[rockdoc123]

Perhaps this belongs in another thread, I couldn't find an appropriate one but the mods can feel free to move if they so desire.

This is an interesting statistical study. The researchers compared actual data with the general opinion of people interviewed as to how the earth was progressing..(i.e. improving or getting worse) and less than 10% said things had improved over the last century. It is an interesting read and points to how the general public perception is strongly steered by the continuous press reporting of nothing but disasters.

https://ourworldindata.org/a-history-of-global-living-conditions-in-5-charts

[GHung]

Needs to be re-titled:

Whistling Past The Graveyard

[rockdoc123]

and like the rest of the ill-informed you choose to ignore the data in favor of your "oh things are so bad...I know this because I saw it on the internet".
That is the whole point of the article, but thanks for proving my point.

[dolanbaker]

I agree, the world is probably the safest it has ever been in recorded history, the only fear that some people has is the fact that, it can't stay this good forever. For many though, life is still poor relative to what they would consider a good life, a lot of these will never be satisfied.

I do have issues with what is considered "extreme poverty", from a 21st century perspective what we would consider poverty would have been considered normal 100 years or so ago, even the rich didn't have running water for example.

[asg70]

I agree with an asterisk. We're have been hovering at peak prosperity (pun intended) for maybe the last 20 years or so. And I think some degree of gratitude should be shown towards that rather than being fixated on the inevitable downward slide. But like I said, there should also be an acknowledgment of that looming downward slide.

[GHung]

and like the rest of the ill-informed you choose to ignore the data in favor of your "oh things are so bad...I know this because I saw it on the internet".
That is the whole point of the article, but thanks for proving my point.

Resorting to name-calling ("ill-informed")? Says everything, especially since I'm anything but. What I am NOT is being prone to self-reinforcing delusion and confirmation bias. But, yeah, go ahead and toss any/everyone who disagrees with you into a category of "ill-informed". Only goes to further expose your hubris.

[Ibon]

The trend defines the collective sentiment. Generations born of opulence and flat lining see disaster looming.

If on the other hand you were born dirt poor and have been toiling under the hot sun on poor soils and subsisting on barely enough calories to maintain 100 lb body weight and then had the opportunity working 60 hours a week in a factory exposed to noxious chemicals with enough income to eat pork 3 times a week then you are happy as you commute back and forth to work in a smog filled city on overcrowded buses.

An unbelievable amount of bias affects interpretation of the future.

Who are we here on this site but members of a generation disillusioned by the star trek promises we were weaned on that failed to materialize?

[rockdoc123]

But, yeah, go ahead and toss any/everyone who disagrees with you into a category of "ill-informed". Only goes to further expose your hubris.

My point is (and has been most times in replying to you about any topic) is you refuse to look at actual data...instead preferring to go with your gut feel. You may think that makes you look intelligent...think again.

[jedrider]

But, yeah, go ahead and toss any/everyone who disagrees with you into a category of "ill-informed". Only goes to further expose your hubris.

My point is (and has been most times in replying to you about any topic) is you refuse to look at actual data...instead preferring to go with your gut feel. You may think that makes you look intelligent...think again.

Yes, very ironic. We live in a golden age, a peak age, so to speak, an age of severe OVERSHOOT. You don't need 100 people to tell you this. You only need one, William R. Catton, Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change, published 1980. It is all about borrowing from the bounty that should, perhaps, belong to the future.

[GHung]

But, yeah, go ahead and toss any/everyone who disagrees with you into a category of "ill-informed". Only goes to further expose your hubris.

My point is (and has been most times in replying to you about any topic) is you refuse to look at actual data...instead preferring to go with your gut feel. You may think that makes you look intelligent...think again.

I look at a lot of data, even the one-sided cherry-picked stuff you seem to expect will convince everyone that your views are the only ones worth considering. Indeed, I have posted counterpoints which you choose to ignore.
Maybe your data is the only data that qualifies as valid "data",,, eh? I've seen no indication, after many years, that you ever consider opposing viewpoints at all.

