|
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 December 04 2019 02:13 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2019 02:06 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
The Democratic Party don't have a choice if they wish to preserve the rule of law. If they somehow fail, but win 2020, I fully expect to see the Democratic party to abuse state power like Trump but a thousand times worse without oversight. How easy it would be with the demonstration of voter ignorance and apathy. Yeah what we've learned from Trump is if you do something really illegal, and someone calls you out on it, all you have to say is "No it isn't. Here is who you should hate instead" and voters will just be like "yeah sounds good, I hate those guys"
You have to be like Trump though. Wouldn't work if it was said by one of the Bushes or Hillary.
|
United States42531 Posts
On December 04 2019 02:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2019 23:17 KwarK wrote:On December 03 2019 22:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On December 03 2019 09:17 KwarK wrote:On December 03 2019 09:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On December 03 2019 07:52 KwarK wrote:
We have American farmers killing themselves because the food supply is so over saturated that their labour now has negative value and their produce is less than worthless while we also have people starving. It’s a weird world we’ve created. Why would they kill themselves. It's not like they are enslaved to labour for an oversaturated market with no alternative. Because being a farmer on the farm your great great grandfather bought and living in the house he built and being the one in a long line of farmers to lose the farm is tough, especially when your kids aren’t interested in farming for a loss and you’re working 18 hours a day to try to keep it going but the bills just keep mounting and the price of milk has dropped below the price of feed to get that milk but it’s not like you can just stop getting milk because the farm is mortgaged and you can’t scale production to the market that way so you just ask if the feed store will give you credit which is humiliating but you gotta do it but they won’t because everyone is asking for credit and they know as well as you do that things aren’t getting better and this isn’t just a bad year, it’s that the economics don’t make sense. Farmers are killing themselves because within a capitalist economy that is the correct thing to do when the value of your labour goes negative. This is the market based solution. When enough of them kill themselves there will be less supply and we can reach the supply/suicide equilibrium as Adam Smith always wanted us to. https://www.npr.org/2018/02/27/586586267/as-milk-prices-decline-worries-about-dairy-farmer-suicides-rise It is as you say, this is a world with people starving. It shouldn't be the government's problem, or anybody else's if someone self indoctrinated themselves into a myth that when it is shattered they see no way out but to take the most selfish recourse when they are living a reasonable life. Their children they leave behind, will have to be the ones continuing living life. That news article is just sensationalist click bait. The man is well built, has a healthy complexion, wears good quality clothes and has a home. What I see are independent self sufficient people who have good shelter, good clothes, plentiful food and water, living in an unpolluted air, no matter what the value of their labour may be. Who cares if they cannot afford an iphone? Life is more than purchasing power. They are living the life that half the world's population can only dream of. Food sufficiency and a well built home. If they choose to take their own lives, (they aren't, it's just a small sample), the problem isn't that they are starving and have no recourse to kill themselves to not prolong the inevitable end, but that they have chosen to kill themselves unnecessarily. What I think is gross is comparing starving people with well fed, sheltered people, as if they are comparable. It's literally a first world problem. They lack context to realise how fortunate they really are, if they really are suiciding over milk prices. Also, looking into it, the report about suicides has been retracted on 15/11/2018. They are losing their homes, livelihoods, and way of lives and you’re saying “well there’s more to life than money”. They don’t have good shelter, the farm is mortgaged and they can’t make the payments. You’re right that they probably have nice homes, I bet they wish they could stay in them. Could you miss the point any more? They’re not upset about the price of milk arbitrarily, they’re upset because the price of milk defines their value as human beings and they can no longer afford basic dignity. If their children who have less choice than they do, but can live their lives successfully, so can the parent. If they are alive and well fed, the problem is not their livelihood or capitalism, but their on psyche. There is something unfathomably jealous and selfish about killing yourself becuase your children can make a success of themselves when you cannot. Why should their oversaturated market be supported? Should people working in steel refining also be protected? How about Coal miners? The military? If lawyers or politicians have their homes, livelihoods, and way of lives lost, should the government also step in? Or is it a case that only certain protected classes should have this privilege? If they don't own the farm, they aren't "farmers" anyways, they are labourers. In any case, retracting reports is serious depending on the nature of redaction; I would guess this is simply a case of paid for agricultural lobbying.
Yes, the nation has a strategic interest in maintaining energy independence, steel production capacity, military independence, and so forth. I’m not so concerned about the lawyers though.
