3 3
airdvr

Green New Deal

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

The Democrat side of her is not a threat; it's the "As a Socialist;" she is a threat. The below quote and article is the right-wing belief system.

SOURCE: https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/11/30/the-great-depression-was-ended-by-the-end-of-world-war-ii-not-the-start-of-it/#75b7eb3257d3

Peter Ferrara is an analyst for the Heartland Institute, a right wing think tank known for climate change denial, denial that smoking causes cancer and fully private health care.  Their funding comes from large drug, oil and tobacco companies.

To the points raised in the article:

He claims that taxation did not increase after World War II, and that the government spending occurring during World War II had nothing to do with economic output.  He tries to support this by claiming that the economic output of military contractors "doesn't count."  He is either completely out of touch with reality, or is banking on people's belief in fake news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

The Democrat side of her is not a threat; it's the "As a Socialist;" she is a threat. The below quote and article is the right-wing belief system.

SOURCE: https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/11/30/the-great-depression-was-ended-by-the-end-of-world-war-ii-not-the-start-of-it/#75b7eb3257d3

Other views from this nutjob:

"“How could the scientists involved in the National Climate Assessment, and the U.N.’s IPCC reports, get the basic global warming/climate change science so wrong, as discussed above? During the Soviet Communist era in Russia, under Stalin in the 1930s, the government promoted a peasant, non-scientist named Trofim Lysenko to be the Director of the Soviet Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Lysenko virulently rejected the rising Mendelian genetics of the time, holding that acquired characteristics of plants, and maybe of animals and even humans, during their lives could be inherited. This fit the reigning Marxist doctrine of the time that human character and traits were malleable, and that the Soviet government was in the process of creating the selfless, modern, new Soviet man, perfectly suited to life under Communism.”

“Those who promote the politically correct theory are favored with billions from government grants and neo-Marxist environmentalist largesse, and official recognition and award. Faked and tampered data and evidence has arisen in favor of the politically correct theory. Is not man-caused, catastrophic global warming now the only theory allowed to be taught in the West?

Those in positions of scientific authority in the West who have collaborated with this new Lysenkoism because they felt they must be politically correct, and/or because of the money, publicity, and recognition to be gained, have disgraced themselves and the integrity of their institutions, organizations and publications.

But there is a more virulent strain at the root of Western Lysenkoism today. Scientists, like Holdren and Michael Mann, can be leftist ideologues as well, posing to manipulate and mislead for the good of the cause. Bottom line: green is the new red. That is why Obama at root is so committed to it.”

He, Iago, you and others. Have laid out a repeated line of B.S., here. I'm not inclined to respond to baiting, trolling and "entertainment". But I'll ad this to all of the above.

"That government by itself creates nothing. That a cent in taxes is somehow a black hole. That only private enterprise is the creator of wealth". Its a wonder how the entire concept of countries and governments function at all. Continue to exist. Enjoy the popular support of the world.

Lets start with education. Private schools ave been played with for over 20 years in the US. Mostly met with failure. Public education has been the model and a successful one at that in every country in the world.

If you're laissez-faire capitalism is so great. Why has trump been such an unmitigated failure? Every business that he has engaged in has been fueled by the debt of others. Why has the competitive model of US health care become the laughing stock of the world. With the G-7 countries  spending 1/2 of what the US spends. Yet enjoying better health outcomes?

Why has the much touted US stock market had to have been propped up by 4.5 trillion in FED Q.E. since 2008. Plus another 4% of GDP in private borrowing? The trump $1 trillion in tax breaks resulted in a pathetic 1% rise in real wages during a time of full employment?

US Commercial Debt since 2008

Did you actually read the article that you posted as the "right wing belief system"?

It states that military spending is entirely a waste of money for the state. That it should not even be counted as part of GDP.

Quote"The cost of all that military materiel was simply added to GDP, as if it reflected increased production.  But would not a better measure of the economic value of that military materiel, and of any coerced government transaction, be to subtract the cost of that production from GDP, rather than adding it?"

So defense spending by the state is a "coerced government transaction". His opinions are so far out in right field, so theoretically untested in economics. That they might as well be a counter to Karl Marx, written in 1818.

Edited by Phil1111

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Iago said:

Aw, you haven't been paying attention.  It's only because they don't like women and brown people.  Being a wack-a-doodle that never left the college campus has nothing to do with it.

