Page 147 of 228 FirstFirst ... 4797137145146147148149157197 ... LastLast
Results 1,461 to 1,470 of 2276

Thread: OT: Politics

  1. #1461
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    Also on Alaska, come on man, it's a different ecosystem that doesn't have the drought problems faced by California. It's not even a fair comparison, nor is it an honest argument.
    I mentioned before, due to beetle kill, it has large areas that have 90% dead wood.

    The issue is that Alaska can work with the BLM (they regulate federal land) to have effective burn control. If they can, California can.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  2. #1462
    Insider
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,182
    The Trump tariffs have little to no theoretical pathway to immediate economic success, in my estimation. Some analysts think that they're overall a good idea to wrest power from the ascendant Chinese. China is going to replace any foreign investment with Keynesian stimulus, and we'll see if that messes them up at all. It's not the craziest thing in the world to turn the screws on them by reducing demand, since their aging population doesn't lead to a robust internal consumer economy yet.

    The trade war is necessarily one of attrition, and I think any honest analysis is that it places national (cynically, American corporate) interests above those of constituents. This is a case where the fear of the other (racism) is probably being wielded as a club, but I'm not totally sure it's wrong.

    Obama is often criticized for his penchant for "getting out of the way of history". From my perspective, a Sinocentric global economy is the most likely endpoint of nonaction. So, if you care about the concept of American exceptionalism, I can see the argument for a trade war.

    I think the correct alternative tack (aggressive automation investment) also isn't great for the American blue collar worker.
    "So you've done this before?"
    "Oh, hell no. But I think it's gonna work."

  3. #1463
    you keep accusing us of tribalism, and then try to defend objectively 100% false statements by your demi-god. i don't get it. you accuse us of having scared views, while defending someone who says factually wrong statements nearly ever day. like easily googable factually wrong statements. you accuse us of having scared veiws while defending someone who's only defense to the bullshit he is spouting, is claiming there are "alternative facts"

    these arn't policy disagreements, this isn't tribalism, this is the reality that facts matter.

    and when you try to prove its tribalism by trying to get us to jump on something trump did that was reasonable, we all were like, yup, thats reasonable.

    swing and a miss.

    i think the reality here is projection. when we can both look at a graph showing the TSI is nearly perfectly flat, and you decide to conclude that the sun is to blame anyway ... i think its you who have scared beliefs, not us.

    also, you actually do have scared beliefs, being religious and all. so its not like these are some aberration or something. you already do base your life and how you live it on scared and unquestionable beliefs. your politics are no different.

    quick, ask me if there is something trump could do to make me support him. if it really is trump derangement syndrome, i shouldnt be able to list any! oh wait, the day after he was elected i wrote a massive post on if trump is going to be president, he could gain my support in the following ways ...
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 11-27-2018 at 11:01 AM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  4. #1464
    Quote Originally Posted by Lurker27 View Post
    The Trump tariffs have little to no theoretical pathway to immediate economic success, in my estimation. Some analysts think that they're overall a good idea to wrest power from the ascendant Chinese. China is going to replace any foreign investment with Keynesian stimulus, and we'll see if that messes them up at all. It's not the craziest thing in the world to turn the screws on them by reducing demand, since their aging population doesn't lead to a robust internal consumer economy yet.

    The trade war is necessarily one of attrition, and I think any honest analysis is that it places national (cynically, American corporate) interests above those of constituents. This is a case where the fear of the other (racism) is probably being wielded as a club, but I'm not totally sure it's wrong.

    Obama is often criticized for his penchant for "getting out of the way of history". From my perspective, a Sinocentric global economy is the most likely endpoint of nonaction. So, if you care about the concept of American exceptionalism, I can see the argument for a trade war.

    I think the correct alternative tack (aggressive automation investment) also isn't great for the American blue collar worker.
    I think a better way to deal with that was TPP. Make China uncompetitive through trade agreements with other nations. Tariffs don't help anyone, especially when unilaterally imposed, especially when capital can move freely throughout the global economy. American companies (such as GM) are simply moving production out of the U.S. to avoid the tariffs to China and other nations. Tariffs are an ineffective tool and never accomplish there goals, especially in today's global economy. There are a lot of problems with how China conducts itself, but imposing tariffs will not solve those problems. Might as well just point the gun at ourselves.

  5. #1465
    Quote Originally Posted by d0cwho View Post
    I think a better way to deal with that was TPP. Make China uncompetitive through trade agreements with other nations. Tariffs don't help anyone, especially when unilaterally imposed, especially when capital can move freely throughout the global economy. American companies (such as GM) are simply moving production out of the U.S. to avoid the tariffs to China and other nations. Tariffs are an ineffective tool and never accomplish there goals, especially in today's global economy. There are a lot of problems with how China conducts itself, but imposing tariffs will not solve those problems. Might as well just point the gun at ourselves.
    this.

    all of this.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  6. #1466
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    I mentioned before, due to beetle kill, it has large areas that have 90% dead wood.

