Carbon Emissions Continued Increasing Last Year, Especially in China and India - But Not the US (apnews.com) 179
An anonymous reader shared this report from the Associated Press:
Even as Earth sets new heat records, humanity this year is pumping 330 million tons (300 million metric tons) more carbon dioxide into the air by burning fossil fuels than it did last year. This year the world is on track to put 41.2 billion tons (37.4 billion metric tons) of the main heat-trapping gas into the atmosphere. It's a 0.8% increase from 2023, according to Global Carbon Project, a group of scientists who track emissions... This year's pollution increase isn't quite as large as last year's 1.4% jump, scientists said while presenting the data at the United Nations climate talks in Azerbaijan...
The continued rise in carbon emissions is mostly from the developing world and China. Many analysts had been hoping that China — by far the world's biggest annual carbon polluting nation with 32% of the emissions — would have peaked its carbon dioxide emissions by now. Instead China's emissions rose 0.2% from 2023, with coal pollution up 0.3%, Global Carbon Project calculated... [Although its growth rate now is "basically flat," O'Sullivan said.] That's nothing close to the increase in India, which at 8% of the globe's carbon pollution is third-largest carbon emitter. India's carbon pollution jumped 4.6% in 2024, the scientists said.
Carbon emissions fell 0.6% in the U.S. mostly from reduced coal, oil and cement use. The U.S. was responsible for 13% of the globe's carbon dioxide in 2024. Historically, it's responsible for 21% of the world's emissions since 1950... Twenty-two nations have shown steady decreases in emissions, O'Sullivan said, singling out the United States as one of those. The biggest emission drops from 2014 to 2023 were in the United States, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom and Ukraine. Europe, which accounts for 7% of the world's carbon pollution, saw its carbon dioxide output drop 3.8% from last year — driven by a big cut in coal emissions.
Some interesting statistics from the article:
The continued rise in carbon emissions is mostly from the developing world and China. Many analysts had been hoping that China — by far the world's biggest annual carbon polluting nation with 32% of the emissions — would have peaked its carbon dioxide emissions by now. Instead China's emissions rose 0.2% from 2023, with coal pollution up 0.3%, Global Carbon Project calculated... [Although its growth rate now is "basically flat," O'Sullivan said.] That's nothing close to the increase in India, which at 8% of the globe's carbon pollution is third-largest carbon emitter. India's carbon pollution jumped 4.6% in 2024, the scientists said.
Carbon emissions fell 0.6% in the U.S. mostly from reduced coal, oil and cement use. The U.S. was responsible for 13% of the globe's carbon dioxide in 2024. Historically, it's responsible for 21% of the world's emissions since 1950... Twenty-two nations have shown steady decreases in emissions, O'Sullivan said, singling out the United States as one of those. The biggest emission drops from 2014 to 2023 were in the United States, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom and Ukraine. Europe, which accounts for 7% of the world's carbon pollution, saw its carbon dioxide output drop 3.8% from last year — driven by a big cut in coal emissions.
Some interesting statistics from the article:
- Burning coal, oil, and natural gas is currently emitting 2.6 million pounds (1.2 million kilograms) of carbon dioxide every second..."
- In the last 10 years, emissions have gone up about 6%.
- Global carbon emissions are more than double what they were 50 years ago, and 50% more than they were in 1999.
"If the world continues burning fossil fuels at today's level, it has six years before passing 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels, the limit agreed to at the 2015 climate talks in Paris, said study co-author Stephen Sitch. The Earth is already at 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.3 Fahrenheit), according to the United Nations."
Yet "Total carbon emissions — which include fossil fuel pollution and land use changes such as deforestation — are basically flat because land emissions are declining, the scientists said."
Until people in the west... (Score:5, Insightful)
...stop buying endless throwaway crap from China then their emissions won't go down. A lot of China's emissions are outsourced from the wests former industrial capacity. People need to take a good look in the mirror at their own lifestyles if climate change is really going to be combated, otherwise its all just virtue signalling.
