• Xtrix
    3.7k


    After following this all day, your post was the first I heard it passed. :lol:

    I’m guessing it passes the house now. I’m shocked this happened at all. Shows the impact of people pushing for it.

    Or — this was Manchin’s plan all along: keep whittling it down over time, keep saying no, get everyone thinking it’s dead — then, when you let that linger, come back and give scraps and have everyone forget that they’re being fucked: that it’s nowhere close to the original $6 trillion, which was already too little. In the end we get 400 billion. A drop in the bucket.

    A nice psychological trick. Similar to the “low-balling” technique of haggling.

    I don’t know if this was all deliberate, but I’m suspicious. This isn’t a great bill. Still, I can’t help being glad they got something.
  • Benkei
    5.7k
    It's a feature. You're glad for nothing. Way too little too late. When are you going to shoot your politicians for genocide?
  • Xtrix
    3.7k
    You're glad for nothing. Way too little too late.Benkei

    Cutting emissions by 40% is better than 27%. That’s reason to be glad. Not nearly enough, but it’s a start.

    By no means am I advocating complacency because of this bill. But even this small step wouldn’t have happened without real work. Real work that really isn’t possible if one resigns oneself to defeatism.
  • Benkei
    5.7k
    I think people's trust in political processes, especially in the US (but also where I'm from), is entirely misplaced. Your optimism is their reason for not doing more because they've now done enough to stay seated.
  • jgill
    2.3k
    So, it's called the Inflation Reduction Act because it was cut down so much from the original bill that would have been the Inflation Enhancement Act?
  • Xtrix
    3.7k


    I really can’t see how anyone whose read anything I’ve written on here for three years can claim I have trust in the political system— or, for that matter, am an “optimist.”

    I believe in the power of real people doing real work, especially in solidarity. Which is why I’ve said, repeatedly, that the organizing should continue. I also don’t relegate possible actions exclusively to pressuring governments. I embrace a diversity of tactics.

    So I’m not sure what you’re driving at, but it’s at least misplaced.
  • ssu
    6k
    So, it's called the Inflation Reduction Act because it was cut down so much from the original bill that would have been the Inflation Enhancement Act?jgill
    :grin: Good one!
  • ssu
    6k
    I just wonder how more spending will reduce inflation.

    Oh well, must be like the new definition for a recession: when the old definition was two quarters of negative growth back-to-back and when it happened, you just define the term in a new way. Voters won't notice anything, I guess.

    Wikipedia has changed the definition of ‘recession’ and locked the page from further edits. These changes were made during the week that the White House proposed a re-definition of recession to mean something other than two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth.

    Until July 11, the world’s largest online encyclopedia included in its definition of a recession ‘two negative consecutive quarters of growth’ with users free to make alterations. But as of July 25 any mention of ‘two negative consecutive quarters of GDP growth’ was removed from this section. A Wikipedia administrator then froze the edit feature, blaming a ‘persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content,’ with a warning that the page may have been ‘affected by a current event’.

    They still do say that the old definition is a "common practical" definition though.

    Next I guess is to change the definition of inflation.
  • Tate
    865
    Wikipedia as propaganda. It's a testament to its success that people are trying to use it that way.

    And no, you can't fight inflation by injecting more money into the economy. That's also propaganda.
  • Mr Bee
    463


    According to Manchin, reducing the deficit is the "best way" to fight inflation. Why else do you think the bill has $300 billion in net deficit reduction instead of literally anything else?

    I mean, there are some aspects of the bill like the drug price negotiation stuff that would help reduce costs. Also the bill is tied to more oil and gas drilling so if you're one of those people who think a pipeline will slash gas prices then that may do something for you. There are some people who say that this will reduce pressure on the Fed in raising rates, but I'm not an economist.
  • Xtrix
    3.7k


    Yes, I guess it's a giant conspiracy. My advice: stop wasting time on stupidity.

    The bill probably won't do anything about inflation. It's a silly label created so that Joe Manchin can save face.

    Inflation isn't important and isn't a problem. What's important is doing something about climate change. This bill takes a few baby steps in that direction.
  • ssu
    6k
    According to Manchin, reducing the deficit is the "best way" to fight inflation. Why else do you think the bill has $300 billion in net deficit reduction instead of literally anything else?

    I mean, there are some aspects of the bill like the drug price negotiation stuff that would help reduce costs. Also the bill is tied to more oil and gas drilling so if you're one of those people who think a pipeline will slash gas prices then that may do something for you. There are some people who say that this will reduce pressure on the Fed in raising rates, but I'm not an economist.
    Mr Bee
    Well, lets see how much the net deficit will be reduced.

    deficit-trends-viz.svg

    Usually in recessions the deficits don't come down.
  • ssu
    6k
    Inflation isn't important and isn't a problem. What's important is doing something about climate change. This bill takes a few baby steps in that direction.Xtrix
    Well, if inflation would be calculated as it was in 1980, the US would be now experiencing 15% inflation. But that's not dangerous...only several years of this high inflation will be.

    And climate change? At least we are burning coal in record numbers, going off from nuclear power, so that obviously is the path we have decided to be on.

    (IEA, March 8th, 2022) Global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions rose by 6% in 2021 to 36.3 billion tonnes, their highest ever level, as the world economy rebounded strongly from the Covid-19 crisis and relied heavily on coal to power that growth, according to new IEA analysis released today.

    The increase in global CO2 emissions of over 2 billion tonnes was the largest in history in absolute terms, more than offsetting the previous year’s pandemic-induced decline, the IEA analysis shows. The recovery of energy demand in 2021 was compounded by adverse weather and energy market conditions – notably the spikes in natural gas prices – which led to more coal being burned despite renewable power generation registering its largest ever growth.

    So if you want to tackle climate change, then I guess hope for a severe economic depression. Especially in China as they are totally on a league of their own when it comes to the use of coal. China's share of coal use is half. The other half is the rest of the world. If I sound to gloomy, there is at least this nice statistic from the EU:

    900px-Coal_production_2022_-_new_infographic.jpg

    (Now the stats may be different as Germany has opted to use more coal and not nuclear energy.)
  • Xtrix
    3.7k


    Not too gloomy. It's going to be a very difficult path indeed.

    I didn't know Poland accounted for that much coal use. Guess that should be the focus.

    The EU is turning to coal temporarily, and that's bad in the short run. But it'll be better in the longer run, in my view. The war will likely push them to develop renewables even faster, if only to avoid dependence on Russia. But that's in the longer run. This regression is unfortunate in the meantime. But I cut them some slack for it given the circumstances.
  • Agent Smith
    6.2k
    I'm interested in bank interest rates and how they relate to inflation. What is the point of depositing x dollars in a bank with y% interest if the rate of inflation is such that the amount at the end of say 5 years the amount I deposited at the beginning of those 5 years. We're being fleeced, robbed in broad daylight, oui? :snicker:

    P.S. I'm poor! :grin:
  • jgill
    2.3k
    Inflation isn't important and isn't a problem.Xtrix

    Tell that to my fellow senior citizens on fixed incomes. :roll:
  • Xtrix
    3.7k
    Tell that to my fellow senior citizens on fixed incomes. :roll:jgill

    There should be assistance to senior citizens. My advice is for them to stop voting Republican. In any case, inflation is temporary. Climate change is existential.

    I suppose it's better that they're literally under water or burned in a wildfire?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.