Doomsday Clock stays at two mins to midnight

[Still Waters]

How close is human civilization to destroying the planet? The symbolic Doomsday Clock is still two minutes to midnight, as close as it has ever been, said the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists on Thursday.

The clock did not budge from last year, but that "should not be taken as a sign of stability," said Rachel Bronson, president and CEO of the group of scholars and international experts in security, nuclear, environmental and science fields.

https://phys.org/news/2019-01-doomsday-clock-mins-midnight.html?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2019/01/24/doomsday-clock-is-stuck-minutes-midnight-symbolic-hour-apocalypse/?

[Carnoferox]

I feel this is appropriate.

 

[SHaYap]

Human related activities ...

~

[+DanL]

This is like all the other predictions of various gloom and doom. There is no money in good news. When bad predictions don't happen it is just sort of forgotten happily only to be repeated again over and over until the last penny has been wrung from it. You know the prediction that in five years the polar ice cap is going to melt to the point that the polar bears are going to all die? That prediction is about 25 years old now and yet is still being quoted. If he was an investment counselor he would be out of business! Christian Churches have been predicting the imminent return of Jesus and Judgement Day to pry money from their followers for nearly 2000 years and it is still working.

[Doug1029]

16 minutes ago, DanL said:

This is like all the other predictions of various gloom and doom. There is no money in good news. When bad predictions don't happen it is just sort of forgotten happily only to be repeated again over and over until the last penny has been wrung from it. You know the prediction that in five years the polar ice cap is going to melt to the point that the polar bears are going to all die? That prediction is about 25 years old now and yet is still being quoted. If he was an investment counselor he would be out of business! Christian Churches have been predicting the imminent return of Jesus and Judgement Day to pry money from their followers for nearly 2000 years and it is still working.

You need to update some of your gloom-and-doom predictions.  The Arctic Ocean was open during the Altithermal (c. 7800 YBP) with permanent ice surrounding the Canadian islands.  Polar bears survived that.  There is no reason to believe they will be exterminated by ice melt.  The populations will likely drop off, but extinction doesn't appear to be in the cards.

At the time the forecasts were first made, there was reason to believe polar bears might be endangered.  But then some people found pieces of wood frozen in the ice and radio-carbon dated it to about 7500 YBP.  Wood can float for about two years before getting water-logged enough to sink.  The only rivers emptying into the Arctic Ocean are the MacKenzie in Canada and two or three in Siberia.  That wood had to come down one of those rivers and then float to where it was found.  It couldn't do that if the ocean was frozen over; hence, the Arctic Ocean was ice-free during the Althermal.

I wish they had ring-dated it.  We might be able to fit a series from that wood into one of the three long term chronologies and we'd know the exact years the trees lived, maybe which river the sample was from and improve the chronologies at the same time.

Doug

[TomasaurusREKT]

18 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

You need to update some of your gloom-and-doom predictions.  The Arctic Ocean was open during the Altithermal (c. 7800 YBP) with permanent ice surrounding the Canadian islands.  Polar bears survived that.  There is no reason to believe they will be exterminated by ice melt.  The populations will likely drop off, but extinction doesn't appear to be in the cards.

At the time the forecasts were first made, there was reason to believe polar bears might be endangered.  But then some people found pieces of wood frozen in the ice and radio-carbon dated it to about 7500 YBP.  Wood can float for about two years before getting water-logged enough to sink.  The only rivers emptying into the Arctic Ocean are the MacKenzie in Canada and two or three in Siberia.  That wood had to come down one of those rivers and then float to where it was found.  It couldn't do that if the ocean was frozen over; hence, the Arctic Ocean was ice-free during the Althermal.

I wish they had ring-dated it.  We might be able to fit a series from that wood into one of the three long term chronologies and we'd know the exact years the trees lived, maybe which river the sample was from and improve the chronologies at the same time.

Doug

YBP?

[Susanc241]

Years before present?

[Minimalists]

 

[Trenix]

The doomsday clock is childish and stupid. It's meaningless and certainty does not foretell the future or the current position which humanity is within, I don't care what scientists take part in this. Think about it, a bunch of grown adults go to set and see a clock which people assume is the reality. If this isn't fearmongering, than I don't know what is.

[Minimalists]

6 hours ago, Trenix said:

The doomsday clock is childish and stupid. It's meaningless and certainty does not foretell the future or the current position which humanity is within, I don't care what scientists take part in this. Think about it, a bunch of grown adults go to set and see a clock which people assume is the reality. If this isn't fearmongering, than I don't know what is.

 

It more or less goes on the assumption of some man made global disaster....

Quote

If this isn't fearmongering, than I don't know what is.

I second that one wholeheartedly.

[+and-then]

10 hours ago, Alien Origins said:

 

Yes, indeed... BURN IT DOWN, BABY.

[Doug1029]

On 1/26/2019 at 4:35 AM, TomasaurusREKT said:

YBP?

 

On 1/27/2019 at 7:07 AM, Susanc241 said:

Years before present?

Years Before Present, meaning years before 1950.

Doug

[Doug1029]

22 hours ago, Trenix said:

The doomsday clock is childish and stupid. It's meaningless and certainty does not foretell the future or the current position which humanity is within, I don't care what scientists take part in this. Think about it, a bunch of grown adults go to set and see a clock which people assume is the reality. If this isn't fearmongering, than I don't know what is.

The Doomsday Clock is a subjective opinion by atomic scientists.  It's an opinion only.  It is not based on objective observation.  It serves mainly is a political device.

Doug

[Katzenking]

I grew up during the 'no future'- generation and don't see that anything has improved since then, or has it?
The danger of nuclear war is not smaller than it was 40 years ago.
Climate change and overpopulation were no subject back then but these two combined are the biggest threat today and I don't see any real solution to it.
So can anyone explain to me what exactly causes that optimism?
May be I feel better then. Not necessarily for me but for my children.

[Doug1029]

1 hour ago, Katzenking said:

I grew up during the 'no future'- generation and don't see that anything has improved since then, or has it?
The danger of nuclear war is not smaller than it was 40 years ago.
Climate change and overpopulation were no subject back then but these two combined are the biggest threat today and I don't see any real solution to it.
So can anyone explain to me what exactly causes that optimism?
May be I feel better then. Not necessarily for me but for my children.

