• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Financing the Green New Deal

No it's not. There is simply no way the "Green New Deal" is less expensive then "doing nothing" in actuality almost all the effects of climate change would fall on industries and people who have been publicly subsidized. The federal government's flood insurance program is one example, many areas in danger of flooding would never have been built if the insurance wasn't subsidized. That's only one example. so we can actually just let the market adapt to climate change and be much better off. This fire and brimstone AGW religion has no history of accurately predicting fire and brimstone. The Sun Monster gives us life, he's not a bad guy.

You are arguing against science and climate change using free market arguments. This is misguided in so, so many ways. Even if the free market argument had a better track record than it does, it would still be stupid to use it in this case.

If your child is dying, you don't do a cost-benefit analysis of the treatment.
 
You are arguing against science and climate change using free market arguments. This is misguided in so, so many ways. Even if the free market argument had a better track record than it does, it would still be stupid to use it in this case.

If your child is dying, you don't do a cost-benefit analysis of the treatment.

Let's note you posted no actual science here.

I also didn't argue against climate change, I said any negative effects will be adapted to cheaper then government intervention. In fact government intervention cannot be cheaper because any theoretical negative impacts are likely to occur anyway and will have to adapted around. Also the idea we should even attempt to prevent climate change is a political idea, not a scientific one.

Maybe if my child were dying I wouldn't consider the cost benefit anaylsis, but insurers, government agencies, hospitals etc absolutely would at some point. You can't pour unlimited resources into one person. At some point there is a limit.
 
Buildings (and homes) get remodeled, upgraded, and renovated all the time. And not all buildings will need instant attention, either. What they are really talking about is very sensible, the kinds of things that people and businesses do all the time. You have old windows? At some point, they are worth replacing. If the government gives you some incentive, that point is moved up.

My position is that it should or shouldn't be done. My position is that the numbers don't add up and make sense, and achieving this goal doesn't seem realistic nor possible. And that'd be regardless of how much money is thrown at it.

No matter how much AOC (and other leftists) chafe against it, they too must all live within the bounds of the laws of physics and the bounds of the laws of economics and the bounds of the laws of reality. Sorry, but that's the way it works.

Do please pay attention to what I post.

Goals are aspirational. Which, when it comes to global warming, is a whole lot better than doing nothing.

As 'aspirational' goals, does that mean it shouldn't be taken seriously?
Seems to have gotten that response from pretty much everyone with two brain cells to rub together.

Your position is that there's nothing being done at present?
 
This is not an argument.

No, it's an observation. It's a waste of time formulating arguments when debating with some libertarians, especially when they consider legislation passed by a democratically elected government to be something forced upon them against their will. Rather than get into a side debate about this, I choose to ignore it. (Right after I point out how silly it is.)
 
No, it's an observation. It's a waste of time formulating arguments when debating with some libertarians, especially when they consider legislation passed by a democratically elected government to be something forced upon them against their will. Rather than get into a side debate about this, I choose to ignore it. (Right after I point out how silly it is.)

Well laws passed by government, regardless of the mechanism, are enforced on people against their will. I never asked for a democracy, I was simply born into one and so claiming democracy is not an argument.
 
You wanted someone to argue against the Green New Deal proposed, that is what you got. Not sure how it's anyone's fault that the resolution is indefensible and that your arguments supporting it are terrible.

The article was about paying for the GND. And so far, nobody has been able to demonstrate that the U.S. government doesn't have enough money to pay for it, nor that the economy doesn't have the capacity to do the work.
 
The article was about paying for the GND. And so far, nobody has been able to demonstrate that the U.S. government doesn't have enough money to pay for it, nor that the economy doesn't have the capacity to do the work.

Well if the Government actually tries to enforce this there will be either a complete turnout of the democratic party in the next elections or a civil war, so functionally it's not possible for the government to fund it.

you must retrofit ALL your buildings, and you must pay 90% taxes, and you must give up your automobiles, and air travel is now banned and we're going to build trains no one will ride throughout the country, but if you're "unwilling to work" you still get government support. Something tells me this will not last long as a political experiment.
 
