- Joined
- Jun 18, 2013
- Messages
- 46,073
- Reaction score
- 14,534
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Not really what he was saying.
.
What he was saying was based on the assumption that a dollar spent on a tax cut.. its the same as a dollar spent on educating a poor kid.
Which raises serious validity questions.
But one of the premises of the GND, and the article, is that addressing climate change right now is imperative. So assuming that is correct (and the need to address climate change should no longer be up for debate), it is more important to spend on reducing emissions than it is to spend on something else and maybe get a better return on investment. Like I said earlier, you don't worry about the ROI on treatment if your child is dying, you just pay for treatment to the best of your ability.
Yeah.. I like your analogy.. because it really illustrates the problem here. Yep.. when a child is dying.. you often don't worry about ROI. Which makes you open to waste time and money on treatments that DON"T HELP THE CHILD. The medical field is rife with charlatans that pray on people wanting a cure NOW. People that don't want to follow the science and research and best practice... because emotionally.. they want a cure now..and are willing to listen to any charlatan that is spewing what they want to hear.
I'm all for having a serious discussion. I started the thread, after all. It's just that your initial post was a terrible starting point for a serious discussion because your interpretation of RH's article was so out-of-bounds.
Nope.. not at all. If you think so.. great.. please give me examples of RH's article pointing out the actual details in how the "NEW GREEN DEAL"... will work and its economic impact.
Oh wait.. you can't because RH dissertation is simply basically the tired old... "we have a fiat currency.. we can just borrow the money like we did for everything else".
here is a real discussion. The New Green Deal states that we need to reduce meat consumption and this will lead to decreases in greenhouse gases.
My cattle are pastured on acres and acres of natural meadows and forest land. That means that natural land.. complete with natural grasses, trees, and the wildlife associated with it.. can sustain production of food for humans by converting the forage into meat. And meat is very high in nutrients per pound. So one steer can feed a human for about a year eating just meat..
To do the same on my land.. I would have to till up and take down more than 100 acres of natural land to provide enough food for one person (and even then I would likely not get all the nutrients that a person needs that's available in meat)... and that would take a ton of fossil fuel burning.. not to mention the destruction of natural habitat.