Evergreen Economic Plan

[Zkribbler]

Democratic Presidential candidate Jay Inslee released a sweeping $9 trillion economic plan Thursday to create 8 million jobs, revitalize the labor movement and rapidly cut planet-warming gases, propelling the Washington governor far out ahead on the Green New Deal at least nine of his rival 2020 presidential candidates vowed to enact.

The 38-page Evergreen Economy Plan promises at least 8 million jobs over 10 years, and offers the most detailed policy vision yet for mobilizing the entire United States economy to stave off catastrophic global warming and prepare for already inevitable temperature rise.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jay-inslee-jobs_n_5cdc8ae4e4b09648227aae06
So far,Washington Governor Inslee is the only candidate to attract my attention.

 

[Imaus]

Ecotopia/Cascadia shall rise!

 

[Perfection]

This is the legislation I've spent a log time pining fir

 

[Azem.Ocram]

My state’s government is finally being productive and proactive. Inslee sure is far better than 1/2 Seattle’s City Council (especially Sawant) and the West Coast will step in and enact AOC’s Green New Deal while evil Republicans spread FUD shooting down common sense legislation.

 

[Takhisis]

So now the Republicans will really complain about Washington, then?

/subscription post

 

[Zardnaar]

Where do you get 900 billion a year from?

 

[Kyriakos]

Regarding the Evergreen, i always tend to side with Cyril.

 

[Hrothbern]

Where do you get 900 billion a year from?

900 billion is % not that much on US GDP, and even less on US total turnover of companies from selfemployed to big corporate.... IF... if it is not cost for the government (only) but adds GDP to the economy on a big scale by jobs and turnover (and taxes). It adds a lot of physical assets back against that 900 billion and cost decreases for energy used in all economical sectors and households.

What is however very important is that you do not spend (too much) from that money on investments in "your" green economy that are imports from other countries.
In a perfect world you want the full value chain of those green investments in your own economy (and not from importing Chinese solar cells etc).
The US economy is big, complete, and complex enough to cover the capabilities and financing needed.

It is more a kick start of a new economical sub sector, like launching a complete car industry, with all the suppliers, into your country in the 60ies of last century (wnen the automtive industry was still a reallt significant % share of economy).
Part of the jobs needed will be new. Part of the jobs needed will be coming from pushed out labor from other sectors (the continuous productivity growth needing les s labor per product unit). Most of those jobs will be higher value jobs for better wages.

It is more a transformational project and needs indeed a very well thought through PLAN.

 

[Zardnaar]

900 billion is % not that much on US GDP, and even less on US total turnover of companies from selfemployed to big corporate.... IF... if it is not cost for the government (only) but adds GDP to the economy on a big scale by jobs and turnover (and taxes). It adds a lot of physical assets back against that 900 billion and cost decreases for energy used in all economical sectors and households.

What is however very important is that you do not spend (too much) from that money on investments in "your" green economy that are imports from other countries.
In a perfect world you want the full value chain of those green investments in your own economy (and not from importing Chinese solar cells etc).
The US economy is big, complete, and complex enough to cover the capabilities and financing needed.

It is more a kick start of a new economical sub sector, like launching a complete car industry, with all the suppliers, into your country in the 60ies of last century (wnen the automtive industry was still a reallt significant % share of economy).
Part of the jobs needed will be new. Part of the jobs needed will be coming from pushed out labor from other sectors (the continuous productivity growth needing les s labor per product unit). Most of those jobs will be higher value jobs for better wages.

It is more a transformational project and needs indeed a very well thought through PLAN.

It's a massive % of government spending though. More than the spend on the military. Even in magic la la Land if you diverted all the military spending into that you now have several million unemployed soldiers and the military industrial complex.

It's robbing Peter to pay Paul. It's a pipedream basically they can't raise that amount of money via taxes and if they divert it from existing programs its just shifting the furniture around.

Military spending does create jobs. It might not be the most efficient way of doing its not the most inefficient either.

It's basically fantasy land, left wing equivalent of cutting taxes increases the tax rate.

 

[Hrothbern]

It's a massive % of government spending though. More than the spend on the military. Even in magic la la Land if you diverted all the military spending into that you now have several million unemployed soldiers and the military industrial complex.

It's robbing Peter to pay Paul. It's a pipedream basically they can't raise that amount of money via taxes and if they divert it from existing programs its just shifting the furniture around.

Military spending does create jobs. It might not be the most efficient way of doing its not the most inefficient either.

It's basically fantasy land, left wing equivalent of cutting taxes increases the tax rate.

This is NOT about spending money as government to increase direct consumer spending. Not about building military phisical assets that "produce" not economy, but only a feeling of security and status quo stability for existing economical flows.
Money is never a real issue when it is about an investment that is going to produce more turnover, jobs, GDP, economy. Money is a tool to re-allocate resources. Money as investment is a token of trust to get resources working.
The real issue is that you are able to re-allocate your resources (time of existing employees in existing companies and time of underutilised employees and unemployed) towards this transformation.
And do mind that any decently functioning economy "produces" 1% productivity increase yoy, => "produces" 1% of the labor force freed up for new economy every year.
The most important aspect of this freeing up of 1% of your labor force by productivity increases is that it frees up the skilled and highly skilled employees as well. Just adding some lesser skilled migrants are only useful when they can replace employees with more skills than their job requires, to free up and re-deploy these better skilled employees.