This is replacing spending with more spending. Your premise is flawed

providing everyone with massive base cash subsidies will only lead to massive inflation. There will be no increased demand. In Chile a dollar is 600 pesos and all the products we pay $10 for they pay $8000 pesos for. If everyone's a millionaire then a cheeseburger will be 1000 dollars. There will be no actual benefit. If you were renting out your house you wouldn't accept 1000 dollars a month if everyone made 10,000 a month. Again you know nothing of economics.

Finally, an attempt at an economic argument!

But you only assume that you will get inflation. Hasn't happened in the past, and there is no reason to believe it will happen now. And we aren't talking about Chile, we're talking about the U.S.

And how the heck do you come up with "no increased demand"? Increased government spending is a straight addition to GDP. You give people jobs, and you don't think they will spend their paychecks?
 
Finally, an attempt at an economic argument!

But you only assume that you will get inflation. Hasn't happened in the past, and there is no reason to believe it will happen now. And we aren't talking about Chile, we're talking about the U.S.

And how the heck do you come up with "no increased demand"? Increased government spending is a straight addition to GDP. You give people jobs, and you don't think they will spend their paychecks?

cumulative_inflation.jpg


Of course they will, but they will spend more dollars for the same amount or less in products and services. You will need to either increase taxes, which will be a political non starter, borrow money, which at some point will become a debt crisis if the US doesn't implement Austerity measures, or print it which will drive inflation. Also you would be seizing money from successful people to give it to people who spend their money impulsively. I'm sure McDonald's and the lottery offices and liquor stores will benefit greatly, but it wouldn't benefit the segment of society already working.
 
We are not spending 10x what we bring in through taxation.

And no, that is not the point of the article

So what exactly is the cutoff point where we should not borrow more to increase spending? I've long wondered that. It's not half. We're already doing that. 75%? If 75% works, then why won't 80? Or 90? And if 90. Why not borrow all of it? I think it's a valid point.
 
Well if the Government actually tries to enforce this there will be either a complete turnout of the democratic party in the next elections or a civil war, so functionally it's not possible for the government to fund it.

you must retrofit ALL your buildings, and you must pay 90% taxes, and you must give up your automobiles, and air travel is now banned and we're going to build trains no one will ride throughout the country, but if you're "unwilling to work" you still get government support. Something tells me this will not last long as a political experiment.

You are making unsupported, hyperbolic assumptions to make your case. Which only happens when you have a weak case.

Buildings will be upgraded as need be, over the course of years. Buildings already get renovated and updated all the time.

The 90% tax thing is ridiculous. You pulled that out of your backside.

Air travel will not be banned. Other options will seek to give travelers a better choice.

Automobiles are already moving toward electricity. Incentives will just hasten that process.

Whether or not people unwilling to work would still get a smaller check is still up in the air. We support a lot of these people today.
 
Don't ever quote a George Mason professor, especially one who is quoting Peter Schiff - and call anybody else's economic theories "claptrap." You are knee-deep in garbage economics and you don't even know it.
It doesn't matter who I quote to inform you that the earth is NOT flat, the fact is whether you are told this by a graduate of Berkeley, a George Mason economist, or Greg Mankiw or Paul Krugman does not matter, you're only going to believe the mad Puerto Rican graduate of Boston College and Bolshevik Bernie - if they say the world is flat, by golly its flat to you.

So far you have failed to provide ONE citation from anyone supporting your whack-a-doodle blathering's as anything more than your own feverish rantings - let alone cited anyone showing my own points and citations are wrong.

"War bonds" for sale, especially in a rationed economy, had nothing to do with keeping people from spending anything - it had everything to do with borrowing savings and earnings to fund a war (Duh.) This isn't even debatable, its universally known EXCEPT by some "John from Cleveland".

