|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On August 28 2019 17:48 Simberto wrote:
I still think that the best way to deal with that is a market solution. If you increase the price of emitting CO2 majorly, suddenly it becomes a lot more attractive to look into some way to transport your goods which isn't trucks.
Bans are kind of weird as in you always target one specific use, and that might actually make other uses of the same resources more attractive, because the resources get cheaper. If you ban ICEs, oil gets cheaper, and will probably still be used in some way. Bans are also usually pretty slow, as it takes a lot of political effort to get one into law, and then a lot of judicative effort in lawsuits. Which takes time. And you will always figure out new things that need banning.
If you simply put a major tax onto emitting CO2, and distribute that money equally to every citizen (or inhabitant, or whatever you choose), you tackle all things that emit CO2 equally and simultaneously.
That sounds easy, but isn't really in practice. I mean, I agree, a flat tax per m³ of CO2 to create and transport a product is a great solution, but it needs international support or it just has all the same issues as a ban on CO2 intensive practices.
|
|
|
|
|
United States44269 Posts
What you’d see is support for Trump staying at a solid 40%.
|
|
|
On August 28 2019 07:55 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2019 04:17 RvB wrote:On August 28 2019 02:08 KwarK wrote:On August 28 2019 01:53 Gorsameth wrote:On August 28 2019 01:43 KwarK wrote:On August 28 2019 01:37 Gorsameth wrote:On August 28 2019 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 28 2019 01:17 Gorsameth wrote:On August 28 2019 01:02 JimmiC wrote:Here is a pretty long article about Bernie's Green deal the impacts, I enjoy how he asks if people "want a revolution". I think it will be pretty interesting to see how people react to how bold his plan is. I for one am for this revolution and love how aggressive it is. Some quick points are no more combustion engine cars sold after 2030, including bus's and heavy trucks! It is also interesting that it doubles government spending back up to around WW2 levels. I have read multiple papers that have concluded that it would take a WW2 effort to fight climate change and so I see that as a positive while others I'm sure do not. https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/27/politics/bernie-sanders-climate-plan-analysis/index.html I like things like the aggressive no combustion engines by 2030 but, and I know GH is going to jump and down at this, how do you plan to pay for increasing federal spending by upwards of 50%? (and i'm not counting healthcare cause in theory cost control measures could make universal healthcare actually save the government money based on the US already paying more per capita then other nations) I don't care about spending. The MMT folks will give you one explanation for why that's generally good enough for me and we're heading for total ecological collapse anyway, there's going to be a global war for resources and habitable land before any of these accounts get settled. So to that end, at least the US is well prepared. or you can pick this argument: Bernie's not going to lay it out, but the US military by itself is a larger polluter than most/many countries. A lot of that pollution is from bases around the world "protecting and stabilizing" the oil supply for which the US military is a primary consumer. Reducing and redirecting military spending towards renewables is a positive feedback loop And I completely agree with reducing spending on the US military but the ENTIRE military budget barely covers half of Bernie's planned yearly expenses on his green deal. The government can spend the same dollars multiple times though because their spending drives economic activity which returns to them through tax dollars. There’s a multiplier there. Sure there is, but it that modifier big enough? It would probably cause some inflation but it’s not like the money would be getting burned, it would be getting ploughed straight back into US industry and manufacturing. Plus the dividends of the program would reduce costs for US consumers down the line. Priming the pump with government spending works. Not necessarily. Fiscal multipliers are generally only bigger than 1 when there's a lack of demand from the private sector such as in an economic crisis. In a period of economic expansion it will crowd out private investment instead. In addition in the long run a debt financed fiscal expansion will reduce savings (investment) reducing future growth. Bernie's economic policy is as much Voodoo economics as 'trickle down (for a lack of a better word)' economics. we currently have an overabundance of savings relative to investment opportunities anyway. see the lack of aggregate demand we were talking about last week as well as the massive cash stores that oligarchs and corporations have offshore. now is plausibly the time for much more inflation to usher in a green revolution
There's no lack of aggregate demand. The output gap (difference between actual and potential output) already closed in 2017. Business investment is around it's historical average as well. An overabundance of savings doesn't square with the current account deficit either. I agree that a fiscal stimulus will lead to more inflation but this will force the FED to raise interest rates which will dampen the effects of the fiscal expansion. There's really no case for massive fiscal stimulus at the moment.
On August 28 2019 18:20 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2019 17:48 Simberto wrote:
I still think that the best way to deal with that is a market solution. If you increase the price of emitting CO2 majorly, suddenly it becomes a lot more attractive to look into some way to transport your goods which isn't trucks.
