Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
![]()
![]()
![]()
Got a link on those stats? And ballot propositions are often heavily slanted by massive spending. It’s almost like rich people... can afford... political fundraising...
Your initial demand was that because of Trump and AOC every future person should have an economics degree. Both of them HAVE economics degrees... as I found out with 20 seconds of Googling. So pardon me for not trusting your arguments as much as I otherwise might.
Edited by wisewillow on Feb 13th 2019 at 9:51:45 AM
![]()
It's less protectionism and more the motivation behind protectionism
So yeah, definitely flawed and questionable.
Still, the GND isn't perfect but it doesn't have to be, it's inevitably going to change and that means smoothing out the rough edges.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Feb 13th 2019 at 9:52:22 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangTo paraphrase another article, Cortez claims that if the social goal is countering the existential threat of climate change at all costs, then people would be willing to make sacrifices — be it lost economic growth, fewer flights or less beef. Yet it's difficult to make that case when you then tack on a myriad unrelated policies to the program. Cortez claims WW-2 is the appropriate analogy. Yet according to the resolution, decarbonization must also be supported by a massive expansion of social spending. Just to ram home the absence of trade-offs, we are also told this will be financed by printed money, under the heterodox nonsense that is MMT.
Edited by Kamiccolo on Feb 13th 2019 at 7:13:35 AM
d
So there's that.
Fast Breeder reactor technology waves hello:
(It's still not technically renewable, but when combined with reactors that actually run on nuclear waste (which also exist)
, it may as well be.)
Edited by megaeliz on Feb 13th 2019 at 10:02:13 AM
If there is anything to criticize the GND for, it's that it seems to be encouraging a "have your cake and eat it too" mentality.
The notion that the USA would be able to make such sweeping changes and make everyone richer at the same time might seem a tad unrealistic. The GND seems to be trying to downplay just how much it would actually cost for the USA to go full green.
Too bad said Fast Reactors also have a list of cons (also listed on that page) that might make relying on them to supply the USA's nuclear energy needs unfeasible.
And I'm not certain that AOC and her office had this sort of thing in mind anyway, given the context of that previous FAQ.
Edited by M84 on Feb 13th 2019 at 11:01:31 PM
Disgusted, but not surprised![]()
![]()
![]()
There's one that's been successfully operating in Russia for several years now,
so we know the technology is feasible.
Edited by megaeliz on Feb 13th 2019 at 10:16:59 AM
One reactor is one thing. Creating a bunch of them across the USA is another thing entirely.
I kind of wish the GND did specify a stance on nuclear energy one way or another. The vagueness of this (combined with that past FAQ) makes me uncomfortable.
Edited by M84 on Feb 13th 2019 at 11:20:19 PM
Disgusted, but not surprised![]()
![]()
It was always part of the post, it was literally the entire point of the post. That I thought that, then remembered living examples of why it wouldn't work. The edit, which came a mere minute later was only to add the comment about the Fed.
I thought the implication of listing those two specific people and then noting that Trump had an economics degree was frankly obvious. The only reason I didn't bother mentioning Cortez in the second half was because Wharton is extremely prestigious, to a greater degree than Boston, so emphasizing that school specifically further contrasted expected results (education will stop politicians from being dumb) with reality (it doesn't).
Edited by Kamiccolo on Feb 13th 2019 at 7:20:32 AM
So far you have established two things only:
1. The Green New Deal would cost a lot of money.
2. It includes social programs.
The first part is supremely obvious, Climate Change is here now we need to take serious action to address it lest the US and humanity as a whole will suffer grievously. Obviously, the drastic action necessary to restructure the economy will cost lots of money. That does not mean that we should not try. And since there are no prominent alternatives I prefer the Green New Deal, especially considering that it's not set in stone and thus can be improved.
The second point is also obvious, Cortez never hid the fact that it was meant to restructure our economy to not just fight climate change but also address other social issues. You can view that as a "far-left trojan horse" all you want but that doesn't mean it's not necessary or good.
The Green New Deal is exactly the ambitious action we need, I will happily accept the idea that it needs to be built upon for it to be concrete policy but the idea that we should just reject out of the gate because it would be hard is nothing more than counterproductive defeatism. I remain firmly unconvinced.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Feb 13th 2019 at 10:33:41 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang![]()
This is why the concept of “elite” universities is dumb. Plenty of stupid and or lazy rich kids coast into Ivy League schools and similar expensive colleges on legacy admissions and parent donations.
I just found it very questionable you persisted in calling AOC an idiot and insulting her and couldn’t bother to google her credentials.
![]()
Edited by wisewillow on Feb 13th 2019 at 10:26:07 AM
Well, I just read the whole thing (it isnt long). It's not a complete economic plan, just an outline of goals. They do not specify exactly how they intend to meet these goals, nor is it possible to attach estimates of either costs or returns on investment. As such, arguments about the economic feasability are a little premature at this point. Think of this as a US version of the UN Sustainable Development Goals
. It's an agenda for discussion, not the solution itself.