    The issue is that Alaska can work with the BLM (they regulate federal land) to have effective burn control. If they can, California can.
    The mistake you are making is conflating the federal government and its agencies as some monolithic whole that acts in unison. It doesn't. In some instances specific agencies have to treat states differently. I don't know if that's the case here, but it's possible. From what I can tell, the BLM oversees just a small part of California's forests, I don't think the issue is as straight forward as you make it. From the report you cited early it looks like the U.S. Forest Service has jurisdiction over more areas than BLM and according to the report you cite they have funding issues regarding forest fire management. Further, and I'm hypothesizing a bit based on what I read in the report you cited, I think the BLM and USFS operate a little differently in how they interact with states given the change in the laws in 2014 were focused on the USFS according to the report. I don't have the time to dig out the jurisdictional differences between BLM and USFS, but I suspect there are some and they may explain the difference in collaboration you are pointing to.

  7. #1467
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    The Trump tariffs have little to no theoretical pathway to immediate economic success, in my estimation. Some analysts think that they're overall a good idea to wrest power from the ascendant Chinese. China is going to replace any foreign investment with Keynesian stimulus, and we'll see if that messes them up at all.
    Interestingly: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/arti...ewest-aircraft

    Trade tensions with the United States blow hole in budget for China*s newest aircraft carrier. Cuts and rising fighter jet development costs have slowed progress on the Type 002, military insiders say
    Now, I agree the tariffs have little immediate economic success - they are in place to deal with older, established things like China's trade deficit, adjustment of the Yuan, and related. This is a 20 years of market manipulation, and actually kept the population of China poor so that the rest of the world would be dependent on their workers. So it would take a bit to sort out, and is a long term strategy.

    China has been manipulating the global markets through their cheap currency policy for the better part of the past 25 years. In pinning down their currency, they cornered the world's export market. And in the process, they emerged as the second largest economy in the world. They also accumulated the world's largest reserve of foreign currencies, which they plowed into global credit markets (mainly our Treasurys) to fuel cheap credit, which ultimately led to the global credit bubble and bust (the global financial crisis). We buy their cheap stuff. They take our dollars and buy Treasurys, supplying more credit to us to buy more of their cheap stuff. And so the cycle goes.

    Currencies are the natural balancing mechanism to prevent this bubble/global imbalance from forming. When freely traded in an open economy, the market demand for yuan, given the aggressive growth in the economy, would have driven the value of China's currency higher, making its exports less attractive, and therefore slowing their breakneck growth and wealth accumulation in China, and its ability to fuel global credit. But of course, the government determines the value of the yuan, and keeping the currency cheap is part of the economic model in China (still).

    For those that fear retaliation (a historic response to protectionism), this is retaliation... for 20 years of wealth transfer.

    The tariff threats address metals, but the currency is a key tool that makes it all happen. For those that like to play it as a political football, Trump is not the architect of the plan. A staunch democratic Senator from New York, Charles Schumer, led the push in Congress for a bill in 2005 to impose a 35% tariff on China. That's what ultimately led to the agreement by the Chinese to allow their currency to weaken (somewhat).
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/bryanri.../#5a98de906dd0

    We are 20 years behind. We didn't start it, and our last couple of presidents didn't do much about it. That includes Bush.

    The trade war is necessarily one of attrition, and I think any honest analysis is that it places national (cynically, American corporate) interests above those of constituents. This is a case where the fear of the other (racism) is probably being wielded as a club, but I'm not totally sure it's wrong.
    I think getting into motive with corporations and especially using race are both flawed, though not even close to equally. What was China's motive? They did start and create this situation with almost no push back from the US. Anything we do now doesn't need a motive any more than self defense, even Schumer saw that. I can see corporatism to a point, but I think corporations should be alert to this level of manipulation by China and our government should respond to them or lose their revenue. If they were not looking out for their interests in relation to China, I think that would be very stupid.

    Obama is often criticized for his penchant for "getting out of the way of history". From my perspective, a Sinocentric global economy is the most likely endpoint of nonaction. So, if you care about the concept of American exceptionalism, I can see the argument for a trade war.
    Just by sheer population Sinocentricity is inevitable. I hazard the position is not if, but when? Even Africa has both a larger population than America and it is the only area with a significantly rising population. Eventually it will be Asia and Africa with 70% of the population at the end of this century, nearing 4 billion in each Asia and Africa, and less than 1 billion on any other continent. We had an advantage by being first to pull out of rampant poverty, but in the end I don't think we have the numbers.

    I think the correct alternative tack (aggressive automation investment) also isn't great for the American blue collar worker.
    Automation was bad for the Farmer. 50% of the population in the late 1800's were farmers. Now it is 2%. We also output significantly more food than ever.... which released us to take more Blue Collar jobs. Automation of the Blue Collar jobs releases us to produce more middle class. Right now we have just 1/10th the number of people directly working in manufacturing - about 10 million US vs China's 100 million. We have about the same trade output. 10 times more productive per person.

