Inflation, real income, and politics Moved from: Interesting Articles Relating to EVs

[wanderlust]

As far as the polarizing politics, I think congress does more than reflect our inability to compromise. They actually encourage it. The two major parties agree on at least one thing. They want to keep our political structure exactly like it is. Until we change that, not much else will change. If I had my choice, I would prefer a parliamentary structure. That would break the power of the two-party system and allow alternatives.

Multi-party parliament, euro style, has its own problems - see Israel or France or Germany. Voter feels alienated from and not represented by some vague party guy in some far-away parliament. So you have low voter participation, the protest votes and instability.

I think that winner-takes-all district in USA are better solution (I have a REPRESENTATIVE of my district, someone to let know that I am unhappy, who responds to ME), and trick is how to force representatives to compromise IN THE DISTRICT. And multi-candidate race with ranked chioce and instant runoff forces candidates to appeal to voter od other candidates, to be their second choice. It forces the compromise, instead of being the most partisan to win the primaries in gerry-mandered district where general elections are in 90% a formality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

Term limit IMHO will change little, because the district will continue to be gerry-manderd, uncompetitive, just owned by different politician of the same party for the term limit, with little interest in a compromise.

And we also need to ban the gerry-mandering of districts.

 

[wanderlust]

so the 9% feel squeezed too.

Please.

I am saying that 9% do feel squeezed. You might feel differently, and it is valid too. Feelings are not logical.
And this squeeze is used by 1% to turn 9% against bottom 90%. Works like charm. 1% could not rule the 90% without it, without 9%.

Q: what is faster than the thought?
A: Emotion.

This is used in marketing, including political marketing.

 

[rruff]

Funny that the same gap which is between bottom 90% and top 10%, is also between 90% of the top 10% (9%) and the very top 1%. Basically most of the gains of top 10% is going to top 1%, so the 9% feel squeezed too.

This is true in fact. I don't know if this is done on purpose (probably is), but it always masks where the real gains are going. The "top 1%" and the "99%ile" are very different things. It isn't the 90%ile, or 99%ile, or even the 99.9%ile.... but the 99.99+%ile!... who have been sucking up our productivity gains for the last 45 years.

This isn't too surprising since you need to be at that level before you can have the political clout to dictate policies, be privy to insider information, and be immune from the laws, rules, and regulations.

 

[rruff]

GDP has been the "be all, end all" index forever. What a shame it doesn't measure anything important.

It measures the size of the pie. How it is divided up is certainly important, but so is the size. If the pies start getting smaller, then we'll be in really serious trouble...

 

[user 22017]

This is true in fact. I don't know if this is done on purpose (probably is), but it always masks where the real gains are going. The "top 1%" and the "99%ile" are very different things. It isn't the 90%ile, or 99%ile, or even the 99.9%ile.... but the 99.99+%ile!... who have been sucking up our productivity gains for the last 45 years.

This isn't too surprising since you need to be at that level before you can have the political clout to dictate policies, be privy to insider information, and be immune from the laws, rules, and regulations.

what about ceo's outside of the 1%? They didn't contribute enough productivity to warrant $300- 500% increases in salaries and perks.

And university professors making $500K a year. Ditto for coaches. And upper management government positions, hospital administrators, college administrators. the high salaries and $100K+ a year sweetened state pensions hurt all of us. Then they go after the poor to make up for the shortfalls using austerity measures and increased tuition. Our roads are filled with potholes, social security doesn't have enough workers to audit the rich and state parks are in disrepair.

The high salaries hurt all of us. The 1% aren't the only problem.

Edit: IRS, not ss

 

[Happy Camper]

 

[rruff]

what about ceo's outside of the 1%? They didn't contribute enough productivity to warrant $300- 500% increases in salaries and perks. And university professors making $500K a year. Ditto for coaches. And upper management government positions. the high salaries and $100K+ a year sweetened state pensions hurt all of us.

The only point I'm making is that the 99%ile has experienced only modest gains since this started going nuts in 1980, and they are not the real problem. Most of them are just working stiffs, albeit well paid ones... and if median incomes had risen as much as they should have (and did in the past), you wouldn't think they were overpaid at all. They aren't the ones who made this happen.

Income at the 99%ile level was $407k in 2023.

 

[user 22017]

The only point I'm making is that the 99%ile has experienced only modest gains since this started going nuts in 1980, and they are not the real problem. Most of them are just working stiffs, albeit well paid ones... and if median incomes had risen as much as they should have (and did in the past), you wouldn't think they were overpaid at all. They aren't the ones who made this happen.

Income at the 99%ile level was $407k in 2023.

You are wrong, though . Well, maybe I shouldn't trust stats presented by the CIA. But I live in this world, lol. I can read and see things.

I don't know what the heck happened on the coasts but in the Midwest you can live like a king on $100k a year.

My needs are modest, though. I have zero debt and have never had a credit card, so I may see things differently.