Also how are you making it the guys who are killing themselves who are selfish?
|
Northern Ireland25013 Posts
On December 04 2019 02:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2019 23:17 KwarK wrote:On December 03 2019 22:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On December 03 2019 09:17 KwarK wrote:On December 03 2019 09:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On December 03 2019 07:52 KwarK wrote:
We have American farmers killing themselves because the food supply is so over saturated that their labour now has negative value and their produce is less than worthless while we also have people starving. It’s a weird world we’ve created. Why would they kill themselves. It's not like they are enslaved to labour for an oversaturated market with no alternative. Because being a farmer on the farm your great great grandfather bought and living in the house he built and being the one in a long line of farmers to lose the farm is tough, especially when your kids aren’t interested in farming for a loss and you’re working 18 hours a day to try to keep it going but the bills just keep mounting and the price of milk has dropped below the price of feed to get that milk but it’s not like you can just stop getting milk because the farm is mortgaged and you can’t scale production to the market that way so you just ask if the feed store will give you credit which is humiliating but you gotta do it but they won’t because everyone is asking for credit and they know as well as you do that things aren’t getting better and this isn’t just a bad year, it’s that the economics don’t make sense. Farmers are killing themselves because within a capitalist economy that is the correct thing to do when the value of your labour goes negative. This is the market based solution. When enough of them kill themselves there will be less supply and we can reach the supply/suicide equilibrium as Adam Smith always wanted us to. https://www.npr.org/2018/02/27/586586267/as-milk-prices-decline-worries-about-dairy-farmer-suicides-rise It is as you say, this is a world with people starving. It shouldn't be the government's problem, or anybody else's if someone self indoctrinated themselves into a myth that when it is shattered they see no way out but to take the most selfish recourse when they are living a reasonable life. Their children they leave behind, will have to be the ones continuing living life. That news article is just sensationalist click bait. The man is well built, has a healthy complexion, wears good quality clothes and has a home. What I see are independent self sufficient people who have good shelter, good clothes, plentiful food and water, living in an unpolluted air, no matter what the value of their labour may be. Who cares if they cannot afford an iphone? Life is more than purchasing power. They are living the life that half the world's population can only dream of. Food sufficiency and a well built home. If they choose to take their own lives, (they aren't, it's just a small sample), the problem isn't that they are starving and have no recourse to kill themselves to not prolong the inevitable end, but that they have chosen to kill themselves unnecessarily. What I think is gross is comparing starving people with well fed, sheltered people, as if they are comparable. It's literally a first world problem. They lack context to realise how fortunate they really are, if they really are suiciding over milk prices. Also, looking into it, the report about suicides has been retracted on 15/11/2018. They are losing their homes, livelihoods, and way of lives and you’re saying “well there’s more to life than money”. They don’t have good shelter, the farm is mortgaged and they can’t make the payments. You’re right that they probably have nice homes, I bet they wish they could stay in them. Could you miss the point any more? They’re not upset about the price of milk arbitrarily, they’re upset because the price of milk defines their value as human beings and they can no longer afford basic dignity. If their children who have less choice than they do, but can live their lives successfully, so can the parent. If they are alive and well fed, the problem is not their livelihood or capitalism, but their on psyche. There is something unfathomably jealous and selfish about killing yourself becuase your children can make a success of themselves when you cannot. Why should their oversaturated market be supported? Should people working in steel refining also be protected? How about Coal miners? The military? If lawyers or politicians have their homes, livelihoods, and way of lives lost, should the government also step in? Or is it a case that only certain protected classes should have this privilege? If they don't own the farm, they aren't "farmers" anyways, they are labourers. In any case, retracting reports is serious depending on the nature of redaction; I would guess this is simply a case of paid for agricultural lobbying.
Nobody has a psyche that is entirely their own, you can’t switch off years of formative development in a society on a whim. No amount of ‘you aren’t fat’ is particularly effective for those suffering from body dysmorphia.
While the actions of suicide have detrimental effects on those around them, they’re not particularly selfish in motivation, in this particular instance it’s ‘Ive failed, I’m a failure and my children will be better off without me in their lives.’
Sure it’s not logical thinking for a third party looking in, but such things by their nature don’t tend to be.
|
Kamala Harris has dropped out of the race, it appears.
|
If energy independence will be maintained irregardless (we are talking about 2019 not 1919 right?), if steel production is the exact same due to improved processes that make steel workers redundant, if the military simply don't need so much boots ont he ground anymore and so forth, why should the apathy you have towards lawyers not extended to them as well? If productivity gains or deep learning makes 90% of lawyers unnecessary, and they start making news articles about a retracted news article on suicide rates, why do you not care for them?