We only had seven years out of 30 where we didn't run a deficit. And each time we did, we ended up in a recession. source
None-the-less, as the charts show, the budgets of the 1950s (in particular) were ESSENTIALLY BALANCED. Those tiny deficits that did occur were mainly from recessions and the paydown of the WWII debt continued due to far better economic management than we have today. (And by the way ZERO business cycle economists believe balanced budgets make us end up in a recession).

You think we don't have underutilized capital today???
No, not in any Keynesian sense and certainly not in the sense of shut down factories and idle equipment of the 1930s. An economy at long-term full employment is far different than one in recession or depression, and the effects from a stimulus through borrowing or printing money has a much different result. As stated ad nauseum, the Depression and WWII economies were radically different than today - as were the effects of borrowing and stimulus spending.

Also - you seriously don't understand what "payback" means when it comes to government bonds. "Payback" doesn't lower total government liabilities one bit.
It means what it says - "PAYBACK". All other things being equal it lowers government liabilities to bond holders. What doesn't lower total government liabilities is selling new securities, which is one of the ways the current growing deficit spending is financed.

You have to live in an echo chamber to still believe the findings of that paper. Increased debt/deficits follow slow growth, not the other way around.
Of course both are true, and you'd have to particularly illiterate in economics to not know both.

Very minor, I'm guessing. Your grasp of economics is nothing to brag about. That you spent money buying that grasp should be even more embarrassing.
My grasp, as demonstrated, is more than enough to contrast the difference between commonly and widely accepted economic knowledge and your own ad hoc and terms and odd-ball constructs of 'no cost miracles". Whereas I'm not embarrassed by repeating the most common economic knowledge shared by Keynesians, Neo-Keynesians, Monetarists, Austrians, and New Classical Macroeconomics. I would be embarrassed if I repeated the "knowledge" of the "John from Cleveland" school of magical "no-tax needed" economics.
 
Last edited:
You are making unsupported, hyperbolic assumptions to make your case. Which only happens when you have a weak case.

No. You're the one posting a weak case.

Buildings will be upgraded as need be, over the course of years. Buildings already get renovated and updated all the time.

Every single building in the country does not undergo major renovations every decade. the GND as posted by Cortez mandates ALL buildings in America be upgraded by 2030. I am not debating your imaginary plan, I'm discussing the GND proposed by Cortez. Also leftist governments (see my post about Olympia) routinely block property owners from replacing or upgrading buildings as it sits now.
The 90% tax thing is ridiculous. You pulled that out of your backside.
Cortez has herself proposed 90% top marginal rates.

Air travel will not be banned. Other options will seek to give travelers a better choice.
Travellers do not want a "better choice". They are choosing to travel by car and by plane, if there was a market for rail travel a private company could do it profitably.

Automobiles are already moving toward electricity. Incentives will just hasten that process.
No they're not. Electric automobiles only work with government mandates or subsidies. when able to freely choose consumers overwhelmingly select gasoline/diesel vehicles.

Whether or not people unwilling to work would still get a smaller check is still up in the air. We support a lot of these people today.
We don't have to suport them at all.
 
Of course they will, but they will spend more dollars for the same amount or less in products and services.

That's a ridiculous assumption. Production increases to meet increased demand, as long as the capacity to increase is there.

You will need to either increase taxes, which will be a political non starter,

Increasing taxes on the very rich is actually a very popular proposal.

...borrow money, which at some point will become a debt crisis if the US doesn't implement Austerity measures,

The U.S. does not borrow its own money. Treasury issues bonds so the government can deficit spend. It's a net addition of financial assets for the private sector, not a loss.

...or print it which will drive inflation.

This is really no different than issuing bonds. And when we "printed money" in 2008, guess what? No inflation.

Also you would be seizing money from successful people to give it to people who spend their money impulsively. I'm sure McDonald's and the lottery offices and liquor stores will benefit greatly, but it wouldn't benefit the segment of society already working.

1. Nobody is "seizing" anybody's money.
2. Successful (rich) people don't invest their savings. It just sits there, doing nothing.
3. Giving money that would otherwise be saved to people who would spend it, impulsively or not, is good for the economy.
 
