A problem might arise for the U.S. should it continue to deny man-made climate warming, regardless of whether it is real or not. If other countries (probably relying on those naughty scientists and their data) decide that U.S. products should be subject to a carbon tariff for the damage the U.S. is causing to the climate they share, then the U.S. will find it's economic might decreased. The longer the U.S. denies and the higher that tariff, the more damage to the U.S. will ensue. China is already on the climate change bandwagon wanting to decrease their carbon footprint because it is expensive and causes national security issues being reliant on foreign oil...and they can no longer see Beijing from Beijing. They'd be more than happy to go along with carbon tariff on the U.S.
This sort of tariff has already been discussed in Europe. The Cheeto better hope it remains discussion.
Yes, but the thing about feedback, if you understood the term is that it can have one of three effects, increasing, staying the same, or (get this) decreasing activity of the system. So as long as you have a dampening effect, you tend to drift off into an ice world. This has happened before. The problem with increasing activity is it tend to make things hotter. Since you clearly have no clue, do ya feel lucky, punk?
What's even better is pols first claiming they are not scientists, but then going on to claim science based claims are hoaxes. Welcome to the alt-right hall of mirrors.
Years ago there was talk of a national id. I don't know how practical that was or what kind of security could be built in. What sunk it was the Libretards and Republicans. Naturally, the Christian fundamentalists were against it too, claiming it was akin to tattooing 666-xxx-xxx-xxx-xxx onto everyone. They then went back to pretending security was a warm blanket.
You are forgetting engineering infrastructure. There is a web of companies in China that help build iThings. Who is going to set up those companies in the U.S.?
Free college, although I didn't vote for Trump. Free college will allow colleges to do what they did the last time we dumped money on them, what most reputable economic theory will tell you. It will increase demand, and prices will go up. The colleges added a new twist, poaching other colleges' professors. That was enough for them, now to get a position in a college you have to be under 30 (yes, age discrimination starts early in academia), and pay your own salary with research grants.This allows colleges to support their bloated bureaucracy.
The people who wrote the Constitution thought of government service as a limited duration job, the people would go back to private life. Times have changed and they could not foresee how necessary government is to business. Anti-trust never occurred to them. Big Pharma shipping useless pills never occurred to them. Airline safety never occurred to them. Financial regulation was never an issue (think Wells Fargo). The idea that somehow government could be staffed by people off the street is ludicrous to all but the politicians who know what would happen if that were the case again but insist on campaigning as though some the Constitution framers' golden era (before dentistry) could magically reappear, complete with pink unicorns.
very few were waterboarded. Stop acting like they are waterboarded every week, and that stopped about 2004 if memory serves correct.
Personally, I say give them trials and if they get off, ship them home. A few more nutjobs out there isn't going to make that big of a difference. The U.S. just has to be careful to kill them dead next time.
He as the attention span of gnat. That will get the U.S. in trouble when he starts changing policy every year. Sooner or later, no one will trust any of his policies because they cannot be sure how long they'll last.
Well, that and China is getting into renewables in a big way and have been for several years. In this sense, it doesn't matter whether climate change is real (man-made or not), what matters is there's a growing market for renewables.
However, before we get any sort of hope, Trump has flip-flopped on the issue. He has the attention span of gnat. A few discussions with the carbon energy industry and he'll change his alleged mind again.
He'll take credit for taking down Daesh too. He won't do anything substantive but it will be just like the Ford plant he took credit for "saving" when it was only going to be retooling.
China seems to get about 17% of their export market from the U.S. (within 2%). The U.S. runs about a $350 billion trade deficit with China and exports around $180 billion.
I think "need" is too strong a word. China would certainly not enjoy losing that export market. On the other hand, if losing it means the U.S. is retrenching from the world, they will probably just spend more effort increasing trade deals with everyone else. They are already knocking on doors in S. American explaining to the S. Americans they are ready and willing should the U.S. pull out of NAFTA.
Also, if it comes down to a question of face, i.e., allowing Trump to walk on them, they will eat hot coals before acquiescing to him, and trade be damned.
The president has control over the economy but not in the sense of controlling it year to year. The policies of Obama did blunt the recession. However, the push to expand the national debt will effect the U.S. economy greatly in coming years. In effect, the U.S. borrowed against future prosperity.
The policies of the last 30 years contributed to the current state of the U.S. economy. Given the rest of the world, it is not so bad. The Republicans complain bitterly about clean air and water policies, yet they contributed to the U.S. not being a dung heap. Without them, the U.S. GDP would be lower because of the economic costs of clean up. The easy example is getting rid of lead in gasoline. The oil companies were just find with creating a nation of idiots via led poisoning before government (and presidents) mandated that it stop.
Policies toward energy and its sources contributed to expanding U.S. GDP. Yet those same policies mortgaged future growth due to rising sea levels, acidification of the oceans, etc. And if other nations suffer from climate damage, they won't have the ability to buy U.S. products and GDP suffers.
Education policies now will greatly matter to future years. The GI Bill after WWII led to the a lot of GDP growth, as did R&D expenditures. Failure to fund those two will hurt future GDP growth. For a barometer on how important those two are, look at the Asian countries and where they are putting their money. Now look at our new alleged president and the Republican Congress who somehow believe science is some sort of dodge. Their fellow travelers, the Christian Fundamentalists, don't support science because it keeps poking holes in territory they believe they own.
Unless, we get the Trump Pacific Partnership in its place. It will have similar terms as the current TPP but given Trump's negotiating skills, the U.S. will get screwed harder.
After Americans find he's sold the roads, bridges, etc. from his infrastructure "expenditure" to companies (and given them tax reductions for the privilege of owning these assets), it isn't clear he'll have a mandate for anything except the retirement home...which he'll have built for himself at government expense and for which he'll charge admission for visits.
Bzzzzt. Wrong. With the new Republican majority and The Cheeto, they find regulations abhorrent. So there'll be no regulatin' on their watch. How does this square with their whining about banks too big to fail? It doesn't, but contradictions like this never bothered them.
There are several reasons, some alluded to below. Getting a 50 year old to retrain is hard. Being politically let by a bunch of people who do not believe in helping a workforce meet coming economic trends has led the workers into a cul-de-sac they have no way of escaping. Also, being told that Global Warming doesn't exist helps the pols perpetuate the myth that somehow their jobs can be made to magically reappear. However, if coal does regain any momentum, it will be much more automated so the jobs won't be there anywhere. This assumes the knock-on effects like acidification of oceans, more widespread diseases caused by parasites since cold winters no longer happen to kill them off, etc. All of this is made worse by a prevailing ethos of being proud to be unintelligent in coal mining regions.
Slashdot Mirror
A problem might arise for the U.S. should it continue to deny man-made climate warming, regardless of whether it is real or not. If other countries (probably relying on those naughty scientists and their data) decide that U.S. products should be subject to a carbon tariff for the damage the U.S. is causing to the climate they share, then the U.S. will find it's economic might decreased. The longer the U.S. denies and the higher that tariff, the more damage to the U.S. will ensue. China is already on the climate change bandwagon wanting to decrease their carbon footprint because it is expensive and causes national security issues being reliant on foreign oil...and they can no longer see Beijing from Beijing. They'd be more than happy to go along with carbon tariff on the U.S.
This sort of tariff has already been discussed in Europe. The Cheeto better hope it remains discussion.
Yes, but the thing about feedback, if you understood the term is that it can have one of three effects, increasing, staying the same, or (get this) decreasing activity of the system. So as long as you have a dampening effect, you tend to drift off into an ice world. This has happened before. The problem with increasing activity is it tend to make things hotter. Since you clearly have no clue, do ya feel lucky, punk?
What's even better is pols first claiming they are not scientists, but then going on to claim science based claims are hoaxes. Welcome to the alt-right hall of mirrors.
Years ago there was talk of a national id. I don't know how practical that was or what kind of security could be built in. What sunk it was the Libretards and Republicans. Naturally, the Christian fundamentalists were against it too, claiming it was akin to tattooing 666-xxx-xxx-xxx-xxx onto everyone. They then went back to pretending security was a warm blanket.
You are forgetting engineering infrastructure. There is a web of companies in China that help build iThings. Who is going to set up those companies in the U.S.?
Free college, although I didn't vote for Trump. Free college will allow colleges to do what they did the last time we dumped money on them, what most reputable economic theory will tell you. It will increase demand, and prices will go up. The colleges added a new twist, poaching other colleges' professors. That was enough for them, now to get a position in a college you have to be under 30 (yes, age discrimination starts early in academia), and pay your own salary with research grants.This allows colleges to support their bloated bureaucracy.
What makes you think he won't flip-flop again, "Oh look, a Blibbering Humdinger, man-made global warming is a Bolivian ruse."
The people who wrote the Constitution thought of government service as a limited duration job, the people would go back to private life. Times have changed and they could not foresee how necessary government is to business. Anti-trust never occurred to them. Big Pharma shipping useless pills never occurred to them. Airline safety never occurred to them. Financial regulation was never an issue (think Wells Fargo). The idea that somehow government could be staffed by people off the street is ludicrous to all but the politicians who know what would happen if that were the case again but insist on campaigning as though some the Constitution framers' golden era (before dentistry) could magically reappear, complete with pink unicorns.
very few were waterboarded. Stop acting like they are waterboarded every week, and that stopped about 2004 if memory serves correct.
