Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency

[Lloyd Perna]

So Lloyd, you're agreeing with William, are you?

DonaldD, you sure like to put words into other peoples mouths.  I guess when you can't argue with facts, all that's left is to distract, obfuscate and attack.

[DonaldD]

"are you"?

That is known as a question.  It's a bit leading, but really, it's just a question.  Are you disagreeing with William?

[Seriati]

Edit:  I see now that the bold part was your addition.  I'm still stroking.  It's late.  I'll think about this tomorrow.

I didn't add anything but the bold formatting, I think you borrowed the sentence from DonaldD and maybe meant to replace the reference to male?  Don't want to put words in your mouth on that one.

[TheDrake]

There would also be other reasons to preferentially hire a diverse group. Perhaps you think they bring a much needed perspective to the job. A video game company might choose someone based on their desire to appeal to a female demographic that is being underserved. A marketing company might choose someone of color to voice that perspective. Likewise, might it not have inherent value to have a diverse cabinet? Might that not add value to group discussions?

I'm not yet going to take time to break down Biden's specific picks, I simply don't know enough about them. Maybe he specifically wants a counterpoint to his own perspective as an old white man. A good leader often picks people on their ability to challenge their views and fill in their blind spots. A bad leader chooses only people who think like they do.

[Seriati]

Diversity of body type /= to diversity of thought.  Picking 20 ideological clones that make a picture that's appealing like a rainbow is of no benefit.

[Fenring]

Small employers?  I doubt that what you are really calling for, is for the federal government to put everyone that has hired an illegal domestic employee in jail.  Is it?  Without controlling the personal services space this solution is a bunch of hot air.

It would seem that all that would be required would be to announce that this policy will begin as of some date, and that after that this will happen. I expect that in most cases the illegal labor would be let go. Some types of under the table employment would potentially still happen, such as perhaps personal services as you say, but the difficulty in eradicating that would seem to be a separate issue from how to discourage illegal immigration in general (unless you could show that the majority of illegal jobs are under the table jobs in peoples' homes, like a gardener). The argument at any rate is something to the effect that if the well runs dry of available illegal labor then the incentive to come would be far less. It is simply a mechanical question at that point whether in fact the other incentives to come aside from employment would still keep the problem as prevalent as it is. But I find it hard to believe that it could be predicted what would happen. I think an argument could be made that less dire actions with positive after-effects (removing employment) would be a superior solution to systematic deportation by force.

[Grant]

I didn't add anything but the bold formatting, I think you borrowed the sentence from DonaldD and maybe meant to replace the reference to male?  Don't want to put words in your mouth on that one.

Yes.  When I originally saw the quote and the bolded part, I thought you were asking why I bolded that part, and I looked at it, and I had no idea why I bolded that part.  I know you didn't misquote or anything, I just got very confused.  Then I went back to the original quote and realized that I didn't originally bold that part and that you were asking about the original meaning of the part you bolded.  See?  Confused due to mental degradation. 

The whole thing is a mistake on my part reading the Pew numbers because I mistook the way they were presenting the data.  They presented the data as percentages of the population in general being registered Republicans rather than the makeup of the party being male or female.  I didn't even realize my error until just now.  Good catch. 

[TheDeamon]

I don't even think that it really matters demographically either.  I think what matters is that the Democratic party has a stronger philosophy of diversity than the Republican party, being more attached to affirmative action type policies, and having more special interests involved with affirmative action policies.

I'd hit that two different ways from the Conservative side of things. On diversity, Democrats simply have the more overt platform on the subject.

Republicans/Conservative are more passive on the subject as an integrated and diverse people doesn't come about through force of law. If anything, the law arguably hampers it in a lot of cases. Jim Crow and Affirmative Action are two sides of the same coin, and neither side is a good one to be on. And Oddly enough, the Democratic Party is the party that has been a strong proponent of both practices. The Republicans were the first to oppose Jim Crow, and they are the ones fighting AA now even as they were part of the group that implemented it in the first place.

There was a situational need and use for AA, and that time has now past. There is grounds for an economic variant of AA, but the racial form of it needs to be placed in the dustbin of history and left there. At least the voters in California seem to agree with that sentiment, even if the DNC itself doesn't want to acknowledge that. That outcome is probably one of the best bright spots of this last election cycle.

[TheDeamon]

Also China has plenty of illegal immigration (from Vietnam, Africa, North Korea, Myanmar, etc).

One interesting aspect is illegal immigrant smuggling into China for brides,

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/inflow-of-international-immigrants-challenges-chinas-migration-policy/

Not particularly relevant to the US Situation and in their case, a rather specific consequence of decades under the One Child Policy paired with cultural biases in favor of having sons instead of daughters.

So long as the illegal immigrants are female and reproductively viable, I'd almost say the CCP is inclined to encourage it and would except for the matter of possible international condemnation for the related Human Trafficking and associated things that brings into play.

China is poised to see a rapid decline in the size of its workforce in the next decade, something they're already starting to try to stave off by raising the retirement age. They'll take any warm bodies they can get which can help grow their population in the long term.

Having them exist in a legal grey-zone is even better for the CCP as that means they can "detain" the guys wife at anytime for basically any reason as she isn't supposed to be there in the first place.

[yossarian22c]

... I fully expect they [Senate Republicans] suddenly remember they care deeply about the deficit. As a result they will demand cuts to government across the board to pay for Trump's tax cuts. They will refuse to pass any future covid related stimulus and we'll see a recession as states and local governments start to lay off police, teachers, and other government workers adding to the economic down turn. They will refuse generous unemployment benefits making that down turn even more severe. And we'll hear all the time about the massive deficit that is the result of their policies the last 3 years and blame it all on democrats.

McConnel isn't endorsing the 900 billion stimulus package put forward by a bi-partisan group of legislators. We're already seeing tells that the Republicans suddenly care deeply about the deficit again and that during a pandemic and a weak economy is the right time to attack a deficit. Exactly the opposite of what any competent economist would tell you. Spend during the crisis, in years like 2017-2019 with near full employment you work to reduce the deficit. But during those years the Republicans decided they really needed to give rich people and corporations tax cuts and greatly increase the deficit. Now before Biden even takes office during a pandemic weakened economy we're hearing things like:

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) said he wants to see offsets such as required spending cuts as part of a deal to increase the debt ceiling next year.

“I think you can expect there to be conditions. At least some members will try to get them,” Cramer said. “I don’t think there’s any question that a lot of conservative Republican members are going to require some sort of conditions.”

Whoever is in the White House, I hope they realize how serious the debt crisis is and how important it is that we put measures in place to address it,” said Thune. “And hopefully when that vote comes around, we’ll have some of those reforms.

