Welcome to Laser Pointer Forums - discuss green laser pointers, blue laser pointers, and all types of lasers



LPF's Presidential Candidate Vote USA

Benm

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
8,113
Points
113
It might actually be good for the US economy.

If you stop caring about climate change and CO2 emissions, you industry gets an advantage over countries that do. This might not be good for the planet, but it is good for -your economy- at least in the short term.

Not having minimum wages can also make your industry more competetive, especially compared to europe where most countries do have minimum wages and labour is expensive.

So these choices do make sense if you want to bring back industry to america. The CO2 thing is giving the world the finger to some degree, but does not really hurt americans that much (most CO2 is produced elsewhere, which is an excuse any country can validly claim).

As for minimum wages: they may not strictly be required either. As long as working pays significantly better compared to being on welfare, people are likely to work.

Also, minimum wages don't mean higher pay in all situations. If the state sets a minimum, companies will adopt that. If it is $10/hr, they will automatically pay everyone easily replaceable $10. If no minimum is set the wage could actually be higher, because $10 is not enough to get any staff. Demand should drive the price of labour up, but the practical situation is that all companies will go for the legal minimum wage not even trying to compete unless desperate for staff.

Minimum wages also drive companies to further automation: They know labour will never be any cheaper, and these minimums are usually indexed to inflation so the cost is likely to go up. This leads to work that could today be done by humans being automated even if that is slightly more expensive just to avoid the increased wages in the future.
 



Seoul_lasers

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2008
Messages
2,680
Points
113
It might actually be good for the US economy.

If you stop caring about climate change and CO2 emissions, you industry gets an advantage over countries that do. This might not be good for the planet, but it is good for -your economy- at least in the short term.

Not having minimum wages can also make your industry more competetive, especially compared to europe where most countries do have minimum wages and labour is expensive.

So these choices do make sense if you want to bring back industry to america. The CO2 thing is giving the world the finger to some degree, but does not really hurt americans that much (most CO2 is produced elsewhere, which is an excuse any country can validly claim).

As for minimum wages: they may not strictly be required either. As long as working pays significantly better compared to being on welfare, people are likely to work.

Also, minimum wages don't mean higher pay in all situations. If the state sets a minimum, companies will adopt that. If it is $10/hr, they will automatically pay everyone easily replaceable $10. If no minimum is set the wage could actually be higher, because $10 is not enough to get any staff. Demand should drive the price of labour up, but the practical situation is that all companies will go for the legal minimum wage not even trying to compete unless desperate for staff.

Minimum wages also drive companies to further automation: They know labour will never be any cheaper, and these minimums are usually indexed to inflation so the cost is likely to go up. This leads to work that could today be done by humans being automated even if that is slightly more expensive just to avoid the increased wages in the future.

Something else not being discussed here is the people that your new President elect has decided to surround himself with.
One thing that has been made clear that he is associating himself with Steve Mnuchin: A former partner at Goldman Sachs, which is ironically one of the firms responsible for investment fraud leading up to the subprime crash.
Additionally it seems that secretary of defense is also not without controversy either. His famous line is "it's good to shoot some people." The cabinet isn't looking too good.:yabbem: :mad:

People voting for Trump wanted job security. Not going to happen with a Goldman Sachs exec at the helm of the economy.
Human rights under the new Secretary of defense is going all but disappear.
 
Last edited:

olympus mons

New member
Joined
Nov 4, 2014
Messages
1,284
Points
0
Something else not being discussed here is the people that your new President elect has decided to surround himself with.
One thing that has been made clear that he is associating himself with Steve Mnuchin: A former partner at Goldman Sachs, which is ironically one of the firms responsible for investment fraud leading up to the subprime crash.
Additionally it seems that secretary of defense is also not without controversy either. His famous line is "it's good to shoot some people." The cabinet isn't looking too good.:yabbem: :mad:

People voting for Trump wanted job security. Not going to happen with a Goldman Sachs exec at the helm of the economy.
Human rights under the new Secretary of defense is going all but disappear.

