You didn't watch the presidential debate last night

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by BurnPyro, Sep 27, 2016.

  1. super71

    super71 I need me some PIE!

    A chart where China is rising above Americans, posted by sok ? No way

    I'm glad China is starting to be environmentally conscious after destroying the majority of the ocean and polluting their cities to the point where the people can't breathe.

    At some point man your gonna have to admit you just flat out don't like America
  2. Geressen

    Geressen Forum Royalty

    is this you doing hat?
  3. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    So in a post where my main point is that I think the US should strive to be a global leader in renewable technology instead of letting China run away with it without competition... what you get out of it is I don't like America.


    At some point you are going to have to admit you have reading and comprehension problems.

    Honestly tho, this "if you disagree with my opinions then you must hate America" stuff in politics is incredibly toxic. I don't know how to stop it, but it is unproductive and hurts us all, I think.
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2016
  4. Dagda

    Dagda Forum Royalty

    you only think that because you hate america
    davre and SPiEkY like this.
  5. Ragic

    Ragic I need me some PIE!

    Dream of hippies and unicorns. And when you wake up you can go on believing whatever you want to believe.
  6. newsbuff

    newsbuff Forum Royalty

    Energy independence and less pollution are great goals. However, government intrusion into the economy (which directly causes corruption and inefficiency) causes its own big problems, particularly when that intrusion directly calls for business inefficiencies. Government should not be subsidizing anything nor sponsoring tech R&D. It's not the role of the government to do these things, nor should they have the funds with which to do it unless they are actively extorting citizens, which is unethical on principle.

    The way you think is fundamentally in opposition to freedom and in support of central planning and a behemoth federal State. You recognize some (legitimate) problem, and like a kneejerk reaction, you immediately say "there oughta be a law!" Truth is, government is never the solution, and usually the source or contributor to the problem itself.

    So, while I agree with your goals, your means of achieving them are dubious. Stalinist central planning and massive tax extortion is unethical, unsustainable, and unamerican.
    DarkJello and SPiEkY like this.
  7. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    I know we fundamentally disagree on the government's role.

    My point is that:
    1. I don't think it's thinly veiled at all, it's literally because we don't trust the free market to handle such externalities properly, thus necessitating government intervention
    2. Just because we disagree doesn't mean that we are out to destroy America :D
    Ultimately though, I don't think you can disagree that this stuff that you dislike has been happening here in the US. As early as the Interstate Commerce Act in... 1887? and it's likely to stay whether you like it or not. At the same time, I might argue that the government that doesn't do this stuff actually stands to hurt its people more in the long run compared to countries that do so effectively (but that's hard to prove one way or another).


    In any case, I am assuming you are against Trump saving that factory in Indiana, correct?

    (Which turned out to be 700k a year in tax breaks to save 1100 out of 2400 jobs, the other 1300 jobs is still moving to Mexico.)
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2016
    newsbuff likes this.
  8. profhulk

    profhulk Forum Royalty

    What I want to know is did the Obama administration and Hillary incorporated have replacement renewable clean energy jobs lined up for all those people who lost their jobs after they shut down the coal companies? I didn't see any jobs for all those people and where were all the jobs for skilled american labor after NAFTA and global trade initiatives gave american corporations incentives to leave America? Sure you are closing down low demand coal companies, but no new clean energy companies are coming to replace them and giving jobs to all these people who are put out of work. Your graphs are nice but they aren't giving me the solutions I want. Different graphs are needed I guess.
    DarkJello likes this.
  9. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    I guess the question is whether Obama "shut down" the coal companies at all. While government regulations are certainly a factor, the truth is that coal jobs have been leaving for AGES. This isn't a new thing that started with Obama, or renewables:


    Compared to oil and gas, which, despite "regulations" is growing relative to other forms of employment:


    In general too, if we consider general job trends, the threat of automation/efficiency increases and places with significant amounts of cheap labor come online like China and India is going to be a problem no matter what your policies are in the future. Meanwhile, as mentioned, demand for things like coal is declining both domestically and internationally in recent years even tho China is still net importer of coal.

