2020 US Election

[zlemflolia]

biden is a damn boomer who needs to go back to his nursing home

[ambermonk]

One can make the same argument for our man Bernie tho. At the end of the day it's sources of income, policies, empathy, and ability to speak coherently that matter the most.

[Nebraska]

 

[Salvatorin]

okay now let's have one for sleepy joe

[Nebraska]

 

[zlemflolia]

On 12/5/2019 at 7:46 PM, ambergonk said:

One can make the same argument for our man Bernie tho. At the end of the day it's sources of income, policies, empathy, and ability to speak coherently that matter the most.

bernie's an age boomer, but not a mind boomer

[TubularCorporation]

The biggest boomers are Gen X.

[luke viia]

bernie is, uh...older than a boomer. he's from the "silent generation."

[goDel]

The irony about empathy, is that it comes with experience. And that people tend to get more cynical (and conservative) with age. (In other words, it's not just a boomer thing)

If the idea is that people will evolve to have more empathy (other words, it *is* a generational issue), you need to explain why we actually see the opposite happening. Rising prevalence of autism for example. And arguably, the trigger happy PC culture can also be seen as a consequence of having less empathy ( instead of more...trigger warning!). That is, if you consider the use of conflict as a tool to force PC issues, I'd say that would be a sign of a lack of empathy. There tends to be a lot of conflict (and people being triggered).

And, imo, older generations seem to have less issues with being empathetic with eachother than younger generations. Could be me though.

The group identity thing (pc culture!?) seems like a regression to me, instead of a progression. As empathy is about the individual and not the group. And the focus on group identity seems to comes at the cost of individual identity. Adding the conflict model on top of that, only seems to add to the regression part. 

[zlemflolia]

if older generations have less issues being empathetic why did younger generations have to force them to let black people drink water and to let women go outside

[goDel]

Theres a difference between culture and empathy on an individual level, I'd argue. 

[ambermonk]

1 hour ago, luke viia said:

bernie is, uh...older than a boomer. he's from the "silent generation."

That is correct. So is Biden.

To be fair though age shouldn't matter as much as attitude.

[Candiru]

Bernie will lose like Corbyn if he’s the nominee.

[caze]

11 minutes ago, Candiru said:

Bernie will lose like Corbyn if he’s the nominee.

Bernie is nowhere near as bad as Corbyn: he's not disliked as much by the electorate, he's not living in the past, he's doesn't have an anti-western international outlook. In terms of policies he's still got plenty of radical ones, but on a personal level there's no comparison.

[dingformung]

Which of Bernie's policies appear radical to you?

[Brisbot]

15 hours ago, goDel said:

Theres a difference between culture and empathy on an individual level, I'd argue. 

As someone who lives around lots of conservatives and older conservatives I'd say they're some of the nicest people I've met, yet if you go to one of their family Thanksgivings you would think otherwise.

[caze]

3 hours ago, darreichungsform said:

Which of Bernie's policies appear radical to you?

radical, but in a bad way: wealth tax, cancelling student debt & free college, medicare for all, anti-nuclear green new deal

Edited December 13, 2019 by caze

[dingformung]

40 minutes ago, caze said:

radical, but in a bad way: wealth tax, cancelling student debt & free college, medicare for all, anti-nuclear green new deal

A wealth tax will only lead to wealth being transferred and administered elsewhere. So I agree with you on that even though from a moral perspective it probably would be fairer. Much better would be a financial transaction tax. The US could force other countries to take part in this by sanctioning the fuck out of them like usual.

Cancelling student debt and free colleges is a good idea. Why do you oppose to this?

Medicare for all is also a good idea. Definitely better than the system the US has right now, by far.

I understand the pro nuclear arguments. It's a very green technology until something goes wrong. But modern nuclear plants are extremely safe. It could serve as a gateway technology until greener technology is more advanced. Definitely better than coal. But still not sustainable and 100% safe and where to put all the nuclear waste? Also, more sustainable energy sources are already pretty good and can replace nuclear plants and coal power stations.

