Presidential Election: 11/3/20 ---Now the President Elect Joe Biden Thread

[CousinsCowgirl84]

42 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

The universe is infinite, but only in terms of space.  Empty space and without mass or energy is worthless.

 

I'm thinking very big picture, but even within our scope things are realistically finite. 

 

Even if you consider only the Earth and the energy we get from the sun, there is a finite amount of mass and energy.  And then you even get into what we can access.  Energy is finite.  If energy were infinite, then the supply of energy would be infinite and something with infinite supply would have zero cost.  Same for mater.  Even things with very large, but not infinite, supplies have essentially 0 costs (I don't pay for air.).

 

There is just no way you can look at the price we pay for energy (electricity, gas, etc) and claim it isn't finite.  And if energy is finite, then wealth must be finite.  Everybody can't have an infinite amount of money if I can't even generate an infinite amount of money because energy is finite.

 

In terms of energy being a constraint on wealth creation in this life time, it is infinite.   

 

42 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

The definition of infinite is not correct.  Just because we can't calculate a value doesn't make it infinite (if it did, then infinity would have changed over time).  You don't get to argue that the number of ideas is infinite by redefining infinite. 

 

Your argument is that it is finite, but it is so large we cannot measure it. Resources in the ground aren’t wealth.  Your argument is word salad.

 

42 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

 

Your initial point didn't state manufacturing jobs.  It was just manufacturing.

 

surely, it did. We were talking about low wage earners. You can’t talk about them without talking about jobs.

 

42 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

I also can't help notice that your graphs start in the late 1980s.  Why didn't you go back further?

 

It doesn’t make a difference. You are talking about a few percentage points of a percentage. The large changes started in the late 70s and 80s...

 

42 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

 

I'll also point out, you've ignored the more relevant part of the discussion about minimum wage.  So I'll repeat.  Something about inflation (as measured by CPI) has changed.  It is not responding to interest rates or employment like it used to.

 

 Wages haven’t went up. Technology has increased productivity.

 

 

[Bozo the kKklown]

14 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

If you want to know why i find it interesting, you are going to have to read it. 

 

If it matters to you, it was written by a black guy.  

 

I read, it’s nothing new. Again, I’m black. 

 

It’s hard to quantify racism.

 

11 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

Little help for you there.

 

And PleaseBlitz seems to be covering it well so I'll bow out.

 

I ain’t need help. (See I’m doing all of this intentionally)

 

You halfway read articles and can’t be bothered to google questions you ask.

 

Bye, friend.

[PleaseBlitz]

1 minute ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

I read, it’s nothing new. Again, I’m black. 

 

It’s hard to quantify racism.

 

Fair enough.  Mostly I'm trying to change the subject back to the election and away from the philosophical definition of "infinite."  

[PeterMP]

22 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

In terms of energy being a constraint on wealth creation in this life time, it is infinite.   

 

 

Your argument is that it is finite, but it is so large we cannot measure it. Resources in the ground aren’t wealth.  Your argument is word salad.

 

 

surely, it did. We were talking about low wage earners. You can’t talk about them without talking about jobs.

 

 

It doesn’t make a difference. You are talking about a few percentage points of a percentage. The large changes started in the late 70s and 80s...

 

 

 Wages haven’t went up. Technology has increased productivity.

 

 

1.  Again, it isn't.  If energy was infinite in any practical situation, its costs would be close to 0.  Which isn't true.  For practical purposes, (on the surface of the Earth unpressuarized) air is infinite.  Its cost is 0.

 

Energy is an extreme limiting factor on wealth accumulation.  Part of the reason I don't accumulate more wealth because I have to pay for energy.   If energy was nearly infinite and I didn't have to pay for it (like I don't with air), I would have accumulated a lot more wealth in my life time (because I could have saved all of the money I've spent on energy instead of spending it on energy).

 

If you are thinking about starting a business, you better think about where your energy is going to come from and how you are going to pay for it.  Energy costs are absolutely a limiting factor in terms of the opening and expansion of business.  And that's because energy is finite.  It is finite in the universe and it is finite in terms of what we can access on this Earth.

 

2.  Okay, but people also don't create energy.  Energy is extracted (in the context of oil from the ground) from the environment. 

 

3.  Okay, but you aren't talking about jobs.  You are talking about a specific sub-set of jobs.  Unemployment is low currently (below what economists thought could be achieved).  And you aren't talking about the importance of those jobs to our economy because they've been falling (in terms of %GDP and %of people) for a long time.

 

4.  Large changes in what?  What large changes?

 

5.  So?    Productivity went up through the 1950s and 60s too.

 

 

And it wasn't because people started working harder or more.  It was because of technology (machines).

 

Why is today different?

 

Why aren't wages going up? 

 

(Maybe wages aren't going up because the minimum wage hasn't kept up inflation and stagnation for low wage workers has created stagnation further wage scale too.  Maybe the key to increasing wages for most people is to increase the minimum wage.)

