[RD] Identifying Problems in the United States

[Kyriakos]

I dislike cars and wouldn't mind to see them go.

 

[Joij21]

which creates jobs in the area where the public transport is being built.

Unless it becomes fully automated.

If we can go to the moon an a decade, we can roll out public transport at the speed / scale we want. We just have to have the political will.

That was over fifty years ago, a much different America it was. Our government has become a lot more decentralized and more reliant on corporations and state governments to do the work that it used to. It was the Cold War as well and the nation was using all the momentum it had from the post war industrial boom and all those captured Nazi scientists giving us the secrets of advanced rocket technology.

Now most of our industry is overseas and our economy became less reliant on government ever since Reagan. Add the fact that climate change isn't really a tangible enemy that can motivate a populace to ramp up to wartime levels, and things aren't going to change. Especially so since corporations will also fight to keep the system as it is right now. No, Reaganomics is here to stay.

 

[Zardnaar]

Tide seems to be turning to some extent on Reaganomics.

If the GoP doesn't change they may be picked out of power for the next 20 odd years.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Therefore, a second environmental issue is the need to transition to sources of energy that are not finite.

Technically, ALL sources of energy are finite. Some will last long enough that we can treat them as practically infinite though (solar for example).

Fossil fuels are more urgently finite, and oil is useful for more than just fuel/electricity, so using it in that capacity hurts our long-term ability to use it for other things. It is definitely worthwhile if we can find comparable or cheaper energy alternatives to fossil fuel. Not just good for the environment (though that is also useful), but also so that we don't just walk into an energy crisis needlessly while driving costs of a large number of things up as supply dwindles.

Again, I don't think any one statistic captures what happens here. Minorities get trapped into an authoritarian and impersonal legal system that primarily serves the needs of those with money and influence. This system doesn't "temper mercy with justice", as it we as a country are morally obligated to do. Moreover, unwittingly, our nation has created a structure that reserves privilege, honor and material comfort to a limited few. This system doesn't exclude minorities, but it caters to the majority

The system does *not* cater to "the majority". It's badly mis-framed, IMO. Worse than any arbitrarily measured inequality on racial lines is inequality in legal enforcement/rules. We have, through multiple recent economic problems, seen the richest portion of the country do better while rigging the game against everyone else. We saw that with the Obama era housing crises, we saw it with who gets restricted vs not during COVID, and we're seeing it with the GameStop stonks meme stuff. "Rules for thee but not for me", constantly and consistently, from both large tech and government itself.

There is no single factor that explains the struggle of any arbitrarily selected subset of the population. However, we can clearly observe rule enforcement favoring institutions with money + power + control of governance. If we're going to tackle inequality, that's not a bad place to start...but I'm not sure how you'd get reform to alter it through. It probably wouldn't be easy to find candidates that fit criteria of "popular/anti-deep state except also selfless and not a PR disaster".

It would appear framing this as a race issue has been to their advantage, judging by how things have gone the last 15 years or so.

Too expensive. How do you expect people to travel more when travel costs money?

IMO the most realistic solution near-term given infrastructure would be to scale battery life and charging costs to the point where they compete favorably with gasoline vehicles. At that point any power source could also double as fuel source. My preference would be to see this happen because technology improves a lot soon, rather than because fossil fuels become more scarce to the point where they become expensive enough for current electric car models to outcompete them. Sooner or later the latter will happen regardless.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Regarding encouraging travel:

Too expensive. How do you expect people to travel more when travel costs money?

What about having to work? People can't travel all the time, limited vacation days.

If one improves the economic inequity problem, pushes money down the income scale, and alleviates the worst poverty, more people will be able to travel and enjoy its benefits. Often all it takes is a single trip outside of ones hometown culture to have one's eyes opened. It doesn't even have to be foreign travel. Both NY and Topeka are interesting if you live in one and have a first time visit to the other.

What about people losing their jobs overseas? How would unionized labor be protected from this?

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Please explain.

 

[Joij21]

If one improves the economic inequity problem, pushes money down the income scale, and alleviates the worst poverty, more people will be able to travel and enjoy its benefits. Often all it takes is a single trip outside of ones hometown culture to have one's eyes opened. It doesn't even have to be foreign travel. Both NY and Topeka are interesting if you live in one and have a first time visit to the other.

You make it sound like Americans are still living in colonial times were they never leave their hometown and always work the family farm. At first I thought you meant more international travel, not regional, as that's more expensive. Though that seems like an odd thing to want to encourage more of when Americans already do plenty of that (although that may be restricted because of COVID). Just seems a bit disparaging to me that you would think of your fellow Americans, of well, living under a rock.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Please explain.

When jobs go overseas to India or China. Sorry if you don't understand, maybe you've never left your hometown.

 

[Zardnaar]

You make it sound like Americans are still living in colonial times were they never leave their hometown and always work the family farm. At first I thought you meant more international travel, not regional, as that's more expensive. Though that seems like an odd thing to want to encourage more of when Americans already do plenty of that (although that may be restricted because of COVID). Just seems a bit disparaging to me that you would think of your fellow Americans, of well, living under a rock.




When jobs go overseas to India or China. Sorry if you don't understand, maybe you've never left your hometown.

Main problem if America is that it's full of Americans.

Time to start over. Bulldoze everything into the great lakes/gulf of mexico. Restore Mexican borders that USA seized recolonize with Canadians.

Flood what's left with Baltika beer problem solved!!!

Damn I'ma drunken genius.

 

[Modder_Mode]

A second issue here is dependence on finite resources. This isn't a new issue, as evinced by late antiquity deforestation in Europe.

This is true and ironically it was coal (which of course is the "bane" of climate change thinking) that saved countless forests around Europe being cut down and used as fuel as coal was used instead.

Moreover, unwittingly, our nation has created a structure that reserves privilege, honor and material comfort to a limited few. This system doesn't exclude minorities, but it caters to the majority, and minorities fall out of the system early and often. Not only is this bad for the long-term health of the economy, but it is fundamentally unjust.

I read this statement as a contradiction though (maybe I misunderstand it?) because you say it's a structure that benefits a limited "few" but then you go on to say that it caters to the "majority"?

If you are suggesting that only the super wealthy (if by the "limited few" you mean the millionaire/billionaires) live with material comfort then you are mistaken, the entire middle class and most of the working class all live with material comfort of furnished homes, electronic accessories/devices and labor saving devices not to mention automotive transport.

For equality my belief is that the primary equality issue between the haves and the have nots. That is not to say that other issues not part of this, but they seem to be superimposed on the wealth issue rather than divorced from it.

You shouldn't always correlate income inequality with overall poverty, there are countries with really high income inequality and very low overall poverty like United States and then there are countries with very low income inequality, Ethiopia, Sudan etc. and those people have nothing.

On a world scale what do you think equality would look like? Consider for a second that the vast majority of the people around the world do not live like people in western countries. Equality for everyone would essentially mean living in a dilapidated shack struggling to put food on the table.

 

[Samson]

You shouldn't always correlate income inequality with overall poverty, there are countries with really high income inequality and very low overall poverty like United States and then there are countries with very low income inequality, Ethiopia, Sudan etc. and those people have nothing.

On a world scale what do you think equality would look like? Consider for a second that the vast majority of the people around the world do not live like people in western countries. Equality for everyone would essentially mean living in a dilapidated shack struggling to put food on the table.

I think you are wrong about the low income inequality of Ethiopia and Sudan. They both have a gini index of about 35, which is pretty middle of the road, just above the UK (34.8) though significantly below the US (41.4). The highest are pretty poor countries, South Africa, Namibia, Suriname and Zambia.

As what I think true equality would look like, I do not know. I do not think it is realistically achievable. The 2nd energy use graph in my post above would be a massive step, but still a long way from true equality.


World map of the GINI coefficients by country. Based on World Bank data ranging from 1992 to 2018.

 

[Modder_Mode]

When jobs go overseas to India or China. Sorry if you don't understand, maybe you've never left your hometown.

This is an almost inevitable part of the economic cycle under capitalism though, an almost natural law, capitalism mostly seeks the cheapest labor markets (not every time and not in every situation), the benefit of some of this being that other nations get to go through their own "industrial revolution", depending on how local governments handle this it can be a boon to the people and the economy, climate change policy however denies the opportunity of much of the developing world to have their own industrial revolution as part of this cycle.
Class will still exist but living conditions can greatly improve, essentially the working class exist to service the middle class and keep inflation in check, most of the market prices are targeted towards the middle class, it's why I mostly say that the left always go after the super wealthy are targeting the wrong people if they want at least some form of economic "justice", but I feel the reason they don't is because most of these activists are themselves middle class and they know this.

 

[Modder_Mode]

As what I think true equality would look like, I do not know. I do not think it is realistically achievable.

True equality around the world is of course possible, but my main point was that it might not be what you think it is, I think a lot of people that advocate for it get equality mixed up with "we want people around the world to live similarly like we do in the West, which would be amazing if this happened, but this is vastly different to actual equality.

 

[Zardnaar]

True equality around the world is of course possible, but my main point was that it might not be what you think it is, I think a lot of people that advocate for it get equality mixed up with "we want people around the world to live similarly like we do in the West, which would be amazing if this happened, but this is vastly different to actual equality.

Not enough resources to live like the rest.

Realistically everyone would be living marginally better than say Africa.

That's not gonna happen anytime soon.

 

[Samson]

True equality around the world is of course possible, but my main point was that it might not be what you think it is, I think a lot of people that advocate for it get equality mixed up with "we want people around the world to live similarly like we do in the West, which would be amazing if this happened, but this is vastly different to actual equality.

I am not convinced. Even if we went with your "living in a dilapidated shack struggling to put food on the table", that is going to look very different between Greenland, the UK and Western Sahara.

Not enough resources to live like the rest.

Realistically everyone would be living marginally better than say Africa.

That's not gonna happen anytime soon.

