Saturday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Saturday, December 14. 2024

Greenpeace: Plastic recycling is a dead-end street

Writers On Other Writers' Writing

Saint Ann’s insane ex-con hire exposes the progressive ‘shame’ con

The Movement to Free Schools of Smartphones Is Winning. Evidence shows that phones harm children and education. A growing number of schools are paying attention.

Woodrow Wilson, in a Darker Key - Chris Cox’s biography of the 28th
president reads like a long overdue reassessment of a man who doesn’t
stand up well to contemporary scrutiny.

The Re-Skilling of America - Instead of subsidizing America’s greedy and unequal diploma mills, how about dropping degree requirements and rewarding skills?

Saturday Miscellany

What Is a Woman?

How Much of the Harris Campaign Was a Scam?

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: The Evaporation Of The Obama Mystique

How stupid is Trump?

Many of Trump’s picks are well outside the usual Washington, D.C./New York political, media, and corporate nexus.

Hamas Backing Down Over 'Trump Pressure'

President-elect Donald Trump wants to turn the lights out on daylight saving time.

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 07:29 | Comments (30) | Trackback (1)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

PingBack

Weblog: www.thepiratescove.us
Tracked: Dec 15, 08:56

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

About recycling......I didn't think it was safe to use recycled plastic on food products. Have you looked at the new Hellman's Mayonnaise jars? The product looks a sickening gray color supposedly from the eco friendly using of recycled plastic for their jar production. I put the jar back on the shelf as did others.

#1 JC on 2024-12-14 08:52 (Reply)

You are absolutely right about the mayo jar!
However, I currently have several blouses in my closet that are made from re-cycled plastic--they are very comfortable and wear forever! Re-cycling plastic into fabrics of quality is a good thing!

#1.1 faculty wife on 2024-12-14 13:22 (Reply)

How stupid is Trump?

The left depends on smears and hate and the hope that their propaganda is swallowed by their followers. Trump is racist and homophobic and sexist and yada, yada, yada. The internet is full of videos where some student or older far left activist comes to the mike and calls Trump a racist or misogynist and when the host speaker asks for a single example they can't name one and have to fall back on name calling and baseless claims.

This goes far deeper than the left/Democrats trying to win office. This is about the fear that the massive deep state has that Trump will expose them. Every politicians up to now with few exceptions has had to explicitly or implicitly assure the deep state that they will not interfere with them. The deep state runs this country and they have become traitors and they fear what Americans will do if they are exposed. Make no mistake the deep state will stop Trump at all costs.

#2 OneGuy on 2024-12-14 08:59 (Reply)

QUOTE:

How stupid is Trump?

Consider a simple example: Tariffs on products from China will be paid by China." It's simply not correct. Tariffs are paid by the importer, who then adds it to their cost. It's much like his claim that Mexico would pay for the wall.

Possible options: He's stupid. He has no notion of the difference between truth and falsity. He's smart enough to know better but is lying.

#2.1 Zachriel on 2024-12-14 16:07 (Reply)

Trump is certainly smarter than the Quibble-DickZ I. They should know better but they continue to lie.

#2.1.1 Zachinoff on 2024-12-14 17:44 (Reply)

Does China have tariffs on American products?

The real purpose of tariffs on China is to: A. bring back more American jobs that the Democrats have shipped overseas. and B. to force us to manufacture critical products here in the U.S. so that China will not be able to cripple by stopping trade.

The threatened tariffs on Mexico and Canada will be avoided easily by those two countries by securing their borders which is exactly what we want.

Taxes on businesses too are passed along to the consumer I never heard you complain about that!

#2.1.2 OneGuy on 2024-12-14 18:39 (Reply)

China has two options to pay for the tariffs. The first is to devalue their own currency and the second is to take in smaller profits. They used a combination of both.

You simply echo the MSM opinion. Comprendo?

#2.1.3 indyjonesouthere on 2024-12-14 19:08 (Reply)

OneGuy: The real purpose of tariffs on China is to: A. bring back more American jobs that the Democrats have shipped overseas.