[TheGreatBuzz]

8 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

I ain’t need help. (See I’m doing all of this intentionally)

 

Doing what intentionally?  Using poor grammar?  For what purpose?

 

9 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

You halfway read articles and can’t be bothered to google questions you ask.

 

What questions?  I have no clue WTF you're talking about.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

8 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

1.  Again, it isn't.  If energy was infinite in any practical situation, its costs would be 0.  Which isn't true.  For practical purposes, (on the surface of the Earth unpressuarized) air is infinite.  Its cost is 0.

 

energy is infinite. You are conflating the cost to deliver it with how much is available. Delivering it is where the wealth creation is.

 

Air isnt free in a submarine.

 

 

Quote

 

4.  Large changes in what?  What large changes?

 

manufacturing jobs.... 

 

Quote

 

5.  So?    Productivity went up through the 1950s and 60s too.

 

And it wasn't because people started working harder or more.  It was because of technology (machines).

 

Why is today different?

 

Wages haven’t went up. Why are you interested in inflation for anyway again?

 

[Bozo the kKklown]

9 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Fair enough.  Mostly I'm trying to change the subject back to the election and away from the philosophical definition of "infinite."  

I feel you. I wasn’t snapping at you in my earlier replies, I just felt it was obvious that’s what Trump was doing.

 

2 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Doing what intentionally?  Using poor grammar?  For what purpose?

Because I can. It’s a message board, not an article I have to write.

 

 

And dont worry, the next time I see you do it, I will point it out 

 

 

 

[PeterMP]

59 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

energy is infinite. You are conflating the cost to deliver it with how much is available. Delivering it is where the wealth creation is.

 

Air isnt free in a submarine.

 

 

 

manufacturing jobs.... 

 

 

Wages haven’t went up. Why are you interested in inflation for anyway again?

 

 

Energy is not infinite.  Stating otherwise is false.  And no, I'm not.  I can build a factory right next door to a nuclear power plant, and I'm not going to get energy for nearly nothing (though the transportation costs would essentially be 0).  And much of the costs of energy transportation is actually energy.  For things like oil and gas, it takes energy to transport them.  So we get back to if energy were essentially infinite, then somebody would be able to accumulate a lot more wealth.  It takes energy to access and transport energy.  And there is a limited amount of energy available and so there are significant costs associated with it.

 

(Prices are not dictated by costs.  The transportation costs of something do not impact the prices.  Prices are dictated by supply and demand.  The fact that energy has costs indicates that supply is well below demand.  Our demand for energy is not approaching infinity.  The fact that energy costs are not nearly 0 anywhere on Earth indicates that supply is not nearly infinite anywhere on Earth.  There's no where I can on Earth and pay essentially nothing for energy.  And that's true for the universe too.)

 

I specifically said on the surface of the Earth.  Air in a submarine is not close to being infinite.

 

Well, you are going to have to define what you mean by large changes.

 

Why haven't wages gone up?  You seemed to before have suggested it is because productivity went up because of technology, but that's been true for decades.

 

I am talking about inflation because you claimed increases in the minimum wage were useless because inflation increased.

 

(though, if you don't even remember what you were claiming, I'm not going to bother to re-explain it to you other than to say you were likely wrong.)

[TheGreatBuzz]

4 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

And dont worry, the next time I see you do it, I will point it out 

 

Please do.  Working in public affairs, I try always write things in the proper manner.  And being corrected when I'm wrong just makes me better.

[Riggo-toni]

I must be in the wrong thread...can someone please point me to the 2020 election thread?

[The Evil Genius]

The last two days of this thread  reminds me of this.

 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

44 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Energy is not infinite.  Stating otherwise is false.  And no, I'm not.  I can build a factory right next door to a nuclear power plant, and I'm not going to get energy for nearly nothing.  And much of the costs of energy transportation is actually energy. 

 

Hi. Building a nuclear power plant is a “delivery fee” associated with delivering the energy in a usable form. The nuclear power plant is created wealth.

 

 

 

Quote

 

I specifically said on the surface of the Earth.  Air in a submarine is not close to being infinite.

 

Ok?  I would argue that air is way less infinite than energy is. Even on the surface of the earth...

 

 

Quote

 

Why haven't wages gone up?  You seemed to before have suggested it is because productivity went up because of technology, but that's been true for decades.

 

Dunno exactly, but as you know, unemployment is only part of the picture....

 

 

labor participation rate is down as well. And there is increased competition amounts the labor force, so maybe the labor market isn’t as strong as the unemployment rate would lead you to believe.

 

 

Quote

I am talking about inflation because you claimed increases in the minimum wage were useless because inflation increased.

 

Ok. We started talking about physics and whether or not the universe exists and I got side tracked. That is what the data shows. Magically, when wages aren’t increasing, inflation isn’t increasing. Of course there can be many factors, but input cost is certainly one. 

 

[PeterMP]

2 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

Hi. Building a nuclear power plant is a “delivery fee” associated with delivering the energy in a usable form. The nuclear power plant is created wealth.

 

 

Ok?  I would argue that air is way less infinite than energy is. Even on the surface of the earth...

 

Dunno exactly, but as you know, unemployment is only part of the picture...

 

labor participation rate is down as well. And there is increased competition amounts the labor force, so maybe the labor market isn’t as strong as the unemployment rate would lead you to believe.

 

 

 

Ok. We started talking about physics and whether or not the universe exists and I got side tracked. That is what the data shows. Magically, when wages aren’t increasing, inflation isn’t increasing. Of course there can be many factors, but input cost is certainly one. 

 

 

Let me try this another way.  Everybody can't be wealthy.  Everybody can't live like Jeff Bezos.  We don't access enough energy efficiently enough for everybody have Jeff Bezos' life style.  It isn't physically possible.

 

If wealth were infinite, then it should be possible for everybody to be wealthy.  If wealth is created, then we should be able to create enough wealth for everybody to be wealthy and live like Jeff Bezos.  But that's not the case.  Therefore, wealth must not be infinite and wealth must not be created.  What is the limitation on wealth?  mostly natural resources and access to them.  Therefore wealth is not infinite.  It is not created.  It is accessed or extracted.

 

That isn't what the data show.  That's what some (decades) of the data show.  And those decades are different than the current time (with low inflation and low unemployment).

 

Does the labor participation rate matter?  If somebody isn't looking for a job, then they aren't affecting wages?

 

(and even the U-6 is close to historical lows.

 

And there are good reasons to think that there are really fewer people that want to work that would cause a decline in the labor participation rate (the aging of the baby boomers and more people going to school longer.)

 

(In terms of this thread, issues like wealth inequality and minimum wage (at least in theory) should be important for the election and so discussing what wealth is and why wealth inequality is important.)

[Riggo-toni]

 

 

 

Russian interference:

https://i.imgur.com/8tMKFRy.mp4

[CousinsCowgirl84]

46 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Let me try this another way.  Everybody can't be wealthy.  Everybody can't live like Jeff Bezos.  We don't access enough energy efficiently enough for everybody have Jeff Bezos' life style.  It isn't physically possible.

 

Are you sure it is “impossible”?  The percentage of people living in poverty is steadily decreasing.

 

 

at the same time, the rich are getting richer. So the poor are getting richer and the rich are getting richer.... sure seems to me wealth is being created.

 

 

46 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

If wealth were infinite, then it should be possible for everybody to be wealthy.

 

Have you even seen Star Trek?

 

46 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Does the labor participation rate matter?  If somebody isn't looking for a job, then they aren't affecting wages?

 

Im not sure. You asked for a hypothesis. I’m open to hearing your reasons.

 

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Cooked Crack]

Lol

[Bozo the kKklown]

 

[Jumbo]

so here's what they're doing now (keep in mind i told you way back how this would all play out even before flynn got fired )

 

even though mcconnell killed the anti-interference bills yesterday, you're hearing news about a bipartisan statement out of the senate intel comm about the serious threat of rooskie hijinks in 2020 being celebrated...you also saw more than the normal number lately of gopers being more open to russian interference being an actual thing during mueller's hearing and in other clip[s when you usually you can't get a goper to make any sound of any supportive sort

 

 

what's up of course is they're preparing for:

 

a) the rooskies help, trumpco colludes again only this time with actual organized competency supporting them, and moves like this will be offered as cover that the gopers tried

 

b) dems win, election is declared a rooskie fraud by trumpco, backed by senate/supreme court, all gopers, and they postpone election to straighten it all out (haha)

 

c) dems looking strong v trump, things look shaky, don can't afford to lose, trumpco (with new dni in place) uses top secret software to blackout grid areas right before election day, creates numerous serious issues across the nation,  declares it an attack by unidentified (or not if they have a scapegoat in mind) foreign entity, and postpones election until it's all straightened out (haha)

 

pick which one you think is correct but know that a, b, and c, all end with trump remaining king for 12 years and then ivanka for 40 

[Riggo-toni]

Okay, we really need to add a Scream reaction to the other 4 options...

I do fear there is a very real possibility for widescale Russian hacking in 2020.

[Going Commando]

McConnell is a traitor.  He's going to need to pay for what he's done to the country.

[twa]

20 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said:

Okay, we really need to add a Scream reaction to the other 4 options...

I do fear there is a very real possibility for widescale Russian hacking in 2020.

 

I think China can best them.

[Larry]

30 minutes ago, twa said:

 

I think China can best them.

 

Maybe so.  But c'mon, how many voters even get exposed to China's threads?  He just doesn't reach as many people as the Russian bots do.  

 

And besides, the people China's posts reach are all pretty immune to the Russian bots, anyway, because they've been reading you for 10 years.  

[twa]

So a bunch of newbies eh?

[Bozo the kKklown]

1 hour ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

McConnell is a traitor.  He's going to need to pay for what he's done to the country.

When do wealthy white men pay for their crimes?

 

unless they catch him with a dead gay prostitute, he will probably get a street named after him in DC.

 

And a wing named after him in the Senate building