The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Can't Do Green Without Red. or Can You?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Now here’s the problem: Carbon taxes are extremely regressive. Furthermore, they hit hardest precisely those groups – the rural and small town blue-collars of the US – who have been hit hardest by economic globalization, which massively benefited the transnational oligarchy and the developing world but left the Fishtowns behind in a haze of deindustrialization and opioid addiction.

Consequently, it may well be politically necessary to adopt at least some of the left-wing proposals – universal healthcare, guaranteed jobs, basic income – in AOC’s Green New Deal.

Will it be economically ruinous? Probably. Expanding welfare in conjunction with basic income would blow out any budget. (I am personally more a fan of downsizing the welfare state and replacing it with basic income).

Will it actually work? Unfortunately, OAC is an atomophobe. Unfortunately, because while you can run a modern industrial economy on nuclear energy, which is both very green and extremely safe, you can’t do so on wind and solar. Their EROEI (energy return on energy invested) is low relative to hydrocarbons and nuclear, and probably plummets to unsustainable levels if the costs of energy storage are accounted for (which they’ll need if they are to also provide baseload power). Wind and solar are at best accessories to hydrocarbons/nuclear, not replacements.

(Now yes, some rich countries can go 50%+ solar/wind, but at that point they are still going to need energy subsidies from the rest of the world to build and maintain that green infrastructure. In other words, they will be “green” in name only. But on the plus side, they get to virtue signal about it).

Still, at least OAC seems to be earnest about helping the working class – unlike Macron, who raised fuel taxes to combat greenhouse emissions while at the same time ordering massive denuclearization. This would dismantle perhaps the world’s one clearest green energy success story. Now to some extent, I actually sympathize with Macron: The neoliberal reforms he is pushing are ultimately necessary – under its high-tax economic regime, France is inexorably bleeding its best, brightest, and richest, as fellow UR columnist Guillaume Durocher would confirm. However, raising fuel prices while shutting down nuclear proves that he’s just catering to atomophobic SWPL sensibilities as opposed to doing what is best for his country.

Anyhow, this is the problem with the well-educated, genteel liberal “realists” who Care Deeply about global warming and want to deal with it using market solutions but vigorously protest tying it to any “socialist” elements. They tend to be SWPL urbanites with high incomes who are essentially looking to take $1,000’s from Trump’s “deplorables” without any attempt to recompense them. This is class war by any other name. It might work in countries like Switzerland where almost everyone is SWPL anyway, but I daresay that in the US it will create an American analogue of the yellow vests and an even bigger populist “fuck you” than in 2016.

That said, I need to emphasize that I am not really making any policy proposals here. (In reality, I am unironically pro-AGW, if for rather self-interested reasons).

Moreover, on second thought, the neoliberal solution to climate change may well work. As all handshakeworthy people know, the yellow vests are funded by the Kremlin. Any American analogues will also be Kremlin funded. Russia bad. There’s also the problem that “right-wing intellectual” is basically a contradiction in terms. Their “arguments” on this issue, at least in the US, boil down to global warming is a Chinese scam what about Mann’s hockey stick Al Gore invented the Internet lulz herp derp. With enemies who can seemingly do nothing more than sputter in inchoate rage, perhaps neoliberalism.txt has nothing to fear.

 
• Category: Economics • Tags: Class Warfare, Climate Change, Neoliberalism, Taxes 
Hide 71 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Look to Ontario for the results of green energy mania and despair!

  2. Moreover, on second thought, the neoliberal solution to climate change may well work. As all handshakeworthy people know, the yellow vests are funded by the Kremlin. Any American analogues will also be Kremlin funded. Russia bad.

    Assuming this is carried out, eventually, the ‘developing’ countries will want to cut out the middle men. By then the controlled states will have been hollowed out and their power projection abilities weakened.

    Seems short-termist.

