2020 Elections

[dismalist]

Climate has always been changing. There are winners and there are losers, and there is uncertainty about costs and benefits. [The benefits are usually ignored.] Whatever, there is no catastrophe in the offing.

[downer]

Markets are already reacting to climate change even if politicians aren't. Eventually politicians will be forced to follow the markets, regardless of party affiliation.

That's nice, but as far as I know it is too late to avoid major effects of climate change and their socio-political consequences. Though the partial collapse of the airline industry should help out.

[Parasaurolophus]

Markets are already reacting to climate change even if politicians aren't. Eventually politicians will be forced to follow the markets, regardless of party affiliation.

We've known about anthropogenic climate change since at least the 1970s. In the late '90s, an overwhelming majority of Americans believed it was real and a serious problem (that situation was almost entirely reversed by the Bush years). Markets have had a long time to course-correct, and they have not done a good job of it. I think you're right that they'll eventually get there (although: not on their lonesome). But "eventually we'll get there" is not good enough when we have a pressing problem that requires serious action in the next ten years.

Frankly, the action that was required of us back in 1990-2005 to avoid the impending catastrofuck was pretty minimal. It's because we didn't do anything then, and because the phenomenon is so resilient, so seriously backloaded, and its problems are substantially deferred, that such dramatic action is necessary now. Incrementalism could have worked, if we'd started incrementing early enough. But we didn't. Market responses offer too little too late. (Seriously: the "market response" in that article = the bandaid solution of encouraging buyers not to buy homes on low-lying land, rather than the kind of serious structural change that would be necessary to get at the root cause of the problem. It's a classic short-term solution to a long-term problem.)

Climate has always been changing. There are winners and there are losers, and there is uncertainty about costs and benefits. [The benefits are usually ignored.] Whatever, there is no catastrophe in the offing.

There is, though. And it's already pretty catastrophic, we've just learned to accept such catastrophes as a matter of course.

[dismalist]

Climate has always been changing. There are winners and there are losers, and there is uncertainty about costs and benefits. [The benefits are usually ignored.] Whatever, there is no catastrophe in the offing.

There is, though. And it's already pretty catastrophic, we've just learned to accept such catastrophes as a matter of course.

Maybe there is more than one reality! :-)

[polly_mer]

https://theweek.com/articles/947824/left-just-got-crushed for those who are still insisting that somehow a tie within rounding is a real win that will matter.

A mandate from a big win for a given platform means passing legislation or rejiggering appropriations is easier because most of the newly/re-elected are on the same page about what needs to be done to satisfy the electoreate. 

Being essentially tied means equal numbers of people want very different things with the result that an idea of serving everyone equally doesn't really work when nearly half the people will be angry at any action.  Abandoning the idea of serving everyone in favor of pushing through dramatic change is not going to fly at all.

I am also always amused when the climate science is trotted out with the discussion by members of the public focusing at about the 3-5 level on the technology effects.  The changes that would have to be made to move the needle with our current level of technology are pretty unpalatable to the people who will need make the daily changes.  The people who get the immediate negative consequences are not those who get the medium-term benefits.

Even the temporary behavioral changes necessary for COVID when the technologies are on the horizon with better therapeutics and vaccines are a hard sell in most of the country.  It's pretty common to hear something like: You can't expect people to basically stay home for two years!

But we can expect people with very comfortable lives due to the modern conveniences that all rely on energy consumption unimaginable a century ago to dramatically reduce forever?  I have this bridge for sale.

[mamselle]

Re: thread topic: Still parked at an almost-resolved first-round count.

Has anyone heard why Nevada is still not fully counted?

M.

[Caracal]

Re: thread topic: Still parked at an almost-resolved first-round count.

Has anyone heard why Nevada is still not fully counted?

M.

It just takes time to process all the mail ballots, some of which just came in on Election Day.

[Stockmann]

Being essentially tied means equal numbers of people want very different things with the result that an idea of serving everyone equally doesn't really work when nearly half the people will be angry at any action.  Abandoning the idea of serving everyone in favor of pushing through dramatic change is not going to fly at all.

But isn't that exactly what happened in the US under Bush Jr.?

Even the temporary behavioral changes necessary for COVID when the technologies are on the horizon with better therapeutics and vaccines are a hard sell in most of the country.  It's pretty common to hear something like: You can't expect people to basically stay home for two years!