[caze]

1 hour ago, darreichungsform said:

A wealth tax will only lead to wealth being transferred and administered elsewhere. So I agree with you on that even though from a moral perspective it probably would be fairer. Much better would be a financial transaction tax. The US could force other countries to take part in this by sanctioning the fuck out of them like usual.

a wealth tax wouldn't lead to wealth being transferred elsewhere, Americans pay tax on all of their income regardless where it was made or is stored. it did lead to massive capital flight when the French implemented one, ended up being a total disaster costing them billions, but that wouldn't apply to the US.

most billionaires wealth isn't real money, it's tied up in stocks and shares and other assets. much of it is productive investment in the economy (it creates jobs, pays wages, allows companies to invest in R&D, etc.). liquidating a part of this 'wealth' every year is a bad and needless interference in the economy, it would be difficult to do properly (how do you even value it? the majority of it isn't publicly traded, there is no value on it until you try and sell it; and even the very fact of being forced to pay it would already begin to devalue it. how does debt factor into the calculations?), it would bugger up the stock market, it would be bad for pension funds. when people trade in stocks and other assets they can make a profit on it, and they already have to pay taxes on that (with a few exceptions, e.g. government bonds - which can be seen as a form of taxes you can make a profit from). they've already paid taxes on the money they used to buy those shares in the first place too, so a wealth tax is a form of double taxation, they are fundamentally immoral. it's probably also unconstitutional. there are plenty of better ways of raising extra tax revenue (increasing income tax or capital gains tax for example). this is just popular because people are envious and dumb.

1 hour ago, darreichungsform said:

Cancelling student debt and free colleges is a good idea. Why do you oppose to this?

It's a terrible idea. US universities are too expensive as it is, this would just massively increase the cost of them, the tax burden would balloon over time. It's also a massive give away to the middle and upper classes, for people from poorer backgrounds who have problems paying off student debt there are other approaches (such as we have in the UK, where the majority of student debt is never repaid - student debt should be seen as a graduate tax, payable when you are earning enough), and more broadly the focus should be on cutting the cost per student of sending a kid to college.

1 hour ago, darreichungsform said:

Medicare for all is also a good idea. Definitely better than the system the US has right now, by far.

US health care also suffers from the same cost disease as 3rd level education, universal single payer has the same problems with free college, it would just exacerbate the cost problems that are already there while letting the rich off the hook. it's possible to provide universal access without nationalising insurance or provision, most of the world's successful health systems do not do either of these things, the US should look to them for inspiration, there are numerous reforms that could work within the current system to drive down the cost of insurance and drugs and also allow for full access to medicare for those who can't afford private insurance.

2 hours ago, darreichungsform said:

I understand the pro nuclear arguments. It's a very green technology until something goes wrong. But modern nuclear plants are extremely safe. It could serve as a gateway technology until greener technology is more advanced. Definitely better than coal. But still not sustainable and 100% safe and where to put all the nuclear waste? Also, more sustainable energy sources are already pretty good and can replace nuclear plants and coal power stations.

it is totally sustainable and the safest form of energy production, bar none. there is no such thing as nuclear waste either, it's just more fuel for later use. just stick it in a box, it doesn't take up much room. renewables cannot replace nuclear and fossil generation, it's a fantasy, they can only play a part (Germany has already hit the limit of onshore wind generation for example).

[dingformung]

Double taxation isn't immoral. It's pretty normal. You pay income tax and you also pay sales tax on goods that you pay for with your income.

One has to think about which sources of income apart from income tax could exist in order to bear the immense costs of the necessary restructuring. A really good idea is a financial transaction tax. This would have the side effect that the finance industry, which does not create actual values, would be contained. For example, it was calculated that a financial transaction tax of 0.3% in Switzerland  could distribute an unconditional basic income of € 1,500 per month to every Swiss citizen. Sure, the US isn't Switzerland, but still. It is  clear to that a basic income is currently unthinkable in the USA, but the financial transaction tax remains an interesting financing model and would make it obsolete to increase income tax which would only further burden the middle class.

Of course, one shouldn't be dogmatic about the healthcare system. A mixed system can work very well. I don't think Medicare for All is a bad idea, but there are certainly other ideas. Experts should take a close look at this and decide which of the existing models fit the US best.
 

Incidentally, it is nonsense that Germany has already reached its limit of onshore wind energy. However, the construction of new wind power plants is blocked in many cases, because right-wing parties are against it and use it as part of their populist agitation mostly because they are associated with the coal industry. Acceptance among large parts of the population is therefore falling. Interestingly enough, many of the anti-wind power people who don't want a wind power plant next to their village forget that sewage treatment plants, manure drying plants and airports can be closer to towns than wind turbines but they don't oppose to this as much. But that's another matter.

It is simply not okay that students leave college with a debt of 50k dollars, at least in my books. Education should be everyone's right and not a question of wealth and social background. And what about those who don't complete their studies for whatever reason? Without a degree, they have little chance of getting into a profession that enables them to pay back. The USA has to become more social. And that certainly costs money, so a financial transaction tax makes sense.

[caze]

1 hour ago, darreichungsform said:

Double taxation isn't immoral. It's pretty normal. You pay income tax and you also pay sales tax on goods that you pay for with your income.

