Page 2 of 3

Re: The Green New Deal

Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 5:31 pm
by Libertarian666
Xan wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 5:07 pm
MMT has been discussed here in great detail many years ago. I believe it's a "fork" of MMT that is more interesting: Monetary Realism, or "MR".

MR is the factual parts of MMT without the opinions. That is, MR attempts to describe the system as it exists without the "therefore we should..." of MMT. MR does include all the MMT bits about how a country being in debt denominated in its own currency is not (BY ITSELF) a problem.

It may well represent other problems: government doing too much, being too big a part of our lives. But other than the inflation constraint, running a deficit doesn't actually have much of a downside.
"Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

Re: The Green New Deal

Posted: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:14 am
by boglerdude
MMT folks bring ethics into it, which is not economics. I agree with the "job guarantee" but in the form of removal of minimum wage. Ironically, socialist "progressives" wont allow that to happen, and so our parks here in socal are filled with folks sitting around.

MMT cant go mainstream because it undermines faith in the dollar. If people start questioning the dollar they run out and buy real things like commodities and we get hyperinflation.

Re: The Green New Deal

Posted: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:35 am
by boglerdude
And there's the problem of how the unlimited money you print, and the 0% rates you offer, will play out in the international markets. Which I havent looked into.

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2014 ... aints.html

Re: The Green New Deal

Posted: Fri Mar 01, 2019 6:45 am
by WiseOne
It isn't only about the money. All this infrastructure work has to be done by union labor, remember. How long do you think it will take to build a high speed rail network that can take over all our intercity travel needs? Or upgrade every existing building? It took NYC ~10 years to revamp the GWB bus station that was supposed to be done in 2 years. And 100 years to finish just PART of the Second Avenue subway line. OK, 10 years if you ignore the 90 years spent dithering about it.

For my 100 year old, historic building, we already know what upgrades are needed to improve energy efficiency. Money would help get them done, but between planning and executing a project that disrupts residents' lives and requires city oversight, it would still take years. Not to mention that there are a lot of NYC ordinances that get in the way of things like putting solar panels on rooftops, which is why very few buildings have them even though probably the majority of coops have tried - our electricity rates are so high that it's a no brainer to get solar if you can. If AOC really wanted to help in this area she should call for reducing building regulations, and simplifying the building permit process.

Re: The Green New Deal

Posted: Sat Mar 02, 2019 7:29 am
by Libertarian666
boglerdude wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:35 am
And there's the problem of how the unlimited money you print, and the 0% rates you offer, will play out in the international markets. Which I havent looked into.

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2014 ... aints.html
That probably won't affect the "dollar" relative to the other paper currencies in the world that much.
But if other countries like China and Russia switch to a new gold-backed currency, the "dollar" will be so much toilet paper.

Re: The Green New Deal

Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 3:11 pm
by Kriegsspiel
“The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all. Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”
- Saikat Chakrabarti link

Re: The Green New Deal

Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 4:57 pm
by jacksonM
Kriegsspiel wrote:
Fri Jul 12, 2019 3:11 pm
“The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all. Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”
- Saikat Chakrabarti link
I think of it as how can we most quickly turn America into a totalitarian socialist/communist country thing. Actually turning down the thermostat on the planet by a fraction of a degree has nothing to do with it.

Re: The Green New Deal

Posted: Sat Jul 13, 2019 10:25 am
by Mountaineer
jacksonM wrote:
Fri Jul 12, 2019 4:57 pm
Kriegsspiel wrote:
Fri Jul 12, 2019 3:11 pm
“The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all. Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”
- Saikat Chakrabarti link
I think of it as how can we most quickly turn America into a totalitarian socialist/communist country thing. Actually turning down the thermostat on the planet by a fraction of a degree has nothing to do with it.
+1

Re: The Green New Deal

Posted: Sat Jul 20, 2019 1:53 pm
by Kriegsspiel
After reading this post, or better yet the original 44-page document, you’ll understand why the Green New Deal is a bad idea. This is a cautionary tale worth paying attention to.

The goal of Energiewende was to make Germany independent of fossil fuels. But it hasn’t worked out. The 29,000 wind turbines and 1.6 million PV systems provide only 3.1% of Germany’s energy needs and have cost well over 100 billion Euros so far and likely another 450 billion Euros over the next two decades. And much more than that when you add in the extra cost of maintaining fossil generation systems to back up the lack of wind and sunshine from seconds to weeks.

Because of their extremely low energy density and need for a great deal of space, forests are being cut down, pits dug, and filled with hundreds of tons of reinforced concrete for wind turbines to stand on, 5 acres per turbine. With the forest no longer protecting the soil, it is now vulnerable to wind and rain erosion.

Because wind and solar farms get a guaranteed price for 20 years, they have no need to innovate, do research, or please customers, who paid them 176 billion euros for electricity with a market value of just 5 billion euros from 2000-2016. This is money that taxpayers could have used to build bridges, energy efficient buildings, or renovate schools, which would create even more jobs than the wind and solar industry claims so they can tout themselves as good for society, perhaps they aren’t so great when you look at other ways and jobs that could have been created with all the subsidies (Vernunftkraft 2018).

Germany’s electricity rates have skyrocketed to the highest levels in the EU because of the Energiewende debacle. link