact that you are presenting highly misleading graphs as if they mean anything is, to me, a sign that you haven't come to terms with your own bias. You interpret data in a way that confirms your existing beliefs, like everyone else, and your confirmation bias had a field day with that, considering you have a history of working/studying in related fields. Anyone in your position would have slowly but surely moved just the one way, discarding dissenting opinions with increasing confidence. I have no interest in discussing the subject with someone as set in their ways as you are.

It's just that we have the resources, the infrastructure, and the knowledge to be doing much more than we are doing. The fact that we are making progress in the grand scheme of things doesn't invalidate concerns about the speed of that progress or the many problems that still exist, some of which are showing no signs of improving.

Of course, there's always room for more. But we should put things in perspective from time to time, just to realise how much better off we are compared to past centuries. It should be a humbling experience for most people today, who take things they get for free for granted. This is probably one of the most self-entitled generations to have ever walked the earth.
Oh yeah, most of us are much better off. And it is humbling. But we should realize that, while we're here living our pampered lives, there are many people still fighting for survival. There are way too many people in very rich countries like the USA living in poverty, or almost living in poverty, while working multiple jobs. I hate to bring up the 10 year old Chinese girl again, but you try telling her, with a straight face, how much the world improved in the past couple of centuries. What's entitled is sitting in your ivory tower, looking at numbers, proclaiming that things are improving and shrugging off widespread poverty.

We were talking about campaign finance.

Yeah, it's an example that doesn't directly address the issue of money involved in national electoral campaigns, but it does show the extent to which political candidates like Trump were able to form dubious business relationships across the world, because countries like the Netherlands enable them to do so. So the point I was making is that it's hard to claim that some Western and Nordic countries are as pristine and innocent as Snow White in this narrative, when their business and legal environments enable these rich people to get away with a lot of such shady dealings.
It remains completely irrelevant to campaign finance. Yes, capitalism needs regulated in many other areas as well. But the first priority should be getting money out of politics, because what chance do we have of introducing other necessary regulations which are against the best interests of corporations, when corporations are controlling politics?
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by Dolan »

@spanky4ever
That's true, when pressures accumulate in society, there's likely to be some social upheavals. This has happened so many times before and look where we are now. Did we eliminate inequality or did we reduce inequality by going through so many changes? What does that tell you if after going through social changes that were meant to reduce inequalities we're still seeing a return to social polarisation? Maybe there's something inherent in human nature which leads to these dynamics? Maybe that's what the Pareto principle is describing, a mysterious tendency for social dynamics to eventually lead to similar polarised outcomes, no matter how we structure social systems.

I'm not sure that Trump's election and Brexit could be really attributed to perceived growing inequalities. The people who voted for Trump and for Brexit weren't those protesting for "Occupy Wall Street" or against globalisation at G7 meetings. They weren't leftwing supporters. It's likely they were people sick and tired of uncontrolled immigration, a perception that their culture is falling apart because of a growing influence of politically correct policies, too much Western military involvement abroad and too much public expense playing wargames in the Middle East when domestic policies are failing, a perception that jobs were being lost at home because companies were importing cheap labour on work visas (in the USA, but also in another form in the UK), and Britons' centuries' old sense of superiority towards continental Europe (their Euroscepticism is not something recent, it's been a long-standing tradition in their politics), etc.

I'm not slandering young people, lol, I'm part of this generation. And yeah and very much aware of everyone's troubles with expensive housing, a worsening labour market, low access to affordable credit, etc. We don't have a problem with expensive education in Europe though, that's pretty much an American issue. Despite Americans having some of the highest incomes per capita according to statistics per each profession, they also have some of the highest living costs. So their purchasing power, on average, is actually below that of Europeans.

I was just reading about someone who worked for Google and who was very well paid, even by USA standards, but who had to move out of the San Francisco area and get a job back in his home country (Canada) because costs of living in that area were way too high (he was paying $5000/month for kids' school and $5000/month for rent).

Millennials are not so much upset by climate change as they are about high costs of living relative to a tepid economy that doesn't allow much in the way of "upward mobility" dreams. Yeah, the dream is kinda over from an economic point of view and it's not just "the rich" who are to blame but the rich are useful targets. Just as immigrants are useful targets too. That doesn't mean the rich or immigrants caused the 2008 financial crisis or the current slowdown in China.

