/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10549284

>>10549288
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

>>10549284

Its clear the earth is getting warmer, it is not clear why.

The standard of evidence for climate science is junk. It is basically on the level of economics.

>>10549284
the people who promote awareness for it are really annoying and alarmist so i think they subconsciously tune out the underlying logical arguments

>>10549284

How much is being formed back though?

>>10549284
Hippie wackos say stuff like “we will all die in 10 years no more airplanes”. This nonsense causes normal people not to trust them, and deny the concrete science

>>10549369
>we will all die in 10 years no more airplanes
what do you think is worse that or
>a carbon will allow us to have infinite "clear" growth

>>10549369
>we will all die in 10 years no more airplanes
what do you think is more absurd that or
>a carbon tax will allow us to have "clean" growth forever

>>10549298
/thread

>>10549304
are you blind?

>>10549492
no, just really really stupid :(

>>10549284
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj1G9gqhkYA

>>10549298
Specifically what evidence are you referring to?

>>10549298
yeah right, it's a fucking mystery m8

>>10549298

>>10549284
The problem is not scientific, but a problem of rhetoric. Global Warming advocates in the 80's made the rhetorical mistake of presented it an extremely anti capitalist perspective. This turned off many people at the time because capitalism is great (don't @ me)

Global warming should have been presented as a conservation issue: "we must protect the earth from these new dangers." If you really want to nail conservatives, throw God in there: "God gave us the planet and it is our duty to keep it safe."

>>10549641
It's almost like the world is made up of separate problem domains, and any attempt to generalize using common intuition backfires spectacularly.

>>10549284
pic related

>>10549298
>it is not clear to me why
FTFY

>>10549571

The fact that there is no control. We need an identical earth without humans to see how the climate evolves without out influence. Current climate science relies on modeling of a complex system we know little about. Perhaps if climate models are validated over some longer timescales on multiple different planets climate science will finally have some tolerable levels of rigour. Untill then its junk.

>>10549572

K. Now show graphs for different earths, with and without people. Ill wait.

>>10549572
All models are wrong, some are useful.
Now tell why this one is close to reality.

>>10550284
>>10550313
stupid is as stupid does

>>10549284
Its called interglacial and previous one was warmer even without human influence, in the previous one every ice sheet melted the same is expected in current one

>>10550284
If you're stuffing yourself full of moldy old meat you found at the back of your fridge and you start feeling sick, do you need to compare your situation to other versions of you who are not eating moldy meat in order to know that you should stop?

>>10549665
>common intuition
>its because of capitalism

It's almost like almost all humans are literally too fucking stupid and agenda driven to deal with the problem

>>10549572
>Look we tuned the model to match what we believe

Tell me when they actually make an important non trivial prediction then I will trust them more.

>>10549298
Imagine the mass of all humans on this planet, comparing from when there were none.

Let's say every person weighs 65kg on average. 65*7000000000 = 455 000 000 000kg of pure human mass just living and consuming. That's quite a bit.

Now every person needs on average 1500 kcal per day to survive. Similar equation: 1500*7000000000 = 10 500 000 000 000 kcal of heat energy being released _every day_ from just people being alive and eating. Then add the cows/cattle humans have for food production + their farts. That becomes a whole lot more as well.

Now this immense amount of heat production did not exist even 100 years ago. And this is not including all the production and tools and excess consumption every human has. Aaaaand on top of this, add the greenhouse effect (which undoubtedly is a thing, without it we'd freeze to death). AAAaaAAaAaAAaaaAAAnd add the deforestation all around the world.

So even if the greenhouse gasses isn't the only thing, humans have an insanely large effect on the planet. No: it's not all because of co2. Anyone who believe so is a fucking moron. But humans makes the planet warmer, by sheer numbers alone if nothing else. Cramp 10 people into a 30 m2 room and you'll notice it gets quite warm.

>>10551508
>look mom i posted it again

>>10549292
>n= several decades
Cringe

>>10551411

So a pharmaceutical company has a drug which may or may not cure an illness. They try the drug out on one person, it seems that the drug is effective on that one person. The drug company also has some human body simulations that says the drug is going to work.

Now. Do you think that it is okay for this drug to be used on the general public?

The answer is no, because they did not do the proper work to determine if the drug is actually effective.

There is no difference between that situation and climate science. Simply because the problem is hard, does not mean you can skip the work required to do proper science.