It means what it says - "PAYBACK". All other things being equal it lowers government liabilities to bond holders. What doesn't lower total government liabilities is selling new securities, which is one of the ways the current growing deficit spending is financed.

Dollars and reserves are also government liabilities, you know. A maturing bond merely replaces the bond with dollars, which doesn't lower government liabilities one bit.

Of course that is also true, and you'd have to particularly illiterate in economics to not know both.

Do you even know the paper you were citing? Because their whole hypothesis was that debt caused slow growth, especially when you got to 90% debt-to-GDP. Meaning, slow growth follows increased debt. And here you are, claiming both are true, which is even worse than picking the wrong one.
 
That's a ridiculous assumption. Production increases to meet increased demand, as long as the capacity to increase is there.

No, that's not what happens with welfare spending.


Increasing taxes on the very rich is actually a very popular proposal.

Considering the average American knows nothing about economics that's not an argument. in fact it's actually an informal fallacy.

The U.S. does not borrow its own money. Treasury issues bonds so the government can deficit spend. It's a net addition of financial assets for the private sector, not a loss.

Well as long as those bonds keep getting paid back which is not a given forever. The one time the debt ceiling became a political issues our bonds were downgraded. It's also important to note that T-bonds are practically worthless as an investment vehicle due to the low interest rate, meaning that it's also not a given people will continue to buy them becuase they are a substantial oppurtunity cost.


This is really no different than issuing bonds. And when we "printed money" in 2008, guess what? No inflation.

This is not true at all, there's been 16% inflation since 2008. Also real wages have no kept up with this.





1. Nobody is "seizing" anybody's money.
2. Successful (rich) people don't invest their savings. It just sits there, doing nothing.
3. Giving money that would otherwise be saved to people who would spend it, impulsively or not, is good for the economy.

This is a myth by Keynes. Saving stimulates the economy more then spending. first off money saved is not just sitting in a jar, it's sitting in banks where it's lent out. also people with more savings need less government services and thus save the government money.
 
...Of course, it completely dodges the how we pay for it in real terms. It's all theoretical. It's based on utopian visions of the effects of the whole plan and people's work ethics.

I would dodge it too if most estimates put it between 35 and 50 TRILLION dollars in ten years. Deficit spending in a down economy can be a good thing within reason. A few billion dollars to get people to work and improve conditions in the country. Even a trillion. Up to 2.5 times the GDP is a whole different story.

This is not a few billion dollars. This is insane levels. Cut it in half and we are still well over GDP for the entirety of the US!

Raise taxes, borrow, and print more money. That's what we have. Tax increases wouldn't' touch a down payment. If we confiscated the entire wealth of all the billionaires in the US and we have about 0.2% of the cost. Borrow the money with this as a blue print and our Standards & poor, fitch and moody etc ratings drop through the floor maximizing our interest rate. Print more money and you devalue the dollar to the point where pesos look pretty damn good. …

All your points are valid, but I am always dismayed how the nonsensical and magic thinking enrapture people into pretending there are free lunches and special ideas to make the laws of economics inactive. Some observations:

First, everyone loves magical thinking. As such, people invent all sorts of narratives and chains of deductions that permit them to believe in all sorts of fallacies. For example, the old fallacy of the broken window is one of the more common; the belief that one "stimulates" and enriches an economy by breaking every window in town so as to spawn spending to fix the windows. Never mind that wealth is spent to repair what was previously an asset, or that such wealth could have been spent for making NEW assets or consumption (or that the repairs are funded by borrowing) - NOPE to the magical mind it creates real prosperity.

Second, the more modern fallacies are far more sophisticated "free lunches" with all sorts of tiresome metaphors (e.g. "pump priming" or "sustainability"). They rest on a variety of soothing and comforting beliefs, like "multipliers" and "pay forward" and "living wages" and "green sustainable economies". All of them posit the belief that the collectivization and mandatory ordering into inefficient, wasteful, and pointless sacrifice of human well being is actually a glorious cures to current ills, because of some huge transformative delivery into a more utopian society - albeit with the sinister resistance of the contemporary Kulaks to what is good for the people.

