US Politics IV

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
Now Trump says Marshawn Lynch should be suspended for standing during Mexico's anthem and sitting during US. Has he singled out any Caucasian players in this regard, or in any other? Just wondering.

It's so intellectually lazy for him to be so obsessed with this issue and to play to his base with it. Guess it's trying to distract them from the tax plan.
 
Wouldn't surprise me if more indictments are on the way soon, but also not anytime soon.

I do sense that the Trump team is amping up the spin this week, and that usually happens before something drops
 
LuckyNumber7 said:
Well, within the space exploration community, we have two major launch entities that stem beyond space exploration.

United Launch Alliance is a duopoly joint business venture between Lockheed Martin (very evil) and Boeing (very evil). They produce the Atlas rocket (Lockheed) and the Delta rocket (Boeing). They used to compete (barely) until the late 1990s when they realized they both had a blank check from the government using 1960s technology, since they were the only companies capable of heavy launch. So they just signed up together, few questions asked. They typically otherwise compete in aerospace defense and other sectors, producing the world's most efficient killing devices such as the predator missile. They have no leader, but only shareholders expecting the business to optimize. So, it does. At all costs. At the cost of lives. At the cost of taxpayer dollars. At the cost of curbing technological development.

Along comes spacex and Elon Musk. Rapidly, a new heavy launch company was developed. Why? A void in technological development. Yes, we could have been landing our spent rockets in the 1980s, easily. What does Musk do? He flips the industry on its head. With a staunch capitalistic approach. He risked his money for the sake of developing technology that ultimately will make him even richer, the cost of launch go dramatically down, and technology to go where it hasn't yet.

But there's more. He's still risking it. He put forth his BFR - a long term plan to re-invent the way we travel. Planes are effectively maximized at this point. We can get percents on end to improve their performance, but as population grows, the demand for crude oil in that industry will only go up. And then what? Our planes won't become more cost effective. Aviation also offers no route to renewable energy due to its high power density demand per flight. Musk's BFR does, though. They chose to go after methylox as a fuel - something that can be produced on renewables with just water and CO2 from the atmosphere. And the product? 30 minutes travel to anywhere in the world. Plus the added benefit of space travel to the moon and Mars. It sounds silly, but it checks out. Planes probably sounded silly in 1900.

But this isn't his only "flip the industry on its head and make a bunch of money doing so while turning everything green" project. Tesla? Fully electric cars - chargeable from renewables. Except... they're netter cars. They are not just electric novelty and efficiency. They perform better than most gas guzzling cars. SolarCity? He's putting homes on solar power. Hyperloop? Re-inventing the train. Except a shit ton faster. And renewable.

And on and on and on. It takes an entrepreneur to stand up against those greedy capitalist pig companies. But... he's a capitalist, too. He's pushing our tech, he's helping set humanity on a greener path, and he's making money. And take it from me after having just done my time with the space industry in Europe... the semi-socialist countries like the Netherlands, of the EU as a whole? In this industry? They're conservative. They want the rocket to be 5% better. They have no desire and no ability to re-invent the system. Their own economic system doesn't permit it. It's too much of a risk for them - they risk the entire industry lagging behind or falling apart if they're not conservative like they are.
Click to expand...

First of all, thank you for this post. I think a well thought out argument like this, even if it is one I disagree with, is beneficial to all of us. I read this yesterday and took some time to think about it, and actually spoke to a friend of mine who has had a lifelong passion for space exploration.

I think the problem with this whole line of thinking is that it is framed in a manner that already defaults to capitalism as the only solution. Your characterization of Boeing and Lockheed in the 90s is spot on and won't get an argument from me. And SpaceX has absolutely moved the industry to somewhere it was not going to go with those two companies.

But the problem is that it was always going to be a contest of limited resources. NASA does not have the budget to truly do what it needs to do, so it contracts everything out. That's sort of the problem right there, because it leaves you with the choice of Lockheed/Boeing or SpaceX, neither of which is good.

Why isn't SpaceX good? He DID need to fund things on his own, that is true (though let's not forget NASA has a lot of money going his way), but almost all his funding went into the technology itself. So you do get new engine development, for example. Which by its nature forced him to hire a small staff that he worked to death. The stories of Musk companies and its treatment of its employees are horrifying.

