Green New Deal

[Mader Levap]

I am surprised that so many here are buying into the class warfare and believe that the "goal" of the rich is having a society where there are a few rich families and everyone else is dirt poor. That conspiratorial mindset is pure, unadulterated poppycock.

Rich, by definition, have more money and influence. Do you deny that?
Rich generally want to get richer. Do you deny that?
Thanks to money and influence, rich generally can get away with more than common mortal. Do you deny that?
You can get more money and influence in various ways. Many of these ways are done at expense of other things, including customers, employees, general population or environment. Do you deny that?
Money and influence are form of power. Power corrupts. Do you deny that?
My conclusion: someone rich is more likely to abuse laws and make himself richer at expense of everyone and everything else. People like Musk are exception, not rule.

If you disagree with that conclusion, show me where this logic above goes wrong.

This is why people say things like "goal of the rich is having a society where there are a few rich families and everyone else is dirt poor". It does not matter if it is conscious or not. It happens naturally (no literal class warfare needed) thanks to logic presented above.
You can be very nice rich guy, yet if you work (by for example bribing politicians to entact laws that you can take advantage of - it is easy in pseudodemocratic country like USA, since corruption there is legalized) enriching yourself even more at expense of everyone else, you are immoral and evil. It is as simple as that.

Call it conspiracy if you want. I call it fact of life. Current crop of rich investors, CEOs, managers etc. are simply modern version of nobility. And they will most likely share same fate sooner or latter for same reasons. Cycle of history continues and no one ever learns from abuses and fall of their predecessors.

 

[S'toon]

Nick Hanauer explains it.

 

[mspohr]

Dare to declare capitalism dead – before it takes us all down with it
Dare to declare capitalism dead – before it takes us all down with it | George Monbiot

In the New York Times on Sunday, the Nobel economistJoseph Stiglitz sought to distinguish between good capitalism, which he called “wealth creation”, and bad capitalism, which he called “wealth grabbing” (extracting rent). I understand his distinction. But from the environmental point of view, wealth creation is wealth grabbing. Economic growth, intrinsically linked to the increasing use of material resources, means seizing natural wealth from both living systems and future generations.

To point to such problems is to invite a barrage of accusations, many of which are based on this premise: capitalism has rescued hundreds of millions of people from poverty – now you want to impoverish them again. It is true that capitalism, and the economic growth it drives, has radically improved the prosperity of vast numbers of people, while simultaneously destroying the prosperity of many others: those whose land, labour and resources were seized to fuel growth elsewhere. Much of the wealth of the rich nations was – and is – built on slavery and colonial expropriation.

So what does a better system look like? I don’t have a complete answer, and I don’t believe any one person does. But I think I see a rough framework emerging. Part of it is provided by the ecological civilisation proposed by Jeremy Lent, one of the greatest thinkers of our age. Other elements come from Kate Raworth’s doughnut economics and the environmental thinking of Naomi Klein, Amitav Ghosh, Angaangaq Angakkorsuaq, Raj Patel and Bill McKibben. Part of the answer lies in the notion of “private sufficiency, public luxury”. Another part arises from the creation of a new conception of justice based on this simple principle: every generation, everywhere, shall have an equal right to the enjoyment of natural wealth.

 

[SageBrush]

Not quite true.

Social Security funds are invested in Treasury Bills. This is a indeed a secure loan to the government. The loan is being paid back with interest to the Social Security Fund.

I mostly agree with this except for the "secured" aspect.
Here is Wikipedia: Social Security Trust Fund - Wikipedia

The investment must be in vehicle with the "full faith and credit of the United States."
Sounds fancy, but what credit ? Certainly not current 'income' since the government runs at a deficit.
What 'faith' ? In the Trump era ? HAH !!

This comes down to what I said before. That surplus has been spent, and the ONLY way the government is going to pay current SS obligations is to devalue the dollar and /or increases taxes. Since the Repukes do not want to do either their choice is to default on the obligation via reduced benefits.

Incidentally, this is why SS is a pressing concern already today. Taxes are less than benefits. The important distinction I wish people would understand is the SS *would* have been solvent for another generation if the surplus had not been squandered.

 

[mspohr]

The kings of capitalism are finally worried about the growing gap between rich and poor
The kings of capitalism are finally worried about the system that created them | Dominic Rushe

“An increasing chunk of the country has been left behind and that can’t be ignored any more,” he said. “The rise of populism, not just in the US but also in many other markets like Europe, is dramatically affecting the business model they have taken for granted. We are turning the table on what was close to 90 years of agreed upon bipartisan policy goals around trade and immigration.”

How sincere the 1% are about helping the 99% rather than themselves may be up for debate but it is pretty clear that the billionaires do believe there is a crisis.

As Dalio points out:

• Forty per cent of all Americans would struggle to raise $400 in the event of an emergency.
  
