Why? Because climate change is an uncontroversial fact as far as the scientific community is concerned and it is in everyone's best interest (as in economic and financial interest) to make some changes. And it is not contrary to growth... You already have a green energy industry, money going there isn't contrary to growth. It literally is growth.
People in towns that rely on coal mining and natural gas will now be left jobless, additionally the opening of green industries means other industries go away. Lastly the cost to implement changes in companies will affect prices and jobs causing negative growth. Climate change poses no immediate threat so having politicians have it as a centerpiece of their campaign is equivalent to someone having an Asteroid Defense System as the centerpiece of their campaign.
New industries replacing old ones is not an issue, at least not as far as all of the economy is concerned. It has happened many times through history and it will continue happening in the future. Take polaroid cameras being replaced by digital cameras. Or blockbuster being replaced by netflix or hulu. The change works out in the interest of virtually everyone. Coal mining and natural gas being replaced by green renewable energy industry would be an objectively good thing. Protecting old industries because of the risk new ones will eliminate jobs is wrong and distinctly an attack on capitalism (and in this case on the environment as well).
Yeah dude, it isn't like 40 years of declining regulation was the root cause of the last recession or anything. EVEN LESS is what this economy needs.
Im a firm believer that industries can regulate themselves and will sort any and all issues out eventually. If they can't then the companies can just go the way of the dinosaur. Unless youre a fan of the government bailing out airline companies, automobile companies, and financial institutions?
Where in history has industry proven they're better off without government regulation? This is a new level of naivete. Unsupervised capitalism is deadly, to suggest anything else is archaic. Or are you the type that's against workers rights to organize as well?
Whats wrong with being against workers rights to organize, even when they can organize I don't think there is anything with 100% enrollment. Good companies would take good care of their employees or else they would lose employees. It makes more sense to retain than to hire and retrain. Perhaps workers could have organized in the past when modern working conditions weren't defined but to still need them today is odd.
This is factually incorrect. For one thing, the recession started in 2007, two years before obama was president. For another, most (if not all) of the recession was caused by financial institutions doing literally whatever they wanted and getting themselves into increasingly risky "investments". I am not sure the automobile crash was even a factor here (it might have been hit but I have never seen anything that suggests this was a cause). I am not sure about what you mean about manufacturing market implosion though. As far as I can tell US manufacturing is going fine. There are a few bumps along the road but overall fairly respectable results (unless you take issue with iphones being made at china though that misses the big picture). I have read a few articles about it not being quite well the past few months or so but nothing decisive yet...
I know they were bailed out. But I have never seen any single piece of information that actually credits the recession to them. Looking online the recession started december 2007 while the automotive crisis started during the second half of 2008.
I dunno, I see Trump as saying whatever he wants to say. No way people would accept him implying he'd be okay with fucking his daughter or arguing with the Pope. More like, they agree with his sexist, racist views and think he doesn't bullshit.
If you really have a problem with people being jobless, then go argue against technology. evolving technology put more people out of job than almost anything else, from people in manufacturing over a century ago to even taxis, apparently. People who work in coal mining or natural gas industry are lazy anyway, I don't want my money going to support these lazy people who do easy work.
lolno, George Bush deserves far more blame than Obama. At least things improved a bit under Obama. But it was due to or during Bush Administration that the recession became inevitable.
Well, over the years trump's positions have changed quite a bit. He went from pro gun control to no go control, pro choice to pro life to an extent at least. Trump is clearly not a conservative in the traditional meaning and only upholds republican values when it is convenient to him.
I somehow don't see this as being realistic. I'd be more concerned over someone like Cruz winning. Trump is doing and saying whatever he can to be elected, but I have a hunch that he'd be more centrist in practice. That doesn't say much for his chances to be reelected. But I do find it humorous that people like Rubio supporters are acting like Trump doesn't exist. By this time next week he'll pretty much be the nominee.
Companies are like people, they can police themselves. Have you ever worked in a group and seen how they come together to work towards a common goal without some oversight committee forcing them too? Companies can do the same when they all have similar interests. How do you think all the cell phone companies and car companies arose?
but uber is putting taxi drivers out of jobs, however I would put taxi driving as a lazy job, since all you do is sit all day and drive to and from. There is no brain power especially since the advent of GPS, which provides guidance. And soon with self driving cars, well anyone in an industry to drive folks around will have no more jobs.
No they're not.
I mean, even if they were, are people capable of policing themselves? What is the point of your analogy, honestly?Who forces any person to start a business, or work for a company? Hmm, I wonder what the common goal is for everyone in the workforce, from the CEOs to the grunts...? What could that be?
No, that's called collusion. It may be great for companies that are so large they see no real benefit from merging and have a lot of shareholders, but for any upstart company or average customer, it's horrible. That's why none of these companies have good reputations. They have no competition and have no incentive to better their product.
There's a little bit more when it comes to the meter game. Taking longer routes, slowing to a halt, and then easing the gas every little bit to keep the meter going when you should be stopped, etc. Taxi drivers could always try to get jobs as uber drivers. ^^
Would it be relevant for a platform if it was going to affect you four years down the road?
Passion, too. If I lived my whole life without working in a field that I'm passionate about, I'd definitely feel sad at the end of it. ^^
Theres nothing more to innovate, how will a cell phone company innovate when cell service already covers just about everywhere? How can car companies innovate when the car is already engineered to be the best it could be? How do you make a better car? Or even financial institutions, how do you innovate a bank? Or if we really want to get to it, how do you innovate toothpaste? I think companies are doing fine as they are and there have been breakout successes from companies entering these fields, see Tesla Motors managing to hold its own against heavyweights Ford and etc.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Climate change wont be relevant for any of our lifetimes. Actually there could even be benefits, areas that received little rain could now get lots of rain while farming could move to these new regions increasing food stores. People could also move from areas that are continuously ravaged by extreme weather, one wonders why people live in areas that are BELOW SEA LEVEL that constantly get flooded.
That's what I'm thinking, but sadly the damage will be so far done that the US might never recover. But that said, I do have a question about Gerald Ford; did he really run on an anti-semitic platform, which in turn inspired Hitler? Because I came across an interesting article that compares Trump to him. Trump may or may not win the whole thing, but what comes after will be important. Is it reasonable to assume we'll have our 21st century Hitler?