Trump claimed that China will pay the tariffs, which is not the case.

But to answer your point, even if manufacturers move to the U.S., costs will rise because it is inefficient to use American workers to make low-tech products, especially with unemployment so low. See Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Strahan and Cadell 1776.

#2.1.4 Zachriel on 2024-12-14 20:16 (Reply)

Hum. In fact, China increased its subsidies to offset most of the costs of the tariffs. Furthermore, Chinese industry lowered its margins and lowered it workers' pay. You know what that's called? China paying the tariffs.

Now some of the tariffs were high enough that some of the cost had to be passed on to consumers. Which resulted in production being shifted out of China. Including a lot of reshoring and near shoring. Which was and is a large net benefit to Americans.

Maybe you can explain why Biden left many of the tariffs intact. And imposed some of his own. Or maybe you can explain why you're not either stupid or a liar for making such an obvious subtantize or conceptual error.

#2.1.5 James4HJ on 2024-12-15 07:25 (Reply)

James4HJ: Hum.

Jiao et al. (2022). The Impacts of the U.S. Trade War on Chinese Exporters. The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press: "higher export prices due to U.S. tariff increases were completely passed onto U.S. domestic consumers." In addition, China retaliated by imposing tariffs on US exports, including agricultural products. China looked elsewhere and entered long-term contracts, locking out American producers.

That doesn't mean targeted tariffs can never have a valid purpose, but it does cost American consumers and invites retaliation hurting American producers.

#2.1.5.1 Zachriel on 2024-12-15 08:37 (Reply)

BS. Inflation rates in the USA remained historically low throughout the pre-covid Trump economy. In spite of decent growth rates. I don't know what those guys are smoking, but their conclusions are trash.

"even if manufacturers move to the U.S., costs will rise because it is inefficient to use American workers to make low-tech products."

Depends on the technology used in the industry. Given the revolution in automation, reshoring of even low value manufacturing often make sense. Textiles are a prime example.

I'll add, Chinese workers are among the least productive in the world, so even near shoring or friend shoring is a huge economic win for the US.

That whole putting tariffs on US agriculture goods. That doesn't really hurt US ag when the market is global. About 17% of the US GDP is based on trade. Much of that is food and energy, which not only has a global market, but has fairly inelastic demand. Meaning it is really hard for the US to lose a trade war.

In contrast, China has an export-based economy. And they rely on imports not just for food and energy but also for the components of the items they assemble to export. Meaning it is impossible for them not to lose a trade war. If you pay even minimal attention to the reporting about the economy in China, it ought to be obvious to you that their economy is falling apart.

#2.1.5.1.1 James4HJ on 2024-12-15 09:20 (Reply)

As an example: In Adam Smith's time, Britain could make textiles good and cheap, but wine poor and pricey; while France could make textiles poor and pricey, but wine good and cheap. Both countries would thereby benefit from specialization and trade, with Britain trading its good and cheap textiles for France's good and cheap wine.

America can't and shouldn't compete making products that billions of other people can make. America has a highly educated and motivated workforce. America can and should continue to compete by making products that only they can produce or produce well.

#2.1.5.1.2 Zachriel on 2024-12-15 09:32 (Reply)

James4HJ: Given the revolution in automation, reshoring of even low value manufacturing often make sense.

China is highly invested in automation. And if the U.S. were competitive, it wouldn't take tariffs. Unemployment in the U.S. is already very low, and even after importing millions of workers, there isn't anyone to work those jobs.

James4HJ: Meaning it is really hard for the US to lose a trade war.

War? People get hurt in war. War may sometimes be unavoidable, but one shouldn't invite war. In the long run, bullying other nations will not lead to more prosperity for Americans, but engender resentment.

James4HJ: That doesn't really hurt US ag when the market is global.

Any businessperson will tell you that losing a customer (a billion customers) is a loss, even if there are other customers out there. Most farmers in the Midwest said trade disruptions hurt their farm income. Trump compensated farmers for some of their losses, so there was no income gain to the treasury, substituting federal support for market income.

