juliusa
Active Member
The context of my comment was about the government taking over the economy because robots and computers will be doing all the work and there will be no jobs. I believe climate change is a serious problem.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Green New Deal
- Thread starter mspohr
- Start date
- Status
At $40/hr, about $85-$100K is what an affordable home needs to cost--always assuming that you don't want your entire paycheck to go to the mortgage. $250K home might as well be $1000K as far as affordability goes.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
.... no one is suggesting the government should 'take over' the economy.
What the GND is for is finding a way to help workers that are displaced by the energy transition AND automation...
juliusa
Active Member
Yep - the automation guys found a completely unrelated crisis to hitch their wagon to because nobody was paying them any attention.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
juliusa
Active Member
I'll give you the fossil fuel transition as part of the GND. Completely unnecessary as the transition is going just fine - people employed in coal are a small fraction from the peak.
Not automation. The Chicken Littles worried about robots and computers taking away all the jobs should make their case for government intervention on their own, not hitch their wagon to a convenient crisis.
Even Bill de Blasio didn't conflate robots with GND: Save the Robots
Didn't get him very far: De Blasio Quits Presidential Race; Trump Gloats
Last edited:
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
..... yeah.... and those coal towns have been suffering for decades. Is that your message to them? 'Buckle up' it's gonna get even worse???
A UBI or something similar helps solve both problems...
SDRick
Active Member
While I may not agree philosophically with the UBI concept it does have some positive aspects and I have somewhat of an open mind to it. How much of an income would you propose?
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Andrew Yang is proposing $1k/mo which I think is a good starting point. Possibly more critical is starting the discussion and redefining ourselves by what we WANT to do instead of what we do for a living. We self-identify with our occupation. That needs to change.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Another good video, where Yang explains why UBI is better than a Federal jobs program
Talking up a rapid renewables transition will get us there faster
“Once a technology becomes sufficiently competitive, it starts to change the entire environment in which it operates and interacts. New supply lines are formed, behaviors change, and new business lobbies push for more supportive policies. New institutions are created, and old ones repurposed. As costs fall and expectations of market size increase, additional investment is induced and the political and commercial barriers to a transition begin to drop away. A tipping point is eventually reached where incumbent technologies, products and networks become redundant.”
“Once a technology becomes sufficiently competitive, it starts to change the entire environment in which it operates and interacts. New supply lines are formed, behaviors change, and new business lobbies push for more supportive policies. New institutions are created, and old ones repurposed. As costs fall and expectations of market size increase, additional investment is induced and the political and commercial barriers to a transition begin to drop away. A tipping point is eventually reached where incumbent technologies, products and networks become redundant.”
Only a Green New Deal Can Douse the Fires of Eco-Fascism
And it’s a good thing too, because as Donald Trump spews racist hate at Bahamian refugees fleeing the wreckage of Hurricane Dorian and growing numbers of far-right killers cite environmental damage as a justification for their rampages, there is a pressing need to confront the ways in which the fires of climate breakdown are already intersecting with the fires of white supremacy and surging xenophobia globally
And it’s a good thing too, because as Donald Trump spews racist hate at Bahamian refugees fleeing the wreckage of Hurricane Dorian and growing numbers of far-right killers cite environmental damage as a justification for their rampages, there is a pressing need to confront the ways in which the fires of climate breakdown are already intersecting with the fires of white supremacy and surging xenophobia globally
juliusa
Active Member
Exactly - in spite of all the effort and money spent by government to bring in other industries, training programs, etc.
Same with the gold/silver mining towns, mill towns, and others. History of Telluride | Telluride, CO - Official Website https://www.theactivetimes.com/travel/25-ghost-towns-around-us-and-history-behind-them/
Look at PR - government "help" has really screwed them over. Tax Policy Helped Create Puerto Rico’s Fiscal Crisis | Tax Foundation
Everything was peachy as long as PR was sucking on the government teat. As soon as Clinton weaned them, they were screwed.
Just normal economic cycles. The more government interferes, the worse they are.
juliusa
Active Member
As long as UBI replaces ALL of our of welfare programs for the poor, I am in favor of it. Just give a SINGLE payment to people, instead of filtering money through the government bureaucracy and dozens of programs.
No more medicaid, section 8 housing, food stamps, etc.
No more medicaid, section 8 housing, food stamps, etc.