Population growth will solve itself, if you can call it a solution.  The world's population passed the inflection point in about 1970 - the point where population is still increasing, but at a decreasing rate.  Expect it to top out late this century at around ten billion people - one-third more than we have now.  Resource managers have to hang on until that happens.

After 2100, population will slowly start to implode.  That will create problems of its own:  world economies will have to shift away from the eternal-growth model.  Countries with fewer workers will have to import them (That ought to frost tRUMP's gizzard.) and/or start govt programs to encourage larger families (Anti-abortion laws are the Devil's version of that.).  All that will likely set off mass migrations and change the racial makeup of a lot of countries.  Countries who don't think they're racists now are going to learn differently.

 

The danger of accidental nuclear war has now replaced the Cold War version of deliberate nuclear war.  We've had several close calls in which one country or the other was minutes from launching an attack.  And we've had several accidents where we nearly attacked ourselves.  The USAF dropped a nuke on Albuquerque, for example.  Not to be outdone by the Air Force, the Navy rolled a truck load of torpedoes in the middle of the I-70/I-25 interchange - look out Denver.  The US has lost 11 nuclear warheads - 7 here in the US and 4 abroad.

Not counted in that is one that disappeared.  While the Air Force brass quietly sweated about who might have it, a lieutenant doing a bomb inventory discovered one with markings he didn't recognize.  When he checked them out, it was the missing nuke.

And somewhere in Colorado are two conventional earthquake bombs.  A pilot, evidently intending to commit suicide, took a plane with two bombs attached on a flight north from New Mexico.  He flew it into a mountain in Colorado, but the bombs weren't found.  In a lake?

And we found some vials of mustard gas up at the Oklahoma Salt Flats a couple years ago.  And 8 canisters of sarin nerve gas in a dump in Denver.

The military needs to take better care of its toys.

Doug

[Trenix]

On 1/29/2019 at 10:25 AM, Doug1o29 said:

Population growth will solve itself, if you can call it a solution.  The world's population passed the inflection point in about 1970 - the point where population is still increasing, but at a decreasing rate.  Expect it to top out late this century at around ten billion people - one-third more than we have now.  Resource managers have to hang on until that happens.

After 2100, population will slowly start to implode.  That will create problems of its own:  world economies will have to shift away from the eternal-growth model.  Countries with fewer workers will have to import them (That ought to frost tRUMP's gizzard.) and/or start govt programs to encourage larger families (Anti-abortion laws are the Devil's version of that.).  All that will likely set off mass migrations and change the racial makeup of a lot of countries.  Countries who don't think they're racists now are going to learn differently.

 

The danger of accidental nuclear war has now replaced the Cold War version of deliberate nuclear war.  We've had several close calls in which one country or the other was minutes from launching an attack.  And we've had several accidents where we nearly attacked ourselves.  The USAF dropped a nuke on Albuquerque, for example.  Not to be outdone by the Air Force, the Navy rolled a truck load of torpedoes in the middle of the I-70/I-25 interchange - look out Denver.  The US has lost 11 nuclear warheads - 7 here in the US and 4 abroad.

Not counted in that is one that disappeared.  While the Air Force brass quietly sweated about who might have it, a lieutenant doing a bomb inventory discovered one with markings he didn't recognize.  When he checked them out, it was the missing nuke.

And somewhere in Colorado are two conventional earthquake bombs.  A pilot, evidently intending to commit suicide, took a plane with two bombs attached on a flight north from New Mexico.  He flew it into a mountain in Colorado, but the bombs weren't found.  In a lake?

And we found some vials of mustard gas up at the Oklahoma Salt Flats a couple years ago.  And 8 canisters of sarin nerve gas in a dump in Denver.

The military needs to take better care of its toys.

Doug

That's a lot of ridiculous claims. Innovation is the only solution to all of our problems, as it always was, and that's only possible through our current economic system where we create inflation to prevent deflation. This encourages people to invest and innovate, which improves the living conditions for people who take part in this system since it increases production. By attempting to control our economy and population, you will end up killing it off. Have you learn anything in history or economics? Also how does Trump fit into any of this? Believe it or not, Trump is protecting his people and other countries from being exploited by greedy corporations and corrupted governments. You think we're helping these illegal and uneducated workers coming here looking for work? They're either exploiting our government programs or some business owner is exploiting them by making them work long hours with no benefits and getting paid FAR less than the average American employee. They're also ok with that, because it's worse in Mexico or whatever countries they're from, where companies do basically the same thing over there but pay them even less.

What you think American companies hire illegals cause they're hard workers or that we need them? What a joke. They hire them because an American is protected by the government, which forces businesses to provide benefits depending on the hours they work and also they're required to pay them a certain amount. As for an illegal, good luck, they're not protected because they're illegal! So under-the-table money it is! It's sad because people like you feel like you're the solution, but you are really the problem. Mexico is a rich country on a rich land, but the only reason it's a s-hole, is because of corruption. People are dying there everyday because of the cartel. Also they're getting out of national debt far faster than we are in America. Mexico is socialist, it has the poor class and the high class, there is no middle class. This is the ideal society you want? Go look a Venezuela while you're at it.

Edited February 1, 2019 by Trenix

[Doug1029]

2 hours ago, Trenix said:

That's a lot of ridiculous claims. Innovation is the only solution to all of our problems, as it always was, and that's only possible through our current economic system where we create inflation to prevent deflation. This encourages people to invest and innovate, which improves the living conditions for people who take part in this system since it increases production. By attempting to control our economy and population, you will end up killing it off. Have you learn anything in history or economics? Also how does Trump fit into any of this? Believe it or not, Trump is protecting his people and other countries from being exploited by greedy corporations and corrupted governments. You think we're helping these illegal and uneducated workers coming here looking for work? They're either exploiting our government programs or some business owner is exploiting them by making them work long hours with no benefits and getting paid FAR less than the average American employee. They're also ok with that, because it's worse in Mexico or whatever countries they're from, where companies do basically the same thing over there but pay them even less.

What you think American companies hire illegals cause they're hard workers or that we need them? What a joke. They hire them because an American is protected by the government, which forces businesses to provide benefits depending on the hours they work and also they're required to pay them a certain amount. As for an illegal, good luck, they're not protected because they're illegal! So under-the-table money it is! It's sad because people like you feel like you're the solution, but you are really the problem. Mexico is a rich country on a rich land, but the only reason it's a s-hole, is because of corruption. People are dying there everyday because of the cartel. Also they're getting out of national debt far faster than we are in America. Mexico is socialist, it has the poor class and the high class, there is no middle class. This is the ideal society you want? Go look a Venezuela while you're at it.

