You're glad for nothing. Way too little too late. — Benkei

Cutting emissions by 40% is better than 27%. That’s reason to be glad. Not nearly enough, but it’s a start.

By no means am I advocating complacency because of this bill. But even this small step wouldn’t have happened without real work. Real work that really isn’t possible if one resigns oneself to defeatism.

After following this all day, your post was the first I heard it passed. :lol:

I’m guessing it passes the house now. I’m shocked this happened at all. Shows the impact of people pushing for it.

Or — this was Manchin’s plan all along: keep whittling it down over time, keep saying no, get everyone thinking it’s dead — then, when you let that linger, come back and give scraps and have everyone forget that they’re being fucked: that it’s nowhere close to the original $6 trillion, which was already too little. In the end we get 400 billion. A drop in the bucket.

A nice psychological trick. Similar to the “low-balling” technique of haggling.

I don’t know if this was all deliberate, but I’m suspicious. This isn’t a great bill. Still, I can’t help being glad they got something.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/08/02/climate/manchin-deal-emissions-cuts.html

Currently they’re in “vote-o-rama” — more ridiculousness. But it should pass soon.

Regarding climate:




This bill will apparently get us close— but still isn’t enough. Question is: does this over or under estimate the impact of the Inflation Reduction Act?

With the additions of fossil fuel leasing, it’s hard to say.

We need to spend about 3% of GDP to really fight global warming. That’s about $700 billion a year. (US GDP is about 23 trillion).

That’s about what we spend on the pentagon every year (viz., corporate America— Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, etc., which mostly goes to shareholders and CEOs) — in other words, straight to the pockets of the 0.01%. Nice taxpayer gifts to the rich, who in turn give the bloated military more planes they don’t need.

This bill spends $38.5 billion a year instead. Which is an absolute joke. It’s about 6% of what we should be spending. The gimmick is that they stretch it out over ten years and say it’s “385 billion” that they’re spending. Funny how they don’t do this with the military. If they did, we spend 7.5 trillion on the military.

Military: $7,500,000,000,000.

Climate: $385,000,000,000.

The suggestion that this bill gets us to 40% from 2005 level emissions is interesting. If true, it goes only to show how much we’re failing to do so much more. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

[also posted on climate thread as it’s relevant there as well.]

Worth remembering: we need to cut about 30 billion tons of carbon — globally — by 2030. This bill cuts 1 billion.

Nevertheless:




This bill will apparently get us close— but still isn’t enough. Question is: does this over or under estimate the impact of the Inflation Reduction Act?

With the additions of fossil fuel leasing, it’s hard to say.

We need to spend about 3% of GDP to really fight global warming. That’s about $700 billion a year. (US GDP is about 23 trillion).

That’s about what we spend on the pentagon every year (viz., corporate America— Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, etc., which mostly goes to shareholders and CEOs) — in other words, straight to the pockets of the 0.01%. Nice taxpayer gifts to the rich, who in turn give the bloated military more planes they don’t need.

This bill spends $38.5 billion a year instead. Which is an absolute joke. It’s about 6% of what we should be spending. The gimmick is that they stretch it out over ten years and say it’s “385 billion” that they’re spending. Funny how they don’t do this with the military. If they did, we spend 7.5 trillion on the military.

Military: $7,500,000,000,000.

Climate: $385,000,000,000.

The suggestion that this bill gets us to 40% from 2005 level emissions is interesting. If true, it goes only to show how much we’re failing to do so much more. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

This discussion was merged into Life Sucks: (General Anti-Life Discussion)

I'm not a Buddhist, — unenlightened

I didn’t say you were. But you know best.

What does this mean and what is it contributing?

What’s so awful about pain? Why is some pain worse than death?
— Xtrix

The questions make no sense. — unenlightened

:roll:

It makes perfect sense. Why does one prefer death to pain?

Sometimes the pain is excruciating — that’s obvious. That’s also not what I’m talking about.

The rest of your post is Buddhist cliche.

Again making the mistake in thinking there is something wrong. — Darkneos

It’s not a mistake. If someone “longs for death,” that person has a problem. Unless we want to vacate the words of any meaning whatsoever.