AOC is completely insignificant in this scheme of things. She's just a political communication stunt, set up by the Democratic Party. I'm growing more and more certain she was scouted and coopted much like modelling agencies scout their walking coathangers, aka models. She's supposed to energise their young base and "connect with millennials". And spout all sorts of well-meaning generalities about how we should raise taxes for the rich in order to save the planet and stop climate change. I'm not even going to post any of those videos in which right-wing supporters are making fun of her bullshit generic statements and about her fake "Bronx" street credentials. It's all so obvious, but well, again, it's obvious to someone who worked in this field and has seen such PR stunts done before. But well, people also believed in Obama's "change you can believe in". :lol:

So what can I say...
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by Dolan »

Goodspeed wrote: you are presenting highly misleading graphs

You haven't proved that, though. Those graphs are based on data, it's just a nicer and easier-to-read format of presenting otherwise much too boring tables. It just sounds to me like you're running out of arguments, tbh, and now you're saying "well it's just your opinion and you're making appeals to authority, etc". Which authority? If the argument is based on data, what kind of authority am I appealing to?
That's fine if you don't want to debate or don't think it's worth debating. I'm always up for a debate with anyone of any political orientation, if I have the time and I think the subject is worth debating.

we should realize that, while we're here living our pampered lives, there are many people still fighting for survival. There are way too many people in very rich countries like the USA living in poverty, or almost living in poverty, while working multiple jobs. I hate to bring up the 10 year old Chinese girl again, but you try telling her, with a straight face, how much the world improved in the past couple of centuries. What's entitled is sitting in your ivory tower, looking at numbers, proclaiming that things are improving and shrugging off widespread poverty.

Yeah, sure, there still is poverty even in developed countries. Those graphs were only meant to show how much progress we made in reducing poverty levels across the world. "We" is a way of saying, because obviously poverty levels in China weren't reduced thanks to Western policies. The Chinese managed to lift their living standards a lot ever since they gradually implemented a hybrid system, which kept the advantages of having a market-based economy, while the Communist party continued to control society with an iron grip.

It remains completely irrelevant to campaign finance. Yes, capitalism needs regulated in many other areas as well. But the first priority should be getting money out of politics, because what chance do we have of introducing other necessary regulations which are against the best interests of corporations, when corporations are controlling politics?

Removing those loopholes in legislation which allow the creation of such global vehicles for companies to exploit would be a start too. Because then we wouldn't see the likes of Trump and Murdochs flourishing and influencing politics, if countries like the Netherlands removed those legal facitilies which allow them to operate on a global level at very low costs. I'm all for shutting down all those fiscal paradises too. Then we'll see how much appetite for financing political campaigns they'll still have if such legal loopholes are removed from legislation.
User avatar
Norway spanky4ever
Gendarme
iwillspankyou
Posts: 8389
Joined: Apr 13, 2015

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by spanky4ever »

@Dolan here we go again:
AOC is completely insignificant in this scheme of things. She's just a political communication stunt, set up by the Democratic Party.

Who do you perceive as the Democratic party here? To me, she is as much in opposition to the Democratic party establishment, who after all are in majority in the Congress and Senate - would you not agree? She is dragging them to the left, kicking and screaming :P while their fighting everything she stands for.
They will not succeed I hope, because if they do, they are also betraying the vast majority of their voter base. If they go to hard on her, it will split the party, paving the way for a 3rd party.

The other things you say, like
Millennials are not so much upset by climate change as they are about high costs of living relative to a tepid economy that doesn't allow much in the way of "upward mobility" dreams.

I guess that is how you think it is, and not based on actual facts?

I'm not sure that Trump's election and Brexit could be really attributed to perceived growing inequalities.

As I said, its a rumble from the ppl who were left behind, who lost their jobs or saw their paycheck diminished, and who suffered austerity after the 2008 crash. You know that of course, that the ppl who caused the crash did not suffer. They got bailed out, while 100 000s of US citizens had to leave their home and the only thing they could bring with them was the mortgage on their lost home.
In UK the austerity politics has been ongoing ever since Thatcher - only worse after the 2008 crash.