So far, human population growth has followed a logistic growth curve.  All natural systems do that.  No attempt at population control has yet had an effect on that curve.  The inflection point was passed about 1975.  Human populations are increasing at a decreasing rate and "population control" has nothing to do with it.  The only time in recorded history when there was even a minor bump in the curve was for the Black Death in the fourteenth century.  It doesn't look like there is any disease or war, short of a major nuclear war, that is going to stop it.  Politics is completely impotent when dealing with the world's population.

I'm not saying we should do this or that.  All I'm doing is telling you what's coming down the pike, like it or not.  The world will probably reach ZPG around the turn of the next century.  Between now and then we will add about one person for every three who are alive now.  There are some ideas about how we might stop or slow this, but so far, none have worked.  And even if they work, we're still going to have more people then than we have now.

Some countries will reach ZPG before others.  Many of the European countries already have.  The US will get there about 2050.  Once a country's population quits growing and starts shrinking, there is a shortage of workers.  To supply needed workers, the country whose population is shrinking has to import them.  That means mostly white-skinned countries importing workers from brown-skinned countries.  That's due to the degree of industrialization and education levels in the different countries.  When a racially-different population settles in a country, there are conflicts, riots, revolts, and so on as the older population tries to maintain control.  Eventually the immigrants are assimilated and peace returns.  Take the Irish in America, for example.  Or the Roman Empire.

The worker shortage is also a golden opportunity for labor, which can demand and get premium wages.  That's one of the adjustments a shrinking population produces.  Banks lend money for houses on the assumption that a homeowner won't find a better deal in the future.  So they can require relatively-low down payments.  Down payments will go up in a worker shortage so that banks can cover the decreasing demand for housing.  Mortgage lending will get riskier.

 

Yes, I'd like to see an idealized society.  But population growth and shrinkage is a problem that all societies will have to deal with.

 

To put it another way:  Open borders are the last thing we want - but we do want them.  Before we can open our borders without creating a genuine crisis (as opposed to tRUMP's fake crisis), we must bring the adjoining economies up to our level.  Trade deals, good roads, etc.  Once the Mexican economy is as strong as the American one and once Central America returns to peace and prosperity, then we can open the borders.  The dilemma:  as long as people want to come here in droves, we can't open the borders, but when they quit wanting to come here, we can open them.

 

Maybe you should read what I wrote.  Don't insert your politics into what is essentially, a mathematical problem.

Doug

[Doug1029]

3 hours ago, Trenix said:

Innovation is the only solution to all of our problems,

At least as regards global warming, you're probably right.  Govt sure isn't getting it done.  And out in my neighborhood, electric companies are building windmills at somewhere around one a day.  Wind was at 6.3% of US power production in 2017 and has increased since then.  There's nothing stopping us from reaching 50%.  AND we have gas wells and wind mills within yards of each other:  we can generate power either way and use the same transmission lines to carry it to market.  In 3 or 4 years we should see perovskites coming on line that will add to our electricity-generating capacity.

After we switch the power grid to wind (with some gas), we can start switching over home heating and then cars.  We could run trains on wind-electricity now - building the catenaries will create a bunch of jobs.  Whether we would want to take trucks off diesel is an open question.  We will always need some diesel and some coal, just not very much.

In the past, the govt has usually done the basic research, then spun technology off to industry to develop.  That's what is happening with clean energy.  So I agree with you:  we will invent new solutions to the global warming problem and probably some other problems, too.  But I don't see good technological solutions to over-population.  What we need there are some social changes and you don't legislate those.

Doug

[Trenix]

2 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

So far, human population growth has followed a logistic growth curve.  All natural systems do that.  No attempt at population control has yet had an effect on that curve.  The inflection point was passed about 1975.  Human populations are increasing at a decreasing rate and "population control" has nothing to do with it.  The only time in recorded history when there was even a minor bump in the curve was for the Black Death in the fourteenth century.  It doesn't look like there is any disease or war, short of a major nuclear war, that is going to stop it.  Politics is completely impotent when dealing with the world's population.

Your communist/socialist ideas have already and will continue to, drop the world's population at the areas which have it. Now imagine this idea being implemented globally.

Quote

I'm not saying we should do this or that.  All I'm doing is telling you what's coming down the pike, like it or not.  The world will probably reach ZPG around the turn of the next century.  Between now and then we will add about one person for every three who are alive now.  There are some ideas about how we might stop or slow this, but so far, none have worked.  And even if they work, we're still going to have more people then than we have now.

I felt like we had the argument about population before. The answer is still the same, education. Not extermination and regulation through laws. To even hint on that, makes me question your moral character.

Quote

Some countries will reach ZPG before others.  Many of the European countries already have.  The US will get there about 2050.  Once a country's population quits growing and starts shrinking, there is a shortage of workers.  To supply needed workers, the country whose population is shrinking has to import them.  That means mostly white-skinned countries importing workers from brown-skinned countries.  That's due to the degree of industrialization and education levels in the different countries.  When a racially-different population settles in a country, there are conflicts, riots, revolts, and so on as the older population tries to maintain control.  Eventually the immigrants are assimilated and peace returns.  Take the Irish in America, for example.  Or the Roman Empire.

Again, globalization is where top corporation exploit people from other countries for profit. They have no regard for you or the people they exploit. Europe didn't need these workers and outside of business, politicians need new voters. Europe is also in chaos, not because whites are racist, but because these immigrants are not only getting free crap, but they're killing and raping people. For Christ sake, do you even read anything outside of CNN? Go talk to some people who actually live in their countries and are in fear. Some which are afraid to even go shopping on Christmas because of all the stabbings, shootings, bombs, and hit and runs.

Quote

The worker shortage is also a golden opportunity for labor, which can demand and get premium wages.  That's one of the adjustments a shrinking population produces.  Banks lend money for houses on the assumption that a homeowner won't find a better deal in the future.  So they can require relatively-low down payments.  Down payments will go up in a worker shortage so that banks can cover the decreasing demand for housing.  Mortgage lending will get riskier.