SpaceX is an extreme example, on a number of fronts, of the disruption that Silicon Valley loves to talk about. That disruption, and not just simple "entrepreneurial capitalism" is the real discussion point here. And it's all the result of NASA being so crazy underfunded since the 70s that they had to rely on contracting everything out in the first place. Labor gets crushed again in this scenario, so I have a hard time praising anything Musk has done as being a sign of great, positive change.

You can't really characterize the status quo of the 90s with Lockheed and Boeing as being the "nationalized" version of this that an anti-capitalist would support. That's not what someone with my view of economics is after.
 
Last edited:
BVS said:
I don’t want to speak for LN7, but I believe he was using the point to show that not all capitalism is bad.

Why does it have to be one or the other? Which is what PhilsFan’s post is suggesting. I honestly believe it will never work in this country, and honestly I’m not sure it should.

As a country, we’re so obsessed with this either/ or mentality these days that it’s difficult to have these conversations. I remember the Newsweek cover “We’re all socialists now” and thinking how fucking stupid are Americans now? Are our history lessons this bad? And yes it was just a cover, but that was the mindset of so many Americans at that time.

I wish we lived in a society today where the majority understood the world isn’t black and white. Nuance is dead. Hence, debate is dead.

I’m not trying to discount Phil’s point, but I’ve been seriously disappointed by his lack of wanting to have this discussion.
Click to expand...
People don't want to reconcile with the fact that the American economic and political system destroys untold numbers of lives. How much discussion did the NYT article about the foreign policy under Obama generate in here this week? Essentially none. Because Democrats have allowed themselves to bury their heads in the sands about foreign policy. They can compartmentalize, and place these things over there somewhere where they can pay lip service to it but little else.

Capitalism is no different. The state of health care in this country is an absolutely indescribable nightmare. It's a legitimate hellscape for so many people. The Affordable Care Act wasn't close to enough. Anything short of single-payer is an affront to morality, and that's not overstating things at all. It's the God's honest truth of what's happening out there for people.

"America is already great," remains the moment Hillary Clinton lost this election, and I don't say that to pick on her or bring back up old arguments. America has never been great. Its treatment of minority groups across its history guarantees that. Its foreign policy guarantees that. And the income inequality that has been allowed to run us over during the last few decades certainly seals it as well.

This system is unsustainable.
 
PhilsFan said:
I think the problem with this whole line of thinking is that it is framed in a manner that already defaults to capitalism as the only solution. Your characterization of Boeing and Lockheed in the 90s is spot on and won't get an argument from me. And SpaceX has absolutely moved the industry to somewhere it was not going to go with those two companies.
Click to expand...


I don't think I'm defaulting to it as the only solution. I'm viewing it on a global scale. We have major space agencies in capitalist, socialist, and communist countries. NASA is the marquis, and only recently has it stagnated (through the last 20 years, aside from its Mars missions, it has been riddled in bureaucracy and struggling to handle administration changes).

But, it wasn't posing capitalism as the only solution. Governments do not prioritize space. I can give you arguments for why they should. I'm sure people would like if they did, too. But, it just isn't the case. I particularly picked on ESA because, after spending three months interacting in two different ESA sites, I can comfortably say they do not possess the resources to advance any technology at all. You've got the US and Russia. Aside from those two countries, its niche stuff in space. China is finally catching up.

But the problem is that it was always going to be a contest of limited resources. NASA does not have the budget to truly do what it needs to do, so it contracts everything out. That's sort of the problem right there, because it leaves you with the choice of Lockheed/Boeing or SpaceX, neither of which is good.

Why isn't SpaceX good? He DID need to fund things on his own, that is true (though let's not forget NASA has a lot of money going his way), but almost all his funding went into the technology itself. So you do get new engine development, for example. Which by its nature forced him to hire a small staff that he worked to death. The stories of Musk companies and its treatment of its employees are horrifying.


SpaceX is an extreme example, on a number of fronts, of the disruption that Silicon Valley loves to talk about. That disruption, and not just simple "entrepreneurial capitalism" is the real discussion point here. And it's all the result of NASA being so crazy underfunded since the 70s that they had to rely on contracting everything out in the first place. Labor gets crushed again in this scenario, so I have a hard time praising anything Musk has done as being a sign of great, positive change.

