Musk's American Party: A threat or a promise?

[Jerry N.]

As bad as the waste and mismanagement may be, the demographic problem is completely real and easily quantifiable as huge.

I’m sure you are correct, but I am a little bitter. 30 years ago, I started a retirement fund in a Dutch bank. I was told over and over again that it was my money (something like a 401k in America). They even encouraged people to add to their accounts if they had any disposable income. Then, when Tusk came to power the first time, he took all of the money and deposited in ZUS (think Polish social security) with the help of the EU. Did my final retirement income increase? No. I get nearly the same retirement I would have had if I never started the Dutch account. The money just vanished into the black hole of government waste. God has been good to me, and I really shouldn’t complain. However, I think that the problem with demographics, though real, is mostly a deflection.

 

[Jerry N.]

Yes, it sucks that your government has never adressed this issue.

German government is pretty much the same. They are just making politics for the old because that's their greatest voter block, and young people are left to foot the bill.

If it helps, just imagine that you're better of than those who are currently entering the workforce. Assuming humanity doesn't go belly up until then, they'll probably not retire until their mid seventies, and if they don't manage to set some money aside themselves, they'll have to continue to work until they die anyway.

I had an interesting discussion with a manager of a large research firm. He complained that the blue-collar workers were taking their retirement as soon as they could (65). He couldn’t understand that people who do physical work all day usually just can’t work until they are 70. Most fight and pray that they don’t get fired before their retirement, because they can’t keep up with the younger workers in the same trade. I’m not saying the white-collar workers don’t get burned out, but you can’t hide the fact that your body is falling apart.

 

[durangodawood]

I’m sure you are correct, but I am a little bitter. 30 years ago, I started a retirement fund in a Dutch bank. I was told over and over again that it was my money (something like a 401k in America). They even encouraged people to add to their accounts if they had any disposable income. Then, when Tusk came to power the first time, he took all of the money and deposited in ZUS (think Polish social security) with the help of the EU. Did my final retirement income increase? No. I get nearly the same retirement I would have had if I never started the Dutch account. The money just vanished into the black hole of government waste. God has been good to me, and I really shouldn’t complain. However, I think that the problem with demographics, though real, is mostly a deflection.

Particular retirement schemes have their own management issues. But overall the demographic shift will be a huge problem to overcome for every aspect of an economy. US type retirement schemes are just tip of the iceberg. Overall per capita productivity in an economy will decline as the percentage of retirees grows.

 

[Hans Blaster]

But there's a cap on that as well...

And the source of where the workers are from isn't really relevant to the "safety net/climate" tradeoff I mentioned.

It's literally why your tradeoff is irrelevant. Immigration of working age adults is how the US has been "dodging" this problem for decades.

If our social programs are based on the formula of
"We need 4 people working for every 1 retiree" (I don't know if that's the actual number, that's just an example)

...then the impacts on climate will still ultimately be the same.

If we have 20 retirees, and 40 people needed to work and pay taxes to support that.

In a few decades, we'll need 160 people to support those 40 people.

What? The issue is about the age distribution "pyramid", not some exponetial growth bomb.

Globally, requiring more people still has the same climate impact.

They don't actually. People in poorer countries have *far* less climate imact than in wealthy countries. (And when did this thread become about climate impacts? Oh, yes, when you tried to make it so.)

The only ways to address it are
1) Increase the retirement age (which the nordic countries have already started doing, and like Japan is already considering)
2) Hope that there's major developments and uptakes in new technologies that allow for massive footprint reductions per person in the next few decades.

What about we ban some pointless energy wasting, effort wasting technologies like AI and crypto?

 

[durangodawood]

.....(And when did this thread become about climate impacts? Oh, yes, when you tried to make it so.)

Dont you know by now..... Rob love this chess fork maneuver by which he attempts to place two cherished lefty positions in tension with each other.

 

[durangodawood]

Some are available...

However, just like with anything else, there are countervailing economic interests as well.

For instance, we're all aware of the fossil fuel one, but phasing that one out globally would be tough.