Exactly.  And liberals hate work, freedom and progress.  (Remember when you could tell liberals "why don't you just move to Russia if you love that sort of thing so much?"  Damn Trump for destroying that meme!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a VERY big difference between spending on things that go BANG, ships that are sunk, tanks that are destroyed, airplanes that are shot down, etc.  on the one hand, and spending on education, roads, public health, R&D, and the amelioration of poverty, etc., on the other.

High taxes on the very wealthy didn't stop high economic growth under Eisenhower.

Quote

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Iago said:

Aw, you haven't been paying attention.  It's only because they don't like women and brown people.  Being a wack-a-doodle that never left the college campus has nothing to do with it.

So why, EXACTLY, is that such a threat to the right?  Do they think they own the monopoly on wack-a-doodles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, billvon said:

Peter Ferrara is an analyst for the Heartland Institute, a right wing think tank known for climate change denial, denial that smoking causes cancer and fully private health care.  Their funding comes from large drug, oil and tobacco companies.

To the points raised in the article:

He claims that taxation did not increase after World War II, and that the government spending occurring during World War II had nothing to do with economic output.  He tries to support this by claiming that the economic output of military contractors "doesn't count."  He is either completely out of touch with reality, or is banking on people's belief in fake news.

You'll understand that when you - as a engineering graduate of MIT speaks of engineering things; I listen. When one is an economics graduate (magna...) of Harvard speaks; I listen. And, when he goes on to explain his position as:

Quote

 

Statistics showed a rise in GDP during the war.  But that just reflects misdefined statistical analysis.  The military guns, tanks, ships, and planes produced and counted as showing rising GDP did not reflect improved standards of living for working people, or anyone else.  Yes, they did win the war, and that victory was a social good, just as removing Saddam Hussein from power was a social good.  But these were not economic goods and services, and should not be counted as such.

The sale prices of goods and services sold in voluntary market transactions reflects the true value of the goods and services produced, because they reflect what consumers are willing to pay for them, and so reflect the benefit that consumers see in them.  But the same voluntary market transactions where consumers are spending their own hard earned money were not involved in the government’s acquisition of the military guns, tanks, ships and planes produced during World War II.  The cost of all that military materiel was simply added to GDP, as if it reflected increased production.  But, would not a better measure of the economic value of that military material, and of any coerced government transaction, be to subtract the cost of that production from GDP, rather than adding it?

 

 The key sentence being a good question of, "But, would not a better measure of the economic value of that military material, and of any coerced government transaction, be to subtract the cost of that production from GDP, rather than adding it?" We both took more than micro and macro econ and from an economic perspective - it's a valid question.

On a final note; I'm going to ask you as the moderator to lead by example and put a stop to the statements of - If you're a Republican you must dislike brown people, women or that we are all misogynistic, homophobic, islamophobes, racists, etc. There has to be a better closing statement from the left than to attack all the right while accusing the right of doing the same to all liberals.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BIGUN said:

The Democrat side of her is not a threat; it's the "As a Socialist;" she is a threat.

Her proposals are absolutely zero threat.

Zero.

Unlike Trump, she can't throw a tantrum and shut down the government when her ridiculous and impossible ideas get shut down. Her 'socialist' ideas won't get into committee, let alone out of it and onto the floor for a vote (which wouldn't pass if, by some miracle it did). 

However, she has a certain amount of power. The power to ask uncomfortable questions. And demand answers. Answers given under oath (and penalty of perjury). 

 

THAT is what scares the Rs. For good reason. 


Please note that the right wing is not attacking her proposals. Not much anyway. 
They're attacking her

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Her proposals are absolutely zero threat.

That's just not true. Look at the momentum this Green New Deal has taken on with the Democratic side of the house. 

Quote

Please note that the right wing is not attacking her proposals. Not much anyway. 
They're attacking her

That's not true, either. Her proposals are being attacked, but the left tells everyone that the right is attacking her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

That's just not true. Look at the momentum this Green New Deal has taken on with the Democratic side of the house. 

Start buying coal and mining stocks.  Green Power is neither powerful nor green.

Edited by Iago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

You'll understand that when you - as a engineering graduate of MIT speaks of engineering things; I listen. When one is an economics graduate (magna...) of Harvard speaks; I listen. 