It's likely they were people sick and tired of uncontrolled immigration, a perception that their culture is falling apart because of a growing influence of politically correct policies, too much Western military involvement abroad and too much public expense war games in the Middle East when domestic policies are failing, a perception that jobs were being lost at home because companies were importing cheap labour on work visas


Yes, aren't we all sick and tired of it the constant wars? And sure, ppl will get angry if they lose their job to ppl who underbid them, and all the shenanigans that have been going on with Eastern European labor who are exploited and work for slave wages? Not saying that ALL of them are exploited, but a fair amount of them are, big enough to destabilize the job market. This is not only happening in the UK and USA - plenty of examples in my own country.

(in the USA, but also in another form in the UK), and Britons' centuries' old sense of superiority towards continental Europe (their Euroscepticism is not something recent, it's been a long-standing tradition in their politics), etc.

Here you slide back to your slander and smears of other countries - again :maniac:

last but not least
That's true when pressures accumulate in society, there's likely to be some social upheavals. This has happened so many times before and looks where we are now. Did we eliminate inequality or did we reduce inequality by going through so many changes? What does that tell you if after going through social changes that were meant to reduce inequalities we're still seeing a return to social polarisation? Maybe there's something inherent in human nature which leads to these dynamics?

I do not know if its something inherent in human nature in general, but I think many ppl who elbow their way up, do it for greed, power, and egoism. I only know that uprise will happen again, once the big mass of ppl has had enough. I hope for a political solution like US ppl will vote for enough candidates who are not beholden of corporate briberies for their re-election. Here is where ppl like Bernie Sanders and AOC are representing a real choice.
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by Goodspeed »

Dolan wrote:
Goodspeed wrote: you are presenting highly misleading graphs
You haven't proved that, though. Those graphs are based on data, it's just a nicer and easier-to-read format of presenting otherwise much too boring tables. It just sounds to me like you're running out of arguments, tbh, and now you're saying "well it's just your opinion and you're making appeals to authority, etc". Which authority? If the argument is based on data, what kind of authority am I appealing to?
That's fine if you don't want to debate or don't think it's worth debating. I'm always up for a debate with anyone of any political orientation, if I have the time and I think the subject is worth debating.
How can I be running out of arguments if I never presented any? You were the one to bring up tax reform and my only response has been that I'm not interested in it.

It remains completely irrelevant to campaign finance. Yes, capitalism needs regulated in many other areas as well. But the first priority should be getting money out of politics, because what chance do we have of introducing other necessary regulations which are against the best interests of corporations, when corporations are controlling politics?

Removing those loopholes in legislation which allow the creation of such global vehicles for companies to exploit would be a start too. Because then we wouldn't see the likes of Trump and Murdochs flourishing and influencing politics, if countries like the Netherlands removed those legal facitilies which allow them to operate on a global level at very low costs. I'm all for shutting down all those fiscal paradises too. Then we'll see how much appetite for financing political campaigns they'll still have if such legal loopholes are removed from legislation.
The same amount? They will continue to finance campaigns at least as long as it is not explicitly illegal. I don't know why you're bringing up tax loopholes overseas in this context, when it is perfectly legal in the US to spend your money on promoting your favourite candidate. No loopholes needed. You're not magically fixing American campaign finance law by changing the law in other countries.
Anyway I never said NL has everything figured out, but importantly we have managed to prevent big corporations from undermining our democracy. Which is what we're talking about here.
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by Dolan »

iwillspankyou wrote:Who do you perceive as the Democratic party here? To me, she is as much in opposition to the Democratic party establishment, who after all are in majority in the Congress and Senate - would you not agree? She is dragging them to the left, kicking and screaming :P while their fighting everything she stands for.
They will not succeed I hope, because if they do, they are also betraying the vast majority of their voter base. If they go to hard on her, it will split the party, paving the way for a 3rd party.

She was elected to the Congress on the Democratic Party's lists, not as an independent. How do you think she got there, by opposing them? Not sure if you are aware, but some people pay large sums of money to be on those lists, to get a chance to run for a seat in the congress. And she was put there on those lists by the party. Meaning she is part of their plans. That's how parties work, you don't just walk in a party office and just say you want to run for congress and they immediately feel obliged to put your name on the list. If they entrust you with representing them, this means you are doing them a specific service. They are investing their whole campaign infrastructure in getting you elected. So, surely you don't get there by mocking, forcing them to do anything or opposing them, that's just fairy tales.

The other things you say, like
Millennials are not so much upset by climate change as they are about high costs of living relative to a tepid economy that doesn't allow much in the way of "upward mobility" dreams.