Schemes like sales tax and financial tax are good because they're very simple to implement and raise a lot of tax which is very hard to get out of paying. To address the moral issue of double taxation I think it's important that if you have a high sales tax you should have a low income tax, or vice versa. Scandinavian countries have high sales and income taxes, making them particularly regressive. The US on the other hand has very low (or non existent, depending on the state) sales tax, and low income tax, Yang wants to introduce a federal VAT, it's a great idea.

Another possible tax is a Land Value Tax, they have been much talked about for a hundred years or so, but rarely implemented. They are very progressive and should definitely be tried out before a wealth tax (land is much easier to value than other assets, like a private company or an art collection, it's a far simpler and almost certainly more effective way of raising cash than a wealth tax).

1 hour ago, darreichungsform said:

Incidentally, it is nonsense that Germany has already reached its limit of onshore wind energy. However, the construction of new wind power plants is blocked in many cases, because right-wing parties are against it and use it as part of their populist agitation mostly because they are associated with the coal industry. Acceptance among large parts of the population is therefore falling. Interestingly enough, many of the anti-wind power people who don't want a wind power plant next to their village forget that sewage treatment plants, manure drying plants and airports can be closer to towns than wind turbines but they don't oppose to this as much. But that's another matter.

It's not just right wing opposition and NIMBYism at play here, there are two big problems. The first is environmental, growth of onshore wind is simply not sustainable, the amount of land required is just too much, and it's very damaging to wildlife (massive numbers of birds and bats, as well as insects, are killed, and onshore wind is especially bad at killing the birds at the top of the food chain, of which there are far less and many of which are already endangered - offshore wind also takes out lots of birds, but it's migratory birds - who can take a bit of a culling), there are also big sustainability questions in terms of the construction, maintenance and life-time and replacement requirements, and the carbon footprint of all that. The second is down to grid infrastructure, Germany is close to it's limits, without massive roll out of new grid infrastructure (in terms of transmission, substations, infrastructure) as well as the requirement for massive grid storage (which has never been implemented in any country without abundant spare hyrdo capacity) there just isn't much room for growth, you can't just keep adding capacity, eventually shit starts to explode.

1 hour ago, darreichungsform said:

It is simply not okay that students leave college with a debt of 50k dollars, at least in my books. Education should be everyone's right and not a question of wealth and social background. And what about those who don't complete their studies for whatever reason? Without a degree, they have little chance of getting into a profession that enables them to pay back. The USA has to become more social. And that certainly costs money, so a financial transaction tax makes sense.

Stop thinking about it as debt then, think about it as a deferred tax, which you only have to pay if you can afford to. In the UK if you get a degree and end up unemployed for the rest of your life you'd never have to payback a penny of your student debt. Rich fuckers would continue to pay out of their own pockets for their education and everyone else would pay whatever they can. It's a far more efficient allocation of resources than just decoupling the cost from the usage, which would just lead to continuing cost increases, which would be paid back by everyone as their taxes continue to increase. It would also be far easier to implement in the US, would just require the government to setup a new federal body which students can avail themselves of, Bernie's plan would be a nightmare to implement given the fact that each state currently has a lot of say in how funding for universities works, it's not a given everyone would even be able to avail themselves of free college under his plan because of that.

 

Edited December 14, 2019 by caze

[caze]

Edit: timed out on editing, yo @Joyrex increase the amount of time we have to edit a post.

"(in terms of transmission, substations, infrastructure)" is supposed to be  "(in terms of transmission, substations, national interconnects)"

[zlemflolia]

4 hours ago, caze said:

radical, but in a bad way: wealth tax, cancelling student debt & free college, medicare for all, anti-nuclear green new deal

None of that is radical at all.  Nuclear isn't even renewable or decentralized

Imagine thinking providing medical care for everyone regardless of how much surplus wealth they've skimmed off the backs of workers is a bad thing.  Imagine viewing education as some personal luxury item rather than a core piece of infrastructure for your country and all of humanity

Do you want to live in a country where the wealthy can perpetually hoard wealth and use it to build more wealth through deploying capital?

Do you want to live in a country where people are strangled by unjustifiably high student debt?
Do you want to live in a country where people don't get to educate themselves free if they want to?
Do you want to live in a country where people don't get medical care free if they need it?

Do you want to live in a country where energy is a centralized commodity rather than a decentralized right?

Edited December 14, 2019 by Zeffolia

[caze]

read my subsequent posts to answer your stupid questions.

[zlemflolia]

most billionaires wealth isn't real money, it's tied up in stocks and shares and other assets. much of it is productive investment in the economy (it creates jobs, pays wages, allows companies to invest in R&D, etc.)

haha holy fuck wealth is not productive, workers are, wealth is literally nothing more at this point than 1s and 0s