You can't really characterize the status quo of the 90s with Lockheed and Boeing as being the "nationalized" version of this that an anti-capitalist would support. That's not what someone with my view of economics is after.
Click to expand...


But NASA's budget isn't why this tech was stagnated. NASA has never built any of the materials they use. For example, Boeing built the Saturn V. Well, Boeing bought all the companies that built the Saturn V. That was back in a time when NASA's budget was huge. The thing is, NASA's role as a government entity is to facilitate the economy/industry. I see you mentioning that NASA is "throwing money" at SpaceX. That's quite literally their job, if we are justifying tax payer dollars. It facilitates growth through technological advancement by supporting industry. It has always done this, from inception. NASA was absolutely not throwing tons of money at SpaceX to develop these advanced technologies for BFR or for landing spent rocket stages. That all came from SpaceX filling a void left by the greedy bomb makers.

Anyways, I should perhaps scale back a bit here. I love the government-private industry interaction between NASA and SpaceX. It makes big government beautiful in its own right. Yes, Musk has a reputation for working employees very long hours and keeping his company small. Conversely, Boeing and LMCO treat their employees competitively "well."

In the 1930's Boeing was effectively trust-busted by I-forgot-the-law. Something to do with not allowing aircraft manufacturers to also be airlines. Anyways, did you know that Boeing was once modern day Boeing + United Airlines + United Technology Corporations? Each of those respective companies is top-5 in size in their respective industries (in some sectors, Boeing competes with UTC now). Since the 30s, Boeing has swallowed companies such as McDonnell, Douglas, parts of Rockwell, Rocketdyne, etc. etc. Boeing fiends on its competition to this day, heavily in bed with the US government. It seeks to eliminate competition - recently, Boeing had the US government levy 300% taxes on all Canadian/UK imports of Bombardier C-series aircraft. The C-series was set to be the first competitor to the Boeing 737 and Airbus A320 family aircraft since the late 1980s. Its fate? In order to spite Boeing, Airbus purchased the project from Bombardier and agreed to assemble the product in the US at its facilities to save the project and its thousands of workers. Is Boeing upset? No. The duopoly remains. Is Airbus upset? No. They just had someone develop a better jet without having to fork up the bill.

Anyways, Boeing is an evil company. You might be wondering "why is he going on about this? He already knows I agree." I'm going on about this because Boeing is too big. SpaceX is not. Elon Musk maintains SpaceX at a small size (believe me - awful reputation for work goes yet still impossible to land a job at). Boeing does not have a human leader. Boeing has a bunch of rich fat entitled CEOs and chairpeople who feed a bureaucratic system that worries mostly about how it turns profits. At all expenses. At limiting technology. At killing. And yes, at offering competitive salaries and benefits for employees. So, we find ourselves at a capitalist moral dilemma. Small company that does big positive things for the fate of humanity at the expense of working employees hard? Or big machine of a company that destroys our future but the employees are "taken care of" to some petty level while a bunch of rich fat white old men take all of the money and murder people overdress?

The thing is, workers have a choice with what company they'd rather work for. Now, I know you're suggesting "neither" to both, but I can comfortably say 1. SpaceX, 2. Boeing, 3. Any European private contractor (though I'm like 95% in for working at NASA before any of them).

The thing is, and I know I'm going on and on, Boeing isn't a person. It's not actually "evil." The image of a bunch of fat old white men laughing as they agree to murder a bunch of people in the Middle East isn't really real. The reality is, it's capitalism that grows too big. I don't need to educate you or anyone on this... Boeing and capitalist companies like it are absolute machines. They operate as they're supposed to to make a profit. They've lost all ability to feel. To have direction. To have purpose. Boeing used to have it in the 1930s under its founder, William Boeing. SpaceX still has that, but it will turn into a monster once Musk is gone. I find there to be a very strong necessity for public-private interaction.

Sorry for the rambling - I'm on a plane and texting this ain't easy.
 
PhilsFan said:
People don't want to reconcile with the fact that the American economic and political system destroys untold numbers of lives. How much discussion did the NYT article about the foreign policy under Obama generate in here this week? Essentially none. Because Democrats have allowed themselves to bury their heads in the sands about foreign policy. They can compartmentalize, and place these things over there somewhere where they can pay lip service to it but little else.



