I am talking about the world outside of middle class white America. Farmers in rural Afghanistan can't just buy electric cars. Factories in Indonesia can't just buy solar panels over night. Shit working itself means people will die.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +640|3937
this is textbook tech-utopianism. it makes the egregious error in thinking that the developing world, i.e. 90% of the consumption and production taking place on the planet, can afford the latest in silicon valley innovations and nano-tech wizardry. in fact, 90% of the world is going to continue being massively inefficient until we incur irrecoverable damage to the planet's ecology. these latest innovations are not affordable and not scalable. you're essentially putting blinders on the horse driving capitalism, and saying 'tech will fix it all later'.Jay wrote:
There's no limit to resources and no need to ration them. We've become more efficient over time, and that's a continuing trend. We're not running out of anything, it's just becoming more expensive to extract some things like oil. So, over time the price of oil will rise and we'll learn to use less of it. The sky is not falling and our consumerism is not killing the planet.SuperJail Warden wrote:
People in the developed world need to lower their consumption levels for the good of mankind. That has been an absolute taboo to say in politics ever since Carter lost to Reagan after suggesting Americans lower their gas consumption. Even the so called democratic socialist in the U.S. promise more free stuff instead of questioning if we really need that stuff. Does the middle class need more hangouts like Sanders promises? Probably not.
If you're referring to physical items, what exactly are you referring to? It's not like Sanders has proposed free flatscreen TVs for every house in America. Regardless, surely you're aware enough that anythign "free" from the government isn't really free. It's just your tax dollars providing something for you instead of being used to rain death on foreigners.SuperJail Warden wrote:
People in the developed world need to lower their consumption levels for the good of mankind. That has been an absolute taboo to say in politics ever since Carter lost to Reagan after suggesting Americans lower their gas consumption. Even the so called democratic socialist in the U.S. promise more free stuff instead of questioning if we really need that stuff. Does the middle class need more hangouts like Sanders promises? Probably not.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +640|3937
He is promising free college and healthcare and is planning to do it off the backs of "millionaires and billionaires". The college will be free for everyone but the people who will most benefit from it are the middle class Americans who already go to college. The working class and poor who sit in classrooms without heating and textbooks aren't going to suddenly be able to go through an engineering program at the local flagship state university because there is no tuition. The middle class student who would have a few years of student loan payments will instead have enough money for a new car payment or a really nice vacation once a year. Not really things they need or would make the country more stable.DesertFox- wrote:
If you're referring to physical items, what exactly are you referring to? It's not like Sanders has proposed free flatscreen TVs for every house in America. Regardless, surely you're aware enough that anythign "free" from the government isn't really free. It's just your tax dollars providing something for you instead of being used to rain death on foreigners.SuperJail Warden wrote:
People in the developed world need to lower their consumption levels for the good of mankind. That has been an absolute taboo to say in politics ever since Carter lost to Reagan after suggesting Americans lower their gas consumption. Even the so called democratic socialist in the U.S. promise more free stuff instead of questioning if we really need that stuff. Does the middle class need more hangouts like Sanders promises? Probably not.
Of course the money to pay for this will come from somewhere but Bernie's promise to take it from the rich instead of upper middle class shows what group he is trying to appeal to. The rich can't pay for all of that. It will have to come from Americans who make $200,000+ who constitute the upper middle class. They can pay for it especially in a country where the median income is $50,000. But he won't say that since it is the $200,000 family who will save the most money once colleges $14K-30,000 tuition is covered because their kids are the ones already attending colleges.
I would have much more respect for Bernie if he promised to tax the rich in order to pay for things like better high school education and free breakfast and lunch for all K-12 students instead of pandering to middle class college kids who won't care about socialism once the schools janitors try to unionize.
I won't disagree that the education system is in need of serious reform, and the "free college" is one of the few things about his platform I'm not sold on (as "affordable college" would be a better sell for me, and other opportunities because there are fuckloads of people who don't need to a bachelors degree but are there only because it's equivalent to a high school diploma 50 years ago, i.e. a basic requirement). You are probably right that some of those supporting him are self-interested rather than having a higher goal of a socialist ideal in mind (though if you've seen this, you'll recall that is mostly nonsense).