Oh come off it, you know the problem with that remark. He's an Economics graduate of Harvard attacking Keynesian economics. Who was Keynes? An Economics graduate of Cambridge. So if we're judging purely on qualifications, who wins?

 

Quote

 The key sentence being a good question of, "But, would not a better measure of the economic value of that military material, and of any coerced government transaction, be to subtract the cost of that production from GDP, rather than adding it?" We both took more than micro and macro econ and from an economic perspective - it's a valid question.

Why would you subtract that value from GDP? He's leading you on a dance, talking about whether or not standards of living improved then segueing into GDP as if it's the whole measure of it. The jobs that the war effort created were jobs. The money those workers were paid was money. You can't wish it away, or even say it was negative jobs and negative money simply because it is idealogically inconvenient for you.

 

Quote

On a final note; I'm going to ask you as the moderator to lead by example and put a stop to the statements of - If you're a Republican you must dislike brown people, women or that we are all misogynistic, homophobic, islamophobes, racists, etc. 

No-one's saying that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, kallend said:

Why are the right wingers so preoccupied with O-C?  Is she really such a threat to them?

 

I recall (yes, I'm old) that under Eisenhower the top tax rate was around 90%, yet there was good economic growth and much less whining from the wealthy.

Well, yes John but nobody actually paid that.  The 90% tax rate was as an attempt by the Fed to get a few of these Industrialist families that made buckets off the war to pay some taxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, billvon said:

Exactly.  And liberals hate work, freedom and progress.  (Remember when you could tell liberals "why don't you just move to Russia if you love that sort of thing so much?"  Damn Trump for destroying that meme!)

I would love to be able to tell liberals to just move to CCCP if they love that sort of thing so much, but the Great Communist Experiment failed about 30 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Iago said:

I would love to be able to tell liberals to just move to CCCP if they love that sort of thing so much, but the Great Communist Experiment failed about 30 years ago.

And nowadays you'd have to tell conservatives to move to Russia if they love Trump so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BIGUN said:

That's just not true. Look at the momentum this Green New Deal has taken on with the Democratic side of the house. 

That's not true, either. Her proposals are being attacked, but the left tells everyone that the right is attacking her.

Let's look right here on Speaker's Corner.

In this thread, a conservative started the thread with consideration of her proposal.  Great!  That was a thoughtful commentary.   I disagree with some of her proposal as well.

It was followed by:

Iago mocking her several times with comments like "AOC is the best thing to ever happen to this country" because she gives "free shit" to all her supporters who are “unwilling to work.” 

Your reply where you state "she is a threat."  Not her proposals.  Her.

Then in a separate thread on her, we see Iago commenting on her start in Congress the same way he would talk to a dog.  Then later characterizing her comments as "Stomps feet and holds breath."

That's why the left tells everyone that the right is attacking her rather than her policies.  Because they are; you yourself have done it.

If the right does not want to be characterized that way, perhaps they should stop doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Iago said:

Well, yes John but nobody actually paid that.  The 90% tax rate was as an attempt by the Fed to get a few of these Industrialist families that made buckets off the war to pay some taxes.

Good.  No one will actually pay 70% of their income, either - so the tax that's being proposed now is far lower than the one during the "greatest generation."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BIGUN said:

You'll understand that when you - as a engineering graduate of MIT speaks of engineering things; I listen. When one is an economics graduate (magna...) of Harvard speaks; I listen. And, when he goes on to explain his position as:

 The key sentence being a good question of, "But, would not a better measure of the economic value of that military material, and of any coerced government transaction, be to subtract the cost of that production from GDP, rather than adding it?" We both took more than micro and macro econ and from an economic perspective - it's a valid question.

You could just as validly subtract all costs of the space launch/satellite communication business because the product doesn't end up here on Earth.  You could say that all economic output (including jobs) from the real estate, car rental, insurance, banking, brokerage house, entertainment, web commerce, recording and tourism industries should be subtracted from the GDP because they don't produce anything real.  Would it not be better to measure real things, instead of imaginary ones?

And while I could see that having a practical value for someone who (for example) wants to prove that space exploration is bad, it doesn't have too much basis in reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, billvon said:

Let's look right here on Speaker's Corner.

In this thread, a conservative started the thread with consideration of her proposal.  Great!  That was a thoughtful commentary.   I disagree with some of her proposal as well.

