On average, pay has risen faster than prices in recent years.

Fuck the average. Incomes vary far, far too much for the average to mean much of anything.

Everyone, from small business owners, to the self employed and independent contractors, to hourly wage earners who have not seen their income increase at a rate that is at least equal to the rate of inflation, every year, have had a pay cut. I can’t say how many of these people there are, but I would estimate they number in the millions.

By 2030? Not going to happen, then.

You’re right, that would be virtually impossible. I should have said that we need to decommission the fossil fuel powered machines as quickly as possible, to have the best chance of reducing global GHG emissions by >45% by 2030. But, we do need to have all fossil fuel powered machines that have GHG emissions that can’t be offset by things like carbon capture and sequestration, decommissioned by 2050, to meet the Paris climate agreement goals. That gives us a couple more decades, but even that will be extraordinarily difficult.

with urgent, decisive action, we still can avoid unmanageable outcomes

But not just any urgent, decisive action, it must be the right action. The wrong action could be insufficient at best, and actively harmful at worst.

To meet the Paris climate agreement, we must reduce global GHG emissions by 45% to 50%, from current levels, by 2030. To achieve that, we must begin decommissioning all existing fossil fuel powered machinery, from power plants, to manufacturing, transportation, and agricultural equipment, and replace them with net zero emission alternatives, as quickly as possible. I don’t think anyone really knows how best to do that, at least not on a global scale. It’s not something we’ve ever done before.

That’s true, but Germany is an outlier, and their population is still a little less than 1/4 that of the US. Plus, the US is a little more than 10 times the size of Germany in total area. I think that has an impact as well. But, it’s possible Germany does represent the upper threshold of size and population for a strong democracy, and if that’s the case the US is still well beyond that threshold.

I hope you’re not saying the solution for larger democracies is to make them not democracies.

No, absolutely not. My preference would be for larger democracies, like the US, to be broken up into many smaller democracies.

Denmark has one representative for every roughly 33,400 of its citizens. The United States, in contrast, has one representative for every approximately 626,000 of its citizens. For the United States to have a similar representation ratio to Denmark, the US Congress would need to be expanded from 535 (voting) representatives to over 10,000 representatives.

However, it is important to point out that the US is a federation, and that most US citizens also have state representation. The state representation, though, is separate from federal representation, as each state is a semi autonomous jurisdiction.

Overall, many voters seem to be most in favour of a system known as proportional representation, in which political parties are represented in governments roughly according to their vote share. Voters in democracies that use this system, such as Denmark and Ireland, tend to have relatively high approval ratings for democracy in their nation, and relatively high turnouts. But this pattern is clearest in wealthy countries.

Not only wealthier countries, but countries with smaller populations. All of the world’s top democracies have populations under 50 million, and most are under 10 million. Denmark has a population of just under six million, and Ireland has a population of a little over seven million. It seems like democracy works best when the nation is relatively wealthy, the people are relatively well educated, and the population does not exceed a certain threshold.

Why was manufacturing shipped overseas? Profit. Why are technological powers in the hands of a few? Because those few were able to become more profitable than their competitors. Why does the state not prioritize public interest? Because those with the most influence direct the state to prioritize their profit above all other considerations. It’s profit. It’s all because of god damn profit.

They support Trump because they think he can protect them and their wealth from the filthy, envious masses. The Democrats are not radical Marxists by any means, but they still threaten the capitalist class because the Democrats have been willing, at times, to raise taxes and support unions.

It’s kind of like when Lincoln was elected in 1860. Lincoln was no radical abolitionist, but Southern slave owners were so threatened by him they seceded from the union and formed the Confederacy. Like the slave owners of 1860, the ruling capitalist class have A LOT to lose, amounts of wealth and power that most of us cannot even comprehend, and they will do whatever they must to protect it. They are primarily motivated by fear. Again, they just have SO much to lose, they can’t take the risk of allowing the US to move even slightly to the left. Democracy and worker power are massive threats to them.

I don’t think anyone really hates Jo Millionaire. Jo, the master electrician that lives down the street and employs 5-10 electricians from apprentice to employee-master is a millionaire and contributes positively to their local community.

I think that’s true, but some Jo millionaires get rich enough to become part of the billionaire aristocrats. That’s the goal, isn’t it? Don’t most business owners want to grow their business and their wealth, seemingly indefinitely? Maybe that’s why the millionaires are such strong supporters of the billionaires: because they ultimately aspire to be among them. Obviously, most won’t be able to achieve that, but they aspire to it nonetheless.