Capitalism is no different. The state of health care in this country is an absolutely indescribable nightmare. It's a legitimate hellscape for so many people. The Affordable Care Act wasn't close to enough. Anything short of single-payer is an affront to morality, and that's not overstating things at all. It's the God's honest truth of what's happening out there for people.



"America is already great," remains the moment Hillary Clinton lost this election, and I don't say that to pick on her or bring back up old arguments. America has never been great. Its treatment of minority groups across its history guarantees that. Its foreign policy guarantees that. And the income inequality that has been allowed to run us over during the last few decades certainly seals it as well.



This system is unsustainable.
Click to expand...



I think everyone except Republicans agree with you on the ACA, we knew it was just stepping stone. I think even a lot of Republicans now get we needed it, they just want to stick it to Obama and want their name on it.

Have we ever seen a sustainable system?
 
And yes, the health care system is an example of capitalism turning into a monster. We love the idea of "insurance," but if you trace that history back to how insurance companies were founded, they were also well intended. It's just something that's "too big to fail," when in reality it never should've allowed to have become so big.

Insurance companies are the worst thing capitalism has ever created. Worse than the bomb making murderers, by a long shot.
 
LuckyNumber7 said:
I don't think I'm defaulting to it as the only solution. I'm viewing it on a global scale. We have major space agencies in capitalist, socialist, and communist countries. NASA is the marquis, and only recently has it stagnated (through the last 20 years, aside from its Mars missions, it has been riddled in bureaucracy and struggling to handle administration changes).

But, it wasn't posing capitalism as the only solution. Governments do not prioritize space. I can give you arguments for why they should. I'm sure people would like if they did, too. But, it just isn't the case. I particularly picked on ESA because, after spending three months interacting in two different ESA sites, I can comfortably say they do not possess the resources to advance any technology at all. You've got the US and Russia. Aside from those two countries, its niche stuff in space. China is finally catching up.




But NASA's budget isn't why this tech was stagnated. NASA has never built any of the materials they use. For example, Boeing built the Saturn V. Well, Boeing bought all the companies that built the Saturn V. That was back in a time when NASA's budget was huge. The thing is, NASA's role as a government entity is to facilitate the economy/industry. I see you mentioning that NASA is "throwing money" at SpaceX. That's quite literally their job, if we are justifying tax payer dollars. It facilitates growth through technological advancement by supporting industry. It has always done this, from inception. NASA was absolutely not throwing tons of money at SpaceX to develop these advanced technologies for BFR or for landing spent rocket stages. That all came from SpaceX filling a void left by the greedy bomb makers.

Anyways, I should perhaps scale back a bit here. I love the government-private industry interaction between NASA and SpaceX. It makes big government beautiful in its own right. Yes, Musk has a reputation for working employees very long hours and keeping his company small. Conversely, Boeing and LMCO treat their employees competitively "well."

In the 1930's Boeing was effectively trust-busted by I-forgot-the-law. Something to do with not allowing aircraft manufacturers to also be airlines. Anyways, did you know that Boeing was once modern day Boeing + United Airlines + United Technology Corporations? Each of those respective companies is top-5 in size in their respective industries (in some sectors, Boeing competes with UTC now). Since the 30s, Boeing has swallowed companies such as McDonnell, Douglas, parts of Rockwell, Rocketdyne, etc. etc. Boeing fiends on its competition to this day, heavily in bed with the US government. It seeks to eliminate competition - recently, Boeing had the US government levy 300% taxes on all Canadian/UK imports of Bombardier C-series aircraft. The C-series was set to be the first competitor to the Boeing 737 and Airbus A320 family aircraft since the late 1980s. Its fate? In order to spite Boeing, Airbus purchased the project from Bombardier and agreed to assemble the product in the US at its facilities to save the project and its thousands of workers. Is Boeing upset? No. The duopoly remains. Is Airbus upset? No. They just had someone develop a better jet without having to fork up the bill.