BTW: I don't care to "look intelligent" or impress anyone, especially you. I lost count many years ago how many times my gut turned out to be right while supposedly highly-qualified well-educated boors were dead wrong while assuming my gut didn't have data, field experience, observation and freaking common sense underlying its conclusions. They simply didn't grok people like me who were never corrupted by ambition. They were too busy trying to be "right" and "looking intelligent" to be real problem solvers.

[rockdoc123]

Indeed, I have posted counterpoints which you choose to ignore.
Maybe your data is the only data that qualifies as valid "data",,, eh? I've seen no indication, after many years, that you ever consider opposing viewpoints at all.

exactly what "data" did you provide us with here to counter the research I linked to? Did you post data that demonstrate things are much worse than they were? No you did not. Your argument was based entirely on your "feelings".

The reason I posted this article was to create intelligent discussion, that would mean someone needs to post data or research that demonstrates the article is incorrect. Your non-supported opinion is not data or research.

[mmasters]

With Trump in there things will be good for the next 15-20 years. After that it will probably get ugly.

[rockdoc123]

But like I said, there should also be an acknowledgment of that looming downward slide.

the article I linked actually speaks to that exact point in it's conclusions. The point being, things aren't as bad as people like to believe but diligence in the future is required to keep the apple cart from being upset.

[asg70]

With Trump in there things will be good for the next 15-20 years.

Um, yeah. Trump is almost single-handedly throwing us into a recession with his trade-war nonsense. So he can't even kick the can on extending BAU properly.

[Newfie]

That’s the thing, to counteract climate change and general resource exhaustion the economy needs to slow down, contract. So Trump starting a recession is a good thing, the best kind of thing for climate change and resource exhaustion.

[jedrider]

With Trump in there things will be good for the next 15-20 years.

Um, yeah. Trump is almost single-handedly throwing us into a recession with his trade-war nonsense. So he can't even kick the can on extending BAU properly.

Too funny: Trump is too busy acting out his idiot fantasies that he can't even properly kick the can down the road.

[GHung]

Federal Election Commission to effectively shut down.

Vacancies mean agency can’t carry out numerous responsibilities as elections loom

Federal Election Commission Vice Chairman Matthew Petersen announced his resignation today.

This means the agency that enforces and regulates the nation’s campaign finance laws will effectively shut down — something that hasn’t happened since 2008 — because it won’t have the legal minimum of four commissioners to make high-level decisions.

Petersen’s resignation, first reported by the Washington Examiner, will throw the FEC into turmoil for weeks — and perhaps months — as the nation enters the teeth of 2020 presidential and congressional elections.

For now, the FEC can’t conduct meetings.

It can’t slap political scofflaws with fines.

It can’t make rules.

It can’t conduct audits and approve them.

It can’t vote on the outcome of investigations.

And while staff will continue to post campaign finance reports and attend to day-to-day functions, the commission itself can’t offer official advice to politicians and political committees who seek it. .....
.....................

“Despite the lack of quorum, I expect to be fully occupied while at the commission reviewing case files and preparing for new members to join the commission,” said FEC Commissioner Caroline Hunter, a Republican, who described Petersen as a “true gentleman-scholar.”

Hunter added that the agency’s various divisions “will still be on the job, answering questions, litigating cases, maintaining our website, conducting ongoing audits and processing complaints, disclosure reports, and other filings.”

FEC Chairwoman Ellen Weintraub, a Democrat, did not address the FEC’s loss of a quorum in a statement to the Center for Public Integrity, instead echoing Hunter’s praise of Petersen. “For 11 years, [Petersen] has been a gracious and steady colleague on the commission.”

Update, 2:56 p.m. Aug. 26: In a follow-up statement, Weintraub vowed that the FEC would attend to its duties to the best of its ability, despite losing a quorum of commissioners. “The FEC will still be able to shine a strong spotlight on the finances of the 2020 campaign.”

“Throughout my service, I have faithfully discharged my duty to enforce the law in a manner that respects free speech rights, while also fairly interpreting relevant statutes and regulations and providing meaningful notice to those subject to FEC jurisdiction,” Petersen wrote to President Donald Trump this morning in a resignation letter.