It's going to be a very hard to get developing countries to give up fossil fuels, on account of many of them just getting their hands on that technology recently.

"Hey, we realize that the rest of us have built massive wealthy societies of this technology, and you just got access to it 20 years ago...gee whiz, bad timing, we decided it's bad now (after we've already leveraged it for a century) so you're going to have to scrap it" is going to be a very tough sell for obvious reasons.

As would the factory farming of animals.

Point of reference, global livestock consumption would have to be reduced by 70% globally for it to cut emissions by 20%.

The trade-off on that? The livestock sector (globally) employs over a billion people.



For the techniques that are already available, I feel like if those were palatable to large swaths of the population, they'd already be doing those things, that's why I mentioned newer technologies.

An example of what I'm talking about.

They've tried the imitation meat route, the uptake hasn't been substantial enough -- while some of them are technically edible (and some people pretend it tastes the same -- it doesn't), they need to ramp up their efforts on the lab grown meat technology. (which is still real meat and will taste identical, but without the ecologically destructive process for procuring it)

Eating less meat is a technology thats been around for ages. And if a billion people are working in livestock, thats some low productivity economics right there. Slow down the factory farming and your wandering shepherd who knows each sheep by name could do a little better.

One example I had in mind was nuclear - on the energy production side. Nuclear is a perfect opportunity for you to apply your chess fork tactic! We know how split "the left" is on this issue. Think of this as a gift.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

They don't actually. People in poorer countries have *far* less climate imact than in wealthy countries. (And when did this thread become about climate impacts? Oh, yes, when you tried to make it so.)

They will if we go with the plan of importing them to other countries to assist with paying into safety nets.

It's not as if they'll move to UK/US/Japan, and keep living the minimalist life they were living in their old country.


And the reason why the climate thing came up is because Musk's "we need to make more babies" thing was brought up.


What I laid out there for the pros and cons is by no means a controversial viewpoint.

Modern economies rely on a large, working-age population to pay taxes and support a smaller group of retirees and dependents.

Pension systems, labor markets, and economic growth models built on perpetual demographic expansion.

That expansion, however, means more consumption of food & energy, and thereby, emissions.

Dont you know by now..... Rob love this chess fork maneuver by which he attempts to place two cherished lefty positions in tension with each other.

I didn't place them in tension with each other, they were already in tension with each other. Is there anything I've said about the nature of how our pension systems work, or the climate impacts of making more people, that's incorrect?


There's no other way to reconcile it, you'd have to decouple prosperity and economic growth from population growth (on a large scale), that's going to involve embracing some new technologies that people are a bit stand-offish about.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Eating less meat is a technology thats been around for ages. And if a billion people are working in livestock, thats some low productivity economics right there. Slow down the factory farming and your wandering shepherd who knows each sheep by name could do a little better.

One example I had in mind was nuclear - on the energy production side. Nuclear is a perfect opportunity for you to apply your chess fork tactic! We know how split "the left" is on this issue. Think of this as a gift.

I look at it different...the right focus on the lab grown meat efforts could succeed where "Impossible Burgers" failed.

The problem with the eating less meat approach is that meat is delicious lol.
(thereby making it easier said than done for the majority of people)

So rather than trying to focus on "eat less meat", It'd be more beneficial to figure out "how we can eat the same amount, without requiring the things we do today to get it".



Good luck with nuclear advocacy. I've been sounding that horn for a while (mentioning how it's far superior to fossil fuels, and already developed and ready to go at large scales in ways that the renewables aren't yet), and the pushback I usually get is stuff about Chernobyl and Fukushima.

 

[durangodawood]

I look at it different...the right focus on the lab grown meat efforts could succeed where "Impossible Burgers" failed.

The problem with the eating less meat approach is that meat is delicious lol.
(thereby making it easier said than done for the majority of people)

So rather than trying to focus on "eat less meat", It'd be more beneficial to figure out "how we can eat the same amount, without requiring the things we do today to get it".

Meat is delicious. But the sheer amount people consume is ridiculous. At least in my home country. Its kind of a bummer too that most people dont know what really good meat tastes like. If they did they could think of it more like a primary seasoning rather than a bulk filler.