Also, to answer your question, the fact that spoiled meat is bad for you has been determined over years of experimentation on many different types of humans. Such standard of evidence does not every remotely exist in climate science so don't even try to pretend that the two situations are comparable.

>>10551509

This is still a model that needs to be validated. There is no way of knowing you took into account everything important without proper experimental controls.

>>10551509
Heat production from humans and all human related activity is negligible compared to the change in the greenhouse effect caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

>>10552488
What work was skipped by climate scientists? What standards are missing? You sound like a creationist crying that evolution isn't science.

>>10550034
It's not clear to anybody dumbass. Read
>>10550280

>>10550280
>The fact that there is no control. We need an identical earth without humans to see how the climate evolves without out influence.
It's called the paleoclimate record.

The idea that we need a specific, impossible control is just a denialist tactic. We can understand a lot about the earth without a "control earth" and this is proven every day by our successful use of that understanding.

>Current climate science relies on modeling of a complex system we know little about.
We know a lot about it, many decades of research worth, and this allows us to make the conclusions climate scientists have made.

>Perhaps if climate models are validated over some longer timescales on multiple different planets climate science will finally have some tolerable levels of rigour.
Why do you think it doesn't have enough rigor to conclude that the earth is warming due to human emissions? Have you actually looked at the models?

>>10552632
>read some random anton's ignorant opinion
Read the IPCC.

>>10550280
Yeah. This is complete bullshit. We don't need to run experiments on a duplicate Earth or universe to understand laws of nature.

Let me educate you on this.

We come up with hypotheses
We do observations
We make predictions
We see whether our predictions match observations

None of that requires experimentation. Experimentation is a very good way of making observations but to pretend somehow that experimentation is the ONLY way to make observations is the hallmarks of a complete nutcase.


We would not be able to observe the universe or learn anything about physics outside our own planet and near Earth orbit if everything could only be known through experimentation. Got a spare sun in your pocket? A spare Andromeda Galaxy? You're just spouting stupid uneducated garbage.

>>10551509
First off,
>kcal per day
Just use watts you moron. Generally accepted average is 100 watts for a human.
>7.3 10^9 x (24*365) x 100 = 6.3 x 10^15 watt hours

Assume the solar energy variation hitting the planet surface is about .33 watt for a full year
There is
>5.1 x 10^14 m^2 surface area
>effectively ~13.2 hours of sunlight hitting a 24 hour cycle
>a difference between solar average and highs (or lows) of,
>.33* 510(T) * 13.2 * 365.24 =
>8.1 x 10^17 watt hours (810 Petawatt/Hr)
This number is, obviously, double if we were comparing between highs and lows (we're not)

So.
6.4 10^15 watts versus 8.1 10^17 watts. Consider that solar variation may account for a 0.5C difference in the next 30 years and the heat output of physical bodies is not important. At all.
Also consider that global energy use is ~1.2 x 10^17 watts for a year.

>>10551509
http://www.4hiroshimas.com/

>>10550032
cringe

>>10549284
Because that would mean we'd actually have to do something. People are lazy.

The shit is getting real this year kids.

I feel sorry for you guys

>>10549284
The real problem is that scientists are spergs who suck at communication to people who haven't been studying the same thing as them for the past 20 years. Big business and politics took advantage of this, and now we're fucked.

>>10554684
No, the problem is that the effects of climate change are gradual. You would would need a SHTF moment for anyone to bother.
Humanity gets used to shit and adapts.

I remember 20 years ago making giant snow castles with my dad in the winter.
Now? I don't remember when was the list time I've seen snow on Christmas eve. But nobody cares.

>>10549284
Nice bait.

>>10554690
People will start to care when food supplies are effected, either because it massively drives up food prices on noticeable time scales or starts causing sudden collapses on regional scales that become larger and more common with time.

>>10554766
The thing is is that food prices are a consequence of demand, which is increasing mainly because of unsustainable economic/population growth.

People can blame it on climate change and "care" all they want, and it won't change a thing.

>>10549298
What, specifically, is wrobg with it?

>>10554780
>The thing is is that food prices are a consequence of demand
No, they're a consequence of demand AND supply. Climate change threatens the supply while demand continues to rise.

1) We need 50-70% more food by 2050 to feed everyone
2) Food is becoming less nutritious because of things like soil depletion
3) Climate change threatens predictable weather patters, droughts, floods, heat waves, extreme weather events etc
4) Aquifer/groundwater depletion threatens our ability to irrigate crops in many of our currently most productive areas, including the US wheat belt

Climate change is one of several problems that makes our future food security highly questionable

>>10554881
Sure, but a 1.5-2.0 (or even 4) degree change in temperature effects on supply are probably going to be small compared to a 50% increase in demand.

