The Green New Deal

[El_Machinae]

I think an important spin to remember that it's not the Greens fault that any Green Deal is expensive. 25 years of denial and making things worse is what makes the transition more expensive.

It's not the dentist's fault that a root canal is expensive if you intentionally ignored the growing cavity

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Whatever @TheMeInTeam, conscription of private property by the government is done all the time without you complaining about it so this carries no weight for me, your argument rings hollow and hypocritical.

Second, that is not how this works. The USA has a constitution and is generally ruled by the law. If we use those to form a socialist republic then that is what is and frankly we already are a socialist republic (medicare/caid, social security).

11 million people here right now are essentially indentured servants, are they tied by chain to their position? No. Do they have recourse to the law or the possibility of status before the state? No. So while you care not for their plight they are being systematically mistreated by a nation who is doing it in what essentially is a racist way.

We don't need to double down on past mistakes and go more socialist. "Conscription of private property" on the suggested scale (which is unlikely to be accurate) has never happened in the US. There's usually compensation for this but since proposed project is greater than the entire budget I ask again what this looks like in practice.

Not sure what you're on about with indentured servants, seems like a biased red herring.

Aaaand we've already left serious discussion.

Considering the lack of specifics in the source and that it propagates a tangential lie, the proposal itself shouldn't be taken seriously.

Are you even trying to have a serious discussion about this?

Astro cortez herself isn't capable of a serious discussion about this lol.

 

[Lexicus]

"Conscription of private property" on the suggested scale (which is unlikely to be accurate) has never happened in the US.

The abolition of slavery was confiscation of private property on a scale much larger than anything proposed in the Green New Deal.

 

[Berzerker]

it freed private property

 

[Lexicus]

it freed private property

Much as the Green New Deal will free private property, lol

 

[El_Machinae]

Recognizing that the remaining atmospheric carbon buffer is property that is owned means that wealthy people cannot consume it without compensating the poor people

 

[Lexicus]

Recognizing that the remaining atmospheric carbon buffer is property that is owned means that wealthy people cannot consume it without compensating the poor people

But wait, treating the poor as if they have property rights to things is literally Communism and I will not stand for it

Astro cortez herself isn't capable of a serious discussion about this lol.

Neither is timmyteem sadly

The morons claiming that the Green New Deal is technically impossible need to explain why investing in stuff we largely already know how to do is a bigger technical challenge than landing on the moon was in 1960, or building an atomic bomb was in 1941.

 

[Berzerker]

Much as the Green New Deal will free private property, lol

I haven't read it but do you agree with the slave owners who claimed humans as property or the people who argued slavery was man stealing? Your argument takes the slave owner's side.

 

[El_Machinae]

Here's the thing about acting on AGW. It's a good idea overall. This means that there are multiple logical pathways by which you can use internally consistent thinking to arrive at the conclusion. I can frame it as future opportunity cost. I can frame it as decreasing future poverty. I can frame it as real-time property theft. Economic, moral, ecological ... all of these schools of thinking arrive at the conclusion "please deal with AGW". After that, it's a function of framing the discussion to the worldview of the audience.

I don't like ignoring the cost of the Green Deal. In the end, a proper implementation of the Green Deal means that I will be able to buy fewer chicken wings. In real terms, I will have to 'pay' for it relative to my current lifestyle. This is unavoidable. By using things like 'taxes', we're able to ensure that there's a progressive allocation of the cost. Especially so, since the profits of the delay have been regressively assigned.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The abolition of slavery was confiscation of private property on a scale much larger than anything proposed in the Green New Deal.

I don't know how you'd determine that, considering the latter doesn't actually give concrete numbers.

Also, inanimate objects aren't slaves and don't reasonably have the same bounds for considering this regardless. The basis and means of abolition were both established. The basis in proposed document involves both deliberately misleading/tangential information and no concrete means whatsoever. It's not a competently drafted document. Unfortunately it's not alone in that regard, but it's still not competent.

 

[Lexicus]

I don't know how you'd determine that, considering the latter doesn't actually give concrete numbers.

A lot of people forget or never learned that the slaves were the most valuable capital asset in the United States at the start of the Civil War, exceeding the value of all other capital in the country combined.
The government transferred the ownership of that property at the stroke of a pen from the richest people in the country to the poorest.