Economically speaking, presumably the way a GND would work would be to use government subsidized up front capital costs that would increase economic productivity in the long run (while simultaneously protecting the global environment). The only way that makes business sense is if we pass a carbon tax at the same time (or maybe a cap and trade system could be made to work as well), so that polluting organizations are paying directly the costs of the environmental damage they are causing. By switching to green tech, they avoid those costs.
Otherwise the only way of doing this is by government fiat, imposing regulations on US businesses in order to bring down global warming. That puts us at a competitive disadvantage unless it is done as part of an international agreement to impose comparable costs on businesses around the world. Still, this method reduces global economic productivity, at least until the green tech becomes mainstream and the costs go down.
It is also possible that research and development into green technology will produce breakthroughs that will increase productivity by itself in comparison to fossil fuels. It is unlikely, however, that the cost of energy itself will be reduced by switching over to alternative sources.
If the overall goal of a GND is to save the environment while minimizing economic costs as much as possible, then an effective way to facilitate that would be to electrify the economy as much as possible, while changing consumption patterns. If transportation, manufacturing and agricultural equipment were electrified, then a combination of nuclear power plants and renewable power sources on the one hand, and improvements in power consumption efficiency could largely replace fossil fuels; and if we could also reduce meat consumption, and reduce our reliance on nitrogen based fertilizers, then carbon emissions could be significantly reduced with minimal impact on the economy.
A sustainable GND is possible, and it makes sense over the long term, but we should be honest with ourselves regarding the significant short term costs associated with accelerated technology change. We wouldn't be doing this if it weren't for global warming.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.When Anderson Cooper confronted her with The Washington Post Fact Checker’s Four-Pinocchio verdict on her claim about $21 trillion in waste at the Pentagon, Ocasio-Cortez offered this (emphasis added):
COOPER: One of the criticisms of you is that— that your math is fuzzy. The Washington Post recently awarded you four Pinocchios —
OCASIO-CORTEZ: Oh my goodness —
COOPER: — for misstating some statistics about Pentagon spending?
OCASIO-CORTEZ: If people want to really blow up one figure here or one word there, I would argue that they’re missing the forest for the trees. I think that there’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right. [...]
The first problem here is that Ocasio-Cortez is really minimizing her falsehoods. Four Pinocchios is not a claim that Glenn Kessler and The Post’s Fact Checker team give out for bungling the “semantics” of something. It’s when something is a blatant falsehood. It’s the worst rating you can get for a singular claim. In the case of the $21 trillion, Ocasio-Cortez was suggesting that this was all Pentagon waste and that cleaning it up could pay for two-thirds of the estimated $32 trillion price tag for single-payer health care, which she and others are referring to as Medicare-for-all.
[...]
What might be most problematic about Ocasio-Cortez’s defense, though, is the idea that people should care less about specific facts and more about being “morally right" — as if this is a zero-sum game in which the two can be weighed against one another. She’s practically saying, “Well, maybe I was wrong, but at least my cause is just.” But this is the slipperiest of slopes — the kind of attitude you can use to justify pretty much anything to yourself. And it also just so happens to be the underlying ethos of the entire Trump presidency.
Edited by Kamiccolo on Feb 13th 2019 at 8:01:22 AM
Again, the GND doesn't mention nuclear power specifically. Her FAQ (which was removed) did state an anti-nuclear stance. And the GND as it stands also says 100% renewables, and nuclear energy is not a renewable.
Personally, I'd prefer if the GND was more specific about this one way or the other just to make it clear.
Edited by M84 on Feb 14th 2019 at 12:26:56 AM
Disgusted, but not surprisedThe question is not whether Trump will veto it. It's the question whether he will veto it and:
- Insult her as a woman
- Insult her as person of color
- Both
- Forget to veto it because he's golfing
(Not that it would get past the Senate but I'm just saying)
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Feb 13th 2019 at 8:34:59 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.The point of fighting climate change is not for its own sake, but to make people's lives better. If you stop climate change by setting those people on fire, then you have accomplished nothing.
That's why it bundles social and economic packages with the environmental ones. Because bundling them is the whole point — that's why it's called the Green New Deal in the first place.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Besides the bits of the GND I pointed out that made me go "...ehh...", it overall makes me think it sounds a bit too much like a "have cake and eat it too" thing. A lot of it seems to be downplaying the reality that we're all probably going to have to eat less cake for it to work.
It's just a feeling though, since the GND as it is is simply a set of goals. There is not yet any in depth economic analysis of the potential costs and benefits the GND will bring. The devil is in the details.
Edited by M84 on Feb 14th 2019 at 1:28:00 AM
Disgusted, but not surprisedBesides the popular appeal AOC has, the Green New Deal has this appeal: it's an explicit, unapologetic push at addressing climate change, at a time when the political administration is actively rejecting even the base reality of climate change.
ETA: Yes, that's obvious. Just putting it out there since we're talking about appeal vs. reality.
Edited by nombretomado on Feb 13th 2019 at 9:30:21 AM

Oh, and this little bit might be a bit iffy:
(i) to stop the transfer of jobs and pollution overseas; and
(ii) to grow domestic manufacturing in the United States;
It's not so bad but it does kind of come across as a wee bit protectionist.
Disgusted, but not surprised