  
• The childhood poverty rate in the US is now 17.5% and has not meaningfully improved for decades.
  
  
• The US scores lower than virtually all developed countries other than Italy and Greece on educational attainment.
  
  
• The US incarceration rate is nearly five times the average of other developed countries and three times that of emerging countries.
  
  
• For those in the bottom 60%, premature deaths are up by about 20% since 2000.
  

“The last time that this configuration of influences existed was in the late 1930s when there were great conflicts and economic and political systems were overturned,” wrote Dalio. You know things are bad when billionaires reach for Hitler analogies.

 

[SDRick]

Rich, by definition, have more money and influence. Do you deny that?
Rich generally want to get richer. Do you deny that?
Thanks to money and influence, rich generally can get away with more than common mortal. Do you deny that?
You can get more money and influence in various ways. Many of these ways are done at expense of other things, including customers, employees, general population or environment. Do you deny that?
Money and influence are form of power. Power corrupts. Do you deny that?
My conclusion: someone rich is more likely to abuse laws and make himself richer at expense of everyone and everything else. People like Musk are exception, not rule.

.

Rich generally want to get richer. Do you deny that? Agreed, generally the rich want to get richer and "generally", so does everyone else.

Thanks to money and influence, rich generally can get away with more than common mortal. Do you deny that? Agreed, the more you have the more you can "get away with", whatever that means. The same goes with mental or physical strength. The more of it you have, the more you can "get away" with. What else is new, show me a place on the planet where human nature does not apply.

You can get more money and influence in various ways. Many of these ways are done at expense of other things, including customers, employees, general population or environment. Do you deny that? Agreed, there are always negative feedback loops especially when the needs of 8 billion people on the planet need to be sustained. Fortunately many live in a free society where you have opportunities and choices on which rich person or company you choose to engage with. Notice that rich people or companies don't stay that way in perpetuity. Why is that?

Money and influence are form of power. Power corrupts. Do you deny that? Agreed, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Again, show me a place on the planet free of corruption.

So if these "observations" leads one to believe the "goal" of the rich is to keep everyone else dirt poor, I would call that delusional, but that's just me. So while I agreed with all your assertions I tend to see the glass as half-full where it looks like you see the glass pretty much or totally empty.

 

[jerry33]

So if these "observations" leads one to believe the "goal" of the rich is to keep everyone else dirt poor, I would call that delusional, but that's just me. So while I agreed with all your assertions I tend to see the glass as half-full where it looks like you see the glass pretty much or totally empty.

In the last thirty years it's been emptying fast. From the mid 1930s to the mid 1960s there were worker protection laws. Most people could live on Social Security when they retired. Healthcare was not the horrendous mess it is now where one major illness means bankruptcy, Minimum wage was enough to put people through college by getting a part time job. The list goes on. Basically since Regan, anti-middle-class laws have been passed (or the protections repealed) so the middle class has practically been eliminated and the very rich have gotten richer. We are now basically back in the days of the railroad barons before worker protection laws were enacted. I understand that some politicians are wanting to revoke the child labour laws. The current administration is trying to revoke the clean air and water regulations. Those who can't afford to filter their water (a few thousand dollar proposition per house) will live shorter lives and have more major illnesses. It's pretty hard to see a glass half full unless you belong to a very wealthy family. Of course, there can be political fixes, but with the gerrymandering, voter suppression, not counting ballots, and voting machines that can't be correctly audited, it's very hard to see how any political fix can work. Not to mention that cows can vote.

 

[JRP3]

Notice that rich people or companies don't stay that way in perpetuity. Why is that?

Because it's not? While companies may eventually fail if their product is no longer viable, rich people, i.e. families, do in fact tend to stay that way for generations. It's hard to become poor if you start out rich.

So if these "observations" leads one to believe the "goal" of the rich is to keep everyone else dirt poor, I would call that delusional, but that's just me.

The goal of the rich is to stay rich and increase their wealth, far beyond what they need or can even use. The result of this resource hoarding is less available for everyone else. Multi million dollar salaries and bonuses while paying workers minimum wage is one obvious example.

 

[juliusa]

the ONLY way the government is going to pay current SS obligations is to devalue the dollar and /or increases taxes

What obligation? The government took the money and paid it to others. They will continue to take the money from current taxpayers and give out what they have to retirees.

their choice is to default on the obligation via reduced benefits.

See above. That is not a default - it is the law.

Only government is allowed to operate an unfunded pension plan like this.

 

[ohmman]

The goal of the rich is to stay rich and increase their wealth, far beyond what they need or can even use. The result of this resource hoarding is less available for everyone else. Multi million dollar salaries and bonuses while paying workers minimum wage is one obvious example.

