Greta and the aristocrat sail the high seas to save the planet.

Jimmy Garlic

KyussB wrote: »

The poster was asking about the Green New Deal, the GND provides a Job Guarantee...already answered.

Will the green New deal provide us with monorails? Not interested if it doesn't. Who will be deciding what green new jobs go to what green new members of the green new workforce. Will there be a green new bureaucracy?

KyussB

The core dividing line separating people open to concepts like the Green New Deal, and those who are not, is the need for massive government-led investment and direct economic activity (significantly boosting the proportion of GDP controlled/generated by the government, and the governments influence over the private economy).

Our contribution to climate change will not be solved quickly, without that - because (at the scale of individual businesses/industries) it is inherently unprofitable to solve it, and especially to solve it quickly (by e.g. 2030) - which makes it an impossible job for private industry.

Those opposing the GND, oppose it primarily due to inherent ideological opposition to governments having that strong of a role in the economy - even temporarily - and this sets the course for all discussions such posters have on the GND (effectively, they argue from the predetermined conclusion that government involvement = bad, and won't actually be arguing the merits of the policy - just try to push the narrative to their predefined conclusiion, pretty much the same as with climate science as a topic in general itself).

Jimmy Garlic

KyussB wrote: »

The core dividing line separating people open to concepts like the Green New Deal, and those who are not, is the need for massive government-led investment and direct economic activity (significantly boosting the proportion of GDP controlled/generated by the government, and the governments influence over the private economy).

Our contribution to climate change will not be solved quickly, without that - because (at the scale of individual businesses/industries) it is inherently unprofitable to solve it, and especially to solve it quickly (by e.g. 2030) - which makes it an impossible job for private industry.

Those opposing the GND, oppose it primarily due to inherent ideological opposition to governments having that strong of a role in the economy - even temporarily - and this sets the course for all discussions such posters have on the GND (effectively, they argue from the predetermined conclusion that government involvement = bad, and won't actually be arguing the merits of the policy - just try to push the narrative to their predefined conclusiion, pretty much the same as with climate science as a topic in general itself).

Who would be administering your green new deal?

KyussB

Since that question has such a trivially blindingly obvious answer (you've discussed the GND with me plenty of times before, and eveyone who's read about it knows it's a government operated program), I take it that it's intended to be facetious or something? Much like the questions in your previous post - and much like the weird sequence of posts involving an accusation of being a Stalinist, coupled with weird dancing videos, and a threadban...

I'm just going to take it that you're trying to waste my time.

ThunbergsAreGo

KyussB wrote: »

The people administering the Job Guarantee. There is already loads of work which isn't profitable, yet is done dor the social good - that's usually the whole point of governments, since they are the only economic entity that can run without a profit - stuff like providing public transport to areas that make a loss, most major infrastructure/capital projects make a loss to benefit the private economy (all those motorways...), the health servicse run at a loss for the good of society etc. etc..

Providing work that is socially beneficial yet not profitable is not 'bollix' - much of it is essential to society.

The Job Guarantee isn't for permanent jobs, though (it can be used that way but isn't its main purpose) - it's for temporary employment during economic downturns - people move out of the JG back into the private economy, as the economy recovers.

It will have public works programs alongside it, for work on infrastructue, R&D, and e.g. energy efficiency (retrofitting buildings etc.) work, while there is a climate emergency, as well.

So the Green New Deal will not provide jobs for those in the Midlands but might provide temporary employment in roles deemed important by our overlords

KyussB

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

So the Green New Deal will not provide jobs for those in the Midlands but might provide temporary employment in roles deemed important by our overlords

First you say the Green New Deal will not provide jobs - then you say it will "provide temporary employment" - in other words: It will provide jobs...

Have you got a general objection to the government providing jobs?

Do you just go to your boss in a private sector job and say "Sorry, I'm just going to do what I like for work today..."? No, because your boss tells you what work to do, generally.
With the Job Guarantee, you can do pretty much anything you like that is socially beneficial, subject to approval - giving you a lot more freedom of choice than the private sector. The public works programs in the GND, aimed at tackling our contribution to climate change, would take precedence over the Job Guarantee, though.

Professor Moriarty

KyussB wrote: »

Since that question has such a trivially blindingly obvious answer (you've discussed the GND with me plenty of times before, and eveyone who's read about it knows it's a government operated program), I take it that it's intended to be facetious or something? Much like the questions in your previous post - and much like the weird sequence of posts involving an accusation of being a Stalinist, coupled with weird dancing videos, and a threadban...

I'm just going to take it that you're trying to waste my time.

Dead right. Quite a few posters coming on with ad hominem and reductio ad absurdum 'arguments'. They're either too stupid to understand the science or they're just spiteful wind up merchants. Either way, they have nothing of any real interest to offer whether they believe in climate change or not.