    The real problem with these jobs (as with many of these lower skill jobs in manufacturing and primary sectors of the economy) is that automation and technology has made them very very efficient:


    This, of course, is similar to the manufacturing graph of the US, which, contrary to Trump, still makes PLENTY of things, it just doesn't need as many people to do it anymorer:


    In neither case has production decreased (and int he case of manufacturing has actually gone up significantly) but due to efficiency, jobs have gone down.

    So I think these factors are much more important. I think that the people lost coal jobs due to renewables is misleading at best and a lie at worst.

    As for jobs in renewable...


    As of 2015 Solar jobs have now surpassed coal mining. Note that Coal + Solar here is about 400k, which is basically 1950s levels of coal employment (which was very high compared to now). So I am not sure if you can really claim there are no renewable jobs. The real problem is that people with coal mining skills aren't going to be able to use those same skills in renewable.

    Yes, coal and manufacturing jobs have decreased. No, it isn't just because of government regulations or NAFTA (which, according to most estimates/studies, creates jobs), but rather increased efficiency even as output has remained consistent or even increased.

    Now, sure, I bet there are some things the government could do in regards to regulations and whatever and save SOME small number of coal jobs for a short while, but it isn't going to reverse these trends - because you aren't changing the realities of the other factors of why those jobs are gone.


    I mean, look at these factors:
    • Peak coal demand is past, demand is declining globally
      • India is increasing demand, but not at a rate fast enough to offset the decreased demand from China and other big consumers
    • The industry scales incredibly well and efficiently compared to before, requiring much fewer workers and mines per unit of output
    • Many large coal consumers, even as they decrease demand, are also big suppliers
    So with these factors, what exactly do you think COULD be done to bring the jobs back? If you think like a business owner or an investor, you would not be remiss to think that this isn't a business you want to invest in anymore and look for OTHER opportunities.

    Yes, it sucks for people whose families have built their lives around coal mining, but the world has changed. We can promise to bring them back the world that they once had but I really don't feel that is realistic.


    Another thing to note is that new industries never have a ton of jobs at the start - which is exactly why, IMO, the government helping them grow is important to get them to ramp up to the point where they are generating more jobs more quickly (while keeping them competitive against other countries that are actively investing as well).
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2016
  10. Geressen

    Geressen Forum Royalty

    that is not how facts or evidence/proof works.
  11. badgerale

    badgerale Warchief of Wrath

    Do you apply this rule universally? For example to the military where billions of US taxpayer money goes into R&D?
  12. Geressen

    Geressen Forum Royalty

    I still need you guys to explain the "green anti capitalist conspiracy"

    Last edited: Dec 1, 2016
    BurnPyro likes this.
  13. BurnPyro

    BurnPyro Forum Royalty

    And it will set you free

    DarkJello, Geressen and darklord48 like this.
  14. Geressen

    Geressen Forum Royalty

    Bernie, the US president we needed, but not the one we deserve.
    NevrGonaGivUup and BurnPyro like this.
  15. Boozha

    Boozha I need me some PIE!

    There is one side leaning on science, and there is one side denying science. There is no contest.
    Tweek516 likes this.
  16. Geressen

    Geressen Forum Royalty

    you oversimplify, there are also people picking out the few pieces of research paid for by oil companies and a few that say it is scientists who are behind some sort of conspiracy.
    Tweek516 likes this.
  17. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    I also want to address the notion that any form of government intervention or central planning is "Stalinist," "unethical," "unsustainable" and "unamerican."

    Even starting from the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, we can argue that these kinds of documents are a form of central planning - they are rules under which the nation was formed, and the rules by which the Founding Fathers wished to guide the direction of the nation. The Electoral College (particularly the way the electors originally work) is also an attempt to circumvent mob rule and allow some of the elite to have a greater amount of influence over the direction of the country - and this of course also extends to the entire reason why the nation is setup as a Republic, not a Democracy.

    Articles 6 and 9 are particularly strong in terms of lean towards "central planning":

    6. Only the central government may declare war, or conduct foreign political or commercial relations. No state or official may accept foreign gifts or titles, and granting any title of nobility is forbidden to all. No states may form any sub-national groups. No state may tax or interfere with treaty stipulations already proposed. No state may wage war without permission of Congress, unless invaded or under imminent attack on the frontier; no state may maintain a peacetime standing army or navy, unless infested by pirates, but every State is required to keep ready, a well-trained, disciplined, and equipped militia.

