5 ms·

>The Democratic Party (and its more liberal wing especially) are interested in passing policies to address climate chang No, no they are not. They are intere

>The Democratic Party (and its more liberal wing especially) are interested in passing policies to address climate chang No, no they are not. They are interested in passing laws that increase their power, and make people more dependent on government Massively redistributed policies, that are anti-business, anti-market in the name of "social" and "climate" "justice" most of which will do little to nothing to impact actual CO2 emissions

kube-system 4y ago
Because they propose policies that are pretty mild compromises. If you think what they're proposing now is "anti-business", then I can only guess you haven't seen any policies that are aggressive in decreasing CO2 emissions. The very democrat who torpedoed recent climate legislation did so undoubtably in part because his family business that he founded is a coal company.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  I do not believe the solution to Climate Change (or any societal problem) can be found in the US Congress. If we are expecting the US Congress to save humanity we are all doomed Government needs to get out of the way and stop trying to pick winners and losers, they are bad at it (see Ethanol )
  - kube-system 4y ago
    The free market does not address externalized costs, by definition. If you don't price those costs in artificially via legislation, they will end up systematically exploited. The business that can externalize more of their costs will always win -- they will have a better product for a better price. This is why things like river fires are no longer common. I will agree that congress is bad at picking winners. They should focus on prohibiting damaging practices. Although, congress didn't pick ethanol because they thought it was a winner. They picked it because it propped up farmers.
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      >This is why things like river fires are no longer common. And this is because of US Congress or because of State Governments? Most regulation around rivers, and other such things are State Government controlled, not federal I fully support federalism, I fully support State governments doing regulations that are sensible to the people, and conditions of states. I reject the idea it needs to be a national policy or that such a policy is even possible with out being completely corrupted and authoritarian. Nor do I believe such a regulation is envisioned by the powers granted to the US Congress in our Constitution
      - kube-system 4y ago
        River fires stopped happening in the US right around the founding of the EPA. State and local governments were in lock-step with industrialists throughout the 20th century... if they weren't industrialists themselves. State governments rarely legislate against dominant local industries, even today, but to an even greater degree last century.
      - anon400232 4y ago
        If you grant some problems require policies at the state government level, which may have a wide range of geographic sizes and demographic compositions, how can you not grant there are problems that can only be addressed at a national level? If you are worried about corruption and authoritarian tendencies, why do you tolerate them at the state level? Please lay out your tradeoffs in a way that might make your position consistent.
    - anon400232 4y ago
      Government spending has in many cases an excellent track record of shaping investment. If you look at some of the brightest innovations, they got their start from government money. Funding on long time scales rarely comes from companies reporting profits every quarter. History has shown that there aren't that many Bell Labs that survive very long. How long will Open AI or DeepMind continue to contribute to public innovation? I'm not going to make a bet on that. Decades of spending on math and science, embedded into federal spending (though inefficient and wasteful in many ways) has generated many tremendous innovations. It is foolish to rely on one mechanism to generate innovation. I'm not suggesting that government is the only or best way. We need innovations across many timescales. P.S. The amount of close mindedness among "highly intelligent" people in the tech world is staggering. Step back and look at yourself. Ask if your ego is getting in the way of clear and creative thinking. P.P.S. For what it's worth, among the people I consider most inspiring in the tech world, very few have their head planted only in computer science. We need more historians, sociologists, lawyers, musicians, and so on. The libertarian faction of tech is indictive of a certain brain tendency -- a desire to simplify down to core principles -- and not one that we need more of. The drive for simplicity can lead us to interesting theories. It can lead to simpler systems. It can also lead to overlooking the true nature of humanity: what is good? what is fair? what is just? So "Is simplicity best? Or simply the easiest?" [1] Please question the value of simple philosophies when you make moral arguments. Human concepts are rarely simple. Neither is language. Or justice. Or fairness. Or innovation. [1] Depeche Mode
- sidewndr46 4y ago
  If you're going to make an allegation like that, why not just name the person?
  - bobbylarrybobby 4y ago
    Joe Manchin
  - kube-system 4y ago
    Because I didn’t want to derail the conversation by name dropping specific people when I was just supporting a point about the process.
anon400232 4y ago
> They are interested in passing laws that increase their power, and make people more dependent on government That may be some peoples' interpretation. But even if true (which I do not think it is) this is hardly the intent.
anon400232 4y ago
> anti-business This is one of the most abused phrases in politics. Let's back up and talk about some fundamental values. I think most people can agree that we work to live, not the other way around. Businesses exist to serve an economic function. Businesses are not an embodiment of the ultimate good, any more than the barter system was, or indentured servitude. These things are ways of structuring economic activity. My point is simple: Businesses operate according to the context they are in. The businesses do not define right and wrong. Businesses exploit the conditions they are in if they want to thrive. Banning dog fighting is bad for the existing businesses AND the right thing to do. Banninge CFCs was bad for industry at the time, according to some time frames. Let's recognize the shared foundational moral factors here before we assume that we're on vastly different pages.
anon400232 4y ago
I think all clear eyed people will recognize that almost all legislation is both flawed and a compromise. Sure, some environmental programs and regulation do not have as much affect as we would like: recycling plastic, under current technology at least, would probably be a good example. But I would rather see policy coming out that is in the right ballpark. We can learn from that. Vague, simplistic overreliance on "the market" is foolhardy and readily dismissed by any serious student of economics.