>>10554881
>Climate change will decrease supply
>Goes on to mention 4 points, 3 of which are mainly controlled by demand, not climate change

ok then

>>10554881
Bunch of dubious asspull claims you got from Natural News

>>10549572
>Being unironically this stupid.

>>10549284
>One cold winter does not disprove Global Warming.
>Also, one year with low sea ice DOES PROVE Global Warming!
KYS

>>10554898
Only one of those is strictly on the demand side, the rest are all related to supply in some way.

>>10554914
>your claims are nonsense because of the assumptions I make of their sources
Okay mate, stick your head in the sand if that makes you feel warm and secure.

>>10554889
We don't really know what the effects of climate change are going to be on the food supply. We're likely to see a blue arctic ocean within a decade, at which point that heatsink is gone and arctic warming will accelerate. There's half way decent chance that this could cause dozens of gigatons of methane to enter the atmosphere in a short period. There are just too many unknowns here.

Oh and:
5) we're seeing the collapse of insect populations which could also negatively effect food supplies.

>>10554967
>>10554975
Btfo

>>10554719
An*me sucks.

>>10554975
it's getting thinner and thinner each year
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj1G9gqhkYA

>>10554996
>it's getting thinner and thinner each year
You mean the evidence?

>>10554975
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbrKLnh8wLA

>>10554996
>Pretend we didn't literally predict that the antarctic would melt and instead it has gained ice.
>But trust us, the arctic is totally gonna melt!
It's all so fucking tiresome.
How many times does a theory have to prove to be completely wrong before it can be abandoned?

>>10554975
Contrast on posting an uncounted liar's graph that cherry picks data to hide what's actually going on. You're not a skeptic, you're a delusional retard that swallows any shit so long as it's in line with his preconceived notions.

>>10554975
Congrats on posting an uncounted liar's graph that cherry picks data to hide what's actually going on. You're not a skeptic, you're a delusional retard that swallows any shit so long as it's in line with his preconceived notions.

>>10555029
>Enjoy my ad-hominem fallacy because I don't have a genuine rebuttal against the sourced hard-data you posted.
I agree; you did lose.

>>10555013
ice will form at any time the temperature is below 0C
if the temperature rises, but still is below 0C, ice will form
antarctic has had all its air moisture frozen, now that the air is warmer, there is more free water to freeze - but this will happen deep inland, close to the south pole center.
At the coasts, ice is lost.
On the whole, more ice melts than new ice is formed. Since the new ice forms over areas already under snow, the albedo there will not increase. On the coasts however, the stuff happening in pic >>10554996 will increase, accelerating the process.

>>10555041
>ad-hominem
You really are fucking retard. The insult was ON TOP of the actual argument, which you ignored. It did not take it's place.
You're a liar. You posted a propaganda graph that's designed to make people believe the opposite of what is true and you're now you're tying to deflect, now that you've been called out on it.

>>10555041
>>10555053
Here's the non-cherrypicked data, you fucking lying snake.

>>10555060
>Skeptical Science DOT Com!
So I'm a snake because I show the FULL years' data, while you cherry pick a fake minimum? Hey, where were you last year when the ice was nearly at a record high? Oh yeah, that didn't serve your agenda, so you wouldn't bring it up.

>>10555060
Come back and debate me, you dickless little bitch.

>>10555096
Oh look, it actually sources the graph:
>One of the most widely used long-term estimates of Arctic sea ice extent comes from Walsh and Chapman (2001), whose data are available from the University of Illinois (updated through 2008). A description of the vast array of data used by Walsh and Chapman is available via tamino here, and the data are plotted in Figure 1.

You're a lying snake because you refuse to post data for a sensible time period, instead posting some bullshit that restricts the range to a short period of time where the ice extent paused in following the clear downward trend. The graph you posted is meant to lie to people.

>>10555109
>sensible time period
>my cherry-picked time of year instead of the full year.
What are you trying to hide, bitch?

>>10555119
>nothing but deflection form the fact that I've been called out on posting a purposefully misleading graph
Your attempts at turning this around are laughable. Go on, ask me to post a full year graph a few more times, then when I finally post it and it shows the same decline in sea ice, you can shut your lying hole.