Re:Until people in the west... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Let not kidding ourselves. It’s too late. Domino effect is already in the momentum. World population is explosive and most don’t believe in science or even care as long they follow their money and religions. Optimism is a way of telling you to keep it up with consuming, breeding, making money, and praying.
It is too late. My initial calculations were that the tipping point was some time in the mid 80's. This was reinforced when the world's shipping fleets started switching away from bunker fuel, and were spewing les SO2.
We have people telling us that world population will fall off, while India has added almost 2 entire populations of the USA since 2000.
In an ironic twist it will. We simply cannot have Western level of lifestyle for everyone for a planet that at this moment is at 8.1 billion and hardly slo
Re:Until people in the west... (Score:4, Informative)
We have people telling us that world population will fall off, while India has added almost 2 entire populations of the USA since 2000. In an ironic twist it will. We simply cannot have Western level of lifestyle for everyone for a planet that at this moment is at 8.1 billion and hardly slowing. https://www.worldometers.info/... [worldometers.info]
A useless link, since it does not, in fact, show the population growth is "hardly slowing." Try this one: https://assets.ourworldindata.... [ourworldindata.org]
(Note that the left half of the graph, the solid line, is data; the right half, the dotted line, is projection.)
The good news is that the population growth rate is slowing. The bad news is that the growth rate isn't likely to drop to zero until 2080. We'll have to solve the problem, or learn to live with it, well before then.
Re: (Score:2)
World population is explosive
This is the basic problem, and a large part of the responsibility for this goes to the "church ladies" that "fought" to stop starvation and diseases in the third world post 1945 - but "forgot" to make some reasonable demands on the adult recipients - sterilization. If you must rely on aid to provide your current children with education, vaccination, food etc you have lost your right to propagate. That small "detail" did the emotionally controlled church ladies "forget" because "think of the chiiiiiildren".
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
China was very close to coming down. Even with morons still claiming it "rising faster than ever reeeeeee"
It doesn't look like America will come down fast enough to ever be lower than China's CO2. [ourworldindata.org]
Re: Until people in the west... (Score:2)
Following your sum total, even while 75% of US adults are now obese, Americans in total are still lightweight compared the Chinese. Keep up the munchies, you're way behind!!
https://www.reuters.com/busine... [reuters.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Have you been to rural China? I have. Most of them are living a medieval lifestyle with essentially zero modern conveniences. Electricity, running water, etc, do not exist for most of them.
LOL
Can you PLEASE stop making it so easy to prove what a complete fucking idiot you are? Pretty please?
China's electricity rate is 100% [theglobaleconomy.com] They all get electricity.
It's no fun if it's this easy.
No it's not just 1 site that shows that they're all 100% [tradingeconomics.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Even if we did that, China is not going to stop the transition from agrarian to urban for hundreds of millions of people.
That's really what this is down to. Building, short term solutions to local energy issues. With the amount of renewables going in, it's only a matter of time.
Re: (Score:2)
...stop buying endless throwaway crap from China then their emissions won't go down. A lot of China's emissions are outsourced from the wests former industrial capacity. People need to take a good look in the mirror at their own lifestyles if climate change is really going to be combated, otherwise its all just virtue signalling.
The people buying endless throwaway crap, are also the same ones enjoying endless stock market returns.
Nothing like egging on a situation when you’re the crap-hoarding consumer and the investor.
Re: (Score:1)
People need to take a good look in the mirror at their own lifestyles
Before we change our lifestyle we can simply do a lot to reduce senseless waste. Lifestyle implies that living would get tougher. Not that we do stupid things like throw repairable things away, leave the AC on all day when no one is home, buy V8s instead of sensible cars, etc.
Now those people who need a lifestyle change are bitcoin miners. A good change for them would be to wake up in hospital with their knees broken.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
See that's the problem.
You cannot say that when most of the country's living paycheck to paycheck. The throwaway stuff is how many survive, and we met this issue times and times again when we wanted to get rid of plastic. It simply makes things to expensive when "get shit cheap" is entirely baked into the system.
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot say that when most of the country's living paycheck to paycheck.
WTF are you talking about? Forgetting that people who live paycheck to paycheck contribute the least to climate change, several of the things I listed would literally be better for their wallets too.