Good luck with nuclear advocacy. I've been sounding that horn for a while (mentioning how it's far superior to fossil fuels, and already developed and ready to go at large scales in ways that the renewables aren't yet), and the pushback I usually get is stuff about Chernobyl and Fukushima.

The Chernobyl and Fukushima pushback you get is real in terms of perception. And perception, not technology - as you note, is the biggest obstacle.

 

[Desk trauma]

Good luck with nuclear advocacy. I've been sounding that horn for a while (mentioning how it's far superior to fossil fuels, and already developed and ready to go at large scales in ways that the renewables aren't yet), and the pushback I usually get is stuff about Chernobyl and Fukushima.

The fear of nuclear that is out in the public is not the fear that is stopping new nuclear capacity from being built. The fear that's stopping it is the fear of financial ruin for the companies involved in trying to build it. The total failure of the VC Summer project and the Votle project coming in a decade late and billions over budget are the end of nuclear power in the US for a generation or more. US companies just cannot build nuclear reactors effectively.

 

[Hans Blaster]

They will if we go with the plan of importing them to other countries to assist with paying into safety nets.

It's not as if they'll move to UK/US/Japan, and keep living the minimalist life they were living in their old country.


And the reason why the climate thing came up is because Musk's "we need to make more babies" thing was brought up.


What I laid out there for the pros and cons is by no means a controversial viewpoint.

Modern economies rely on a large, working-age population to pay taxes and support a smaller group of retirees and dependents.

Pension systems, labor markets, and economic growth models built on perpetual demographic expansion.

That expansion, however, means more consumption of food & energy, and thereby, emissions.

The solution to this problem is improved energy efficiency and increased renewable energy sources. Something we were trending strongly to do, but the centrist temporizers helped get the maniac with the donors threatened by that notion and the base radicalized to think of "green energy" as the "work of the devil" such that our progress may have just been destroyed.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The solution to this problem is improved energy efficiency and increased renewable energy sources. Something we were trending strongly to do, but the centrist temporizers helped get the maniac with the donors threatened by that notion and the base radicalized to think of "green energy" as the "work of the devil" such that our progress may have just been destroyed.

I don't think that's the whole story.

Interestingly enough...the last 4 people I know of who got solar put on their homes were conservatives (2 of which don't even believe in climate change)

Perhaps it's not the green energy itself that people necessarily object to, but rather, some of the other extraneous things that often seem to go hand-in-hand with green energy advocacy?

Per Pew Research:
As of 2024, 70% of Republicans favored more solar power, and 60% favored more wind power. That's a far cry from "anti-Renewables"

I'll see if I can find the Politico piece again, but it did a good job of delving into the subject.

It found that something like 70% of all climate legislation (both state and federal) have extraneous aspects of "justice" and "equity" injected in.

This isn't the Politico piece directly, but I believe this was one of the write-ups they reference in the article (if memory serves)

US cities increasingly integrate justice into climate planning and create policy tools for climate justice - Nature Communications

Climate justice is rising: large cities in the U.S. are increasingly integrating justice into their climate mitigation plans and pioneer cities are developing tools to operationalize just climate policies on the ground.

www.nature.com

I'll be blunt, if climate change is a serious issue (which, for the record, I do believe it is), then it should deserve to be presented and addressed in a stand-alone matter. The terms "Racial Equity" and "LGBTQ Justice" shouldn't show up anywhere in a climate proposal/bill or any NGO's "Climate action plan" if they want the broader majority of conservatives to be receptive to it or take it seriously.

When the concepts get lumped together, it's tantamount to a "poison pill"

They're not going to vote for that, for the same reason progressives would be hesitant to vote for a minimum wage increase proposal if it was peppered with a bunch of pro-life and pro-gun initiatives mixed in with it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I don't think that's the whole story.

Who said it was.

Interestingly enough...the last 4 people I know of who got solar put on their homes were conservatives (2 of which don't even believe in climate change)

O great -- anecdata.

Perhaps it's not the green energy itself that people necessarily object to, but rather, some of the other extraneous things that often seem to go hand-in-hand with green energy advocacy?

what now?

Per Pew Research:
As of 2024, 70% of Republicans favored more solar power, and 60% favored more wind power. That's a far cry from "anti-Renewables"

I'll see if I can find the Politico piece again, but it did a good job of delving into the subject.

It found that something like 70% of all climate legislation (both state and federal) have extraneous aspects of "justice" and "equity" injected in.

Oh. What'cha got against "justice" and how is it "extraneous"? Do you think we should put wind turbines in poor neighborhoods because the rich people don't want to see them from their coastal vacation homes? Maybe the poor shouldn't bear the brunt of fixing the problems caused by the private jet and Hummer crowd.

This isn't the Politico piece directly, but I believe this was one of the write-ups they reference in the article (if memory serves)

US cities increasingly integrate justice into climate planning and create policy tools for climate justice - Nature Communications

Climate justice is rising: large cities in the U.S. are increasingly integrating justice into their climate mitigation plans and pioneer cities are developing tools to operationalize just climate policies on the ground.

www.nature.com

I'll be blunt, if climate change is a serious issue (which, for the record, I do believe it is), then it should deserve to be presented and addressed in a stand-alone matter.

It is and it has been for more than 30 years, going back to when I studied it in college at least.

The terms "Racial Equity" and "LGBTQ Justice" shouldn't show up anywhere in a climate proposal/bill or any NGO's "Climate action plan" if they want the broader majority of conservatives to be receptive to it or take it seriously.

When the concepts get lumped together, it's tantamount to a "poison pill"

Only if you think those groups should spit upon. (again)

They're not going to vote for that, for the same reason progressives would be hesitant to vote for a minimum wage increase proposal if it was peppered with a bunch of pro-life and pro-gun initiatives mixed in with it.

We can discuss that when the [CW: irony meter damage possible, turn down the gain on your meter before reading further] pro-life pro-gun politicians propose a minimum wage bill and attaches an anti-abortion/anti-gun control measure to it. Until then I am uninterested in such flights of fancy.

 

[RileyG]

What happened?

You guys trusted him with DOGE just a few weeks ago, didn't you? What changed?

Who are “you guys?”

Like I said, I’m a moderate conservative. Repeatedly.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Who are “you guys?”

Like I said, I’m a moderate conservative. Repeatedly.

You.

Weren’t (aren’t) you a big fan of what Musk was doing with DOGE? You had to have trusted him then. Now you say you don’t?

What changed?

 

[RileyG]

You.

Weren’t (aren’t) you a big fan of what DOGE was doing?

No. I totally wasn’t. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

No. I totally wasn’t. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else?

My apologies then. I thought you were a supporter of the cuts they were doing to federal programs and departments.

 

[RileyG]

My apologies then. I thought you were a supporter of the cuts they were doing to federal programs and departments.

It’s all good!

Truthfully, I’ve never like Musk to begin with and have serious issues with Trump, but that’s a different can of worms.

Take care

 

[ThatRobGuy]

O great -- anecdata.

It's not just anecdotal.

Surprising new survey reveals policy Democrats and Republicans agree on — here's what nearly 9 in 10 homeowners said

A survey has shown that there is support for solar energy on both sides of the political divide.

www.thecooldown.com

Why Both Democrats and Republicans Are Choosing Solar Panels—And It’s Not Just About Climate Change - This Week in Science

Discover surprising insights into why Democrats and Republicans alike choose solar panels—and how money, not politics, drives the decision.

thisweekinsciencenews.com

Red voters for green energy? Conservatives say they support solar and wind power too

Conventional wisdom suggests it's liberals who most want renewable energy. But polling shows conservatives like it too, and some are taking action.

www.usatoday.com

It highlights how if you just present it in common sense terms and present it terms of the non-nonsense financial benefits, many republicans are quite receptive.

Oh. What'cha got against "justice" and how is it "extraneous"?

Only if you think those groups should spit upon. (again)

By the strict semantic definition of those words, I have no issue with "Justice".

But the reason those terms are politically toxic is because those terms/expressions have become "coded language" for other things. (and other times, it's not quite so coded)

If a staunch republican (let's say, a Ted Cruz for instance, someone with a track record on certain issues)

His co-sponsored bill that he did pertaining to streamlining the review process for domestic semi-conductor plants (one of the rare times when a Cruz bill had broad democratic support)

Had that included language like
"And making sure the new plant owners have the right to exercise their religious freedoms so they can run their business as they see fit"

Would democrats have trusted the bill? (knowing what we know GOP senators often actually mean when they say "religious freedom")



As far as times when it's not so coded, when green initiatives tack on provisions and mandates (Like the Justice40 initiative and others like it) like "in order to promote equity and justice, we're going to prioritize grants and funding minority-owned renewable energy companies" or "prioritize projects and businesses in Black neighborhoods"

How do you suppose that comes across to Appalachia?

"Hey, not only do we want to put the sector you work in out of business because we feel it's obsolete, for the sector we plan on promoting to replace it, we want to make sure that 40% of all economic benefits of these replacement jobs go to groups that you're not a member of"

 

[Hans Blaster]

It's not just anecdotal.

Surprising new survey reveals policy Democrats and Republicans agree on — here's what nearly 9 in 10 homeowners said

A survey has shown that there is support for solar energy on both sides of the political divide.

www.thecooldown.com

Why Both Democrats and Republicans Are Choosing Solar Panels—And It’s Not Just About Climate Change - This Week in Science

Discover surprising insights into why Democrats and Republicans alike choose solar panels—and how money, not politics, drives the decision.

thisweekinsciencenews.com

Red voters for green energy? Conservatives say they support solar and wind power too

Conventional wisdom suggests it's liberals who most want renewable energy. But polling shows conservatives like it too, and some are taking action.

www.usatoday.com

It highlights how if you just present it in common sense terms and present it terms of the non-nonsense financial benefits, many republicans are quite receptive.

I thought we were talking about the "word sensitives" again, you know the types who get their knickers in a twist because someone used a particular word that triggers them. To know what they'd think, the surveyors would have to include a few trigger words and see what happens...

By the strict semantic definition of those words, I have no issue with "Justice".

But the reason those terms because political toxic is because those terms/expressions have become "coded language" for other things. (and other times, it's not quite so coded)

I swear the people you are bringing up are worse than anyone concerned about the use of non-PC words back in the day .(the early 90s, remember those days in college?)

If a staunch republican (let's say, a Ted Cruz for instance, someone with a track record on certain issues)

The last thing Podcaster Ted had come up for a vote in the Senate was his state AI legislation moratorium and that went down 99-Ted. I'm not predicting likeability coming from anything proposed by Tedward. Let's see how that goes...

His co-sponsored bill that he did pertaining to streamlining the review process for domestic semi-conductor plants (one of the rare times when a Cruz bill had broad democratic support)

Had that included language like
"And making sure the new plant owners have the right to exercise their religious freedoms so they can run their business as they see fit"

Would democrats have trusted the bill? (knowing what we know GOP senators often actually mean when they say "religious freedom")

Oh, were making up bills again now with contrived clauses to defend the religious rights of factories to not make woke semiconductors. (Note spelling) You're going to have to prove to me that factories can accept Jesus as their savior first.

As far as times when it's not so coded, when green initiatives tack on provisions and mandates (Like the Justice40 initiative and others like it) like "in order to promote equity and justice, we're going to prioritize grants and funding minority-owned renewable energy companies" or "prioritize projects and businesses in Black neighborhoods"

I forget, why is this a problem?

How do you suppose that comes across to Appalachia?

Ever live there?

"Hey, not only do we want to put the sector you work in out of business because we feel it's obsolete, for the sector we plan on promoting to replace it, we want to make sure that 40% of all economic benefits of these replacement jobs go to groups that you're not a member of"

I see, everyone in Appalachia works in coal or coal related industries and is definitely not Black. I'm beginning to thing you'e never even been there.