kube-system 4y ago

Because they propose policies that are pretty mild compromises. If you think what they're proposing now is "anti-business", then I can only guess you haven't seen any policies that are aggressive in decreasing CO2 emissions. The very democrat who torpedoed recent climate legislation did so undoubtably in part because his family business that he founded is a coal company.

phpisthebest 4y ago
I do not believe the solution to Climate Change (or any societal problem) can be found in the US Congress. If we are expecting the US Congress to save humanity we are all doomed Government needs to get out of the way and stop trying to pick winners and losers, they are bad at it (see Ethanol )
- kube-system 4y ago
  The free market does not address externalized costs, by definition. If you don't price those costs in artificially via legislation, they will end up systematically exploited. The business that can externalize more of their costs will always win -- they will have a better product for a better price. This is why things like river fires are no longer common. I will agree that congress is bad at picking winners. They should focus on prohibiting damaging practices. Although, congress didn't pick ethanol because they thought it was a winner. They picked it because it propped up farmers.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    >This is why things like river fires are no longer common. And this is because of US Congress or because of State Governments? Most regulation around rivers, and other such things are State Government controlled, not federal I fully support federalism, I fully support State governments doing regulations that are sensible to the people, and conditions of states. I reject the idea it needs to be a national policy or that such a policy is even possible with out being completely corrupted and authoritarian. Nor do I believe such a regulation is envisioned by the powers granted to the US Congress in our Constitution
    - kube-system 4y ago
      River fires stopped happening in the US right around the founding of the EPA. State and local governments were in lock-step with industrialists throughout the 20th century... if they weren't industrialists themselves. State governments rarely legislate against dominant local industries, even today, but to an even greater degree last century.
    - anon400232 4y ago
      If you grant some problems require policies at the state government level, which may have a wide range of geographic sizes and demographic compositions, how can you not grant there are problems that can only be addressed at a national level? If you are worried about corruption and authoritarian tendencies, why do you tolerate them at the state level? Please lay out your tradeoffs in a way that might make your position consistent.
  - anon400232 4y ago
    Government spending has in many cases an excellent track record of shaping investment. If you look at some of the brightest innovations, they got their start from government money. Funding on long time scales rarely comes from companies reporting profits every quarter. History has shown that there aren't that many Bell Labs that survive very long. How long will Open AI or DeepMind continue to contribute to public innovation? I'm not going to make a bet on that. Decades of spending on math and science, embedded into federal spending (though inefficient and wasteful in many ways) has generated many tremendous innovations. It is foolish to rely on one mechanism to generate innovation. I'm not suggesting that government is the only or best way. We need innovations across many timescales. P.S. The amount of close mindedness among "highly intelligent" people in the tech world is staggering. Step back and look at yourself. Ask if your ego is getting in the way of clear and creative thinking. P.P.S. For what it's worth, among the people I consider most inspiring in the tech world, very few have their head planted only in computer science. We need more historians, sociologists, lawyers, musicians, and so on. The libertarian faction of tech is indictive of a certain brain tendency -- a desire to simplify down to core principles -- and not one that we need more of. The drive for simplicity can lead us to interesting theories. It can lead to simpler systems. It can also lead to overlooking the true nature of humanity: what is good? what is fair? what is just? So "Is simplicity best? Or simply the easiest?" [1] Please question the value of simple philosophies when you make moral arguments. Human concepts are rarely simple. Neither is language. Or justice. Or fairness. Or innovation. [1] Depeche Mode
sidewndr46 4y ago
If you're going to make an allegation like that, why not just name the person?
- bobbylarrybobby 4y ago
  Joe Manchin
- kube-system 4y ago
  Because I didn’t want to derail the conversation by name dropping specific people when I was just supporting a point about the process.

anon400232 4y ago

> They are interested in passing laws that increase their power, and make people more dependent on government That may be some peoples' interpretation. But even if true (which I do not think it is) this is hardly the intent.

anon400232 4y ago

> anti-business This is one of the most abused phrases in politics. Let's back up and talk about some fundamental values. I think most people can agree that we work to live, not the other way around. Businesses exist to serve an economic function. Businesses are not an embodiment of the ultimate good, any more than the barter system was, or indentured servitude. These things are ways of structuring economic activity. My point is simple: Businesses operate according to the context they are in. The businesses do not define right and wrong. Businesses exploit the conditions they are in if they want to thrive. Banning dog fighting is bad for the existing businesses AND the right thing to do. Banninge CFCs was bad for industry at the time, according to some time frames. Let's recognize the shared foundational moral factors here before we assume that we're on vastly different pages.

anon400232 4y ago

I think all clear eyed people will recognize that almost all legislation is both flawed and a compromise. Sure, some environmental programs and regulation do not have as much affect as we would like: recycling plastic, under current technology at least, would probably be a good example. But I would rather see policy coming out that is in the right ballpark. We can learn from that. Vague, simplistic overreliance on "the market" is foolhardy and readily dismissed by any serious student of economics.