Bans are kind of weird as in you always target one specific use, and that might actually make other uses of the same resources more attractive, because the resources get cheaper. If you ban ICEs, oil gets cheaper, and will probably still be used in some way. Bans are also usually pretty slow, as it takes a lot of political effort to get one into law, and then a lot of judicative effort in lawsuits. Which takes time. And you will always figure out new things that need banning.
If you simply put a major tax onto emitting CO2, and distribute that money equally to every citizen (or inhabitant, or whatever you choose), you tackle all things that emit CO2 equally and simultaneously. That sounds easy, but isn't really in practice. I mean, I agree, a flat tax per m³ of CO2 to create and transport a product is a great solution, but it needs international support or it just has all the same issues as a ban on CO2 intensive practices.
The only solution would be a carbon tariff which equals the cost of carbon which is embedded in the imported product. Obviously it's an imperfect solution but it's better than what we have currently and it's better than command and control style policy.
|
On August 29 2019 01:20 KwarK wrote:
What you’d see is support for Trump staying at a solid 40%.
What's kinda interesting is that he's basically at the same approval Obama was at this point in his presidency.
|
On August 29 2019 07:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2019 01:20 KwarK wrote:
What you’d see is support for Trump staying at a solid 40%. What's kinda interesting is that he's basically at the same approval Obama was at this point in his presidency.
True, but this was the low point for Obama vs the High point for Trump.
I don't know if we can pull anything out from obamas rating just because of his going down while trumps is going up to meet at this point
|
On August 29 2019 07:23 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2019 07:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 29 2019 01:20 KwarK wrote:
What you’d see is support for Trump staying at a solid 40%. What's kinda interesting is that he's basically at the same approval Obama was at this point in his presidency. True, but this was the low point for Obama vs the High point for Trump. I don't know if we can pull anything out from obamas rating just because of his going down while trumps is going up to meet at this point
Just that Trump's presidency isn't as displeasurable to a significant part of the population as we'd all like to imagine. It's getting about the same reception Obama's presidency did at this point.
|
On August 29 2019 07:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2019 07:23 IyMoon wrote:On August 29 2019 07:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 29 2019 01:20 KwarK wrote:
What you’d see is support for Trump staying at a solid 40%. What's kinda interesting is that he's basically at the same approval Obama was at this point in his presidency. True, but this was the low point for Obama vs the High point for Trump. I don't know if we can pull anything out from obamas rating just because of his going down while trumps is going up to meet at this point Just that Trump's presidency isn't as displeasurable to a significant part of the population as we'd all like to imagine. It's getting about the same reception Obama's presidency did at this point.
True, but again this was the point in time where America hated his presidency the most (Maybe hated is too strong? Disliked?) This was his low point. His approval rating was back over 50 by end of September.
I get the point you are making, I just don't know it has real baring
|
On August 29 2019 07:39 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2019 07:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 29 2019 07:23 IyMoon wrote:On August 29 2019 07:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 29 2019 01:20 KwarK wrote:
What you’d see is support for Trump staying at a solid 40%. What's kinda interesting is that he's basically at the same approval Obama was at this point in his presidency. True, but this was the low point for Obama vs the High point for Trump. I don't know if we can pull anything out from obamas rating just because of his going down while trumps is going up to meet at this point Just that Trump's presidency isn't as displeasurable to a significant part of the population as we'd all like to imagine. It's getting about the same reception Obama's presidency did at this point. True, but again this was the point in time where America hated his presidency the most (Maybe hated is too strong? Disliked?) This was his low point. His approval rating was back over 50 by end of September. I get the point you are making, I just don't know it has real baring
That you could poll the country at the same point and they would tell you they approved of Obama's presidency at basically the same rate as they approve of Trumps presidency says a lot about the country imo (even if it's a snapshot).