I guess that is how you think it is, and not based on actual facts?

Do you really think millennials are losing their sleep over climate change? Do you think they can't get out of the house out of fear that the climate is changing? That they sometimes lay under blankets, ridden with fear, paralysed by the thought that the climate has been changing during the last few decades? Sure, if you make a poll and ask them what's on their minds, they're going to quote climate change among other things, because that's what they hear in the media. If what they heard in the media was that too many trees are being cut down or too much plastic is being discarded in the sea, that's what they'd mention in their answers. It's not because they feel it every day, it's not because it's making them arrive late for work, or increasing the costs of their rent, it's not because it's directly affecting them, it's because that's what they are exposed to in the media, it's the main global anxiety-inducing narrative that is being run by the media. Or do you think that they actually spent time reading climate change research during the weekends, that they visited Antarctica and checked the thickness of the polar caps to make sure it's really happening? Or did they just read a piece of news on the BBC site and concluded "that's it, we're screwed, that's what the BBC says"? How do you think millennials became so collectively concerned with climate change?

As I said, its a rumble from the ppl who were left behind, who lost their jobs or saw their paycheck diminished, and who suffered austerity after the 2008 crash. You know that of course, that the ppl who caused the crash did not suffer. They got bailed out, while 100 000s of US citizens had to leave their home and the only thing they could bring with them was the mortgage on their lost home.
In UK the austerity politics has been ongoing ever since Thatcher - only worse after the 2008 crash.

Nah, really you are just distorting election and poll results to fit your preferred narrative. Search this "81 percent of white evangelical voters voted for Trump". So the pious, religiously zealous electorate from America voted for Trump en masse. Why do you think they would ever do that? Because they were blue collar workers frustrated with the establishment and the Clintons? Blue collar workers have always voted for the Dems, never for Repubs. No. It's the Evangelicals that have always been great supporters of the Republican party and that's precisely because they uphold their highly conservative agenda: no marriage rights for homosexuals, no special rights for transsexuals, no obligation for company employees to act against their own religious conscience and provide services to people who marry same-sex partners, no rights for abortion, no obligation to teach Darwinism in schools and so on and so forth. They've been fighting these cultural wars in the USA for decades. And they've always supported conservative Republican candidates. And they supported Trump.
On top of that, there were lots of young voters who were disgusted with the establishment and just wanted to see it burn, they basically wanted to punish the Clintons and the whole political establishment, including the neo-cons (the "deep state" as they call it) who always argue in favour of engaging the USA in overseas strategic wargames.
It's not my opinion or interpretation of these events, it's what the polls say. It's what Trump's voters say. Sure, maybe there also was like a small segment of disgruntled blue collar workers who were hoping that Trump would bring back more jobs if he closed the floodgates of immigration and slapped US companies with conditions to move their production back to the USA. There were probably a bunch of those too, but the bulk of Trump's voters were evangelicals, conservatives, Republicans, ex-Tea Party supporters, etc.

(in the USA, but also in another form in the UK), and Britons' centuries' old sense of superiority towards continental Europe (their Euroscepticism is not something recent, it's been a long-standing tradition in their politics), etc.

Here you slide back to your slander and smears of other countries - again :maniac:

I'm not saying this as an insult, they're actually quite proud of that. We used to have some guy from Wales here who was arguing along those lines: fuck the EU, they're the new USSR, unelected bureaucrats yadda yadda yadda, same old shit that we've been hearing from the UK since the 1970s. This is nothing new, they even had a referendum back in the 70s which they lost. And that opinion current has been smoldering for decades in the UK, it's been slowly and steadily intensifying until it found an outlet in the anti-migration issue, that was artificially created by the tabloid press in the UK. They were all in a frenzy about Eastern Europeans invading the UK, taking all their jobs etc etc. I know what I'm saying when I'm calling this "sense of superiority", if you don't believe this, you can open the https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Commons site any day of the week when there is a debate on Brexit and see it for yourself. Especially when members of the extreme Eurosceptic wing of the Tory party (associated with the ERG) hold a speech (they're usually placed on the left side of the back benches on the Speaker's right).

