Political issues important to you

Author: Tejretics

Posts

Total: 71
Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 497
2
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
2
4
8
-->
@spacetime
This is an interesting idea, which would mitigate a lot of the harm. But not all of the harm. And I also don't think it's politically realistic to believe that American politicians would choose to sacrifice a major source of tax revenue like that.
(1) I mean, it’s politically unrealistic to believe that American politicians would institute a carbon tax at all. Gas tax holidays are very popular. The question is whether it should be done.

(2) I think the remaining harm would be outweighed by the mitigation effects on climate change. Moreover, subsidies on clean energy would offset even more of the harm. On your “theoretical models” point, (a) theoretical models are often pretty good at predicting what happens in the real world and (b) empirical research from Australia, if I recall correctly, also confirms this. 

Social cohesion is an absolute necessity for the long-term sustainability of democratic governance (and autocratic governance too, for that matter). I don't see how it's worth sacrificing social cohesion for a decrease in consumer prices.
I don’t buy that the effects of immigration on social cohesion are so destructive that they significantly damage the long-term sustainability of democratic governance. I definitely think the effect immigration has on creating jobs and thus alleviating poverty outweigh the smaller impacts of immigrants on social cohesion, particularly given that groups of immigrants are highly likely to form and live within their own communities. Even if they don’t, there’s also some academic literature suggesting that diversity brings with it its own share of social and economic benefits (consider contact hypothesis and research about the economic effects of diversity). 

I don't think countries have any obligations to noncitizens, other than to treat them with basic human decency (i.e. don't inflict gratuitous suffering upon them). Development aid is only good insofar as it advances our national security interests.
I don’t necessarily share that view. I guess we have competing value systems here. 

Because it has no basis in reality. I see no evidence for the notion that racism, sexism, or other forms of oppression are widespread within American society. It's all just empty victimhood mongering. All it does is breed a delusional sense of resentment among women and racial minorities. It's a massive disservice to them and to society as a whole.
Okay. I’m not nearly as knowledgeable about the US, in particular, as you are, but I’ve seen compelling evidence to the contrary (i.e., evidence that suggests that racism, sexism, and other forms of oppression, such as prejudice against LGBTQ+ people, are quite prevalent even in developed countries). However, I really don’t think it’s deniable that sexism, racism, and similar forms of oppression (e.g., caste-ism in India) are prevalent in the majority of countries in the world (i.e., developing countries). 
spacetime
spacetime's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 206
0
1
3
spacetime's avatar
spacetime
0
1
3
-->
@Tejretics
I'm actually not 100% sure about UBI. It might not be socially sustainable -- humans need meaningful employment to maintain a sense of purpose in their day-to-day lives. Maybe instead of radically overhauling our current economic structure, we should just double down on the idea of every American having a good job. But that would require some sort of collective freeze on automation and globalization, or potentially even undoing them to some extent.

I honestly don't know which approach to take. Either way, preserving long-term economic security needs to become the government's #1 priority.
Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 497
2
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
2
4
8
-->
@spacetime
On the Fed independence issue, I’m actually really worried that appointments of key positions in the FOMC (e.g., Fed Chair) are becoming increasingly partisan—consider, for instance, Trump refusing to reappoint Yellen because she’s a Democrat. I’d be really pissed if the Democratic nominee is elected POTUS in 2020 and refuse to reappoint Powell in 2022, I think he’s doing a decent job and I don’t think any other Fed chair (unless they appoint someone who advocates radical changes in the Fed’s strategy, such as Scott Sumner) would perform particularly differently. 
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
They say it is climate change, not global warming. But every time they talk, it's about warming.

Why are they afraid to talk about warming?
the stopped using global warming a while ago when it was clear they couldn't and wouldn't be able to prove it.  So when that fails you, you change the name.  It was time for a different spin.  Doesn't matter anyway, how is anyone going to get the Chinese to cut back?  It's like the b.s. plastic in the oceans thing, look where 90% of it comes from, and they want to ban the grocery bags in the U.S.  Is it any wonder why no one takes this stuff seriously and just ignores it?  The boy who cried wolf applies to so many progressive the sky is falling rants, they are just tuned out.


spacetime
spacetime's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 206
0
1
3
spacetime's avatar
spacetime
0
1
3
-->
@Tejretics
I don’t buy that the effects of immigration on social cohesion are so destructive that they significantly damage the long-term sustainability of democratic governance.
Why? Anti-immigration backlash is almost exclusively responsible for the "right-wing populist" movement that you see as a threat to democracy. Seems to me that you do implicitly acknowledge how destabilizing immigration can be.

 particularly given that groups of immigrants are highly likely to form and live within their own communities
That's actually part of the problem. Ethnic segregation is clearly bad for social cohesion on a national level.