  3. There’s also the problem that “right-wing intellectual” is basically a contradiction in terms. Their “arguments” on this issue, at least in the US, boil down to global warming is a Chinese scam what about Mann’s hockey stick Al Gore invented the Internet lulz herp derp.

    In other words, climate change skeptics are stoopid. Got you.

  4. From my comment today on Ocasio-Cortez on another thread.

    Ocasio-Cortez created an opening, a perfect window of opportunity for the new right to step in and create the populist movement. Ocasio-Cortez is not hated by Democrats because she talks nonsense but because she broached the taboo subject which is the economical power structure, financial elites, workers right. If the new right wants to become successful and turn into a populist movement it has to adopt this part of Ocasio-Cortez platform. Trump won because he alluded to these issues. The border security and the crimes of illegals was just salt and pepper added to the main dish. Do not believe whatever the horse faced Ann Coulter is saying.

    And I should add that environmental issues should be coopted in the good old tradition of populist parties of the 20 c. because the environment is our national heritage and treasure with less emphasis of saving Mother Earth and such nonsense. And the CO2 is not a pollution and should not be a chief concern but it could be use for tactical reasons to attract the loonies.

    • Replies: @Spisarevski

    Do not believe whatever the horse faced Ann Coulter is saying.
     
    Funny how in a paragraph where both Ann Coulter and Ocasio-Cortez are mentioned, you call Queen Ann "horse faced".

    Coulter has repeatedly pointed out how mass migration benefits the current economical power structure. The two issues are not really separate at all. Also:

    https://twitter.com/anncoulter/status/1081225501069533184?lang=en
    , @reiner Tor
    Okay, so basically you are advocating a combination of cuckservative race-blindness and populist economic policies, while welcoming an ever increasing number of legal immigrants.

    How would this prevent mass immigration transforming America and all other white countries in the world into countries of color?

    And why would it actually be either more successful or better than the current Bernie Sanders type leftism? I guess it wouldn’t get more elite support.

    If you added immigration restrictionism, it’d be indistinguishable from Steve Sailer’s civic nationalism, except Sailer wants to use IQ as an explanation for black failure, but you are against that either, so you won’t be in a position to deny that black failure is caused by the legacy of slavery and institutional racism.

    I think you should go back to using the AaronB moniker to write New Age mumbo-jumbo, at least it makes more sense than this.
  5. under its high-tax economic regime

    Are French taxes actually that high? I’d always assumed they were, but then i looked (just now in actual fact) and, compared to England, personal taxes seem to be slightly lower in most cases. The English have ‘national insurance’ which adds about 10% onto their figures.

    https://www.french-property.com/guides/france/finance-taxation/taxation/calculation-tax-liability/rates

    https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-rates

    Indirect taxes are generally lower there. Their corporate tax rate is slightly higher, but nothing special. Bureaucracy and inflexibility is probably more of a problem. Just learning to drive there is supposed to be a nightmare. If talented frenchmen are jumping to London after college (with no student debt btw, unlike the locals) there must be a other reasons. Imho, this is just a consequence of anglicisation of large businesses and the best way to staunch the bleeding would be to stop teaching English in schools and discourage its use more generally. Charging anglo-level college tuition which gets waived for anyone who stays in france for a decade would also help.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean

    If talented frenchmen are jumping to London after college (with no student debt btw, unlike the locals)
     
    While most universities charge a minimal fee, don't elite schools' tuition cost a lot in France?
  6. @g2k

    under its high-tax economic regime
     
    Are French taxes actually that high? I'd always assumed they were, but then i looked (just now in actual fact) and, compared to England, personal taxes seem to be slightly lower in most cases. The English have 'national insurance' which adds about 10% onto their figures.

    https://www.french-property.com/guides/france/finance-taxation/taxation/calculation-tax-liability/rates

    https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-rates

    Indirect taxes are generally lower there. Their corporate tax rate is slightly higher, but nothing special. Bureaucracy and inflexibility is probably more of a problem. Just learning to drive there is supposed to be a nightmare. If talented frenchmen are jumping to London after college (with no student debt btw, unlike the locals) there must be a other reasons. Imho, this is just a consequence of anglicisation of large businesses and the best way to staunch the bleeding would be to stop teaching English in schools and discourage its use more generally. Charging anglo-level college tuition which gets waived for anyone who stays in france for a decade would also help.