So we're already back to Republicans planning on using defaulting on the debt to negotiate for policies. Nothing like negotiating with a gun to the head of the economy.

[msquared]

I just wonder where all of the inflation is that they have been warning is just around the corner for the past 10 years?

And any time we start to cut the deficit and maybe get a surplus to start paying down the debt, they start calling for tax cuts, because if we are running a surplus, why are we still taxing at that level?  We are bringing in more money then we are spending, so cut taxes.

[yossarian22c]

Sometimes it shocks me at how bad the Democratic leadership is at laying out issues. There have already been 1,000,000 state and local jobs lost. The Republicans are refusing to send money to state and local governments. No one is doing more to defund the police and schools than the Republican senate. I get that message doesn't play great to their far left base but it plays well with 75+% of the public.

[TheDeamon]

I just wonder where all of the inflation is that they have been warning is just around the corner for the past 10 years?

What gas been going on with Covid relief funds is going to cause inflation. We're not seeing it at present because the economy is being artificially crippled at present. Once the brakes are released because Covid "is under control" and the economy stops staggering, we're going to run headlong into it.

Of course, as anyone who has studied economics can also point out, there is a strong correlation to inflation and job creation as well. So there is that.

And any time we start to cut the deficit and maybe get a surplus to start paying down the debt, they start calling for tax cuts, because if we are running a surplus, why are we still taxing at that level?  We are bringing in more money then we are spending, so cut taxes.

There are some other factors in play than just that, such as the Corporate Tax rate on money brought in from foreign sources for one such example. But on the broad strokes, I'd generally agree that a higher priority should be given to paying down debt rather than cutting taxes during years with great growth numbers.

[msquared]

The conservatives keep saying that, but they have been saying that for the past 10-15 years, when we have had decreasing unemployment, that is in fact at historic lows, and practically no inflation. Hell they have lowered the Fed Rate to 0 and still no inflation.

[yossarian22c]

What is the Republican case against aid to states and cities and extended unemployment benefits? Do they just want the economy to tank in the first months of Biden's presidency? They are nominally holding out for making sure no business is at all responsible for any COVID related lawsuits.

[yossarian22c]

The Republicans are holding up aid to unemployed people, to states and cities for teachers, police, first responders, and vaccine distribution. They are doing this so no company is at all accountable for COVID lawsuits, even companies like Tyson whose managers had betting pools on which employees would get sick. I get why Tyson and companies employing people who did such things would really want immunity from any type of lawsuit, I just don't understand why the Republicans are willing to tank the economy to give it to them. Maybe they are willing to harm the economy so they can blame Biden for the down turn. Guess they need to change their slogan from America first to Republicans first.

[msquared]

Supposedly McConnell is now going for $600 one time payments to every one since the 2 GA senators are telling them they are getting killed at rallies when people ask them where the aid is. Since they are hurting their base with this standoff  they are getting worried about the results of the run off election.

[yossarian22c]

Supposedly McConnell is now going for $600 one time payments to every one since the 2 GA senators are telling them they are getting killed at rallies when people ask them where the aid is. Since they are hurting their base with this standoff  they are getting worried about the results of the run off election.

Not that $600 isn't nice, extended and expanded unemployment aid and money to states and cities to keep people employed and getting the vaccine out should be a priority over getting $600 out to everyone. There is a big group of people who have had reduced hours and wages that $600 will help out a lot, but to the unemployed its not a great solution and for people who have been able to continue working it isn't needed. Republicans are settling for the most expensive option to make sure everyone knows they did something, even if it was the most ineffective use of the money.

[msquared]

the other issue is many of the people who will get this money do not need it.  My wife and I do not need it. We did not need the $1,200 we got the first round.  My wife used all of her money to donate to local charities.  I am sure she will do the same with this.

[rightleft22]

I think the theory is that the money will be spent, hopefully locally (rent, food, donations or what ever) and in this way provide fuel for the economy. Trickle up as it were 

[msquared]

We might. We are getting carry out from local places usually 3 times a week and normally tipping fairly well.

[yossarian22c]

I think the theory is that the money will be spent, hopefully locally (rent, food, donations or what ever) and in this way provide fuel for the economy. Trickle up as it were

I agree its helpful and stimulates the economy. However, unemployment, aid to states and cities to keep people from becoming unemployed all seems like it should be a higher priority. Also the size is too small, a 2 trillion dollar stimulus today would support the economy through vaccination and help us pick up with a strong economy. With a 2 trillion dollar price tag there would be enough money for states, cities, and small businesses to add onto the $600 for individuals. If it weren't for the two Republican senators still needing to get votes I bet we wouldn't be seeing any action from Mitch.

As I predicted the minute Biden was elected Republicans went for austerity after 3.5 years of cutting taxes and spending. 

[DonaldD]

Coming up with means testing would be complicated, slow down the process, invariably people will fall through the cracks and others would end up repaying later, even some who do need the money.

Best just to give the subsidy to everyone without trying to figure out who shouldn't get it.

[yossarian22c]

Coming up with means testing would be complicated, slow down the process, invariably people will fall through the cracks and others would end up repaying later, even some who do need the money.

Best just to give the subsidy to everyone without trying to figure out who shouldn't get it.

Long term I'm with you. A UBI to replace most (or all) other forms of government aid would be preferable. But right now I don't see $600 to everyone as nearly as a high priority as expanding and extending unemployment benefits and aid to state and local governments for police, teachers, and vaccine distribution. If we were doing all the rest I would be on board with another round of stimulus for all to catch all the tip/gig workers who aren't making nearly as much but don't qualify for traditional unemployment either. But the $600 is really only going to get those who need it through a month (if we're being generous about their thriftiness). Its fireworks when we need a real bang.

[TheDrake]

Now we know what Biden offered Mayor Pete to drop out and help him get the nomination. This appointment stinks. There is no way on earth that he's qualified, any more than Betsy was qualified to run the DOE.

[cherrypoptart]

Or Dr. (actual) Ben Carson as the head of HUD.

"Carson has no experience with any of these programs-nor any experience in government at all. When rumors circulated last month that Trump might appoint the physician to his cabinet, Carson's close friend and sometime spokesperson Armstrong Williams told The Hill: "Dr. Carson feels he has no government experience. He's never run a federal agency. The last thing he would want to do was take a position that could cripple the presidency."