The throwaway stuff is how many survive
No throwaway stuff is not how we survive, it's how we waste. Fixing things is almost universally cheaper than replacing them.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes, but the throwaway crap would still be eye-poppingly cheap if China adhered to some eco rules.
So let's not act as if this wasn't a question of an inferior culture taking their profits from everybody's future including their own offspring.
I am done with acting like every culture was equal in quality.
Re: Until people in the west... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
11 billion tons a year (China) has double the effect of 5 billion tons (US).
Doesn't matter what per capita, what historical, what its used for... etc
You do believe that total emissions drive climate, don't you?
The China lobby is out in force in this thread.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of China's emissions are outsourced from the wests former industrial capacity.
And China can't build renewable energy sources? It's not the rest of the world's job to manage China's energy sources.
Re: (Score:2)
If it were merely decreasing that would be a problem.
But they have this demographic bubble created by the one child policy which has done horrible things to their population curves that have never existed in human history at large scale. No one really knows what will happen as that bubble ages up but quite likely "bad shit" is going down starting in the next 5-10 years.
There's already some effects being seen in younger people's social/dating/marriage prospects at the leading edge.
Whattaboutism [Re:Until people in the west...] (Score:2)
So.....pressure the region that has a lesser impact? 335 Million US citizens, reducing their footprint to EU levels, isn't going to save the world.
Yes: the problem is global, not local, and the solution must be global, not local.
Cutting the US emission and nobody else's won't solve the problem, but nevertheless, if we're going to cut emissions, yes, even though it doesn't mean only the US, it does mean the US.
Too often the whattaboutism used to divert attention from our own contributions to the problem is "whatabout China!"
Saying whatabout China does not mean "we don't need to cut our own emissions."
Re: (Score:2)
That response was to an OP that said
Protesting India and China will do nothing because they don't listen.
So, that's 2 countries, and 2.8 billion people, that account for 37.9% of world carbon emissions...that get a free pass, because people want to attack the 11.3% emitter.
Nevermind the fact that we're just talking about carbon emissions...and not other negative environmental practices.
Re: (Score:2)
One interesting thing here is that China is the country building out renewables the fastest. By far. Their emissions kept increasing last year, but it'll be quite interesting to see the 2024 results. Even more interesting to see the 2025 results.
They are installing silly amounts of both wind and solar. They're now also looking into grid scale batteries. Their carbon footprint is going to change radically over the next few years - they'll be trending so fast downwards the world will go "wtf just happene
Don't forget! (Score:1)
Blame the US somehow. Even if the numbers don't really back the argument.
Re:Don't forget! (Score:5, Interesting)
The US is still China's biggest customer.
We are not responsible for all of the ill in the world, but we do have an outsized share
Re: (Score:2)
There we go! Another Blame America First(tm) post! Keep up the bad work!
Re: Don't forget! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually 0% but you can play along if you like.
Re: (Score:2)
Blame the US somehow. Even if the numbers don't really back the argument.
Blaming one target which at this point is the US for everything, is a wonderful salve that allows people and countries to not only continue to blame the standard target, but to carry on doing what they are doing, in a sort of fake innocence.
Re: (Score:2)
Shhh you're letting them in on the joke.
Re: (Score:2)
Shhh you're letting them in on the joke.
Oopsies! The incredible hatred of the USA always leads me to ask - Okay, who do you want as the top dog - If not the USA - Russia? China? Followed by the question - was the USA wrong to ever get involved in WW2? and let the Europeans deal with what was happening? Would you prefer the European Union that was being set up by Germany? They did have really awesome uniforms..,
Re: (Score:2)
Good job! You didn't disappoint (well actually you did, but only in the expected way).
anyone know if we have open data for carbon emissi (Score:1)
well that will change (Score:3)
China produces more clean energy than any other .. (Score:2)
Re: China produces more clean energy than any othe (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it might actually be because their buildout of skyscrapers was finally slowing down (if not crashing), but this recent source [nextmsc.com] says their construction industry is still growing rapidly.
And now some numbers in perspective (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's also worth looking at emissions by economic group, and by business type.
