'Social programs' do not equal 'socialism'. Get back to me when a nonbinding resolution advocates the nationalization of the means of production.

(February 21, 2019 at 11:26 am)Gae Bolga Wrote:

Quote:The economic thinker who most influenced the Green New Deal isn’t Marx or Lenin. No, if you want to understand Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s bid to remake the economy to fight climate change, you need to read Hamilton.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arch...es/582943/

I scanned the article. Yes, the GND as written up resembles something that Hamilton might have come up with. But Hamilton was a crony crapitalist, which is exactly what I have been saying that timid Dems have been turning the GND into. When AOC started talking up the GND, she wasn't talking about crony crapitalism. And you yourself have acknowledged that the language was changed to mollify the center. But it wasn't just the language that changed. The very nature of the GND was changed. There's the GND as talked up by AOC, and there's the GND as crony crapitalism that was written up. They are two very different things.

People are dumb. The GND was a socialist program for not only transitioning our economy to a carbon neutral economy; it was also a socialist program to change the very nature of economic theory to a theory in which things worth doing but aren't profitable are valued, and things that are profitable but of lesser worth are less valuable. But people only hear 'green', and will stand by and allow the GND to be turned into absolutely anything as long as it still advocates for green projects.

Crony crapitalism will do exactly the opposite of what the GND was intended to do. As far as I'm concerned, AOC has already sold out. She talked a big game, and then completely caved in the face of crony crapitalism. Crony crapitalism socializes costs and privatizes profits. If we go down this path with the NGD, it is going to end up being something like the problem that we have with the pharmaceutical industry-- the tax payers pay hundreds of millions of dollars for the development of a new drug, and the the patent holder repays none of that money and gouges consumers for the drug. That's what crony crapitalism does. The other thing that it does is promises big results in exchange for massive public investment, moves a percentage of the massive public investment into private accounts in the form of salaries and bonuses and maybe in the form of mark ups paid to shell companies operating as private contractors, and then fails to deliver and maybe declares bankruptcy.

Crony crapitalism will not deliver a Green New World. It will fail miserably. It is predicated on profitable consumerism, socialized costs, and private profits.

The GND was supposed to be about economic theory as much as transitioning to an environmentally sustainable economy.  Currently, we have a problem with money not valuing things that are worth doing but aren't profitable, and over valuing things less worth doing that are profitable. Ideally, deficit spending would value things that need to be done but aren't profitable, and taxes on profitable things would service the interest on the deficit. Some will tell you that this is already how our economy works, but it won't be true because of who walks away with the deficit spending (crony crapitalists), and who owns the the debt (their heirs).

The GND has to entirely change the way we manage deficit spending or else it is simply going to fuel a surge in crony crapitalism.

-and yet it was none of those things you wanted.  It's just a list of goals for crony capitalism to accomplish. This is why crony capitalists should support the resolution. You think it would force us into some form of socialism, which is good, to you, this is why people like yourself should support the resolution.

Quote:Pro tip: any Youtube channel with the word "Truth" in the title is unlikely to tell the truth.

And what's the alternative? Not trusting anyone and thinking that news don't happen?

By the way, does anybody else here think eliminating the cows might not be such a terrible idea?

(February 22, 2019 at 4:04 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote:

Quote:Pro tip: any Youtube channel with the word "Truth" in the title is unlikely to tell the truth.

And what's the alternative? Not trusting anyone and thinking that news don't happen?

By the way, does anybody else here think eliminating the cows might not be such a terrible idea?

Cows?  What do you have against cows?  Am I missing something here?

(February 22, 2019 at 6:59 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(February 22, 2019 at 4:04 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote: And what's the alternative? Not trusting anyone and thinking that news don't happen?

By the way, does anybody else here think eliminating the cows might not be such a terrible idea?

Cows?  What do you have against cows?  Am I missing something here?

A lot of environmentalists are opposed to raising cattle. Some of the reasons for the opposition makes sense. Some of the reasons are silly. If we deforest land for pasture, that's pretty damaging. We can grow more food per acre of land than can be had by raising cattle on it. The methane producing ruminants argument is silly, though. While it is true that they fart more methane than other animals, less methane is emitted by their manures.

Ahhhh, I get it now; I should have realized that was the point. As a vegetarian, I'm generally in support of reducing or eliminating the eating of cattle. I'm not prepared to say it's morally wrong, because people clearly are omnivores by nature, but I would say that at the very least, people should not eat more than is required by a healthy diet-- overeating of meat is unhealthy, is an insult to the animals who suffer in factories, and increases damage to the environment-- that's a lot of harm to be had for just "Yum."

Quote: The methane producing ruminants argument is silly, though. 

If we are serious about fighting climate change, why would to stop using something that emits more greenhouse gases than all the forms of transportation combined be a silly idea? It's certainly way more silly to get rid of privately owned cars but to continue subsidizing the milk production.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.... this the lady who wanted to pay people who were unwilling to work? Then later did damage control by removing that from the agenda? What's that about? I don't want this country to pay anyone who is unwilling to work. If you're unwilling to work, you should starve, unless you can get help from friends and family.

(February 23, 2019 at 4:06 am)PRJA93 Wrote: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.... this the lady who wanted to pay people who were unwilling to work? Then later did damage control by removing that from the agenda? What's that about? I don't want this country to pay anyone who is unwilling to work. If you're unwilling to work, you should starve, unless you can get help from friends and family.

Did she say that?  I'd like a link, please.