>>10554986
5 is also mostly due to demand. insecticides needed to intensively farm due to greater demand. soil depletion is also due to monocrops/intensive farming. ground water depletion due to higher demand/intensive farming. most of the things you're blaming on climate change are actually caused by higher demand.

The fucking delusionality of climate alarmists is amazing! Do they really think thermometers lie? How do they justify NOAA ALTERING the thermometric data? The raw data show no warming.

>>10555145
A lot of these are an issue do to demand, but they're going to effecting the supply side.

Does anyone remember back when NOAA examined the temperature record back in the late eighties and found no warming?
Gosh, I think either NOAA was lying then, or they are lying now. I wonder which one it could be. Maybe the one that has them ALTERING RAW TEMPERATURE DATA TO FIT THE CO2 CURVE!

>>10555152
tech has improved in 30 years

>>10554967
>The global temperature
>Only shows US temperature station data adjustments
Gee I wonder what happens if we look at all the data NOAA uses instead of cherrypicking one country. Surely we'll see they're lowering temperatures in the past and increasing them in the present. Oops, it's the opposite. Damn those corrupt NOAA scientists, trying to hide global warming!

>>10554967
>>10554975
>>10555013
>>10555041
>>10555096
>>10555105
>>10555119
>>10555146
>>10555152
what's the evolutionary reason for humans shilling for free. there must be a motive behind humans doing work without any compensation for it.

>>10552488
vaccines work like this

>>10555041
>muh climategate
At this point these emails must have been explained to you many times but you still post them as if they mean anything. You're a hack.

https://www.nature.com/news/2008/080528/full/453569a.html

>>10552488
>t. to corporate shill
>probably works for bayer/monsanto
>has no problem with animal experimentation as "science"
>but hates climate science because it fucks with his primitive world view

>>10555146
>THE RAW DATA REEEEEEEEE
>never posts the global raw data
So you admit global warming is real since that's what the raw data shows right? >>10555183

>>10555209
>They people trying to alter the climate record have given an excuse and you should believe it.
Bitch, you still have the pathetic record of these assholes at predicting shit that it is their job to predict.
inb4: The father of climate change science is not a real climate scientist.

>>10555227
>The raw data show climate change
In your mind I'm sure they do, but not in reality.
Inb4: The experts have had to repeatedly change their own climate data because reasons

>>10555227
>Muh global warming

>>10555263
greenland =/= global

>>10555268
>You can't use CO2 proxies except when we do it every single day.

>>10555259
That gif would be more effective if the scale on the x-axis was held constant through all 3 graphs.

>>10555271
go home, nanook

>>10555272
Um, it is. Hold up a horizontal edge of a piece of paper on -0.3, for example. It never moves up or down.
The indisputable temperature data from the experts does, however.

>>10555279
no. I'm talking about the scale on the x-axis. SCALE. The number of years per unit length should be equal. i.e. 10 years per cm. So the first graphs (which show fewer years), should appear smaller and on the left.

But since you mention it the temperature scale should be the same as well.

>>10555279
ok nevermind it looks like the tried to do it.... my bad

>>10555293
>my bad
No worries.

>>10555263
>>10555259
>>10555250
>>10555152
>>10555227


Samefag gets called out on posting purposefully misleading graphs, failts to deflect directly so just starts spamming more bullshit in an attempt to bury the fact that he's been exposed as an anti-science liar.

>>10555263
>>10555259
>>10555250
>>10555152
>>10555227


Samefag gets called out on posting purposefully misleading graphs, fails to deflect directly so just starts spamming more bullshit in an attempt to bury the fact that he's been exposed as an anti-science liar.

>>10555250
>They people trying to alter the climate record have given an excuse and you should believe it.
This is rich coming from the guy who expects his conspiracy theories to be believed without evidence and while ignoring all other explanations!

>>10555259
>>10555263
So I'll take your silence towards >>10555183
as an admission that the raw data shows global warming is real and that NOAA is trying to hide the global warming trend.

>>10555384
It's clear that this person is not an honest actor. I wonder what his motives are, given that he very is knowingly trying to mislead people here.

>>10555259
>change their own data
Most of the differences you see in older versus newer data sets is in data coverage, not adjustments. And as I've already shown, NOAA's adjustments have actually lowered the warming trend. So what is your argument exactly?

>>10555271
Who uses a temperature proxy from a single location to argue about global temperature every single day? Oh that's right, no one you lying fag.

>>10555404
He's just a conspiracy fag that posts the same shit in every thread, gets debunked, then runs away and posts the same debunked shit in the next thread. Watch, he's probably abandoned this thread already.