Some powerful interests really want you to blame anyone but them.
Re: (Score:1)
And it will be completely irrelevant, since the only thing driving the climate, if the theory is correct, is current and future emissions, total tonnage.
Not per capita
Not historical
Not how much wind or solar you are installing
Not if its for export
None of it matters, if the theory is correct. So why do activists keep wanting to excuse China and India because per capita, or because historical...?
Now you're asking.
Re: (Score:2)
75% of China's total emissions, comes from 1% of their land area.
25% of China's total emissions comes from the other 99% of the land area.
About 45% of China's population is along the coastal region that coincides with that 1% of land area responsible for 75% total emissions.
(this is a VERY rough comparison...I'm making no claims about its accuracy)
So 45% of 1.4 billion people equals 630million people
And 75% of 11.76billion tons of CO2 emitted is 8.82billion tons of CO
So, 8.82billion tons / 630million people
Re: (Score:2)
It's arithmetic based on public data.
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless of how you want to look at the numbers the United States' declining emissions is working towards solving the problem of global warming where as increasing emissions are working against us. You can complain all you want about the US' outsized contribution to global warming but as long as our emission reductions are MORE than canceled out by other countries we'll never reach net zero. Western or just American reductions in emissions will never get us where we need to be on their own. It's a complet
Re: (Score:1)
China was very close to coming down. Even with you morons still claiming it "rising faster than ever reeeeeee"
It doesn't look like America will come down fast enough to ever be lower than China's CO2. [ourworldindata.org]
An American emits more CO2 than a European and a Chinese added together.
Re: (Score:2)
An American emits more CO2 than a European and a Chinese added together.
Good grief! What are you guys eating?
Re:Bu bu bu.. (Score:5, Informative)
An American emits more CO2 than a European and a Chinese added together.
Good grief! What are you guys eating?
We eat a pretty normal diet. What he's talking about is this:
US emissions per capita are about 13,8 metric tons.
EU emissions per capita are about 7,25 metric tons.
China emissions per capita are about 8 metric tons.
Sum up the per capita emissions for China and Europe their emissions are only 1,45 metric tons greater per capita combined than those for one American. He's not correct in that the per capita emissions for the US are greater than those of the EU and China summed up but he's not far off. American emissions are grotesquely disproportional to those of other major industrial powers.
Re: (Score:1)
America 14.3
Eu(28) 5.4
China 8.4
8.4+5.4 = 13.8
Which is less than 14.3
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, stop bullshitting. We (Americans) eat a ton of meat. We’re like #2 in the world, and definitely the top for big countries (population). There are just smaller rich countries near us, but not China, India, etc.
We especially love the high greenhouse gas meats (beef).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The world, and especially the US, has an insatiable hunger for Cryptocurrency and AI. The two technologies with a voracious need to consume and waste power. Recalculate those numbers after removing both technologies from the global footprint. At one time Al gore said replacing one lightbulb with a CFL would reverse global warming. Now we have houses full of LED and its not putting a dent into the problem. One step forward, two steps back. This had nothing to do with meat or farting cows and everything to do
Re: Bu bu bu.. (Score:1)
"Scientists used reported emissions from rich countries and oil industry data, Oâ(TM)Sullivan said."
It seems the study didn't include warmonger emmissions. "The biggest emission drops from 2014 to 2023 were in
Re: (Score:2)
The stats for Ukraine are obviously not really valid...
20% of their territory is currently controlled by russia, a large percentage of their population has sought refuge in other countries or been killed in fighting, most of their non-nuclear power plants have been destroyed, and while it's quite easy to calculate the emissions of a working power plant it's quite hard to quantify the emissions of a burning tank... Also which side do you attribute the emissions to?
Re: (Score:1)
It puts a dent into the problem, but it does not reverse it.
Which is a no brainer. As long as you produce more CO2 than some other process removes: concentration will increase.
Cow farts are not a super problem it is magnified by idiots (who probably have an agenda), because depending on how many cows the planet has, the methane production and decay will be in an equilibrium. More cows only means the level of that equilibrium is higher.
