PowerSwitch

Anyone any thoughts on this?

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/07/69199730 ... al-outline

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., think they have a start to a solution. Thursday they are introducing a framework defining what they call a "Green New Deal" — what they foresee as a massive policy package that would remake the U.S. economy and, they hope, eliminate all U.S. carbon emissions.

That's a really big — potentially impossibly big — undertaking.

"Even the solutions that we have considered big and bold are nowhere near the scale of the actual problem that climate change presents to us," Ocasio-Cortez told NPR's Steve Inskeep in an interview that aired Thursday on Morning Edition.

She added: "It could be part of a larger solution, but no one has actually scoped out what that larger solution would entail. And so that's really what we're trying to accomplish with the Green New Deal."

This quote of AOC from another link gives any thinking person what they need to know about her proposal.

“Yeah, I think the first move we need to do is kind of break the mistaken idea that taxes pay for 100 percent of government expenditure,� Ocasio-Cortez answered. “It’s just not how government expenditure works. We can recoup costs, but oftentimes you look at, for example, the GOP tax cut which I think was an irresponsible use of government expenditure, but government projects are often financed by a combination of taxes, deficit spending and other kinds of investments, you know, bonds and so on.�

https://news.grabien.com/story-ocasio-c ... ve-governm
Apparently she doesn't understand that "bonds and so on" have to be paid back plus interest and the payers are one hundred percent tax payers.

There's the QE-type way of raising money, which can work inflation-free if you then use it to build assets that generate income (or save expenditure - e.g. flood defences).

You need to take this up with Ken, who's written an entire proposal along those lines.

RenewableCandy wrote:There's the QE-type way of raising money, which can work inflation-free if you then use it to build assets that generate income (or save expenditure - e.g. flood defences).

You need to take this up with Ken, who's written an entire proposal along those lines.

I think the rub comes in about "if you then use it to build assets that generate income " and add the word successfully.
The failure rate in such projects is so high that anyone aware of the history will be running for the exits.
But yes I will be interested in Kens take on their proposals.

Traditionally, inflation only occurred in wartime, when money was printed to pay troops, then taxed back out of the economy and destroyed after each war.

America has been permanently at war since WWII, which is but one reason why inflation has become normalised.

A similar print-and-tax approach would work for peaceful projects too, such as green infrastructure.

Small problems include diverting priority away from war and disposing of money hoarders, speculators and financialisation.

emordnilap wrote:...........
Small problems include diverting priority away from war and disposing of money hoarders, speculators and financialisation.

That includes trying to get back the large quantity of the world's money that is in the hands of the 28 psychos who hold as much as the poorest half of the world population at the moment!

kenneal - lagger wrote:

emordnilap wrote:...........
Small problems include diverting priority away from war and disposing of money hoarders, speculators and financialisation.

That includes trying to get back the large quantity of the world's money that is in the hands of the 28 psychos who hold as much as the poorest half of the world population at the moment!

Where there's a will.

vtsnowedin wrote:

RenewableCandy wrote:There's the QE-type way of raising money, which can work inflation-free if you then use it to build assets that generate income (or save expenditure - e.g. flood defences).

You need to take this up with Ken, who's written an entire proposal along those lines.

I think the rub comes in about "if you then use it to build assets that generate income " and add the word successfully.
The failure rate in such projects is so high that anyone aware of the history will be running for the exits.
But yes I will be interested in Kens take on their proposals.

I thought that I had published my proposal on this website but couldn't find it anywhere so I've started a thread for it at http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/vie ... p?p=296255

kenneal - lagger wrote:

vtsnowedin wrote:

RenewableCandy wrote:There's the QE-type way of raising money, which can work inflation-free if you then use it to build assets that generate income (or save expenditure - e.g. flood defences).

You need to take this up with Ken, who's written an entire proposal along those lines.

