The Swamp

That's Goofy kicking Wile E Coyote in the ass

Motivation being obvious, what's the straight face rationale for that map?

mister d wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2018 2:52 pm Motivation being obvious, what's the straight face rationale for that map?

The only rationale I've seen is that "since this is gerrymandering by party and not by race, it's legal."

You should look at a map of PA-06 (my district) just as bad
Prior to 2010 my county (Berks) was in the same district with Schuylkill county.
When they gerrymandered the state after 2010 Berks county was divided up and allocated to 4 districts (all majority R) when the previous district was D. They took the city of Reading (solid D) and put it into a district the was mainly Lebanon and Lancaster Counties (solid R). they had to draw a 75yard wide corridor between two other districts connecting the city to those counties so they could neutralize all the voters in Reading. Shameless. The Republican governor who signed off on that was in the pocket of the fracking companies (who he didn't tax) and the Second Mile foundation (Sandusky's foundation).

Interesting that the courts are consistently ruling against these aggressively gerrymandered states (and for what it's worth MD is gerrymandered almost as bad in favor of the Democrats).

That and voter suppression are pretty much the only two strategies the GOP has for maintaining power.

Avram wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:03 pm You should look at a map of PA-06 (my district) just as bad
Prior to 2010 my county (Berks) was in the same district with Schuylkill county.
When they gerrymandered the state after 2010 Berks county was divided up and allocated to 4 districts (all majority R) when the previous district was D. They took the city of Reading (solid D) and put it into a district the was mainly Lebanon and Lancaster Counties (solid R). they had to draw a 75yard wide corridor between two other districts connecting the city to those counties so they could neutralize all the voters in Reading. Shameless. The Republican governor who signed off on that was in the pocket of the fracking companies (who he didn't tax) and the Second Mile foundation (Sandusky's foundation).

Holy moley!

Who in their right mind would allow that to be the boundary of anyth... yeah ok that’s slightly less irregular Maryland

Which itself -- ironically(?) enough -- is probably the most gerrymandered state.

I'm sure I've mentioned it before, but Ratfucked is an incredibly enlightening and enraging read on gerrymandering. it made me furious.

FiveThirtyEight podcast had a very good 6 part series on gerrymander over the past 2 months. It is worth listening to if you are interested. It dealt in depth with Wisconsin, NC, Arizona and California; 4 different types of districting

brian wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:19 pm Interesting that the courts are consistently ruling against these aggressively gerrymandered states (and for what it's worth MD is gerrymandered almost as bad in favor of the Democrats).

That and voter suppression are pretty much the only two strategies the GOP has for maintaining power.

Hey, don't forget about race baiting and fear mongering!

In a vacuum, I don't necessarily mind tariffs on imports within reason. What I DO mind, however, is a President who has actual business importing cheap shit from China putting tariffs on other cheap shit from China to spite one industry in favor of one he campaigned for to get votes.

Yeah, if I were to build my version of american utopia, trade would be in much better balance. I'm sure there are economic and/or ideological reasons for why I'm being dumb here.

mister d wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 10:18 am Yeah, if I were to build my version of american utopia, trade would be in much better balance. I'm sure there are economic and/or ideological reasons for why I'm being dumb here.

Ideological mostly. People have biases and support one thing over another and people don't like change which can drive the economy.
I hear that Tesla is supposed to gain from this tariff because they have a plant in Buffalo. So I don't know what's true.

I think the bigger (or maybe just another) issue with trade and tariffs is that it's not just about us. I think the world would overall be better if there were no trade barriers - let the market find the efficient producers - but realistically, most countries impose tariffs to protect their own producers. So, if everyone we trade with imposes tariffs on our stuff to protect their industries - regardless of the long-term effects - we are in a competitive disadvantage if we don't do it back to them.

That alone makes trade law complicated and inefficient before you even add in political protection of "valuable" industries and constituents.

But this solar thing is just dumb.

Shirley wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 11:01 am I think the bigger (or maybe just another) issue with trade and tariffs is that it's not just about us. I think the world would overall be better if there were no trade barriers - let the market find the efficient producers - but realistically, most countries impose tariffs to protect their own producers. So, if everyone we trade with imposes tariffs on our stuff to protect their industries - regardless of the long-term effects - we are in a competitive disadvantage if we don't do it back to them.

That alone makes trade law complicated and inefficient before you even add in political protection of "valuable" industries and constituents.

But this solar thing is just dumb.

If there were no trade barriers, all countries would have to have the same employment laws. North American protects it's workers so companies can pay them a livable wage. To have no barriers would be unfair as China pays it's worker $10 a day and the US pay them $10 an hour. So by simply letting the market find the efficient producers just means who will do it for cheapest so we can buy it for the cheapest.

