Second cup of Coffee Talk

[dash]

Hey, I'm sure you guys remember the USFL right? Trump is using the same playbook for paying for the wall as he did as a USFL owner.

 

[dash]

I think this is the same doctor who proclaimed that Trump is in excellent health...

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

^

$1.46 a litre for regular for me on the island - It's even worse in Burnaby (I think it's over $1.60 a litre)

Seems like this is only going to get much, much worse.


"Mr. PM, what's the value for money?"

"WHO CARES ABOUT THE MONEY JUST TRUST ME GUYS!"

 

[Comeds]

Seems like this is only going to get much, much worse.


"Mr. PM, what's the value for money?"

"WHO CARES ABOUT THE MONEY JUST TRUST ME GUYS!"

I picture him standing in front of a pie chart split 50/50 - one side says value, one side says money.

Also, Whats ever gone wrong by trusting a politician?

Remember, Hitler cleaned up the Großer Müggelsee..

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

I picture him standing in front of a pie chart split 50/50 - one side says value, one side says money.

Also, Whats ever gone wrong by trusting a politician?

Remember, Hitler cleaned up the Großer Müggelsee..

I picture most of what JT does policy-wise as some offshoot of this:

 

[dash]

I'm pretty sure Amazon is a major reason why the USPS is still in business (I mean, how many people write actual letters these days). As for paying little to no taxes, not sure how accurate that statement is, I recall somebody saying that's just being smart/good business. That last sentence of the tweet seems to rail against capitalism and free enterprise.

 

[Darkstone42]

Seems like this is only going to get much, much worse.


"Mr. PM, what's the value for money?"

"WHO CARES ABOUT THE MONEY JUST TRUST ME GUYS!"

It's difficult to quantify, but there is a significant cost associated with CO2 emissions, as warming and acid rain--two major side effects of increases of atmospheric CO2--seriously affect natural resource availability and agriculture, which drives up the prices of other things. On top of which are the eventual costs of repairs and relocation if the sea levels rise too much as a consequence of warming.

 

[forty_three]

I'm pretty sure Amazon is a major reason why the USPS is still in business (I mean, how many people write actual letters these days). As for paying little to no taxes, not sure how accurate that statement is, I recall somebody saying that's just being smart/good business. That last sentence of the tweet seems to rail against capitalism and free enterprise.

Doesn't not paying taxes make them "smart", Donnie?

 

[dash]

It makes you wonder if Trump is letting his buddies like Carl Icahn know to short their positions in Amazon prior to railing against them on twitter.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

It's difficult to quantify, but there is a significant cost associated with CO2 emissions, as warming and acid rain--two major side effects of increases of atmospheric CO2--seriously affect natural resource availability and agriculture, which drives up the prices of other things. On top of which are the eventual costs of repairs and relocation if the sea levels rise too much as a consequence of warming.

With all of the research and promotion and bleating about climate change over the last 20 years, it's a question that should have some sort of ballpark answer by now.

A never-ending rise in fuel and transport costs is going to totally mess with the agriculture sector too, along with literally every other good we use. Construction costs have already risen exorbitantly due to the fact construction workers are pretty much the only unionized labour to have seen wages keep pace with inflation, throw in higher transportation costs and you're looking at large increases in infrastructure costs that will result in more general revenue required by governments which means, sure enough, higher taxes.

So yeah, I'd like to know if the best way to tackle carbon is to send us all to the poor house or if there might be other ways where the cost-benefit analysis doesn't result in $10 bread.

 

[dash]

So yeah, I'd like to know if the best way to tackle carbon is to send us all to the poor house or if there might be other ways where the cost-benefit analysis doesn't result in $10 bread.

Pretty soon (if it hasn't happened already) we'll be eating peanut butter with our fingers because we can't afford bread.

 

[dash]

Trump's EPA chief lived in condo tied to lobbyist 'power couple'

 

[dare2be]

Just rename it the Energy Protection Agency and move on already.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

Pretty soon (if it hasn't happened already) we'll be eating peanut butter with our fingers because we can't afford bread.

I mean, I've been doing that anyway. Cut out the carbs, man.

 

[forty_three]

Just rename it the Energy Protection Agency and move on already.

 

[Comeds]

Pretty soon (if it hasn't happened already) we'll be eating peanut butter with our fingers because we can't afford bread.

Throw some croutons in there there and some jelly and you got a sandwich you can eat off your fingers.

 

[Comeds]

Fun fact:

A scientific poll of over 4000 prison Mad Libs games finds that "shank" is by far both the most popular noun and the most popular verb used in the game.

 

[elocomotive]

With all of the research and promotion and bleating about climate change over the last 20 years, it's a question that should have some sort of ballpark answer by now.

A never-ending rise in fuel and transport costs is going to totally mess with the agriculture sector too, along with literally every other good we use. Construction costs have already risen exorbitantly due to the fact construction workers are pretty much the only unionized labour to have seen wages keep pace with inflation, throw in higher transportation costs and you're looking at large increases in infrastructure costs that will result in more general revenue required by governments which means, sure enough, higher taxes.

So yeah, I'd like to know if the best way to tackle carbon is to send us all to the poor house or if there might be other ways where the cost-benefit analysis doesn't result in $10 bread.

We should pay higher taxes. Reagan reduced taxation levels drastically and they have remained roughly at that level since that time. Since then, we have massively increased the government's debt (31% of GDP when Reagan took office to approximately 107% today) due to constant revenue shortfall and social stratification has worsened with most of the wealth being concentrated in a small group of people. It was a disastrous mistake out of lockstep with taxation levels in similarly developed nations. It's not the only factor (foreign competition, transition to mgmt/info economy, automation, etc.) that has been ruinous to the middle/working classes in America, but it's one of the them and one entirely within our control.

Carbon taxes compensate for market failures. Sure when the Valdez spills Exxon had to pay to clean it up. But are they paying for the real costs of daily poor air quality, oil runoff in our rivers, etc. from gas and oil? Nope. We all are sharing that hidden cost at present. So the market has failed because as often happens, markets do not account for long term and systemic costs, especially when you can't legally hold a party responsible for those outcomes. It's easy to blame a company that poisons a well and make them liable for the people using that well. What about when it's all of us, and it's not dramatic, but subtle. So market corrections have to be made. And the markets will adjust. Yes, gas and oil will become more expensive, but it will be more akin to their real market/costs. And alternatives will adjust to compensate with green energy sources becoming lower and lower.

So I don't know what the exact best level of carbon taxes is (where the matrix of ideal cost/benefit is), but they are going to help. And if our taxes go up... good. Maybe they will encourage some more responsible behaviors from our citizenry of fucking idiots who got a little scared during the gas crisis and bought more sensible cars, and then went right back to leasing that big ass SUV a few years later. And maybe it will help correct the economy toward wider scale use of green energies that are better for all of us.

 

[dare2be]

And maybe it will help correct the economy toward wider scale use of green energies that are better for all of us.

The status quo oligopoly of the large energy companies isn't going to allow the economy to shift to greener/renewable energies until that fossil fuel well has completely dried up and every penny is drained out of the consumer.

 

[forty_three]

The status quo oligopoly of the large energy companies isn't going to allow the economy to shift to greener/renewable energies until that fossil fuel well has completely dried up and every penny is drained out of the consumer.

They can try, but as renewable becomes more reliable AND cost effective they will be left out in the cold.

If these fossil fuel companies don't embrace newer technology, they will die on the vine.

If West Virginia would just embrace the fact that they have mountains up where the wind is and lots of empty warehouse space, they could build the turbines and install wind farms and employ more people for better pay and a lot less black lung. But they are stubborn and someone else will win.