Last, it doesn't matter how many times such fails. It does not matter if ignoring the laws of economics delivers a once prosperous society to the brink of bankruptcy and/or poverty (e.g. Venezuela or Cuba). But 35 years after communism-socialism planning and magical thinking collapsed, a new version arises in utterings of the starry-eyed.

Sad but true.
 
Last edited:
Dollars and reserves are also government liabilities, you know. A maturing bond merely replaces the bond with dollars, which doesn't lower government liabilities one bit.
Rather than trying to decipher your opaque new meanings to common terms, try explaining to us how the redemption of a bond of the federal government does not reduce the liability of interest payments to the holder of that bond. I'll make some popcorn while I wait.

Do you even know the paper you were citing? Because their whole hypothesis was that debt caused slow growth, especially when you got to 90% debt-to-GDP. Meaning, slow growth follows increased debt. And here you are, claiming both are true, which is even worse than picking the wrong one.

More to the point, did you, who made the original characterization of this paper, bother to read this or any other economic paper on deficits and debt? Because if you had "here I am claiming both are true" AS did the authors of the paper I cited. Read it? Thought not.

Anyway, the well accepted operating principles are not in dispute: annual deficits follow slowed growth (recession) because of falling tax revenue and the unwillingness of government to cut spending accordingly. On the other hand, cumulative and long-term debt whose growth is faster than that of the economy eventually become so expensive in by crowding out investment and increasing interest payments that it can reach a point wherein net growth must be reduced and unable to keep pace.

This isn't some magical idea; no economy can last forever on this basis and will, without austerity, debt forgiveness, and reform, eventually face bankruptcy or worse. But until R&R's study, the tipping point was uncertain. However they found that above 90 percent enters into an area of vulnerability. It doesn't mean growth isn't affected by debt below or above these levels, only that at 90 percent there is a marked reduction of growth in the strong majority of economies. For the lay reader (e.g. you) they explained their findings AFTER correcting the coding error:

Opinion | Debt, Growth and the Austerity Debate - The New York Times

(The critics) conclusions are less dramatic than they would have you believe. Our 2010 paper found that, over the long term, growth is about 1 percentage point lower when debt is 90 percent or more of gross domestic product. The University of Massachusetts researchers do not overturn this fundamental finding, which several researchers have elaborated upon.

The academic literature on debt and growth has for some time been focused on identifying causality. Does high debt merely reflect weaker tax revenues and slower growth? Or does high debt undermine growth?

Our view has always been that causality runs in both directions, and that there is no rule that applies across all times and places. In a paper published last year with Vincent R. Reinhart, we looked at virtually all episodes of sustained high debt in the advanced economies since 1800. Nowhere did we assert that 90 percent was a magic threshold (however)... We did find that episodes of high debt (90 percent or more) were rare, (but) long and costly. There were just 26 cases where the ratio of debt to G.D.P. exceeded 90 percent for five years or more; the average high-debt spell was 23 years. In 23 of the 26 cases, average growth was slower during the high-debt period than in periods of lower debt levels. Indeed, economies grew at an average annual rate of roughly 3.5 percent, when the ratio was under 90 percent, but at only a 2.3 percent rate, on average, at higher relative debt levels.

The fact that high-debt episodes last so long suggests that they are not, as some liberal economists contend, simply a matter of downturns in the business cycle.

In “This Time Is Different,” our 2009 history of financial crises over eight centuries, we found that when sovereign debt reached unsustainable levels, so did the cost of borrowing, if it was even possible at all.
 
2. Successful (rich) people don't invest their savings. It just sits there, doing nothing.

Successful people tend to grow the things that made them rich and invest a great deal of money on the side. That statement is false on its face by examining nearly any of the richest people in the US.
 
Successful people tend to grow the things that made them rich and invest a great deal of money on the side. That statement is false on its face by examining nearly any of the richest people in the US.