Of course, if the Green New Deal doesn't give concrete numbers on property to be seized or whatever then it's sort of puzzling to me how you could claim it has never happened in the US before.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Of course, if the Green New Deal doesn't give concrete numbers on property to be seized or whatever then it's sort of puzzling to me how you could claim it has never happened in the US before.

Fair point, I'm just guessing.

A lot of people forget or never learned that the slaves were the most valuable capital asset in the United States at the start of the Civil War, exceeding the value of all other capital in the country combined.

I'm not entirely doubting this, especially given the timeframe was before the growth of some of the more memorable huge capital assets of the industrial era, but I'm curious how it was/is valued.

 

[Estebonrober]

We don't need to double down on past mistakes and go more socialist. "Conscription of private property" on the suggested scale (which is unlikely to be accurate) has never happened in the US. There's usually compensation for this but since proposed project is greater than the entire budget I ask again what this looks like in practice.

.

Yea I'm not sure whose private property is being confiscated. Can you clarify what you mean here? Mobilizing and economy means I can try to utilize up to 100% of the economic output which is 20 trill last year in the USA. This won't pass for at least a decade and won;t look like this outline, but I'd imagine it would still look like using 30% of GDP to really start moving things. If we start now it will be cheaper as economies of scale move on. So the first three years would be very pricey.

Of course I get the rich don't seem to care, the tech bros seem to be building bunkers and buying property in the middle of nowhere. That won't save their children from starvation though. I suggest instead of sticking our heads in the sand the species starts taking this seriously. Every year the USA doesn't do this it cedes space to the state capitalists who have no interest in actual civil rights or freedom of information: China.

Honestly though humanity needs to get to the point where it can have a common goal and not need an enemy.

 

[rah]

Immigrants.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Every year the USA doesn't do this it cedes space to the state capitalists who have no interest in actual civil rights or freedom of information: China.

The west mirrors quite a few of China's tactics. The EU in particular has a hard-on for that in legislation. The link tax and meme tax are particularly egregious recent examples of asinine legislature. It's better than China's information control, but not a lot better.

Some of USA's own tech/social media giants have been caught actively suppressing information/doing selective and/or ToS violating censorship.

 

[Hehehe]

I think an important spin to remember that it's not the Greens fault that any Green Deal is expensive. 25 years of denial and making things worse is what makes the transition more expensive.

It's not the dentist's fault that a root canal is expensive if you intentionally ignored the growing cavity

I'm afraid you'd need to be more specific. Are you talking about fighting global warming? Because while I agree that it is important, I am not at all convinced that this "green new deal" is a good way to do it.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm afraid you'd need to be more specific. Are you talking about fighting global warming? Because while I agree that it is important, I am not at all convinced that this "green new deal" is a good way to do it.

I know you're not convinced. But you have to remember that we have spent 25 years kicking the can down the road, so any efforts to redress this delay are going to appear expensive

 

[Farm Boy]

I don't like ignoring the cost of the Green Deal.

Why would we ignore the cost? It's a massive mobilization. We have a lot of the technology, it's just an enormous amount of work. And that work will be expressed in terms of labor, jobs, cost of living, and money expenditures when the shoes hit the ground. Halfassing it is literally how governmental bodies get empowered to be corrupt, abusive and ineffective, which as always falls upon the same sorts of people. I mean, I guess we could be stoned, or liars, or five years old or something.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, no one is ignoring the cost. But expressing the cost in "X trillions of dollars" seems to be something that is not easily answered in a way that's useful. So, how would someone answer it? It will result in a drop in purchasing power, even if it creates the ability to increase wealth accumulation.

 

[onejayhawk]

Yeah, no one is ignoring the cost. But expressing the cost in "X trillions of dollars" seems to be something that is not easily answered in a way that's useful. So, how would someone answer it? It will result in a drop in purchasing power, even if it creates the ability to increase wealth accumulation.

Everyone is ignoring the costs. That is one of the major problems in the discussion. As you say, they are dealing with generalities but there are reasons no one is getting specific. The numbers go out of bounds quickly.

J