When Trump did tap his one-time rival to run HUD, Williams declared that one of Carson's chief qualifications was that he had once lived in public housing-a claim that news outlets, including The New York Times, initially repeated. On Monday morning, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee likewise tweeted that "Ben Carson is first HUD Sec to have actually lived in gov't housing." But by Monday afternoon, Williams had retracted his statement, telling the Times that Carson was never a public housing tenant after all."

https://prospect.org/economy/trump-picked-ben-carson-hud-secretary/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So the good news is that it's going to be difficult for Trump supporters who didn't say anything about Trump's qualification challenged appointments to make hay about Biden's. Of course the Trump critics who did make a big brouhaha about it now need to follow up on Biden for consistency. As one who didn't make a big deal out of Trump's appointments I'm willing to give Mayor Pete a chance to see how he does. It is a little sad though that these have become like higher level political favors compared to ambassadorships that are handed out like candy now as essentially completely legal bribes for donations in the case of ambassadorships and in the case of cabinet appointments as a reward for being some of the first people willing to kneel and kiss the ring.

[TheDeamon]

Pete strikes me a big proponent of transit options, especially trains. But not knowing if Biden has been in contact with any other people who have some political influence and also would shamelessly plug for trains. It seems logical enough in that context.

He's there to head up the Department of Trains, and the expansion of their use in daily life. (Not that I think certain investments in High Speed rail, especially along the Eastern Seaboard and along the Great Lakes is a bad idea, it's probably a very good one all things considered... But as for the rest of the country, that's a boondoggle waiting to happen, even in Cali. Probably especially in Cali.)

[TheDrake]

It's great to be a cheerleader, you don't make em the head coach.

[wmLambert]

Now we know what Biden offered Mayor Pete to drop out and help him get the nomination. This appointment stinks. There is no way on earth that he's qualified, any more than Betsy was qualified to run the DOE.

No, Biden probably didn't offer Pete any gifts to drop out. That was just the way the voting among the Democrats worked out. The power brokers in the DNC were afraid of a socialist Sanders nominee, so had to create a nominee out of Biden. Pete was not a part of that. Biden is definitely selecting from a list of minority groups, and avoiding quality as the prime factor. The slap at Betsy DeVos is an example of following the lead of the Teachers' Unions. DeVos has been studying education for decades and has proved many concepts through working groups and appointed studies to fix what is wrong. Did you ever actually read the works of John Dewey that explained why the Democrats wanted to make education a Marx/Engels designed activity? I've read them, and so has DeVos. Again, the probably worst possible appointee would be someone that was corrupted by the existing Dewey teaching machine. We don't need to keep the failure of this system - but to correct it.

With the latest lawsuits and the latest documented theft of votes, Trump now is close to being re-elected. I sure hope so. No one thinks Biden is competent enough for the office. No one here is that daft or naive. I wonder how some here get the data they argue with, when the MSM and big tech denies them them anything worth looking at. Face it, The DNC is again deflecting and projecting the Biden fake vote totals, when Trump broke every vote record in the book, and also had enthusiasm and a legacy of success, not to mention four actual Nobel Peace Prize awards he should have been awarded. Trump probably received ober 80 million votes, but the vote stealing took enough away from him and gave them to Biden. The whistleblowers have not been repudiated - they have been ignored. The affidavits are legal documents that prove that Trump won. What the Democrats didn't count on was that his numbers would be so huge that their original vote-scams coiudn't catch him, so they had to take risks to close the gap. There were enough witnesses of those moves to send the Democrat election officials to prison.  I don't know how insulated the deep-staters are, but many are burning candles at the altar for a Biden win to stop any real investigations. The best thing for our nation is for these vote-scammers at the top to go to prison - not just the normal Democrat cannon-fodder.

[Aris Katsaris]

Any update on when we're gonna get those 'goods' you claimed the good guys to possess from the raids in Frankfurt and Spain when the DoD supposedly battled CIA mercenaries?

[msquared]

Wm what are you going to do when Biden is sworn in on Jan 20?  Or will this be like your previous predictions of the end of the world?  Or that the earth is only 6,000 years old? 

[kidv]

May as well post this here -

Apparently in response to a retraction demand letter from Smartmatic company, Fox News (the news part of it) has put together a news package to air inside Jeanine Pirro, Lou Dobbs, and Maria Bartiromo's shows this weekend without the participation of Dobbs, Pirro, or Bartiromo, rebutting the claims made on their programs about election fraud and Smartmatic having any connection to Dominion voting, or even that Smartmatic is used anywhere in the U.S. but one county in California. 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/19/business/fox-smartmatic-news-package/index.html

I went to Fox News' site to see if I could see this retraction package, but I didn't see any story listed in the site.  So I scrolled through Saturday's Jeanine Pirro show listed on the site, and sure enough the last two minutes (37:01 to 39:54), is a completely surreal dropped in story having an off-air voice ask a series of questions about Smartmatic and have them all denied.  No input from Pirro.

edit:
ok, here is the fox news insert interview:
https://video.foxnews.com/v/6217367139001#sp=show-clips

[msquared]

Yeah I saw the Dobb's part.  At least it is something. The higher ups must  know they are on thin ice with what their people have been doing and are doing CYA.  I wonder what OAN and Newsmax are gong to do.

[Aris Katsaris]

Hard to argue that the blatant and unsupported slander against both Dominion and Smartmatic haven't caused these companies material damage. I hope they sue the fake news networks of Fox News & the other various far-right media that have sprung up recently for all they're worth.

Could Trump also get sued about his slander of the companies, the moment he leaves office?

But let's hear it from Seriati & others how it's supposedly the Democrats that want the people to be uninformed and misinformed, how it's supposedly the liberal media that are lying. Because they said that... hmm, strange I can't actually remember a single lie they've spoken about Trump. (They *probably* said something false about him at some point, it'd be miraculous if they didn't, but I can't actually remember a single one.)

[TheDrake]

Don't you realize how the liberal media portrays Trump in a bad light by quoting him verbatim and not making excuses for him, like that he was just joking, or that he simply misspoke, or that he was exaggerating?

[wmLambert]

Don't you realize how the liberal media portrays Trump in a bad light by quoting him verbatim and not making excuses for him, like that he was just joking, or that he simply misspoke, or that he was exaggerating?

No, they misquote and edit his statements. Not verbatim. He rarely misspeaks, Far less than Democrat talking heads who are ignored.

Look at Biden. He has lied about his crime family. Does anyone here really want to defend him?

[Seriati]

What is the Republican case against aid to states and cities and extended unemployment benefits?

