Green New Deal: A Bizarre Grab-Bag of Terrible Ideas


#1

#2

@csbrown28, do you support this Green New Deal? MMT is her theory of paying for delivery of the moon and the pie.


#3

Much like Trump, AOC is not a details/numbers person. But she can read a crowd and she understands the spirit of her base.

The one thing I’m waiting on is proof she can spot talent. Trump has no idea how to manage trade details, but Wilbur Ross and Lighthowzer do. Trump has no idea how to eradicate ISIS - but his generals do.

The president’s job is way too big for a single person to do. Their technical skills are meaningless. The most important trait in a president is effective delegation. The second most important trait is vision. Combine those two and you have a wildly successful executive.

No, we can’t be on 100% renewable energy in 10 years. But we absolutely could be at 40% in 20 years. She can shift the goalposts to “100% of our energy growth has been renewable!”. Which may not be a bad idea in the long run. We’re a net energy exporter for now, but that probably won’t last for long. Importing energy is a really bad waste of resources. It was one of the leading reasons we’ve had a stagnant economy for 20 years.

This 100% Green Energy is AOC’s “And Mexico is going to pay for it”.


#4

I really haven’t followed it. I know she’s calling for a 70% tax rate on top income, which I vehemently oppose. But at face value, some of the “New Deal” stuff could work, but like I said, I don’t know the details. I’ll take a look when I have some time.


#5

The Europeans have doubled down on burning wood. I beg to differ.

Not really; economies of scale offered by super tankers frequently make it more cost effective than running pumps ourselves.

Especially if the place they come from can extract the energy at 1/10 the cost we do.

Comparative advantage; it exists for everything, even energy. Trade is about sorting those advantages out.


#6

Nonsense, of course. I know of one well, drilled a couple of decades ago in Eastland County, Texas, in the midst of a decades-old oil field. When it blew out and was eventually capped by Red Adair’s group, the open-choke flow rate was over 15,000 barrels per day! The government bureaucrats put the “allowable” production from that well at 100 BBD! And that was WITHOUT a pump jack ever being installed. How “expensive” could that possibly have been? BTW, that was such low specific gravity oil it could ALMOST have been put directly into your gas tank.


#7

You make this too easy Dave:

It costs more to crack oil out of rocks than in sand. This is why Iran wants access (or ownership) to Arabian oil; most of their reserves are in mountainous areas, and hard to extract.


#8

Yet your own “chart” shows it’s just as cheap to do in Iran as in Saudi Arabia. That “cheapness” is related to the cost of LABOR…not production itself.


#9

I guess if you goal in life is to live in your parent’s house for the rest of your life, either unemployed or underemployed, the Green New Deal would be ideal. All of your student debt would be wiped out. You would not need to work unless you felt like it, and all of your worries about climate change would be behind you.

AOC might be the biggest fool who has ever gotten to a position of prominence in Congress. What amazes me is how she can have a degree in economics and know so little about how any economy, capitalist or socialist, works.


#10

“Conventional economic theory has it that the rich don’t work enough because they’re paid too little while the poor don’t work enough because they’re paid too much.” -JK Galbraith


#11

The only way to make sense of the new Dem Socialists is to assume that material equality is their primary moral and political value, above or (on their view) logically equivalent to human welfare.

The only way to make sense of the Trumpians is to assume that they have no consistent values, and that they are morally and politically insane.

There’s an argument that the old duality between liberalism and conservatism has given way to new sides: nationalism vs socialism. I definitely agree that it looks like socialism is replacing whatever remains of the carcass of modern liberalism. The Trumpians are more bizarre and irrational, but I suppose “nationalism” is the closest thing they have to a coherent value.

Scary stuff on both sides.


#12

The rich provide the capital and the innovation that creates jobs. When they do that job poorly, they often cease to be rich.

As for the late Mr. Galbraith, one of my undergraduate economics professor summed it up best. Galbraith was probably a good sociologist but a lousy economist.


#13

Economics especially at a Bachelor levels doesn’t deal with a lot of facts and figures. She probably had to take 2 or 3 stat classes, but those often have little to no application in budgeting.

Also, you assume she even cares if the plan is technically sound. With Nancy Pelosi as speaker and a Republican senate, absolutely zero progressive policy is going to be passed. This gives her something to campaign on. The area she runs into problems is if she campaigns for president on these things and then can’t deliver. Will she find a way, or just decide to declare “The wall is already being built!”. One thing I’m interested in is if her supporters will hold her as accountable as Trump’s base has been holding him.

Trump was absolutely planning to walk away from the wall until he got a reality check from his base. He figured out a way to do it.


#14

Hmmm…Your unnamed undergraduate professor or JK Galbraith?..Hmmmmm. Really making it hard for me here.


#15

because they generally develop their flatter areas; the low hanging fruit.

And no, it’s not labor they’re counting, you’re free to check and see how they break this down:

Terrain, geology, offers an advantage. Hence why shale extraction is still more expensive than non-shale.


#16

Labor is a modest factor in oil extraction costs. Bad terrain is a much bigger factor because of the equipment required. Deep sea rigs cost a fortune compared to doing it in an open field. When oil was $100 a barrel, we were building a lot of deep sea rigs. With oil at < $50, they’d literally lose money on that type of extraction.


#17

Nonsense, CWolf. I spent 30+ years in the oil and gas business and we were STILL producing oil and gas and drilling new wells when oil was selling for $10 per barrel! In fact, I know of one large off-shore rig that was emplaced and started drilling off the coast of Texas during that identical period. The labor required to run a drill, build pump-jacks and pipelines–not to mention obtaining landowner PERMISSIONS to run a pipeline are, by FAR, the highest cost of oil and gas production in the US. Since you don’t have to GET “permission” from the governments of Saudi Arabia, Iran or Iraq to do ANY of those things, and you can continue to pay their laborers coolie wages with government approval, their production costs are considerably lower to produce a barrel of oil or an MCF of natural gas and get it to market.


#18

You completely avoided his point. Capital costs. You said nothing about this.

Operating costs are only one factor.

Even then, labor itself is also made more expensive, if you need better trained or technically skill operators, to run your more technically or mechanically-intensive equipment.


#19

What the hell are you talking about “capital costs?” They are as nothing compared to labor costs in the scheme of things vis a vis oil and gas production and transportation.


#20

Offshore or on shore oil rigs here, vs what they use on carbonate reservoirs in Saudi Arabia.

It’s easier, and less costly to set up, before we even to get to labor. There’s less time to getting ROI on whatever rig is put up there.