People suicide. Resources are limited, even in countries with better mental healthcare. Farm labourers are not a special group. They are not children or elderly, that the state have a special duty of care towards but fully rational (hopefully) adults. Resources are better put in preventative care to change that formative development. It certainly seems selfish to me to kill yourself, as if to give up and to almost to spite your children who have chosen another way of life successfully. Retraining, re-education, not market subsidies.
|
United States42531 Posts
On December 04 2019 03:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
If energy independence will be maintained irregardless (we are talking about 2019 not 1919 right?), if steel production is the exact same due to improved processes that make steel workers redundant, if the military simply don't need so much boots ont he ground anymore and so forth, why should the apathy you have towards lawyers not extended to them as well? If productivity gains or deep learning makes 90% of lawyers unnecessary, and they start making news articles about a retracted news article on suicide rates, why do you not care for them?
People suicide. Resources are limited, even in countries with better mental healthcare. Farm labourers are not a special group. They are not children or elderly, that the state have a special duty of care towards but fully rational (hopefully) adults. Resources are better put in preventative care to change that formative development. It certainly seems selfish to me to kill yourself, as if to give up and to almost to spite your children who have chosen another way of life successfully. Retraining, re-education, not market subsidies.
Well yeah if we disregard the reasons for subsidizing these industries then I can’t think of any reason for the subsidies.
Did that argument make sense when you typed it out? It didn’t make sense when I read it. Yes, there are no reasons to preserve domestic strategic industries beyond the reasons. But if we ignore those reasons then fuck those guys.
Also stop blaming the victims for being victims. It’s pretty classless.
|
Yeah, suicide doesn't work that way. It's not a logical choice made by an intelligent actor, it's the final symptom of a deadly disease. To claim that suicide is a selfish decision made to spite people is similar to telling someone who's depressed to just be happy. It ignores the total reality of that person's experience, and invalidates their suffering.
|
United States42531 Posts
In other news, as France tries to tax US companies Trump vows to retaliate with tariffs on French goods, again showing that he’s completely unaware of how the EU works. This is Merkel with her visual aids all over again.
|
On December 04 2019 04:01 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2019 03:34 KwarK wrote:On December 04 2019 03:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
If energy independence will be maintained irregardless (we are talking about 2019 not 1919 right?), if steel production is the exact same due to improved processes that make steel workers redundant, if the military simply don't need so much boots ont he ground anymore and so forth, why should the apathy you have towards lawyers not extended to them as well? If productivity gains or deep learning makes 90% of lawyers unnecessary, and they start making news articles about a retracted news article on suicide rates, why do you not care for them?
People suicide. Resources are limited, even in countries with better mental healthcare. Farm labourers are not a special group. They are not children or elderly, that the state have a special duty of care towards but fully rational (hopefully) adults. Resources are better put in preventative care to change that formative development. It certainly seems selfish to me to kill yourself, as if to give up and to almost to spite your children who have chosen another way of life successfully. Retraining, re-education, not market subsidies. Well yeah if we disregard the reasons for subsidizing these industries then I can’t think of any reason for the subsidies. Did that argument make sense when you typed it out? It didn’t make sense when I read it. Yes, there are no reasons to preserve domestic strategic industries beyond the reasons. But if we ignore those reasons then fuck those guys. Also stop blaming the victims for being victims. It’s pretty classless. But that's the thing. Productivity gains and market changes do cause changes in jobs. No need to be an arsehole Kwark, just because your argument has been countered. The reasons for disregarding the subsidies, is because the reasons are not needed, not because the reasons has been disregarded. Did that argument make sense when you typed it out? It didn’t make sense when I read it. Should they be subsidized because a retracted report wrote that farmers are at an increased risk of suicide? If in the past, an industry needed much labour but now does not, should that industry be sustained? If the nation state nor market no longer need so many coal miners, or steel workers, or infantry, why should taxpayers sustain those jobs? If the proverbal stock market speculators jump out of windows after a stock market crash, you would not shed one tear at their lost of their self worth. You care not for lawyers, why the special rule for farmers, coal miners, steel workers, soldiers? There are other jobs they can do, they have other sources of livelihood. I'm not blaming anyone. Playing this emotional game doesn't suit anyone. I am talking policies to be undertaken. Did you know after the world cup, spouse abuse increase on the losing team? The solution isn't to ensure that the country wins the world cup, but to combat the underlying cultural impetus to abuse your spouse and develop responses against it. So as it is, instead of subsidising milk production based on a retracted report and a sensationalist news article, so should retraining and re-education should be done.
|
On December 04 2019 03:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
If energy independence will be maintained irregardless (we are talking about 2019 not 1919 right?), if steel production is the exact same due to improved processes that make steel workers redundant, if the military simply don't need so much boots ont he ground anymore and so forth, why should the apathy you have towards lawyers not extended to them as well? If productivity gains or deep learning makes 90% of lawyers unnecessary, and they start making news articles about a retracted news article on suicide rates, why do you not care for them?