Those are completely different funding buckets.  The "case" against the latter is that increasing unemployment benefits (adding extra to the payments) is slowing the recovery (which is true).  Not sure I'm aware of the Republicans wanting to prevent an extension of the benefit period.  We're currently around the same number of unemployed persons per job opening as Obama was in Jan 2015 (start of year 7 of his Presidency).  If you believe what you've claimed about Obama's economy, hard to understand your concern about this now.  https://www.bls.gov/charts/job-openings-and-labor-turnover/unemp-per-job-opening.htm

You can also see how far off we are from the unemployment highs that just occurred in the peak of Covid.  https://www.bls.gov/web/laus/lauhsthl.htm.  You may note there are an awful lot of historic low unemployment numbers in Trump's term, and now because of COVID and the state reactions there are an awful lot of historic highs as well.

State and local "aid" on the other hand because its a lie.  Tax revenues are off but not enough to cause the problems they're having in the blue states and cities.  All they're looking for is a federal bailout to pay off years of buying votes on credit.  Can't imagine why Republicans would have an issue with paying for bills run up to keep Democrats in power.  Pretend outrage all you want but that's all it is, a useful excuse to get out from under voting buying and pandering policy consequences.  No thanks.

Do they just want the economy to tank in the first months of Biden's presidency?

Biden should be thanking them.  He's poised to show superb numbers as a direct result of Trump's and the Republicans efforts.  Plenty of room for him to stifle the economy with ridiculous regulations and still look like a hero - which is exactly how the media is going to pitch the case and exactly what is going to be parroted here.

They are nominally holding out for making sure no business is at all responsible for any COVID related lawsuits.

Which should be a no brainer.  Places of employment should be exempt from lawsuits.  Let OSHA fine them for violations of protocols if they didn't comply with COVID restrictions, but turning the post COVID period into class action hunting season is one of the most ridiculously self destructive things we could do as a country.

[TheDrake]

The regulations get put in place to curb the unethical behavior of businesses, including safe workplaces. I guess we just let the free market run wild, and we can go back to the good old days where miners got buried alive and kids lost their hands in machinery. Or perhaps allow the selling of snake oil as medicine, or deliberately misleading account holders.

Think that is over the top?

Global climate change is going to cost lives, Trump dumped every regulation designed to mitigate that disaster. Wiping out sustainable fishing regulations, encouraging unbridled exploitation of nature preserves, promoting affordable housing. Removal of a rule that farmers should be able to sue meatpackers for anti-competitive behaviour. Rolling back protections for workers to get paid overtime. Rescinded 72 policy documents outlining the rights of disabled students. Allow food to be less safe. Prevent federal student aid from going to scams like Trump U. Delayed a rule aiming to prevent accidental chemical releases. Limited liability for civil rights violations when employees work on-site at other companies (ie most security, janitors, cafeteria workers, gardeners) Employers no longer report their injuries, so now no one will know which companies are dangerous to work at.

Do all of those things "help the economy get bigger", well sure. That doesn't mean it is such a hot idea.

Rolling rolling rolling

[wmLambert]

The regulations get put in place to curb the unethical behavior of businesses, including safe workplaces. I guess we just let the free market run wild, and we can go back to the good old days where miners got buried alive and kids lost their hands in machinery. Or perhaps allow the selling of snake oil as medicine, or deliberately misleading account holders.

Think that is over the top?

Global climate change is going to cost lives, Trump dumped every regulation designed to mitigate that disaster. Wiping out sustainable fishing regulations, encouraging unbridled exploitation of nature preserves, promoting affordable housing. Removal of a rule that farmers should be able to sue meatpackers for anti-competitive behaviour. Rolling back protections for workers to get paid overtime. Rescinded 72 policy documents outlining the rights of disabled students. Allow food to be less safe. Prevent federal student aid from going to scams like Trump U. Delayed a rule aiming to prevent accidental chemical releases. Limited liability for civil rights violations when employees work on-site at other companies (ie most security, janitors, cafeteria workers, gardeners) Employers no longer report their injuries, so now no one will know which companies are dangerous to work at.

Do all of those things "help the economy get bigger", well sure. That doesn't mean it is such a hot idea.

Rolling rolling rolling

Nothing in this post is correct.

First, the image of children being treated like animals was a myth from thye Sadler Rerport of 182:

The biggest divergence from reality sprung from a simple mistruth offered up in 1832. If there ever was a simple causation for all belief in the benevolence and value of a strong centralized government, then this is it.

In a review of fourth and eighth grade history books, all of them get it wrong. None of them were honest about big government vs. big business. Each book spent much effort painting a picture of successful government monopolies in the Fur trade, building canals and railroads. The historical truth is that these government monopolies were uncontested failures - Failures so severe that the populace rose up in anger, ended the political forces that fed them, and turned them over to successful entrepreneurs. The books all preached to the young that big government was the savior and Robber Barons the nemesis, when in all actuality, it was the opposite that held true.

What caused this was a reliance on the historical works of John L. and Barbara Hammond, who influenced all the school books that followed. They relied on the Sadler Report of 1832 that reported the Industrial Revolution was "crowded with overworked children", "hotbeds of putrid fever," and "monotonous toil in a hell of human cruelty." Charles Dickens' novels helped to codify this image.

Would modern day Leftists feel less secure promoting big government to solve social and economic problems, if they knew in their hearts that what they learned as children was a lie? An historical review by Dr. Burton W. Folsom points out that

Mr. Sadler, we know today, lied in his report. He was a member of Parliament and made up much of his report to gain support for a bill he wanted to see Parliament pass. Economist W. H. Hutt has described Sadler's falsification of evidence. Even Friedrich Engels, comrade of Karl Marx, concluded that "Sadler permitted himself to be betrayed by his noble enthusiasm into the most distorted and erroneous statements."

The history of our country is clear: It was the government that charged outrageous prices and tried to pawn off shoddy merchandise, while the private businesses that supplanted them did the job right, charged lower prices, and did it without government subsidies that kept the monopolies afloat.

The school books give the impression that robber barons stepped in to exploit whatever they could, and were a negative point in history. The lesson the books should be teaching is that in the world of commerce, the profit motive, the structure of incentives. and the stifling tendencies of bureaucrats are such that those businesses run by entrepreneurs will consistently outperform those run by the government. Instead, the authors had a bias for a strong central government. When the authors were called on these reports, they agreed that they were not reporting fact, but incorrect, unsubstantiated ideology.

As a prime example, what happened in Michigan, my home state, is the rule and not the exception.

When the state builds a project, the incentives are different from those of private enterprise. Satisfying political interests is often more important to legislators than building a railroad that is financially sound and well constructed. State builders use taxpayers’ money, not their own. If the road fails, it’s the state, not the builders, with empty pockets. The Michigan story is full of accounts of padded vouchers, illegal bidding, cost overruns, and the stealing of materials by contractors and even by the citizens themselves. Since no one actually owned the railroads, no one felt the responsibility to take care of them.