>>10555431
It's just hard to imagine that he's not aware that what he's posting are effectively lies and propaganda. Can a human being really be THIS delusional or this guy actually one of these mythical "paid trolls" we've all heard about?

>worrying about global warming when you're nation is on rollercoaster ramping up to disaster

I mean yeah the climate changes and yeah humans have an effect as do all things on the planet, but uh I think there are other issues that are going to fuck things way before climate change

>>10555444
Such as?

>>10555448
Well I mean America at least is heading for civil war over immigration and guns. We already have multiple lite-secessionist movements occuring from the state level down and judicial system that actively makes many arbitrary and contradictory decisions.

I mean you have States and cities that refuse to enforce immigration, counties that are refusing state level gun laws... I mean like if you can't see the writing on the walls I don't know what to say.

I don't pay much attention to the euros so I don't know their situation, but shit gets more and more tense here. I don't think climate change is gonna outpace this stuff.

>>10555467
Yeah, I see that too. I was just wondering which of the many problems you were referring to.
There's also the fact that the US (and the west as a whole) has been largely de-industrialized and that our economies are just huge, dept-driven ponzi schemes that are fundamentally unsustainable.

>>10549284
But don't you see? The sun is creating volcanoes which run chinese windmill businesses which predicted global cooling in 1950s newspapers!
Open your eyes, sheeple!

global warming is not real

>>10555556
>cucked by 1 second

>>10555556
>>10555567

>>10555263
So what caused climactic shifts in the past and why were we trending lower until recently? We have without question released a lot of carbon that was locked into the atmosphere and that seems like a sensible explanation for the current trend but what went on to cause such dramatic shifts in the past?

>>10555555

>>10549284
global warming is fucking hilarious.

>>10555180
>tech has improved in 30 years
So in another 30 years, is this also how you're going to brush off the by-then totally exposed global warming hoax? "We were young and foolish, but now we are wise so you have to listen to us even more now?"

>>10557010
Because that's they really put money and effort to get a lot of info.
Not that anything really different came up, just more exact - as the pic shows, this has been known for over a century.

>>10557010
Because that's when they really put money and effort to get a lot of info.
Not that anything really different came up, just more exact - as the pic shows, this has been known for over a century.

>>10557049
Suuuure. And the ancient Chinese gurus "knew all about" the ether, therefore the ether theory is correct. Lmao

>>10557067
current numbers support the 1912 article, nothing supports the chinese stuff...
your logic doesn't work - but hey, what else is new

>>10555481
>US (and the west as a whole) has been largely de-industrialized
Compared to the '80s, the industrial output has doubled.
The labor force is only 2/3 of what it was then.
Automation has a huge effect.

>>10557096
Automation and outsourcing of jobs are the real issue here. More is produced, less people can afford it. This trend isn't sustainable. .

>>10557436
>More is produced, less people can afford it.
Source?

>>10557440
Also consider how expensive things like housing have become (far outpacing average inflation).

There are always going to be contrarian retards arguing against facts, no matter how concise things are. What we're dealing with is a catastrophic loss of habitat that will have profound detrimental effects on the human race. We can't spend time arguing with these bastards. Our survival is at stake and they are indirectly killing us by perpetuating this shitshow """"debate"""". I say guillotine them all.

>>10557440
>>10557447

>>10554881
>Climate change is one of several problems that makes our future food security highly questionable
A warming climate would change when and where we could farm certain crops. Temporary decreases in supply would possible as infrastructure moved. But it wouldn’t be some cataclysm.

>>10557465
It would be harder (more expensive and maybe not even possible) to produce enough food to feed everyone. Up north doesn't have very good soils for one thing.
Again, food production is going to be more difficult while we need to drastically increase it.

>>10557436
>This trend isn't sustainable
In the long run, the only stable system will be
1) tax robots
2) implement UBI

>>10557470
1) Invent ever increasing means of automated production and services
2) Progressively replace people's jobs
3) ??????
4) New stable system of mouse utopia

Well, let's hope 4) actually turns out to be desirable and 3) doesn't actually lead us to total chaos or to some kind of techno-feudalism where the ultra rich control literally everything.

>>10557447
This doesn't show what people can afford, housing is just one thing.

>>10557454
This ignores that a large proportion of the population rents.

>>10557478
>some kind of techno-feudalism where the ultra rich control literally everything
We're already at that point.

>>10557483
Rents have gone up along with housing.
Expensive housing makes literally everything else much harder to afford unless you've living with your parents.

