That Nixon character sounds so evil. How does one decide to veto the clean water act?
My take: Arguments never change in politics. I'll never understand why spending lots of money on military or company profits (aka the economy) is always prudent but improving the live of ordinary joe through quite cheap measures needs to be evaluated in great detail to not waste a single cent.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/1972/10/18/archives/president-vetoes...
A surprising percentage of these arguments go like that where something is billed as uneconomical because it reduces waste, and the people pushing against it are backed the industries which benefit from that waste.
We shouldn’t be cavalier about inflation but we really have to keep in mind that pollution is often related to highly-profitable externalities which might be the most cheapest option because under true cost is being subsidized by everyone else (for example, reducing emissions has usually correlated with huge reductions in healthcare costs).
Also, dismissing cars as ‘vanity’ items is likely not to resonate broadly. While self-branding is a thing, some people just genuinely like the cars they can and aspire to buy. I love the inefficient cars I own, and the vast majority of people who know me have no idea or interest that I own them. If anything, vanity dictates humility in my circles. I also get negative responses on HN for owning ~500hp ICE cars (although my cumulative emissions are lower than ever due to reduced driving.)
This not a claim I made. Fuel costs are obviously going to affect most of the economy but note that I said “especially badly” — that’s because many Americans live in areas which were designed only for car travel, and if you live in one of those areas you don’t have a choice about buying a car when your current one dies because you can’t function without one. When cars are selling way above the previous market rates, that means your costs are either unaffected (driving a car with plenty of life left) or massively inflated (when the dealer is telling you it’ll be 18 months unless you’re paying 20% over).
This shows up in other areas but with different outcomes: for example, beef production is dependent on fuel costs. When that goes up, many people will switch to a different protein because there’s almost no cost to doing so. Same underlying problem, completely different level of impact.
> Also, dismissing cars as ‘vanity’ items is likely not to resonate broadly. While self-branding is a thing, some people just genuinely like the cars they can and aspire to buy.
I grew up in Southern California suburbs, you don’t need to explain car culture to me. If you note, however, my comment referred to “inefficient vanity vehicles”. If you really like having a sports car, that’s fine as long as you treat it like a hobby and can afford it (a friend of mine joked that he had a BMW M3 habit and should’ve saved money by switching to illegal drugs).
I was referring to the much larger group of people who make financial stretches to have a late model SUV or luxury sedan because that’s the image they’re aiming for, even if they’re leasing it to make the numbers work at all. If you remember over the summer when the local TV News couldn’t run enough stories about gas prices, notice how it was always some dude putting 20 gallons of premium into a huge truck or SUV. People who are actually poor don’t buy those because everything about them costs more than they can spend, which is why I mentioned that distinction.
If you are starting from scratch a personal car is literally the 3rd thing you seek out (shelter and employment are tied for #1) because of the massive freedom it affords you to be more selective in your choices of shelter and employment letting you "level up" from there.
These people who are just on/over the cusp of the transition between those two living standards got kneecapped by inflation (mostly food/fuel initially and then kicked while down by the rent a little later) way harder than the middle class who's got more room to trim fat.
You can have these surreal conversations where they acknowledge that the opposite happened, but any further improvements will definitely destroy the economy. This is especially weird when it comes to fire prevention which is the actual biggest threat to property values where they live.
Not every problem can be solved this way (sometimes the 'big discussions' are really needed) but many smaller, more technical issues, can be attacked successfully if there is no immediate political gain.
The United States in general and New York City in particular wasn't doing too hot in the 1970s. I think it's hard to understate quite how bad things were[1].
But they were bad because of irrational choices, not despite them.
to
> But they were bad because of irrational choices, not despite them.
Eh, I think a lot of the choices were rational given the available information and understanding at the time.
Cost is always what politicians use to avoid having to say they just don't like something for ideological reasons.
A related technique is "Constitutional Concerns".
"Nixon won by just 1 percent of the popular vote. “Once in office he escalated the war into Laos and Cambodia, with the loss of an additional 22,000 American lives, before finally settling for a peace agreement in 1973 that was within grasp in 1968,” says the BBC."
I would say "beyond evil".
And the letting go of the gold standard (whether this is evil is debatable).
The South didn't need any help walking away from a peace deal in '68. Hell, they walked away from the peace deal in '72 and only signed because Nixon told them the US was leaving regardless.
And there was no peace deal in '68 with the North. The North wasn't even interested in negotiating until a couple years after Nixon got into office.
And funny how Nixon gets blamed for "prolonging" a war he never started. How about blame JFK and LBJ for starting and escalating it into a massive conflict?
Perhaps it's easier to believe this about Nixon given his other documented crimes. Or you can just browse the transcripts here to get an idea of what he was willing to do and what his motivations were for making decisions. https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/watergate-trial-tapes
Yes, Nixon did tell the South that he could get them a better deal if they waited until after the election.
But the idea that the US and North Vietnam were on the verge of a peace deal in ‘68 is just laughable.
And sure Nixon did lots of things wrong, but that doesn’t mean I automatically believe some article that makes a preposterous conclusion.
So whether a more immediate peace deal was likely or not, he made an effort to postpone it. And he had specific personal reasons for wanting it postponed.
Given the other actions he took for personal gain, why should we believe this was any different?
But at this point, we're way outside HN boundaries. So I'll leave it alone.
North and South Vietnam weren't on the verge of peace, but the US could easily have had peace at any time by withdrawing.
On the other hand, Nixon created the environmental protection agency.
A la Patriot Act and Inflation Reduction Act
What’s the big deal about 10 feet of poop in the East River? How many chemical workers should lose their livelihood for some oysters? Coastal elites eat oysters, real men eat steak.