Judge Thomas Cooley, Michigan’s most famous 19th-century lawyer and a president of the American Bar Association, observed this waste firsthand. He wrote about it later and said, "By common consent it came to be considered that the State in entering upon these works had made a serious mistake." The people of Michigan, Cooley reported, became convinced "that the management of railroads was in its nature essentially a private business, and ought to be in the hands of individuals." In 1846, therefore, the state of Michigan abandoned all the canals and sold the Central and Southern Railroads, which were only partly completed, to private investors. The new owners promised to do some rebuilding and to expand the lines to the Chicago area. From this distress sale, the state recovered one-half of its $5 million investment and ended its headaches from being in the railroad business.

Once the railroads had been privatized, they were rebuilt with care and extended across the state. At last, Michigan citizens had the roads they needed to trade and thrive. This turnaround was so startling that its implications were not lost on Michigan voters. They learned from history.

In 1850, Michigan threw out its old constitution and wrote a new one. It read, "the State shall not subscribe to or be interested in the stock of any company, association, or corporation." Furthermore, "the State shall not be a party to or interested in any work of internal improvement, nor engaged in carrying on any such work" except to provide land. The heavily taxed voters were determined to learn from their mistakes and chart a better future for the state. In the years of laissez-faire that followed, Michigan’s entrepreneurs developed the state’s natural resources—lumber and iron ore—so effectively that Michigan soon became a major industrial state.

This is a root principle that denies the Liberal belief that is inculcated into their belief systems as school children. How can you dismiss the honor and veracity of a Liberal who believes what he was taught in school?

Going deeper into disinformation, consider the tendency of the Left to disparage the right as religious extremists and strongly anti-science. Once again, how can one begrudge a poor Leftist who learned Columbus almost never discovered America because the religious zealots said he was a heretic? The Dems learned in school that the church decreed the Earth was flat and that was that. Going back farther, who hasn't learned that the great enlightened civilization of Greece and Rome ended when the Church entered the picture, and then began a "Dark Ages" That lasted until The Rennaissance? This disinformation is all wrong, yet believed devoutly by the Left.

Rodney Stark in How Christianity (and Capitalism) Led to Science presents the accepted and unargued true history that is unreported in school books.

The warfare of Columbus [with religion] the world knows well: how the Bishop of Ceuta bested him in Portugal,; how sundry wise men of Spain confronted him with the usual quotations from Psalms, from St, Paul, and from St. Augustine; how, even after he was triumphant, and after his voyage had greatly strengthened the theory of the Earth's sphericity... the Church by its highest authority solemnly stumbled and persisted in going astray... the theological barriers to this geographical truth yielded but slowly. Plain as it had become to scholars, they hesitated to declare it to the world at large... But in 1519 science gains a crushing victory. Magellan makes his famous voyage. He proves the Earth is round, for his expedition circumnavigates it... Yet even this does not end the war. Many conscientious [religious[ men oppose the doctrine for two hundred years longer.

Every history book recounts how Columbus fought the religious extremists who used the Bible to decree the Earth was Flat. Name a Leftist who knows any different!

White lied. He was running for President of Cornell and admitted he wrote this to "get even with his Christian critics of his plans for Cornell." Every educated person of Columbus's time knew the earth was round. This includes Roman Catholic theologians. The Venerable Bede (ca. 673-735) taught that the Earth was round, as did Bishop Virgilius of Salzburg (ca. 720-784). Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), and Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274), and all four became Saints. It was part of an ages-old conspiracy of atheists to portray Religion as being anti-Science. Columbus was not argued out of sailing off the edge of the world. The scientist of his day knew the world was round - but much larger than Columbus estimated. He put Japan at being only 2,080 miles from the Canary Islands, but the "sundry wise men of Spain" knew it was over 14,000 miles. Had Columbus not run across an unsuspected continent - his crew would have all died at Sea.

But then again, the entire "Dark ages" is a crock. Christianity actually inspired science. There was no science in ancient Greece or Rome. Aristotle thought the weight of objects were proportional to the speed with which they dropped. A simple test by dropping two different weights off a cliff never occurred to him. Guesswork without empiricism is not science. It was only at the birth of Christianity, that a wise God appeared who fostered the idea that science could be done and should be done. The Church understood there was a duty to understand God's handiwork, the better to marvel at it.

As for a time of barbarism, superstition, and widespread ignorance - there was no "Dark Ages." The march of progress was sure and steady, and sparked by the Christian concept of the world as an understandable creation following understandable laws which needed to be studied. The phrase,  "Dark Ages," was a myth, first used in the early 19th century by atheists to claim credit for a sudden "enlightenment" that occurred against the Church's wishes. In fact it was the Church that fostered science. Quintus Tertullian instructed in the second century, "Reason is a thing of God, inasmuch as there is nothing which God the Maker of all has not provided, disposed, ordained by reason — nothing which He has not willed should be handled and understood by reason." The success of the West, including the rise of science, rested entirely on religious foundations, and the people who brought it about were devout Christians.

Yet, every good Liberal knows Gibbons wrote The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire and blamed the Fall of Rome and the rise of barbarism on Christianity. Historians disagree - yet the schools still distort the truth. The New Columbia Encyclopedia (1975) says the term "Dark Ages" is no longer used by historians because this era is no longer thought to have been so dim. The Encyclopedia Britannica concurs.

[wmLambert]

Following that, the Free Market doesn't run wild. That would be the government elites trying to run everything and failing, only to blame their failure on others. As for Global Climate Change, that is a crock. We are in an inter-glacial period within an ice age, and science says to be grateful for the short reprieve with some warmth. Once we get back to the ice age we are in, China's purchase of farmlands on the equator will be seen as a huge future investment. In the mean time, hypocrites like Al Gore will get rich planting tree farms for polluters.

The regulations that Trump rolled back were offset by better regulations already on the books. The stultifying results of over-regulation were ended. Again, the Free Market fixes such things better than greedy politicians creating carve-outs for their fundraisers. BTW; what are Policy documents? Are they some kind of dictatorial fiat that are not laws made by congress? Just look at the sheer stupidity of the body of Obama Executive Orders. Once eliminated, the economy started working again. Do not create false dilemmas.

[TheDrake]

So now you're denying that child labor existed in the US, even when it was legal? And we have plenty of contemporary examples of what goes on in countries where child labor is legal, and plenty of records of it here in the US.

They didn't have photoshop back in those days.

18% of the labor force in 1900 were kids under 16. And while I wouldn't go so far as to say they were treated like animals, they were doing dangerous work for long hours. Now you can argue that Obama's were not as necessary as the ones back then, but regulations aren't bad by definition even when they do slow down the economy.

Government mandates for overtime slow down the economy too, I suppose you'd just pitch those overboard as well. Anything that will boost the bottom line, no matter who it hurts.

[wmLambert]

...18% of the labor force in 1900 were kids under 16. And while I wouldn't go so far as to say they were treated like animals, they were doing dangerous work for long hours. Now you can argue that Obama's were not as necessary as the ones back then, but regulations aren't bad by definition even when they do slow down the economy.

Government mandates for overtime slow down the economy too, I suppose you'd just pitch those overboard as well. Anything that will boost the bottom line, no matter who it hurts.

No, they weren't doing dangerous work for  long hours. Please refer to the Sadler Report of 1832 I mentioned to understand that. Most jobs that kids did were simple ones without danger or long hours. But you believe what you falsely learned in grade school, if you prefer. The hardest jobs were always those in agriculture, just as they are today. Yes, regulations aren't bad by definition - just those put on by politicians wanting to benefit their fundraisers. Y'know, like Obama did throughout his Presidency. You do realize that safety in the workplace is better fixed by the exigencies of the Free Market, than by politically crafted rules that tend to have unintended consequences.

As for dangerous work conditions being fixed by regulations, please discover OSHA. We have many overlapping regs that need to be pruned. Trump did not unilaterally sweep them away - he just asked agencies to look at them and get rid of stupid ones and duplicate ones. He even allowed new regs as needed, but to get rid of two old, unnecessary ones for every new one.

Science does not tell us to protect the Snail Darter. It tells us that thousands of species vanish from the Earth yearly, as successor offshoots replace them. It seems spotted owls prefer Kmart signs to trees in the forest.

[Seriati]

The regulations get put in place to curb the unethical behavior of businesses, including safe workplaces.

Not even remotely true.  Regulations get put in place to control people, with a nod to anything that makes them appear credible.  I mean heck you can look at the COVID mess and see that it's been completely arbitrarily implemented.  The science on transmission was largely unproven guess work (remember how you guys railed about the unproven use of Hydroxychlorquine, yet had no problem with destroying the economy with restrictions that have even less science behind them, ah good times), and that means the restrictions were almost completely guesswork.  I mean we still have regulations that effectively shut down small businesses and concentrated everyone in large stores, yet the evidence is that big box stores are a transmission vector and small businesses not so much.

We have regulations that limit 10k seat arenas to less than 100 people, yet that permit favored political rallies to gather.  We actually had to have a court order the police to stop recording the license plates of socially distanced cars in a church parking lot attending services.

But its not just COVID, without fail, bureaucrats expand and expand their regulatory mandates to cover things that they find politically important without any regard to whether they have a safety element. 

And its a flat lie that most regulations are controlling unethical business behaviors.  Most are nanny state over governance of good people who want to do the right things created by people with less situational knowledge that the people they regulate.  And that's before you even lead the factory context and start in on the regulations that exist in other walks of life.

I guess we just let the free market run wild, and we can go back to the good old days where miners got buried alive and kids lost their hands in machinery. Or perhaps allow the selling of snake oil as medicine, or deliberately misleading account holders.

Think that is over the top?

It's just logical fallacy to assume that it's all or nothing.  Nothing requires that we make it legal to bury miners - why would that be an advantage economically, are you burying them when their shift is over - or to use kids hands in machines - as what some weird form of lubrication? - or to allow the selling of snake oil - though we do have people in the neighborhood that sell liquid collagen to drink and several whole stores premised on selling "not FDA approved" natural supplements.

Go to google and type in "regulations governing" followed by anything at all, you'll get something that comes up.  Sometimes it'll be short and to the point, other times it will be beyond detailed and specific to the point of absurdity, but something will almost always come up.  Just for fun, I looked for "clothes for miners" and discovered their helmets must have a non-metallic base paint; "naming of bicycles" where I discovered the EPA does have naming conventions and that we have a 20 part code of for the regulation of bicycles https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title16/16cfr1512_main_02.tpl bizarrely housed in the hazardous substance regulations passed by the consumer product safety commission; so I decided to check on "bird watching" and I thought aha... here there are only ethical codes... but no, dig a little deeper and there are dozens of laws that impact the hobby of bird watching, like it being illegal to keep a bald eagle feather you find on the ground or to make bird calls in certain locations, and if you find an injured bird and try to help it you may be violating the law requiring that such efforts be made by licensed professionals.

I don't care how well meaning you think regulators are, where there are rules that "govern" every single activity in which you can engage (and I didn't dare to look at whether there are "in the bedroom" regulations,  which I hope is not the case), it's just a trap for selective prosecution.  No one is actually able, or even bothers, to read the regulations that apply to every activity they engage in.

Global climate change is going to cost lives, Trump dumped every regulation designed to mitigate that disaster.

Demonstrable false.  In fact, it's beyond a lie to make that claim.  It's beyond even hyperbole.

Wiping out sustainable fishing regulations, encouraging unbridled exploitation of nature preserves, promoting affordable housing.

Maybe you can point to the parts of this order that you disagree with.  It literally contradicts your claim about "wiping out sustainable fishing regulations" by in fact requiring them and that they be consistent with our environmental laws and UN policies.  https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-promoting-american-seafood-competitiveness-economic-growth/  Do you somehow object to actually promoting efforts to engage is sustainable fishing?

Did you do any research on any of this stuff is it all just repeating what you "heard" Trump did?

Removal of a rule that farmers should be able to sue meatpackers for anti-competitive behaviour.

Farmers are still able to sue, there's a hundred year old act that governs that relationship.  The Obama era rule (among lots of other things) was trying to change the standard that applied under the rule.  Meanwhile, here's anti-Trump article that walks through how Trump's administration is actually bringing serious investigations into the industry and it's fairness, literally the title says it all.  https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/u-s-meat-giants-face-biggest-attack-in-century-from-trump-probe-1.1450567

Is it even worth looking into anything else you claim?  I can read Politico for myself, and if you can't see the bias in the articles you're looking at you're not analyzing them at a level that engenders trust in your conclusions.

Do all of those things "help the economy get bigger", well sure. That doesn't mean it is such a hot idea.

Everything I looked at that you cited was pretty not only a "hot idea" that was helping the economy get bigger but actually addressing the problems you claimed they were adding to.  Pretty a total fail.

Trump killed a lot of regulations that claimed to be doing something good but weren't.  Its the very principle behind the old maxim, actions speak louder than words.