    If talented frenchmen are jumping to London after college (with no student debt btw, unlike the locals)

    While most universities charge a minimal fee, don’t elite schools’ tuition cost a lot in France?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Grandes Écoles generally charge no, or very little fees (comparable to university), and sometimes get a monthly stipend similar to PhD students. Business School do charge a lot, typically around 5000 euros to 10000 euros a year.
  7. Anonymous[266] • Disclaimer says:

    Macron is just a prick.

    A fucking stupid useless worthless prick at that.

    The Economist’s man at Elysée.

    The silly cunt reminds me of Marie Antoinette more than anything else.

    His odious stormtroopers of Nazi thugs kill and mutiliate protesting, desperate French workers at will. ‘They are White Trash, they deserve it’, thinks Macron.

    Do you really, seriously think that shit-cunt, Macron, would gun down Arabs or blacks like that?

    Fuck Macron.
    Fuck The Economist.
    Fuck Soros
    Fuck the Neo Liberals
    Fuck the Wogs.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I truly state here, without a shadow of a doubt, that if Russia, Poland, or any other eastern European state was massacring and mutilating its own citizens the way Macron's regime is, then you would hear the incessant full-squawk hysterics and moaning from those filthy bastards at the EU the 'Council of Europe' Amnesty International, The Economist etc.

    Partly it's purely politics, but mostly it is the 'traditional' racial contempt and 'superiority' feeling that western Europeans hold over eastern Europeans.

    Make no mistake.
  8. Is Green really necessary?

  9. Wind and solar are at best accessories to hydrocarbons/nuclear, not replacements.

    So your position is that in the deep future – 2000 years, 20,000 or 200,000; pick a number – when even the upper estimates of nuclear fuel reserves have been exhausted there is literally (and I mean literally literally) no chance that humankind (or whatever has replaced us) will generate electricity solely via solar means?

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    In the deep future, we will almost certainly be extinct, one way or another (physically, or we will be some new - possibly cybernetic - species).

    It's perfectly possible to generate electricity solely from solar even today. Whatever its EROEI is, it is certainly considerably above 1. But living standards and capabilities will be greatly constricted if we are forced to spend every fourth or fifth unit of energy produced on producing said energy.
    , @Pericles
    Prior to the industrial revolution we lived only off solar, wind, hydro. So on some level it can obviously be done. Will that scenario support a huge brown population living a life of ease though?
  10. @silviosilver

    Wind and solar are at best accessories to hydrocarbons/nuclear, not replacements.
     
    So your position is that in the deep future - 2000 years, 20,000 or 200,000; pick a number - when even the upper estimates of nuclear fuel reserves have been exhausted there is literally (and I mean literally literally) no chance that humankind (or whatever has replaced us) will generate electricity solely via solar means?

    In the deep future, we will almost certainly be extinct, one way or another (physically, or we will be some new – possibly cybernetic – species).

    It’s perfectly possible to generate electricity solely from solar even today. Whatever its EROEI is, it is certainly considerably above 1. But living standards and capabilities will be greatly constricted if we are forced to spend every fourth or fifth unit of energy produced on producing said energy.

  11. But living standards and capabilities will be greatly constricted if we are forced to spend every fourth or fifth unit of energy produced on producing said energy.

    “Greatly constricted” is too vague. Be specific: do you predict it will put a permanent end to economic growth? A permanently severely reduced growth rate? Permanent recession?

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    A lower GDP per capita at any given level of technology.