It did go back down to about the same level after his reelection campaign as well.
|
|
|
On August 29 2019 02:50 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2019 07:55 IgnE wrote:On August 28 2019 04:17 RvB wrote:On August 28 2019 02:08 KwarK wrote:On August 28 2019 01:53 Gorsameth wrote:On August 28 2019 01:43 KwarK wrote:On August 28 2019 01:37 Gorsameth wrote:On August 28 2019 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 28 2019 01:17 Gorsameth wrote:On August 28 2019 01:02 JimmiC wrote:Here is a pretty long article about Bernie's Green deal the impacts, I enjoy how he asks if people "want a revolution". I think it will be pretty interesting to see how people react to how bold his plan is. I for one am for this revolution and love how aggressive it is. Some quick points are no more combustion engine cars sold after 2030, including bus's and heavy trucks! It is also interesting that it doubles government spending back up to around WW2 levels. I have read multiple papers that have concluded that it would take a WW2 effort to fight climate change and so I see that as a positive while others I'm sure do not. https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/27/politics/bernie-sanders-climate-plan-analysis/index.html I like things like the aggressive no combustion engines by 2030 but, and I know GH is going to jump and down at this, how do you plan to pay for increasing federal spending by upwards of 50%? (and i'm not counting healthcare cause in theory cost control measures could make universal healthcare actually save the government money based on the US already paying more per capita then other nations) I don't care about spending. The MMT folks will give you one explanation for why that's generally good enough for me and we're heading for total ecological collapse anyway, there's going to be a global war for resources and habitable land before any of these accounts get settled. So to that end, at least the US is well prepared. or you can pick this argument: Bernie's not going to lay it out, but the US military by itself is a larger polluter than most/many countries. A lot of that pollution is from bases around the world "protecting and stabilizing" the oil supply for which the US military is a primary consumer. Reducing and redirecting military spending towards renewables is a positive feedback loop And I completely agree with reducing spending on the US military but the ENTIRE military budget barely covers half of Bernie's planned yearly expenses on his green deal. The government can spend the same dollars multiple times though because their spending drives economic activity which returns to them through tax dollars. There’s a multiplier there. Sure there is, but it that modifier big enough? It would probably cause some inflation but it’s not like the money would be getting burned, it would be getting ploughed straight back into US industry and manufacturing. Plus the dividends of the program would reduce costs for US consumers down the line. Priming the pump with government spending works. Not necessarily. Fiscal multipliers are generally only bigger than 1 when there's a lack of demand from the private sector such as in an economic crisis. In a period of economic expansion it will crowd out private investment instead. In addition in the long run a debt financed fiscal expansion will reduce savings (investment) reducing future growth. Bernie's economic policy is as much Voodoo economics as 'trickle down (for a lack of a better word)' economics. we currently have an overabundance of savings relative to investment opportunities anyway. see the lack of aggregate demand we were talking about last week as well as the massive cash stores that oligarchs and corporations have offshore. now is plausibly the time for much more inflation to usher in a green revolution There's no lack of aggregate demand. The output gap (difference between actual and potential output) already closed in 2017. Business investment is around it's historical average as well. An overabundance of savings doesn't square with the current account deficit either. I agree that a fiscal stimulus will lead to more inflation but this will force the FED to raise interest rates which will dampen the effects of the fiscal expansion. There's really no case for massive fiscal stimulus at the moment.
Perhaps the output gap is closed for now, but the idea is that there is little to no room for future interest rate cuts in response to a downturn. With interest rates so low, globally speaking, we might speak of a "borrowing" of future demand. And all we get in return is merely modest growth. When I say slackening demand, I am thinking on a larger time scale than short-term business cycles. I am thinking about 21st-century-demand's relation to financialization, credit, near-zero interest rates, and insignificant inflation; conditions that have held for nearly two decades now.
I will say that what is interesting in the business investment article you linked is that tech investment is flat, building investment is flat, but intellectual property investment is way up. Hmmmmm. It's more like buying land than it is like buying new productivity-enhancing investments.
|
|
|
"Trump likes Russia, so it's a-okay with me.", "He's only doing it because they aren't investigating Biden. Just our MAGAlord sticking it to the libs.", and "The DemocRATS are the real communists nowadays."
Too much Kool-aid has been drank.
|
Obviously they don't dislike Russia that much from the cold war days or they wouldn't be ok with them tampering with elections and directly influencing the President.
Party before everything else.
|
Gillibrand has dropped from the races and many others didn't make the debate coming up. I'm thinking we've pretty much got the candidates that will stay at the top for the remainder of the primaries. I'm more curious to who the VPs are and who gets cabinet positions going forward. Some of them have got to be making deals behind the scenes by now, right?
|
Buttigieg seems like prime VP material, he'd probably go best with Bernie, but I could imagine Warren or Harris being advantaged having him on as VP.
|
I would do anything to watch buttigieg body slam pence over and over about the bible in debates
|
On August 29 2019 23:44 Zambrah wrote:
Buttigieg seems like prime VP material, he'd probably go best with Bernie, but I could imagine Warren or Harris being advantaged having him on as VP.
With Harris polling potentially 4th in California she's lucky to be considered for a VP slot at this point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