People suicide. Resources are limited, even in countries with better mental healthcare. Farm labourers are not a special group. They are not children or elderly, that the state have a special duty of care towards but fully rational (hopefully) adults. Resources are better put in preventative care to change that formative development. It certainly seems selfish to me to kill yourself, as if to give up and to almost to spite your children who have chosen another way of life successfully. Retraining, re-education, not market subsidies.
Despite some obvious issues with the subsidies that need to be addressed, they are an important tool in maintaining our food independence, and it could be argued that they are of vital importance to the country as a whole. Because farmers are more prone to the whims of nature than most other employment or manufacturing processes, the state has a vested interest in making sure that these folks (some of whom have generations worth of knowledge in farming and ranching practices that are not typically taught beyond the word of mouth) continue to operate. Not just to ensure that these people dont lose jobs, but to maintain subsequent industry and food availability in general. i doubt the state (and apparently the article) is concerned with one or two ranchers/farmers committing suicide, but we should all be concerned if for whatever reason large quantities of farmers/farming capability/knowledge was lost.
Most farms are owned the same way other businesses are, partially leveraged with varying degrees. would you say that you dont own your home, but are just renting if you haven't satisfied the mortgage? the land is deeded to you no? the title of the home is in your name no?
Its also unclear how you draw the conclusion from,
Farmer: I'm saddled with debt from running the farm, we've had a few bad years with market pricing, i think i need to go into bankruptcy and sell off the farm. how am i going to face my family and tell them all this.
to
Farmer:My kids are more successful than i am because they didn't choose to farm. I should kill myself because i dont want to do anything else.
Lastly, if you have never been suicidal and have not been trained in the field you have zero understanding of that frame of mind and should refrain from armchair psychoanalysis.
lets take this scenario step by step.
1. No more subsidies for milk farmers
2. unsuccessful farmers drop out of the market (aka bankruptcy worst case scenario - break even best case scenario)
3. Milk prices go up due to decreased supply
4. demand drops as a response --> OR see line 8
5. more farmers drop out
6. see line 3
7.
8. more farmers join the recovered market
9. milk prices drop
10. see line 2 ------------successful market stability
What if some natural disaster, illness, or public scare happens with milk and either the demand or supply is negatively affected. if there are less farmers the effects of the issue will be magnified, if however, we have subsidized the industry and made sure that those breaking even were making a slight profit and stayed in the game, then the effects of whatever disaster occurred would be mitigated.
This is why its done, its a stabilization factor that gets taken for granted.
Also FYI only the following are actually subsidized so dont get angry at subsidized milk ranchers that arent getting subsidized.
corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, and rice
|
On December 04 2019 03:16 farvacola wrote:
Kamala Harris has dropped out of the race, it appears.
Remember when Nate Silver ranked her chances to win above Sanders?
|
The overproduction of milk would suggest to me that milk production independence has long been achieved. I don't know why or where any of you guys have gotten the impression that USA, which exports vast amounts of food isn't entirely food sufficient. USA has been food sufficient since, well the creation of USA.
|
|
|
On December 04 2019 04:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2019 03:16 farvacola wrote:
Kamala Harris has dropped out of the race, it appears. Remember when Nate Silver ranked her chances to win above Sanders?
Nate Silver is bad and he needs to go away.
|
United States42531 Posts
On December 04 2019 04:05 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
The overproduction of milk would suggest to me that milk production independence has long been achieved. I don't know why or where any of you guys have gotten the impression that USA, which exports vast amounts of food isn't entirely food sufficient. USA has been food sufficient since, well the creation of USA.
There’s more to strategic independence than output.
An example of this would be a shipbuilding industry that uses foreign steel.
In any case I find your responses to echo the worst excesses of Thatcherism. If a community is no longer financially viable then it is cheaper for the government to provide a structured transition than to allow it to collapse, only to bail it out on the back end. This isn’t new information, this was tested, it took the entire North Sea oil windfall to bail out the north of England under Thatcher.
As a Brit you should know better than this, as well as as a human being.
|
Northern Ireland25013 Posts
On December 04 2019 03:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
If energy independence will be maintained irregardless (we are talking about 2019 not 1919 right?), if steel production is the exact same due to improved processes that make steel workers redundant, if the military simply don't need so much boots ont he ground anymore and so forth, why should the apathy you have towards lawyers not extended to them as well? If productivity gains or deep learning makes 90% of lawyers unnecessary, and they start making news articles about a retracted news article on suicide rates, why do you not care for them?