Okay. I’m not nearly as knowledgeable about the US, in particular, as you are, but I’ve seen compelling evidence to the contrary (i.e., evidence that suggests that racism, sexism, and other forms of oppression, such as prejudice against LGBTQ+ people, are quite prevalent even in developed countries).
I'm interested in seeing that evidence. Most of the studies I've read rely on absurd definitions of what constitutes "prejudice".

However, I really don’t think it’s deniable that sexism, racism, and similar forms of oppression (e.g., caste-ism in India) are prevalent in the majority of countries in the world (i.e., developing countries). 
Fair enough.
spacetime
spacetime's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 206
0
1
3
spacetime's avatar
spacetime
0
1
3
I'm actually not 100% sure about UBI. It might not be socially sustainable -- humans need meaningful employment to maintain a sense of purpose in their day-to-day lives. Maybe instead of radically overhauling our current economic structure, we should just double down on the idea of every American having a good job. But that would require some sort of collective freeze on automation and globalization, or potentially even undoing them to some extent.
On the other hand, employment is overrated. Most people hate their jobs, and would probably relish the opportunity to find a purpose in life outside of work.

It's also extremely difficult to forcibly create good jobs in a free market economy, due to the autonomy of private-sector businesses. Any such attempt at economic manipulation would probably fail. Much easier to just let the free market run its course, and use redistribution to handle the consequences.
Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 497
2
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
2
4
8
One thing I forgot to mention is foreign policy. I value foreign policy a lot—perhaps even more than domestic policy. I’m torn on Saudi Arabia, I think it is very complicated and I don’t know if the US should lose Saudi Arabia as an ally, though I do think it should stop funding military intervention in Yemen. On the Israel-Palestine conflict, I favor a two-state solution and I fully support the right of return of Palestinian individuals to Israel. I do not think Israel is a fundamental ally to the United States. I strongly support the Paris Agreement and the Iran deal. I’m generally wary of direct military intervention; with the War on Terror, I support funding local tribes and ethnic groups who have an incentive to fight terror (e.g., I would have funded and armed the Kurds against ISIL). I think the person closest to my foreign policy views is former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. In terms of Indian foreign policy, I would accept Rohingya refugees from Myanmar and condemn human rights atrocities there, put a systematic stop to human rights atrocities in Kashmir and potentially withdraw troops from Kashmir entirely, and cut military expenditure. 

The thing is, even though I think foreign policy is incredibly important, I don’t know enough about it.
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Tejretics
(6) There are very real threats to democratic structures facing countries like the United States, including voter photo ID laws, limiting the number of voting days, attempting to make voting as hard as possible for low-income and minority individuals, gerrymandering,  and so on

There is absolutely nothing wrong or undemocratic about requiring a photo ID to vote. In most US states, early voting takes place during an extremely long period of time, including weekends. I don’t know what you mean by making it as “hard as possible” for people to vote. The house really isn’t that Gerrymandered anymore. Democrats won 53% of the vote and got 54% of the seats. Every one of your points is extremely misleading at best 

This is the post of someone totally unfamiliar with life in the United States, who has likely never even visited it, but nonetheless has strong opinions about it because of media consumption
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
One of the issues I would choose would be the environment. Insect populations have declined by up to 90% in the past two decades, which reverberated up the food chain and decimated the populations of all wild animals. For every six mammals that used to exist in the recent past, only 1 remains: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/magazine/insect-apocalypse.amp.html

this is almost certainly due to pesticides, probably even a specific pesticide. These animals aren’t extinct yet and the problem could likely be reversed if it was just studied—but it never will be. Big agriculture is probably the most evil industry in the US
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
I'm actually not 100% sure about UBI. It might not be socially sustainable -- humans need meaningful employment to maintain a sense of purpose in their day-to-day lives. Maybe instead of radically overhauling our current economic structure, we should just double down on the idea of every American having a good job. 

I would go for this route before UBI, because I think it would be socially cancerous on top of incredibly expensive (as in the entire federal budget right now to afford every a veryyyyy rudimentary income.) The majority of the population doing absolutely nothing except try to scrape by on ~$10k/year would be a disaster but it’s obviously better than having them starve to death 

i think other policies would be less economically costly and way less socially cancerous. Examples: super high tariffs, or a soft form of Ludditism where we only automate critical industries. Maybe an artificial restriction of the work day to four, or six hours which would necessarily drive up the demand for labor. Or a mass retraining of American workers and a total revamp of the education system to look like Germany’s, and where we either strong arm or bribe companies into taking on these newly trained workers when it’s no longer economically efficient. All of these things would hurt the economy but by a lot less than what it would cost to do UBI...and don’t leave us with the “idle hands are the devils workshop” problem 
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
Hell, forcing companies to do a six hour workday might make things MORE efficient by keeping even offices open for 12 hours. Instead of 8-5 you could have two shifts, 7 am to 1 pm and 1 pm to 7 pm. Frankly both of these sound more appealing than 8 am to 5 pm + a one hour lunch