doubt we'd be nearly as polarized in the 70s

Yeah I was about to say

especially considering nixon made the precursor to the EPA

and opened international relationships with china to the west

plus this era's economy is so much more complex than the 1940s that federal agencies and their massive bureaucracy is almost completely necessary for proper regulation of our markets

despite literally being unconstitutional based on delegation theory, but the supreme court has to keep up the facade that it isnt unconstitutional because eliminating federal agencies will probably destroy our country's economy, environment, ability to enforce laws, and nuanced regulation of massive points of national interests

like welfare <:gunpepe:619749635224895518>

""""National interests"""" which entail """accidentally""" starting a satanic pedophilic cult. 🤸

t. CIA

The state is obviously bloated and needs to be weeded out severely

definitely, but we need federal agencies at the same time

their ability to move faster than congress with the same legislative power, adjudicate with the same judical power as the supreme court, and enforce under the executive branch (president) makes them potentially super efficient if our government wasnt fucking annoyingly ineffective at literally everything it attempts to do

Well, the problem is keeping them subservient whenever they embezzle or fuck up

Which has become nigh on impossible at this point

🆙 | **Verchiel leveled up!**

They also become their own little clique bodies that do shady shit

that's mostly because the president appoints them if im being honest

like in Massachusetts v United States, the courts ruled against the EPA saying america shouldn't tackle climate change, and said they abused their discretional ability

of course the EPA would have interests in attacking climate change if the science pointed to it, but the head of the EPA is appointed by the president, and basically has to do what theyre told unless theyre brought before the supreme court AFTER their ajudication process

interestingly enough the counterargument the EPA had is strikingly similar to what **modern** climate change deniers say

-science is inconclusive
-developing countries are more to blame
-enacting change would inhibit our president's ability to act on it on the international stage

1st point is weak, 2nd is undeniably true, but the 3rd point is so lackluster it almost works against them

That axis is really filled to the brim with retarded dichotomies tbh

"plus this era's economy is so much more complex than the 1940s that federal agencies and their massive bureaucracy is almost completely necessary for proper regulation of our markets"

T. Has never read an economics book not given by his professor

Whatever you do, dont do anything crazy and build something like renewable energy and fast, efficient public transport trains

Also the first point in your above statement on climate change is undeniably true

Coal is a virtually limitless resource and the earth is currently carbon starved

Co2 causing emmisions is the exact opposite of the truth

Higher temperatures cause burn offs which release co2 as is attested to by co2 following rise in temp and not preceding it

Co2 thereby creates higher rates of plant growth which slowly cools the planet via absorbing energy from sunlight and transmuting it into calories

Global warming is propagandistic excuse to pull on the empathy of whites in a manner that convinces us to artificially cripple our industry capacity

Furthermore public transportation would not be an issue without zoning laws

@Major Slow its more about law than economics, but i appreciate the attempt to disregard federal agencies

Congress isnt specialized enough to be able to make nuanced regulation like the FCC, USDA, FDA, DT would be able to

Plus federal agencies are *technically* constitutionally sanctioned through the interstate commerce delegation

Not to mention how hard it is to measure the impact of certain agencies or policies like NEPA since it would, by nature, disuade certain other damaging policies

And the first point in the climate thing wasnt my response, it was the EPA's response in the supreme court case

Which generally gets countered with "our tech has gotten better over time so we cant necessarily trust temp. Readings in records pre-(whenever the manometer and thermometer were invented)"

Im not specialized in climate science though so im not gonna act like an authority on the subject