Jimmy Garlic

KyussB wrote: »

Since that question has such a trivially blindingly obvious answer (you've discussed the GND with me plenty of times before, and eveyone who's read about it knows it's a government operated program), I take it that it's intended to be facetious or something? Much like the questions in your previous post - and much like the weird sequence of posts involving an accusation of being a Stalinist, coupled with weird dancing videos, and a threadban...

I'm just going to take it that you're trying to waste my time.

You are advocating for a "great turn" style command economy, yet surprised when called a Stalinist. There isn't a single example of command economies working in the past, and with the deep rooted culture of political corruption in Ireland there is absolutely no hope of it working here. Fur coats and crowns is what they would spend the money on.

KyussB

You supposedly didn't even know who was going to administer it a minute ago - now you are certain it has the full breadth and structure of a Stalinist command economy.

The Green New Deal has no relation to a Command Economy. It directly relates to our economies of today - of infrastructure projects undertaken by government - of social supports undertaken by government - of research undertaken by government - it's pretty much an extension/set-of-tweaks for how todays economy runs, to modernize them and make them run better - and with a temporary boost in government activity in the economy, to arrest our contribution to climate change.

What you oppose, is any expanded government involvement in the economy - it is an ideological obsession - you don't care whether or not something is actually a command economy, or Communist, or Stalinist - you only care about opposing expanded government involvement, as a whole.

You want to force everyone to discuss whether something is or is not Communist - so that they do not discuss what the actual policies are. It's just a rhetorical attack, to block discussion.

Jimmy Garlic

KyussB wrote: »

You supposedly didn't even know who was going to administer it a minute ago - now you are certain it has the full breadth and structure of a Stalinist command economy.

The Green New Deal has no relation to a Command Economy. It directly relates to our economies of today - of infrastructure projects undertaken by government - of social supports undertaken by government - of research undertaken by government - it's pretty much an extension/set-of-tweaks for how todays economy runs, to modernize them and make them run better - and with a temporary boost in government activity in the economy, to arrest our contribution to climate change.

What you oppose, is any expanded government involvement in the economy - it is an ideological obsession - you don't care whether or not something is actually a command economy, or Communist, or Stalinist - you only care about opposing expanded government involvement, as a whole.

You want to force everyone to discuss whether something is or is not Communist - so that they do not discuss what the actual policies are. It's just a rhetorical attack, to block discussion.

Such a draconian change to the economy would come with more layers of pampered bureaucracy, as you well know, yet deny. Maybe you would be angling for a guaranteed job yourself.

I called the idea you are sloganeering for command economy, because that is exactly what it would be. Greenwashed communism, an old relic of failure dug up and rehashed. Great for inner and outer party members, misery for everyone else as they end up as tiny cogs in a big socialist experiment. It is no wonder the likes of the CPUSA are jizzing in their pants over it.

fly_agaric

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

CPUSA

Just to delurk but am curious - Who are they?

Jimmy Garlic

fly_agaric wrote: »

Just to delurk but am curious - Who are they?

Communist Party United States of America. They are drooling all over the green New deal idea.

Jimmy Garlic

They are all over it like hot snot.

https://www.cpusa.org/article/we-need-a-global-green-new-deal/

fly_agaric

Ok...

I thought it was some new enemy of the people (even worse than Greta Thunberg) that a youtube or twitter alt-right personality says we should be angry about and I'd missed the bulletin!

Communist Party of the USA probably got funding from the Soviets in their past so I would have thought you might sort of approve of them?

KyussB

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Such a draconian change to the economy would come with more layers of pampered bureaucracy, as you well know, yet deny. Maybe you would be angling for a guaranteed job yourself.

I called the idea you are sloganeering for command economy, because that is exactly what it would be. Greenwashed communism, an old relic of failure dug up and rehashed. Great for inner and outer party members, misery for everyone else as they end up as tiny cogs in a big socialist experiment. It is no wonder the likes of the CPUSA are jizzing in their pants over it.

Are all forms of government jobs Communism? Is it Communist when government is responsible/in-control-of 5% of a countries GDP/economy? 10%? 20%? 40%?

You just blanket oppose all forms of temporarily expanded government activity, yet haven't got good faith enough in argument, to admit it - that is the real extremist ideology here - you argue in bad faith by labelling everything you dislike as Communist.

It's childish bollocks. It's deliberately shitting on the thread, because you don't like the discussion.

Jimmy Garlic

KyussB wrote: »

Are all forms of government jobs Communism? Is it Communist when government is responsible/in-control-of 5% of a countries GDP/economy? 10%? 20%? 40%?

You just blanket oppose all forms of temporarily expanded government activity, yet haven't got good faith enough in argument, to admit it - that is the real extremist ideology here - you argue in bad faith by labelling everything you dislike as Communist.

It's childish bollocks. It's deliberately shitting on the thread, because you don't like the discussion.