There is no worker shortage, stop lying to yourself. Businesses just want to pay their workers less. For America, we have too many unskilled and uneducated workers as it is. It's exactly why wages are so low. Wages for entry level jobs are so low that people can't even support themselves without government assistance and to get a better education for most, is not possible. So you want more illegals to make the American dream even harder to obtain? You have no idea of what you're talking about. We can barely afford the education and health insurance for our own citizens.

Quote

Yes, I'd like to see an idealized society.  But population growth and shrinkage is a problem that all societies will have to deal with.

America is an ideal society

Quote

To put it another way:  Open borders are the last thing we want - but we do want them.  Before we can open our borders without creating a genuine crisis (as opposed to tRUMP's fake crisis), we must bring the adjoining economies up to our level.  Trade deals, good roads, etc.  Once the Mexican economy is as strong as the American one and once Central America returns to peace and prosperity, then we can open the borders.  The dilemma:  as long as people want to come here in droves, we can't open the borders, but when they quit wanting to come here, we can open them.

We don't want open borders. People will ALWAYS go to the country that provides them better standards of living. Mexico's economy is already strong, I've just told you that. People are fleeing here because of corruption. If you want to fix a country like Mexico, we need to have war with them, or assist them in retaining order. Fake crisis? Dude everything I told you one way or another I've witnessed and have experience in exactly EVERYTHING I'm saying. Listen I'll give you some advice, as it was meaningful as I was growing up. Be a devil's advocate to every side of the story, no matter how stupid or unbelievable it may sound. It will not only teach you how to make better arguments, but it could also change your mind. All I read from you is the same liberal nonsense I've been taught and lied to all my life. But seeing what illegals go through and hearing the stories, while also learning basic economics, the whole liberal narrative is nothing less than a big fat lie. I wish you wake up, take care.

Edited February 1, 2019 by Trenix

[Doug1029]

1 hour ago, Trenix said:

Your communist/socialist ideas have already and will continue to, drop the world's population at the areas which have it. Now imagine this idea being implemented globally.

Population growth IS being implemented globally.  And what that has to do with communism or socialism is beyond me.

1 hour ago, Trenix said:

I felt like we had the argument about population before. The answer is still the same, education. Not extermination and regulation through laws. To even hint on that, makes me question your moral character.

I have had this discussion before; although, I'm not sure that it was you or somebody else I had it with.

I completely agree that education is key, especially women's education.  The countries where women are best-educated have the slowest population growth.

I do not and never have supported extermination.  That's a strawman you wingnuts have made up.  It has nothing to do with reality.  Not even the Nazis succeeded at extermination.  What makes you think it would work?

Regulations don't control population.

And your whole attitude makes me question your intelligence.  Will you kindly respond to my comments instead of making up things I never said.

1 hour ago, Trenix said:

Again, globalization is where top corporation exploit people from other countries for profit. They have no regard for you or the people they exploit. Europe didn't need these workers and outside of business, politicians need new voters. Europe is also in chaos, not because whites are racist, but because these immigrants are not only getting free crap, but they're killing and raping people. For Christ sake, do you even read anything outside of CNN? Go talk to some people who actually live in their countries and are in fear. Some which are afraid to even go shopping on Christmas because of all the stabbings, shootings, bombs, and hit and runs.

Global (monopoly) capitalism does exactly what you claim.  THOSE are the people who need regulating.

The only country I know of that actually needs to import workers is the USA.  And we only need them to harvest our crops and do the scut work that Americans won't do.  But why won't Americans work in the fields?  Who wants to work at a back-breaking job for $0.50 a basket?

BUT:  if picking tomatoes were profitable, you'd see all sorts of people lined up for the jobs.  What we have is a shortage of is employers willing to pay a decent wage.  We could require that employers pay decently, but then, if we want tomatoes and lettuce on our hamburger, we're going to have to pay a premium for it.  So nothing happens because we are all, collectively, too cheap.

McDonald's once complained that if they had to pay the $7.50 per hour wage, they'd have to raise the price of cheeseburgers by $0.25.  So what's stopping them?  Put a crowbar in their wallets and make it happen.

 

Europe is in chaos?  That's news to me.  France has had some demonstrations, a few of which turned violent.  But we've had more.  And Greece went bankrupt, but only because it mismanaged its economy.  So just where is this chaos you're referring to?

 

What I meant in that post:  Russians don't see what the problem is with American blacks.  After all, they don't hate blacks.  But they sure do have a problem with Gypsies.  Similarly, Finns don't like Lapps and Japanese don't like Koreans, Scots and Irish don't like English and English don't like Muslims, etc. etc.  Those countries don't think they're prejudiced, but wait until a lot of the people they don't like start moving in.

 

On the subject of shootings:  we had a drive-by shooting about two houses down from me last week.  Nobody killed or wounded - the people that were targeted weren't home.  The cops have identified them and are looking for them.  I get my evening news out of Oklahoma City.  Hard to find a newscast in which nobody was shot, nobody was arrested for drugs, nobody raped anybody, nobody held up anybody, or no legislator was arrested for taking a bribe, etc.  So just what makes you think Europe is more violent than the USA?

1 hour ago, Trenix said:

There is no worker shortage, stop lying to yourself. Businesses just want to pay their workers less. For America, we have too many unskilled and uneducated workers as it is. It's exactly why wages are so low. Wages for entry level jobs are so low that people can't even support themselves without government assistance and to get a better education for most, is not possible. So you want more illegals to make the American dream even harder to obtain? You have no idea of what you're talking about.

That's not what I hear in the newspapers.  Businesses are complaining they can't find qualified people - check your local job listings.  But that's not surprising.  Who wants to work for next-to-nothing?

But I was talking about a declining world population - which we don't have yet.  Eventually, we'll get it, but probably not while I'm alive.  I'm not talking about America right now; I'm talking about countries with ZPG or below having to import labor.  By about 2050, America, too will have to import labor and Mexico is right next door.  Where do you think we'll get those laborers?  And if we don't start educating our kids, they will be the unskilled workers and the Mexicans will be working the good jobs - probably in Mexico.

The American dream is a different subject, but the simple solution is to get a relevant education.  And for that, we need to upgrade our schools.  That means better funding and letting teachers teach instead of spending their time filling out reports.  Quit teaching to the test and teach to the students.  Make sure everybody gets a good education.

1 hour ago, Trenix said:

America is an ideal society

Ideal for the 1%, maybe.

