Market politics

[Intl Professor]

The Democrats screwed up big time. Had Bernie become President we and Trump supporters getting short-changed would be much better off, even with a hostile Congress we would be talking about the best path for the future.

 

[wdolson]

Gosh, if this thread is political, let me give my 2c. I am a native Vermonter 9th gen. We Vermonters live in he middle of nowhere, and have little impact on the political situation. We do(did) have Bernie Sanders. Sad that the DNC decided to dump him. I have known Bernie for many years. He became the mayor of Burlington in 1980. He did much for the city of Burlington. He stopped the development(high rise) on lake Champlain. Instead he fostered a waterfront park, and an eco center for all. Burlington is cold in Winter. Bernie found a homeless man who had no shoes. Bernie took him to the shoe store and got him shoes. Thats the kind of man he is. I worked for security at the University of Vermont for many years. Bernie would often come to sporting events. He drove a Saturn. He often came alone. He was always there with a greeting, a smile, and a few words about the team. He treated everyone with respect. He did not have a 'task force' of several Lincoln limos. body guards, etc. showing up, as many other politicians do. He is concerned about the most crucial issue of our time, global warming. He has been a hero for the working class. I am neither a republican nor a democrat. Both parties are corrupt, and it is getting worse. I feel sad for our grandchildren. We are leaving them with a polluted, corrupt world. I am grateful that we live(d) in the best of times. Be thankful.
Just my opinion, and we all have one. God Bless.

Neither party is perfect and both have had corruption throughout their history. The Grant administration was plagued with scandals, the Teapot Dome scandal, Roosevelt played dirty tricks throughout his 3+ terms, Lyndon Johnson was shady in his own ways, and of course Nixon. On other levels in politics there have been other corruption by both parties.

But the Democratic party hasn't changed much since the 70s. The Republican party has become really corrupt over the last 25 years and the quality of their candidates have declined sharply. Since 1980 the Republican Party has gone from center-right to so extreme and tribal they will put party ahead of country. Back in the 1970s when the case against Nixon got strong enough, a number of Republican senators went to Nixon and told him there were enough votes in the Senate to impeach. Now even with a Republican president who appears guilty of even more crimes in number and severity than Nixon, there is very little chance impeachment would even get out of the House and would likely fail in the Senate.

I've been politically independent most of my adult life and I came from an Eisenhower Republican family, but the last few years I've been voting for the only adults left running for office.

Writing off both parties as equally corrupt is very dangerous right now. There is only one party capable of stopping this madman and passing the laws necessary to prevent it from happening again. I don't always agree with them, but I prefer my country run by rational adults I don't completely agree with than watch it circle the drain.

I've studied a lot of history throughout my life. One of the first constitutional democracies in the world could collapse into a dictatorship if the institutions don't do their job and the people don't stop it. It hasn't happened to a well established constitutional democracy before, but there is no guarantee that it won't. If the US slides into dictatorship, that's bad news for the entire world, not just the US.

Rome had a good run and dominated a large swath of the world and the only institution from that empire that still exists is the Roman Catholic Church. The rest of the empire is long gone, the last government fell when the Turks took Constantinople. The Roman Republic started it's downhill slide into dictatorship when Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon with his army. A move so bold and so destructive, it's become a part of many languages including English.

The world has had other empires that are now only read about in history books with the occasional ruin and artifact left behind. The US has outlasted some empires, like the 3rd Reich or Napoleon's empire, but it's very young compared to many of the great empires.

But the US's Rubicon moment is upon us. It's just taking longer to play out than one single act like taking an army to Rome.

 

[dmunjal]

Neither party is perfect and both have had corruption throughout their history. The Grant administration was plagued with scandals, the Teapot Dome scandal, Roosevelt played dirty tricks throughout his 3+ terms, Lyndon Johnson was shady in his own ways, and of course Nixon. On other levels in politics there have been other corruption by both parties.

But the Democratic party hasn't changed much since the 70s. The Republican party has become really corrupt over the last 25 years and the quality of their candidates have declined sharply. Since 1980 the Republican Party has gone from center-right to so extreme and tribal they will put party ahead of country. Back in the 1970s when the case against Nixon got strong enough, a number of Republican senators went to Nixon and told him there were enough votes in the Senate to impeach. Now even with a Republican president who appears guilty of even more crimes in number and severity than Nixon, there is very little chance impeachment would even get out of the House and would likely fail in the Senate.

I've been politically independent most of my adult life and I came from an Eisenhower Republican family, but the last few years I've been voting for the only adults left running for office.

Writing off both parties as equally corrupt is very dangerous right now. There is only one party capable of stopping this madman and passing the laws necessary to prevent it from happening again. I don't always agree with them, but I prefer my country run by rational adults I don't completely agree with than watch it circle the drain.

I've studied a lot of history throughout my life. One of the first constitutional democracies in the world could collapse into a dictatorship if the institutions don't do their job and the people don't stop it. It hasn't happened to a well established constitutional democracy before, but there is no guarantee that it won't. If the US slides into dictatorship, that's bad news for the entire world, not just the US.

Rome had a good run and dominated a large swath of the world and the only institution from that empire that still exists is the Roman Catholic Church. The rest of the empire is long gone, the last government fell when the Turks took Constantinople. The Roman Republic started it's downhill slide into dictatorship when Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon with his army. A move so bold and so destructive, it's become a part of many languages including English.

The world has had other empires that are now only read about in history books with the occasional ruin and artifact left behind. The US has outlasted some empires, like the 3rd Reich or Napoleon's empire, but it's very young compared to many of the great empires.

But the US's Rubicon moment is upon us. It's just taking longer to play out than one single act like taking an army to Rome.

Both parties are equally corrupt. There is no difference between them in the major issues like war, corporatism, and especially Wall Street. The differences are at the margins to keep us entertained and arguing between ourselves. Only the libertarians like Rand Paul and progressives like Bernie Sanders are outside this corruption.

 

[JRP3]

I'll side with the corrupt party that doesn't cow tow to the extreme religious minority and does advocate for renewable energy and human rights. The parties are not the same.

 

[dmunjal]

I'll side with the corrupt party that doesn't cow tow to the extreme religious minority and does advocate for renewable energy and human rights. The parties are not the same.

Then you can side with the party that cow tows to the pharma lobby, the war lobby, the banking lobby, the insurance lobby, the healthcare lobby, the media lobby, the tech lobby, etc. etc. etc. For the things that really matter, they are the same. The Democratic party still has superdelegates. The Republicans sold their souls decades ago. The Democrats did the same starting with Clinton.

 

[JRP3]

I listed things that really matter. Long term there is nothing more important than changing the way we use energy. If we get it wrong nothing else will matter.
What I've found is that most of the people who try to claim there is no difference between the parties are Republicans who are now disgusted with what the party has become but who can't stand the idea of switching to the other side. The consequence is moderate conservatism having no influence.

 

[dmunjal]

I listed things that really matter. Long term there is nothing more important than changing the way we use energy. If we get it wrong nothing else will matter.
What I've found is that most of the people who try to claim there is no difference between the parties are Republicans who are now disgusted with what the party has become but who can't stand the idea of switching to the other side. The consequence is moderate conservatism having no influence.

War and money matter more than energy, IMO. That is where most of our money goes. Without corruption there, we would have enough money to solve most of our problems, including energy. Ask yourself how much solar or other infrastructure we could buy on how much we spent in Iraq? Or how much we spent on the bank bailouts. Trillions.

You would be wrong about my party affiliation. I am a liberal through and through. Born in SF and went to UC Berkeley. The Democratic party today is nothing more than a corrupt institution from top to bottom and they are in bed with the Republicans and are the definition of the establishment. Look at Diane Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi as my local examples. I'm glad I left.

 

[JRP3]

If you understand that the way we use energy has the potential to lead to war, famine, and potentially make the planet uninhabitable I think you would agree there is nothing more important.

 

[Unpilot]

If you understand that the way we use energy has the potential to lead to war, famine, and potentially make the planet uninhabitable I think you would agree there is nothing more important.

I have to agree long term this is THE ISSUE. But as humans we only like to think short term. It is a problem.
Trying to rewire the frontal cortex is tough.

 

[dmunjal]

I have to agree long term this is THE ISSUE. But as humans we only like to think short term. It is a problem.
Trying to rewire the frontal cortex is tough.

I completely agree with the notion that energy is a major issue but I don't think that the Democrats or governments are going to solve the problems. This will be solved in the private sector. That the Democrats won't get in the way as much as the Republicans will isn't saying much. Public policy can have a.major impact on money and war. The private sector might affect money (Bitcoin?) at some point.

 

[JRP3]

That seems to be ignoring the very real policy differences between the two. If you think policy and supporting programs have no influence that would seem to ignore reality.

 

[dmunjal]

That seems to be ignoring the very real policy differences between the two. If you think policy and supporting programs have no influence that would seem to ignore reality.

Not no influence, but little influence.

Look at fracking. The Obama administration was vehemently against it but fracking and natural gas output actually increased despite public policy. In some ways, the private sector had more of an impact on lowering C02 emissions in the US than anything public policy did.

 

[JRP3]

On the other hand policy has banned fracking here in N.Y. State.

 

[Off Shore]

On the other hand policy has banned freaking here in N.Y. State.

Actually, a lot of New Yorkers are pretty freaked.

 

[dmunjal]

On the other hand policy has banned freaking here in N.Y. State.

Doesn't matter. Economics wins in the end. NG output (due to fracking) is booming in the US and NY residents are enjoying the lower costs by using (imported) NG more than ever. I think LNG is going to cause an export boom in this country and hopefully lower the trade deficit over time. Again, despite the administration in office.

Why New York's Fracking Ban For Natural Gas Is Unsustainable

"It's New York's electricity sector where natural gas is gaining the most market share. Since 2008, gas has increased its total share of New York generation capacity from 44% to 60%, at a time when state gas production (which was already insignificant) has been cut in half. Thus, gas imports from Pennsylvania have skyrocketed. Since 2008, interstate gas receipts from Pennsylvania have increased from 226 Bcf to about 1,200 Bcf. So, it appears that many New Yorkers enjoy using fracked gas...as long as it's produced somewhere else."

 

[TheTalkingMule]

This will be solved in the private sector. That the Democrats won't get in the way as much as the Republicans will isn't saying much.

In general I agree that both parties are corrupt in the same direction in a lot of ways that matter, however energy is a different story. When it comes to renewables the Republican party has essentially been a hit squad for the fossil fuel industry.

SolarCity was "brought down" by a Republican governor in Nevada at the behest of private utility and fossil fuel interests.

In Pennsylvania I'm watching a Dem governor combine efforts with the Dem city of Philadelphia to bring change to our energy mix. Every step along the way is hindered by GOP state legislators who don't even bother to hide being puppets of the fracking industry.

It's a perfectly valid point to say these parties are "the same", but IMO it's a little simplistic. The world is a complex place, seemingly minor differences can have massive implications. Both are clearly falling apart anyway, we'll soon be well rid of them.

 

[JRP3]

@dmunjal
Again that's a policy issue. We should be encouraging solar, wind, and battery storage. At least we've acknowledged the damage from fracking and said we don't want it. Now we need to do the same with NG.

 

[dmunjal]

@dmunjal
Again that's a policy issue. We should be encouraging solar, wind, and battery storage. At least we've acknowledged the damage from fracking and said we don't want it. Now we need to do the same with NG.

First of all, things are relative. NG is much better than coal. Moving to NG from coal has lowered CO2 emissions over the last 10 years more than all renewables combined. Yes, we should encourage more renewable production.

I think you didn't read the article. NY banned production of NG through fracking yet economics forced NY residents to purchase NG from a neighboring state. Should NY then try to ban the use of NG as well? Now you're getting into ridiculous territory. What happens when governments try to ban (or tax highly) things (guns, drugs, abortions, etc.)? You create a black market and that makes things worse for everyone. The better method is for government to have a soft touch by encouraging things that they want done. Incentives like the EV tax rebate work well. But banning something that is more economically viable and even desired by the population is boneheaded.

 

[wdolson]

I listed things that really matter. Long term there is nothing more important than changing the way we use energy. If we get it wrong nothing else will matter.
What I've found is that most of the people who try to claim there is no difference between the parties are Republicans who are now disgusted with what the party has become but who can't stand the idea of switching to the other side. The consequence is moderate conservatism having no influence.

Personally i think other things we (humans not just Americans) are doing will get us long before any contribution humans are making to changes in the climate. Plastics in the oceans and over fishing the oceans are two things that are doing drastic damage there and the primary damage in both cases is coming from places outside of Europe and North America.

The biggest problems the world's environment are facing require the US to be a good neighbor with the rest of the world. There are exceptions both ways but under the last two Democratic administrations the US was a better neighbor to the rest of the world than under the last two Republican administrations.

Not no influence, but little influence.

Look at fracking. The Obama administration was vehemently against it but fracking and natural gas output actually increased despite public policy. In some ways, the private sector had more of an impact on lowering C02 emissions in the US than anything public policy did.

I have a theory about patterns in American politics. We have long, generational periods where one party or the other is ascendant and the other party, even when they are in power for a short time, have to work within the framework of memes established by the ascendant party. When a party's ascendancy ends, the country wallows politically in a kind of malaise until somebody comes along to gel the country into a new paradigm.

Thomas Jefferson set the initial tone of the country which was the more liberal one. The Democratic Party formed around his ideals. The political landscape was the Democrats vs the Whigs with the Democrats setting most of the tone. However the pre-Civil War Democrats were a different animal from post civil Rights movement Democrats. For one thing the Deep South was Democratic, even more so after the Civil War.

The rise of the Republican Party to replace the Whigs and the ideals of Abraham Lincoln set the tone of the country for the next 70 years. During that time, the Republicans became the party of big business and the Democrats the party of the working class and the South. The Republicans as ascendant called the shots and Democrats had to work within the meme space created by the dominant party. There were Democratic presidents and Democrats controlled Congress from time to time, but Republicans controlled the narrative.

The radical ideas of Teddy Roosevelt started to destabilize the Republican dominance, but nobody came forward to create a new narrative and push the country in a new direction. For the early part of the 20th century the Republicans, and their narrative lost their way as they bickered internally about where they should go.

Woodrow Wilson slipped into the mix in 1912 and the Republicans were able to get the White House back in 1920, but it was a more corrupt and unstable coalition in a world economic climate that was unstable. The chickens finally came home to roost in the late 1920s and the US economy crashed hard. In 1932 along came a Democratic visionary: FDR who set the course for the next 50 years.

During the Democratic ascendancy there were two Republican administrations: Eisenhower and Nixon who were very liberal compared to later Republican administrations because they had to work within the Democratic narrative. The Democrats began to see their coalition unravel in the mid-1960s with the passage of the Civil Rights Act. It was very unpopular with Southern whites who were a critical part of the coalition. The narrative stayed alive on life support until a new president came along in 1980 who set a new narrative.

The pro-corporate, trickle down economics meme that Reagan brought in has been gospel since he was president. Even though trickle down economics has proven to be a complete disaster, Democrats have been unable to change the meme and have had to work within it.

GW Bush damaged the coalition with his incompetence, but Obama came along a little too early to change the memes, even though he tried. In part Obama was a bit too green to make it happen. If Obama had come along later he could have been a game changer like Lincoln, FDR, or Reagan, but instead his presidency was largely a "could have been" presidency.

Trump was able to come into power because the US political system and especially the Republican Party are very weak right now. The ideas from the 80s have run their course and nobody has put forth a new narrative that has taken hold. There is definitely a lot of energy to take the country in a more liberal direction right now, but the movements lack a charismatic leader to pull together the factions into one package and start a new era. The country is ripe for it.

On a different political note. My SO is a lawyer and follows Seth Abramson (former criminal defense lawyer) who has been accurately opining and predicting how the Mueller investigation will go. He recently posted a link to an article he wrote on the criminal justice system 5 years ago and my SO believes it should be required reading for every American:
You Won’t See This on TV

I already knew a lot of this from hanging around my SO and her criminal defense lawyer friends, but it is a well written piece that highlights the problems with the US criminal justice system today.

 

[wdolson]

First of all, things are relative. NG is much better than coal. Moving to NG from coal has lowered CO2 emissions over the last 10 years more than all renewables combined. Yes, we should encourage more renewable production.

I think his name was David MacKay who was a Physics professor in the UK. He died earlier this year, but he went around showing that renewables alone were not going to solve everyone's energy problems. All renewable energy except hydro produce very diffuse energy per sq meter compared to other energy sources and there are some places where you just can't put up enough windmills or solar farms to meet the needs.

I think you didn't read the article. NY banned production of NG through fracking yet economics forced NY residents to purchase NG from a neighboring state. Should NY then try to ban the use of NG as well? Now you're getting into ridiculous territory. What happens when governments try to ban (or tax highly) things (guns, drugs, abortions, etc.)? You create a black market and that makes things worse for everyone. The better method is for government to have a soft touch by encouraging things that they want done. Incentives like the EV tax rebate work well. But banning something that is more economically viable and even desired by the population is boneheaded.

Fracking is one of those things people are hair on fire about without fully understanding. It's gotten a bad rep because of some unethical operators working in a poor regulatory environment.

California's oil and gas industry has been very well regulated for decades. California's oil has declined, but it was once one of the biggest oil producing states in the US. Because of California's Geology, fracking was invented there and has been used since at least the 70s with few problems because the state regulates it.

In the recent oil and gas boom, fracking has been used in states with virtually no regulation or states where the oil companies have managed to weaken existing regulation. In many cases the volumes of fracking fluids used are staggeringly more than have ever been used in California. Also in California, before fracking, the driller is required to do a number of tests that prove the integrity of the well and its casing so no fluid gets into the wrong place. In unregulated places, nobody bothers to do the tests and fracking is done on wells with cracks in the well casing or other problems that allows fluids to go where they aren't supposed to, like ground water at shallower depths than the payzone where the oil and gas is.

My sister is a petroleum Geologist in California. She has been heavily involved in fracking projects since the 1980s and can attest there have been no serious problems in California where everyone has to follow the rules. She has never seen most of the problems people attribute to fracking, mostly because the conditions under which they can happen don't occur there.

Frackng can be done safely with proper regulation, but a few bad operators have given the entire process a bad rep.