It was followed by:

Iago mocking her several times with comments like "AOC is the best thing to ever happen to this country" because she gives "free shit" to all her supporters who are “unwilling to work.” 

Your reply where you state "she is a threat."  Not her proposals.  Her.

Then in a separate thread on her, we see Iago commenting on her start in Congress the same way he would talk to a dog.  Then later characterizing her comments as "Stomps feet and holds breath."

That's why the left tells everyone that the right is attacking her rather than her policies.  Because they are; you yourself have done it.

If the right does not want to be characterized that way, perhaps they should stop doing it.

Well, she does want to give free stuff to everyone.  That was the basic plank of her campaign before she even won the election.  Free housing for all, free transportation for all, free healthcare for all, free education for all.  As long as “free stuff” is on the menu I want my free stuff, too.  

Guaranteed economic security for those unable or unwilling to work.

 

Someone else can go out and do the actual work, just give me my economic security.

(It was pretty cold up in Iowa.  I’d rather take my free stuff.)

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Her proposals are absolutely zero threat.


Please note that the right wing is not attacking her proposals.

Poll: Majorities of both parties support Green New Deal

"More than 80 percent of registered voters support the Green New Deal proposal being pushed by progressional Democratic lawmakers, a new poll found.

The survey conducted by the Yale Program on Climate Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication found that 92 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans back the Green New Deal plan."

The Left Thinks a 'Green New Deal' Could Save Earth and Destroy the GOP

" About 52 percent of respondents supported the policy, while 29 percent opposed. “This is one of the most popular issues we’ve ever polled,” David Shor, a senior data scientist at Civis Analytics said at the time. Later this year, Data for Progress did its own polling and found a green jobs guarantee increased the intensity of enthusiastic 2018 voters: 55 percent said they’re more likely to vote for a candidate who runs on it. "

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Poll: Majorities of both parties support Green New Deal

"More than 80 percent of registered voters support the Green New Deal proposal being pushed by progressional Democratic lawmakers, a new poll found.

The survey conducted by the Yale Program on Climate Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication found that 92 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans back the Green New Deal plan."

The Left Thinks a 'Green New Deal' Could Save Earth and Destroy the GOP

" About 52 percent of respondents supported the policy, while 29 percent opposed. “This is one of the most popular issues we’ve ever polled,” David Shor, a senior data scientist at Civis Analytics said at the time. Later this year, Data for Progress did its own polling and found a green jobs guarantee increased the intensity of enthusiastic 2018 voters: 55 percent said they’re more likely to vote for a candidate who runs on it. "

 

Like I said, buy coal and mining stocks.  You’ll do pretty good in the midterm time frame.  Green Power is not really green.

Edited by Iago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Iago said:

Start buying coal and mining stocks.  Green Power is neither powerful nor green.

Stop by sometime and test drive a Tesla P90D.  Then go to the zoo (cool primate exhibit) and charge it there.  See if you still think that green power is neither.

Or invest in green.  If you put $10K in Tesla stock in 2010 you could buy that car yourself today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My former roommates father worked for Southern Co and pioneered that company getting the EV-1 on employee lease-back to satisfy the fleet requirements.  Fantastic car.  If GM went ahead with the EV-2 series hybrid they could have owned that segment of the market before Elon even created PayPal.

 

Tesla will be either bankrupt or absorbed by another company by 2021 without another massive infusion of capital or rollling it into Space-X.  Put options are still pretty cheap for Jan 2021, you should consider buying some.

 

I plan on making money on the concrete, iron, coal, coppper, and other metals/rare earths that are required to create those monstrosities to the sky called 2 MW wind turbines.    The same ones I just spent five days looking at in Iowa two hours from the nearest city (Sioux Falls) that could actually use the power.  Not that it mattered because only about one out of four was actually spinning.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Iago said:

My former roommates father worked for Southern Co and pioneered that company getting the EV-1 on employee lease-back to satisfy the fleet requirements.  Fantastic car.  If GM went ahead with the EV-2 series hybrid they could have owned that segment of the market before Elon even created PayPal.

GM just laid off a bunch of salaried workers and offered early retirement if you haven't already heard.  They've hired a lot of new talent while automating tons of office work.  They're focusing on autonomous vehicles. . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

3 3