1 hour ago, Trenix said:

We don't want open borders. People will ALWAYS go to the country that provides them better standards of living. Mexico's economy is already strong,

We can't have open borders unless we build up opportunities in neighboring countries.  I've been to Mexico - it didn't look that prosperous to me.  We need to help them build their economies.  The easiest way is probably some good trade deals - ones that benefit both countries.  AND:  help them deal with corruption - for openers:  get a handle on our drug habit and remove the illegal profits the cartels are making.

1 hour ago, Trenix said:

Be a devil's advocate to every side of the story, no matter how stupid or unbelievable it may sound. It will not only teach you how to make better arguments, but it could also change your mind. All I read from you is the same liberal nonsense I've been taught and lied to all my life. But seeing what illegals go through and hearing the stories, while also learning basic economics, the whole liberal narrative is nothing less than a big fat lie. I wish you wake up, take care.

That's exactly what I'm doing.

YOU are making up stuff I didn't say.  The only reason for that I can think of is that you are talking to your own stereotypes that have nothing to do with me.

Doug

Edited February 1, 2019 by Doug1029

[Trenix]

On 2/1/2019 at 5:18 PM, Doug1o29 said:

Population growth IS being implemented globally.  And what that has to do with communism or socialism is beyond me.

Because no republic would try to infringe people's rights and enforce some sort of population control of any kind.

Quote

 

I have had this discussion before; although, I'm not sure that it was you or somebody else I had it with.

I completely agree that education is key, especially women's education.  The countries where women are best-educated have the slowest population growth.

I do not and never have supported extermination.  That's a strawman you wingnuts have made up.  It has nothing to do with reality.  Not even the Nazis succeeded at extermination.  What makes you think it would work?

Regulations don't control population.

 

Abortion is a form of extermination, which the left often praises. I agree with you that regulations don't control population, so therefore you cannot have population control. Aside from education and innovation, there is no other peaceful solution.

Quote

Global (monopoly) capitalism does exactly what you claim.  THOSE are the people who need regulating.

Monopolies are created because of over regulation, not the lack of regulation. A large business can always keep up, small businesses can't. When small businesses are out of the picture, guess who's left? The right wants less regulation and more competition, this is the only way to stop this. I like how you mention capitalism like it's the problem. This isn't real capitalism, but rather crony capitalism. Governments are well aware of what they're doing, both in our country and in other countries. They know that they're exploiting people and it's all for money. New businesses must rise and the current big giants need to fail with no help of the government whatsoever.

Quote

 

The only country I know of that actually needs to import workers is the USA.  And we only need them to harvest our crops and do the scut work that Americans won't do.  But why won't Americans work in the fields?  Who wants to work at a back-breaking job for $0.50 a basket?

BUT:  if picking tomatoes were profitable, you'd see all sorts of people lined up for the jobs.  What we have is a shortage of is employers willing to pay a decent wage.  We could require that employers pay decently, but then, if we want tomatoes and lettuce on our hamburger, we're going to have to pay a premium for it.  So nothing happens because we are all, collectively, too cheap.

McDonald's once complained that if they had to pay the $7.50 per hour wage, they'd have to raise the price of cheeseburgers by $0.25.  So what's stopping them?  Put a crowbar in their wallets and make it happen.

 

Employers don't want to pay more because they don't have to, they rather pay an illegal far less, and they do. I personally seen this happen and know illegals who were exploited, getting paid far less than American citizens and they couldn't do anything about it, being an illegal. Anyway, there is a surplus of unskilled workers and the fact that we keep getting more, is making it much harder for citizens to get a livable wage and obtain the American dream. As there is a labor surplus, wages decline. Also as wages rise, so may the price of the goods being sold. However, since more wealth is being distributed, that increase in price will not make a difference. Currency is about value, not amount.

Quote

Europe is in chaos?  That's news to me.  France has had some demonstrations, a few of which turned violent.  But we've had more.  And Greece went bankrupt, but only because it mismanaged its economy.  So just where is this chaos you're referring to?

Yes no refugee have ever terrorized any of the European countries which took an influx of them. But I can't blame you, mainstream media tries their best to censor it all to make it seem like everything is fine. For crying out loud, these countries have their people fear going Christmas shopping.

Quote

On the subject of shootings:  we had a drive-by shooting about two houses down from me last week.  Nobody killed or wounded - the people that were targeted weren't home.  The cops have identified them and are looking for them.  I get my evening news out of Oklahoma City.  Hard to find a newscast in which nobody was shot, nobody was arrested for drugs, nobody raped anybody, nobody held up anybody, or no legislator was arrested for taking a bribe, etc.  So just what makes you think Europe is more violent than the USA?

A citizen has the right to be in their country, an illegal does not. We deal with our citizens, but for illegals, we simply deport them only for them to come back again. Also if someone is a refugee, they shouldn't be coming to a country to commit crime. I bet you love people like this:

Quote

That's not what I hear in the newspapers.  Businesses are complaining they can't find qualified people - check your local job listings.  But that's not surprising.  Who wants to work for next-to-nothing?

Just because people are looking for more workers, doesn't mean that there is a shortage of them. There is a reason why they usually asking for people with over three years of working experience. Believe it or not, that's extremely limiting to majority of the population, which can't find even a job that pays well enough for them to get a college education and survive. Unless someone moves, gets fired, or failed at their own business startup you wont find someone with three years working experience in a specific profession. They're not looking for more workers, they're looking for better workers. If they needed workers, they would take just about anyone and pay them more.

Quote

But I was talking about a declining world population - which we don't have yet.  Eventually, we'll get it, but probably not while I'm alive.  I'm not talking about America right now; I'm talking about countries with ZPG or below having to import labor.  By about 2050, America, too will have to import labor and Mexico is right next door.  Where do you think we'll get those laborers?  And if we don't start educating our kids, they will be the unskilled workers and the Mexicans will be working the good jobs - probably in Mexico.

Good and Mexico don't go well together. I know people who had a good job in Mexico before, they had to leave and a few people at the business went missing. You do not want to import people from Mexico and we have no labor shortage. If you want me to be honest, America should bring their military in Mexico and being to stabilize it, because it's right on our border and it is hurting not only Americans, but Mexicans. Majority of violent crime in Mexico is near it's border, I believe it was 80%.

Quote

The American dream is a different subject, but the simple solution is to get a relevant education.  And for that, we need to upgrade our schools.  That means better funding and letting teachers teach instead of spending their time filling out reports.  Quit teaching to the test and teach to the students.  Make sure everybody gets a good education.