I agree. I spent a couple hours reading about his appoinments and my skeptisizm about Trump being the hero of the working people seems very appropriate. I was shocked he chose the CEO for Mobile/Exxon as Sec. of State. The most powerful cabinet member. Trump is definitely going to try to run the country as a buisness which may be a good thing but I am quite doubtful of that. CEO's and corporations are certainly not known for their ethics, empathy, and morals. Since Trumps not even in office yet I will with hold opinion at this point but its not looking good for the working people and a downright travesty for the environment. Appointing a climate denier as head of the EPA is quite concerning. Im not even going to engage in a debate about climate change. There is no debate.

I also crunched some numbers regarding the predicted cost of his crack down on illegal immigration and they don't add up to saving the nation as much money as will be spent. At least short term wise. I don't have a problem with the Gvt. enforcing the current immigration laws which have been unenforced for a long time such as an illegal being deported if convicted of a crime. That's how it should be and hasn't been as often as appropriate but if he holds true to his plan to sentence those repeat border crossers with a mandatory 6 year prison sentence plan on seeing a massive number of new prisons being built and filled with millions of these offenders at the cost of the tax payers. The estimated number of deported returning border jumpers in 2011 was 86,000 people. How does he plan on imprisoning 86,000 people per year that return after removal? Where in the hell are there that many cels available? How many US citizen *** and violent offenders already incarcerated will be released to make way for the illegals? I just don't see it saving tax dollars in fact my lamen summation is it's going to bankrupt the nation and put back on the street dangerous US criminals to make room for those who's crime is illegal entry. Not a safer option.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 17, 2015
Messages
879
Points
63
...How does he plan on imprisoning 86,000 people per year that return after removal? Where in the hell are there that many cels available? How many US citizen *** and violent offenders already incarcerated will be released to make way for the illegals? I just don't see it saving tax dollars in fact my lamen summation is it's going to bankrupt the nation and put back on the street dangerous US criminals to make room for those who's crime is illegal entry. Not a safer option.

How bout we just release the non violent drug offenders? we have plenty of room then.

https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp
 

InfinitusEquitas

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
15,445
Points
113
I'm withholding judgement until after Trump is in office, but many of his policies, and his appointments are very troubling. Trump may well also try to roll back the progress that has come about regarding marijuana legalization. The man is very much against drugs, and I expect people's rights to suffer a great deal under his presidency, and for the prison situation regarding non violent drug offenses, to not get any better.
 

Razako

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 17, 2006
Messages
4,503
Points
113
I'm withholding judgement until after Trump is in office, but many of his policies, and his appointments are very troubling. Trump may well also try to roll back the progress that has come about regarding marijuana legalization. The man is very much against drugs, and I expect people's rights to suffer a great deal under his presidency, and for the prison situation regarding non violent drug offenses, to not get any better.
That one is also a big unknown, and troubling to me. Trump has said it should be a state rights issue, but his DOJ selection is very sketchy. Will Trump control this guy and tell him to lay off the state legal business? Sessions' viewpoints on the cannabis issue almost make Nixon/Reagan look progressive. "we need to send a message that good people don't smoke marijuana"? Seriously Sessions? What gives him the moral authority to make statements such as that?

Here are some quotes from Sessions regarding cannabis:

"His former colleagues testified Sessions used the n-word and joked about the Ku Klux Klan, saying he thought they were “okay, until he learned that they smoked marijuana.”

“It was the prevention movement that really was so positive, and it led to this decline. The creating of knowledge that this drug is dangerous, it cannot be played with, it is not funny, it’s not something to laugh about, and trying to send that message with clarity, that good people don’t smoke marijuana.”

“You have to have leadership from Washington. You can’t have the President of the United States of America talking about marijuana … you are sending a message to young people that there is no danger in this process. It is false that marijuana use doesn’t lead people to more drug use. It is already causing a disturbance in the states that have made it legal.”