So: feeding the cows, having agriculture just for cows, using diesel in t
Re: (Score:1)
Per capita is a bad metric.
Per unit of productivity is what matters.
GDP isn't the best number because it's too high level but it's easy to find.
Divide co2 by gdp and you get a measure of how much production there was per unit of co2. An efficiency rating.
If a country can have ten times the gdp with five times the total co2 of another baseline country they're doing great even if their per capita is higher because their productive output for that co2 is much higher.
Emissions for GDP rewards markup (Score:2)
Emissions per dollar GDP is stupid because it considers applying markup to be "productivity". For example:
It also causes distortion for production of basic necessities where purchasing power is different. USD1 equivalent in C
Re: (Score:2)
Per capita is a bad metric.
Per unit of productivity is what matters.
GDP isn't the best number because it's too high level but it's easy to find.
Divide co2 by gdp and you get a measure of how much production there was per unit of co2. An efficiency rating.
If a country can have ten times the gdp with five times the total co2 of another baseline country they're doing great even if their per capita is higher because their productive output for that co2 is much higher.
LOL, so you think the average American worker is as productive as an EU and a Chinese worker combined?
Re: (Score:2)
Please do not denigrate efficiency. It is actually a significant part of the path to getting out of this mess.
Re: (Score:1)
China has a population greater than the US and Europe combined
Using the numbers from your chart...here are the total emissions of those regions:
US 335 million people x 14.3t/capita = 4.79 Billion Tons
China 1.4 BILLION people x 8.4t/capita = 11.76 Billion Tons
EU 449 Million people x 5.4t/capita = 2.42 Billion Tons
So, let's stop pretending like China is doing a great job....and lets stop pretending that the US is the only country that buys stuff from China. There's a few bill
Re: (Score:2)
If you get to cheat by averaging with much cleaner people
That's literally what China is doing by averaging with 500ish million impoverished rural citizens, that don't live in the 1% of land area responsible for 75% of the emissions..
Re: Bu bu bu.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? Checking per capita gives a much better idea of which country pollutes more
No. It takes the entire amount of pollution produced by a country...and divides it by the number of citizens. But....in the end, the COUNTRY still produces "X" amount of pollution. Just because you average in a bunch of low carbon producing people...doesn't mean that the country isn't still generating a substantial amount of pollution.
If the US dumps a ton of plutonium in the ocean...and China dumps 3 tons....China will have a lower per capita rate of plutonium ocean dumping. But does that make it a goo
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Deficit spending doesn't promote more economic growth than it stunts.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Deficit spending doesn't promote more economic growth than it stunts.
And prioritizing economic growth every time, is how we fucking got into this mess. Now imagine how we get out of it. Seriously. Specifically the option where we’re not forced to via our own demise.
This isn’t about growth anymore. Time to tell Greed to sit down and shut the fuck up.
Re: (Score:2)
> Time to tell Greed to sit down and shut the fuck up.
That and seating Usury right next to her.
"making a profit off a loan from a poor person is exploiting that person"
That's christian wording, but all Abrahamic religions have a similar concept.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you should stop using your nickname.
The fact that you're an atheist doesn't change anything about the fact that for centuries not charging interest was the norm in many societies.
I'm an atheist too, and it doesn't stop me from looking at these rules and think whether they're applicable.
Re: (Score:2)
As an actual economist, I can assert without reservation that the above comment is based neither on (i) economics nor (ii) factual observations.
Economics... [Re:Brandon letting the USA down] (Score:2)
Deficit spending doesn't promote more economic growth than it stunts.
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. It really really depends on the details of exactly what the spending goes to, and that's not just who the first recipient of the money is, but what do those recipients spend their money on, and what do those recipients spend their money on, and so on. In a brief (but still oversimplified) summary, spending that goes into the economy promotes economic growth, spending that does not (for example, money leaving the US) does not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
LOL. How many jobs do you think will be cut?
That's zero-sum thinking. The money not spent on bureaucrats will be spent elsewhere, increasing demand and generating jobs.
We can't tax-and-spend our way to prosperity.
Too little government is a problem. Too much government is a problem.