You took it upon yourself to use the thread as a soapbox to sloganeer for the green New deal put forward by a person who openly says she is a socialist and whose chief financial backer has openly stated that the green New deal really isn't about climate change at all. It is a Trojan horse but it is so obvious what the real intent is to anyone who researches it and the people who cheerlead for it you might as well have Marx, Engles, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and all the rest sitting on top of it.

KyussB

Is 5% of temporary government responsibility/control of GDP/the-economy Communist? 20%? 40%? At what point is it Communism?

The Green New Deal is all about arresting our contribution to climate change - and in the US it's the mainstream policy of the Democratic Party - and it's winning them votes by campaigning on a combined GND/Climate-Policy agenda:
https://www.vox.com/2019/11/6/20951725/virginia-election-results-climate-change-2019

Are the Democratic Party in the US, who are the main proponents of the GND, Communists?

Jimmy Garlic

fly_agaric wrote: »

Ok..

Communist Party of the USA probably got funding from the Soviets in their past so I would have thought you might sort of approve of them?

Why would I approve?

Tuisceanch

KyussB wrote: »

Are the Democratic Party in the US, who are the main proponents of the GND, Communists?

They're a rizla paper's thickness to the left of the Republicans.

KyussB

Check out Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez - they're the main proponents of the Green New Deal - and while their version of it doesn't quite go far enough, it's a huge step towards the left, and back towards New Deal style economic policy.

jobs i.o.u. lolz

and the other one, anyone disagreeing is adhom spite, the aggression, derailing, adhom and poison from the side they agree with is clearly ok as it's for 'the cause'

some bucks!

Tuisceanch

KyussB wrote: »

Check out Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez - they're the main proponents of the Green New Deal - and while their version of it doesn't quite go far enough, it's a huge step towards the left, and back towards New Deal style economic policy.

Yes I would agree but in no sense could that be or ever was described as a communist. Stifling debate in a democratic society on the other hand is a sure way to usher in a totalitarian state and all done under the guise of free speech. I think,in case it was misunderstood, that I'm supporting the poster's position. I find the other posts depressing and anti-democratic.

Jimmy Garlic

KyussB wrote: »

Is 5% of temporary government responsibility/control of GDP/the-economy Communist? 20%? 40%? At what point is it Communism?

The Green New Deal is all about arresting our contribution to climate change - and in the US it's the mainstream policy of the Democratic Party - and it's winning them votes by campaigning on a combined GND/Climate-Policy agenda:
https://www.vox.com/2019/11/6/20951725/virginia-election-results-climate-change-2019

Are the Democratic Party in the US, who are the main proponents of the GND, Communists?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti has said the following on the record..

“The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all,” Chakrabarti said… … “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing,” Chakrabarti added.

Anyway , I am off to get some steak and chips comrade.

KyussB

Tuisceanch wrote: »

Yes I would agree but in no sense could that be or ever was described as a communist. Stifling debate in a democratic society on the other hand is a sure way to usher in a totalitarian state and all done under the guise of free speech.

Ya agreed, no person would describe the Green New Deal as Communist, without aiming to stifle debate. EDIT: Ah, no I figured your meaning based on prior posts didn't think it was supporting those posters.

Jimmy Garlic

KyussB wrote: »

Ya agreed, no person would describe the Green New Deal as Communist, without aiming to stifle debate.

It is an echo chamber you want, not a debate. Why don't you start a green New deal thread with a poll to see who agrees with your long and boring sermons. Laters, I'm off.

Mod-Banned for ignoring thread ban.

KyussB

You're the fourth person I've debated with recently to make a big rhetorical show of either putting me on their ignore list, or heading off - only to keep coming back shortly later (one of them actually backslapping you here in this thread...).

If you find my posts long and boring, why are you replying to me? Simply put me on your ignore list. If you're heading off, why don't you just go?

As for the quote from AOC's chief of staff: Yea, the Green New Deal is the perfect marriage of Progressive Economics alongside fighting climate change - that's why it's so popular, and is winning the Democratic Party votes. Don't see how that makes the big 'C' label fit them...

Tuisceanch

KyussB wrote: »

Ya agreed, no person would describe the Green New Deal as Communist, without aiming to stifle debate. EDIT: Ah, no I figured your meaning based on prior posts didn't think it was supporting those posters.

Roosevelt's new deal as you mentioned is a good reference point for debate. Keynesian economics vs Neo-Liberalism and relative prosperity of democratic societies under each is also another consideration. The past informs the present. I'm completely baffled by some people's blind adherence to neo-liberalism orthodoxy and their patronage of super rich individuals as if they were the defenders of western democracy. It's as if they they want to shed all their worker's rights achieved through the fight of trade unions, or more accurately erode them completely, and return to serfdom under a feudalistic society. Don't they realise or understand that any privileges they still have in that respect were because of people who they now ignorantly consign to the dustbin. Madness doesn't even begin to describe it. Doff your hat. Take up arms and fight for empire. Is this the Republic of Ireland?

