Okay, what can we realistically expect from a Trump presidency?

[Main_Brain]

Yes I'm calling it now, he will be referred to by republicans in a row with Reagan and Nixon (Aroo)

[rah]

Why would I bother? Since you're not douches, there's no point to doing anything about them.

I guess that's about as much of as admission as we're going to get.

[Ellestar]

Curious comment. You are aware that this was the position of Ebeneezer Scrooge? "Reduce the surplus population?" People are not just 'useless mouths'. Far from it. You won't eliminate poverty by eliminating the poor.

Well, setting aside that eliminating the population is not possible, it's not the poor who are the problem. If someone lives in a shack and fends for himself, he doesn't consume significant amount of non-renewable resources like oil, for example.

So a logical solution is to reduce excess consumption of the richest, not to eliminate the poorest. Namely, USA consumes disproportionate amount of resouces per capita, and it can consume several times less while still keeping relatively modest 21th century standards of living.

Then again, entire capitalist economy is based on permanently increasing consumption so it can be argued that capitalism itself is the biggest problem here. As long as capitalist economy is in place, it will consume ever-increasing amount of unsustainable resources until inevitable collapse.

And the collapse itself is inevitable because there is no real plan how to reach next tecnological advance that will allow us to use other resources in place of the lost ones, there is no transition plan. And when we'll spend all relatively easy to reach resources like oil, it will be harder and harder to do further scientific research so to be able to use some other resources instead. And after a collapse, it will be even harder (if at all possible) to do scientific research.

So yeah, there is a good chance that we're a last non-stone age civilization on Earth.

[kentonio]

I'm amused that you're arguing with me over something that you didn't witness. You're welcome to believe what you want, but I've told you the plain truth, how it went down and how it went about.

Funny how your 'plain truth' has completely changed between the last retelling and this one.

Speak for yourself, ming.

Nah, he's speaking for many of the rest of us too. You are simply incapable of telling the truth.

[Proteus_MST]

O.K., time to biurst your bubble.
There won't be a president Trump.
The queen, upon your election of Trump as president has decided to revoke your american independence ...
here are the terms of your return to the british commonwealth, laid out by the right honorable John Cleese:

http://cogink.com/cleese/

[Aeson]

Trump's furniture is more gaudy than the Queen's ...

[KrazyHorse]

O.K., time to biurst your bubble.
There won't be a president Trump.
The queen, upon your election of Trump as president has decided to revoke your american independence ...
here are the terms of your return to the british commonwealth, laid out by the right honorable John Cleese:

http://cogink.com/cleese/

Funnier the first time I saw this in 2000.

[Ben Kenobi]

So a logical solution is to reduce excess consumption of the richest, not to eliminate the poorest. Namely, USA consumes disproportionate amount of resouces per capita, and it can consume several times less while still keeping relatively modest 21th century standards of living.

You're assuming that economics is a zero-sum game.

Consumption by the rich is an effective driver of economic prosperity. Rather than banning the wealthy, we see that benefits once formerly reserved for them have became commonplace. Consumer electronics is an effective example.

As long as capitalist economy is in place, it will consume ever-increasing amount of unsustainable resources until inevitable collapse.

Actually, a wealthy society can afford to take measures to preserve the environment. A poor society cannot.

And the collapse itself is inevitable because there is no real plan how to reach next tecnological advance that will allow us to use other resources in place of the lost ones, there is no transition plan. And when we'll spend all relatively easy to reach resources like oil, it will be harder and harder to do further scientific research so to be able to use some other resources instead. And after a collapse, it will be even harder (if at all possible) to do scientific research.

We've seen the collapse - of the former soviet union, of Venezuela, etc. Why would we want to emulate their failures.

[Aeson]

The world, and arguably the US, would be better off in the long term if we as anation reduced our consumption and directed our wealth/power towards other ends.

Ending poverty and helping to promote environmentally sustainable development would probably be the single best thing we could do for our safety and economic future.

[Ben Kenobi]

would be better off in the long term if we as anation reduced our consumption and directed our wealth/power towards other ends.

Sure. Thrift is a virtue - but to what end? The planet will not be saved with fewer people.

Ending poverty and helping to promote environmentally sustainable development would probably be the single best thing we could do for our safety and economic future.

Actually, the single best thing we could do would be to develop fusion power.

[kentonio]

Sure. Thrift is a virtue - but to what end? The planet will not be saved with fewer people.

The planet doesn't need to be saved, humans need to develop a long term strategy that doesn't result in the planet not being a fit place to live for 99% of us.

Actually, the single best thing we could do would be to develop fusion power.

While near-limitless clean power would indeed be super, the issues of vast wealth inequality, endlessly expanding human population and limited material resources are not going to go away. The capitalist model of endless growth and consumption is not sustainable, and a 2 year old child can understand why. If I have a hundred apples, and the first day I eat one, and then the next day I eat two, and then three and so on, there is going to come a day not that far away where I don't have any ****ing apples.

[Aeson]

Sure. Thrift is a virtue - but to what end? The planet will not be saved with fewer people.

I didn't say anything about fewer people.

The end is to help create a better, safer world and to give our children and grandchildren a sustainable world economy so they can also thrive and prosper.

The way we're going now, our children are going to live in very "interesting times".

Actually, the single best thing we could do would be to develop fusion power.

I said "can" do ... as in present tense ... as in something we can do already. We don't need any new technology to end poverty or to help promote sustainable development. We have all the tools. We only need the will.

Also fusion power doesn't really make us safer. If we were actually the force for prosperity and freedom we like to pretend we are, we would have a lot fewer enemies. We also don't really know if fusion power is going to be the panacea it is billed as, or in what time-frame. At one time fission was hailed as our savoir and it never really worked out that way.

[Ellestar]

Consumption by the rich is an effective driver of economic prosperity. Rather than banning the wealthy, we see that benefits once formerly reserved for them have became commonplace. Consumer electronics is an effective example.

USA consumes 61 bbl/day per 1000 people, Russia consumes 15. And frankly, i think we in Russia live good enough.

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=91000

And no, being wealthy is not a problem. Consuming more than nessessary just because you're wealthy and you can do it is a problem. Say, Germany is also wealthy, but it consumes only 30 bbl/day per 1000 people.

Actually, a wealthy society can afford to take measures to preserve the environment. A poor society cannot.

The only way to "preserve" oil is to consume less oil. If a wealthiness of a capitalistic society is measured by it's consumption, it can't preserve oil - it's only goal is to consume more of it, not less.

We've seen the collapse - of the former soviet union, of Venezuela, etc. Why would we want to emulate their failures.

That's kinda unrelated, no?

And finally.

You're assuming that economics is a zero-sum game.

Yup. You're a strategy games player, you should understand abstract things. Basically, what humans do is that they turn resources into waste. The wealthier the society is, the faster they turn resources into waste. Some resources have a limited supply. So, we have an abstract problem here.

In this abstract problem, the only real output of a society that makes a difference is scientific research because it can allow us to use other (finite or infinite) resources instead of finite resources before finite resouces will end. It doesn't matter how much waste a society generates (how "wealthy" it is). The only important question, can we get to some scientific goals that will let our economy work for a while longer, or we don't.

So, in this case it doesn't matter if there is one poor african or two poor africans - they practically don't consume finite resources anyway. But it does matter that one average USA citizen consumes twice as much oil as average German citizen, who also lives in a rich country.

And yes, given that noone really thinks like that, our civilization will most likely collapse. And there will be no high-tech civilization after us - there will be no accessible resources for it.

You're assuming that economics is a zero-sum game.

And back to this one. After all i said above, it's obvious that it's not even about economics.

Finite resources are "zero-sum game". Becase they're, you know, finite. You can spend them for bigger wealth, for smaller poverty, or for scientific research. As i understand, you advocate spending it on wealth, Aeson argues to use it to reduce poverty, and i say that the only thing that matters is a scientific research - of course, if we want our grandchildren to enjoy benefits of a civilization.

[KrazyHorse]

Back on topic it looks like we're in for less populism and more supply-side moment conservatism than the campaign. Add in less social conservatism and a cutoff of the white resentment and it might not be a bad four years (or 8?)

[Proteus_MST]

All too often I don't agree with Ellestar.

This, however, is clearly one of those times when I do