If I recall correctly, his tax plan calls for increased marginal rates about $250k/yr, which is only slightly above the number you're saying. The rich would have more of their millions and billions taxed at a higher marginal tax rate, so more than anyone else, they would be the ones disproportionately putting in the most money.
The college thing does strike a chord with all the graduates since the 2008 crash and even before who got a fancy $200,000 piece of paper that doesn't get you a good job, or one that only comes after months of "useful experience" from unpaid internships. I know people who went to in-state, public universities and still are paying off 70 grand in student loan debt and that just doesn't seem right for what the job market looks at as a necessity. I managed to pay all my student loans off within 2 years, but scholarships helped me keep my debt low, and I was able to defer repayment for a year while I was looking for work, so it shouldn't even be a draw for me since I would see no benefit from it. However, millions of people like me and I'm sure you as well, looked for work to crawl out from the ever-increasing amount of money they owe, all the while being told how their generation is entitled and told by out-of-touch older people how they were able to work through summers to pay for college and then buy a house as soon as they got their degree.
It irks one.
If I recall correctly, his tax plan calls for increased marginal rates about $250k/yr, which is only slightly above the number you're saying. The rich would have more of their millions and billions taxed at a higher marginal tax rate, so more than anyone else, they would be the ones disproportionately putting in the most money.
The college thing does strike a chord with all the graduates since the 2008 crash and even before who got a fancy $200,000 piece of paper that doesn't get you a good job, or one that only comes after months of "useful experience" from unpaid internships. I know people who went to in-state, public universities and still are paying off 70 grand in student loan debt and that just doesn't seem right for what the job market looks at as a necessity. I managed to pay all my student loans off within 2 years, but scholarships helped me keep my debt low, and I was able to defer repayment for a year while I was looking for work, so it shouldn't even be a draw for me since I would see no benefit from it. However, millions of people like me and I'm sure you as well, looked for work to crawl out from the ever-increasing amount of money they owe, all the while being told how their generation is entitled and told by out-of-touch older people how they were able to work through summers to pay for college and then buy a house as soon as they got their degree.
It irks one.
how much of your federal budget goes on over 65s and their entitlements? look at the lobbies your senior citizens have in D.C.
eat the old, not the rich. the meat has a wonderful umami nuttiness.
eat the old, not the rich. the meat has a wonderful umami nuttiness.
That seems like one of those resentful blanket statements that folks like to think sounds true, when it actually isn't. Anecdotal and all, but most elderly I've talked to are aghast at modern inflation, how much things cost, and the financial ruin visited upon young people. I've seen far more people get flak from their own and adjacent generations for being in debt and/or living with their parents into their 20's than I've seen received from the elderly. It's also been my experience that people are hardest on themselves about finances.DesertFox- wrote:
… all the while being told how their generation is entitled and told by out-of-touch older people how they were able to work through summers to pay for college and then buy a house as soon as they got their degree.
I just hate that baby boomers got away with lowered taxes all the way into retirement while leaving us with crushing debt to repay. Thanks assholes. And we're the "me first" generation. Ok.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I don't want to suggest they're not against how much things cost, because I, too, have found they are against it.... once they find out. My grandmother nearly stroked out when I told her how much dental school cost as I was applying for it. Same with trying to explain how you find a job today. Rarely can you walk into a place or call their listed number, ask "Can I have a job?" and get hired on the spot for an entry-level position, but that is still what my parents told me to do since they hadn't looked for work since the '80s.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
That seems like one of those resentful blanket statements that folks like to think sounds true, when it actually isn't. Anecdotal and all, but most elderly I've talked to are aghast at modern inflation, how much things cost, and the financial ruin visited upon young people. I've seen far more people get flak from their own and adjacent generations for being in debt and/or living with their parents into their 20's than I've seen received from the elderly. It's also been my experience that people are hardest on themselves about finances.DesertFox- wrote:
… all the while being told how their generation is entitled and told by out-of-touch older people how they were able to work through summers to pay for college and then buy a house as soon as they got their degree.