Right now, do we have too much or too little? I don't know.
Most likely, we need to cut some areas and increase others.
Corruption letting the USA down (Score:2, Interesting)
Too little government is a problem. Too much government is a problem.
Right now, do we have too much or too little? I don't know.
Doesn't matter how big or small a government is if its corrupt. Corruption is not a problem at that point. It’s THE problem.
Most likely, we need to cut some areas and increase others.
We definitely need to fire a lot of people and send a message about corruption via actual prison time. Thats no longer a theory. Much like it’s no longer a theory as to why America “needs” two political parties aimed at each other at all times. Makes for one hell of a Weapon of Mass Distraction. Hell, you can turn a billionaire-hating bartender into a bill
Re: (Score:1)
I can’t imagine what Jesus H. Christ himself would think of your TDS-inspired delusions, considering a planet marches in lockstep with his own.
Ignorance is the human epitaph. If your IQ is above room temperature then you’re smart enough to at least know that.
Re:Brandon letting the USA down (Score:4, Insightful)
> The money not spent on bureaucrats will be spent elsewhere, increasing demand and generating jobs.
Or end up making billionaires even richer, which is usually what happens.
> We can't tax-and-spend our way to prosperity.
We absolutely can, though, because as you pointed out that money is spent and recycles through the economy. The key difference is that taxes pry that money out of the pockets of billionaires and force it back into the economy where it can do some good.
And the secret is to spend that tax money on things that generate long-term benefits; infrastructure, education, healthcare, etc. That's how you build real prosperity and not simply more wealth for a privileged few. Unfortunately that fruit takes multiple decades to mature and the voting population is usually not patient and/or forward-thinking enough.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:1)
taxes pry that money out of the pockets of billionaires and force it back into the economy where it can do some good.
That shifts money from investments to consumption, known as a "demand-side stimulus".
A demand-side stimulus is the correct policy when unemployment is high, inflation is low, and trade is in surplus.
That's not what we have right now. Unemployment is low, inflation is under control but above the target, and we are running massive trade deficits.
A demand-side stimulus right now will be inflationary. Imports will rise, and exports will fall, worsening our trade balance.
Re: (Score:2)
nothing that fair pay and making the upper class pay their fair share wouldn't fix
we can't have an effective economy built on a corrupt and classist foundation, can we?
Re:Brandon letting the USA down (Score:5, Interesting)
> That shifts money from investments to consumption, known as a "demand-side stimulus".
Not necessarily; The difference is the government is the one doing the investment, and those investments are (ideally) going towards things that improve society and prosperity.
> That's not what we have right now. Unemployment is low, inflation is under control but above the target, and we are running massive trade deficits.
The US trade deficit is about 840 Billion [census.gov] so far this year, out of a GDP of just over 27 trillion... or about 3%. I'm not sure what you think "massive" is but ~4% (by year's end) doesn't fit that definition for me.
Plus, government investments in public infrastructure are, by law [gao.gov], structured to keep the money within the US economy and limited in what you can import. If you're worried about the trade deficit, then that's the hedge against it...
=Smidge=
Economics, redux [Re:Brandon letting the USA down] (Score:2)
I would like to agree with you, but it is simply not quite that simple.
We absolutely can, though, because as you pointed out that money is spent and recycles through the economy.
Good so far. Understanding that money recycles through the economy is a key point in understanding the difference between microeconomics and macroeconomics. In microeconomics, when you spend money you no longer have it. In macroeconomics, when an economy spends money, the economy does still have it (or may not have it, depending on whether it is spent inside or outside the economy).
The key difference is that taxes pry that money out of the pockets of billionaires and force it back into the economy where it can do some good.
And here you slide off the rails. Billionaires don't hav
Re: (Score:2)
> Billionaires don't have money in their pockets. What they have is ownership of companies
Pretty sure Elon has more cash in his pocket than I do. Is their entire fortune in cash? Of course not, but they still have lots of it and command much more. They can absolutely afford to pay more taxes.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:3)
This is basic macro-economics 101 for during recessions & depressions (if you're not a lunatic fringe theorist). It's also the cheapest & quickest time to build out public infrastructure because labour & materials are cheap & readily available. The same goes for education & training; It takes years & investment to educate & train people with valuable knowledge, skills, & attitude so that they're ready to contribute to any economic growth. The unemployed shou
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Brandon letting the USA down (Score:5, Interesting)
> Their money is directly invested in the economy doing things.