I'm thinking too many people watched Ducktales growing up and have this impression that rich people are all like Scrooge McDuck swimming in a pile of gold.
 
I'm thinking too many people watched Ducktales growing up and have this impression that rich people are all like Scrooge McDuck swimming in a pile of gold.

Maybe watching Marissa Mayer collect $1.4 million a week or $35,000/hr for a 40 hour week plus all the cool bennies which I think included her own jet for failing at Yahoo gives them the idea that things are too easy for the rich.
 
Alas,

So the issue is easily summed into two binary views; either the individual is free to own the fruit of his labor (in money or material goods) or he is like serf or slave who owns nothing because he is actually owned by "his state Lordship", who may take as much as it likes to satisfy his own grand schemes and wants. In turn, from that difference comes two views of society as a whole; one is that of free individuals living in voluntary production, cooperation and free exchange, the other that of unfree individuals coerced into involuntary production, into forced sacrifice and coerced exchange by "m' lords" (federal, state, and local).

Be aware, your enchantment with remaking a nation into the latest vision of utopia (or dystopia) through the government "m lord" on the backs of the current generation men and women is nothing new. For example, the theoretical basis of social transformation was most vividly expounded in the Soviet Union (and China) - a "planned" society supposedly organized to sacrifice the well being of the living on behalf of a future for others. Hence, communists saw immense wisdom in the forced industrialization of Russia is the name of "we". And in the US, the liberals also fell in love with the Soviet sociality utopia building romance, effusing that "The industrialization is directed like a march through conquered territory . . . . The collectivization is like installing an army in a conquered land, according to the worst rigours of war." (Heady stuff, no?)

Some even declared that that the day of the individual was dead, hence why concern your self with the number of "individuals" sacrificed for the greater good of "the future"?

And we all know how that turned out: Millions dead, but not before being "mobilized" to forced labor labor camps to clear harbors, cut canals, lay rails, and mine. Millions of others shipped to cities to "produce" without housing or tools, food and clothing severely rationed, and internal passports issued to forcefully tie labor to the land and place. Ah, but what glory was found in undernourished workers driven to death, living in verminous barracks in barbed wire bound camps while utopianists touted the blueprints of a splendor-to-be from their glorious 5 year plans.

So yes, I see the romance of mobilizing millions to sacrifice for your vision, to live under the illusory idealism of collective sacrifice of body, soul, and immediate future for your "vision". Such is the allure of totalitarian power - to burn vast piles of other people's money, and to sacrifice millions, for schemes and enthusiasms that even you would never buy stock in if it were your money at risk.

Because, after all, "Green suicide" only feels morally satisfying if all the lemmings are forced to jump off the cliff together, right?

Extremes are always bad and you are painting a picture of the other extreme. By the same token, if we continue on this path where the rich just get richer and don't even pay their fair share to improve the nation as a whole, the other extreme will happen in which 99% of the population is working for the 1% and they will not be doing it because they were forced by anyone to do but doing it simply to survive economically.

The middle road is better in which the rich and super rich pay for a higher share that goes to the benefit of the nation, simply because they can. It is called a family and the responsibilities of it where the earners give more economically than the non-earners but the non-earners need to do their jobs in making the family healthier, better fed and better taken care of.

Utopian dreams, such as the Green Deal, sound great but the reality is that human nature will not allow such Utopian dreams to be reality. Fear and Greed are the make up of every single human being and therefore will "always" interfere with any lofty plans that offer sacrifice for all.

What needs to happen is for our Congress and the President to compromise in a way that no one gets all they want but also everyone gets some of what they want. This is always hard to do but given that everyone gets something, it is the most possible course of action.

The one thing that does need to happen is for the extremes to stop. I can't believe that anyone can truly complain about the rich getting richer than anything they can spend on a lifetime and the lifetime of their family and not be willing to give more. This is certainly an extreme that even the super rich can agree to without bending backward. Once again, let me bring Warren Buffet in on this. Here is a man that is among the super wealthy and he himself gives huge amounts of money to charity and good causes. We could start using his formula and apply it to everyone.
 