However, I wasn't really speaking about the elderly (since I don't see them that often leaving comments calling young people entitled on social media), but it is more likely to be the Boomer generation-ish folks.
Technology becomes painstakingly cheap within just a few tech generations.uziq wrote:
this is textbook tech-utopianism. it makes the egregious error in thinking that the developing world, i.e. 90% of the consumption and production taking place on the planet, can afford the latest in silicon valley innovations and nano-tech wizardry. in fact, 90% of the world is going to continue being massively inefficient until we incur irrecoverable damage to the planet's ecology. these latest innovations are not affordable and not scalable. you're essentially putting blinders on the horse driving capitalism, and saying 'tech will fix it all later'.Jay wrote:
There's no limit to resources and no need to ration them. We've become more efficient over time, and that's a continuing trend. We're not running out of anything, it's just becoming more expensive to extract some things like oil. So, over time the price of oil will rise and we'll learn to use less of it. The sky is not falling and our consumerism is not killing the planet.SuperJail Warden wrote:
People in the developed world need to lower their consumption levels for the good of mankind. That has been an absolute taboo to say in politics ever since Carter lost to Reagan after suggesting Americans lower their gas consumption. Even the so called democratic socialist in the U.S. promise more free stuff instead of questioning if we really need that stuff. Does the middle class need more hangouts like Sanders promises? Probably not.
Nobody would foresee how widespread internet use was and same goes for smart phones.
The whole thing about oil is that everyone has been producing efficient vehicles in addition to China's demand plummeting. Added to the fact that fracking tech has gotten so cheap to the point it's profitable at 50ish dollar a barrel.
100 years ago the major cities in the world were worried about horse manure in the city. Now that problem's been solved with personal vehicles.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +640|3937
But newbie you live in the woods. Of course forest people will be upset at the price of timber for their beaver dam homes.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
That seems like one of those resentful blanket statements that folks like to think sounds true, when it actually isn't. Anecdotal and all, but most elderly I've talked to are aghast at modern inflation, how much things cost, and the financial ruin visited upon young people. I've seen far more people get flak from their own and adjacent generations for being in debt and/or living with their parents into their 20's than I've seen received from the elderly. It's also been my experience that people are hardest on themselves about finances.DesertFox- wrote:
… all the while being told how their generation is entitled and told by out-of-touch older people how they were able to work through summers to pay for college and then buy a house as soon as they got their degree.
When I was born they were still producing cars with carburetors, and catalytic converters were brand new. Now we have computer control systems that shut down valves when they're not in use, cars that drive themselves and that show you your instantaneous mileage per gallon. We went from incandescent light bulbs to cfl's to LED's. Net-zero houses are now being built that take solar heat gain into account and use zero energy from the grid.Cybargs wrote:
Technology becomes painstakingly cheap within just a few tech generations.uziq wrote:
this is textbook tech-utopianism. it makes the egregious error in thinking that the developing world, i.e. 90% of the consumption and production taking place on the planet, can afford the latest in silicon valley innovations and nano-tech wizardry. in fact, 90% of the world is going to continue being massively inefficient until we incur irrecoverable damage to the planet's ecology. these latest innovations are not affordable and not scalable. you're essentially putting blinders on the horse driving capitalism, and saying 'tech will fix it all later'.Jay wrote:
There's no limit to resources and no need to ration them. We've become more efficient over time, and that's a continuing trend. We're not running out of anything, it's just becoming more expensive to extract some things like oil. So, over time the price of oil will rise and we'll learn to use less of it. The sky is not falling and our consumerism is not killing the planet.
Nobody would foresee how widespread internet use was and same goes for smart phones.
The whole thing about oil is that everyone has been producing efficient vehicles in addition to China's demand plummeting. Added to the fact that fracking tech has gotten so cheap to the point it's profitable at 50ish dollar a barrel.
100 years ago the major cities in the world were worried about horse manure in the city. Now that problem's been solved with personal vehicles.
The world has changed an amazing amount, and mostly for the better. No one likes a positive narrative though, it always has to be doom and gloom and apocalyptic.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
with respect i don't think horse manure in cities and petrol consumption is really the large-scale problems implicated in the 'lets just grow forever' model.
ironic that most of what Jay offers as evidence of technological progress was forced by government mandates and regulatory agencies.