School is a joke. We need to redo the entire education system. For example, I learned far more from online classes than I ever did in a desk within a school. I also had programs teach me far more efficiently than a teacher has ever before. We don't need teachers and we don't need schools. We instead need to revolutionize the way we learn. All teachers taught me is how to disgustingly brown-nose to get good grades. Doing otherwise will result in far worse grades. This kind of behavior does not work well in just about any work environment, it's exactly how you get taken advantage of. I've tested this theory with a student once where they didn't even do the assignment correctly and I did. However since the teacher didn't like me, I never got a 100%, but my friend did. I tried to confront the teacher and even went to the principal, but this required me to rat out my friend, which I didn't want to go through with. Also go ask some conservatives how it's like to be in schools which are ALL left leaning.

Quote

Ideal for the 1%, maybe.

You can thank socialism for the 1%. More competition and small business and less regulation.

Quote

We can't have open borders unless we build up opportunities in neighboring countries.  I've been to Mexico - it didn't look that prosperous to me.  We need to help them build their economies.  The easiest way is probably some good trade deals - ones that benefit both countries.  AND:  help them deal with corruption - for openers:  get a handle on our drug habit and remove the illegal profits the cartels are making.

In Mexico, there is a low class and high class. The high class is mostly the cartel and businesses that exploit the people and the low class are the exploited citizens. It's a wealthy country, but it looks poor because of the corruption. Democrats want to get rid of the middle class as much as socialist Mexico did. Go to places like California and see how much it begins to start resembling Mexico. We should intervene, we need to help Mexicans fight back and assist them in stabilizing their country. Personally none of this would be a problem if America never gave back Mexico after they conquered it. At one point, Mexicans would have been Americans.

Edited February 6, 2019 by Trenix

[Doug1029]

10 hours ago, Trenix said:

Because no republic would try to infringe people's rights and enforce some sort of population control of any kind.

No.  Because human populations are no different from any other.  We all obey the logistic growth law.  The only thing any country can do is slow its own population growth.  Population growth is a scientific fact.  It has nothing to do with politics.

10 hours ago, Trenix said:

Abortion is a form of extermination, which the left often praises. I agree with you that regulations don't control population, so therefore you cannot have population control. Aside from education and innovation, there is no other peaceful solution.

Abortion is one.  So is neglect of the mother, both during and after pregnancy.  And so is inadequate care fore the child, especially if you're poor.  Needless wars kill people on both sides, especially children.  Poor sanitation, bad drinking water (Flint, MI and Grand Lake, OK, for example).  Sanctions kill people by denying supplies to the most-vulnerable people.  And the death penalty kills people.  All needlessly.  We're really not against killing people; the argument is about whether to kill them before or after they're born.  And the right is an integral part of that.

Wars don't control population, either.  We expend way too many resources and end up in a worse condition than if we had done nothing.

What does control population?  Disease.  It doesn't cost anything and doesn't consume resources - except in trying to fight it.  If population is controlled short of the earth's carrying capacity, it will be disease that does it.  A variant of flu seems the best bet at the moment.

If you need something to worry about:  some anthrax-infected reindeer carcasses have recently melted out of the permafrost.  Only one death from that, but it's a source of disease we hadn't thought of before.

10 hours ago, Trenix said:

Monopolies are created because of over regulation, not the lack of regulation. A large business can always keep up, small businesses can't. When small businesses are out of the picture, guess who's left? The right wants less regulation and more competition, this is the only way to stop this. I like how you mention capitalism like it's the problem. This isn't real capitalism, but rather crony capitalism. Governments are well aware of what they're doing, both in our country and in other countries. They know that they're exploiting people and it's all for money. New businesses must rise and the current big giants need to fail with no help of the government whatsoever.

Quite the opposite.  Have you ever read up on monopolies like Standard Oil, the railroads, Carnegie Iron and Steel?  The anti-trust laws were created to level the playing field and give small businesses a chance to compete.  Big business made sure those were rendered impotent.  I'm all for more competition, but somebody ALWAYS controls the market, whether it is big business doing it for greed, or the govt doing it for the public good, or W.W. Hunt cornering the silver market, for example.  We need to break up the marriage between business and politics.  As long as that exists, we won't have a democracy.

One partial solution.  Let businesses that are "too big to fail," fail.  When they do, break them up into smaller ones.

I once did a study of the sawmill industry here in the US.  Of the top 100 companies, the same two dozen stockholders own 80% of the industry.  George Weyerhauser (President of Weyerhauser) owned a major share of Potlatch and sat on its board.  Frederick Weyerhauser (President of Potlatch) owned a major share of Weyerhauser and sat on its board.  Do you think these two companies ever really compete?  I worked for the USFS which, by law, has to sell timber sales by "competitive" bid.  But the big companies don't bid against each other.  The district where I worked (Kelly Creek, Clearwater NF) was divided into an east half and a west half and the two major timber companies wouldn't bid in the other guy's half.  Better results could be obtained by negotiation, or by setting a price and selling it to the first buyer.  If no buyers, no sales.  But, the big timber companies don't like either idea, so they have made sure the laws say what they want.  That's monopoly capitalism at work - the kind that's the problem.  Who likes monopolies?  Not socialists, not communists.  Only capitalists.

10 hours ago, Trenix said:

Employers don't want to pay more because they don't have to, they rather pay an illegal far less, and they do. I personally seen this happen and know illegals who were exploited, getting paid far less than American citizens and they couldn't do anything about it, being an illegal. Anyway, there is a surplus of unskilled workers and the fact that we keep getting more, is making it much harder for citizens to get a livable wage and obtain the American dream. As there is a labor surplus, wages decline. Also as wages rise, so may the price of the goods being sold. However, since more wealth is being distributed, that increase in price will not make a difference. Currency is about value, not amount.

I used to work in Burley, Idaho.  J. R. Simplot has a lot of potato fields there.  They hire illegals to harvest the potatoes.  The usual practice is to harvest the Grade As, Bs and Bakers on the first pass.  The Cs are left in the field and a different crew comes by to collect them in the morning.  But local folks were coming out at night and stealing the potatoes, so Simplot hired some of its illegals to guard the potato fields at night.  Somebody discovered that if you handed the guard a ten, he'd look the other way.  If you handed him a twenty, he'd start the machine and help you load.  J. R. Simplot owns a clay mine near Troy, Idaho.  I always thought their potato flakes tasted a little strange.