Anyways, Boeing is an evil company. You might be wondering "why is he going on about this? He already knows I agree." I'm going on about this because Boeing is too big. SpaceX is not. Elon Musk maintains SpaceX at a small size (believe me - awful reputation for work goes yet still impossible to land a job at). Boeing does not have a human leader. Boeing has a bunch of rich fat entitled CEOs and chairpeople who feed a bureaucratic system that worries mostly about how it turns profits. At all expenses. At limiting technology. At killing. And yes, at offering competitive salaries and benefits for employees. So, we find ourselves at a capitalist moral dilemma. Small company that does big positive things for the fate of humanity at the expense of working employees hard? Or big machine of a company that destroys our future but the employees are "taken care of" to some petty level while a bunch of rich fat white old men take all of the money and murder people overdress?

The thing is, workers have a choice with what company they'd rather work for. Now, I know you're suggesting "neither" to both, but I can comfortably say 1. SpaceX, 2. Boeing, 3. Any European private contractor (though I'm like 95% in for working at NASA before any of them).

The thing is, and I know I'm going on and on, Boeing isn't a person. It's not actually "evil." The image of a bunch of fat old white men laughing as they agree to murder a bunch of people in the Middle East isn't really real. The reality is, it's capitalism that grows too big. I don't need to educate you or anyone on this... Boeing and capitalist companies like it are absolute machines. They operate as they're supposed to to make a profit. They've lost all ability to feel. To have direction. To have purpose. Boeing used to have it in the 1930s under its founder, William Boeing. SpaceX still has that, but it will turn into a monster once Musk is gone. I find there to be a very strong necessity for public-private interaction.

Sorry for the rambling - I'm on a plane and texting this ain't easy.
Click to expand...
My entire argument is that if we are forced to choose between one or the other we will lose either way. I'm not sure this addresses that argument.

I also think you are really glossing over the labor problems involved in Musk's companies.
 
BVS said:
Have we ever seen a sustainable system?
Click to expand...
No, and there are a lot of things that need to change for us to get to something possibly sustainable. And decision time is going to come way sooner than people realize because of climate change.

A very leftist commentator put it this way, and I think it's correct: we are heading for a worldwide catastrophe with the climate, and you're going to have to choose sides soon. And the sides are "eliminate the superwealthy and share the resources with everyone" or genocide.
 
PhilsFan said:
My entire argument is that if we are forced to choose between one or the other we will lose either way. I'm not sure this addresses that argument.



I also think you are really glossing over the labor problems involved in Musk's companies.
Click to expand...



Sorry I'm not intending to gloss over it, I'm just responding on my phone. 99% of my responses come on my phone. I can only surmise that the post that started this discussion was well received because it was pretty probably the first time time I've posted via web browser in 2-3 years.

What I wanted to get more at with my post was that I don't see an alternative anywhere in the world to the two that you're not happy deciding between.
 
PhilsFan said:
No, and there are a lot of things that need to change for us to get to something possibly sustainable. And decision time is going to come way sooner than people realize because of climate change.



A very leftist commentator put it this way, and I think it's correct: we are heading for a worldwide catastrophe with the climate, and you're going to have to choose sides soon. And the sides are "eliminate the superwealthy and share the resources with everyone" or genocide.
Click to expand...



Well that process alone would cause genocides, but let’s say we survived those genocides... then what? What happens on day one when everything is shared? It’s still an unsustainable idealism. And have we saved any lives in the short or long term?
 
LuckyNumber7 said:
Sorry I'm not intending to gloss over it, I'm just responding on my phone. 99% of my responses come on my phone. I can only surmise that the post that started this discussion was well received because it was pretty probably the first time time I've posted via web browser in 2-3 years.

What I wanted to get more at with my post was that I don't see an alternative anywhere in the world to the two that you're not happy deciding between.
Click to expand...
Socialism.
BVS said:
Well that process alone would cause genocides, but let’s say we survived those genocides... then what? What happens on day one when everything is shared? It’s still an unsustainable idealism. And have we saved any lives in the short or long term?
Click to expand...
If your entire attitude is that we can't make things better except in small increments, I'm not sure there is a point to having the discussion I am having.
 
PhilsFan said:
Socialism.
Click to expand...



Ok but from that particular example can you name me the socialist entities and describe how they're doing?

Of course a sample size of 1/2/3 isn't enough to draw a conclusion. But just as you think I'm merely disregarding stuff, you too are providing a blanketed bandaid on this topic.