[yossarian22c]

They are nominally holding out for making sure no business is at all responsible for any COVID related lawsuits.

Which should be a no brainer.  Places of employment should be exempt from lawsuits.  Let OSHA fine them for violations of protocols if they didn't comply with COVID restrictions, but turning the post COVID period into class action hunting season is one of the most ridiculously self destructive things we could do as a country.

It depends, did employers take reasonable precautions to prevent their workers from being sick? Or did they have plant managers creating betting pools to see who would get COVID next?

The original Republican language for the exemption covered both categories of employers. I'm fine if they want to exempt businesses that took all reasonable precautions but that doesn't mean every business should be exempt from anything COVID related.

[DonaldD]

It depends, did employers take reasonable precautions to prevent their workers from being sick? Or did they have plant managers creating betting pools to see who would get COVID next?

The original Republican language for the exemption covered both categories of employers. I'm fine if they want to exempt businesses that took all reasonable precautions but that doesn't mean every business should be exempt from anything COVID related.

Of course... whether an employer took reasonable precautions becomes a point of litigation.  I can't see how you get away from that.

[TheDrake]

It depends, did employers take reasonable precautions to prevent their workers from being sick? Or did they have plant managers creating betting pools to see who would get COVID next?

The original Republican language for the exemption covered both categories of employers. I'm fine if they want to exempt businesses that took all reasonable precautions but that doesn't mean every business should be exempt from anything COVID related.

Of course... whether an employer took reasonable precautions becomes a point of litigation.  I can't see how you get away from that.

Precisely this. If you are a business who lets employees and customers mill around without masks on, you deserve to pay for the hospital and funeral bills. If you can't operate your business safely, then don't operate it at all. I don't see why this is any different than suing a restaurant for getting sick due to improper food handling.

[TheDrake]

Global climate change is going to cost lives, Trump dumped every regulation designed to mitigate that disaster.

Demonstrable false.  In fact, it's beyond a lie to make that claim.  It's beyond even hyperbole.

DOD: About two-thirds of the 79 installations addressed in this report are vulnerable to current
or future recurrent flooding and more than one-half are vulnerable to current or future drought.
About one-half are vulnerable to wildfires. It is important to note that areas subject to wildfire
may then experience serious mudslides or erosion when rains follow fires. Impacts are dispersed
around the country. Not surprisingly, impacts vary by region for coastal flooding, with greater
impacts to the East coast and Hawaii than the West coast. Desertification vulnerabilities are
limited to the sites on the list with arid soils; these are in California, New Mexico, and Nevada.
Drought vulnerabilities are more widely dispersed across the country. Wildfire and recurrent
flooding impacts are the most widely dispersed.

report that backs up what I'm saying.

I'm not sure if its worth it to respond to everything else that you wrote when you are this wrong. Sure, I was exaggerating when I said he dumped every regulation, but he pitched aside dozens of Obama era regulations almost entirely.

Quote
Wiping out sustainable fishing regulations, encouraging unbridled exploitation of nature preserves, promoting affordable housing.

Maybe you can point to the parts of this order that you disagree with.  It literally contradicts your claim about "wiping out sustainable fishing regulations" by in fact requiring them and that they be consistent with our environmental laws and UN policies.  https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-promoting-american-seafood-competitiveness-economic-growth/  Do you somehow object to actually promoting efforts to engage is sustainable fishing?

Did you do any research on any of this stuff is it all just repeating what you "heard" Trump did?;

That's not at ALL the impact of that EO.

American fisheries management thrives because of its rigorous science-based approach and regulations—not in spite of them. Yet the Trump administration views these regulations, which have rebuilt stocks and ushered in the end of overfishing, as burdensome. Its new executive order solicits “recommended actions” from the regional fisheries management councils to “reduce burdens on domestic fishing” and to “increase production.”

But production is not the problem; demand is. Boats laden with fish and shellfish are being turned away by seafood buyers because with global supply chains in disarray and so many restaurants closed, there is no way to process, store, or sell more product. More than two-thirds of the money that Americans spend on seafood is spent at restaurants, and sales in that sector have plunged by more than 90 percent. In these dire circumstances, it is puzzling that the Trump administration would pull the councils’ attention—a finite resource given that they still must conduct their regular business—away from these immediate and complicated problems.

Additionally, the administration’s focus on simply increasing production ignores the hard-earned lessons of the past few decades. Returning to the days of collapsing stocks; hundreds of thousands of dead seabirds, turtles, and sharks; and flattened bottom habitat that can no longer support juvenile fish is not in anyone’s best interest.

This contradiction is particularly apparent in Hawaii, where fish prices have fallen so low that boats cannot afford to leave the dock. Yet immediately after the executive order was released, the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WESPAC) made the disappointing decision to push to allow commercial fishing in the Pacific marine national monuments. With nowhere to sell the fish they are catching now, it seems likely that WESPAC’s letter—and the fisheries management section of President Donald Trump’s executive order—has much more to do with its long-standing push to allow industrial fishing in the few areas now protected from it and far less to do with aiding the communities devastated by COVID-19.

You tell me how production can be increased without killing more fish. The impact makes fisheries less sustainable than they were prior to the order, by definition.

They might well combat illegal fishing, by just making less fishing illegal. There may have been people breaking the law by fishing in marine national monuments, but now it's perfectly legal!

[Seriati]

They are nominally holding out for making sure no business is at all responsible for any COVID related lawsuits.

Which should be a no brainer.  Places of employment should be exempt from lawsuits.  Let OSHA fine them for violations of protocols if they didn't comply with COVID restrictions, but turning the post COVID period into class action hunting season is one of the most ridiculously self destructive things we could do as a country.

It depends, did employers take reasonable precautions to prevent their workers from being sick?

That seems exactly what OSHA or another regulator should be handling.  Using aggressive lawyers to police consequences -after the fact- without regard to the underling mistake is an error.  Why should an employer that did nothing and lucked out with no one sick face no consequences and one that did everything they could think of in good faith be bankrupted because they were wrong about something (or maybe not) and someone got sick working there?

Or did they have plant managers creating betting pools to see who would get COVID next?

You've brought that up several times.  It's callous and inhumane, but exactly what safety protocol do you think it violates?

Can you honestly say you didn't do the equivalent about people getting sick at Trump rallies?  Or inside the Trump Whitehouse?  We all know mean spirited speculation about those rallies was rampant, with commentators even writing and saying they hoped people got sick, and celebrating when certain people got sick and died.   

The original Republican language for the exemption covered both categories of employers. I'm fine if they want to exempt businesses that took all reasonable precautions but that doesn't mean every business should be exempt from anything COVID related.