I do not know if its something inherent in human nature in general, but I think many ppl who elbow their way up, do it for greed, power, and egoism. I only know that uprise will happen again, once the big mass of ppl has had enough. I hope for a political solution like US ppl will vote for enough candidates who are not beholden of corporate briberies for their re-election. Here is where ppl like Bernie Sanders and AOC are representing a real choice.

Ok.
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by Dolan »

Goodspeed wrote:The same amount? They will continue to finance campaigns at least as long as it is not explicitly illegal. I don't know why you're bringing up tax loopholes overseas in this context, when it is perfectly legal in the US to spend your money on promoting your favourite candidate. No loopholes needed. You're not magically fixing American campaign finance law by changing the law in other countries.
Anyway I never said NL has everything figured out, but importantly we have managed to prevent big corporations from undermining our democracy. Which is what we're talking about here.

And how do you think candidates will be able to afford running campaigns across 50 states, over an area of 9.8 million km2? Do you think the state can afford to spend tens of millions on candidates that are going to lose elections? And what if some people run for president just because they want the state to pay for their expenses for a few months? They get to visit the country by plane, they get free food, visiting lots of new places, who wouldn't want to run for president if the state is paying for all that?

Yeah, I think the Netherlands is one of those states that is a major enabler of lots of shady financial arrangements. It's no coincidence that such an arrangement is actually called "the Dutch Sandwich". And it's so fucking funny, because the NL is full of leftwing activists, who raise their fists against globalisation, against racists, and in favour of whatever new trend in progressivism is out there, but they don't have any impact whatsoever in getting this changed.
User avatar
Norway spanky4ever
Gendarme
iwillspankyou
Posts: 8389
Joined: Apr 13, 2015

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by spanky4ever »

@Dolan
She was elected to the Congress on the Democratic Party's lists, not as an independent. How do you think she got there, by opposing them?

hell yeah ;)
https://youtu.be/Ot1etonOf_M
she knocked on every door
and won against Joe Crowley, who were the next in line of corporate dems ;) (she won with 80 -20)

https://youtu.be/CKOPooTwXEo

she won it Giggly ;)
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by Dolan »

Why do you think she is a member of the Democratic party? How do you think she joined the party? 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?

Or is everything about this story only based on emotions and reasons just never matter? ^^

Well, anyway, I think it doesn't matter what I say, people are just hypnotised, it's pointless to argue with people who think with their subcortical areas most of the time. :uglylol:
User avatar
Norway spanky4ever
Gendarme
iwillspankyou
Posts: 8389
Joined: Apr 13, 2015

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by spanky4ever »

Dolan wrote:Why do you think she is a member of the Democratic party? How do you think she joined the party? 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?

Or is everything about this story only based on emotions and reasons just never matter? ^^

let me teach you here; there are only 2 parties in USA, and the Dems used to be the workers party, thats why :P
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 »

I'm not slandering young people, lol, I'm part of this generation

with all that education, and all the practice you say you have. I would think you are over the 40s. pardon for me saying this.
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by Dolan »

I did a lot of things in just a few years. I was already working when I did my master's (which I didn't even finish, I didn't hold my dissertation) and when I did a post-grad course on finance (I wanted to become a stock exchange trader once).

So I graduated when I was 22, then I worked for 1 year at the central government office, then about a year at the ministry of labour/social security, then I got an internship in an EU institution for a few months, then I went to Brussels to work at the EU parliament for 1 year. And then I left this field and switched to software development, which I've been doing for the last 2 years. Hopefully, I'll keep switching to new careers, because I get bored of one field fast.
User avatar
Norway spanky4ever
Gendarme
iwillspankyou
Posts: 8389
Joined: Apr 13, 2015

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by spanky4ever »

ok, I should adjust your age to be in the 30s, +/- 2. Do you have any children yet? @Dolan are you worried for their future? Cos I am worried about the future of this planet :cry:
AOC and her Green New Deal makes perfect sence to both my frontal cortex and my subcortical emotional spots :P
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
User avatar
United States of America n0el
ESOC Business Team
Posts: 7068
Joined: Jul 24, 2015
ESO: jezabob
Clan: ķŒ€ ķ•˜ģš°ģŠ¤

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by n0el »

Dolan wrote:Why do you think she is a member of the Democratic party? How do you think she joined the party? 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?