My issues are more that our current economy seems to incent cheaper-is-better-and-you-need-everything behavior and enables horrific conditions in other countries that we don't allow here.

Another hypocritical aspect of trade and economic policy that gets my goat from the GOP is that they say they truly wish for free-market. Many ascribe to Rand "philosophy". If I understand free market, it has a level of Darwinism, that if a company, business, or even industry doesn't adapt, or it dies. The free market would indicate which industries live or die, and if one dies, (philosophically) fuck 'em.

Yet the coal industry must be saved at the expense of solar.

L-Jam3 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 11:08 am Another hypocritical aspect of trade and economic policy that gets my goat from the GOP is that they say they truly wish for free-market. Many ascribe to Rand "philosophy". If I understand free market, it has a level of Darwinism, that if a company, business, or even industry doesn't adapt, or it dies. The free market would indicate which industries live or die, and if one dies, (philosophically) fuck 'em.

Yet the coal industry must be saved at the expense of solar.

If you tried to type out all of the glaring hypocrisies in GOP positions, your fingers would start to bleed.

I agree with Mister D and while maybe Dave is right because I don't know, my main problem with Trump is that I don't think he's ever making decisions like this based on trustworthy and honest rationale, even though I think you certainly could make this decision based on honest principles. There's a big difference between wrong and corrupt.

mister d wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 11:07 am My issues are more that our current economy seems to incent cheaper-is-better-and-you-need-everything behavior and enables horrific conditions in other countries that we don't allow here.

Yeah, that's kind-of a problem. Have you read Out of Sight, by Erik Loomis? He's one of the main contributors at Lawyers Guns and Money, and labor is his area of focus.

I don't think tariffs are really well designed to address that problem, though. Instead, the law on contractor liability needs to be broadened to make mass purchasers like Walmart or Nike legally liable for the wrongs committed by their big suppliers.

That should be easy to accomplish, right?

L-Jam3 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 11:08 am Another hypocritical aspect of trade and economic policy that gets my goat from the GOP is that they say they truly wish for free-market. Many ascribe to Rand "philosophy". If I understand free market, it has a level of Darwinism, that if a company, business, or even industry doesn't adapt, or it dies. The free market would indicate which industries live or die, and if one dies, (philosophically) fuck 'em.

Yet the coal industry must be saved at the expense of solar.

Yup. Totally free market. Come on.



(Based on data from Energy INformation Administration during the Obama admin)

To that point though AB, it still exposes the hypocrisy of claiming to be about "free markets" but still controlling the levers of the free market how you want. Coal still got a billion dollars in federal money and subsidies even under a time when coal CEOs were saying they were "under attack".

It would be better if politicians were at least being honest about their decisions. For the most part they're favoring industries that pay to put them in office. It's in the country's best long-term interest to invest in solar and wind so the numbers are going to be skewed a little bit, but I honestly might have guessed the amount invested in those would be higher.

Unfortunately, that chart doesn't include the short- and long-term societal costs of pollution, resource depletion, carbon emissions, or other externalities.

It's not really a free market unless externalities are priced into each energy source.

Solar and wind are obviously heavily subsidized. But so are carbon-based energy sources.

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 11:21 amYeah, that's kind-of a problem. Have you read Out of Sight, by Erik Loomis? He's one of the main contributors at Lawyers Guns and Money, and labor is his area of focus.

I don't think tariffs are really well designed to address that problem, though. Instead, the law on contractor liability needs to be broadened to make mass purchasers like Walmart or Nike legally liable for the wrongs committed by their big suppliers.

That should be easy to accomplish, right?

I'll check it out, sounds like the kind of conclusion I'd like to reach.

brian wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 11:28 am To that point though AB, it still exposes the hypocrisy of claiming to be about "free markets" but still controlling the levers of the free market how you want. Coal still got a billion dollars in federal money and subsidies even under a time when coal CEOs were saying they were "under attack".

It would be better if politicians were at least being honest about their decisions. For the most part they're favoring industries that pay to put them in office. It's in the country's best long-term interest to invest in solar and wind so the numbers are going to be skewed a little bit, but I honestly might have guessed the amount invested in those would be higher.

For the record I think we will need all the energy we can get to live the way we want. Absolutely I'm not saying that coal doesn't get benefits from the government (a great amount business of any type get some kind of government help) but I just wanted to point out that solar isn't really the free-market cost effective thing that it is often presented as.

And if solar employs more than coal and oil combined, it just goes to further the point that it isn't cost-effective (yet) on a man-hour basis to provide energy on a grand scale. so there's a real lack of efficiency.

(Also, Germany totally fucked up the way they tried to go green, which needs to be a cautionary tale in all of this as we move to a less carbon based energy economy.)

If I were a politician I'd just try to tell people that this country NEEDS to invest in solar and wind energy so that we can be competitive with other companies in other countries when those energy sources achieve the economy of scale that is destined to happen, but that coal will be a major part of the country's energy footprint for at least another quarter century.

That isn't the message that the coal industry OR environmentalists want to hear, but it's the truth.

brian wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 12:10 pm If I were a politician I'd just try to tell people that this country NEEDS to invest in solar and wind energy so that we can be competitive with other companies in other countries when those energy sources achieve the economy of scale that is destined to happen, but that coal will be a major part of the country's energy footprint for at least another quarter century.

That isn't the message that the coal industry OR environmentalists want to hear, but it's the truth.

LEFTIST AGENDA

brian wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 12:10 pm If I were a politician I'd just try to tell people that this country NEEDS to invest in solar and wind energy so that we can be competitive with other companies in other countries when those energy sources achieve the economy of scale that is destined to happen, but that coal will be a major part of the country's energy footprint for at least another quarter century.

That isn't the message that the coal industry OR environmentalists want to hear, but it's the truth.

I'm on board with this. Wind and solar are the future. Someone is going to develop the technology, and if the US government doesn't invest, or incentivize American companies to innovate, then in 50 years, the entire world will be buying the technology from whatever country steps up and creates the new technology. The Free Market people say if solar or wind was economically efficient, businesses would succeed, and since they can't yet, it's wrong to throw money at solar. The problem is that it will take an enormous amount of investment to get to the technology to a place where it is efficient, and few people or businesses can sustain that kind of an investment for that long without a return. It's a long term, society-wide play, and shouldn't be analyzed on the individual business level. If the US can become the leader in creating a feasible renewable energy source, that will create an enormous amount of jobs in a wide range of fields, from scientists and engineers to manufacturing and installing.

And to Brian's point, renewable energy sources aren't efficient enough yet to provide the majority of our power, so we need to continue to rely on coal, oil, and the old guard until we are in a position to wean off of them. The battle to preserve a dying industry for the sake of it is insane.

Elon Musk is the outlier, as he could sustain enormous losses for many years and continue to pump money into Tesla and SpaceX. He also has an extremely rare drive to change the world, and the charisma, money and connections to get celebrities and Billionaires to buy into his vision, and pay $150,000 for a car that won't come out for 3 years, without even seeing a prototype. I highly recommend the authorized biography of Musk, by Ashlee Vance. Fascinating book. Tesla cars are basically a front to fund his battery business, which is just now starting to come true. He knew he needed a sexy packaging for batteries, and the cars gave him cash flow and market testing for his batteries, allowing him to improve to eventually get the house batteries to point where they are affordable and efficient enough to take over.

Probably belongs in its own thread, but I think ultimately Musk is going to be seen as a huge failure. Tesla won't be the company that successfully revolutionizes it all.

Musk may or may not be a good capitalist. But, I think he's an outstanding idea man. Where he's going with batteries, space exploration, solar, and yes electric cars is pretty interesting. Prius cam before Tesla, but you can make a pretty good argument that the electric car market would not be developing this far and fast without Musk.

I don't know if this is AB's point, but ultimately Tesla will not revolutionize the electric car just like it didn't invent the electric car. Someone else will come in and do it cheaper and advance the technology to the point where it becomes cheaper (or as cheap at least) to drive an electric car.

But I wouldn't bet against Musk and Tesla as far as the battery business goes. The head start they have with the Gigafactory is going to be potentially overwhelming. You might actually see Tesla batteries in non-Tesla vehicles one day simply because it'll make Tesla a lot more money than making the cars (as someone else noted).

Just like Henry Ford didn't invent the automobile or even really especially revolutionize the design of it. He essentially just figured out a way to make them cheaper.

brian wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 3:00 pm I don't know if this is AB's point, but ultimately Tesla will not revolutionize the electric car just like it didn't invent the electric car. Someone else will come in and do it cheaper and advance the technology to the point where it becomes cheaper (or as cheap at least) to drive an electric car.

But I wouldn't bet against Musk and Tesla as far as the battery business goes. The head start they have with the Gigafactory is going to be potentially overwhelming. You might actually see Tesla batteries in non-Tesla vehicles one day simply because it'll make Tesla a lot more money than making the cars (as someone else noted).

Just like Henry Ford didn't invent the automobile or even really especially revolutionize the design of it. He essentially just figured out a way to make them cheaper.

Yeah, I guess this is a big part of what it didn't say very eloquently. But I also think he's got a bit of snake oil salesman to him and there are already hints that he's got some personal issues - which of course doesn't mean he can't still be a genius.

A_B wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 3:08 pm

brian wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 3:00 pm I don't know if this is AB's point, but ultimately Tesla will not revolutionize the electric car just like it didn't invent the electric car. Someone else will come in and do it cheaper and advance the technology to the point where it becomes cheaper (or as cheap at least) to drive an electric car.

But I wouldn't bet against Musk and Tesla as far as the battery business goes. The head start they have with the Gigafactory is going to be potentially overwhelming. You might actually see Tesla batteries in non-Tesla vehicles one day simply because it'll make Tesla a lot more money than making the cars (as someone else noted).

Just like Henry Ford didn't invent the automobile or even really especially revolutionize the design of it. He essentially just figured out a way to make them cheaper.

Yeah, I guess this is a big part of what it didn't say very eloquently. But I also think he's got a bit of snake oil salesman to him and there are already hints that he's got some personal issues - which of course doesn't mean he can't still be a genius.

Musk definitely had his back against the wall several times, and made promises he didn't know if he could keep in order to scrape together enough money to keep his doors open. He seems like an impossibly difficult person to live with or work for. I don't know if he has Aspergers or autism or something else, but he has an extraordinary focus on his work, and a deficiency in social skills.

Tesla will never take over the auto industry, and that was never the goal. He intentionally went with a sexy, high end sports car, in order to draw interest. Maybe the Model 3 will change things by creating an affordable option, but that isn't the goal. Musk's goal is actually for someone else to take over the mantle for electric cars. He made all of his patents public record, so anyone can use his technology directly, or study them to make improvements. If someone else took his concept and patents, and made a better, more affordable electric car that put Tesla out of business, Musk would view that as a victory.

So the last 3 days I've seen major corporations throw around promises of bonuses and increased wages citing "the new tax plan". Is dog-whistle the term I'm looking for here? I'm not immediately dismissive of anything and honestly haven't researched it enough other than to know I pretty much end up on the ass end of any tax plan out there, but this has got to be a small group of the ultra wealthy getting a huge cut and then throwing a scrap to the dogs and saying "SEE? See how much we value you? Keep these people in power, they ultimately benefit you!!!".

Am I missing something?

BSF21 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2018 11:24 am So the last 3 days I've seen major corporations throw around promises of bonuses and increased wages citing "the new tax plan". Is dog-whistle the term I'm looking for here? I'm not immediately dismissive of anything and honestly haven't researched it enough other than to know I pretty much end up on the ass end of any tax plan out there, but this has got to be a small group of the ultra wealthy getting a huge cut and then throwing a scrap to the dogs and saying "SEE? See how much we value you? Keep these people in power, they ultimately benefit you!!!".

Am I missing something?

No, that's about it. And the bonuses usually come with ridiculous stipulations. The Home Depot $1,000 bonus only applies to employees who have been there longer than 20 years.

And those get, well, taxed.

I loved how Walmart made a big press release about giving raises to long-term employees, as a result of the tax deal.

Then, the next day the news came out about big layoffs.

Ontario's Leader of The Opposition resigned due to a couple sexual misconduct allegations - Undignified and ugly: Patrick Brown’s bizarre news conference

-- The two women allege when Brown was a Conservative MP — and they were teenagers — Brown made unwanted sexual advances. Both say they were drunk at the time, after being out at a bar with Brown. The incidents occurred in Brown’s home, and that he was sober.

One of the teens was more or less forced to blow him. Allegedly. Also physically forced himself on a drunk party worker.

Rarely has a politician looked so emotionally shattered and alone. And he was alone because, it was soon clear, his staff had resigned en masse. What he did, in appearing by himself at a hastily arranged news conference, was undignified and ugly. In the glare of the cameras and under the instant microscopic scrutiny that comes with a fast-moving news story, he looked like a frightened little man, running way into oblivion.

He wasn't going to step down, but his entire staff quit on him. This is the guy who was going to be running for Premier in a few months against a Premier who has been between 18-20% in the polls for nearly three years now. Creepy looking dude, only good tyhing I can say about him is that at least he never waved the "family values" flag.

It was 4 hours between a denial statement and a resignation.

Pruitt, do you think Horvath (NDP) wins now? Wynne can't possibly win.
Who do the PCs get in last minute? Lisa Raitt maybe?