    Longterm, growth in per capita incomes is really just a function of technology, so that shouldn't be affected. (Though tech growth might be lower if there's fewer surpluses with which to fund it).
  12. @silviosilver

    But living standards and capabilities will be greatly constricted if we are forced to spend every fourth or fifth unit of energy produced on producing said energy.
     
    "Greatly constricted" is too vague. Be specific: do you predict it will put a permanent end to economic growth? A permanently severely reduced growth rate? Permanent recession?

    A lower GDP per capita at any given level of technology.

    Longterm, growth in per capita incomes is really just a function of technology, so that shouldn’t be affected. (Though tech growth might be lower if there’s fewer surpluses with which to fund it).

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    So we're talking about a delay, not a denial. In that case, by your very own logic, living standards in the future could well be ten times, a hundred times, hell, a thousand times greater than today's. It's just that, were it not for the constriction caused by having to rely on solar, we'll get there later than we otherwise might have. Well, call me a wide-eyed optimist, but when I look at it like that, it's hard for me to consider those future living standards "greatly constricted."
  13. @Anatoly Karlin
    A lower GDP per capita at any given level of technology.

    Longterm, growth in per capita incomes is really just a function of technology, so that shouldn't be affected. (Though tech growth might be lower if there's fewer surpluses with which to fund it).

    So we’re talking about a delay, not a denial. In that case, by your very own logic, living standards in the future could well be ten times, a hundred times, hell, a thousand times greater than today’s. It’s just that, were it not for the constriction caused by having to rely on solar, we’ll get there later than we otherwise might have. Well, call me a wide-eyed optimist, but when I look at it like that, it’s hard for me to consider those future living standards “greatly constricted.”

    • Replies: @Mitleser
    The more delay you get, the likelier you will fail altogether.
  14. @Hyperborean

    If talented frenchmen are jumping to London after college (with no student debt btw, unlike the locals)
     
    While most universities charge a minimal fee, don't elite schools' tuition cost a lot in France?

    Grandes Écoles generally charge no, or very little fees (comparable to university), and sometimes get a monthly stipend similar to PhD students. Business School do charge a lot, typically around 5000 euros to 10000 euros a year.

  15. @silviosilver
    So we're talking about a delay, not a denial. In that case, by your very own logic, living standards in the future could well be ten times, a hundred times, hell, a thousand times greater than today's. It's just that, were it not for the constriction caused by having to rely on solar, we'll get there later than we otherwise might have. Well, call me a wide-eyed optimist, but when I look at it like that, it's hard for me to consider those future living standards "greatly constricted."

    The more delay you get, the likelier you will fail altogether.

  16. Anonymous[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    Macron is just a prick.

    A fucking stupid useless worthless prick at that.

    The Economist's man at Elysée.

    The silly cunt reminds me of Marie Antoinette more than anything else.

    His odious stormtroopers of Nazi thugs kill and mutiliate protesting, desperate French workers at will. 'They are White Trash, they deserve it', thinks Macron.

    Do you really, seriously think that shit-cunt, Macron, would gun down Arabs or blacks like that?

    Fuck Macron.
    Fuck The Economist.
    Fuck Soros
    Fuck the Neo Liberals
    Fuck the Wogs.

    I truly state here, without a shadow of a doubt, that if Russia, Poland, or any other eastern European state was massacring and mutilating its own citizens the way Macron’s regime is, then you would hear the incessant full-squawk hysterics and moaning from those filthy bastards at the EU the ‘Council of Europe’ Amnesty International, The Economist etc.

    Partly it’s purely politics, but mostly it is the ‘traditional’ racial contempt and ‘superiority’ feeling that western Europeans hold over eastern Europeans.

    Make no mistake.

  17. @utu
    From my comment today on Ocasio-Cortez on another thread.