I support socialist entities for four government necessities specifically (aside from government itself). Healthcare, education, infrastructure, and policing/defense. Unfortunately in our country, we use all the money for all four of these things on the final subject of policing and defense.
 
Healthcare, education, infrastructure, and defense really aren't examples of socialism, however. At least their presence doesn't necessarily make for a socialist economic system. Almost every country in the world provides those things to one extent or another.

And even the much-cited Scandinavian model promoted by fans of so-called Democratic Socialism still has capitalism as the engine that drives the economy. Among modern, democratic countries socialism really isn't even a consideration. The debate is all about how regulated the economy is. But even a hyper regulated economy isn't socialism.
 
Last edited:
Nick66 said:
Healthcare, education, infrastructure, and defense really aren't examples of socialism, however. At least their presence doesn't necessarily make for a socialist economic system. Almost every country in the world provides those things to one extent or another.

And even the much-cited Scandinavian model promoted by fans of so-called Democratic Socialism still has capitalism as the engine that drives the economy. Among modern, democratic countries socialism really isn't even a consideration. The debate is all about how regulated the economy is. But even a hyper regulated economy isn't socialism.
Click to expand...

I think you hit it with the regulated economy.

I don't see a way for the USA to become a full on socialist nation.

We need to just drop the labels and focus more on a solution, which would be to start curtailing a lot of the issues or loop holes that our current system has in place.

When issues arise, work to fix them. It doesn't have to fit into a label. We don't have to be a 'ism'. Why not have aspects of all and adapt as society changes.
 
There's very little chance of America become a socialist nation absent the ingredient that almost always accompanies genuine socialism...revolution. And usually a bloody one at that.

There does seem to be a renewed interest in what some call socialism (or again, 'Democratic Socialism'), and the openness to it in concept at least is the highest it's been since the 1930's. Most of this is accounted for by increased interest among millennials, but the problem is most millennials really don't understand what socialism is, and in any event their economic views are all over the map and often contradictory to the point of basically being incoherent.
 
Last edited:
I love this idealistic notion that some people have that in a socialist society there isn't corruption. Or naked ambition. Or an upper class, begotten one way or another.
 
Yes. Any economic or political system that involves human beings (and as far as I know, they all do) is going to have corruption to one degree or another. And there will always be classes as well. Soviet Russia wasn't a classless society, nor was Maoist China. Nor is Cuba, and certainly not North Korea. Human beings will always find a way. Actually, strictly socialist countries are typically among the most corrupt. When the state is the entity that provides most things, it makes state workers and officials eminently corruptible.

That said, in fairness, in TI's annual corruption perception index, the Scandinavian countries typically come out in the top ten (least corrupt). Though again, they're not socialist countries.
 
Last edited:
BVS said:
I’m asking for a real plan. How do you see it happening here first?
Click to expand...

The first and most important thing to be addressed IMO is education. A major reason for growing wealth disparity is so many young people get mired in 10s of thousands of dollars of debt getting a basic, functional education. That prevents a huge portion of the middle and lower classes from making timely investments that would help them climb the economic ladder in their 30s and 40s. College education needs to become much, much more affordable.
 
iron yuppie said:
The first and most important thing to be addressed IMO is education. A major reason for growing wealth disparity is so many young people get mired in 10s of thousands of dollars of debt getting a basic, functional education. That prevents a huge portion of the middle and lower classes from making timely investments that would help them climb the economic ladder in their 30s and 40s. College education needs to become much, much more affordable.
Click to expand...



Completely agree, I also think trade and tech schools need to be included in this plan.
 
BVS said:
Completely agree, I also think trade and tech schools need to be included in this plan.
Click to expand...

Agreed, as long as those programs are in jobs that aren't readily subject to globalization pressures. Focus on "non-transferables" as the economic lingo would say.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MrsSpringsteen
Need Help With How To Do Transfer And Sale Through TM
Replies
14
Views
582
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
O
Better late than never “they” say…
Replies
1
Views
268
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
MrsSpringsteen
Gilead States Of America
Replies
16
Views
865
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
Achtung_Bebe
IO: It's been a while...
Replies
2
Views
522
mikal
mikal
N
Hello!
Replies
2
Views
822
Hewson
Hewson

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom