GatewayRedbirds.com

A Message Board Dedicated to Discussing St. Louis Cardinals Baseball!
It is currently September 16 19, 10:20 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 99 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: September 6 19, 10:42 am 
Offline
bronoun enthusiast
User avatar

Joined: April 14 06, 10:45 pm
Posts: 28438
Location: extremely online
Popeye_Card wrote:
thrill wrote:




If you continue to believe this is the case, you will never really solve the problem.

We are destroying the planet because it is *convenient* to do so.

The general public is unwilling to give up cheap energy, driving cars, flying planes, plastics, meat, taking a shower every day, etc. Look how hard it has been for many people to give up something so generally useless as plastic [expletive] straws.

The economic *reality* isn't about profits. The reality is what the market demands has not and will not change any time soon. And if you try to run for President on a platform of changing people's buying habits and lifestyle? Good luck.

You just referenced "market forces" while trying to argue that profit is irrelevant to the market's behavior.

Spoiler: show
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 6 19, 12:09 pm 
Offline
Hall Of Famer

Joined: April 25 06, 6:43 pm
Posts: 11465
Location: Austin
Crying Indian ass post there.

The plastic straws thing is actually illustrative as it shows how incredibly silly the idea of addressing such issues through persuasion around consumer choices is so long as it’s done while continuing a market structure where rational consumers, even those concerned about these issues, have little reason to change. My personal choices surrounding straw usage will make zero difference. The reason to do it would be some kind of vain hope that my straw choices are going to spark some kind of broader movement, but actually mostly as a quasi-spiritual display of personal virtue.

If you want to change consumption behavior, you change the structures we use as a society to determine it. Burning carbon is “convenient” because we have chosen to make it so. Produce with alternatives, and using those will be just as convenient. Making that happen requires coordination through collective action, restructuring the framework where individual choices are made.

Pretending this all about selfish consumers who can’t be bothered to make largely pointless personal sacrifices is, of course, a good deflection though. Hopelessness and disdain for society’s fallen nature seems to have broad emotional appeal. And surely, the industry pleasing implication that pollution is simply a reflection of fundamental human nature and not a result of technical choices we profit from but are actually free to change is just a coincidence.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 6 19, 12:25 pm 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: July 15 08, 8:24 pm
Posts: 19715
Location: Low A Minors
It really is like this:
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 6 19, 12:34 pm 
Offline
Hall Of Famer

Joined: April 25 06, 6:43 pm
Posts: 11465
Location: Austin
ghostrunner wrote:
What I'm struggling with re:Bernie and Warren, is the following:

1. I don't perceive the gap between their policies as significant
2. I trust Warren to guide the needed changes through government more smoothly (ruffle fewer feathers), and to better explain them to the public (which I think is really important)
3. The movement Bernie wants to build isn't anywhere close to where it needs to be to support his agenda
4. Therefore his objection to getting rid of the filibuster (and supreme court changes, though he's slightly better there) means none of his agenda can pass in the time he'd have in office. Buttigieg is more radical on this issue than he is.

I largely agree with this but want to quibble on (2).

Not ruffling feathers is not an option. The right will go ballistic against any Democrat and certainly will with Warren. And I don’t think either candidate is a clear winner in term of more effective Presidential public communication — they have different styles that appeal to different audiences. I would say I think Warren would be more effective running the regulatory apparatus which is probably the direct stakes of the election given that the proposed legislative programs will be impossible to pass, but Bernie has a better theory and practice about how to break the impasse (bad views on the filibuster aside).

The Warren vs Bernie debate has long seemed overheated to me. I have a personal preference, but in terms of the pure primary vote, it seems clear that the thing to do is to vote for whichever of Bernie or Warren has the best chance to grab the nomination. That will become clear once actual voting starts. They should also consider making some kind of deal to achieve this outcome in the event they have a group but not individual majority.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 6 19, 12:37 pm 
Offline
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: June 4 17, 10:04 pm
Posts: 2020
Location: portlandbugle.com
Arthur Dent wrote:
Crying Indian ass post there.

The plastic straws thing is actually illustrative as it shows how incredibly silly the idea of addressing such issues through persuasion around consumer choices is so long as it’s done while continuing a market structure where rational consumers, even those concerned about these issues, have little reason to change. My personal choices surrounding straw usage will make zero difference. The reason to do it would be some kind of vain hope that my straw choices are going to spark some kind of broader movement, but actually mostly as a quasi-spiritual display of personal virtue.

If you want to change consumption behavior, you change the structures we use as a society to determine it. Burning carbon is “convenient” because we have chosen to make it so. Produce with alternatives, and using those will be just as convenient. Making that happen requires coordination through collective action, restructuring the framework where individual choices are made.

Pretending this all about selfish consumers who can’t be bothered to make largely pointless personal sacrifices is, of course, a good deflection though. Hopelessness and disdain for society’s fallen nature seems to have broad emotional appeal. And surely, the industry pleasing implication that pollution is simply a reflection of fundamental human nature and not a result of technical choices we profit from but are actually free to change is just a coincidence.


And it starts in internet forums with vaguely academic condescension.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 6 19, 12:38 pm 
Offline
99% conan clips
User avatar

Joined: April 18 06, 5:14 pm
Posts: 55229
and lets be real, adults shouldn't use straws


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 6 19, 12:43 pm 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: July 15 08, 8:24 pm
Posts: 19715
Location: Low A Minors
ghostrunner wrote:
What I'm struggling with re:Bernie and Warren, is the following:

1. I don't perceive the gap between their policies as significant
2. I trust Warren to guide the needed changes through government more smoothly (ruffle fewer feathers), and to better explain them to the public (which I think is really important)
3. The movement Bernie wants to build isn't anywhere close to where it needs to be to support his agenda
4. Therefore his objection to getting rid of the filibuster (and supreme court changes, though he's slightly better there) means none of his agenda can pass in the time he'd have in office. Buttigieg is more radical on this issue than he is.



Bernie is the only candidate that is truly untainted by corporate interests. Warren is still accepting donations and signalling to health care, Wall Street, and other special interests that she merely wants to regulate them tighter and not take away their business.

There are days where I feel like ending up like a Scandinavian-style Social Democracy would be a great outcome. This is the vision that Warren is basically pushing - still capitalist, but a much larger safety net and better regulation of finance and industry in general. Unfortunately, I don't think we are going to end up with a Social Democracy if the left wing position is only asking for Social Democracy. The left has to be asking for something farther to the left than that - like giving ownership of industries to workers, maybe even a more centrally-planned economy or something - if we are going to make Social Democracy the compromise position. If all we ask for is Social Democracy, then the compromise position will be something to the right of that and we still will be nowhere near where we need to be.

Then there are other days when not even Bernie seems radical enough and I want to burn the whole thing to the ground.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 6 19, 1:04 pm 
Offline
Hall Of Famer

Joined: April 25 06, 6:43 pm
Posts: 11465
Location: Austin
BottenFieldofDreams wrote:
Arthur Dent wrote:
If you want to change consumption behavior, you change the structures we use as a society to determine it.


And it starts in internet forums with vaguely academic condescension.

I’m posting here!

But to address the vagueness, you change market structure with taxes, regulation, and public investment. Why does one choose to drive vs take the train? Gas is cheap, and the train isn’t there — those are social choices.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 6 19, 1:06 pm 
Offline
GRB's most intelligent & humble poster
User avatar

Joined: April 17 06, 11:25 am
Posts: 27128
Pretty sure people are missing my point.

"Profit" is a boogeyman argument. It suggests that if polluting companies simply weren't profitable, then everything would be fine.

There' s a sizable profit to be made for whoever can figure out how to supply the global energy demand for 8+ billion people through renewable sources. If it were as easy as building a few windmills in Kansas instead of drilling for oil in the North Slope of Alaska, I'm pretty sure we'd be doing it.

None of this is suggesting that we don't regulate industries and reduce pollution. None of this is suggesting that there isn't an evolution we need to go through to flip this graph:

Image

But "profit" is a lazy argument for political points. Corporate giants are the bad guys, and if we just fix them then we fix the problem. I'm not trying to make the argument that "we only have ourselves to blame". I'm saying that you're not going to win elections by saying what we actually need to do, which is drastically changing the energy market. People are the market. People don't like change in their own life. People get pissy when you take something as simple as a plastic straw away from them. They're going to riot if you double the cost of energy.

That's the politics of the matter. What is right isn't always what is popular, but "right" doesn't win elections.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 6 19, 1:27 pm 
Offline
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 7432
Location: Chicago, IL
thrill wrote:
Saw a poll where "Climate-Focused" voters still favor Biden by 9%, despite him having by far the worst plan to combat the climate crisis. Speaks to how ill-informed the average voter is.

As always, when discussing progressive, radical solutions to these existential problems like climate change, racism, economic inequality, etc. we run up against what is the most "electable" or palatable progressive solution through the lens of traditional american voting patterns (usually a Warren position), and what would actually do the most good towards ending those problems (usually a Bernie position).


I assume re Biden you mean among the top 5-6 candidates, but his Greenpeace score is higher than about a dozen still in the race, including Pete, Castro, Beto, Yang.

Re "electable" let's flesh this out a bit. That word gets bandied around a lot, usually to mean the best-known oldest straight white christian man. It's generally speaking to old biases that don't matter anymore--the fascist won the GOP nom, a woman beat an older Sanders, a black man beat an older white woman, and so on. A mormon won the nom of the christian wackos. The old-school idea of "electability" is wack.

Then there's the candidate. The magnetism, empathy, popularity, and likability of the candidate and their policies. Warren has moved steadily up the polls for the last several months because of that. Sanders is stuck in second gear because of those things. You can dismiss the view of Warren over Sanders as "electability" or you can talk about why Warren is more likely to be elected, two different things.

Sanders's policies are less liked by the public. Sanders the candidate is disliked by more people than Warren. Warren is liked by more people than Sanders. That doesn't mean that because Warren seems more likely to be elected based on all that, that she and her policies can be thrown out with the bathwater of "electable" bias.

thrill wrote:
I agree with 33 and vegas that it's probably in between Bernie and the establishment, and Warren will be nominated.


I think it's between Warren, the fringe left and the establishment and Warren will win.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 99 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group