    Ocasio-Cortez created an opening, a perfect window of opportunity for the new right to step in and create the populist movement. Ocasio-Cortez is not hated by Democrats because she talks nonsense but because she broached the taboo subject which is the economical power structure, financial elites, workers right. If the new right wants to become successful and turn into a populist movement it has to adopt this part of Ocasio-Cortez platform. Trump won because he alluded to these issues. The border security and the crimes of illegals was just salt and pepper added to the main dish. Do not believe whatever the horse faced Ann Coulter is saying.
     
    And I should add that environmental issues should be coopted in the good old tradition of populist parties of the 20 c. because the environment is our national heritage and treasure with less emphasis of saving Mother Earth and such nonsense. And the CO2 is not a pollution and should not be a chief concern but it could be use for tactical reasons to attract the loonies.

    Do not believe whatever the horse faced Ann Coulter is saying.

    Funny how in a paragraph where both Ann Coulter and Ocasio-Cortez are mentioned, you call Queen Ann “horse faced”.

    Coulter has repeatedly pointed out how mass migration benefits the current economical power structure. The two issues are not really separate at all. Also:

  18. While I am far from an atomophobe, solar has a much bigger potential and it’s a pity that nobody talks about the real issue – it has to be in space.

    We already have a giant fusion reactor (the Sun), just build stuff around it and collect the enormous amounts of energy it radiates every second.

    Isaac Arthur mentioned in an episode about power satellites that this is one of the better bets for a realistic kickstart of the real space age – the world energy industry is about 10 trillion dollars and coincidentally, that would be the cost to launch enough satellites to beam power back to Earth via microwaves and have 100% of the world energy needs covered with clean renewable energy. This will be economical and will pay for itself relatively soon, but it would require a huge initial investment and a grand political vision.

    • Replies: @(((They))) Live
    Isaac Arthur is not to be taken seriously

    If anyone was going to push for space based Solar it would be SpaceX and Musk, but he has no interest in the idea, he says the numbers just don't add up, keep in mind that musk is working on manned missions to Mars and a massive satellite communications system, the number for space solar must be terrible
  19. 1. What country is anywhere near 50% in wind & solar in terms of total primary energy consumption, not just electricity? I very much doubt that anything like that will ever be achieved.

    2. The French state, not Macron, are considering shuttering the country’s nuclear power stations in the coming decades due to their age and cost of maintenance. The “environmentalist” angle is always deployed as a smokescreen in order to get naive collage girls and soy boys on board.

    3. If there is any global warming, it’s almost negligible. And yes, it is a conspiracy, not by the Chinese government, but by western governments (especially European) that are in desperate lack of hydrocarbon reserves *and above all* fear Russia. Ever increasing global hydrocarbon consumption will gradually tip the global balance of power towards Russia’s favor, hence the hypocritical hysteria over climate change and all the associated expensive “green” energy projects, especially in Europe.

    4. A few years back, Chinese officials were saying that global warming is a conspiracy against the developing world in general, and China in particular, on the part of the rich world so that they are kept down. Once the Chinese saw that they could also exploit the newly formed state-funded “markets” for solar panels and windmills, they also jumped aboard the “climate change” bandwagon.

    5. Global Warming is a global anti-Russian conspiracy. (one of many)

    • Replies: @songbird
    That the French use so much nuclear power is really quite interesting.

    I wouldn't personally say they are naturally less wacko than Germans. So, what then is the explanation? Well, I'd suggest French elites galvanized behind the idea, before the Left went antinuclear, and they've built such a culture of it, determining public opinions, that it had a much greater momentum than in Germany.

    Possibly even you could reduce it to the counterintuitive explanation that the French are more leftist than the Germans.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    #2 is reasonable, but for the rest:

    5. Global Warming is a global anti-Russian conspiracy. (one of many)
     
    Apart from the fact that if Global Warming is an anti-Russian conspiracy then it must have been an extraordinarily deep one, dating back to when Svante Arrhenius wrote his groundbreaking paper "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground" in 1896, there is also the inconvenient issue that cutting hydrocarbons consumption while also going on an atomophobic jihad is the one thing sure to boost Russia's influence in Europe by making it more reliant on its natural gas.
    , @Pericles

    What country is anywhere near 50% in wind & solar in terms of total primary energy consumption, not just electricity? I very much doubt that anything like that will ever be achieved.