My wife's cousin is an apple-grower near Mead, Washington.  He hires local kids to pick apples.  His pay rate is about-average for unskilled field people, but he matches a percentage of what they earn with a scholarship upon graduation from high school.  Including that, his pay rate is about half again higher than others in the area.  And he has no trouble getting workers.  Like you say, it's about supply and demand and labor is a commodity.  There is no shortage if employers are willing to pay for it.  For those who won't pay, there's a shortage.

I don't like minimum-wage rules because over time, inflation erodes the gains.  A better way is to permit the CEO to earn no more than x-many times the rate paid to the lowest-paid employee in his company.  Tax the rest.  Ocasio-Cortex' 70% marginal tax is pretty generous - under Eisenhauer, it was 90%.

The only way to increase wealth to the lower classes is to increase production efficiency.  That means machines.  But machines require fewer workers, so that means low wages.  As fewer people have money to spend, the markets decline and profits drop.  In order to get mass markets, you have to have people with money.  How do you solve this problem?  Socialism.  Those who work are paid extremely well and those who don't get a lot less.  Machines do the scut work, so unskilled workers aren't needed.

There were three major factions at the Chicago Convention of 1905.  The American Federation of Labor (AFL) and Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) were on one side (They later combined to form the AFL-CIO.) and the International Workers of the World (IWW, or "Wobblies") were the other faction.  The question was whether the US would become socialist or remain capitalist.  The Wobblies favored labor ownership of capital - they wanted worker's organizations to take over the factories and means of production, doing away with private ownership.  The AFL-CIO, the labor unions, favored keeping capitalism and instead organizing workers into collective-bargaining groups that could deal with big companies on an equal footing.  The unions won, saving capitalism.

What would socialism look like, if actually set up here?  Worker-owned corporations would buy out the companies.  The organization then appoints a new Board of Directors and CEO.  The CEO hires his managers, who then hire the workers.  So far, looks like any other business.  The wages paid are better-than-before because the corporation does not make a big profit, but keeps enough revenue for expansion and to cover downturns.  The rest is paid out in wages.  Each worker gets the market rate for someone with his skills and qualifications.  At the end of the quarter, all unneeded funds are paid out in the form of a bonus.

If such a company existed in your town, you wouldn't even know it.  There are two in my town:  Davey Tree Experts and Pyramid Foods.  Graybar Electirc is employee-owned.  So are Bi-Mart, Columbia Forest Products, Farmers Home Industries, Holden Industries, American Systems Corp. and Paladin Capital (Quickway).  There are hundreds of them.  More than one business has saved itself from bankruptcy by selling out to its employees, who then ran it at a profit.

Socialism preserves free markets, which both capitalism and communism try to abolish.  The free market preserves competition which is needed to keep prices down.

Socialists are NOT communists.  Not even close.  BUT:  there are some communist organizations here in the US.  Under communism, the govt owns the means of production and hires people to run them.  The US Post Office and Tennessee Valley Authority are government-owned entities.  So is the entire US military. - the world's second-largest planned economy behind only communist China.  All three suffer from the problems of govt ownership - the Post Office is required to fund retirements from the get-go, something required of no other entity.  This puts a serious st

rain on finances and services.  The TVA suffers from inadequate maintenance funding and an inability to obtain funds for modernization of its facilities and the US military drowns in money and projects it doesn't even want.  We could do with a little less communism in this country.

11 hours ago, Trenix said:

Yes no refugee have ever terrorized any of the European countries which took an influx of them. But I can't blame you, mainstream media tries their best to censor it all to make it seem like everything is fine. For crying out loud, these countries have their people fear going Christmas shopping.

There have been some terrorist attacks in Europe.  There have also been some in the US.  In the US most terrorists are home-grown, but a few come in either directly (as on an airplane) or through Canada.  Mexico is not a source of terrorists in the US.

A close personal friend of mine spends a lot of time traveling in Europe, especially Scotland and Ireland.  He has never encountered a terrorist situation.  I am on his email list and get three or four emails a day telling (or bragging) about what he saw, what he did or about some aspect of the local culture.  Another friend of mine plans to move to Ireland as soon as she retires.  She's militantly anti-English, so ate least in her case, we'll be exporting a terrorist.

I suspect your Christmas-shopping story was one or two individuals with irrational fears.  That's what happens when you believe the news media.  BTW:  that driveby shooting down the road from me never made it into the local paper.

11 hours ago, Trenix said:

A citizen has the right to be in their country, an illegal does not. We deal with our citizens, but for illegals, we simply deport them only for them to come back again. Also if someone is a refugee, they shouldn't be coming to a country to commit crime. I bet you love people like this

Immigrants who are not yet naturalized citizens and commit a crime are deported upon completion of sentence.  That is standard practice and has been for a long time.  I see no need to change it.

12 hours ago, Trenix said:

Just because people are looking for more workers, doesn't mean that there is a shortage of them. There is a reason why they usually asking for people with over three years of working experience. Believe it or not, that's extremely limiting to majority of the population, which can't find even a job that pays well enough for them to get a college education and survive. Unless someone moves, gets fired, or failed at their own business startup you wont find someone with three years working experience in a specific profession. They're not looking for more workers, they're looking for better workers. If they needed workers, they would take just about anyone and pay them more.

The complaints I'm hearing are about not being able to find qualified people.  Once again, if people are a commodity, then all you have to do is pay what it takes to get them.  There is no shortage of qualified employees - the only shortage is qualified employers.

But what about unskilled jobs?  Mexicans are taking jobs Americans won;t touch.  But why?  What if we didn't allow any Mexicans into the US?  Would Americans start taking those jobs?  If wages were forced up by labor shortages, maybe.  But some of those jobs simply won't get done.

12 hours ago, Trenix said:

Good and Mexico don't go well together. I know people who had a good job in Mexico before, they had to leave and a few people at the business went missing. You do not want to import people from Mexico and we have no labor shortage. If you want me to be honest, America should bring their military in Mexico and being to stabilize it, because it's right on our border and it is hurting not only Americans, but Mexicans. Majority of violent crime in Mexico is near it's border, I believe it was 80%.

