US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1337

On October 08 2014 04:09 Liquid`Drone wrote:
the argument comes from fox..;p

My point however is that considering that 1: people agree that too-lopsided income inequality is bad, and 2: people agree that increased redistribution can help with the problem of income inequality, it becomes natural that 3: people who do not want increased redistribution (because they think it is politically unsound for some other reason) will end up making the claim that income inequality is not currently too-lopsided, because that makes it harder for them to maintain their anti-redistribution point of view.

On October 08 2014 04:09 Liquid`Drone wrote:
the argument comes from fox..;p

My point however is that considering that 1: people agree that too-lopsided income inequality is bad, and 2: people agree that increased redistribution can help with the problem of income inequality, it becomes natural that 3: people who do not want increased redistribution (because they think it is politically unsound for some other reason) will end up making the claim that income inequality is not currently too-lopsided, because that makes it harder for them to maintain their anti-redistribution point of view.

A 2013 federal water study was edited to play down the negative effects of hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” following a flurry of email exchanges between the authors and New York state officials, according to a report published this week by local political news website Capital New York.

The study, conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), had examined naturally occurring methane in water wells across the gas-rich Southern Tier, a group of counties located on New York’s border with Pennsylvania.

New York state Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who commissioned the study in 2011, has long maintained that he would only approve fracking if science shows that it can be done safely.

But some environmental experts are accusing the Cuomo administration of meddling with the study in order to blunt the impact of a number of politically inconvenient findings — a move that would enable him to move forward with controversial energy policies.

Seth Berrin Shonkoff, executive director at Physicians, Scientists and Engineers for Healthy Energy, said: "It appears that this USGS study was changed to conform to the Cuomo administration's conveniences as opposed to reporting truthful empirical data analysis."

Asked by Al Jazeera to comment on the allegations by Capital New York, a representative for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) said that its staff had conducted a technical review of the original draft based on their extensive expertise, and that the communications with the author reflected "common and standard practice."

On October 07 2014 22:28 oneofthem wrote:
guy's stupid if he thinks not adopting a specific policy then implies obama puts american interest second. very childish writing as expected from sowell

On October 08 2014 03:59 Nyxisto wrote:
I fail to understand how reasonable redistribution is somehow not capitalism anymore? The whole "Nordic model" has successfully combined a universal welfare state while keeping the idea of free markets and personal property intact. They are not mutually exclusive, and I don't think Piketty argued for the abolishment of capitalism at all.

Joining three other appellate courts, the 9th Circuit Court on Tuesday struck down gay-marriage bans enacted by Idaho and Nevada.

"We hold that the Idaho and Nevada laws at issue violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for the court.

The ruling comes a day after the Supreme Court gave tacit approval to similar decisions by three other circuit courts. As Bill Chappell reported, when the court refused to hear an appeal of those decisions, gay marriage became legal in 11 states, bringing the total number of states allowing gay marriage to 30.

In his decision, Reinhardt arrives at his conclusion in much the same way other courts had. He drew a line from Supreme Court decisions in Romer v. Evans, which struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment that denied homosexuals equal protection, to Lawrence v. Texas, which invalidated anti-sodomy laws, to the court's decision in Windsor, which invalidated the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

On October 08 2014 10:37 IgnE wrote:
Where are the US ebola cases? It's classic, selfish, me-first attitudes that make the conservatives, like yourself Dangles, and Sowell, look childish. So far this crisis is entirely limited to Africa, and the talks of massive outbreaks in the US are nothing but fear-mongering and hype. If ebola really blows up into pandemic proportions it will likely be in India and China, and then all bets are off anyway.



In some ways Danglars and Wegandi are right when they say that those arguing for higher taxes and redistribution want to kill the free market and capitalism. The truth is that capitalism tends toward monopoly and inequality. It's a broken, immoral system that robs people of the fullness of their rights to self-determination and the pursuit of happiness. Your post sounds fine Drone, but I don't really care about treading on the toes of the Randian conservatives: no one deserves to be a billionaire, and accumulating that much wealth is immoral.

On October 08 2014 10:37 IgnE wrote:
In some ways Danglars and Wegandi are right when they say that those arguing for higher taxes and redistribution want to kill the free market and capitalism. The truth is that capitalism tends toward monopoly and inequality. It's a broken, immoral system that robs people of the fullness of their rights to self-determination and the pursuit of happiness. Your post sounds fine Drone, but I don't really care about treading on the toes of the Randian conservatives: no one deserves to be a billionaire, and accumulating that much wealth is immoral.

On October 08 2014 15:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:


Norway is still a fundamentally capitalistic society.. Heavily regulated sure (and it will have to be more heavily regulated in the future for us to maintain our egalitarianism), and we're certainly guilty of some degree of third world exploitation to maintain our consumerist habits.. But I still think it's pretty much the best society humanity has managed to create through the entirety of human history.. From my perspective, in Norway we've gotten to the point where we don't need more economic growth (an opinion I have little political support for even here ), and I disagree with the notion that GDP is a great metric for societal success but I still just have to ask..