Government regulators designed and built LED lighting, self driving cars and net-zero homes? Wow! I thought it was mechanical, electrical and software engineers! Who knew!?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
ironic that most of what Jay offers as evidence of technological progress was forced by government mandates and regulatory agencies.
Yes, they instigated higher MPG vehicles but so what? You don't think $5/gallon gas would do the same? Considering that every time the price of oil spikes, SUV sales crater, you'd think there was a correlation between what people feel in their wallet and what they value.
Last edited by Jay (2016-03-28 16:27:35)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +640|3937
Most people wouldn't even know what mpg was if the government didn't force car manufacturers to post it on every car. There wouldn't be anyone to independently verify the ratings either.
Really? You can't divide the miles you drive by how many gallons you consume? I know it's tough math... maybe it's because you've never had to budget.
Do you honestly believe that regulations happen in a vacuum? Most industry standards are instigated by... the industry itself. Why? Because it removes risk for them. Backup cameras are about to become standard because, while a good idea, no manufacturer wants to add cost to their vehicle without its rivals also being forced to. It's how airbags became standard etc.
Do you honestly believe that regulations happen in a vacuum? Most industry standards are instigated by... the industry itself. Why? Because it removes risk for them. Backup cameras are about to become standard because, while a good idea, no manufacturer wants to add cost to their vehicle without its rivals also being forced to. It's how airbags became standard etc.
Last edited by Jay (2016-03-28 17:27:50)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
More fuel-efficient vehicles is just a plus for everyone because, generally speaking, people have no fucking clue how to efficiently drive. They don't know coasting exists, accelerate all the way up into traffic visible hundred of yards ahead (or a red light/stop sign), go 80 mph with all the windows down. The efficiency nazi inside me dies a little every day.
pretty much this top gear episodeDesertFox- wrote:
More fuel-efficient vehicles is just a plus for everyone because, generally speaking, people have no fucking clue how to efficiently drive. They don't know coasting exists, accelerate all the way up into traffic visible hundred of yards ahead (or a red light/stop sign), go 80 mph with all the windows down. The efficiency nazi inside me dies a little every day.
catalytic converters were rolled out to comply with EPA standards. Computerized control is to further comply with EPA standards. My point is that these aren't examples of pure capitalistic technological innovation (with the exception of self-driving cars, which aren't readily available). They are examples of government rules forcing companies to advance technologically for the betterment of the citizens. Cars would still be dumping toxic exhaust into the air - car companies had no incentive to make cars more environmentally friendly before the EPA forced them to change.Jay wrote:
Government regulators designed and built LED lighting, self driving cars and net-zero homes? Wow! I thought it was mechanical, electrical and software engineers! Who knew!?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
ironic that most of what Jay offers as evidence of technological progress was forced by government mandates and regulatory agencies.
Yes, they instigated higher MPG vehicles but so what? You don't think $5/gallon gas would do the same? Considering that every time the price of oil spikes, SUV sales crater, you'd think there was a correlation between what people feel in their wallet and what they value.
Not sure how me saying government mandates and regulatory agency rules means that government agencies are inventing new technology, but if you'd like to create something to argue against, i'm not going to stop you.
It's also funny that you dismiss Malthusian arguments as "so 1970's" then use the main argument against Malthus (that technology will carry us out of any scary Malthusian resource problem) as your reasoning.
Dissent was the name of a college group/magazine I helped start. I like the connection to Walzer.
LOL OKJay wrote:
There's no limit to resources and no need to ration them.
Nope, in many things we - OK America - have become less efficient. Not that it matters, any efficiency gain is swallowed and then some by increased consumption.We've become more efficient over time, and that's a continuing trend.
We're not running out of anything
it's just becoming more expensive to extract some things
We're not running out of anything
it's just becoming more expensive to extract some things
We're not running out of anything
it's just becoming more expensive to extract some things
We're not running out of anything
it's just becoming more expensive to extract some things
We're not running out of anything
it's just becoming more expensive to extract some things
We're not running out of anything
Read that that many times.it's just becoming more expensive to extract some things
Simply not possible, our standard of living is so utterly connected to cheap and available oil we have no hope without it.like oil. So, over time the price of oil will rise and we'll learn to use less of it.