It may be common for people to say that, but the empirical reality is basically the opposite: where people have massively complied with hygiene and social distancing measures (the Far East, New Zealand), the pandemic was quickly brought under control and the more drastic measures could soon be safely lifted, or never even had to be imposed (Japan never had a lockdown, for example); where people largely ignored or resisted social distancing and hygiene measures (Europe and the Americas) there have been multiple major waves with little prospect of improvement until there is mass immunization, and in some cases with lockdowns no to avert a crisis but just to try to prevent the healthcare system from collapsing entirely (the UK).

[clean]

It's not clear to me why the US needs much of a standing army at all, but even so, there's no reason why it needs to be such a behemoth.

Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

Having it may also mean that we Wont need it.

Do you think China would think twice about reining in the renegade republic of Taiwan IF the 7th fleet was not close by?

[Parasaurolophus]

It's not clear to me why the US needs much of a standing army at all, but even so, there's no reason why it needs to be such a behemoth.

Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

Not when having it is a colossal waste of resources better spent elsewhere.

The amount of cash, time, and energy spent on waging war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and elsewhere could have given all Americans universal healthcare instead. It could have greened the economy. It could have done any number of things. Instead, it just got heaped up and set on fire so that Americans could feel good about themselves by setting some brown people and their stuff on fire.

Having it may also mean that we Wont need it.

What, when Canada invades because you've got... something?... we want? When China sends a dolphibian invasion across the Pacific? For a country with plenty of resources and infrastructure, there's basically no point in going to war except to show off by hurting others. And the population doesn't have the stomach for a real war anyway (nor do most people any more, and rightly so).

For the record, I think you should just junk the whole thing. But what I'm saying is that you could reduce to the point where the US military is only twice as powerful as the next most powerful military, instead of the the next ten combined. The savings would be enormous, and all that energy and treasure would be better spent.

Do you think China would think twice about reining in the renegade republic of Taiwan IF the 7th fleet was not close by?

I think Taiwan is not your problem. And since war with China isn't a real option anyway, I think the threat is entirely empty.

[Kron3007]

It's not clear to me why the US needs much of a standing army at all, but even so, there's no reason why it needs to be such a behemoth.

Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

Not when having it is a colossal waste of resources better spent elsewhere.

The amount of cash, time, and energy spent on waging war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and elsewhere could have given all Americans universal healthcare instead. It could have greened the economy. It could have done any number of things. Instead, it just got heaped up and set on fire so that Americans could feel good about themselves by setting some brown people and their stuff on fire.

Having it may also mean that we Wont need it.

What, when Canada invades because you've got... something?... we want? When China sends a dolphibian invasion across the Pacific? For a country with plenty of resources and infrastructure, there's basically no point in going to war except to show off by hurting others. And the population doesn't have the stomach for a real war anyway (nor do most people any more, and rightly so).

For the record, I think you should just junk the whole thing. But what I'm saying is that you could reduce to the point where the US military is only twice as powerful as the next most powerful military, instead of the the next ten combined. The savings would be enormous, and all that energy and treasure would be better spent.

Do you think China would think twice about reining in the renegade republic of Taiwan IF the 7th fleet was not close by?

I think Taiwan is not your problem. And since war with China isn't a real option anyway, I think the threat is entirely empty.

Yeah, how else can you maintain American hegemony?

I think Carter hit the nail on the head when discussing the importance that peace has played in China's rise.  America could have high speed rail, but chose bombs.

[dismalist]

Don't cancel that fire insurance policy on the house! :-)

[clean]

Having it may also mean that we Wont need it.

Peace through Strength

OR
I think this is from a Chevy Chase movie, "Peace through superior firepower"

either way...Having the resources to fight may mean that the enemy may think twice before picking the fight.


But Hell.... After what the Great Pumpkin said tonight, we may need it ALL here for the Battle of the  Great Vote Countegeddin

[dismalist]

If you want peace, prepare for war!

Pax Romana, about 200+ years. Not bad, really.

[mamselle]

The issue for Taiwan is that they, like Hong Kong, and Tibet, have this big moose next door, just ready and willing to sit on them and squash them flat, and they do look for help from those who can spare it.

I don't agree with a lot of uses of the military, but the protection of small, well-intended allies with unique cultures, wherever possible, is not a big drain and helps keep the moose at bay overall.

We could do that much without any great outlay.

M.