Also if it's just automation that's the problem. Why are factories moving to overseas? Just to have robots and robots only do stuff over there instead of here? Doesn't make a lot of sense. Free trade and offshoring jobs is probably a bigger issue than you give it credit for.

 

 

Hey Canik,
I wanted to see if I could find some additional evidence in support of my position, and I found the following data that might be of interest.

First, here is absolute manufacturing employment from 1994-2016 (and because it is absolute numbers, and not as a percentage of the overall workforce, there are some periods of increase that were negative in the first graph I posted on the previous page of this thread).
Interestingly, there was a modest increase in manufacturing employment from 1994-1998, which were exactly the years immediately after the passage of NAFTA.  When mass job losses occurred in 2001, it was not associated with the passage of a new trade act, but rather with an overall economic recession.

So if NAFTA was so bad, why did it take more than 8 years for supposed effects to take place, and why can the effects not be deconvoluted from a broader economic downturn that affected the rest of the economy?

Second, here is the change in manufacturing output and manufacturing employment since the end of the Great Recession.
Once again, we have an increase in absolute number of manufacturing jobs (by about 6% from mid-2009 to mid-2015), but of course, overall employment grew by >6% during that timeframe, so the manufacturing share of all jobs still declined.
However, at the same time as manufacturing employment grew 6%, manufacturing output grew 21%.

That is automation in action.

It is data like these that lead to my conclusions that (1) manufacturing jobs should not be expected to grow as a share of employment, and trying to make them do so by any means is a fool's errand,* and (2) the main reason** for (1) is that automation has made many manufacturing positions obsolete.

 

I welcome any further comments you have!

* - Some would say we have elected a fool though.
** - Though not the only reason.

So Trump wants France's socialism, check.

 

That said, I will state so when I feel so: Trump's pick for Secretary of Defence, James Mattis, I have no real qualms with him. Not even his nickname really phazes me, he seems both qualified and with good attitude I would link with such a post.

Time for a word from my alter-ego

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5w2R2_e4XIo

 

 

Trump's pick for Secretary of Defence, James Mattis, I have no real qualms with him. Not even his nickname really phazes me, he seems both qualified and with good attitude I would link with such a post.

 

General Mattis does seem to be a well-qualified, and well-chosen pick.

I found the quotes collected in this Scientific American article to be particularly interesting and illuminating.

Dr. Ben Carson has been chosen for Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This is the very same job that Kiefer Sutherland has in that stupid new show called "Designated Survivor", before he is vaulted to President after a bomb kills everyone else. I quit watching that show after 2 episodes because I knew what direction it was going. Hollywood is so predictable.

 

Well none the less, Dr. Carson is a solid choice to guide Trump's vision for inner cities, and to make good on his promise. Another promise that must see significant action if the Donald wants re-election. We shall see.

So we got the "token black guy" out of the way, someone who he himself stated he was unfit for duty as a "Secretary of X". Jokes are already flung around about Trump picking "a black dude" to go "parlay" with "the hood" in "the urban" he knows little about. Perhaps he got a little 1-on-1 with Trump Uni (was about houses no? )? Atleast someone got his money's worth...

 

So basically Carson is just the face to the Trump strategem I guess. What is this "strategem"?

 

Unsure if this could be worse or better, what does it even entail this "Secretary of Housing and Urban Development"? Apart from the obvious "socialist" slant to it with subsidized housing?

 

 

Jokes are already flung around about Trump picking "a black dude" to go "parlay" with "the hood" in "the urban" he knows little about.

 

To be fair, there are a lot of things that Ben Carson knows little about.

For example, he correctly identifies that The Pyramids exist, then goes off the rails:
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/imgs/2015/151105-carson-to-archaeologists-wrong-about-the-pyramids.jpg

 

But at least people can have some fun with it:

 

Maybe he can use his authority at HUD to build grain silos in major cities.