We'll see soon enough. Various countries already don't have enough of that free commodity which falls out of the sky - clean water.The sky is not falling and our consumerism is not killing the planet.
If we can't manage that there's not much hope for commodities which really are finite.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2016-03-29 01:55:40)
Fuck Israel
Nope, typically manufacturers fight tooth and nail to avoid having standards imposed on them.Jay wrote:
Do you honestly believe that regulations happen in a vacuum? Most industry standards are instigated by... the industry itself. Why? Because it removes risk for them. Backup cameras are about to become standard because, while a good idea, no manufacturer wants to add cost to their vehicle without its rivals also being forced to. It's how airbags became standard etc.
To say they agree to be part of formulating the standard at the last gasp doesn't mean they instigate it by any stretch. Airbags being an excellent example, followed by CAFE standards and emissions standards, in all of which each manufacturer tried to game the system by setting the standard to best benefit their own company.
Did you know every American car has about 5 kilos of useless junk on it because the fuel producers gamed the system better, had better lawyers and paid congressmen bigger bribes than the carmakers?
How is that a benefit to the consumer or the manufacturer, or anyone?
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2016-03-29 01:40:11)
Fuck Israel
The US currently possesses about 600 years worth of recoverable natural gas. That's just reserves known to be recoverable right now - it's not including future discoveries and technology improvements.Dilbert_X wrote:
LOL OKJay wrote:
There's no limit to resources and no need to ration them.Nope, in many things we - OK America - have become less efficient. Not that it matters, any efficiency gain is swallowed and then some by increased consumption.We've become more efficient over time, and that's a continuing trend.We're not running out of anythingit's just becoming more expensive to extract some thingsWe're not running out of anythingit's just becoming more expensive to extract some thingsWe're not running out of anythingit's just becoming more expensive to extract some thingsWe're not running out of anythingit's just becoming more expensive to extract some thingsWe're not running out of anythingit's just becoming more expensive to extract some thingsWe're not running out of anythingRead that that many times.it's just becoming more expensive to extract some thingsSimply not possible, our standard of living is so utterly connected to cheap and available oil we have no hope without it.like oil. So, over time the price of oil will rise and we'll learn to use less of it.We'll see soon enough. Various countries already don't have enough of that free commodity which falls out of the sky - clean water.The sky is not falling and our consumerism is not killing the planet.
If we can't manage that there's not much hope for commodities which really are finite.
Water is an issue in parts of the world, yes. A lot of the stress has been caused by improving health in places that traditionally have large families due to high death rates. One woulld hope they will adapt.
In other parts of the world, like California, it's a combination of government irrigation projects that made arid land arable and people choosing to live in dry deserts. In this particular case it really is largely the fault of the government for keeping the real cost of water hidden while also bowing down to the absolutely archaic water rights of farmers. The government should step in here and force the use of drip irrigation. If all the farmers have to do it they can pass on the costs to the consumer without fear of being undercut. See? Regulations aren't always evil.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
So now you want the govt to step in and mandate drip irrigation and set a price on water?
People should have rights taken away?
You don't think people should be allowed to have families as large as they like? Surely its for them as individuals to decide whats best for them?
We'll make a rational person of you yet.
People should have rights taken away?
You don't think people should be allowed to have families as large as they like? Surely its for them as individuals to decide whats best for them?
We'll make a rational person of you yet.
Fuck Israel
The government already sets the price of water. It's a utility.Dilbert_X wrote:
So now you want the govt to step in and mandate drip irrigation and set a price on water?
People should have rights taken away?
You don't think people should be allowed to have families as large as they like? Surely its for them as individuals to decide whats best for them?
We'll make a rational person of you yet.
The government determined water rights at the end of the 1800s and early 1900s. Rights were divided up and way oversubscribed. Now, with LA, Las Vegas and Phoenix all big cities, there's too many people drawing from the same watershed.
They shouldn't be limited but will instead limit themselves.
I am already rational, I just recognize that there are limits and absolutely despise technocrats.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat