EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1395
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
The Obama administration Monday announced a settlement of more than $300 million with South Korean automakers Kia and Hyundai for understating greenhouse-gas emissions from nearly 1.2 million of their cars and trucks. The record fine of $100 million and other penalties were described as the largest enforcement action of its kind under the federal Clean Air Act, in an unusual case involving emissions credits earned by manufacturers for producing low-emission vehicles, Environmental Protection Agency and Justice Department officials said in announcing the agreement. Under the terms of a voluntary consent decree, Hyundai and Kia also will forfeit 4.75 million greenhouse-gas credits, estimated to be worth more than $200 million. Car companies earn the credits for manufacturing vehicles that emit less greenhouse-gas pollution than the law requires. “Businesses that play by the rules shouldn’t have to compete with those breaking the law,” said EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, who announced the settlement at a joint news conference with Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. “This settlement upholds the integrity of the nation’s fuel economy and greenhouse-gas programs and supports all Americans who want to save fuel costs and reduce their environmental impact.” The consent decree stems from a complaint filed by federal regulators and California state officials that accuses the two companies of misstating the emissions performance of more than a million cars and SUVs from the 2012 and 2013 model years. The inaccurate figures allowed the companies to earn greater profits while also misleading consumers about the environmental impact of their cars, administration officials said. Source | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On November 04 2014 23:44 oneofthem wrote: i didn't give a definition, just a condition that marxism, the variant i am targeting anyway, lacks. you should be aware that codifying orthodox marxism is more reliigous unity than science Bah you don't know much about marxism... What kind of empirical knowledge actually disproved marxism ? Did you read marx ? | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On November 05 2014 00:33 oneofthem wrote: did any of the failed second comings disprove christianity? come on Here is the thing, you don't know what you are talking about. I'm pretty sure half the thing you think marx write did not happen or not how you think it did. Do you think Marx is responsible for what happened in Russia ? Do you think bolchevik followed Marx theory ? lol Do you think Marx actually said that for sure "capitalism" was going to disappear, that it was "science" ? And you like Horkheimer and dislike Marx... what the hell. Horkheimer is completly outdated. Even Axel Honneth, the one that took the frankfurt school's heritage, agree on that... | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On November 05 2014 01:03 Nyxisto wrote: Isn't it fair to say that Marx claimed that the capitalistic system is going to become worse and worse over time and that the proletariat is going to get squeezed as bad as physically possible? I mean at least this hasn't really happened. Sure we're in a situation of worse inequality then say 30 years ago, but we definitely have achieved a greater degree of social justice than during the times of Marx. So I'd say that claim was definitely wrong. He said that the current system, based around the property of the right of production and the accumulation, is always unfair to workers, but before Marx, Smith already thought that wage were always set at subsistance level, it was a common thought in the XIXth century because growth was not strong enough to sustain an increase in wage. The different is that he added anthropological reasons to that unfairness (through a certain ethics/philosophy of labor and mankind). I don't believe that is definitly wrong. He also added that the process of accumulation had a tendancy to go towards a downfall of the rate of profit. Driven by their desire to make profit, owners of the capital tended to exchange workers with "dead work", effectively killing future profits (it's basically the demand side economics that Keynes took). This contradiction (the research of profit would kill future profit) would lead the system to various crisis in the system, until a crisis of the system. Sure, he said that in an era where inflation and growth didn't exist (as concepts, and as measure), so his "intuitions" were not completly true (altho he tried to quantified those at some point), and everybody at that point agree with him (from Smith to Keynes basically, everybody agreed with this law more or less) but still he only said it was a tendancy, not a definite law true everything equal. I'm not sure anybody can really say that those theories are definitly wrong. Of course I'm simplifying. | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On November 05 2014 03:49 wei2coolman wrote: Just got back from voting. It still boggles my mind how unpopular obama is in this election, you would think he was quarantined cuz of ebola or something. The state of the US is pretty fucking good, all things considered, and yet voters still abhor the idea of Obama. Funny, when gas prices were insanely high, better blame obama. Gas is at like record low for like the past 7 years, no mention of Obama. There's no shortage of reasons why Obama is unpopular and perceived as being incompetent. And even considering crediting Obama for today's low gas prices is patently ridiculous. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8745 Posts
On November 05 2014 03:49 wei2coolman wrote: Just got back from voting. It still boggles my mind how unpopular obama is in this election, you would think he was quarantined cuz of ebola or something. The state of the US is pretty fucking good, all things considered, and yet voters still abhor the idea of Obama. Funny, when gas prices were insanely high, better blame obama. Gas is at like record low for like the past 7 years, no mention of Obama. It's basically because Dems are pussies and can't own their achievements/sell their shit. And Repubs are dicks and run with anything and get away with it. Dicks fuck pussies. The end. | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
On November 05 2014 04:02 xDaunt wrote: There's no shortage of reasons why Obama is unpopular and perceived as being incompetent. And even considering crediting Obama for today's low gas prices is patently ridiculous. I'm not saying he is behind the low gas prices, but dems sure as hell could market it, just like the repub marketeI obama for isis, ebola, high gas prices(in previous elections), and whole host of other silly issues. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On November 05 2014 04:08 wei2coolman wrote: I'm not saying he is behind the low gas prices, but dems sure as hell could market it, just like the repub marketeI obama for isis, ebola, high gas prices(in previous elections), and whole host of other silly issues. The problem with claiming credit for low gas prices is that republicans would simply start running ads showing all of the ways that democratic politicians have hampered the oil and gas industry. It would be too easy. | ||
|
Wolfstan
Canada605 Posts
Another shocking article that poor Americans aren't saving enough. It's hard to believe, but there was a time when wealth was growing faster for the bottom 90 percent than for the top percentile in the United States. This remarkable period in American history was called... the twentieth century. Between 1929 and 1986, the bottom 90 percent saw its wealth grow at real annual rate of 3 percent, compared with 0.3 percent for the top percentile, according to new research released last month. Since the 1980s, the story has flipped. Wealth is growing at an extraordinary pace for the rich—3.9 percent over the last three decades—and not at all for the rest. The math of wealth is simple. There is income (the money you make), savings (the money you don't spend), and returns (the growth in value of the money you save). The problem facing the bottom 90 percent—not the rich, but the "rest"—isn't merely that they're making less money than they used to, but also that they are saving none of it—virtually, none of it. In the last 30 years, the savings rate of "the rest" has fallen from 6 percent to negative-4 percent. It now hovers a whisker away from zero. The rich are different. They save. And the really rich really save, even more than they used to, according to a new paper from economists Gabriel Zucman and Emmanuel Saez. | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
On November 05 2014 04:13 xDaunt wrote: The problem with claiming credit for low gas prices is that republicans would simply start running ads showing all of the ways that democratic politicians have hampered the oil and gas industry. It would be too easy. Just like they've shown all the ways Obama is responsible for ebola? Even if they run those ads about how they aren't responsible for low gas prices, it would still contradict the fact that gas prices are low. It'd still be an advantageous talking point for the Dem's. Dem's are just giant fucking pussies when it comes to marketing successes. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22373 Posts
On November 05 2014 04:29 Wolfstan wrote: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/11/save-more-money-everyone/382306/http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/11/save-more-money-everyone/382306/ Another shocking article that poor Americans aren't saving enough. Who knew? if you dont make enough money to eat you cant save, If you make billions you cant spend it all even if you wanted to!. ps. calling utter BS on the notion that the wealth of the bottom 90% ever grow faster then the top 1%. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On November 05 2014 04:31 wei2coolman wrote: Just like they've shown all the ways Obama is responsible for ebola? Even if they run those ads about how they aren't responsible for low gas prices, it would still contradict the fact that gas prices are low. It'd still be an advantageous talking point for the Dem's. Dem's are just giant fucking pussies when it comes to marketing successes. No one is claiming that Obama is responsible for ebola. There are people who are claiming that the federal government's response to ebola -- which Obama ultimately is in charge of -- has been idiotic. EDIT: On that last point, I tend to agree that the federal government/Obama is not doing a good job handling ebola, though I'm not going to pretend to have the expertise to conclusively condemn the federal government. That said, I have spoken with a colleague of mine who is an officer in the military and has some involvement in and knowledge of the federal response. He wouldn't go into details, but he basically said that the current federal civilian apparatus is not doing a good job and that there will likely be a reorganization of agencies/entities to handle the response going forward. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On November 05 2014 04:40 xDaunt wrote: No one is claiming that Obama is responsible for ebola. There are people who are claiming that the federal government's response to ebola -- which Obama ultimately is in charge of -- has been idiotic. Why? Has any person gotten sick who was not coming from West-Africa or was involved in treating the people? | ||
|
Wolfstan
Canada605 Posts
On November 05 2014 04:32 Gorsameth wrote: Who knew? if you dont make enough money to eat you cant save, If you make billions you cant spend it all even if you wanted to!. ps. calling utter BS on the notion that the wealth of the bottom 90% ever grow faster then the top 1%. Exactly, we need to get it into poor people's heads to pay themselves first. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 05 2014 04:32 Gorsameth wrote: people wtih no accumulated wealth will 'grow' faster than those with lots when the latter lose a lot of their stuff. this measure is keeping the two groups constant. obviously new rich will be generated that go into the top 1% but that isn't counted here. Who knew? if you dont make enough money to eat you cant save, If you make billions you cant spend it all even if you wanted to!. ps. calling utter BS on the notion that the wealth of the bottom 90% ever grow faster then the top 1%. | ||
| ||