Massive solid stone pyramids with little to no place to actually store stuff. >_>

 

I could go for a "other usage for ancient artifact/building" if it had some good logic, the darns things are solid stone with some small chambers and connecting tunnels left open. What were they protecting the grain from, a meteorite strike?

The CEO of SoftBank, and he also controls Sprint, had a 45 minute meeting with Donald Trump today. After the short meeting, the dude has pledged to invest 50 billion dollars and create 50,000 new jobs, right here in the good old USA. Not bad for a days work... and he isn't even President yet.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-says-softbank-pledges-to-invest-50-billion-in-u-s-1481053732

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/trump-japanese-mogul-pledges-50-billion-us-investment-214229797.html

The CEO of SoftBank, and he also controls Sprint, had a 45 minute meeting with Donald Trump today. After the short meeting, the dude has pledged to invest 50 billion dollars and create 50,000 new jobs, right here in the good old USA. Not bad for a days work... and he isn't even President yet.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-says-softbank-pledges-to-invest-50-billion-in-u-s-1481053732

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/trump-japanese-mogul-pledges-50-billion-us-investment-214229797.html

 

And meanwhile 1/3 of Trump's supposed saved jobs at Carrier from last week have disappeared.

 

Quoting from Indianapolis' NBC affiliate:

 "We found out today that more jobs are leaving than what we originally thought," Bray said. "It seemed like since Thursday, it was 1,100, then it was maybe 900, and then now we're at 700. So I'm hoping it doesn't go any lower than that."

 

Union workers got a letter at the plant saying Trump's deal with Carrier will save only 730 factory jobs in Indianapolis ...

(emphasis mine)

 

I'm sure there is a perfectly innocent explanation for why Trump's numbers on 11/29 don't match actual numbers on 12/05.  (The non-innocent one quoted in the article is that he was claiming to have "saved" R&D jobs that were never at risk of moving.)

 

Maybe he can spin a great headline out of the the ~400 people who thought their jobs were saved last Tuesday, and who were then put on the chopping block anyway this Monday.  Or more likely, since the stunt is over, no one will particularly care except little local news organizations.

 

Don't blame me for being pessimistic - I said one could not attempt to fight the actual economic realities.

Well the Softbank numbers were already pledged in Oktober and would probably have happended anyway seeing they are Silicon Valley heavy investment plans.

 

Talking about that, those 50k people would the no doubt put a multiple of them out of jobs as they are doing alot of technology advancements. Thought you didn't want that?

Well the Softbank numbers were already pledged in Oktober and would probably have happended anyway seeing they are Silicon Valley heavy investment plans.

Yes, that is correct, and here is a reference for anyone interested:

"SoftBank and Saudi Arabia plan $100 billion tech fund" - October 13, 2016

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/13/softbank-saudi-arabia-plan-100-billion-tech-vision-fund-based-in-london.html

Boom! Who didn't see this coming? An exclusive trade deal between the US and the UK... gotta love Brexit. Rand Paul loves it.

http://thehill.com/policy/international/global-trade-economy/309547-brexit-leader-im-pushing-us-uk-trade-deal-to-trump

It is data like these that lead to my conclusions that (1) manufacturing jobs should not be expected to grow as a share of employment, and trying to make them do so by any means is a fool's errand,* and (2) the main reason** for (1) is that automation has made many manufacturing positions obsolete.

 

I'm glad you shared this perspective with us Niels but I still think it's better to have those factories here than not. Just because manufacturing jobs are on the decline doesn't mean we should just give what we have left away without a second thought. Plus the factories being here means more jobs for construction workers building factories and things like plumbers, electricians, pest control jobs maintaining the factory. Then those people get paid and buy stuff here, potentially creating more jobs and wealth.

 

Also I don't think you ever refuted my point that there may not be enough service jobs for us all. As it stands it seems we have a shortage on jobs even with current manufacturing jobs included. So everyone focusing on service industry jobs isn't a solution for everyone. Though, I will say it might be possible.. if we USA got super serious about education so that many more of us were Doctors/Lawyers who could then work for other countries who need Doctors/Lawyers.

