Unintended Consequences: Migrant farm workers not showing up for citrus harvest

[Gremlin]

I don't see any facts about "fair market" in your post.  Tesla is responsible for the EV market in the U.S., and has better cars (per car magazine reviews), better technology and a first-mover advantage.  Are you claiming Tesla's position is due to government contracts?  That doesn't make sense to me, but maybe there's something I don't know.

As someone who lives in a market where both Teslas and the Chinese electric car brands are readily available, the idea that Teslas are "better cars, with better technology" is truly laughable.  Tesla may have had a first mover advantage (of sorts), but in the face of legitimate alternatives, its market share in the electric car space is in freefall here.  With good reason.  Having owned a Tesla previously and now in a Chinese brand, I would NEVER go back.  The build quality is better, autonomous driving is MUCH better, there's a heads up display, far less gimmicky all round.

Good ol' fashioned protectionism is doing its bit to keep better quality and cheaper cars away from the American public.

[bill1827]

Teslas still have one advantage over all the others; their charging infrastructure. If you own a Tesla you just drive up and plugin. There's no messing with apps or cards which probably makes for a more pleasant experience. Over here they're also generally cheaper than other networks even for non Teslas.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

I don't see any facts about "fair market" in your post.  Tesla is responsible for the EV market in the U.S., and has better cars (per car magazine reviews), better technology and a first-mover advantage.  Are you claiming Tesla's position is due to government contracts?  That doesn't make sense to me, but maybe there's something I don't know.

As someone who lives in a market where both Teslas and the Chinese electric car brands are readily available, the idea that Teslas are "better cars, with better technology" is truly laughable.  Tesla may have had a first mover advantage (of sorts), but in the face of legitimate alternatives, its market share in the electric car space is in freefall here.  With good reason.  Having owned a Tesla previously and now in a Chinese brand, I would NEVER go back.  The build quality is better, autonomous driving is MUCH better, there's a heads up display, far less gimmicky all round.

Good ol' fashioned protectionism is doing its bit to keep better quality and cheaper cars away from the American public.

You've stripped out the context, which was a discussion of Tesla not benefitting from (U.S.) government contracts.  Tesla did not reach its position in the U.S. market because of government contracts.  My post said "in the U.S.", which you also stripped out.  The Chinese government subsidizes their EVs to such an extent the U.S. has slapped 100% tariffs on them.  Also interesting that you deliberately stripped out the source I mentioned, "better cars (per car magazine reviews)".  If you strip out context like that, you are making up your own argument from selected words, not what I actually said.

I suspect this is only the beginning of the chaos as all the fantasies and imaginings of the MAGAs collide with reality.  It's a shame the price of oranges and other produce will go up, but TBH as a Canadian I doubt I'll be buying much of anything from the US after the submoronic tariffs are enacted at the end of the month.

This is what one hand is doing, the other hand will of course be going to extremes to stifle all information or evidence about the negative impacts of their policy decisions. 

Meanwhile, millions of humans will suffer.  USA USA USA!

Tariffs or not, I will be NOT knowingly be buying American anything.  I’m not supporting that regime.

I've been hearing this a lot lately.

Trump won a democratic vote - he is not a "regime".  And you will be buying American imports every time you fill your car with gas.

With a billionaire campaign contributor who controls a huge social media platform complete with political targeting algorithms, receives government contracts and threatens to levy opposition to the future campaigns of legislators (unless they bend a knee), the terms "democratic vote" and "fair market" mean little or nothing to me anymore.

Now one of the richest men in the world has an office in the White House as well. About half of nation's wealth represented by a few supportive individuals at the inauguration. The big time "fair market" advocates are suddenly silent, LOL. Yeah, is this what the founders envisioned? Open talk of retribution against political opponents. Pardoning of perpetrators of a violent overthrow attempt. 'Regime' sounds about right to me.

You mentioned money repeatedly, but money didn't buy the election: Harris outspent Trump, and still lost.  You mentioned "billionaire", "richest", "half the nation's wealth" and yet their spending on Trump was less than Harris' spending.  So if you're right about money, why did Harris still lose?