"Doing things" being exploiting workers and customers to extract value for shareholders, which is in my opinion antithetical to creating prosperity. Wealth and prosperity are not the same thing, especially when the wealth comes are the cost of the public's well-being.
> The government does not seek productivity uses for tax dollars
It does, and it could be doing more. It used to do a lot more, but people like you keep electing people who tell you the system is broken and promise to break it more to prove how broken it is...
=Smidge=
Re:Brandon letting the USA down (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a lie.
While our government makes mistakes at times, the vast majority of the people serving in our government are conscientious and well-intentioned, and attempt to make each dollar provide a maximum benefit. In the case of some of the programs that are in operation right now, we have had significant growth in factory building in the US, and significant increase in manufacturing, that would not have happened without government spending (subsidies): https://www.commerce.gov/news/... [commerce.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
There's a lot of nonsense going around and this right now.
Saw one about "rat fight club" as a example of something the government could cut. It's actually research into medication to reduce steroid induced aggression, very important for people who need steroids to live healthily. Private industry won't fund it.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they are not. They are in it for their salaries.
Re: (Score:2)
Tarrifs are less efficient than subsidies. This is Econ101 level stuff. Go to school, and pay attention.
Re: (Score:2)
zero sum economics is a pseudo-conservative fiction, there's no such thing in our economic reality, the truth is the rich are hoarding 85% of all our capital which only leaves 15% of all capital for the rest of us to manage with
how is this not classism?
Re: (Score:2)
the truth is the rich are hoarding 85% of all our capital
The top 1% own 54% of public equity and 31% of all wealth.
Stock ownership [inequality.org]
I have no idea where you got "85%". Do you have a citation?
how is this not classism?
Because it isn't true.
Re:Brandon letting the USA down (Score:4, Informative)
the truth is the rich are hoarding 85% of all our capital
The top 1% own 54% of public equity and 31% of all wealth. Stock ownership [inequality.org] I have no idea where you got "85%". Do you have a citation?
He undoubtably sourced his number from here:
"half of the world's net wealth belongs to the top 1%; top 10% of adults hold 85%, while the bottom 90% hold the remaining 15% of the world's total wealth."
--Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
The actual number is even more lopsided. The conversation was about America only, and remembering that "capital" is defined as ownership of the means of production (i.e., ownership of corporations):
The richest Americans own the vast majority of the US stock market, according to Fed data. The top 10% of Americans held 93% of all stocks.
-- https://finance.yahoo.com/news... [yahoo.com]
(and this is an underestimate, because it leaves out corporations that are privately owned.)
Re:Brandon letting the USA down (Score:5, Insightful)
There are countries in Europe with much bigger governments (relative to population) than the US, which are richer and happier.
It's more you do with who the government represents and works for: all citizens Vs corporations and the wealthy.
Here's a hint. If you getting cancer is primarily seen as an economic opportunity for someone else, it's not the size of government that is the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Which countries? You don't know what you are talking about. Norway is the only thing close to fit your description but they are a primitive resource (oil) based economy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Brandon letting the USA down (Score:5, Funny)
You mean the guy that's pumping out electric cars?...and solar roofs?....and batteries that enable green solutions tied to the grid?
Yes, that guy who's now accepted Donald Trump into his life as his personal Jesus, joined a movement that regards everything you just listed as a direct assault of their most deeply held beliefs and who's now being mocked all over the planet as America's new first lady Elonia Musk [lovingsquad.com].
Re: (Score:1)
I'll bet anything I've got more solar than you do. I use it to charge my Tesla. And I have enough batteries to run my house forever with no grid power as long as it's not permanently overcast. And then I voted for Trump/Vance.
What have -you- done to reduce your carbon footprint? And who did you vote for?