 

So should we have children prepare for a life as a factory worker? No, generally not. Should we let what factory jobs we have go without a fight? I'd say no to that as well. Not until we're sure there are replacement jobs available.

 

 

 

 Also I don't think you ever refuted my point that there may not be enough service jobs for us all. 

Indeed, I did not, because I don't know if there are, and explicitly said as much.

 

As it stands it seems we have a shortage on jobs even with current manufacturing jobs included.

This is true - best I can find is that right now there are 1.4 unemployed pesons for every job opening.  This ratio is the about the lowest it has been since 2000 though, suggesting a reasonably good employment market without too many "surplus" would-be-employees.
For better or worse, we can probably expect significant retirements in the near future (Baby Boomers are reaching Social Security age right now by the hundreds-of-thousands per month).  Their positions may require replacement by younger workers, but their aging will require additional health and home-services positions in the coming years.  That will provide jobs for a number of people.

 

Should we let what factory jobs we have go without a fight? I'd say no to that as well. Not until we're sure there are replacement jobs available.

Maybe - depends on what the plan is:
Is it going to be giving out local or state tax cuts to specific profitable companies as Trump/Pence did?
Most people like having their town run a police department, fire services, and a school district, etc.  If you cut one company's taxes, the costs of these things need to be raised somewhere else.  Now suddenly the rest of the town has less spending money because we're all subsidizing those factory workers.
The hazard of companies threatening to leave in order to extort favorable tax conditions has not been addressed.
If one plant/company is chosen for tax preference and another is not, the latter will be less-competitive and likely to shed workers.  Result is just a transfer of the pain to different workers in a different town.

Are we going to just raise tariffs?
Yes, this will keep some jobs around, but it is an incentive toward automation, which ultimately will reduce the number of jobs in the future by attrition.  As an aside, the CEO of United Tech has already announced that the jobs kept at the Carrier plant are not going to last: "we're going to make a $16 million investment in that factory in Indianapolis to automate to drive the cost down".
Further, contrary to popular belief, the US has a lot of exports (2nd highest of any country).  Put up a tariff up to protect workers from imports?  Results in other countries establishing their own tariffs that will then decimate our exporting industries.  Again, just a transfer of pain from one set of employees to another.

Specific tariffs/fines for companies that move production overseas?  (A Trump idea as of 4 days ago)
In the short-term this might be better than general tariffs, since it is unlikely to result in retaliation that damages our own exports.
However, without the tariffs being general, a company that has always been foreign and thus isn't subject to these penalties will always be able to undercut the American-based one that would be subject to penalties if it tried to move to a lower labor cost area.  The foreign companies will gain market share and drive the American ones out of business.  This outcome is actually worse than letting the American companies offshore, since a greater proportion of the earnings are likely to end up in the hands of non-American shareholders at the end.

But, just so I can point out that I am not someone only able to criticize.
A good solution would be to make the US more competitive through adjustments to taxes and regulations in a revenue-neutral manner.
Decreasing corporate taxes probably won't have much of a positive effect - as I pointed out, Reagan's 1980s tax cuts were ineffective at changing trends - but they might a little.  The key is that they must not be allowed to explode the federal deficit, since that will make things much worse in the future in terms of decreased budget flexibility and increased need to raise revenue for GDP-sapping interest payments.

Boom! Who didn't see this coming? An exclusive trade deal between the US and the UK... gotta love Brexit. Rand Paul loves it.

http://thehill.com/policy/international/global-trade-economy/309547-brexit-leader-im-pushing-us-uk-trade-deal-to-trump

 

1) Yes a UK-US deal was in the making, that is what Brexit means, no more EU-based deals so the UK has to re-negotiate alot of deals if they want to keep their present EU-based deals and associated perks.