But you need a really good PLAN. And any money spend on things that do not return lasting additional economy are a waste. (and some waste unavoidable like always with investments)
Basically this project would be like an element of the Chinese "plan-economy hybrid".
And I must say I do not think that you can just go from practical zero to 900 Billion in one year. That 10 years seems short to me. We should have started earlier with a green economy build up.

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't think most people actually know how much money 900 billion dollars is. It's 45 aircraft carriers, close to 25% of the US governments annual expenditure. They can't get that amount via taxes, borrowing or printing money.

 

[Hrothbern]

I don't think most people actually know how much money 900 billion dollars is. It's 45 aircraft carriers, close to 25% of the US governments annual expenditure. They can't get that amount via taxes, borrowing or printing money.

During 1940-1945 the US government did spend much much much more as 5% GDP per year to fight the military war.
The goal was clear, the plan was clear, the industry accelerated in no-time.

Climate is as much as a war as Japan-Germany in WW2.

And hey... the net effect of the Climate war will not be a scrapyard of rusty steel, but a new economy secto. Replacing the existing fossil fuel economical sector, reducing fossil imports.

It is no other transformation than the recent PC boom, the recent smartphone boom, and the countless of booms the US had in the past from the goldrush to the oil rush to Ford's car boom, etc.

Here a graph how fast that US government debt increased during WW2, and how fast the industry and economy was able to accelerate to produce the needed physical assets.

Again
Forget prudent household thinking
Think like a company, a healthy company with a good track record, that has therefore ample access to money for investments.
In such a company money to invest is never, never ever an issue !!!
The only issue is to invest in the right investments !!!

 

[Zardnaar]

USA recovery was also dunded by France and UK. Also they had a manufacturing sector back then.

They are already in a heap of debt already, I don't think another country has 900 billion dollars floating around to lend to America.

It's roughly the entire Norwegian oil fund they took 40 years to save. Per year. China's having problems of their own. So is Japan so where can they borrow 9 trillion dollars from?

If they reversed Trump's tax cuts and then cranked tax up by the same amount they're still hundreds of billions short. It's adding another almost 50% to the national debt. What happens when the money tap runs out in 10years?

 

[Lexicus]

USA recovery was also dunded by France and UK. Also they had a manufacturing sector back then.

They are already in a heap of debt already, I don't think another country has 900 billion dollars floating around to lend to America.

It's roughly the entire Norwegian oil fund they took 40 years to save. Per year. China's having problems of their own. So is Japan so where can they borrow 9 trillion dollars from?

If they reversed Trump's tax cuts and then cranked tax up by the same amount they're still hundreds of billions short.

So again: the US government can "find" 9 trillion dollars by creating it out of thin air via spending, like it does with all its spending.

 

[Hrothbern]

USA recovery was also dunded by France and UK. Also they had a manufacturing sector back then.

They are already in a heap of debt already, I don't think another country has 900 billion dollars floating around to lend to America.

It's roughly the entire Norwegian oil fund they took 40 years to save. Per year. China's having problems of their own. So is Japan so where can they borrow 9 trillion dollars from?

If they reversed Trump's tax cuts and then cranked tax up by the same amount they're still hundreds of billions short. It's adding another almost 50% to the national debt. What happens when the money tap runs out in 10years?

I'll get back to you with some simple examples that show the difference in "strategy" and what is solid and not solid between private consumer spending, company spending and public spending.
Our intuition is based on our private consumer spending experiences, from ourselves and others.
Company spending is already a very different animal.
And public spending again a different animal.
Counterintuitive eyeopeners are like the most beautifull mathematical and scientific discoveries

Give me some time to write them down (this coming weekend or so)

 

[Hygro]

They can't get that amount via taxes, borrowing or printing money.

You mean can.

I don't think another country has 900 billion dollars floating around to lend to America.

Where do you think money literally comes from?

 

[Lexicus]

I like the Evergreen Economic Plan

 

[Zardnaar]

You mean can.


Where do you think money literally comes from?

They basically create money out of thin air and people go along with it because they have to.

Create to much though you get hyperinflation. The US government is already spending billions paying off what they have already borrowed. Can't remember how much.

And how is a new green economy going to work? Say they subsidise solar panels for everyone in America. Eventually you run out of places to install them.

They are selling snake oil. Sure spend money and clean things up, that cleans up the country. But how is a green new deal magically going to fix the country vs a more Keynesian wealth redistribution via increased health spending, more welfare etc things like that.

It's just left wing populism promise a heap of things you can't deliver on and probably blame the right when it doesn't work.

Turning the USA into more of a social democracy sure that's doable but free medical care, tertiary, green new deal, and take care of the poor you might be able to do one of those things but idiots think they can do all of it. Even Obama more or less warned to tone expectations down.

It's Left wing Trumpism.

 

[Hygro]

All money has always been created out of thin air and $1 trillion a year is a) precedented and b) well within the fed’s ability to keep inflation in check.

 

[Lexicus]

The US government is already spending billions paying off what they have already borrowed.

The US government has never borrowed a cent as long as it's existed.