#2.1.5.1.3 Zachriel on 2024-12-15 09:54 (Reply)

"VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: The Evaporation Of The Obama Mystique" Anyone that had been paying attention to Obama's time doing basically nothing (voting present) most of the time in office in Illinois would have known that Obama has always been an evil ba$tard with only his money and power in the front of his mind.

#3 JC on 2024-12-14 09:12 (Reply)

Obama's "fundamental transformation" of the country created more racism, not less, by focusing minorities on 'envy' rather than self reflection.

#3.1 indyjonesouthere on 2024-12-14 14:04 (Reply)

Keynes' description of Wilson has always stuck with me:

"His thought and his temperament were essentially theological not intellectual, with all the strength and the weakness of that manner of thought, feeling, and expression."

Wilson's election was all Teddy Roosevelt's faults, all because of Teddy's ego.

#4 Whitehall on 2024-12-14 09:33 (Reply)

You remember the oxycodone crisis and the multi-billion $ lawsuit? So now patients with pain issues find it very difficult to get pain killers, any pain killers, prescribed because the doctors and pharmacies are afraid of the ambulance chasing lawyers. But interestingly drug deaths have skyrocketed! How could that be?

The simple answer is that oxycodone was never a good choice for drug users. Yes they used it to get high but that was because their preferred drug was unavailable. In fact oxycodone was a lousy choice made out of desperation. The law suit did diddly squat to prevent the drug problem in America. It was all about the money for dirty lawyers.

We have a drug problem and we need to deal with that more effectively. We also have a civil court/lawyer problem that causes very real harm and needs to be cleaned up.

#5 Anon on 2024-12-14 09:51 (Reply)

re Greenpeace: Plastic recycling is a dead-end street

Well . . . they aren't done squandering money tilting at that windmill.

Sigh . . .

Plastic plant representing a $7.5 billion investment to be built in southeast Nebraska

https://nebraskapublicmedia.org/en/news/news-articles/plastic-plant-representing-a-75-billion-investment-to-be-built-in-southeast-nebraska/

Falls City, Nebraska is a town of about 4100 people. 7.5 billion is a gargantuan sum to spend in such a small place.

My prediction is that a very few people will get very rich while the peasants get left holding the bag.

BTW, our Republican governor is on board with this. One wonders if his political cronies will profit from the scam?

#6 feeblemind on 2024-12-14 09:55 (Reply)

'Many of Trump’s picks are well outside the usual Washington, D.C./New York political, media, and corporate nexus.'

Duh, that's why people voted for him.

And yeah, DST is pointless.

#7 Maniac on 2024-12-14 10:15 (Reply)

These drones are not the drones that you or I could buy even if we were millionaires. These are military or espionage styles drones. There isn't some "American" kid out there messing around with these drones this is much more serious than they are admitting. This is a complex coordinated effort to fly these drones over secure areas for the purpose of acquiring information that could be used to defeat our country. I hope... I would like to believe that behind the scenes that our government is taking action to defeat this effort and identify those responsible.

#8 JustMe on 2024-12-14 10:20 (Reply)

Why would ANYONE believe such a thing of our current government?

#8.1 Mark Matis on 2024-12-14 14:40 (Reply)

Wilson was the typical progressive totalitarian that paved the way for future totalitarians such as FDR and LBJ. Always legislating by the 'new' bill of rights sold as the 'living breathing Constitution'. Little wonder that the current progressives are horrified by the current conservative court and the original Bill of Rights.

#9 indyjonesouthere on 2024-12-14 14:14 (Reply)

OK! The latest theory on these drones is that they are U.S. government radioactivity "sniffing" drones looking for nuclear weapons believed to have been smuggled into the US by one or more of our many enemies. These are in fact extremely capable drones, i.e. able to evade tracking and capture and they are launched and controlled from within the U.S. So why doesn't the government tell us that they are our drones? Well, duh! Because they are searching for a nuclear weapon(s) that were smuggled into the country presumably to be used by sleeper cells that came in across our Southern border with the blessing of the Democrats. So rest easy America, your government is doing it's job and you don't need to know what's going on and there is a fair chance that they could even find these nukes before the terrorists set them off. And no worries if the nukes blow our cities to smithereens FEMA will be there just like they are in Appalachia to save you.

