Things Trump Is Doing Right

[Eric the Green]

(04-12-2017, 05:33 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(04-12-2017, 05:17 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(04-12-2017, 11:47 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(04-11-2017, 05:00 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(04-11-2017, 02:04 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Yes, I am a Green liberal. So I disagree with originalism, but also disagree with utopianism. The law is intended to protect a higher ethical law, which is unwritten. The Court must interpret the written law in order to uphold the unwritten law. Social evolution and change did not stop in 1787; therefore the Constitution must be interpreted to fit the needs of the time. These days, in fact, the "originalists" interpret the constitution to "legislate the Republican agenda," which is always to turn the clock back to a nation under the authority of a wealthy white male elite, as it was in 1787. 

The most common utopian of today is a libertarian originalist, who thinks we can turn the clock back to the "enumerated powers" in order to shrink government in such a way that it cannot meet the needs of the people, and would not operate in the public interest. Gorsuch, Alito, Scalia and Thomas fit this mold.

Utopia does not exist; what is needed is justices who know and understand both the law and the needs of today's society. And of course, the Constitution was not entirely written in 1787, because the framers installed an amendment process; recognizing that society and its needs changes.

Congress can try to "figure out what utopia is like, and try to make it so." The Court must see to it that this law does not violate the Constitution, and take account of precedent. (It is not to see that the laws are executed properly; that's the role of the executive branch). Liberals understand that the Constitution itself is flexible enough to allow for progress toward utopia. Conservatives think that such things as civil rights and social programs did not exist in 1787, so they should not exist now. They think the Constitution is rigid enough to impose their restrictive goals upon us.

Considering whom the utopians ARE today, however, it's a question which side is the "liberal" side (or "neo-liberal"), and which the rigid one.

1. Utopia cannot exist given than mankind is just a tacky, tacky species.  Just look at the summation of history for that one.


2. The "Green Agenda".  Eric, you know this, right? 

a. We need to restrict illegal aliens because they can lead to unwanted population increases in the confines of US territory wrt sustainability, right? There ARE limits, and the US needs to figure out quick how much the territory of the US can support. I'm at one with Paul Ehrlich and the Population Time Bomb. Look, I don't want that bomb going off in the US. So, that's why we need the "wall". Otherwise, what do you support? Minefields to secure the border? Next, we need to fine the fuck out of companies that hire illegal aliens. That's demand side economics, just like "liberals" agree with.
b. All states need to end fossil fuel subsidies and keep renewable subsidies. Here's why: Fossil fuels always have an externalities of CO2 emissions.  Likewise, any Mideast war needs to be paid for with some sort of oil import fee, so the real costs of intervention are realized in assorted balance sheets. Fair is fair, after all.
c. Here's the camel in the tent.  US empire costs too much for the [destitute,working poor, working class, middle class] to subsidize.  So... US out of the MidEast!.  If you want green energy to hit the launch pad, make sure the true costs of Mideast oil are reflected in the market place.

"The Population Bomb" - that's yesterday's war. Already, the advanced countries are below replacement and even to remain stable, need immigration. But the immigration stream is nearly tapped out. World population will peak sometime between now and 2050, probably closer to now. The forecast population inflection point has gotten earlier and earlier with each run of the numbers.

No it isn't yesterday's war.  Look, robots will take the jobs that so called immigrants would (have) taken.  No immigration is needed to keep the production lines going.  Then you just ignore the point made about the cost of defending MIdeast Oil.  I want Mideast politics/religion/crackpots banished from my life. Here's the real deal, I don't give a rat's ass if some part of the world chooses some backward looking religion.  If said religion dooms its adherents to death, let it rip.   Finally, yup, the inflection date will be sooner and sooner. Zika/Aids/Malaria/starvation/wars will see to that.

Immigration is not needed for labor, per se. It's needed to supply future tax payers to pay for all the old farts who will create a completely top heavy age distribution 20 years from now. You raise a good point, where will all those younger folks work if automation killed the jobs? Maybe it will evolve to a bunch of boutique / artisinal thises and thats selling really cool shit to each other. Or, maybe the next CME will send us back 100 years and what is old will become new. Who knows?

I don't know what "CME" refers to (you guys and your acronyms.... )

But yes I think the economy will be more about the arts, as well as service, if we realize that "labor saving" machinery could actually save us labor.

But that will involve ditching and junking permanently the Republican meme.

(sorry Classic Xer, Warren, Some Guy, kinser, bronsin, Galen, Danilynn, et al)

Trickle-down, laissez faire, blame-the-welfare-recipients is out of date in an automated economy in which labor is less needed. Regulation and social welfare will be needed in this new economy, and so will better education that's not teaching to the test and not reserved to the rich and religious (vouchers, etc.). For the less-physical and more-intellectual labor that is still needed by industry, then (besides the service/professional work that's still needed too), hours should be reduced at no reduction in pay, so more people can be employed in these jobs. Who will pay for this? The owners and CEOs, of course, who now get over 300 times the salaries that their employees get. They would have to be required either to pay employees more for less work (restored unions could help with this), share ownership with the workers, or pay much more in taxes so the money could be redistributed to the workers who actually do the work, and who have just as much right to enjoy the benefits of automation as the owners do.