     

    Sweden at this very time of writing generates 35% hydro and 15% wind (and 40% nuclear) for its power grid. Before the current wind power mania, it was more like 90% hydro+nuclear.
  20. (I am personally more a fan of downsizing the welfare state and replacing it with basic income).

    In the US, the entire welfare bureauracy can be eliminated except for a surrogate group of social welfare workers to work with the “truly” incompetent and disabled. However, the UBI needs to be a restricted UBI. Deducted from the UBI would be health insurance premiums and retirement premiums (including disability and long-term care premiums). Capable and motivated people could voucher their restricted income into better and supplementary plans. The government could “franchise” the basic programs to the insurance industry.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @Pericles
    This vision relies on a rather utopian view of the welfare class. Might work in certain countries, but unlikely in the US.
    , @Thorfinnsson
    Paying people to do nothing is objectionable on principle.

    That said, if we as a society are determined to have a welfare state, then at the very least UBI is more efficient and eliminates an entire class of do-gooder sociologists, social workers, and other associated state parasites.
  21. Anon[408] • Disclaimer says:

    Re. French brains, there is this license to print money called US medical license. Some countries, notably India and the Philippines, are extremely effective at making doctors to the America specifications. It does not take a massive genius, since Indians passing all the required exams can be as young as 20. (Yes, that’s the age for graduating from med school in that shithole.)

    Browse any US hospital webpage, looking for profiles of current residents. My wife did it, in order to avoid wasting time with US supremacists who don’t read applications from foreign doctors. (Funny enough, these tend to be places like Vermont, Kentucky, or Puerto Rico, where politicians tend to whine about lack of doctors.) You will never see a French resident doctor. British or German – very rarely; Irish or Italian – quite common; but never French.

    A similar exercise was done by me several years ago, when I went for an US PhD in STEM. There, Chinese and Indians students are common, especially at lower-ranked unis, where hands are more needed than brains. Germans and British are decently common, especially at better unis. Russians are common in loser’s departments. (WTF, theoretical maths?) But I haven’t seen a single French PhD student on any university website. I haven’t seen a French PhD student in two Ivies.

    Some older lab bosses, whose best ideas came in France, are recruited to US universities, but it’s a drop in a bucket. There are many Italians and Hungarians who got Nobels after moving to US, but I can’t recall any such French.

    Yes, there are quite a few Frenchies in New York, but I wouldn’t call them brainy. They are plainly rich and stupid. Who would live a better place, because it’s expensive? That’s why you have the money, to spend, in order to live in a nice place. If you want money, merely because you want to hold on to as much money as possible, you would be a moron.

    • Replies: @Pericles

    It does not take a massive genius, since Indians passing all the required exams can be as young as 20. (Yes, that’s the age for graduating from med school in that shithole.)

     

    In Sweden, medschool (and lawschool) are undergraduate, not graduate, programs. So you can, at least theoretically, be done a few years earlier than your US contemporaries.

    On the downside, I guess you lose some required humanities courses.
    , @utu
    Absolutely, you are correct. There is no brain drain problem for France. There are some French in London but mostly in financial sector and advertising. There is also French Eurotrash in NYC. I would let them all go. Good riddance for France. This whining about the "bleeding its best"

    The neoliberal reforms he is pushing are ultimately necessary – under its high-tax economic regime, France is inexorably bleeding its best, brightest, and richest, as fellow UR columnist Guillaume Durocher would confirm.
     
    is what you may expect from neoliberals and their useful idiots. For lowering the taxes the neoliberals, the least loyal and least patriotic segment of any society will use arguments appealing to nationalist and patriots. Cunts.
  22. Highlights from the Green New Deal FAQ document that got disawowed:

    Build on FDR’s second bill of rights by guaranteeing […] economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work.