    9. Grants to the United States in Congress assembled the sole and exclusive right and power to determine peace and war; to exchange ambassadors; to enter into treaties and alliances, with some provisos; to establish rules for deciding all cases of captures or prizes on land or water; to grant letters of marque and reprisal (documents authorizing privateers) in times of peace; to appoint courts for the trial of pirates and crimes committed on the high seas; to establish courts for appeals in all cases of captures, but no member of Congress may be appointed a judge; to set weights and measures (including coins), and for Congress to serve as a final court for disputes between states. The court will be composed of jointly appointed commissioners or Congress shall be appoint them. Each commissioner is bound by oath to be impartial. The court's decision is final. Congress shall regulate the post offices;appoint officers in the military;and regulate the armed forces.

    Then, if we follow the history of the country, we see that it has engaged in "Stalinist central planning" for a very, very long time.

    The original Bank of the United States was founded in 1791 under Alexander Hamilton.
    The Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 regulated railways in various ways, as well as curb the power of railway corporations. It set up requirements for what railroad rates ought to be, and banned rate discrimination. It also created the ICC and this act has since been expanded to include other modes of transportation.

    The Federal Reserve was created in 1913, FTC was founded in 1914.

    Even under conservative darling Ronald Reagan, this type of behavior continued. For example, under Reagan, the government heavily subsidized dairy farmers, purchasing excess supply and stockpiling it. There were other things like the "Job Training Partnership Act," a law that established youth training programs, establishing a network of training centers throughout the country, among many other things (

    Anyway, it's easy to go on, but the point is that if these types of things are supposed "Stalinist," "unethical," "unsustainable" and "unamerican" then are we suggesting that America has been un-American this whole time?

    Personally, I think there's a major difference between these types of things and "Stalin." But I am a leftist so maybe I am just biased.
    Geressen likes this.
  18. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    I still feel there is a major difference between the election for the President of the United States vs how a political party decides on who it's going to run as its candidate.

    I actually don't see any reason why primaries exist in the first place other than as a distraction, but I am pretty alone in this feeling, I've found.
  19. Geressen

    Geressen Forum Royalty

    you never asked.
  20. badgerale

    badgerale Warchief of Wrath

    Regarding fossil fuels:

    -- Rant Mode --

    I have to agree with others, that the environmental side of things is the most scary part of the Trump presidency for me. The impact of US protectionism on global economies is also a worry - but his domestic policies aren't quite as scary as is made out, and aren't really my business anyway.

    But, it seems like there are some very rich people with some perverse incentives that are working their way into his governments, people who have dedicated themselves to spreading the idea that their interests (or that of their employers) and the interests of ordinary people are the same - that have actively used the illogical, emotional, world of political side taking to work in their companies agenda as being on one side of the political spectrum, and therefore associating themselves with a kind of morality, and the opponents of their industry as being immoral.

    To me (in my lefty european bubble perhaps) it seems like a ridiculous kind of double speak which should be doomed to fail, but Firk me it looks like it is working!

    Just on this small forum I've seen the idea that environmentalists are conspiring to falsify data to keep themselves in jobs, that trying to protect the environment means you hate mankind, and that renewable energy is some kind of communist plot. That's just here, Firk knows what some people in the US think.

    I mean, I don't really want to be ridiculing anyone's opinions, ultimately I'm not in position to know if they are wrong or right -- it's possible that Myron Ebel and his like, are acting out of pure good will to combat the dangerously misguided, or just plain evil, enemies of humanity that promote environmentalism (and us brainwashed sheep who lap up their doctrine in order to bolster our smug superiority).

    It is possible, but it's also possible that these industries are entering into their twillight years -- thanks to not just to the general sentiment that they are a bad thing, but to economics. That thanks to investment in the technology, clean energy is becoming the very thing that they always claimed it could never be -- economically efficient.

    What I worry is that we're seeing the backlash from the fossil fuel industry, which is determined to make us much money as it possibly can before the world switches to renewables -- to squeeze as much out of the ground in the limited time before the technology makes them obsolete.

    Just a theory.
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2016
    Tweek516, davre and Geressen like this.

Share This Page