@DEAD7 It’s time to let your whole “America is too unique for that to work” argument die. It’s never been convincing and you showed in the USPS thread that it wasn’t a sincere argument. America is always too different to follow the rest of the developed world unless we’re talking about privatizing healthcare and allowing the USPS to fail.
How do you identify as conservative or republican, if you weren't born with money?
- Thread starter mr. smoke weed
- Start date
Except that the Reagan Administration killed unions, slowed minimum wage raises, and deregulated industry and all of those things made life even worse for low-wage earners and broadened the black-white wealth gap.
Not to mention that the situation for low-wage Black workers is WORST in those states with low minimum wage, minimal regulation, and no union protections.
Stop it with the dogma. We are working in reality now. We've had 30-40 years of experimentation with deregulation and union-breaking and it's obvious where it has led.
Absolutely false because in the absence of government regulation, capital-holders regulate. And by the measure of pure capital, Whites and racist Whites hold MORE power in the capitalist market than they do in public service.The more regulations/checks you impose the higher the likelihood of discrimination.Unless you are suggesting robo enforced regulations.
I mean you know this, come on. Where are the highest concentrations of Black employees? It's in the federal government, isn't it? Look up any list of government agencies and Fortune 500 power players and show me which one has more Black folk in actual leadership and decision-making roles. Look at any list of the wealthiest Black neighborhoods. They're all in places where government employees work, aren't they?
I'm frustrated with even having this argument with you because I get the impression that you've done very little reading on the subject and are going off of dogma you've read.
Who is the most experienced environmentalist who you have read a book by who advocates the position you suggest? Doesn't have to be a liberal environmentalist, just ANYONE clearly prioritizes the natural environment over the wealthy. Who claims this stuff?
The most obvious fallacy in your logic is that strong environmental regulation need not cost jobs. There's no necessary relation there at all. Strong environmental regulation can increase job level while only hurting the profits of the worst abusers on the top. THEY are the ones who are being pandered to with the coal shyt, not the workers.
Examples of ways to increase job growth while preserving the environment can include anything from giving out incentives for green projects to public funding for roles that preserve the environment to (my favorite) establishing a currency base of preserved natural resources rather than gold, chain mining, or fiat.
That plan goes to shyt if the capitalists use their leverage to buy up property and don't care about the environment. This article is an excellent look at how the rich treat nature:The only way to truly safeguard the environment is by recognizing property rights, and the right to sue for damages.
Big money bought the forests. Small timber communities are paying the price
The market has no natural rationing mechanisms, who are you kidding?
I think we definitely should eliminate subsidies but doing so would not address any of the long-term issues with capitalist overconsumption that I've raised. Your assumption that people would be priced out of overconsumption is a pipe dream.
Kenny West
Veteran
Outside dedicated single issue people like gun nuts and religious fanatics its usually just bigots
A unknown quantity are independent leaning who just dont like "the way liberals do things". I guess the red tinged libertarians. Things like Twitter culture, censorship, media agendas, resistance to corporatism and people who express some of the more valid criticisms of neoliberals cause folks to want to resist democrats. I feel this is a failing of the 2 party system.
A significant portion of these folks are less than six degrees of separation from bigotry themselves tho to end up supporting Republicans in spite of their terrible policies.
A unknown quantity are independent leaning who just dont like "the way liberals do things". I guess the red tinged libertarians. Things like Twitter culture, censorship, media agendas, resistance to corporatism and people who express some of the more valid criticisms of neoliberals cause folks to want to resist democrats. I feel this is a failing of the 2 party system.
A significant portion of these folks are less than six degrees of separation from bigotry themselves tho to end up supporting Republicans in spite of their terrible policies.
It’s literally the reason those progressive policies haven’t been implemented.
On this board Trump, rethugs, racism, backwards thinking etc. which are all products of our unique culture, history, and racial prejudices are blamed daily.
...you just don’t like my framing.
It’s literally the reason those progressive policies haven’t been implemented.
On this board Trump, rethugs, racism, backwards thinking etc. which are all products of our unique culture, history, and racial prejudices are blamed daily.
...you just don’t like my framing.
The literal reason that progressive policies haven't been implemented is due to the level of control that the wealthy hold over both of our political parties and the processes that allow those people power.
If there are secondary reasons that the wealthy hold so much power, we should either address those or overcome those by other means. To just say, "But there are other factors, therefore I give up!" is feeding in directly to what the power-holders want.
"America is too racist to implement fair progressive policies, therefore I support reparations instead" is a really silly position to hold, ain't it?
Who’s giving up?
Are you making a “if you don’t agree with my solution you’re against a solution argument?
I support progressive policies at the state level. At the federal level I prefer the more agile and flexible market solutions.
...the point being made in my post is that America’s unique make up and history are why we can’t and haven’t copy-paste policies from other nations.
African American redress is owed independent of any other argument.
What happens to workers in the fossil fuel industry in the 50-70 age range who(for a number of reasons, ability being number1) aren’t going to be retooled to work these green jobs?
or the workers lacking the aptitude to take to the new technologies?