Personally, I say give them trials and if they get off, ship them home. A few more nutjobs out there isn't going to make that big of a difference. The U.S. just has to be careful to kill them dead next time.
He as the attention span of gnat. That will get the U.S. in trouble when he starts changing policy every year. Sooner or later, no one will trust any of his policies because they cannot be sure how long they'll last.
Yes, but then the Democrats have bottled up nuclear which last we checked, was carbon neutral.
Well, that and China is getting into renewables in a big way and have been for several years. In this sense, it doesn't matter whether climate change is real (man-made or not), what matters is there's a growing market for renewables.
However, before we get any sort of hope, Trump has flip-flopped on the issue. He has the attention span of gnat. A few discussions with the carbon energy industry and he'll change his alleged mind again.
Ah, so if it happens in this instance, Grasshopper, regulation must not be needed anywhere.
He'll take credit for taking down Daesh too. He won't do anything substantive but it will be just like the Ford plant he took credit for "saving" when it was only going to be retooling.
BS, Trump won because he mobilized white racism and minorities didn't feel they had a dog in that fight.
China seems to get about 17% of their export market from the U.S. (within 2%). The U.S. runs about a $350 billion trade deficit with China and exports around $180 billion.
I think "need" is too strong a word. China would certainly not enjoy losing that export market. On the other hand, if losing it means the U.S. is retrenching from the world, they will probably just spend more effort increasing trade deals with everyone else. They are already knocking on doors in S. American explaining to the S. Americans they are ready and willing should the U.S. pull out of NAFTA.
Also, if it comes down to a question of face, i.e., allowing Trump to walk on them, they will eat hot coals before acquiescing to him, and trade be damned.
The president has control over the economy but not in the sense of controlling it year to year. The policies of Obama did blunt the recession. However, the push to expand the national debt will effect the U.S. economy greatly in coming years. In effect, the U.S. borrowed against future prosperity.
The policies of the last 30 years contributed to the current state of the U.S. economy. Given the rest of the world, it is not so bad. The Republicans complain bitterly about clean air and water policies, yet they contributed to the U.S. not being a dung heap. Without them, the U.S. GDP would be lower because of the economic costs of clean up. The easy example is getting rid of lead in gasoline. The oil companies were just find with creating a nation of idiots via led poisoning before government (and presidents) mandated that it stop.
Policies toward energy and its sources contributed to expanding U.S. GDP. Yet those same policies mortgaged future growth due to rising sea levels, acidification of the oceans, etc. And if other nations suffer from climate damage, they won't have the ability to buy U.S. products and GDP suffers.
Education policies now will greatly matter to future years. The GI Bill after WWII led to the a lot of GDP growth, as did R&D expenditures. Failure to fund those two will hurt future GDP growth. For a barometer on how important those two are, look at the Asian countries and where they are putting their money. Now look at our new alleged president and the Republican Congress who somehow believe science is some sort of dodge. Their fellow travelers, the Christian Fundamentalists, don't support science because it keeps poking holes in territory they believe they own.
Yep, it isn't possible for Dow to go back down again. I don't think that's ever happened before.
Unless, we get the Trump Pacific Partnership in its place. It will have similar terms as the current TPP but given Trump's negotiating skills, the U.S. will get screwed harder.
Well, we more or less assume you'll come to accept evolution to some degree, but it is clear being "knuckledraggers", it hasn't yet happened for you.
After Americans find he's sold the roads, bridges, etc. from his infrastructure "expenditure" to companies (and given them tax reductions for the privilege of owning these assets), it isn't clear he'll have a mandate for anything except the retirement home...which he'll have built for himself at government expense and for which he'll charge admission for visits.
I notice you fail to include any costs due to the environmental impact of using coal. Myopia, get it looked at.
Bzzzzt. Wrong. With the new Republican majority and The Cheeto, they find regulations abhorrent. So there'll be no regulatin' on their watch. How does this square with their whining about banks too big to fail? It doesn't, but contradictions like this never bothered them.
Maybe. In my opinion, millions of idle humans is not going to end well.
There are several reasons, some alluded to below. Getting a 50 year old to retrain is hard. Being politically let by a bunch of people who do not believe in helping a workforce meet coming economic trends has led the workers into a cul-de-sac they have no way of escaping. Also, being told that Global Warming doesn't exist helps the pols perpetuate the myth that somehow their jobs can be made to magically reappear. However, if coal does regain any momentum, it will be much more automated so the jobs won't be there anywhere. This assumes the knock-on effects like acidification of oceans, more widespread diseases caused by parasites since cold winters no longer happen to kill them off, etc. All of this is made worse by a prevailing ethos of being proud to be unintelligent in coal mining regions.