I think the rub comes in about "if you then use it to build assets that generate income " and add the word successfully.
The failure rate in such projects is so high that anyone aware of the history will be running for the exits.
But yes I will be interested in Kens take on their proposals.

I thought that I had published my proposal on this website but couldn't find it anywhere so I've started a thread for it at http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/vie ... p?p=296255

An interesting read there Ken. It took me a while as I have to get past thinking your "schemes" are criminal plots and are what Americans call "plans".
Then there are your insulation standards: Roof 0.08-0.1 What? MBTU/hour? buckets of coal in the fire place? I'm used to R factors as in Attic R60 = 18 inches of fiberglass etc.
But beyond those foibles of mine it seems a well thought out plan that would work if tried but too complicated and expensive for the government to ever buy into it.
You would have to use some form of coercion to get every home owner on a street to allow the work to be done at an efficient time. Perhaps double the council tax for those that refuse thereby have the deadbeats pay for those that cooperate.
On my side of the pond I'd like the Feds to increase the fuel tax on motor fuels by 14 cents per gallon to index it to inflation from the last time it was set in 1993. That would raise some 26 billion a year that I would spend on rebuilding transportation infrastructure making sure that all of the increase goes into the work and isn't siphoned off into non related projects.
It would act as a small carbon tax, slightly reduce demand for gas and diesel, put people to work, all without bonding or interest payments.
It is way too good an idea to get to first base.

Roof – 0.08 to 0.1 represents about 18 inches/450mm of fibre
Walls – 0.12 to 0.15 represents about 12 inches/300mm of fibre
Floors – 0.12 to 0.20 represents 8 to 12 inches/ 200 to 300mm of polystyrene depending on form factor (the layout of the house)
Windows – 0.6 to 1.2 represents triple or double glazed windows.

The numbers are in watts per metre squared per degree C heat loss.

Yes some form of arm twisting would have to be used in some cases but by doing the social housing, people in fuel poverty and pensioners first there would be quite a lot of other people queuing up to get on the bandwagon/into the pork barrel to get their share of the loot.

The problem is the massive scale of the problem and the environmental imperative to get the work done makes going onto a war footing the only way that will get the job done, and done properly, going forward. The US went over to a war footing in 1942 in a matter of months and that was state run. The UK did a similar thing in 1939 with the state running things. They were highly successful actions. If it can be done by the state in wartime why not in peacetime. There is a similar level of necessity now to WW2 only now the environment is going to attack us if we don't change rather than other humans. The environment's attack will be far more devastating than anything another human could launch at us.

Sadly until some climate event kills several thousand people at one time in your country people there will not move to a War footing. It takes something like a Pearl Harbor attack to awaken a sleeping tiger.

Ms Ocasio-Cortez is setting herself up to be shot.

https://youtu.be/yiH3whpc9x0

I think a scheme that reduces energy consumption (or more correctly makes energy consumption per unit of GDP or per capita more efficient) is a good idea. Or something that benefits that national interest the most. Or do you benefit the poorest the most. Some energy efficiency schemes may even benefit the richest people the most. I don't have time to listen to this lady's speech right now but I will do when I am back home.
The problem is where to allocate the funding. Take the UK for example, the best funding in the national interest would be to reduce peak energy consumption during winter months. However to benefit poor Americans may be to have a free bus service and insulate homes.

I am not sure about describing all 28 richest billionaires as psychos is also accurate. I think that Warren Buffett actually seems a decent person. Maybe even Bill Gates at a push (maybe due to his wife's influence) but I could not be so sure about Larry Ellison or Jeff Bezos though.

The vid. gives you more sense of her position, BDU.

Your reference to GDP, that’s one whole problem in itself - we should be getting away from this blind sacred notion that growth in it is good. It’s clearly not. No-growth would have been OK if implemented 40 years ago but fear not, degrowth is coming.

It’s equality that’s missing, not GDP.

I see zero hedge have not entirely bought into the 'scheme'

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02- ... aq-debacle