Let's not call it a new green deal, call it the amazingly wonderful republican plan to battle pollution therefore saving the entire universe.

Let's try to put this 'impossible' idea into perspective. First manned airplane flight in the united states, December of 1903. NASA created in July of 1958. It took civilization hundreds of years to go from sailing ships and whale oil lanterns to motorized transportation and finally flight. We then went from very, very basic flight to the jet age in less than fifty years and we went from the start of nasa in 1958 to a moon landing in eleven years. My point is this, when Kennedy announced we are going to the moon, the united states didn't say, why are we going to spend money for that? We cheered the idea as a country. Granted it was as much a cold war move as it was a technological advancement endeavor. Regardless, we made it work when it seemed impossible.

All we need is the will to do it. Everything is impossible until it's done.
 
Pretty depressing that this thing is being given even 5 minutes of attention.It's being proposed by a bunch of non- serious virtue signlaers whose disconnect from reality is readily apparent to any normsl, grounded person.
 
Pls note I am clipping because links make post too long, not to change points.

Do you think that the U.S. is running at full productive capacity? Does Ford produce as many cars as it is able, or are they limited by demand? If you are talking about the viability of any economic expansion, especially one where the government is going to provide most of the demand, that is the question you should be asking.
The government can encourage demand, not create it. On top of that, it's a very poor method of encouragement. Mostly it's just "you want this because we tell you to". The market spends all its time mastering this skill and does a far better job.

Ford does not open 30 new plants and staff them because the demand will magically appear. They may have the capacity, but if no one is buying, they are out of business. If government can only bring demand by the measures mentioned below, it is all on the assumption the economy won't collapse when their money is seized and/or made worthless.

Over the course of how many years?

From 1940-42, government spending quadrupled over a two-year period. Again, money isn't the issue. The issue is, does our economy have the productive resources to do these things? Do we have enough engineers, enough energy, enough metal and concrete, enough labor, etc.
You can say money isn't the issue all you want, that doesn't make it true. You do bring up a fair point that we don't have anywhere near the resources otherwise, too, though.


How much did our interest rates go up the last time our ratings went down? Zero. The Fed controls those interest rates, not the market.

We have been deficit spending for most of our 200+ years in existence. And in 2008, we "printed money" like crazy.
I don't want to seem rude here, but please look up the credit ratings I listed. These are not home loans, they are ratings of countries' ability to repay their debt or even make payments.


The government doesn't need to make a profit. What's the ROI on a park?

Happier citizens, improved tourism, etc. There is a point where that ROI is a big old negative, which is why there isn't a park on every city block.

And who is being paid not to do labor? What kind of arguments are you inventing here?
I admit she already pulled back and tried to hide from the "unwilling" to work and she will back off a ton more as its insanity becomes clearer to more people.


First of all, where are you getting your numbers?

Smart Grid Price Tag: $476 Billion; Benefits: $2 Trillion | Greentech Media

Decarbonization of industrial sectors: The next frontier | McKinsey

Commentary: Universal Basic Income May Sound Attractive But, If It Occurred, Would Likelier Increase Poverty Than Reduce It | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

The Costs of a National Single-Payer Healthcare System | Mercatus Center

Of course, this is just picking out a few of her "ideas".

Second, GDP at the start of WWII was about $100 billion. At the end, it was a bit over $200 billion. But it continued to climb - even though spending money on tanks and planes was hardly what you could call "investment" in the country - it was more akin to building stuff and dumping it into the ocean. GND spending, on the other hand, will show, and it will have lasting positive effects.

As soon as the war was over, the spending decreased dramatically. This allowed the boost not to fall in on itself. Not to mention the national unity that would never exist as the government burned down around us.

This is Wash Examiner, but the article itself isn't too partisan. It's worth the read on this imaginary comparison.

Reality check: Cost of 'Green New Deal' would dwarf moon landing, highway system, and New Deal itself
 
Back
Top Bottom