    (Some jokes about flatulating bovines.)

    How will you pay for it?

    The same way we paid for the New Deal, the 2008 bank bailout and extended quantitative easing programs. The same way we paid for World War II and all our current wars.

    Promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of frontline and vulnerable communities.

    Provide high-quality health care, housing, economic security, and clean air, clean water, healthy food, amd nature for all.

    https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5729035-Green-New-Deal-FAQ

    I hope Madame Pol Pot becomes President of America.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean

    (Some jokes about flatulating bovines.)
     
    Oh, and cows won't be the only ones kulak'd, airplanes will too.

    But it is on a longer timeline, so no problem.
  23. The growing popularity on the left of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is disturbing, even if MMT is substantially true. Too many of its proponents (and various stripes of leftists) act like there are no constraints on public spending–that we can have a free lunch.

    Even when deficits are noninflationary (which has been the case in the past generation), they still inexorably increase the future interest share of the government budget as well as ongoing financing requirements (and contrary to myth, public bond auctions can and do fail).

    The New Deal was not particularly expensive. Even the bank bailout wasn’t. In fact, the government made a profit on bailing out the banks and did so quite quickly.

    Quantitative easing wasn’t part of the government budget to begin with, and in any case was arguably deflationary since it reduced income to the private sector.

    People do need to stop viewing the government budget as a household, but the idea we can have everything we want is dangerous nonsense. A more mature mentality is comparing a government’s balance sheet to that of a business as well as incorporating the macroeconomic effects of the government’s own spending.

    • Replies: @foolisholdman
    Money is a "virtual product". Making it costs very little. Its function is like the lubricant in a machine. The wealth-making part of the economy is the difficult part - it involves work. Clearly to have a prosperous economy, you need people working in a well-organised fashion, with good management clear, rational aims and rational supply chains.

    The current problems faced by the western world are entirely caused by allowing a small clique to control the money supply and pretending that what REALLY matters is the money.

  24. @Hyperborean
    Highlights from the Green New Deal FAQ document that got disawowed:

    Build on FDR's second bill of rights by guaranteeing [...] economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work.
     
    (Some jokes about flatulating bovines.)

    How will you pay for it?

    The same way we paid for the New Deal, the 2008 bank bailout and extended quantitative easing programs. The same way we paid for World War II and all our current wars.
     

    Promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of frontline and vulnerable communities.
     

    Provide high-quality health care, housing, economic security, and clean air, clean water, healthy food, amd nature for all.
     
    https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5729035-Green-New-Deal-FAQ

    I hope Madame Pol Pot becomes President of America.

    (Some jokes about flatulating bovines.)

    Oh, and cows won’t be the only ones kulak’d, airplanes will too.

    But it is on a longer timeline, so no problem.

  25. As for the “Green New Deal” itself, its proponents should be shot.

    For starters, as AK points out, AOC is an atomophobe. Therefore unless she wishes to dismantle industrial society itself, she’s a fraud.

    Then there’s the fact that these idiots always want to scrap perfectly useful infrastructure long before it has depreciated. I’m 100% okay with requiring all new electric power plants to be green. But scrapping perfectly good thermal fossil fuel plants? Outrageous.

    Atomophobia also stops us from addressing other sources of emissions. Industrial process heat for instance (used in things like cement production and oil refining) could be derived from very high temperature reactors and at lower cost than current fossil fuel methods. This is never even discussed.

    Yet these same atomophobic fools are now increasingly convinced that cattle represent a massive climactic threat and that we must all go vegan!