I don't see any facts about "fair market" in your post.  Tesla is responsible for the EV market in the U.S., and has better cars (per car magazine reviews), better technology and a first-mover advantage.  Are you claiming Tesla's position is due to government contracts?  That doesn't make sense to me, but maybe there's something I don't know.

If you wanted to criticize the fairness of U.S. elections, "voter suppression" is far more serious than ad spending.  Discarded ballots are disproportionally by people of color in Red states, which have enacted dozens of voter restriction laws.  But in this case, the "regime" would be those of individual states.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

With a billionaire campaign contributor who controls a huge social media platform complete with political targeting algorithms, receives government contracts and threatens to levy opposition to the future campaigns of legislators (unless they bend a knee), the terms "democratic vote" and "fair market" mean little or nothing to me anymore.

Now one of the richest men in the world has an office in the White House as well. About half of nation's wealth represented by a few supportive individuals at the inauguration. The big time "fair market" advocates are suddenly silent, LOL. Yeah, is this what the founders envisioned? Open talk of retribution against political opponents. Pardoning of perpetrators of a violent overthrow attempt. 'Regime' sounds about right to me.

You mentioned money repeatedly, but money didn't buy the election: Harris outspent Trump, and still lost.  You mentioned "billionaire", "richest", "half the nation's wealth" and yet their spending on Trump was less than Harris' spending.  So if you're right about money, why did Harris still lose?

I don't see any facts about "fair market" in your post.  Tesla is responsible for the EV market in the U.S., and has better cars (per car magazine reviews), better technology and a first-mover advantage.  Are you claiming Tesla's position is due to government contracts?  That doesn't make sense to me, but maybe there's something I don't know.

If you wanted to criticize the fairness of U.S. elections, "voter suppression" is far more serious than ad spending.  Discarded ballots are disproportionally by people of color in Red states, which have enacted dozens of voter restriction laws.  But in this case, the "regime" would be those of individual states.

One-Half the Money I Spend for Advertising Is Wasted, But I Have Never Been Able To Decide Which Half

It's never been the case that there's a linear result from advertising spend. It has an effect.

But you neglected to address the actual point of the post - social media moguls with their hands on the levers all sitting next to the President as his inauguration.

But I suppose social media algorithms affecting what information people see has no effect on elections?
Or where people get their news?

Again stripping out context - I replied to someone using the word "regime" earlier, and that most was defending the use of "regime".  The actual point of the conversation was to discuss if a democratically elected president is a "regime", which is why 4 of the messages in that chain mention the word.

[neo von retorch]

Again stripping out context - I replied to someone using the word "regime" earlier, and that most was defending the use of "regime".  The actual point of the conversation was to discuss if a democratically elected president is a "regime", which is why 4 of the messages in that chain mention the word.

regime:
A government, especially an oppressive or undemocratic one.
A usually heavy-handed administration or group in charge of an organization.

I mean, this isn't hard to figure out. Sure, we can argue it was still a democratic election this cycle. It's impossible to prove that one way or the other. My personal opinion is that right-wing propaganda, not the least of which is Trump's overwhelming, chaotic, nonsensical speech which somehow convinces people he's "good for the people", is winning and ultimately won the election. There's always propaganda, and there's also campaigning, so it's hard to say definitively that any of that is "undemocratic", but Trump has done plenty of things, like eroding trust in the election process itself, attempting to discount votes, and even inciting the people to rise up and fight against the results of the previous democratic election. So it's hardly a stretch to call Trump undemocratic.

So then is Trump's administration otherwise oppressive, undemocratic, or heavy-handed?

oppresive:
Exercising power arbitrarily and often unjustly; tyrannical. Difficult to cope with; causing hardship or depressed spirits

Before today, maybe I'd let this slide, but causing hardship seems to be the goal for cutting off funding to the most in need people that benefit from Federal loan and grant programs that were just "paused".

"Tyranny", "oppression" and "unjust" all kind of point to each other, but ultimately concentrating power under Trump is clearly happening, and it's moving in one direction towards more and more power from exactly one decision-maker. Judicial and legislative branches have fallen in-line with the Trump controlled MAGA variety of GOP. Fewer and fewer dissenting voices and opinions. Loyalty is being used as the sole criteria for all assignments.

How else would you describe this than a heavy-handed administration?