One of Mexico's big problems is drug cartels financed by American money.  If we could stop the flow of dollars southward, we'd do a lot to end it.  Cutting the flow of drugs northward would help, too.  We need to concentrate on those who run the operations, not just the mules and street vendors.   Better interception at the borders would help, but as most drugs are coming in through legal crossing points, a wall isn't going to help.  Spend the money on better monitoring, drug dogs, customs inspectors, etc.

80% of what?

12 hours ago, Trenix said:

School is a joke. We need to redo the entire education system. For example, I learned far more from online classes than I ever did in a desk within a school. I also had programs teach me far more efficiently than a teacher has ever before. We don't need teachers and we don't need schools. We instead need to revolutionize the way we learn. All teachers taught me is how to disgustingly brown-nose to get good grades. Doing otherwise will result in far worse grades. This kind of behavior does not work well in just about any work environment, it's exactly how you get taken advantage of. I've tested this theory with a student once where they didn't even do the assignment correctly and I did. However since the teacher didn't like me, I never got a 100%, but my friend did. I tried to confront the teacher and even went to the principal, but this required me to rat out my friend, which I didn't want to go through with. Also go ask some conservatives how it's like to be in schools which are ALL left leaning.

Agreed that we need better education.  For one thing, a great deal of classroom time is taken up by record-keeping to make DEW happy.  That's the needless regulation you're talking about.  Because funding is determined by test scores on tests that are really irrelevant to what the kids need to know, teachers spend their time teaching the kids how to take tests and what to put in the blank, rather than on actually using the information.  Teachers are not being allowed to teach.  We need to get the govt out of the classroom.

Maybe it's not that the schools are left-leaning, but that the conservatives are right-leaning.  America is about limited government, freedom of thought and speech and people seeking a better life.  That's what we need to teach.  Teach the ideals, but also point out where we fall short so the students will be able to correct these things.  Math, science, engineering have no political agenda.  Keep politics (and that includes religion) out of those subjects.

And, yes.  There's a test-taking technology.  You'll do a lot better if you know and understand it.  What to do about it?  Assign individual projects that encourage a student to learn everything they can about a subject of their choice.  Those can't be graded by tests.  Everybody who turns in a project is guaranteed at least a C.

12 hours ago, Trenix said:

You can thank socialism for the 1%. More competition and small business and less regulation.

In Mexico, there is a low class and high class. The high class is mostly the cartel and businesses that exploit the people and the low class are the exploited citizens. It's a wealthy country, but it looks poor because of the corruption. Democrats want to get rid of the middle class as much as socialist Mexico did. Go to places like California and see how much it begins to start resembling Mexico. We should intervene, we need to help Mexicans fight back and assist them in stabilizing their country. Personally none of this would be a problem if America never gave back Mexico after they conquered it. At one point, Mexicans would have been Americans.

Capitalism is about forcing your competitors out of business and taking over their business.  Eventually, all power is concentrated in the hands of one individual who has more power than the govt.  That kind of capitalism is the death of democracy.  What is the difference between capitalism and communism?  In the end, there isn't any.  The People's Republic of America is the same thing as USA Incorporated.  It's only in the middle ground that we can maintain democratic institutions.

We have classes in this country, too, and it's getting worse.

Have you ever heard of the Batlion San Patricio?

Doug

[Doug1029]

Trenix:

I don't understand you.  You attack me for being a liberal, then charge me with doing/believing things I don't do or believe.  Then you say things that are strongly liberal.  Where are you coming from?

I suspect that if us liberals and conservatives ever sit down and compare notes, we'll find that we're much alike and that demogogues like tRUMP are dividing us for THEIR benefit, not ours.

If you want to fix what's wrong with America - ORGANIZE!

Doug

[Doug1029]

Trenix:

Didn't you say that Venezuela was a failed socialist state?  Thought I'd check it out.  Venezuela is not socialist by any Marxist/Leninist or Utopian definition.  It is a constitutional democracy like the US.  In 2005, its socialist party (PSUV) gained a majority of seats in the legislature and held that majority until 2015.  It has also had two socialist presidents - that may be where the myth started.

The PSUV implemented protectionist policies and price controls so the poor could afford food.  These are Keynesian policies like those implemented in many western countries including the US during the Great Depression and WWII.  Does that mean the US is socialist?  No.  Venezuela has less govt spending by percentage of GDP than most western countries.

Price controls have some problems:  like it being cheaper to buy your goods in Venezuela and sell them over the border in Colombia.  Screws up the pricing system.

US subterfuge is also screwing up the democratic government - like the CIA did in Guatemala and Reagan did in Honduras.

But Venezuela's biggest problem is supreme incompetence of its president, rife corruption and essentially no functioning institutions.  To make price controls and/or a free market work, you must have a strong rule of law, transparency, a neutral judicial system and anti-corruption concepts.  Venezuela lost this and tRUMP is trying to destroy them in the US.  Be warned.

The PSUV is a party with good intentions, but is rife with corruption and incompetence.  That being said, the Right Wing Neo-Liberals aren't any better.

 

The biggest driver of Socialism in the US is capitalism's corruption and greed.  If you end that, Socialism won't stand a chance.  Even with Bernie and Ocasio-Cortez, we still need another 167 Socialists in the House and 50 more in the Senate to create a two-house majority.  I don't see that happening any time soon.  And even if it does, all that will be implemented are Keynesian policies and programs - Socialism, in order to be successful, must operate under the Keynesian model, just like capitalism.  Socialist countries fail when they forget that - just like capitalist ones.

How do you like the 8-hour workday?  That is a Socialist proposal, first proposed by the Socialist Party of America in 1901.

How do you like Social Security?  That, too, is a socialist proposal.  And so are Medicare and Medicaid.

Agricultural price supports are socialism for farmers - big corporate farms benefit the most.

And farm production limits are the same - a farmer can grow any amount he wants, but he can only sell a specified amount.  There are some ingenious ways around this:  like feeding your surplus grain to cattle and hogs and selling those- there are no production caps on those; hence, we enjoy feedlot-grown beef at a bargain rate.

And how do you like our socialized professional sports system?  Most of those stadiums are publicly owned and paid for with tax money.  Any company that can afford to pay a star player $22.5 million can easily afford its own stadium.

We are not talking about bringing socialism to America - it's already here.  We aren't even talking about adopting socialist policies.  We are only talking about a more-humane system applied in the context of Keynesian economics.  In other words, by putting a better face on capitalism, we intend to save it from itself.

Doug