Consumption of world’s wealthiest people also making it increasingly difficult to limit global heating to 1.5C

We’re not going to achieve the 1.5C target. It’s just not going to happen. Yes, it might (might!) still be physically possible to limit warming to 1.5C, but it’s not economically, politically, or socially possible. The only way we could achieve 1.5C at this point would be if there was some major economic collapse or some other major crisis. There’s no real way we can reduce GHG emissions at the rate necessary to achieve 1.5C while the global population, global economy, and average per person consumption rates continue to grow at their current pace. Some might say it is theoretically possible, but I don’t really care if it is. We’re not looking for theoretical solutions, we’re looking for actual solutions, and I think the actual solutions get us somewhere between 2.5C and 3C.

it’s nonsense to claim that Trump getting elected, is happening because voters are angry because of mysterious reasons that no one can figure out…

That’s not exactly what I am saying. It’s more that there isn’t yet a consensus of what the root problem is. There are a lot of theories, sure, like yours. That’s one theory, but, confident though you may be that that is the exact problem, not everyone agrees, or at least they think there’s more to it than that.

I think there might be some truth to your theory, but I don’t agree with the idea that these people are essentially doing fine, but they’ve been brainwashed into thinking they’re not doing fine. That it’s all just a result of some kind of mass hypnosis. That kind of erases the very real problems that many of these people do face.

Trump happened because large segments of US voters feel disenfranchised and resentful, as they feel they have been left behind and that their lives have been made worse by the policies of the political establishment and experts. If said political establishment and the experts want to end the Trump movement and prevent something similar from happening again, they’re going to have to address the concerns of dissatisfied voters. I don’t really think either party knows how to go about doing that.

I think part of the reason for that is there’s still significant discussion about what has caused so many Americans to become so unhappy with leadership, and you can’t really come up with a solution until you correctly identify the problem. I still don’t think the experts have a very good grasp on why Americans are upset. Until they figure it out, they can’t come up with a solution, and until they come up with a solution, movements like Trumpism are still very possible.

I want out of this “Everyone is beautiful and no one is horny” Twilight Zone multiverse that all our modern movies seem to take place in.

I’m not saying no character should ever be allowed to be horny, or sexual in any way. My point isn’t that we should pretend that human sexuality doesn’t exist, I just don’t think it’s always necessary to see it simulated (usually poorly) on screen.

Elon Musk is a dipshit, though.

Fair enough, but when you’re trying to recreate something as intimate and vulnerable as sex, it just stands out more. Of course when I’m watching a movie I consciously know that what I’m seeing on the screen isn’t real, but when it’s done right I’m so immersed that that part of my brain turns off and I’m able to get completely lost in the story or spectacle. But more often than not, when there’s a sex scene I get completely taken out of it and instead of seeing characters having sex, I see actors engaged in an awkward simulation.

I’m not a teen (far from it), but I’m with the kids on this one. The vast majority of sex scenes in movies are awful. They’re awkward and totally unrealistic. It completely takes you out of the movie. Most sex scenes are not engrossing or engaging, they don’t immerse you in the story, they push you out of it.

Most every sex scene feels like it was made by someone who’s never had sex. Every angle is the right angle, every thrust is ecstasy, it’s nonsense. It’s like someone who thinks the covers of romance novels are depictions of real life.

There are a lot of intimate moments that can be portrayed convincingly enough on film, but sex is rarely one of them. And it’s just not necessary. Let the audience infer, let us use our imaginations.

and you are just sowing a lot of discontent. That is largely my issue, as irrational as it might appear at first glance to be angry with an article just saying that inflation has decreased from its highs.

I don’t think it’s irrational at all. I think it’s perfectly understandable. The typical, out of touch economist, however, doesn’t understand. Their formulas, theories, and models tell them that everything is working perfectly, or at least as well as can be expected, and they’re really not interested in hearing any evidence to the contrary (like the lived experiences of actual human beings).

Yes 2% is the usual inflation target, so getting it down to that level constitutes defeating inflation.

But the layperson doesn’t know that. When the average person hears that inflation has been defeated, they assume that means prices are going to come back down. I think it’s understandable why people think that: If inflation means prices go up, then the end of inflation must mean that prices go back down. Of course, that’s not the case. For reasons most people don’t understand, prices must continue to go up every year, albeit preferably at a rate the experts consider manageable. You can try to explain this to people but they might not be receptive to being told that prices are just going to keep going up, forever, and it has to be that way because of some complex economic concepts that are beyond their understanding. It’s honestly kind of depressing, being hit with the reality that you’re always going to be playing catch up with increasing prices.

Housing needs to be about housing, healthcare needs to focus on healthcare.

That’s why I think profit needs to be eliminated from the equation. With it, the priority will always be maximizing profit, with providing a quality product or service being secondary, or even incidental.