I appreciate being able to pay my bills. And wow... To be able to pay the mortgage/rent and the bills? That would be incredible .

Lots of folks want just that. To be able to breathe .

 

[camperdan]

Yup, I violently agree with you here. You just described part of the smart power network with distributed storage we need. Of course network would have to be much smarter than the one we have now: run the counter bacward when "selling" electricity back - and for what price? How much I want to charge utilities for discharging my EV battery, which decreases its life, and puts me at the risk that when I jump into my car, my battery is not full?

Another problem is, this could work for owners of detached homes with a garage or at least a private driveway, but significant population lives in condos and/or parks on the street. I did noticed an extension cord going out of the window and taped to the concrete sidewalk, powering up EV parked in front of a house. Quite strange view. And 110V is slow charging, adding about few miles per hour.

Of course these are all solvable challenges not requiring any scientific breakthrough - "just" using existing technology at scale, supported by regulations. Political will.

Very few politicians care about solving a problem, if the benefits of such solution are more than 2-4 years away - because all they care about is being re-elected in the next round. Why should I (a politician) spend effort if benefits of them will be harvested by someone who replaced me? And voters also do not care much, because very few bother to be informed. And then few "informed" voters form a Green Party and vote against greener candidate in 2000 and 2016, or decomission perfectly good nuclear power plants in Germany and switch back to coal for power. Or the repeted debacles of Texas winter power failure. And likely I am missing quite a lot in all problems above - I am not expert, just curious reader with some tech backround, little harder to fool than many others. Famous know unknowns and unknown unknowns.

Thinking is hard, and every complicated problem has simple pseudo-solution, which is also wrong and politically expedient. What else is new?

I like that we can have a civil debate about such complicated issue, looking forward to camp and talk to some of you in person.

Listen up "political will" is an oxymoron. With emphasis on moron. Although, from my reading these congressional "morons" have a net worth of $5m. Wada think they
were worth the the first day in office? Exactly...not a lot.

 

[wanderlust]

Listen up "political will" is an oxymoron. With emphasis on moron.

OK, but if we agree that there is a problem, what is your solution? Being disilusioned and saying "pox on both of your houses" is EXACTLY what 1% wants you to think.
Political will can come also from the voters - are they morons too? Some are.
But some could vote for changes, to make it better. Call me naive but I did not gave up on America yet.

 

[user 22017]

Listen up "political will" is an oxymoron. With emphasis on moron. Although, from my reading these congressional "morons" have a net worth of $5m. Wada think they
were worth the the first day in office? Exactly...not a lot.

Many, maybe most, did have considerable wealth when they took office. Most are attorneys. Yet they still allow themselves to be swayed by lobbyists and money. There are rare exceptions, of course.

In college in the '80's a political science professor said a big problem with campaigns & elections is that they are getting longer and longer. He was right. At one time the campaigning started a month before the election. Then 6 months , then nearly a year in the '80's. Now it is nearly what? 3-4 years? Only super wealthy can afford to stay in a race that long.

Limit the length.

Better yet, get rid of all campaigns and allow candidates to publish their platforms and voting records for free. You can pick them up at your local post office.

 

[RonDean]

My guiding light on this subject was John McCain and his efforts for campaign finance reform. That he is derided by both sides gives his ideas credibility in my eyes. Under today's rules, elections are incredibly expensive. Politicians spend more of their time seeking donations than actually governing. But who are the people donating? Mainly the very rich or those that place their singular issues above anyone or anything else. So... who would we expect the politicians to keep happy? I'm not advocating opting out and still think we need to vote our convictions. But there are statistics that show who the laws that do get passed are designed to make happy. Right now, and on this subject, I think we need more of the people making political donations to care more about the climate and pollution and EVs. Until that happens, I don't expect much in the way of legislative action.

 

[rruff]

OK, but if we agree that there is a problem, what is your solution?

Nobody agrees on what the problem is, because it's far too easy to divide and fool the masses. You need intelligent and well informed voters for democracy to work, and we don't have it, never had it, and won't.

Democracy, human rights, and freedom were always a sham. Yes, things did seem to work better in the past, but that was because a wealthy and patriotic populous was vital to the oligarch's plans for world domination. Once they achieved that goal they are on to a new project, which is maximizing their personal wealth and power. They've been divorcing themselves from a dependence on *us* since around 1980.

And as AI advances, the value of humans from the view of the oligarchs will plummet. We will eventually no longer contribute to the economy or fighting wars, so why keep us alive? This is the future *they* are planning for. This is *their* solution to the "problem".

The weird thing is that it will happen even if nobody really wants it. When the tech gets to the point where strong AI is possible, then it will be created. There's no way to stop that unless you blow everything up and we go back to the stone age. And you can be sure that the dominant cabal wants that AI under their control and not someone elses, which means preventing more than one owner. It will not be an easy thing to control either. But... if that is accomplished without destroying the planet, I expect that rapid population reduction will commence.