If we could get the range of energy use to something like the graph above, with the bottom 10% of the world getting 1kW and the top 10% using 5kW that would be a whole lot better than now, would be sustainable from a GW perspective and would allow people to live pretty well if we have enough energy saving technologies.

 

[Modder_Mode]

Not enough resources to live like the rest.

Realistically everyone would be living marginally better than say Africa.

That's not gonna happen anytime soon.

See you get it!
However I would disagree that it's not necessarily lack of resources, its about who has access/controls these resources and what type of resources, resources can come from many different nations both rich and poor so that alone can't determine who gets to live like kings and queens.

 

[Birdjaguar]

You make it sound like Americans are still living in colonial times were they never leave their hometown and always work the family farm. At first I thought you meant more international travel, not regional, as that's more expensive. Though that seems like an odd thing to want to encourage more of when Americans already do plenty of that (although that may be restricted because of COVID). Just seems a bit disparaging to me that you would think of your fellow Americans, of well, living under a rock.

Americans need to do more and I don't mean just go on cruise ships. The more time one spends in cultures that are not one's home town, the better. If one can afford it, going away to to college is better than living at home and staying local. Seeing other races and ethnicities go about their daily lives helps break down stereotypes. America needs more of that. In the US Millennials are the first generation to grow up in a culture that was was not a full bore "white is all that counts".

You said this:

What about people losing their jobs overseas? How would unionized labor be protected from this?

Read your words. "People losing their jobs overseas" seems to worry about non Americans losing their jobs or Americans who live overseas losing their jobs. And then you ask about labor unions. Two very disconnected points. It is poorly written and certainly not at all clear about what you attempted to say. Your reply below clarifies what you meant. Thanks. Perhaps you should practice expressing yourself more more clearly.

When jobs go overseas to India or China. Sorry if you don't understand, maybe you've never left your hometown.

Maybe I just need to visit your hometown to better understand how you think. Where is that?

 

[Joij21]

Americans need to do more and I don't mean just go on cruise ships. The more time one spends in cultures that are not one's home town, the better. If one can afford it, going away to to college is better than living at home and staying local. Seeing other races and ethnicities go about their daily lives helps break down stereotypes. America needs more of that. In the US Millennials are the first generation to grow up in a culture that was was not a full bore "white is all that counts".

Does it really break down stereotypes? Because some people are just raised that way or get their information from the media. Could you really bring a redneck to Africa and suddenly change his views towards black people? I doubt it. This only works on younger people who aren't stuck in their ways, and even that only works if they came from a community that wasn't outright full of discrimination.

 

[Joij21]

If we could get the range of energy use to something like the graph above, with the bottom 10% of the world getting 1kW and the top 10% using 5kW that would be a whole lot better than now, would be sustainable from a GW perspective and would allow people to live pretty well if we have enough energy saving technologies.

It's more than just energy usage. Vast amounts of greenhouse gases are produced from livestock, concrete, and metallurgy. That only solves part of the problem. Scientist claim we have to get to net zero emissions, not simply a reduction, for the climate to be stable.

 

[Samson]

It's more than just energy usage. Vast amounts of greenhouse gases are produced from livestock, concrete, and metallurgy. That only solves part of the problem. Scientist claim we have to get to net zero emissions, not simply a reduction, for the climate to be stable.

Livestock is a real problem, and I expect ruminants to become a very niche thing once the full economic cost is payed by the consumer. Concrete reabsorbs the CO2 it gives off in making quicklime while setting, so I think the primary problem is the amount of energy you need to apply for the whole process, and I would be surprised if the picture is much different for smelting.

Though there is a very good point, we are sure to end up emitting some carbon (how we deal with coal fires is a big question). There are some interesting ideas about taking carbon out of the atmosphere. I think the best ways are "naturally" with ocean fertilisation with iron or forestation, but there are ideas to use electricity to convert CO2 into something we can store. They seem very expensive to me.

Spoiler Pic of coal fire :

wiki

 

[Birdjaguar]

Does it really break down stereotypes? Because some people are just raised that way or get their information from the media. Could you really bring a redneck to Africa and suddenly change his views towards black people? I doubt it. This only works on younger people who aren't stuck in their ways, and even that only works if they came from a community that wasn't outright full of discrimination.

It works better than not doing so. The many and varied incidents that change peoples lives and outlooks are very hard to predict. They can be seemingly insignificant but powerful; they can newsworthy. The greater the number of exposures to things that are outside of ones cultural walls, the greater the opportunity for change to occur. Changes, large and small, happen to people throughout their lives. They learn to like new foods, they adapt to new friends and find that new tech can be useful. Local and world events can influence their thinking. Life experience affects both the young and growing older. If the goal is to push for change, then broadening peoples' experiences is a good path.

 

[innonimatu]

World map of the GINI coefficients by country. Based on World Bank data ranging from 1992 to 2018.

So the best gini coefficients are the portions of the former USSR that weren't thoroughly wrecked?
Someone certainly seems pissed that Belorruia hasn't be opened for looting, judging from the propaganda campaign waged on it last year.