Or is everything about this story only based on emotions and reasons just never matter? ^^

Well, anyway, I think it doesn't matter what I say, people are just hypnotised, it's pointless to argue with people who think with their subcortical areas most of the time. :uglylol:


Most people underestimate how fucked our political system is. Technically AOC isnā€™t a democrat. She is a Democratic Socialist, which is one of the many coalitions represented under the Democratic label. Basically the only way to be outside of the two parties is to be an incumbent and have major established name recognition (see King and Sanders).
mad cuz bad
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by Goodspeed »

Dolan wrote:And how do you think candidates will be able to afford running campaigns across 50 states, over an area of 9.8 million km2? Do you think the state can afford to spend tens of millions on candidates that are going to lose elections? And what if some people run for president just because they want the state to pay for their expenses for a few months? They get to visit the country by plane, they get free food, visiting lots of new places, who wouldn't want to run for president if the state is paying for all that?
What are you saying here? That the current US campaign finance laws are fine? That we should accept widespread corruption because it's the only way candidates can pay for their campaign?
The Sanders primary campaign was mostly financed by individual donations, and he was perfectly able to get his message out. And like I said (and you ignored), other first world countries have done just fine preventing corporate interests from undermining their democracy.

Dolan wrote:Yeah, I think the Netherlands is one of those states that is a major enabler of lots of shady financial arrangements. It's no coincidence that such an arrangement is actually called "the Dutch Sandwich". And it's so fucking funny, because the NL is full of leftwing activists, who raise their fists against globalisation, against racists, and in favour of whatever new trend in progressivism is out there, but they don't have any impact whatsoever in getting this changed.
But this has nothing to do with US campaign finance law. Are you just trying to trigger me into getting defensive by criticizing the country I live in? Understandable, I suppose, considering it would have likely worked on you. Anyway even if the removal of tax havens was realistic it's still not going to do anything to remove the big influence corporate interests have in American politics.

I want off Dolan's wild tax ride.

Dolan wrote:Why do you think she is a member of the Democratic party? How do you think she joined the party? 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?

Or is everything about this story only based on emotions and reasons just never matter? ^^

Well, anyway, I think it doesn't matter what I say, people are just hypnotised, it's pointless to argue with people who think with their subcortical areas most of the time. :uglylol:
Yes, it's so stupid to think AOC may have joined the democratic party because running as a third party is hopeless :huh:
Ironically, it's you who seems to have defenestrated rational thought because you're so triggered by her success.
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by Dolan »

Goodspeed wrote:What are you saying here? That the current US campaign finance laws are fine? That we should accept widespread corruption because it's the only way candidates can pay for their campaign?
The Sanders primary campaign was mostly financed by individual donations, and he was perfectly able to get his message out. And like I said (and you ignored), other first world countries have done just fine preventing corporate interests from undermining their democracy.

I'm not saying that US campaign finance laws are fine, I'm saying there's no perfect solution to this kind of problems. Corporate interests can use many vehicles to disguise themselves, it doesn't have to work only through direct donations. Corporations can also employ private individuals to make individual donations up to the threshold established by law.

But this has nothing to do with US campaign finance law. Are you just trying to trigger me into getting defensive by criticizing the country I live in? Understandable, I suppose, considering it would have likely worked on you. Anyway even if the removal of tax havens was realistic it's still not going to do anything to remove the big influence corporate interests have in American politics.

I think you are underestimating the effect that such permissive legal arrangements in the Netherlands have in other countries. For example, one of the biggest businesses in Romania, Rompetrol, was owned by a tycoon (Dinu Patriciu) who was in cahoots with lots of top politicians from Romania. He also owned media outlets (like Adevarul) that had considerable influence on public opinion. And guess what, he incorporated his oil business in the Netherlands, because that's the EU country which allowed him to move profits to offshore fiscal paradises from which he could operate unimpeded. It would have been impossible for Romanian authorities to ban his company from operating on the Romanian market, since it couldn't have any control over how he managed his business in the Netherlands and how those profits were used.
Far from me to want to trigger someone as a way to avoid actually debating something. I brought this issue up because you claimed that Western and Nordic countries have it all figured out in terms of unwarranted influence of private money in the realm of politics. 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.
And actually, even the Netherlands has gone through a similar issue with Geert Wilder's party, when it was revealed his party has received donations from a US conservative (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/07/worl ... -cash.html).
Why would I be triggered if someone criticised Romania? It's been a global sport since forever. Just pile it on, I will join the chorus too. You don't solve any problem by throwing it under the carpet or pretending it doesn't exist or it's insignificant.