[MustacheAndaHalf]

To repeat myself: Trump won a democratic vote - he is not a "regime" (*).

I notice you quoted a definition that says "undemocratic", then silently ignored that word.  Here's the results of the U.S. election, where Trump won both the popular vote and the electoral college.  I preferred anyone but Biden or Trump (I favored Harris), but voters saw it differently:

https://edition.cnn.com/election/2024/results/president?election-data-id=2024-PG&election-painting-mode=projection-with-lead&filter-key-races=false&filter-flipped=false&filter-remaining=false

CNN also showed a graph of where people's wages hadn't kept up with inflation, and those areas voted more heavily for Trump.  I believe Europe also experienced political turnover from voters unhappy with inflation.  Democratic votes around the world were impacted by recent inflation, which is likely the factor that caused Trump to win 0.5% more of the popular vote than Harris.


(*)

...
Tariffs or not, I will be NOT knowingly be buying American anything.  I’m not supporting that regime.

...
Trump won a democratic vote - he is not a "regime".  And you will be buying American imports every time you fill your car with gas.

[neo von retorch]

To repeat myself:

Sure, we can argue it was still a democratic election this cycle. It's impossible to prove that one way or the other. My personal opinion is that right-wing propaganda, not the least of which is Trump's overwhelming, chaotic, nonsensical speech which somehow convinces people he's "good for the people", is winning and ultimately won the election. There's always propaganda, and there's also campaigning, so it's hard to say definitively that any of that is "undemocratic", but Trump has done plenty of things, like eroding trust in the election process itself, attempting to discount votes, and even inciting the people to rise up and fight against the results of the previous democratic election. So it's hardly a stretch to call Trump undemocratic.

Of course there was the rest of my post, but you can ignore that repeatedly, so this discussion will be pointless!

[crocheted_stache]

The segment of this show called "Immigration Enforcement in California" gives a lot more local view on what did and did not happen with the California citrus crop in the past couple weeks.

https://www.capradio.org/news/insight/2025/01/28/ca-insulin-production-behind-schedule-immigration-enforcement-in-california-nprs-student-podcast-challenge/

[LennStar]

For Trump it's intended because it hurts a very blue state.
For the guys who actually write the policies, it's intended because it creates chaos, and chaos is when they get a lot of cheap opportunities to get even richer. That is also one half why they are so anti-state: The more regulations, the harder it is to exploit whatever pops up, either because they can't just put the poisin in the river or because they have to allow competition.

[Gremlin]

You've stripped out the context, which was a discussion of Tesla not benefitting from (U.S.) government contracts.  Tesla did not reach its position in the U.S. market because of government contracts.  My post said "in the U.S.", which you also stripped out.  The Chinese government subsidizes their EVs to such an extent the U.S. has slapped 100% tariffs on them.  Also interesting that you deliberately stripped out the source I mentioned, "better cars (per car magazine reviews)".  If you strip out context like that, you are making up your own argument from selected words, not what I actually said.

Oh no, I get it.  Not government contracts, but US government protectionism.  The whole idea of providing subsidies in a highly competitive, scalable emerging market is not new.  Do you have the same criticism of the US utilising subsidies to ensure market dominance?

By the way, when you say "car magazine reviews" you only mean US car magazine reviews, right?  Plenty of international car mags have legit comparisons between Tesla and Chinese brands.  But no point a US car mag highlighting cars that outperform that a US consumer simply can't buy.  They play their part in the potemkin facade.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

...
Trump won a democratic vote - he is not a "regime".  And you will be buying American imports every time you fill your car with gas.

With a billionaire campaign contributor who controls a huge social media platform complete with political targeting algorithms, receives government contracts and threatens to levy opposition to the future campaigns of legislators (unless they bend a knee), the terms "democratic vote" and "fair market" mean little or nothing to me anymore.

Now one of the richest men in the world has an office in the White House as well. About half of nation's wealth represented by a few supportive individuals at the inauguration. The big time "fair market" advocates are suddenly silent, LOL. Yeah, is this what the founders envisioned? Open talk of retribution against political opponents. Pardoning of perpetrators of a violent overthrow attempt. 'Regime' sounds about right to me.

My comments about "government contracts" were related to this post, not to wherever you're taking the conversation.