Only a Green New Deal Can Douse the Fires of Eco-Fascism
In other words, climate disruption demands a reckoning on the terrain most repellent to conservative minds: wealth redistribution, resource sharing, and reparations. And a growing number of people on the hard right realize this all too well, which is why they are developing various twisted rationales for why none of this can take place.
In other words, climate disruption demands a reckoning on the terrain most repellent to conservative minds: wealth redistribution, resource sharing, and reparations. And a growing number of people on the hard right realize this all too well, which is why they are developing various twisted rationales for why none of this can take place.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Ah yes... the other common thread... pathological hatred of a democratic economy.
Do you think we could have eradicated small pox, made it to the moon in the 60s, built a trans-continental railroad in the 19th century... etc, etc without encouragement, guidance and/or funding from government(s) ?
Norbert
TSLA will win
The problem for workers in the coal (and oil) industry will only become more difficult to solve the longer we postpone addressing climate change.
Those who don't like government involvement could start by removing direct and indirect subsidies for the coal and oil industry. That would even reduce government interference. However, that's not happening.
So in the future, solving the problem will surely require even stronger regulation. Instead, they claim the problems are a hoax. So that's that. Meanwhile, the market forces on their own have already failed. Tesla, VW and Daimler moving towards EV, or solar, would not have happened very much without regulation and subsidies, and even so, are still drops on a hot stone.
Those who don't like government involvement could start by removing direct and indirect subsidies for the coal and oil industry. That would even reduce government interference. However, that's not happening.
So in the future, solving the problem will surely require even stronger regulation. Instead, they claim the problems are a hoax. So that's that. Meanwhile, the market forces on their own have already failed. Tesla, VW and Daimler moving towards EV, or solar, would not have happened very much without regulation and subsidies, and even so, are still drops on a hot stone.
The Green New Deal will be tremendously expensive. Every penny should go on the government's tab.
Although its seeds are freshly planted, the Green New Deal (GND) resolution has already regenerated the US policy landscape.
By coupling concrete, evidence-based goals with policy proposals that explicitly support these goals, Green New Dealers have shown not only courage but savvy.
Advocates of the GND reject "soft denialist" suggestions that the climate crisis is merely a technical problem we can fix by "unrigging" old markets, manufacturing new markets, or implementing isolated taxes. This recognition has helped shift the discussion toward ambition — and toward survival.
In support of this evolution, most advocates embrace another cold, hard truth: Only the federal government holds the fiscal tools powerful enough to achieve a just transition.
The analogy is on point. During the war, Treasury economists learned an important lesson: Ultimately, the US federal government is constrained not by financial resources but by the physical resources (like labor and machinery) that it can marshal with its spending.
The negative consequences are illustrated well by the move to financing US higher education through lending rather than grants. When students cannot pay back their loans, their debt becomes an albatross. For students who succeed at getting high-paying jobs, having to pay down their debts does little to restrain their high income. Meanwhile, the move to federal lending hasn't reduced higher education spending or inflation. In other words, this policy change has increased inequalities and worsened higher education while misdirecting labor
Although its seeds are freshly planted, the Green New Deal (GND) resolution has already regenerated the US policy landscape.
By coupling concrete, evidence-based goals with policy proposals that explicitly support these goals, Green New Dealers have shown not only courage but savvy.
Advocates of the GND reject "soft denialist" suggestions that the climate crisis is merely a technical problem we can fix by "unrigging" old markets, manufacturing new markets, or implementing isolated taxes. This recognition has helped shift the discussion toward ambition — and toward survival.
In support of this evolution, most advocates embrace another cold, hard truth: Only the federal government holds the fiscal tools powerful enough to achieve a just transition.
The analogy is on point. During the war, Treasury economists learned an important lesson: Ultimately, the US federal government is constrained not by financial resources but by the physical resources (like labor and machinery) that it can marshal with its spending.
The negative consequences are illustrated well by the move to financing US higher education through lending rather than grants. When students cannot pay back their loans, their debt becomes an albatross. For students who succeed at getting high-paying jobs, having to pay down their debts does little to restrain their high income. Meanwhile, the move to federal lending hasn't reduced higher education spending or inflation. In other words, this policy change has increased inequalities and worsened higher education while misdirecting labor
- Status
Similar threads