Yes, it's so stupid to think AOC may have joined the democratic party because running as a third party is hopeless :huh:
Ironically, it's you who seems to have defenestrated rational thought because you're so triggered by her success.

So if I'm pointing out that people are primarily hypnotised by AOC for irrational reasons, I'm the one being irrational? Look, I have worked with politicians before and I've also studied neuroscience for a while as a hobby (that was at some point meant as a potential more serious pursuit). So, when I say that some things really look like PR stunts, it's because I've seen them before. I never said for example that Sanders is or was a PR stunt. No, the guy is genuine, he's his own show, he doesn't need props to have something to say. Whether you agree with him or not or whether you think what he's proposing is realistic. By contrast, AOC is pretty far from that, tbh. Not only she doesn't have much of substance to say, but she's mainly just playing the media game. And it works, sure, she is successful at that. But beyond that, I just don't see anything else, not much substance, as in Sanders' case. That's all I'm saying. Too much hype and media coverage for not much, really. Heck, even Obama at least had some semblance of ideas that would peer through the misleading smokescreen of slogans. And yet, look at how Obama's legacy turned out. Just give it more time, it's only some newcomer who got elected to the congress for the first time, it's just one vote among hundreds.
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by Dolan »

@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.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by Goodspeed »

Dolan wrote:
Goodspeed wrote:What are you saying here? That the current US campaign finance laws are fine? That we should accept widespread corruption because it's the only way candidates can pay for their campaign?
The Sanders primary campaign was mostly financed by individual donations, and he was perfectly able to get his message out. And like I said (and you ignored), other first world countries have done just fine preventing corporate interests from undermining their democracy.
I'm not saying that US campaign finance laws are fine, I'm saying there's no perfect solution to this kind of problems. Corporate interests can use many vehicles to disguise themselves, it doesn't have to work only through direct donations. Corporations can also employ private individuals to make individual donations up to the threshold established by law.
Agree with all that. I'm perfectly aware it doesn't only work through direct donations, that's why I brought up the citizens united case. And of course perfect solutions are impossible to find for complex problems such as this. But all I said is 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?

But this has nothing to do with US campaign finance law. Are you just trying to trigger me into getting defensive by criticizing the country I live in? Understandable, I suppose, considering it would have likely worked on you. Anyway even if the removal of tax havens was realistic it's still not going to do anything to remove the big influence corporate interests have in American politics.
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.

Yes, it's so stupid to think AOC may have joined the democratic party because running as a third party is hopeless :huh:
Ironically, it's you who seems to have defenestrated rational thought because you're so triggered by her success.

So if I'm pointing out that people are primarily hypnotised by AOC for irrational reasons, I'm the one being irrational? Look, I have worked with politicians before and I've also studied neuroscience for a while as a hobby (that was at some point meant as a potential more serious pursuit). So, when I say that some things really look like PR stunts, it's because I've seen them before. I never said for example that Sanders is or was a PR stunt. No, the guy is genuine, he's his own show, he doesn't need props to have something to say. Whether you agree with him or not or whether you think what he's proposing is realistic. By contrast, AOC is pretty far from that, tbh. Not only she doesn't have much of substance to say, but she's mainly just playing the media game. And it works, sure, she is successful at that. But beyond that, I just don't see anything else, not much substance, as in Sanders' case. That's all I'm saying. Too much hype and media coverage for not much, really. Heck, even Obama at least had some semblance of ideas that would peer through the misleading smokescreen of slogans. And yet, look at how Obama's legacy turned out. Just give it more time, it's only some newcomer who got elected to the congress for the first time, it's just one vote among hundreds.
Another predictable appeal to authority, and completely irrelevant to my post. 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.
User avatar
United States of America n0el
ESOC Business Team
Posts: 7068
Joined: Jul 24, 2015
ESO: jezabob
Clan: ķŒ€ ķ•˜ģš°ģŠ¤

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by n0el »

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?
mad cuz bad
User avatar
Great Britain Horsemen
Jaeger
Posts: 2998
Joined: Sep 24, 2018

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by Horsemen »

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?

Fortress Europe will be well-established by that time so no need to worry about the migrant hordes.
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: 2020 Democratic Primary

Post by deleted_user0 »

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.


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

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