#10 Anon on 2024-12-14 19:48 (Reply)

https://x.com/MilaLovesJoe/status/1868042627360403849?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1868085750635610171%7Ctwgr%5E2b43eea6957cf1579f598b427020ba3f52c09549%7Ctwcon%5Es3_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheferalirishman.blogspot.com%2F

#10.1 Anon on 2024-12-15 09:38 (Reply)

If terrorists have brought nukes into the U.S. where and when would they use them? What significant event is going to happen in the next 36 days or so?

Trump should secretly move his inauguration to a undisclosed location. My fear is that a nuke in DC on 20 Jan would be a terrorists dream. Even better than NYCity, but don't rule out NYCity too. I am afraid that this is a serious risk that our government isn't taking seriously. For some reason most Democrats have become anti-America and in a totally unrelated move have publicly said that they will not attend the inauguration. I don't know anything more than the rumors but the rumors scare the bejesus out of me. The Sum of All Fears was just a movie but for terrorists it is a instructional video. We have always known this was possible and yet acted as though it would never happen. How much faith do you have in Mayorkas to think he is right on top of this issue?

#10.2 Anon on 2024-12-15 10:28 (Reply)

Has anyone seen a picture or video of these drones during the day? I'm wondering how anyone can estimate the size of the objects at night when all you can see are some lights. How do we know some of them have an "eight-foot wingspan"? There are no reference points in the sky and there's no way to tell the actual distance to the drone. Genuinely curious about this.

#11 RJP on 2024-12-14 21:06 (Reply)

The evidence that smartphones are harming children isn't actually very good. I believed it originally, as Jonathan Haidt was the proponent and I have very much liked him on other topics. But The Studies Show did a very careful takedown of the claims, and Haidt's responses have been increasingly unsound and even desperate sounding.

#12 Assistant Village Idiot on 2024-12-14 21:36 (Reply)

Recycling: I have said for years that it is an essentially symbolic religious exercise. Cans are an exception but were dealt without government order because people used to put in their own effort to gather them up and cash them in.

Strong cardboard recycling pays for itself, but just barely.

#13 Assistant Village Idiot on 2024-12-14 21:43 (Reply)

That is the point to remember - if it is economically and technologically viable, it is already being done for profit without government involvement.

Here is Israel we have no forests, so wood, cardboard, and paper of all kinds are valuable and a large percentage is recycled.

The best thing to do with plastic is incinerate it in a cogeneration plant. This extracts as much useful energy as possible from the combustion. You are left with carbon dust virtually indistinguishable from natural wood charcoal, which can be used to fertilize fisheries and enrich soil.

#13.1 BenDavid on 2024-12-15 15:11 (Reply)

Z..."In Adam Smith's time, Britain could make textiles good and cheap, but wine poor and pricey; while France could make textiles poor and pricey, but wine good and cheap. Both countries would thereby benefit from specialization and trade, with Britain trading its good and cheap textiles for France's good and cheap wine"

A classic example, of course. But the relative costs of wine-making in Britain and France have a lot to do with climate and soil. This is a quite different kind of relative advantage from labor-cost arbitrage, which drives much of today's offshoring. There is nothing about Chinese climate that makes the assembly of iPhones more productive there than in the US...it's just that people are paid much less for the same work.

Concerning textile: British success in textiles led to the development of the spinning jenny and then Arkwright's water frame and the whole range of mechanized textile equipment, which along with the steam engine drove the industrial revolution. French success in wine was nice and no doubt profitable for some, but did not create the same kind of amplified long-term advantages.

#14 David Foster (Link) on 2024-12-15 19:12 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Saturday, December 14. 2024

Saturday morning links