It think even before the physical effects get to us, the psychological effects might bring us down. If you wipe away the horizon... you get nihilism. — ChatteringMonkey

People in psychological distress regularly show up at the climate change subreddit. There was a message directed at them pinned at the top, basically trying to undo misinformation that had been provided in clickbaits.

Are you talking about extension if the 2017 tax cuts?

Per your link:

"Agriculture is very sensitive to weather and climate.4 It also relies heavily on land, water, and other natural resources that climate affects.5 While climate changes (such as in temperature, precipitation, and frost timing) could lengthen the growing season or allow different crops to be grown in some regions,6 it will also make agricultural practices more difficult in others.

"The effects of climate change on agriculture will depend on the rate and severity of the change, as well as the degree to which farmers and ranchers can adapt."

With any long predictions we have to choose starting assumptions like how much CO2 will have been emitted during the chosen timeframe. Then we need a computer model (or two).

Armchair climatology is where we get genius insights like the fact that CO2 is good for plants. Let's try to avoid being just like the idiots we criticize.

The amoral asshole was preferred by Wall St primarily because such a person wouldn't go after their interests — Mr Bee

He has, though. The tariffs aren't good for Wall St. because they need a trade deficit.

That poster is a troll, or a bot. That’s what the issue is. I gave up replying, it just sets your head spinning. — Punshhh

Yes. But I think the reason we're focusing on him is that without him we have an echo chamber. I guess that's what some people want. Peace out. :cool:

In order that I might have a rule to point to the rule is -- there is nothing good about climate change. — Moliere

That's actually an anti-scientific approach. Worse than asking silly questions, really.

Looking for silver lining in order to say that global warming is good, actually, is not. — Moliere

The comment had been made that there will be less arable land. Surely it's appropriate to talk about what the science behind that says? Or is that approach not in keeping with the spirit of the OP?

From here out I'll be deleting comments related to how tundra will become arable, — Moliere

Agriculture is a big part of the OP isn't it?

All true. The fact remains that the two American political parties have switched roles. The Democrats are now the party of the status quo. Republicans have become the party of change. This isn't Trump's doing exclusively. It's been coming for a while.

What I'm saying is that however you assess Trump and his allies, you have to admit that they've shaken up the whole political domain. They have won in that regard. We aren't going back to the way things were. The Democratic party showed up as hollow and nothing more than tools of Wall St. No one has had the courage to question the almighty status of the financial sector in the name of the well-being of Main St. It's a lesson in the nature of human affairs that the person who finally did it is an amoral asshole.

The present change in climate is more like instant. — Banno

True. It will heat up in a big spike that will last a few thousand years, and a long tail will drag on for about 100,000 years. At that point the CO2 will be back in the oceans. In geological time that's nothing.

The dinosaurs started dominating the planet during two million years of flooding. Most scientists think the flooding was a result of global warming set off by volcano emissions of CO2. There's a good PBS documentary about it.

And since the people carrying out this agenda are sworn to defend the Constitution, it is treasonous — Paine

Yea.

That will mean less arable land and generally more extreme living conditions which will reduce habitable zones on earth. — ChatteringMonkey

The atmosphere will be more humid than it is now. Some areas will experience increased rainfall and probably flooding. Some areas will become dryer because of changes in wind patterns. Right now water rises into the air at the equator. It follows a current toward the poles. When it reaches a band of low pressure zones, the water dumps.

Increased warming makes the low pressure zones go north, so water presently being dumped in the Great Plains will be dumped in Canada. I'm guessing someone told Trump this, which would explain why he wants Canada.

But if I am right about Trump, simply passively sitting back and waiting till the next election may not protect our democracy. I have no doubt now that, left to his own devices , this country would end up looking as repressive as Hungary — Joshs

I don't think Trump is an ideologue of any kind, but he has gathered people to him who actually do have a new political outlook involving authoritarianism of a kind the US has never had. There's a developing philosophy to it, denying certain assumptions of the Enlightenment, for instance.

I think you're imagining that this is all Trump bumbling his way toward dictatorship. I think the people around him, like Vance, are not bumbling at all. They have clear reasons for driving the country toward dictatorship.

Poo pooing Trump's economic policy isn't going to change that, or the fact that people watched Trump encourage a mob to execute Mike Pence and they still elected him president. This is a new world we're entering. The old one is gone. The fact that AOC is emerging as the leader of the Democrats should confirm that for you.

The main criticism from economists today is not about incoherence. It's that it was rolled out haphazardly so as to maximize uncertainty.

I guess the question is whether there was a safer way to do it. Either way, we only have elections every 4 years, so we can't just vote him out.

You keep bringing it up. — Paine

Not to you.

read that essay at your behest. It clarifies a lot of some people's thinking: Engineering social change. — Paine

I did not ask you to read it.

I mean, Vance strikes me as incredibly opportunistic and unlikable, but he would surely be an improvement over the chaos of Trump. He would be preferable if only because he is less charismatic and so less able to get by on sheer bluster. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Read Dark Enlightenment and reassess.