KyussB

The interesting thing about the economics of it, is that the Keynesianism that had been put into practice once popularized by Keyne's, was a version of it that was married with Neoclassical economics - which is actually a big corruption of Keynesian principles, and has been misleading the course of Economics right up to the present.

The Green New Deal and particularly the Job Guarantee, have been developed by the Post-Keynesian school of economists - who stay true to Keyne's original views, and have created a modernized version of macroeconomics, combining the views of many other economists along with Keyne's (Minsky, Wynne Godley, among many others).

TLDR - Keynesianism as we knew it, was vulnerable to being co-opted into supporting NeoLiberalism, and intellectually weakened enough to not be able to challenge it - and Post-Keynesianism is what we need to replace NeoLiberalism and Neocassical-Keynesianism, now.

People like Stephanie Kelton, a Post-Keynesian and Modern Monetary Theorist (a branch of PK), have been key advisors to Bernie Sanders, in developing the Green New Deal and its climate policies.

I think that most people support these kinds of progressive economics, or would if well enough informed of them - but the economic debate is just like the climate science debate: There is a lot of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) spread, a lot of propaganda, and there is a big fight/tussle to control the narrative of economic discussions, and to prevent modern economic policies from becoming mainstream.

There are a small but extremely vocal number of people who engage in this opposition - you can nearly always trace it back to having a conflict of interest of some sort, where they have a motive to support hyper-free-market/economic-conservative based policies - often they turn out to work in finance, or otherwise have a job/career whose benefits are tied to economic conservatism, or have ambitions in this direction.

Not universally true, but it's extremely frequent. An interesting conflict of interest (sorry, this is pretty long now :P) was the recent pensions thread: People with large private pension posts have an inherent monetary stake in economic conservatism and finance (though it doesn't necessarily influence their views), and I suspect that may be a big motivator for people to buy-in to all of this stuff (and interestingly, now: the government has implemeted auto-enrollment into private pensions, creating this kind of conflict/pressure for everyone who doesn't opt out...so yea, I suspect this could be a fairly subtle form of vote-buyer for economic conservatism).

Tuisceanch

Very interesting ref the economics. Must look into it. I tend to agree that the stifling of debate is deliberate,well funded and follows a known playbook. Actually if you scan back through this thread you will observe,or already observed, that somebody actually posted their playbook to help another poster. I have to admit I found that hilarious. I was actually tempted to mentally score each post, as a form of bingo,just to relieve the boredom, using SCHOPENHAUER'S 38 STRATAGEMS as the numbers. Not much of an ideologue myself but would prefer to live in a more socially equitable society with no tolerance for bogus wars against people not like us. I did vote Labour when I lived in the UK in '92 and '97 so you can imagine I became disenchanted with them afterwards as I watched a million people march in the street to be roundly ignored. I can still hear "Things will only get better" ringing in my ears. Another thing that strikes me as funny is that we have Jobbridge, Tus and Seetec, zero hour contracts. Were they all the devised and implemented under a communist regime. I must have fallen asleep for a hundred years if so.

KyussB

Tuisceanch wrote: »

Very interesting ref the economics. Must look into it. I tend to agree that the stifling of debate is deliberate,well funded and follows a known playbook. Actually if you scan back through this thread you will observe,or already observed, that somebody actually posted their playbook to help another poster. I have to admit I found that hilarious. I was actually tempted to mentally score each post, as a form of bingo,just to relieve the boredom, using SCHOPENHAUER'S 38 STRATAGEMS as the numbers. Not much of an ideologue myself but would prefer to live in a more socially equitable society with no tolerance for bogus wars against people not like us. I did vote Labour when I lived in the UK in '92 and '97 so you can imagine I became disenchanted with them afterwards as I watched a million people march in the street to be roundly ignored. I can still hear "Things will only get better" ringing in my ears. Another thing that strikes me as funny is that we have Jobbridge, Tus and Seetec, zero hour contracts. Were they all the devised and implemented under a communist regime. I must have fallen asleep for a hundred years if so.

Here's a good article on Kelton/MMT and her influence with Sanders and the GND - and the blog she founded is a good resource, but a bit dry (would recommend the one below) - everyone who tries to wrap their head around MMT, has to confront quite a large amount of cognitive dissonance, on the way to understanding it well - and I found it took a long time reading about it, to properly grok it (but the narrative has improved a lot now, since I was learning about it).

Naked Capitalism is a good resource as well, for general economic discussiion/learning - they discuss/link climate and GND issues now and then, and in general have a very high quality of 'top-down'/'big-picture' commentary - they're cross-posting a good article on the Exxon climate court case right now, as it happens!