Jeff Sessions' marijuana views horrify backers of legalization | Miami Herald


After winning big at the polls only 10 days ago, backers of marijuana legalization fear their movement took a major hit Friday when President-elect Donald Trump chose Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, a staunch legalization opponent, as his attorney general.

At a Senate hearing in April, Sessions called marijuana “dangerous” and said that “good people don’t smoke marijuana.”
 
Last edited:

InfinitusEquitas

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
15,445
Points
113
I guess it remains to be seen, but I expect that Trump will stay mostly hands off, from the actions of his cabinet members, unless there is a lot of blowback. Sessions is easily one of the worst picks possible imo.

In a lot of cases the support that people like Sessions show, and vehement attacks on marijuana, stem from the fact that the states reap a great deal of profit from catching marijuana traffickers. It will be interesting to see how dynamics change with regards to marijuana trafficking now that it will be legal in both Maine and Rhode island.

Alabama meanwhile, still stays as a pass through state for weed coming up from mexico and headed to florida and other locations.
 

Seoul_lasers

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2008
Messages
2,680
Points
113
I guess it remains to be seen, but I expect that Trump will stay mostly hands off, from the actions of his cabinet members, unless there is a lot of blowback. Sessions is easily one of the worst picks possible imo.

In a lot of cases the support that people like Sessions show, and vehement attacks on marijuana, stem from the fact that the states reap a great deal of profit from catching marijuana traffickers. It will be interesting to see how dynamics change with regards to marijuana trafficking now that it will be legal in both Maine and Rhode island.

Alabama meanwhile, still stays as a pass through state for weed coming up from mexico and headed to florida and other locations.

couldn't have said it better.

 

Razako

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 17, 2006
Messages
4,503
Points
113
The opposition to legalization is mostly a combination of pressure from Big pharma/Alcohol who don't want competition, private prison industries who wanna keep occupancy up, and law enforcement unions who want to keep stealing from citizens via civil forfeiture laws. It's truly a sickening level of corruption no matter how you look at it. People who are literally willing to continue ruining the lives of their fellow citizens just so they can continue making money off it. If that isn't evil, I don't know what is.

There are also people who like having cannabis illegal because they hate the culture of the users (Usually liberal minded types), and so they can continue to disproportionately persecute minorities caught with it. I suspect Sessions might fall into that grouping.

Lovely, now it appears Trump is considering another nutjob to head the FDA. It's like he's actively TRYING to set our country back 50+ years.
https://www.statnews.com/2016/12/12/donald-trump-fda-oneill/


Imagine being prescribed a medicine when neither your doctor nor the manufacturer has any clue whether it will actually work — because the government never required it to be tested for effectiveness.

That’s not how things are done now, because federal law requires drugs to undergo clinical trial testing to gauge benefits and risks. But the incoming Trump administration may seek to undo a decades-old standard of evaluating drugs for effectiveness — to the detriment of every American who takes a prescription medicine.

One of two people being vetted as the next Food and Drug Administration commissioner gave a speech two years ago in which he suggested the agency require only safety testing for new drugs. After that, good luck.

“We should reform FDA so it is approving drugs after their sponsors have demonstrated safety and let people start using them at their own risk,” said Jim O’Neill, a managing director at Mithril Capital Management, a venture capital firm run by Peter Thiel, the billionaire Trump donor and transition team advisor. “Let’s prove efficacy after they’ve been legalized.”

He is not the right person for the job.

O’Neill is not a scientist or physician. Most FDA commissioners have had such a background, because the training involved in both careers makes it easier to understand the myriad issues involved in moving medicine forward.

So what does he offer? Basically, O’Neill is a policy wonk with good connections and a steadfast belief in the power of free markets. A former policy adviser at the Department of Health and Human Services, he now funds early-stage biotech companies and likes to lambaste the “cartelized” health care system for hindering the development of health care products.

His outlook is better understood in the broader context of a growing movement to revamp the FDA in order to get more drugs to patients more quickly. Of course, the notion of getting medicines out the door faster is a wonderful idea. But lowering or eliminating standards in the process would be dangerous.