You'd think it'd be easy and I do too. Trust me when I say I've googled painless ways to die — Darkneos

What’s so awful about pain? Why is some pain worse than death?

If one were to take a dive off a tall building they’d be dead.

Anyway— It’s really not that interesting. Feel free to have the last word.

Because getting there, as I already stated, is hard and unreliable as things stand — Darkneos

It’s hard and unreliable to kill yourself? I really can’t see how that’s true, but OK.

As for the survival instinct — yes, true. But supposedly you long for death. If the drive to continue living is greater— then you really don’t want it. If you did you’d be dead already— provided that there are means to do so and, as I already mentioned, there are plenty of ways to do so.

People who consider suicide very often don’t truly want to die — they’re either without meaning and joy or are clinically depressed.

Do you consider yourself depressed? It sounds that way to me. In which case: there are ways out.

as I long for death, — Darkneos

Then why are you still around? I don’t mean this to be callous — and I’m not encouraging suicide — but genuinely curious. If you long for nothingness, why keep going?

its members fail to recognize their own solidarity. — Pantagruel

We see this in unionization efforts. But it’s fairly easy to overcome: just listen to people. They’ll be much more in common than not.

As for large numbers — that’s a problem in anyway system. That’s why we subdivide between regions, states, districts, cities and towns.

Anti-social types love to blather on about markets and free trade — they’re simply merchants who lower everything to the level of transaction, because that’s all they know and thus how they see the world. Then they raise transactions among two people to moral heights.

But they always— always — ignore externalities. That’s not an accident. We’re supposed to forget about the outside world, the community, or other people altogether. What matters is ME and MY transactions.

So it goes for this sick, merchant worldview.

I’ll say it as I’ve said a hundred times: the quicker these poor saps die out, the better. For the sake of future generations.

Sinema has just signed on to this bill. Crucial step.

Looks like she’s nixing the carrier interest credit in favor of a buyback excise tax of 1%. Not bad.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/04/us/politics/sinema-inflation-reduction-act.html

What should I live for or how should I live? — rossii

That’s a fantastic question, and a highly important one.

It’s also, perhaps frustratingly, a deeply personal one. No general answer can be given — from me or anyone else. It has to come from you, and one day it may.

No they don't. They've gotten away with it for decades by making people focus on the culture war. — Mr Bee

Touché.

I guess for a second I forgot how cynical they really are.

If only we could go back to the glory years of feudalism and slavery. No big government regulations and taxes - simply "just" transactions between individuals.

Ah, the good ol' days.

Always remember what lies at the foundation of all this whining about taxes and government: narcissism and borderline solipsism. Oh -- I mean "freedom," of course.

The freedom to be a callous, selfish asshole.

Do you really think it is just to take the fruits of someone else’s labor without their consent? — NOS4A2

You do consent, by living in a country with laws. Don't like them? Either leave or try to get them changed. Taxes have a long history. Take it up with the founding fathers and the constitution.

59 to 41% — in Kansas.

The GOP have to face reality at some point about the unpopularity of their policies.

Communism explicitly aims to socialize the bourgeoisie, that is to say, repress and steal from the upper middle and rich classes and (supposedly) give to the poor working class. — Tzeentch

That has little to do with communism, in my view. So here it really is a matter of meaning.

What do you believe? — Tzeentch

I believe power should be legitimate. More specifically, at least in the shorter term, I’m in favor of democracy— including democracy at the workplace, where workers have a role in determining what’s produced, how it's produced, where it's produced, and where the profits go.

As it stands, we're in the Sociopathic Capitalism era where corporate governance has adopted the Friedman doctrine and wealth inequality has soared to heights not seen since the pyramids. That's 40 years of neoliberalism. We see the effects all around us. I'm against that.

Who is more philosophically significant in the modern world? — Bret Bernhoft

Niether, really. As a comedian, Bill was and is one of my favorites.

I wouldn't say Rogan is "celebrated," he's just a fairly open guy who talks to anyone (but mostly other comedians), came at a time when podcasting wasn't huge yet, and had some guests do and say some crazy stuff on his show (like Elon Musk). So he's popular, and because he occasionally has ultra conservative guests and says some things about trans people -- and likes cars and is a big guy with tattoos who can kick ass, etc., he appeals to teens and many on the Right. I wouldn't call him philosophically relevant.

Bill Hicks and Joe Rogan both spoke (at one point or another) about the importance of manifesting one's mind through the use of pragmatism, tools and self-reflection. — Bret Bernhoft

I'm not sure what you mean by any of this.

Those darned advertisers convincing people they need pointless luxuries! — Tzeentch

Yes?

Wouldn't it be nice if we could take all of that money and instead use it for useful things? — Tzeentch

No.

your characterization of advertising as a means to sell people things they don't need suggests you both consider people too stupid to make such choices for themselves and yourself an expert on determining what is best for others. — Tzeentch

It’s like arguing people are too stupid to choose between republicans and democrats. That’s really not the point.

Choices are simply not given. That’s not the fault of the people.

In terms of creating desires for useless stuff— “fashionable consumption,” etc. — this has a long history, has been studied, documented; not a controversial remark. They admit to it outright.

The fact that you resist something so obvious has already shown you have no real leg up stand on.

You may be a closet authoritarian, I'm afraid. — Tzeentch

Whatever you like. Your feelings are irrelevant.

If you're the hippie commune type I take all of that back, — Tzeentch

You’re free to ask me what I believe directly— this way you don’t have to guess. But you do you. Create whatever fantasy you want.

Collectivism isn't the same as communism, and China isn't communist (anymore). — Tzeentch

Not the same, but an example.

And yes, China is communist.

But if you want to compare the domestic policies of the US with China and suggest they're similar then that is laughable. — Tzeentch

A big mess of repression, surveillance, authoritarianism, genocide, etc. — Tzeentch

After your endless displays of Trump boot-licking you would have us believe that you’re some sort of anarchist? I suppose it’s good that you recognize your lack of responsibility though, very Trumpian. — praxis

Bullseye. The hypocrisy is astonishing.

But please, we should all be encouraging the Trump supporters not to vote. It is absolutely moral to force yourself not to vote for fascists, as much as you may love them.

Capitalism did something amazing. It took the old aristocracy out of the picture and made everyone equal under the law. — Tate

:rofl:

Sorry…but this is amazing.

A nice fairytale for kids.

In fact the entire advertising industry operates on the complete opposite goal: create desires for things not needed.
— Xtrix

Ah, one styles themselves the arbiter of who needs what. Spoken like a true 'collectivist'. — Tzeentch

Lol. Food, water, shelter, family, community. I view these as needs, or at least different than a new gadget every 2 years.

I guess I’m part of a communist conspiracy. Mea culpa.

A big mess of repression, surveillance, authoritarianism, genocide, etc. — Tzeentch

Yes, the United States has its problems— but we should evaluate as balanced a way as we can.

China — Tzeentch

Oh — oops. :wink:

Please don't use China as an example for successful collectivism. It's a powerful state. — Tzeentch

I understand collectivism to be a term to describe state policies — Tzeentch

I agree — I don’t think China is an example of communism at all, as I understand it. But I’m using your meaning, not mine.

Yes. But don’t expect them to read Mayer. That’ll screw up the very neat “Government is the problem” mantra.

Sure, capitalism is far from perfect, but at least a successful capitalist has to produce something others want to buy — Tzeentch

Nonsense. In fact the entire advertising industry operates on the complete opposite goal: create desires for things not needed.

which is why its many evils also went along with many goods - history's collectivist projects cannot say the same. — Tzeentch

They can’t? China seems to be doing just fine. The Soviets deceased poverty and starvation.

Sure, if we start with the assumption that “collectivism” (whatever that means) only produces evil, that’s what you’ll see. Or you’ll assign all evils to it— as many do with “governments.”

Though I understand collectivism to be a term to describe state policies (and in recent times also supranational organisations), and collectivist states to be states that act with collectivism as their goal. — Tzeentch

A strange definition of collectivism, but OK.

That despite having been tried and having produced by far the worst track record of any system in human history, — Tzeentch

No, that would be capitalism. Brutal, inhumane, and reducing everyone and every thing to capital.

If we go beyond Fox News talking points about Stalin, Mao, and Castro, the reality isn’t so simple.

The problem with collectivism is simple. It is the outright subjugation of the individual to the ideology of the state — Tzeentch

You can have a collective without a state.

Let's suppose they were all beautifully innocent savages, which they certainly were not. ... What was it that they were fighting for, if they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their right to keep part of the earth untouched, unused, and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal?

- Ayn Rand

Yeah, this “individualist” thinking never really appealed to me. Not in my genes. I just can’t view people as “primitive savages.” I guess it appeals to some.

Notice the argument is not that one deserves to keep the value of what one produces. That wouldn’t look too good for feudalism or capitalism — so let’s instead whine about taxes, so we can continue the attempt to undermine the one institution that’s potentially democratic.

I repeat: all of this is, at its core, a hatred of democracy, of social institutions, and of people. The world revolves around me and my self-interests, full stop.

It’s just more dressed-up Ayn Rand garbage. A sick and silly outlook indeed.

And who are against unions because they had a bad experience in one once?

Yeah, something like that.

Except they too often get elected. — Banno

It does seem to be the ruling ideology. But I think that’s changing as the people become angrier with the state of things. Most are lashing out in silly ways, to the point of electing clowns because they say they like them.

I guess it means we gotta try harder to educate people and listen to them.

Anyway, I was mostly talking about people in this forum.

Anti-social personalities generally view doing anything with others as evil, raising “individualism” to the level of fundamentalist dogma, matched only by their faith in markets. They’ll forever rail against unions and governments while keeping quiet about corporate power, for one reason: they prefer tyranny. Why? They imagine themselves as in charge.

It’s nothing other than dressed up justification for greed, the hatred of democracy and, generally, human beings. Who knows how or why they acquired this sick outlook — I suspect early experiences and heavy brainwashing.

Not worth getting too worked up about. Leave them to their pathologies.

:up:

Class war is very real and very damaging to the world. Don’t pay attention to those who pretend it doesn’t exist — they’re unwitting puppets for pure tyranny. Always have been.

Someone made this inquiry from the US and the results absolutely horrible. — ssu

One person I know of, which everyone should check out if they haven't already, is Tom Ferguson. His "investment theory of party competition" is worth the time -- the book is Golden Rule.

The bottom 80% of the country have almost no political power whatsoever. Their interests are simply ignored.

Bill McQuire’s take— worth reading:

https://apple.news/AdAE4xfbNQyiITnXxH1d0cw

Well, it has been seven months from this exchange. All only a supply chain problem, still? — ssu

I didn’t say “only,” but it’s the main driver in my view. Yes, that still holds— fairly obvious, in fact. You raise this now as if you’ve been vindicated when the money supply has decreased as the Fed has tightened policy. You’d think that would bring inflation down — but hasn’t. It will probably send us into recession— but that’s about it.

The Fed can do nothing about oil and gas supplies. Nothing. And it’s this that’s driving inflation so high.

It also does nothing about monopoly power and price gouging, which is also happening. Hence why big oil just posted record profits. Billions of dollars that go from customers being gouged to shareholders’ pockets. There’s absolutely no good reason for that whatsoever. It’s stupidity and greed.

Of course there are many reasons for the inflation, the effects of the pandemic, the war and both previous fiscal and monetary policy. But as the US is now in recession, it's interesting to see what the Fed will actually do from here onwards. — ssu

The Fed will continue lowering rates until we hit recession. They have only limited options. I imagine inflation will come down a little in the next few months, but overall what happens will largely be contingent on what Russia, China, and the corporate monopolies do.

Someone showed me a segment the comedian John Oliver did on inflation. A surprisingly good analysis, actually.

Then in terms of wages, benefits, you’ve had what others thought you deserved. — NOS4A2

Nope. But I see why those with anti-social personality disorder may think that.

Trade unions, if they get powerful in the US, won't change the system. Sorry. They aren't going to be an engine of change. — ssu

They have, and it’s very possible they will again. Your gut feelings aside.

And along with safety issues and other work related stuff, higher wages are the objectives of trade unions. — ssu

Not always. In fact, I’m not sure even most of the time. What unions fight for, if they haven’t been corrupted, is worker dignity. Sometimes that involves wages. Mostly it involves more involvement in decision making.