People suicide. Resources are limited, even in countries with better mental healthcare. Farm labourers are not a special group. They are not children or elderly, that the state have a special duty of care towards but fully rational (hopefully) adults. Resources are better put in preventative care to change that formative development. It certainly seems selfish to me to kill yourself, as if to give up and to almost to spite your children who have chosen another way of life successfully. Retraining, re-education, not market subsidies.
I agree with you on propping up markets that don’t need propping up, or are holding back progress in other ways.
Quite to your outright callousness on suicide I 100% do not get it, both from my own particular point of view but also your general history of posting where you tend to be sympathetic to people and their problems in general.
|
On December 04 2019 04:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2019 04:05 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
The overproduction of milk would suggest to me that milk production independence has long been achieved. I don't know why or where any of you guys have gotten the impression that USA, which exports vast amounts of food isn't entirely food sufficient. USA has been food sufficient since, well the creation of USA. There’s more to strategic independence than output. An example of this would be a shipbuilding industry that uses foreign steel. In any case I find your responses to echo the worst excesses of Thatcherism. If a community is no longer financially viable then it is cheaper for the government to provide a structured transition than to allow it to collapse, only to bail it out on the back end. This isn’t new information, this was tested, it took the entire North Sea oil windfall to bail out the north of England under Thatcher. As a Brit you should know better than this, as well as as a human being.
I think you should step back a bit Kwark. You are clearly emotional and are attacking me as a person as well as ascribing Thatcherism to me for some bizarre reason.
|
Northern Ireland25013 Posts
On December 04 2019 04:23 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2019 04:17 KwarK wrote:On December 04 2019 04:05 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
The overproduction of milk would suggest to me that milk production independence has long been achieved. I don't know why or where any of you guys have gotten the impression that USA, which exports vast amounts of food isn't entirely food sufficient. USA has been food sufficient since, well the creation of USA. There’s more to strategic independence than output. An example of this would be a shipbuilding industry that uses foreign steel. In any case I find your responses to echo the worst excesses of Thatcherism. If a community is no longer financially viable then it is cheaper for the government to provide a structured transition than to allow it to collapse, only to bail it out on the back end. This isn’t new information, this was tested, it took the entire North Sea oil windfall to bail out the north of England under Thatcher. As a Brit you should know better than this, as well as as a human being. I think you should step back a bit Kwark. You are clearly emotional and are attacking me as a person as well as ascribing Thatcherism to me for some bizarre reason.
Why is that bizarre? Your rationale for not subsidising American farmers is entirely reminiscent for the rationales given to shut mines etc in Thatcherite Britain.
|
On December 04 2019 04:19 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2019 03:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
If energy independence will be maintained irregardless (we are talking about 2019 not 1919 right?), if steel production is the exact same due to improved processes that make steel workers redundant, if the military simply don't need so much boots ont he ground anymore and so forth, why should the apathy you have towards lawyers not extended to them as well? If productivity gains or deep learning makes 90% of lawyers unnecessary, and they start making news articles about a retracted news article on suicide rates, why do you not care for them?
People suicide. Resources are limited, even in countries with better mental healthcare. Farm labourers are not a special group. They are not children or elderly, that the state have a special duty of care towards but fully rational (hopefully) adults. Resources are better put in preventative care to change that formative development. It certainly seems selfish to me to kill yourself, as if to give up and to almost to spite your children who have chosen another way of life successfully. Retraining, re-education, not market subsidies. I agree with you on propping up markets that don’t need propping up, or are holding back progress in other ways. Quite to your outright callousness on suicide I 100% do not get it, both from my own particular point of view but also your general history of posting where you tend to be sympathetic to people and their problems in general.
I'm not being callous, I am saying that the psychological reasons behind suicide should be addressed, rather than subsidizing a lifestyle that is no longer sustainable due to an oversaturated market. Retraining and re-education should be offered, suicide support too by a health service, rather than a government subsidy to buy a lake of milk.
People who are starving should be fed, that is the real tragedy. If only the people in this thread gave as much thought to the starving as to the subsidies of the agriculture industry. People, not cows.
|
On December 04 2019 03:16 farvacola wrote:
Kamala Harris has dropped out of the race, it appears.
So who is going to drop out next? I'm guessing Klobuchar. She didnt really have any standout performances at the debate and doesnt have a substantial financial backing or social media presence. Im beginning to think the top 5 will end up being Biden, Warren, Sanders, Buttigeg, and as much as I hate to admit it Gabbard. Nobody seems thrilled that Bloomberg is running, he must be using the candidacy as advertising for tic tok and his newspaper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