Trump in September 2017 nominated Petersen to a federal district judgeship, but Petersen withdrew in December 2017 after a disastrous confirmation hearing — and has remained at the FEC until now.
..........
A long time coming

This is a de facto FEC shutdown more than two years in the making and something for which commissioners have long been girding.

The FEC has operated with a bare minimum of four commissioners for the past year and a half: Democrat Ann Ravel resigned in March 2017 and Republican Lee Goodman resigned in February 2018.

The four remaining commissioners have together served more than 37 years past the expiration of their six-year terms. That’s because federal law allows FEC commissioners to continue serving in “holdover status” until the president nominates, and the Senate confirms, someone to replace them.

Consider the case of Weintraub, D, whose term expired in 2007. Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump each failed to nominate someone to replace her, so Weintraub has continued to serve. She is still joined on the FEC by remaining commissioners Hunter and independent Steven Walther.

No more than three FEC commissioners may identify with any one political party. And the president of the United States alone has the power to nominate commissioners to the six-member FEC.

Trump has so far made a single nomination: Trey Trainor, a Trump-supporting Texas attorney and Republican. Trump first nominated Trainor to the FEC in September 2017. Since then, Trump has twice renominated Trainor after the U.S. Senate failed to grant Trainor a confirmation hearing.

The U.S. Senate has yet to take action on Trainor’s nomination. He would fill the seat Petersen says he’ll vacate Aug. 31.

The U.S. Senate has long observed a tradition in which the president nominates FEC commissioners in pairs — one Republican, one Democrat, one reason Trainor’s nomination may have stalled.

The White House has repeatedly declined to answer questions about the FEC, which for years has been marked by internal discord and deadlocks.

While FEC commissioners often toil in relative anonymity, a few achieve high profiles.

Former Republican FEC Chairman Trevor Potter, for example, served as Sen. John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign general counsel — then made regular appearances earlier this with comedian Steven Colbert, who had a long-running gag about super PACs and secret political money.

Another former FEC chairman, Don McGahn, became Trump’s 2016 campaign general counsel.

After Trump won the election, McGahn — long an advocate of a weak FEC and campaign finance deregulation, in general — served until late 2018 as Trump’s White House counsel.

https://publicintegrity.org/federal-pol ... shut-down/

[Outcast_Searcher]

Needs to be re-titled:

Whistling Past The Graveyard

So no data at all in your response. No thoughtful comment. No citations, much less meaningful citations.

Well, here's a thought and a citation: you, and many of the doomers around here should read "The Death of Expertise".

https://www.amazon.com/Death-Expertise- ... 171&sr=8-1

Of course, since that would involve learning about data which you don't want to hear, that won't happen.

Funny though, when one actually LOOKS at things, that everything isn't constantly getting worse, despite the endless mantra of the fast crash doomers (even with their fabulous track record, re correct calls).

[GHung]

Needs to be re-titled:

Whistling Past The Graveyard

So no data at all in your response. No thoughtful comment. No citations, much less meaningful citations.

Well, here's a thought and a citation: you, and many of the doomers around here should read "The Death of Expertise".

https://www.amazon.com/Death-Expertise- ... 171&sr=8-1

Of course, since that would involve learning about data which you don't want to hear, that won't happen.

Funny though, when one actually LOOKS at things, that everything isn't constantly getting worse, despite the endless mantra of the fast crash doomers (even with their fabulous track record, re correct calls).

Meh.... It was a poke at what I consider irrational optimism just as you just took a poke at me for being a doomer, what ever that really is. Meanwhile, I could post a load of much less optimistic real data, which you and Doc would proceed to ignore, take out of context, or ridicule. What would be the point in doing that? Funny you seem to think this forum lends itself to that sort of discussion. But go on and pretend to be rational and unbiased if that's what floats your boat. I'm just killing time until the rain stops.

[yellowcanoe]

Needs to be re-titled:

Whistling Past The Graveyard

So no data at all in your response. No thoughtful comment. No citations, much less meaningful citations.

I think the disclaimer that typically comes with financial products, "Past Performance is No Guarantee of Future Results", is quite relevant here. I acknowledge that things have gotten better for a lot of people around the world. However, given issues such as climate change and resource depletion I think it would be naive to simply assume that this trend will continue.