“Waiting to figure out whether a drug works after it’s available is naive, because drugs don’t work like the markets for pens or so many other products,” said Daniel Carpenter, a political scientist at Harvard University who has studied the FDA. “We would be turning the clock back nearly a century, and the legitimacy of the American medicine cabinet would crater.”

Indeed, O’Neill’s notion would be like letting the proverbial genie out of the bottle. In some cases, patients may benefit from the famous placebo effect — maybe they think a drug is working simply because they took it. More important, it is likely to be very difficult to organize proper clinical trials to determine effectiveness once a drug is widely used.
 
Last edited:

Benm

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
8,113
Points
113
This is false. We rank #1in the world of emitters of greenhouse gasses.
http://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/uploads/historical_emissions.png

Yes, but i stated merely that 'most CO2 was emitted elsewhere'. If the US emits 27 percent of the world total, the other 73 percent is still emitted elsewhere.

The US emissions do have more impact than that of most other (smaller) countries ofcourse. If a country like the netherlands would stop emitting CO2 entirely (as in everybody suddenly dies, but nothing catches fire) this would not even be visible as 1 percent in global emissions.
 

olympus mons

New member
Joined
Nov 4, 2014
Messages
1,284
Points
0
Yes, but i stated merely that 'most CO2 was emitted elsewhere'. If the US emits 27 percent of the world total, the other 73 percent is still emitted elsewhere.

The US emissions do have more impact than that of most other (smaller) countries ofcourse. If a country like the netherlands would stop emitting CO2 entirely (as in everybody suddenly dies, but nothing catches fire) this would not even be visible as 1 percent in global emissions.

Oh right I see what you meant now. It still amazes me that we emit more GHG than even China who has zero regulations or restrictions and twice as much manufacturing as the US.
 

Seoul_lasers

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2008
Messages
2,680
Points
113
Oh right I see what you meant now. It still amazes me that we emit more GHG than even China who has zero regulations or restrictions and twice as much manufacturing as the US.

I highly doubt the US can emit as much CO2 as PRC.. What was not factored in is the massive underground coal seam fires in N.Central China close to the border with Mongolia as well as the 1000's of large coal fired power plants dwarf anything the US is doing.
Having lived next to PRC and endured rounds of Whangsa (yellow sand) in late-winter early-spring ..etc that blow microparticles of particulates (sand, Hg,As,SOx,NOx and flue ash) into South Korea and Japan I can say that pollution from
China is quite under rated probably due in part of the fact that we don't want to disrupt the offshore manufacturing flow from China to the west. We don't want heavy industry in our backyard, but it's perfectly fine in China
where the value of Human life is pretty much non-existant. Problem is that it is our corporate greed that breeds this kind of monster.

Korean yellow dust in spring looks like this! Yuck!!
yellow-dust.jpg



welcome to Mars, I mean Beijing.
discovery-015-yellow-dust.jpg


Click below to see how bad Beijing is.. Big picture clear day vs a typical smog day at same time next day.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-i_EpuoHbp...Iw/Id3DU5P5e4w/s1600/beijing-bishop-large.jpg
 
Last edited:

Crazlaser

Active member
Joined
Oct 11, 2016
Messages
821
Points
43
Oh right I see what you meant now. It still amazes me that we emit more GHG than even China who has zero regulations or restrictions and twice as much manufacturing as the US.
Do you think if coal mining and factories were replaced with solar or wind, the ghg's would decrease below the emissions of China?
 
D

Deleted member 16589

Guest
Oh right I see what you meant now. It still amazes me that we emit more GHG than even China who has zero regulations or restrictions and twice as much manufacturing as the US.

I really find that hard to believe There smog is at apocalyptic levels.

Edit: A quick search came across this

global_emissions_country_2015.png


Edit again -_-
This is false. We rank #1in the world of emitters of greenhouse gasses.
http://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/uploads/historical_emissions.png

that chart is from 1850 to 2011. So its heavily skewed. China was not even industrialized in 1850.
 
Last edited by a moderator:




Top