 

You are applauding someone for buying a new car while 1 week before they stated they will get rid of there present one. Self-fulfulling profecy much? What's next, you gonna applaud all those new GOP appointed governmental workers being hired? While just ignoring all the Democrat alligned ones being tossed on the side of the road on the 20th of January?

 

2) Farage is perhaps the Brexit poster boy, but he is FAR from being a UK spoke person on anything governmental related. Farage might aswell talk trade deal with you personally and get as much accomplished as when he talks to Trump.

What were they protecting the grain from, a meteorite strike?

They were obviously protecting it from the aliens, duh!

2) Farage is perhaps the Brexit poster boy, but he is FAR from being a UK spoke person on anything governmental related. Farage might aswell talk trade deal with you personally and get as much accomplished as when he talks to Trump.

That's what I was going to say. At present, as far as I know, Farage is essentially retired...

While just ignoring all the Democrat alligned ones being tossed on the side of the road on the 20th of January?

That can't happen fast enough.

 

Hillary Clinton came out of her cave yesterday to give a speech at the long overdue Harry Reid Senate goodbye party... long overdue because that criminal has been a black stain on my state for decades. He can now move out of his taxpayer funded penthouse digs at the Ritz-Carlton in Washington DC... and slither back to his palace in Searchlight Nevada. The problem with that is I can smell him anytime he gets near Las Vegas. I have one final song for that piece of steaming shit...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkWQkq_AaXA

 

Now back to Hillary... She droned on about "fake news"... like it cost her the election. The only fake news I heard that had any effect on her dismal campaign was the endless, fake, beating of the media drum that Donald Trump had no chance to win. News agencies had him at a 20% chance to win. It's absolute proof that the media is just spraying out propaganda. Denzel Washington, a Hollywood darling said it best. "If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed... If you read the newspaper, you're misinformed". Could not have said it any better myself.

 

A word from my alter-ego...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhYoDqDAQIo

 

Now to my main point here. These mindless fools spent over a year trying to make the world afraid of Donald Trump as President. Well, now that is a reality. Now they are just showing their real fear... they are terrified that he will be successful. Delicious tears.

 

 

the media drum that Donald Trump had no chance to win. News agencies had him at a 20% chance to win.

 

0%, 20%, same thing.
What are numbers, how do they work!?
 

 

 

The problem with that is I can smell him anytime he gets near Las Vegas.

You should try getting a better superpower. 

People generally dislike unfavourable cronies who run aginst their favourable cronies.

 

Talking about "fake news", before that was the F** channel speciality, nowadays it seems they have been ouclassed by 1 man and his twitter account...

 

Basically every citizen the world over have politicians as #1 on "whom do you dislike?" lists. I fully understand you disliking Hillary and perhaps every Democrat alive presently, but I keep finding it funny that nobody on "your side" is without such dislike. The amount of "swamp" being shoveled into the perceived Democrat swamp in DC is mindbogling. Trumps latest pick is a known fossil fuel lobbyist for president of EPA? Perhaps you want a former gulag guard for Secretary of Work?

 

 Also I don't think you ever refuted my point that there may not be enough service jobs for us all.

 

Indeed, I did not, because I don't know if there are, and explicitly said as much.

 

 

As it stands it seems we have a shortage on jobs even with current manufacturing jobs included.

 

This is true - best I can find is that right now there are 1.4 unemployed pesons for every job opening.  This ratio is the about the lowest it has been since 2000 though, suggesting a reasonably good employment market without too many "surplus" would-be-employees.

For better or worse, we can probably expect significant retirements in the near future (Baby Boomers are reaching Social Security age right now by the hundreds-of-thousands per month).  Their positions may require replacement by younger workers, but their aging will require additional health and home-services positions in the coming years.  That will provide jobs for a number of people.

 

 

Should we let what factory jobs we have go without a fight? I'd say no to that as well. Not until we're sure there are replacement jobs available.

 

Maybe - depends on what the plan is:

Is it going to be giving out local or state tax cuts to specific profitable companies as Trump/Pence did?