By "both" you mean employers that employed people who said mean things and those that failed to implement safety protocols?  I don't know about you but every business I've been in or had contact with implemented some kind of safety protocols, but there was a lot of variation.  Some places it was clear that the staff was choosing not to follow the protocols (wearing masks pulled off their noses for example).

Employers should be liable for failing to implement safety regulations, which properly handled through fines that are balanced to deter the conduct and not through litigation lottery enforcement that holds them accountable for the costs of a COVID illness, which may or may not actually have resulted from their actions.

[Seriati]

Precisely this. If you are a business who lets employees and customers mill around without masks on, you deserve to pay for the hospital and funeral bills. If you can't operate your business safely, then don't operate it at all. I don't see why this is any different than suing a restaurant for getting sick due to improper food handling.

Well big difference is you can actually prove the food poisoning came from the restaurant.  COVID is highly infectious and it will often be impossible to prove causation from a specific policy failure.  Did an employee "catch it at work" or catch when they went to dinner at a co-worker's house?  Did they catch it at the grocery store or at a rally?  The very reason we have safety regulations and things like workers comp is to make the process into a "no fault" process.  Litigation requires fault, and substituting empathy for the harm caused for requiring proof of the harm is not a good thing.

Plus the nature of these kind of claims is not in fact that only businesses that allowed milling around without masks get sued.  In fact there will be hundreds of claims by people like an employee that got cited multiple times for not wearing their mask properly who got sick where they'll claim that the supervisor should have forced them to comply.  Or claims where 6 foot social distance rules were implemented and enforced where someone claims they were required to walk by someone else's station. 

Litigation is NOT a good way to test whether policies were the proper policies for something where the medical guidance shifted constantly.

[Seriati]

Global climate change is going to cost lives, Trump dumped every regulation designed to mitigate that disaster.

Demonstrable false.  In fact, it's beyond a lie to make that claim.  It's beyond even hyperbole.

DOD: About two-thirds of the 79 installations addressed in this report are vulnerable to current
or future recurrent flooding and more than one-half are vulnerable to current or future drought.
About one-half are vulnerable to wildfires. It is important to note that areas subject to wildfire
may then experience serious mudslides or erosion when rains follow fires. Impacts are dispersed
around the country. Not surprisingly, impacts vary by region for coastal flooding, with greater
impacts to the East coast and Hawaii than the West coast. Desertification vulnerabilities are
limited to the sites on the list with arid soils; these are in California, New Mexico, and Nevada.
Drought vulnerabilities are more widely dispersed across the country. Wildfire and recurrent
flooding impacts are the most widely dispersed.

report that backs up what I'm saying.

I'm not sure if its worth it to respond to everything else that you wrote when you are this wrong. Sure, I was exaggerating when I said he dumped every regulation, but he pitched aside dozens of Obama era regulations almost entirely.

We have thousands of regulations that Trump did not "dump" designed to address climate change.  Your lie was the hyperbolic statement that he dumped them all.

There's no question he dumped many Obama regulations.  You never read the regulations in question or the regulations Trump's admin promulgated, nor detailed analysis of the pros and cons.  Obama was an activist, if you look at any regulation his admin passed closely you'll find hundreds of embedded policy preferences that have nothing to do with the stated aims.

You really really should do your homework on these kind of claims.  You've been wrong just about every time I've looked about what you are claiming.

As to the report "backing up" what your saying, that to is not true.  The report says nothing at all about Trump's regulatory changes.  In fact it directly undermines even the implication that I think you want to make - that Trump is ignoring climate change - by literally being a report of his administration that acknowledges climate impacts, studies their effects and documents that this is being done.  It is literally agreement that climate change occurs and we need to be prepared, and that's even though the focus of the report is not actually climate change - most of the bases that are impacted by climate change in a specific vector are already at risk and always were at risk on that vector.  Bases in a flood plain already are at risk of flooding, and that's the majority, the report adds that several additional bases may become at risk and details steps they are taking to protect against it.  Both on structural levels - building higher - but also on environmental ones - seeding oyster reefs to create natural erosion protection and new habitats.

You skip over - probably because it's not highlighted in the summary - that for certain conditions, like coastal flooding at bases the bigger impact is land subsidence and not rising sea levels, but there is a fairly complex interaction there.

Again, you've cited to report that directly undermines your claim and has next to nothing to do with your original premise related to Trump removing all regulations related to climate change.  Are you just planning on the fact that no one is actually going to look for themselves?

Quote
Wiping out sustainable fishing regulations, encouraging unbridled exploitation of nature preserves, promoting affordable housing.

Maybe you can point to the parts of this order that you disagree with.  It literally contradicts your claim about "wiping out sustainable fishing regulations" by in fact requiring them and that they be consistent with our environmental laws and UN policies.  https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-promoting-american-seafood-competitiveness-economic-growth/  Do you somehow object to actually promoting efforts to engage is sustainable fishing?

Did you do any research on any of this stuff is it all just repeating what you "heard" Trump did?;

That's not at ALL the impact of that EO.

So are you going to point out the sections you think are wrong?  Even cherry packing past the majority which directly contradicts your claim I think you're going to have a tough time pointing out what you disagree with.

American fisheries management thrives because of its rigorous science-based approach and regulations—not in spite of them. Yet the Trump administration views these regulations, which have rebuilt stocks and ushered in the end of overfishing, as burdensome. Its new executive order solicits “recommended actions” from the regional fisheries management councils to “reduce burdens on domestic fishing” and to “increase production.”

I know what the industry regulators claim.  Yet they overlook that they have to promulgate a regulation to open and close each fishing season, and that they have multiple conflicting regulations and unnecessary regulations.  Nothing Trump directed them to do even plausible is read as not regulating stocks and fishing, it was directed at their business as usual process that is premised on an arcane process that favors certain players (and the close relationships they have with regulators) over others.

Honestly, if you're going to put up a propaganda spiel by the very people being asked to be efficient on why they shouldn't have to because you can't review a straight forward executive order you are being part of the problem.  There should be no tolerance for having a "strong position" that is nothing more than repeating someone else's "analysis" written to serve political and personal goals.

You tell me how production can be increased without killing more fish. The impact makes fisheries less sustainable than they were prior to the order, by definition.

Maybe you should look at the parts of the executive order that direct discuss that.

They might well combat illegal fishing, by just making less fishing illegal. There may have been people breaking the law by fishing in marine national monuments, but now it's perfectly legal!

Or you could actually look at the executive order where it lays out the details on illegal fishing and what should be done about it.

I get it, it's too hard to be bothered to look at the primary materials and the facts before you form an opinion.