Pic related definitely suggests that outsourcing of jobs definitely had a negative effect on wages.

>This doesn't show what people can afford, housing is just one thing

>>10557483
Rents have gone up along with housing.
Expensive housing makes literally everything else much harder to afford unless you've living with your parents.

Pic related definitely suggests that outsourcing of jobs definitely had a negative effect on wages.

>>10557498
forgot pic

>>10557478
I don't believe #4 is ideal. I believe it's inevitable.

>>10557484
We're getting there, but corporations don't outright own everything just yet. Things could get A LOT worse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOO-pYUl9-w

It's not real but if it was it wouldn't be a bad thing.

>>10557500
FUCKING BOOMERS HAD EVERYTHING

>>10557484
3 richest people earn more than all of the bottom 50% combined

>>10557507
thanks, Reagan

>>10557470
>1) tax robots
you're thinking that the super rich will own ALL the robots and make humans unnecessary

alternatively ....
>Initiate government subsidized 1 robot per household initiative
>robots are able to access free library that instantly teaches them any skill imaginable
>robots replace 80% of jobs but all citizens are able to freely benefit from the work their personal robots perform

>Need a bigger house? Download the construction worker library and build an addition with your personal robot.
>Having trouble feeding the family because you're unemployed? Download the farming/aquaculture library and grow food. Never shop for groceries again.
>Download the chef library and have your robot cook for you too.
>Can't afford medical insurance? Download the medical library and have your robot be your doctor.
>Can't afford to send your kids to college? Get the tutoring library and your robot will home school them for you.


Robots replacing people isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's only a bad think with our current society's zeitgeist of people being highly dependent on each other to function and robots replacing humans the role of "slave" in our boss/slave society. Robots could make everyone independent, self sufficient, and decentralize our society.
If you tax robots, it just makes it unaffordable for the poor folk so only the rich can have them. Taxation always hurts the poorest the hardest and this would take it to an unknowable/distopian level.

>>10557512
They're just more talented
They're just smarter
They just work harder
Pull up your boot straps
It's all big government's fault
The invisible hand will fix this
Don't tread on me

>>10557517
>Taxation always hurts the poorest the hardest
No it doesn't. Taxation can scale with income. A lack of taxation hurts the poorest by elevating the richest.

>>10557512
delete this

>>10557524
holy shit, a rare bog!!!!! saved.

>>10557524
https://www.forbes.com/sites/noahkirsch/2017/11/09/the-3-richest-americans-hold-more-wealth-than-bottom-50-of-country-study-finds/

>>10557500
>>10557507
>my parents ended up rich
>wow the horror
stop being such ungrateful shit, the reason they can buy you as much shit as they do these days are due to this

>>10557539
>his parents are boomers
The fuck? I was born in the 80s and my parents were not boomers.

>>10557536
a rattlin' bog
the bog down in the valley-o

>>10557539
>be grateful that things were good for people in the past! Just look at all the cheap, low quality crap you can buy now!
Are you quite serious?

>>10557521
Amazon earned $5.6B in 2017, but paid no federal taxes
Amazon pays no 2018 federal income tax, report says

>>10557556
And the majority of their full time workers rely on federal welfare to make ends meet. Bezos is the richest man in the world while America is footing the bill for him.

>>10557556
this is more an indictment of the US's particular tax code, in no way does it go against the general concept of a progressive tax

also, the classic republitard argument is that "corporate taxes are just passed through to consumers and shareholders", which has a nugget of truth to it (however 0 corporate tax is for sure not a good policy, and it is a direct contradiction with the republishart mantra of "corporations are people")

>>10557512
DELETE THIS

>>10557581
>>10557538

>>10557517
>unaffordable for the poor
well fuck, there goes my plan to build 100,000 cars a year - just cleaned up the cupboard for them.
>fucking idiot

>>10557500
>outsourcing of jobs
Huh? The Bretton Woods system was a monetary and international banking regulatory system. It had little to do with outsourcing.

>>10557683
What do you think
>liberalization of international trade
refers to?

>>10557720
It refers to the fact that national currencies were no longer tethered to US currency and the gold standard.

>>10557726
So why do you think GDP started diverging from wages after the Bretton Woods system ended?

>>10557756
The key advantage of fixed exchange rates is that they reduce the transactions costs of exchange. The key disadvantage is that in a world of wage and price stickiness the benefits of reduced transactions costs may be outweighed by the costs of more volatile output and employment.