Most people like having their town run a police department, fire services, and a school district, etc.  If you cut one company's taxes, the costs of these things need to be raised somewhere else.  Now suddenly the rest of the town has less spending money because we're all subsidizing those factory workers.

The hazard of companies threatening to leave in order to extort favorable tax conditions has not been addressed.

If one plant/company is chosen for tax preference and another is not, the latter will be less-competitive and likely to shed workers.  Result is just a transfer of the pain to different workers in a different town.

 

Are we going to just raise tariffs?

Yes, this will keep some jobs around, but it is an incentive toward automation, which ultimately will reduce the number of jobs in the future by attrition.  As an aside, the CEO of United Tech has already announced that the jobs kept at the Carrier plant are not going to last: "we're going to make a $16 million investment in that factory in Indianapolis to automate to drive the cost down".

Further, contrary to popular belief, the US has a lot of exports (2nd highest of any country).  Put up a tariff up to protect workers from imports?  Results in other countries establishing their own tariffs that will then decimate our exporting industries.  Again, just a transfer of pain from one set of employees to another.

 

Specific tariffs/fines for companies that move production overseas?  (A Trump idea as of 4 days ago)

In the short-term this might be better than general tariffs, since it is unlikely to result in retaliation that damages our own exports.

However, without the tariffs being general, a company that has always been foreign and thus isn't subject to these penalties will always be able to undercut the American-based one that would be subject to penalties if it tried to move to a lower labor cost area.  The foreign companies will gain market share and drive the American ones out of business.  This outcome is actually worse than letting the American companies offshore, since a greater proportion of the earnings are likely to end up in the hands of non-American shareholders at the end.

 

But, just so I can point out that I am not someone only able to criticize.

A good solution would be to make the US more competitive through adjustments to taxes and regulations in a revenue-neutral manner.

Decreasing corporate taxes probably won't have much of a positive effect - as I pointed out, Reagan's 1980s tax cuts were ineffective at changing trends - but they might a little.  The key is that they must not be allowed to explode the federal deficit, since that will make things much worse in the future in terms of decreased budget flexibility and increased need to raise revenue for GDP-sapping interest payments.

 

 

That 1.4 unemployed vs jobs chart says "job-seekers" meaning it's probably not including the millions and millions of people who have been out of work 6+ months. So it's probably even worse than that suggests.

 

All the other stuff about protectionism, yeah, I understand the probable pitfalls to it. However we've been going the opposite of protectionism a while now and a lot of people seem unsatisfied with it. Shouldn't hurt too much to switch it up for a bit, and if it does, then we'll all be so happy once we open up the flood gates of free trade again.

 

This reminds of something I learned, ironically, from a movie called Outsourced. About the Hindu god Shiva, God of Destruction (and also Creation/Regeneration). It's an interesting philosophical perspective, that sometimes destruction is needed to make room for new creation hopefully resulting is a better product than the original. America could probably use some help from Shiva.

 

People generally dislike unfavourable cronies who run aginst their favourable cronies.

 

Talking about "fake news", before that was the F** channel speciality, nowadays it seems they have been ouclassed by 1 man and his twitter account...

 

Basically every citizen the world over have politicians as #1 on "whom do you dislike?" lists. I fully understand you disliking Hillary and perhaps every Democrat alive presently, but I keep finding it funny that nobody on "your side" is without such dislike. The amount of "swamp" being shoveled into the perceived Democrat swamp in DC is mindbogling. Trumps latest pick is a known fossil fuel lobbyist for president of EPA? Perhaps you want a former gulag guard for Secretary of Work?

So, I take it you don't like Trump's pick of Scott Pruitt for the EPA? Scott is the Attorney General of Oklahoma, not a "lobbyist". He, along with 27 other states Attorney's General, sued the EPA for overreach when they declared Carbon Dioxide a pollutant. Which is insane. What's next? Oxygen? According to you guys, Barack Obama could appoint an EPA Administrator that worships at the altar of climate change, no problem there... but hell no, we can't have one that understands why the EPA was created. That's just not acceptable? The days of the zealot climate change collective are over... for now at least.