What's the alternative? I'm not talking about the alternative to largely unregulated capitalism - because I think the alternative is heavily regulated capitalism. But what's the alternative to heavily regulated capitalism? I mean, I like the idea of a fully automated zero-growth society where everyone's basic needs are provided for and where all energy can be spent on education and culture, but we're pretty far from being there, and I feel like we need to discuss what's viable, not what my pipe dream for the future is..

Further, I've seen you criticize the idea of a radical free will in the past. And I agree with you, I think the notion that everyone is responsible for their own success is just.. not grounded in reality, and this to me is a significant part of why I favor redistribution policies so much, because I feel that the poor are not responsible for who they are, their character, their desires, or even their moral dispositions. But then I also have to extend that courtesy to the wealthy. I can't hold a billionaire morally responsible for wanting to be a billionaire, from my perspective that disposition has been installed in him through factors outside his own control. The morality of individuals is to me irrelevant, attempting to actually find some common ground we can progress from is what matters imo..

On October 08 2014 15:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:


Norway is still a fundamentally capitalistic society.. Heavily regulated sure (and it will have to be more heavily regulated in the future for us to maintain our egalitarianism), and we're certainly guilty of some degree of third world exploitation to maintain our consumerist habits.. But I still think it's pretty much the best society humanity has managed to create through the entirety of human history.. From my perspective, in Norway we've gotten to the point where we don't need more economic growth (an opinion I have little political support for even here ), and I disagree with the notion that GDP is a great metric for societal success but I still just have to ask..

What's the alternative? I'm not talking about the alternative to largely unregulated capitalism - because I think the alternative is heavily regulated capitalism. But what's the alternative to heavily regulated capitalism? I mean, I like the idea of a fully automated zero-growth society where everyone's basic needs are provided for and where all energy can be spent on education and culture, but we're pretty far from being there, and I feel like we need to discuss what's viable, not what my pipe dream for the future is..

Further, I've seen you criticize the idea of a radical free will in the past. And I agree with you, I think the notion that everyone is responsible for their own success is just.. not grounded in reality, and this to me is a significant part of why I favor redistribution policies so much, because I feel that the poor are not responsible for who they are, their character, their desires, or even their moral dispositions. But then I also have to extend that courtesy to the wealthy. I can't hold a billionaire morally responsible for wanting to be a billionaire, from my perspective that disposition has been installed in him through factors outside his own control. The morality of individuals is to me irrelevant, attempting to actually find some common ground we can progress from is what matters imo..

I think the notion that everyone is responsible for their own success is just.. not grounded in reality, and this to me is a significant part of why I favor redistribution policies so much, because I feel that the poor are not responsible for who they are, their character, their desires, or even their moral dispositions

On October 08 2014 15:04 IgnE wrote:
If you think someone deserves to be a billionaire, you probably don't comprehend how many dollars make a billion. It is undemocratic and unjust to allow a solitary private citizen to control that much wealth. Beyond the obvious fact that there is no way that everyone could be a billionaire, or even anywhere close to a billionaire, allowing a single person to have that much power over the economic lives of the citizens who helped contribute to his fortune is unjust, and seeking to accumulate that much wealth to oneself in order to exercise such control over others is immoral. Every single billionaire has profited from network effects, inequitable property laws, privileged information, and a host of other environmental factors that have nothing to do with his worthiness, skill, or personal qualities. Every single billionaire, somewhere along the line, has accreted more wealth to himself at the expense of others simply because he could (insert justification here: the market, "fair" return on investment, etc.). That prodigious wealth accretion disenfranchises the people who helped to create it, but only enhances the billionaire's quality of life, freedom, and right to self determination by increasing his tyrannical social and economic power.

As to your other points, the top 0.1% has far more wealth than the 80th percentile. It's not just that "the lower end of the wealth distribution is getting out of hand." It's that the "lower end" is the majority of people in the United States and the vast majority of people on the planet.

On October 08 2014 18:26 Velr wrote:
You don't need heavy regulation. Just force a decent Minimum wage.

At the cost of some shareholder value you end up with a bigger middle class that will consume more, smaller goverment because less people need assistance, a more motivated workforce and a generally more stable country because people are not "driven" into crime as much.

Most people don't haven issue with someone earning double or even ten or more times as much as they do. But people tend to get angry if they work 100% and still barely make due while others are swimming in money.

If you have "gated communities" in your country, thats an obvious sign that something is clearly out of balance.

Btw: There are other scandinavian countries whiteout Oil exports that do nearly as good as Norway...

And this is what you people don't understand. A bigger minimum wage at the cost of shareholder value cannot and will not happen. A bigger minimum wage will come with an increase in cost and a reduction in labor, the people earning that bigger minimum wage will have less hours and less jobs, and the consumers will have to pay more