I do think there's a risk in using "the rich" as a classifier because that group consists of people with various outlooks and goals in the same way that generalizing "the poor" will often lead to inaccurate conclusions. I would fall into the "rich" category, and my monetary choices do not prioritize the accumulation of more wealth. I support very high estate taxes but until that occurs, our wills and annual giving plan gives the bulk of our money away to charity. My kids don't need it and in my opinion won't benefit from it hanging in the balance.

The last few pages of this thread read to me as people talking past each other. It seems like everyone's reading each others' posts and assuming intent that isn't there. I'm sure I'm complicit here, too, so I'm not excusing myself from the criticism. I think we can agree that most individuals want other individuals to do well. They don't want people to suffer in poverty or hunger. But they may have a different approach as to how those people should be helped/whether they should be helped/what causes these issues. And the good news about that is that we have a good amount of data on what aids those in poverty and what helps.

It feels like instead of making accusations about what people want for others, we should be discussing what policies are really helpful to cure the ills that the GND intends to address. Which policies are rooted in evidence? Tax cuts don't help. Telling people they should just work harder and not be lazy doesn't help. Investment in education does help.

I feel like the conversation would be much more enlightening if those who consider themselves in opposition to the GND would discuss evidence based policies that are helpful in addressing the challenges of social inequality and climate. And those in favor could point out specific tenets that have been shown to be effective. But maybe that's less entertaining than what we're doing..

 

[SDRick]

In the last thirty years it's been emptying fast. From the mid 1930s to the mid 1960s there were worker protection laws. Most people could live on Social Security when they retired. Healthcare was not the horrendous mess it is now where one major illness means bankruptcy, Minimum wage was enough to put people through college by getting a part time job. The list goes on. Basically since Regan, anti-middle-class laws have been passed (or the protections repealed) so the middle class has practically been eliminated and the very rich have gotten richer. We are now basically back in the days of the railroad barons before worker protection laws were enacted. I understand that some politicians are wanting to revoke the child labour laws. The current administration is trying to revoke the clean air and water regulations. Those who can't afford to filter their water (a few thousand dollar proposition per house) will live shorter lives and have more major illnesses. It's pretty hard to see a glass half full unless you belong to a very wealthy family. Of course, there can be political fixes, but with the gerrymandering, voter suppression, not counting ballots, and voting machines that can't be correctly audited, it's very hard to see how any political fix can work. Not to mention that cows can vote.

Yes, a strong middle class is very important and declining. This is not good, and particularly not good for the very wealthy. The "establishment" needs a solid middle-class.

Many of these responses certainly bring out the deficiencies in life and the human condition. You, and the others can continue to point out all things "bad" and try to change the argument with my calling out BS on one tiny comment. The main area or focus of my disagreement revolves around the statement or attitude that it is the goal of the rich to make everyone else dirt poor. That is just ignorant or cult-ish at best.

We can argue reasons for the middle class decline, poor and unfair international trade deals, shuttering of US manufacturing, moving plants overseas, advances in technology, labor oversupply, high cost of education, poor governance, etc, etc. It seems like half your rant highlighting America's past supports the notion of what helped Trump win the election... Make America great again. (no, I am not arguing what he is or is not doing but on some levels (as you highlighted) it was a clever slogan).

"It's pretty hard to see a glass half full unless you belong to a very wealthy family". Really? Wow. On the Tesla forum no less...

 

[juliusa]

we should be discussing what policies are really helpful to cure the ills that the GND intends to address.

Health care: Medicare for All, starting with all government. I figure that would put about 2/3 of health care spending in the US on Medicare. The savings to the government by providing Medicare instead of more expensive private insurance to government employees and others (Medicaid, TriCare, Post Office, etc) would go to providing/subsidizing Medicare for the poor.

Carbon Emissions: Revenue neutral carbon tax. For example, a $100B carbon tax year 1 with a refundable tax credit of $250 for every person in the US (family of 4 gets $1000). That is pretty much revenue-neutral. For the next three years increase it by $100B each year, increase the refundable tax credit by $250 PLUS any surplus that remains from prior year(s). Keep it at $400B per year (and about $1000/person refundable tax credit) after that.

Tax revenue: Tax the super rich more. Income over $10M per year gets additional 2% tax. Charitable contribution deductions are limited to $100M per year ($50M if single), and $500M at death (per person). Use the additional revenue to pay down debt and fund education (see below). Hurry up before Buffet and Soros die. We have time for Gates and Bezos.

Education: $500/yr tuition at community college. $2000/yr tuition at state universities. Loans to students are made by the universities they attend, in any way they want to do it. For example, a private university could charge $5000 per year while attending, and then $200 per month for the next 30 years. Or structure it as a loan where the person can pay off whatever amount per month they want. Or a percentage of income. Whatever contract for payments they want to enter into with the student.

I think some or all of that would be a good start.