 

Obama famously said, "Elections Have Consequences" when cramming Obamacare down the throats of the nation, and after Cap and Trade failed... even when he had super majorities in both houses of Congress, he directed the EPA to enforce illegal regulations, in an attempt to change the way we power our country. Well, we had another election... and we the people directed our Government to change who is in power of our country. So, elections have consequences.

 

I don't hate all Democrats... I like Joe Manchin a lot. To get elected in 2010, Joe had to run an ad in West Virginia where he shoots the Cap and Trade Bill with a deer rifle. He should just run as a Republican. All the other moderates have evaporated. To you guys, anything that isn't covered by NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN or the New York Times... is fake news. Just because they don't say it, it doesn't mean it did not happen. Go Trump! Very proud to be one of those deplorables

I found it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIJORBRpOPM

 

 

That 1.4 unemployed vs jobs chart says "job-seekers" meaning it's probably not including the millions and millions of people who have been out of work 6+ months. So it's probably even worse than that suggests.

This is a fair point.  I did note that this was about the best ratio observed since 2000, so during both of the previous periods of economic growth (before the 2001 recession, and before the 2009 recession).  Of course, we have difficulty in determining how many of those long-term non-employed people really want to work.  One often reads about morons who claim "93 million people out of work" but that assumes that everyone age 16 or greater not working is "out of work."  The fact that that number includes kids in 10th grade who should not be working full time, and my 85 year old retired grandfather who doesn't need to work is why it is a stupid number to trot out.  Not that this is a criticism of your comment specifically, but one needs to be very careful about not just assuming too many millions of people from nothingness.
 

 

 

All the other stuff about protectionism, yeah, I understand the probable pitfalls to it. However we've been going the opposite of protectionism a while now and a lot of people seem unsatisfied with it. Shouldn't hurt too much to switch it up for a bit, and if it does, then we'll all be so happy once we open up the flood gates of free trade again.

Right, but purposely doing "something" for the sake of doing "something" is a silly way to go about making policy.  Especially if one acknowledges the probability that the new policy will have negative outcomes.  As I've pointed out, any attempt to force manufacturing back to the US will result in elevated investments in automation that will dissolve expected employment gains.  Since the US doesn't have access to all the raw materials needed for manufacturing (China has 97% of all rare-earth element production) we'll still be importing things.  Also, that capital for automation must be paid for, which raises the costs of things.  An analysis by the Council of Economic Advisors found that "Middle-class consumers gain an estimated 29% of their purchasing power from trade."
So there's why it is silly to do engage in change for change's sake: limited-to-no employment gains, limited effect on trade deficit, and a ~30% reduction in peoples' purchasing power, which will certainly make them feel a lot poorer.

I don't want to be made poorer.  I don't want other people to be made poorer.  And I certainly don't want us to waste 5 or 10 years "trying" something new so we can re-confirm that protectionism and mercantilism are bad economic policies.  Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" (1776), and subsequent history should have taught us that already.  There's no reason to think re-trying these ideas will not "hurt too much."

 

 

 

This reminds of something I learned, ironically, from a movie called Outsourced. About the Hindu god Shiva, God of Destruction (and also Creation/Regeneration). It's an interesting philosophical perspective, that sometimes destruction is needed to make room for new creation hopefully resulting is a better product than the original. America could probably use some help from Shiva.  

 

 

This is an interesting idea.  I'll posit that it is being applied incorrectly here: protectionism is antithetical to creative destruction.  It protects that which already exists at the expense of what might be.
One of the hallmarks of open and free trade is that industries must advance to maintain a lead over competitors worldwide.  The fact that America has transformed from an industrial economy to one where intellectual outputs and ideas drive growth (see Silicon Valley as an example) has been demonstrative of Shiva's ideals.