Voters need to feel like it’s a disaster. That’s the only way to be rid of Trump. — Joshs

I developed a full blown case of Stockholm syndrome when I realized Vance will be elected next. I advise you do the same.

No, it was a feeble joke. I was just teasing your two cents self-valuation. — unenlightened

Oh! :smile:

but businesses don’t expect Black Swan events to be caused by the policy whims of a dictator, which is why there is little urge to invest in authoritarian regimes where policy changes on a dime. — Joshs

Money is blind. It will happily take up with dictators when the bottom line says it should.

There may be a temporary increase in demand, but in the longer term American companies will not be able to compete with foreign companies who re-assemble cheaper supply chains excluding the U.S. — Joshs

The US has a pretty big market of its own. It's well versed in automated manufacturing. It has abundant natural resources and a big ass military to protect its shores.

I'm not predicting rosy days, I'm just saying an emotionally neutral viewpoint is not predicting disaster. Maybe a recession.

It’s impossible for a company to invest in expansion if there isn’t predictability over a 5 year horizon — Joshs

Black swan events happen often enough that every company takes risks to expand. But if anything, a lot of American companies should look for an increase in demand resulting from the tariffs. Agriculture and luxury goods are the ones likely to be hurting.

I have been obsessively reading everything I can get my hands on by economists, both liberal and conservative. None of them are foolish enough to ‘declare’ a recession before it begins, but there is a consensus that what is happening now is a profound shock to the global economy the likes of which hasn’t been seen in 95 years. — Joshs

I guess I'm looking forward to seeing how it works out. Crises can be good things, but inviting crisis is not something a wise person would do.

That said, one expert opinion is that recession probably wouldn't be caused directly by the tariffs, but rather by the fear inspired by them. If people put off buying durable goods out of fear, that can actually bring on a recession.

Do check out Reddit if you're looking to talk to a professional or an academic. They're usually friendly and generous with explanations.

Have you spoken with an expert in economics or geopolitics about these predictions? There are a number of educated opinions on Reddit, although the moderator on AskEconomics just locked the thread because it was getting too rambunctious.

And I hope you will also be inspired, frank to raise your prices to at least a dime — unenlightened

Do you feel like I don't contribute substantially? I'm asking because I'm thinking of just avoiding political discussions going forward. On this forum anyway.

My two cents worth is that the Trump thread inevitably becomes about venting. There's a certain amount of baloney spouted by people on either side of the issue. It's just the nature of the topic, I think. We don't have an historical vantage point on events, so there's a limit to the depth with which we can analyze it. I'm hoping you ultimately decide to put it back in the lounge.

Your question presumes some higher law constraining the actions of the entity that's responsible for global trade in the first place. There is no such authority.

Why wouldn't you expect half of the world's population to produce half of the stuff and get half of the profits? — Banno

Why shouldn't we have robots produce everything and use the profits to avert climate change?

I see no world where Vance becomes president because either Trump succeeds in dismantling US democracy in which case he'll just stay in until he dies, or the democratic process continues as usual in which case given what we've been seeing from this administration means Vance gets annihilated electorally. The Democrats can run a corpse and they will win. They did the last time and hopefully they won't the next time. — Mr Bee

You may be right. I doubt it though.

The JOLTS jobs numbers were up. Powell is talking rate cuts. The sky hasn't fallen yet. But I did start looking at local printing costs (I make a lot of custom t-shirts). The locals are around 10x the cost of the same printing from China. It's higher quality here, but still. Damn.

With regard to the country turning on Trump, if they have an alternative, maybe. If the Democrats run AOC next time, Vance will be the president. He'll definitely keep some of Trumps policies.

It takes minutes to impose tariffs, but 5 to 10 years to build a factory. — Punshhh

Trump will probably be followed by Vance, unless a Democratic superstar emerges. And even if a Democratic president follows, remember, Biden didn't rescind the tariffs from the first Trump administration, in fact he added to them. Completely exposing American labor to competition with China was a pretty brutal thing to do. The consent to do that again would have to be manufactured (to garble one of the chapter titles of David Harvey's book on neoliberalism).

The left died. This is what's taking its place.

Yes. It's a challenge.

The futures markets say no bueno.

In order to doubt anything, one must rely on that which is beyond doubt. In other words, one cannot exit all language games and still be capable of doubting. — Joshs

Apparently you can't doubt that you exist (in some sense).

What are the philosophical / epistemological / logical grounds for hinge propositions being exempt from doubt? — Corvus

I guess you could doubt them, you just exit the language game when you do.

It’s “liberation day”. Trump’s tariff gamble begins and we’ll find out soon enough whether it pays off or sends the world into another depression. — NOS4A2

What's the metric for success exactly?

But Frank, who pays the costs and who gets the benefits?

Are they the same people? — Agree-to-Disagree

This touches on the philosophical conundrum I mentioned earlier. How do we plan for our children?

Some people plan for their welfare of their children and some don't.

I'm having an alright day. — BitconnectCarlos

Good. Me too.

Both Bitconnect and Tzeentch are having a permanently bad day.

Wow. That's clear enough.