Possibly, AI development will hit some physical limitations, keeping it near it's current level. Or more likely, attempts to control it will fail. I actually prefer that scenario since there is a greater chance of outcomes that don't suck...

What to do about it? The fantasy that we have socio-political control? Maybe a a better question is... who am "I"... and what is life really about, and how much control do we have over anything? That's been the most vital question to me since the late '80s, when I started to pay attention to how the world works. I did find a solution of sorts after a only a few years of wrenching inquiry.

 

[bullfrog !]

After years in a Titan ll missile silo given the mission to destroy the world as we know it if governments got totally out of control, the answer for me was simply to change the mission and to try to do things that improved people’s lives and no longer wait to destroy them. Humanity is far from perfect and if you expect perfection you will be disappointed. Helping and hurting people are the extremes of the scale with don’t care in the middle in my opinion. Money, physical things are only important if you need them to survive or help others to survive in my opinion which has been formed by growing up in an area with extreme poverty where most people didn’t make enough to survive and live a healthy, happy life even after working physically difficult occupations all their lives. The saying “poor people have poor ways of solving problems” rings true in my opinion. Religion, family and ties to the land created many fears that prevented them from seeking solutions outside of their circle of church, family and friends. Convincing people raised up in poverty of which there are many in this country to consider alternatives to the ways they have been treated and the way they treat others to survive and in a few cases prosper is not an easy task. It is easier to try to isolate yourself and vote for those that wish to keep the status quo rather than doing the hard work and taking risks to make improvements. It is hard work and mistakes get made but one must always look to the future and hope. Verified Information and education are key to making our systems work in my opinion but even those are no guarantee we will get it right. We separate church and state then promote religious wars. We offer freedom for all yet we have common enemies but fail to support those fighting to keep people free. We fail to allow women equally to earn and make their own health decisions. Finally immigrant problems get the attention they deserve and a bipartisan proposed law gets blocked for political reasons. Still lots of kids living in poverty being influenced to continue the cycle. Lots of work left to do for sure.

 

[towboater]

I have become jaded. As I feel we r doomed and until a total collapse and a reset I have little hope. I read a book by Tom Clancy years ago in which a mentally insane pilot flew a 747 into the Capitol building during the state of the union address killing all but the Vice President who then had to rebuild the government with commoners since most of the professional politicians were no longer among the living. At that time in my life I wa appalled that they were all killed. Fast forward 25 years and I m saying come on airplane!

 

[user 22017]

Under today's rules, elections are incredibly expensive. Politicians spend more of their time seeking donations than actually governing. But who are the people donating? Mainly the very rich or those that place their singular issues above anyone or anything else.

I looked up Sanders, because at one time he (or someone) said his campaign chest was raised from small donations. I don't know about that, but why are governnment entities donating to political campaigns? Look:

https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race/bernie-sanders/contributors?id=N00000528

 

[RonDean]

I looked up Sanders, because at one time he (or someone) said his campaign chest was raised from small donations. I don't know about that, but why are governnment entities donating to political campaigns? Look:

https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race/bernie-sanders/contributors?id=N00000528

Good question! Although the piece does say: "The money came from the organizations' PACs; their individual members, employees or owners; and those individuals' immediate families. At the federal level, the organizations themselves did not donate, as they are prohibited by law from doing so."

I can understand why they might want to aggregate such donations, but it does seem like blaming someone for what their crazy uncle is doing.

The bottom line for me is how do we get any such influence out of the election process?
BTW: I also checked the OpenSeceret source for bias and it seems to be as center of center as I have seen.

 

[rruff]

until a total collapse and a reset I have little hope.

Oh my... don't hope for that. Living through a total collapse would probably be worse than dying early.

Most of the 20th century and up to now has been the best time in history to be alive I think. Definitely greater freedom and safety and peace than ever before. The "being able to just breathe" that Carla mentioned is easily obtainable if you can get your mental/emotional house in order. Money is very rarely the problem. Unplugging from the constant media bombardment is a good first start.

It's far from perfect now, and the future doesn't look too bright, but I still appreciate it quite a lot.

 

[maki2]

This will be the 19th presidential election since I was six years old and had the ability to form long term memories. I definitely have a love-hate relationship to presidential election years. I love that we have them but hate all the wrangling that goes on. But I have never known it to be anything else other than public wrangling in the media.

 

[user 22017]

I have become jaded. As I feel we r doomed and until a total collapse and a reset I have little hope. I read a book by Tom Clancy years ago in which a mentally insane pilot flew a 747 into the Capitol building during the state of the union address killing all but the Vice President who then had to rebuild the government with commoners since most of the professional politicians were no longer among the living. At that time in my life I wa appalled that they were all killed. Fast forward 25 years and I m saying come on airplane!

We haven't had a General Strike since the 1940s. That needs to happen before collapse or revolution. A general strike is when all workers refuse to work.