(I don't think lovingsquad.com counts as "all over the planet" outside your bubble, btw).
Yes, the painting of anyone who doesn't vote Democrat is a retread, one of the favorite memes of the far left crowd that spilled over into the rank and file Democrats was not a good idea on their part.
A scary far right acquaintance (now passed) owned and loved his Prius. You have your green setup. We have evangelical farmers in my area - the ones with the biblical quotes on signs by the road who have huge arrays of solar panels.
This election was a populist reaction by those who are increasingly left be
Re: (Score:1)
Left versus right is just divide and conquer while all our political parties are owned and controlled by upper class influences based on campaign contributions and political lobbying.
this is a corrupt and classist country
Re:Brandon letting the USA down (Score:4, Insightful)
But that said, only one of the two candidates was even remotely interested in being a public servant, and improving the lives of Americans, so you can stop both-sides-ing this.
Re: (Score:1)
There is no "left vs right". If we disregard extremists, 90% of us agree on 90% of simple stuff. Politics are about dividing us.
But that said, only one of the two candidates was even remotely interested in being a public servant, and improving the lives of Americans, so you can stop both-sides-ing this.
All that said, the Democrats sided with some decidedly far left people who had zero interest in improving the lives of all Americans. Perhaps Harris was interested in all Americans, but a lot of people who claim to be Democrats had very specific aims of who was to be promoted, and more importantly who was to be marginalized.
And the problem ended up being partially the balls to the wall racism and sexism of the groups associated with the Democrats, coupled with the sex of their candidate that allowed the
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Brandon letting the USA down (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, we know. The stupids are winning.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry - the stupids lost. I have no illusions that Trump will make things better for the marginalized. Here's Bernie speaking about some reasons that The Democrats lost the presidency, the House of Representatives, and the Senate A curb stomping not seen since Walter Mondale's embarrassing taking 1 state out of 50 - You think Bernie is smart, don't ya? Hint, he is, and he gives one of the big reasons why they lost.
But something I've been hammering on for years - the institutionalized misandry that ha
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry - the stupids lost. I have no illusions that Trump will make things better for the marginalized. Here's Bernie speaking about some reasons that The Democrats lost the presidency, the House of Representatives, and the Senate A curb stomping not seen since Walter Mondale's embarrassing taking 1 state out of 50 - You think Bernie is smart, don't ya? Hint, he is, and he gives one of the big reasons why they lost.
Sorry - Forgot to put the Bernie Sanders links in First one - CNN Reporter tries to contradict him https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Even broaching the third rail of identity politics https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. No one with a brain has any such illusions.
I think he's a decent human being, and he seems to be a good public servant. I'm a conservative, so no, I don't really find him to be terribly smart.
I don't understand, because I've never seen "institutionalized misandry", just like I haven't seen a war on Christmas or
Re: (Score:2)
As of today, Trump has only 50.1% of the vote and that number continues to fall as votes are counted. He will probably end up with 50.0% of the votes -- which is still higher than the 0% that he deserves as a felon, a traitor, a pedophile, a rapist, a con-man, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
People are being "left behind" by corporate monopoly and control of the government. The Repubs successfully tapped into racism, sexism, xenophobia, anti-woke and gay bashing to divert attention from the man behind the curtain.
So all of the MAGA folks who voted for the cheetahs eat your face party will be surprised when cheetahs actually show up and eat their face.
Re: (Score:2)
People are being "left behind" by corporate monopoly and control of the government. The Repubs successfully tapped into racism, sexism, xenophobia, anti-woke and gay bashing to divert attention from the man behind the curtain. So all of the MAGA folks who voted for the cheetahs eat your face party will be surprised when cheetahs actually show up and eat their face.
So what is your liberals always right plan? Double down?
I don't remotely believe that Trump and his minions will usher in a new age of peace and wonderfulness. Indeed, I predict a lot of revenge politics. And I havent voted for a Republican since 2000.
And your idea that a landslide curb stomping because Americans are racist, sexist afraid of everything, and hate gays - you merely project. And if America is that horrible a country, perhaps you would be well advise to seek your perfect country elsew