I'll end with an example of protected markets resulting in decreased purchasing power as I mentioned earlier.  Here is an advertisement for a desktop computer from 1990: before we started significant trade with East Asian economies that now produce a large amount of our consumer electronics (but not the software that runs them; American firms mostly provide that).

http://www.jasondunn.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/page-7-386-prices-768788.jpg

In inflation-adjusted dollars, the lowest model there ($1498 in 1990) would cost $2770 today.  Skip over to Amazon and you can find perfectly acceptable computers for 1/5 and maybe even 1/10 of that price.  For this reason 84% of homes in the US have personal computers (data from 2014), and I'm sure the value is higher among younger households with children.  Households having these resources would never have been possible without free trade policies - the costs would have simply been too high, and we can thank trade for making it possible.

So, I take it you don't like Trump's pick of Scott Pruitt for the EPA? Scott is the Attorney General of Oklahoma, not a "lobbyist". He, along with 27 other states Attorney's General, sued the EPA for overreach when they declared Carbon Dioxide a pollutant. Which is insane. What's next? Oxygen? According to you guys, Barack Obama could appoint an EPA Administrator that worships at the altar of climate change, no problem there... but hell no, we can't have one that understands why the EPA was created. That's just not acceptable? The days of the zealot climate change collective are over... for now at least.

.

"Not liking" is correct, but not on a personal level. Your own proof of EPA overreach would be the very basis of my rebuke even. CO₂ is indeed a pollutant, and while indeed it is present in the natural cycle on Earth did doesn't stop it from being bad for the enviroment if a certain treshold is reached (or would you want some more CO₂ in your house's air?). Urine is a nautral product aswell, perhaps you want to start drinking it? Even oxygen can be dangerous (and is no doubt strictly regulated when it is 100%), heck even a slight increase above the normal 21% oxygen content will lead to dangerous effects of increased oxidation (from just common rust to wildfires being disaterous).

 

We don't need zealots of any cloth, what I thusfar have heared of Scott Pruitt is not showing me that he is a zealot even, which is excellent. What is reachingmy ear is that he consistently is choosing the fossil fuel business side when dealing with EPA and other enviromental issues. As Attorney General he should be protecting the people, not cooperations (nor government!).

.

Obama famously said, "Elections Have Consequences" when cramming Obamacare down the throats of the nation, and after Cap and Trade failed... even when he had super majorities in both houses of Congress, he directed the EPA to enforce illegal regulations, in an attempt to change the way we power our country. Well, we had another election... and we the people directed our Government to change who is in power of our country. So, elections have consequences.

.

You are sounding like one of our party leaders currently, who just came out stating that judges were against democracy when they applied the law. Yes the "powers that be" will change and I can life with that, what I find more difficult is the level of inane rethoric being employed by both sides just to annoy the other side and put roadblocks into any sense of cooperation across party platform.

 

The loss of moderates in any societal debate is a loss for the society as a whole.

.

I don't hate all Democrats... I like Joe Manchin a lot. To get elected in 2010, Joe had to run an ad in West Virginia where he shoots the Cap and Trade Bill with a deer rifle. He should just run as a Republican. All the other moderates have evaporated. To you guys, anything that isn't covered by NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN or the New York Times... is fake news. Just because they don't say it, it doesn't mean it did not happen. Go Trump! Very proud to be one of those deplorables

.

Grats to him I guess?

 

I occationally open CNN front page, this is to see US centered news. I also occationally open FOX front page, again to see US centered news. Funnely enough I tend to read alot more sides then your average american and that is where the issues of "fake news" and "bias newsagency" comes from. News should be facts sprinkeled with larger societal impact when required, it should be stripped of any personal commentary that usually entails "We like this because it is X, whom we like" or "We dislike this bacause it is Y, whom we dislike".

 

Stop making this a black/white affair while you guys are so near to eachothers positions you couldn't see the different shades of black or white.