 

[mspohr]

The Green New Deal doesn't just help climate. It's also a public health new deal
The Green New Deal doesn't just help climate. It's also a public health new deal | Abdul Sunshine

As a doctor, I care about people. And the consequences of climate change felt so remote from the daily struggle. Babies are dying, so why should I be worried about faraway glaciers and cannibalistic bears? But after being appointed health director of the City of Detroit, I realized that the forces that cause climate change are the same forces that poisoned the lungs of babies in my city. Today, I’m standing up for the Green New Deal because it’s also a Public Health New Deal.

But beyond the poisoned air they’re forced to breath, so many of our kids in Detroit suffer because they are born into poverty. In the US, too few people have a job that pays a living wage or offers basic benefits, like healthcare, retirement and paid leave. It’s far worse for black Americans. The American prison-industrial complex robs black families of their brothers and fathers. Too many mothers are left working two, sometimes three jobs to make ends meet. Children born into chronic poverty are left without the basic means of good health – healthy food, supportive and nurturing schools, or reliable transportation to see a doctor.

The Green New Deal recognizes that the challenges of stopping climate change and providing low-income kids what they need to thrive are not mutually exclusive –rather they are mutually inclusive. Poor kids suffer asthma in communities like Detroit because they are poor. These kids live in the air sheds of major polluters because their families cannot afford housing elsewhere. And those polluters set up shop in poor communities because they know the families in those communities are too busy surviving to stand up. Those same corporations also spend billions to lobby government for polices that erode worker rights, drive poverty – and promote climate change.

 

[Mader Levap]

Agreed, generally the rich want to get richer and "generally", so does everyone else.... What else is new, show me a place on the planet where human nature does not apply... Again, show me a place on the planet free of corruption.

You may find that argument like "humans are bastards so it is fine for rich to screw everyone else" can be a little... unconvincing to some people.

So if these "observations" leads one to believe the "goal" of the rich is to keep everyone else dirt poor, I would call that delusional, but that's just me.

I don't care if it is deliberate goal of shadow conspiracy or it is natural result of system where greed is virtue. Consequences are same. Fact is that gap between rich and poor is widening. Spoiler: that's bad thing. Even bigger spoiler: I place majority of blame for this state of affair on rich.

So while I agreed with all your assertions I tend to see the glass as half-full where it looks like you see the glass pretty much or totally empty.

You simply ignore whatever you do not want to think about. Now who is delusional?

 

[SDRick]

You simply ignore whatever you do not want to think about. Now who is delusional?

Anything can be argued ad infinitum and you're doing a good job of it. You accuse me of "simply ignoring" sure, I point out all the "bad and horrible" things most agree on but also discuss attitude (glass half-full).

Perhaps you really have nothing to be grateful for, but since you're on a Tesla forum this would be unlikely. Keeping a positive attitude will alter your reality. Having a positive outlook as opposed to a negative one will enable you to see what may have been invisible to you before. Expressing gratitude is a great way of turning a bad mood into a good one. Gratitude is also motivating and uplifting.

Sure, there are rich people who are "dicks" (as there are poor). It is time for you to give up on the "rich" bashing class warfare. Give it a rest, otherwise it makes you no better than the typical bigot.

 

[JRP3]

Sure, there are rich people who are "dicks" (as there are poor).

Has little to do with the rich being "dicks", has everything to do with a system which is broken allowing them to accumulate too many resources. Society has become extremely unbalanced, historically that never works out well for anyone. You can't smile yourself out of it.

 

[mspohr]

Here's another way that the rich steal from the poor.
Student Loans

Elizabeth Warren’s plan for a student loan jubilee is straight out of Occupy Wall Street

The system is set up to reward greed (that's basic capitalism).

 

[SDRick]

Here's another way that the rich steal from the poor.
Student Loans

The system is set up to reward greed (that's basic capitalism).

(one may also consider that the system rewards success, but that does not fit the narrative)

Wasn't it Maxine Waters grilling seven of the big banker CEO's a few weeks ago asking them what they are doing about fixing the student loan problem and relieving us of this burden? It was pretty embarrassing once she realized that the private banks have been out of the student loan business for almost a decade after the government took it over. Yes I know, capitalism is terrible and sometimes, just sometimes government is even worse.

 

[SDRick]

Has little to do with the rich being "dicks", has everything to do with a system which is broken allowing them to accumulate too many resources. Society has become extremely unbalanced, historically that never works out well for anyone. You can't smile yourself out of it.

I was not talking about smiling, just attitude.

"Too many resources" according to who, you? Please describe what constitutes "too many resources". I am sure many here think that things would be going better with Tesla if Elon would have been able to accumulate even more resources.

 

[JRP3]

Elon doesn't hoard wealth, he spends it on worthwhile projects which benefit all in the long run, unlike most.

"Too many resources" according to who, you?

According to wealth distribution statistics. Again, how do you think it's going to work out if the very few keep accumulating an ever growing portion of the pie?