Your zero job loss claim seems dubious...
You well know I am speaking of net job loss, not "no individual workers" losing their jobs. Literally nothing, not even "exact status quo", can prevent individual workers from losing their jobs every year.What happens to workers in the fossil fuel industry in the 50-70 age range who(for a number of reasons, ability being number1) aren’t going to be retooled to work these green jobs?
or the workers lacking the aptitude to take to the new technologies?
Your zero job loss claim seems dubious...
I think UBI is certainly part of the solution there. But it's also worth pointing out that there aren't any specialized jobs in the fossil fuel industry that should result in anyone being in great need of money at the age of 50-70. If they're really so specialized that they can't retool to other industries, then they're someone making bank. My brother-in-law is a simple 40yo mechanic in power plants, no post-high school education, quite general (has worked oil, geothermal, and now natural gas) and has made enough money already in 15 or so years of working to have already paid off homes twice.
Who’s giving up?
Are you making a “if you don’t agree with my solution you’re against a solution argument?
You claimed that fighting White Supremacy via legislation is impossible, you claimed that rolling back capitalism was impossible, you claimed that making education, health care, and justice equal across class lines was impossible, you claimed that government preservation of the environment was impossible.
You didn't give other ways to actually address those issues. You just provided slogans that would leave all the same issues in place.
No one has suggested a "copy-paste" policy. But of course we can learn.
And every single one of your criticisms of federal policy would apply to states exactly the same, so I don't see how kicking the buck from federal to state does anything for your arguments.
White Supremacy: Bigotry cant be legislated away but I believe reparations can successfully offset its effects.
Rolling back Capitalism: I’m still not convinced the potential gains justify the cost. Without the rest of the world on board we can flip our economy completely green and still be doomed.
Education: Make public colleges free, and eliminate tenure
Healthcare: Free up the market, and introduce UBI
Justice: decriminalize drugs and other victimless crimes
State politics are much more forgiving allowing more room for error. The states can also learn from one another as they craft different variations taking what works and discarding what doesn’t.
The policies are also tailored more to the demographics of that state rather than the one size fits all federal approach... and the people crafting the policies at the state level are much more accountable to the people they are governing.
For example seeing that Washington hasn’t imploded from implementing a $15 min wage makes the arguments for it much stronger than before, and has silenced many of the policies detractors. I believe a few other states plan to follow suit.
Most of the stuff you said is just rehashing the same arguments we've always had, so let's just highlight this one.
Claim the potential gains don't justify the cost when while admitting that the cost of NOT trying is "doom".
What fukking costs of working towards a green economy could be worse than being doomed?
Claim the potential gains don't justify the cost when while admitting that the cost of NOT trying is "doom".
What fukking costs of working towards a green economy could be worse than being doomed?
If we are doomed either way, why suffer?Most of the stuff you said is just rehashing the same arguments we've always had, so let's just highlight this one.
Claim the potential gains don't justify the cost when while admitting that the cost of NOT trying is "doom".
What fukking costs of working towards a green economy could be worse than being doomed?
What we need is a global agenda that makes sense.
Asking Americans to reshape their lives only to suffer the same fate is a hard sale.
Tech despite how far off it is, is digestible, and potentially effective without the cooperation of other nations.
Our environmental destruction is causing MORE suffering, right this very moment, on the local, national, and global level. Suggesting that pulling back from doom would increase suffering is ridiculous. We're seeing the negative results of pollution, land destruction, and climate change RIGHT NOW.
In this very thread you claimed that state policies were preferable to federal because federal agreement was too hard to manage and states could learn from each other.
That logic directly contradicts your idea that the USA should do nothing until the entire globe agrees. We lead the example of virtually everything in regards to polluting and overconsuming. If we lead then of course others will follow. And right now we lead by polluting.
Not to mention that, as the left-wing rag Forbes suggests, changes in individual lifestyle motivation larger change, so of course changes at the national level will motivate global change.
Greta Is Right: Study Shows Individual Lifestyle Change Boosts Systemic Climate Action
I need to respond to this separately because I've said it multiple times and you haven't gotten the message.
We. Can't. Tech. Our. Way. Out. Of. Overconsumption.
It doesn't matter WHAT tech is invented, because the very nature of the system requires constant growth and constant conversion of non-monetary resources into financial capital. That's a basic function of our money system, where the level of debt is far greater than the money available. Even if you eliminated hydrocarbon use in cars tomorrow, it wouldn't solve the root issue because you'd still have billions of people desperately trying to find a way to pay off their debts, millions of companies desperately trying to grow, and they'd eventually find SOME way to profit off of those available resources.
All tech does is delay the issue, so wishing for some imaginary future tech is the worst of both worlds - it both fails to delay the issue in the present AND fails to offer a solution for the future.
A finite world cannot survive a system that requires infinite growth. This planet cannot survive capitalism based on interest no matter what tech is developed, because the machine needs to be fed and there will always be someone out there who will find a way to destroy resources to feed the machine.