    What we should be thinking about is how to augment the BC worker so they can do MC level of work - or even as I see it, put more tools to be creative in the individuals hands, so they can manufacture independently. Owner/Operators. I suspect that is where we will be going in the near future.
    __________________________________________________ ___________

    With the changes in the Yuan, due to tariffs and related, we can upset the Yuan enough to win back some of this deficit. The counter move is the large amount of US Currency China holds, and that is a $20 Trillion hammer.

    I wouldn't have done it, I am not a fan of tariffs mostly due to Bastiat's razor on them - but I can see that benefit of the tariffs as they are being used now.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  8. #1468
    what benefit is that exactly?

    what are we getting from china, be specific.

    keep in mind GM actually has huge market share in china, and why US made cars are not competitive there anymore due to tariffs, so GM is divesting itself of US workers/jobs.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 11-27-2018 at 01:31 PM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  9. #1469
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    The mistake you are making is conflating the federal government and its agencies as some monolithic whole that acts in unison. It doesn't. In some instances specific agencies have to treat states differently. I don't know if that's the case here, but it's possible.
    Uhm, no? Stating Alaska works differently from California with the BLM shows I am not conflating the two.

    I might be wrong in your position, but I think you have it backwards. The BLM has a list of rules and they have to interact with each state on a state by state basis, without breaking their rules. Each state interaction is different - each state is different. But I do not see the BLM going, you know what, let the state fucking burn for all I care.

    From what I can tell, the BLM oversees just a small part of California's forests, I don't think the issue is as straight forward as you make it. From the report you cited early it looks like the U.S. Forest Service has jurisdiction over more areas than BLM and according to the report you cite they have funding issues regarding forest fire management. Further, and I'm hypothesizing a bit based on what I read in the report you cited, I think the BLM and USFS operate a little differently in how they interact with states given the change in the laws in 2014 were focused on the USFS according to the report. I don't have the time to dig out the jurisdictional differences between BLM and USFS, but I suspect there are some and they may explain the difference in collaboration you are pointing to.
    I am being very broad and short - and I am conflating the USFS and BLM to save time. The Federal Government vs State Government, and who owns and controls what, is this part of the discussion because the original claim as proposed is Trump was wrong to state this in a tweet:

    There is no reason for these massive, deadly and costly forest fires in California except that forest management is so poor. Billions of dollars are given each year, with so many lives lost, all because of gross mismanagement of the forests. Remedy now, or no more Fed payments!

    * Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 10, 2018
    To support that this statement is wrong, the supporting comment is the State can't do the work because the US Gov is in control of most of the land, and not under state control. And that Trump can just fix this if he wants to.

    To clarify, my comment is counter to that: The BLM/USFS as arms of the government work with the state to manage land, but often the state dictates what happens to an extent, not the Fed Gov - it requires all parties in this, but due to restrictions and taking this as a state by state basis, the State of California chooses to manage differently than states like Alaska.

    So I would say we are in agreement there?

    As shown here before California has policies that limit burning, limit forestry, and limit fire brakes, and the long history of those limits has built up a lot of underbrush. And that they know that internally. That is politics over forest management, and that was at the direction of the state of California.

    Your position that the federal government and it's agencies do not act as a monolithic whole would support my position a wee tiny bit, since the proposed position is that the feds are in majority control and Trump can just tell them what to do, and the state can't do anything on it's own for most of it's property.

    Which is a bit absurd.
    Last edited by pbjosh; 11-27-2018 at 02:47 PM.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  10. #1470
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    you keep accusing us of tribalism, and then try to defend objectively 100% false statements by your demi-god. i don't get it. you accuse us of having scared views, while defending someone who says factually wrong statements nearly ever day.
    Man, Gordon is defensive. Look at all of that projecting.

    Funny, I never said I even really like Trump. I think I have been clear on that. I voted for Gary Johnson, and I am not a fan of the tariffs, and I do wish Trump would just shut the F up on twitter and that he acts like a 5th grader. Not exactly high respect there. Yet Gordon turns that into statements about a demigod. So interesting his reaction, don't you think?

    He is really trying to divert away from his very consistent blame of everything on the GOP being driven by racism statements, isn't he?

    See - when a person paints a large portion of society with just a large, simple, and effectively wrong brush, and feels so justified in doing (he has stated he feels very justified in trying to bash people on the internet he thinks are wrong. Or the GOP, but I repeat myself.) It betrays the level of tribal behavior.

    Big Chief Gordon, fighting the true fight! Oh wait, don't call it tribalism. I think it is easy to figure, from his reaction, just how tightly he holds to his rationalization and sacred positions. Trying to hoist another person to that same level as a diversion shows the almost bi-polar thinking that has to be used to hold those beliefs.

    Sadly, I am just a mid level bit of grey in the checkerboard Gordon universe, and he really can't see anything but the two dimensional paper doll he keeps yelling at.

    Welcome, sit down at this forum. But if you don't toe Gordon's line and virtue signal properly, well, you are an evil Trump supporter. Watch out Ryan! EEeeeevvviiiillll.....
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •