U.S. Mid-terms

[Valcazar]

"If Democrats believed that the pro-Donald Trump candidates are committed to overturning our system of government, they would try to block them every step of the way. Instead, they have often promoted exactly these candidates in the GOP primaries in the (sometimes flagrantly mistaken) belief that they’d be easier to defeat in the general. One would think a national emergency calls for eschewing cynicism, not engaging in grotesque displays of it."

No, democracy is not on the ballot — and cynical Democrats know it

Democracy is under threat — the wrong candidates could win more votes than their opponents in hotly contested free and fair elections.

nypost.com

Not this canard again.

 

[mandrill]

Not this canard again.

It's the New York Post. That is the level this has sunk to.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Which is it?
You want Republicans to win or your want to get the economy back on track.
Those tend to be in opposition to each other

LOL.....the exact opposite is true.

Go have a look how the US economy is doing under Biden right now

 

[Valcazar]

All you have to do is read the author's point. You don't have to subscribe to his column. If I remember right, I don't think he's a Trump supporter.

I kind of figured you or Valcazar would attack the author or the source.

I mean, it is Lowry.
But it is just a crappy argument.
"The Dems pointed out these people were hard-core Trumpists who didn't believe in the election, therefore it proves they aren't against election deniers," is kind of a stupid argument.
Add in "If they really thought democracy was at risk, they would repudiate Stacey Abrams" and the column is just a joke.

 

[mandrill]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1591053892305186817

 

[mandrill]

I mean, it is Lowry.
But it is just a crappy argument.
"The Dems pointed out these people were hard-core Trumpists who didn't believe in the election, therefore it proves they aren't against election deniers," is kind of a stupid argument.
Add in "If they really thought democracy was at risk, they would repudiate Stacey Abrams" and the column is just a joke.

I didn't bother reading that turd of an article because I assumed that it would be exactly as you describe it. And it was.

 

[silentkisser]

I mean, it is Lowry.
But it is just a crappy argument.
"The Dems pointed out these people were hard-core Trumpists who didn't believe in the election, therefore it proves they aren't against election deniers," is kind of a stupid argument.
Add in "If they really thought democracy was at risk, they would repudiate Stacey Abrams" and the column is just a joke.

You know, there is a massive difference between Trump (and his fellow election deniers) saying the voting tallies were wrong, or inflated, or changed by a machine...with no evidence....And Abrams correctly pointing out how Georgia changed (legally) election laws and purged voter lists after 2020 to suppress the vote of POC (since the vast majority of those measures and actions were to make it more difficult for them to vote). That is a fact. If the Georgia GOP didn't interfere, who knows what could have been.

You cannot conflate white domestic terrorist election deniers with POC pointing out the very real policies that suppress voting for minorities.

 

[WyattEarp]

I disagree that the IRA will not have some longer lasting beneficial impact on inflation. If you look at the components they will have longer term beneficial effects on supply chains.

Beyond the rhetoric behind the bill, one would have to explain exactly how the government would help expand supply and bring supplies to the market at lower prices. The Government has a spotty track record in direct intervention in the economy to expand supply/production. I know Jack Kemp's economic policies very well and I don't think this bill would be something he would back.

Most nonpartisan studies have said it is mostly benign towards inflation in the long-run possibly increasing inflationary pressure in the term. The problem is the liberal media kind of backtracked on the bill after it was enacted. So you might read and hear that it was great for fighting inflation to get the bill over the finish line, but the backtracking isn't as loud and clear.

As I have discussed, green energy subsidies are the biggest part of the bill. Let's just forget that green energy costs more than fossil fuels. If your 100% down on green energy, that's not going to matter to you. If the government subsidizes something, that is not bringing the price/inflation down that's just government picking up the tab. I think the big gamble and uncertainty is that the progressives think they can help produce green energy more cheaply. That's just unproven.

The only thing I see as being helpful to energy prices is some support for nuclear energy, but that is always kind of lukewarm. I'll get excited when more nuclear reactors are built in the United States. This has been floated around since Obama. Regulatory challenges is what has plateaued nuclear power capacity in the U.S.

I assure you Democrats use propaganda probably as much as Republicans to enact policies that appeal to their base. That political cynicism has never failed me in understanding our government.

 

[Frankfooter]

Beyond the rhetoric behind the bill, one would have to explain exactly how the government would help expand supply and bring supplies to the market at lower prices. The Government has a spotty track record in direct intervention in the economy to expand supply/production. I know Jack Kemp's economic policies very well and I don't think this bill would be something he would back.

Most nonpartisan studies have said it is mostly benign towards inflation in the long-run possibly increasing inflationary pressure in the term. The problem is the liberal media kind of backtracked on the bill after it was enacted. So you might read and hear that it was great for fighting inflation to get the bill over the finish line, but the backtracking isn't as loud and clear.

As I have discussed, green energy subsidies are the biggest part of the bill. Let's just forget that green energy costs more than fossil fuels. If your 100% down on green energy, that's not going to matter to you. If the government subsidizes something, that is not bringing the price/inflation down that's just government picking up the tab. I think the big gamble and uncertainty is that the progressives think they can help produce green energy more cheaply. That's just unproven.

The only thing I see as being helpful to energy prices is some support for nuclear energy, but that is always kind of lukewarm. I'll get excited when more nuclear reactors are built in the United States. This has been floated around since Obama. Regulatory challenges is what has plateaued nuclear power capacity in the U.S.

I assure you Democrats use propaganda probably as much as Republicans to enact policies that appeal to their base. That political cynicism has never failed me in understanding our government.

I think you're wrong about renewables being more expensive.
First, almost all new generation being built is renewable because its cheaper.
Second, you ignore the really massive subsidies that fossil fuels rely on, from direct subsidies to not paying for pollution to not paying for the stuff they dig up.

Not to mention damages, if you add in climate change damages to the price of fossil fuel use they'd be gone way faster.
This is already starting to happen through the insurance industry, though its targeting home owners first who find they can no longer get insurance because of flood/fire risk. That's putting those costs on consumers.
But its also hitting the fossil fuel directly.

U.S. states may be fighting ‘woke’ capitalism, but the insurance industry is avoiding coal, oil and gas projects anyway | Fortune

Insurers have begun to make the link between fossil fuel infrastructure and the impact that greenhouse gas emissions are having on other parts of their business.

fortune.com

 

[WyattEarp]

this I agree with
If you have mis-aligned monetary and fiscal policies, neither will achieve their objective without going to extremes

The fed will need to crater the economy in order to get inflation down

Trudeaus spending is also working against the bank of Canada

this will not end well

I am actually an optimist when it comes to economics as long as people and politicians have faith in free markets and free enterprise. There is always the fear that the progressive bases in our countries try to use an economic slump to have the government more involved in the economy.

As we know, Americans are more skeptical of government expansion and they can shutdown any progressive political movement within two years. I don't think Canadians will support an expanded government past the Covid recovery. In a Parliamentary system, I believe the moderates have more power to bring the left to heel if it's not politically supported.

Where my optimism leads me is that the Fed is showing who's boss. When they get inflation under control, they can slowly let the line out with lowering interest rates. I expect a short recession perhaps with some difficult pain.

 

[WyattEarp]

I mean, it is Lowry.
But it is just a crappy argument.
"The Dems pointed out these people were hard-core Trumpists who didn't believe in the election, therefore it proves they aren't against election deniers," is kind of a stupid argument.
Add in "If they really thought democracy was at risk, they would repudiate Stacey Abrams" and the column is just a joke.

I think you and others just diverted away from a salient point in a way that is more noticeable here. If it's not attacking the author or the source, you also ignore the quote displayed, dive into the article and try to find selective points to challenge. I simply supply the article to denote the source of a quote.

Here's the quote I noted: "If Democrats believed that the pro-Donald Trump candidates are committed to overturning our system of government, they would try to block them every step of the way. Instead, they have often promoted exactly these candidates in the GOP primaries in the (sometimes flagrantly mistaken) belief that they’d be easier to defeat in the general. One would think a national emergency calls for eschewing cynicism, not engaging in grotesque displays of it."

Let me explain the point in my own words. If Democracy is genuinely threatened by these Republican candidates, why would the Democrats cross-over and promote their primary campaigns? Even if you won't acknowledge outright hypocrisy, let's consider cynical politicking. If you personally truly believe Democracy is under attack, it was downright irresponsible and dangerous.

 

[Valcazar]

Let me explain the point in my own words. If Democracy is genuinely threatened by these Republican candidates, why would the Democrats cross-over and promote their primary campaigns? Even if you won't acknowledge outright hypocrisy, let's consider cynical politicking. If you personally truly believe Democracy is under attack, it was downright irresponsible and dangerous.

Yes, it's a stupid argument based on misrepresenting what happened.
Your argument is that running attack ads against the probably winner of the race is a sign that the Democrats didn't believe Democracy was under threat.

That's a dumb argument.

 

[WyattEarp]

I think you're wrong about renewables being more expensive.
First, almost all new generation being built is renewable because its cheaper.
Second, you ignore the really massive subsidies that fossil fuels rely on, from direct subsidies to not paying for pollution to not paying for the stuff they dig up.

Not to mention damages, if you add in climate change damages to the price of fossil fuel use they'd be gone way faster.
This is already starting to happen through the insurance industry, though its targeting home owners first who find they can no longer get insurance because of flood/fire risk. That's putting those costs on consumers.
But its also hitting the fossil fuel directly.

U.S. states may be fighting ‘woke’ capitalism, but the insurance industry is avoiding coal, oil and gas projects anyway | Fortune

Insurers have begun to make the link between fossil fuel infrastructure and the impact that greenhouse gas emissions are having on other parts of their business.

fortune.com

There's a lot to unpack here. It's the whole green energy will save the planet, it will cost less, create jobs, bring world peace, etc. etc. thing.

I would love to see a study from an unbiased economic group make the case that green energy is overall cheaper. From what I understand that even before the Ukrainian conflict, Germany had high energy costs. We know Germany has plunged into green energy.

As we have discussed, it is widely-known and accepted that the variable cost of green energy hides the true cost. Due to limits in battery storage technology, traditional back-up capacity needs to be maintained.

The argument that man-made climate change is going to increase the price of food and destroy your home has not been proven out. The link between increased prices and climate change at this point are just part of the climate propaganda.

Also, the real reason it's harder in some states that it is hard to get personal insurance in some states is excessive litigation. It's a bit arcane, but it has to do with excessive regulation and lawyers not event risk. As far as insurance backing off from the fossil fuel industries, if that is indeed a fact, it probably has to do with ESG governance not some opaque link between climate change and insurance claims. So a bit of manipulation there. We force insurers to desist from writing new policies in the fossil fuel industry and then we proclaim they are concerned about the climate impacting insurance claims. (I don't want to be too didactic here, but in the long-run insurance companies thrive on negative events. More events, means more insurance policies at higher prices. So this argument is counterintuitive.)

The Inflation Reduction Act was never about fighting inflation. It's about green energy.

 

[WyattEarp]

Yes, it's a stupid argument based on misrepresenting what happened.
Your argument is that running attack ads against the probably winner of the race is a sign that the Democrats didn't believe Democracy was under threat.

That's a dumb argument.

I don't think so. As I said, it's a very cynical move at the least.

We're not talking about supporting Republican B over Republican A. If we follow Democratic logic here, they are supporting the Fascist over the Republican.

Some would consider this downright dangerous. Or, or........maybe these election deniers are relatively innocuous in the scheme of things. Me thinks it's the latter. There is no serious threat to Democracy. Just a lot of stupid politicians talking out of their ass.

By the way, I believe the Dems paid for positive ads on behalf of certain election deniers. They weren't necessarily ads attacking the frontrunner.

 

[Frankfooter]

There's a lot to unpack here. It's the whole green energy will save the planet, it will cost less, create jobs, bring world peace, etc. etc. thing.

I would love to see a study from an unbiased economic group make the case that green energy is overall cheaper. From what I understand that even before the Ukrainian conflict, Germany had high energy costs. We know Germany has plunged into green energy.

I would love to see what you would accept as 'unbiased', I expect its whatever agrees with your preformed opinions.
Still...

'Renewables' power ahead to become the world’s cheapest source of energy in 2020

Most renewable power is now being generated more cheaply than the cheapest new fossil fuel options. It’s progress, says the International Renewable Energy Agency.

www.weforum.org

Renewables Take Lions Share of Global Power Additions in 2021

New data released by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) shows that renewable energy continued to grow and gain momentum despite global uncertainties.

www.irena.org

As we have discussed, it is widely-known and accepted that the variable cost of green energy hides the true cost. Due to limits in battery storage technology, traditional back-up capacity needs to be maintained.

Don't fixate on battery storage, that's the most expensive option. Even so, California used it last year to keep the lights on during drought and wildfire seasons.
Far more useful will be hydro storage, gravity storage, heat storage in molten salt or sand or a myriad of other physical ways to store energy. They aren't the most efficient, but they'll get better.

The argument that man-made climate change is going to increase the price of food and destroy your home has not been proven out. The link between increased prices and climate change at this point are just part of the climate propaganda.

Tell that to Pakistan, for a start.
Then add India, which froze grain exports because of heat/drought.
There are lots of smaller examples, if you actually looked.

Also, the real reason it's harder in some states that it is hard to get personal insurance in some states is excessive litigation. It's a bit arcane, but it has to do with excessive regulation and lawyers not event risk. As far as insurance backing off from the fossil fuel industries, if that is indeed a fact, it probably has to do with ESG governance not some opaque link between climate change and insurance claims. So a bit of manipulation there. We force insurers to desist from writing new policies in the fossil fuel industry and then we proclaim they are concerned about the climate impacting insurance claims.

The Inflation Reduction Act was never about fighting inflation. It's about green energy.

There are ton of US and Canadian home owners who are finding that insurance companies will no longer cover them for flood or fire or that its become too expensive.

Home insurance premiums soar as US grapples with cost of natural disasters

Natural disasters fuelled by climate change are making it increasingly costly to insure some homes in the US, particularly in areas that are prone to calamities.

www.channelnewsasia.com

 

[WyattEarp]

Tell that to Pakistan, for a start.
Then add India, which froze grain exports because of heat/drought.
There are lots of smaller examples, if you actually looked.

I heard Canada had a great harvest. The green lobby is always going to focus on a drought somewhere in the world as the effect of climate change.

Global food production and Mother Nature in that manner have never been equitable by region. I always look at the overall global food production trend over a period of time.

 

[WyattEarp]

Don't fixate on battery storage, that's the most expensive option. Even so, California used it last year to keep the lights on during drought and wildfire seasons.
Far more useful will be hydro storage, gravity storage, heat storage in molten salt or sand or a myriad of other physical ways to store energy. They aren't the most efficient, but they'll get better.

That's fine Frank. Perhaps they will get better, but that is not fighting inflation in the near-term. That's the government investing in future technologies that might or might not pay-off.

I'm sure mandrill, Valcazar and others more sympathetic see that everything is an existential threat to humanity in your mind. There is no room for pragmatism at anytime when everything is an existential threat. (ummm (cough), nuclear energy could be considered a pragmatic approach.)

 

[Frankfooter]

That's fine Frank. Perhaps they will get better, but that is not fighting inflation in the near-term. That's the government investing in future technologies that might or might not pay-off.

Or you could invest in a declining resource that will only get more expensive as it gets harder to get out of the ground, regardless of the damage.
Renewables are already cheaper and come with fixed costs.

 

[WyattEarp]

Or you could invest in a declining resource that will only get more expensive as it gets harder to get out of the ground, regardless of the damage.
Renewables are already cheaper and come with fixed costs.

Oh brother Frank. We are many, many decades of running out of fossil fuels. That's tired schtick that's been around for fifty plus years. You don't just run out of commodities. They gradually go up in price until alternatives are economically feasible.

You're really making the case in this post for government driven technology investments here. That's fine because that's what the legislation was.

 

[Frankfooter]

Oh brother Frank. We are many, many decades of running out of fossil fuels. That's tired schtick that's been around for fifty plus years. You don't just run out of commodities. They gradually go up in price until alternatives are economically feasible.

You're really making the case in this post for government driven technology investments here. That's fine because that's what the legislation was.

Ah, a believer that resources are infinite.
England had trees before they used them all up for fuel.
Whales were everywhere until whale oil.

There hasn't been much in the way of new oil discoveries for decades, we've only gotten better at deep sea drilling and fracking, neither of which are cheap.