    • Agree: AP, Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @songbird
    Atomophobes who want to force me to eat eggplant should be shot with depleted-uranium bullets.
    , @foolisholdman
    No one should be shot with depleted uranium bullets. They should be completely outlawed.
  26. @Stavros H
    1. What country is anywhere near 50% in wind & solar in terms of total primary energy consumption, not just electricity? I very much doubt that anything like that will ever be achieved.

    2. The French state, not Macron, are considering shuttering the country's nuclear power stations in the coming decades due to their age and cost of maintenance. The "environmentalist" angle is always deployed as a smokescreen in order to get naive collage girls and soy boys on board.

    3. If there is any global warming, it's almost negligible. And yes, it is a conspiracy, not by the Chinese government, but by western governments (especially European) that are in desperate lack of hydrocarbon reserves *and above all* fear Russia. Ever increasing global hydrocarbon consumption will gradually tip the global balance of power towards Russia's favor, hence the hypocritical hysteria over climate change and all the associated expensive "green" energy projects, especially in Europe.

    4. A few years back, Chinese officials were saying that global warming is a conspiracy against the developing world in general, and China in particular, on the part of the rich world so that they are kept down. Once the Chinese saw that they could also exploit the newly formed state-funded "markets" for solar panels and windmills, they also jumped aboard the "climate change" bandwagon.

    5. Global Warming is a global anti-Russian conspiracy. (one of many)

    That the French use so much nuclear power is really quite interesting.

    I wouldn’t personally say they are naturally less wacko than Germans. So, what then is the explanation? Well, I’d suggest French elites galvanized behind the idea, before the Left went antinuclear, and they’ve built such a culture of it, determining public opinions, that it had a much greater momentum than in Germany.

    Possibly even you could reduce it to the counterintuitive explanation that the French are more leftist than the Germans.

    • Replies: @inertial
    The younger generation doesn't seem to know it, but the root of atomophobia is the horror of nuclear weapons. That horror had always been stronger in Germany, for understandable reasons.
  27. @Thorfinnsson
    As for the "Green New Deal" itself, its proponents should be shot.

    For starters, as AK points out, AOC is an atomophobe. Therefore unless she wishes to dismantle industrial society itself, she's a fraud.

    Then there's the fact that these idiots always want to scrap perfectly useful infrastructure long before it has depreciated. I'm 100% okay with requiring all new electric power plants to be green. But scrapping perfectly good thermal fossil fuel plants? Outrageous.

    Atomophobia also stops us from addressing other sources of emissions. Industrial process heat for instance (used in things like cement production and oil refining) could be derived from very high temperature reactors and at lower cost than current fossil fuel methods. This is never even discussed.

    Yet these same atomophobic fools are now increasingly convinced that cattle represent a massive climactic threat and that we must all go vegan!

    Atomophobes who want to force me to eat eggplant should be shot with depleted-uranium bullets.

    • Replies: @for-the-record
    Atomophobes who want to force me to eat eggplant should be shot with depleted-uranium bullets.

    Is it the name you object to? Because whether you're vegetarian or carnivore there are lots of great recipes that use aubergine.

    https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/recipes/collection/aubergine
  28. If environmentalism restricted itself to truly caring for our natural resources, I would have no problem with it. However, with the secret science and questionable funding that these environmental groups taints the whole barrel. It turns out that many claims that environmentalists make have no basis in fact and are not based on good, honest, scientific investigation. This is why environmental scientists have to hide their data, as it does not fit their agenda. A good example of this is the so-called global warming crap, now renamed climate change. For one, the climate is always changing. The East Anglia University emails in which data was purposely falsified by climate scientists comes to mind. Not only that, the climate scientists purposely installed temperature monitoring sensors in cities, contrary to manufacturers recommendations and good scientific practices, in asphalt-covered parking lots, and other heat sink areas in order to prove their (faulty) hypothesis. This is scientific dishonesty at its worst.
    It turns out that the solar system is in a cooling cycle due to decreased solar activity. There are two long-term solar cycles that reinforce themselves when in phase and cancel themselves out when out-of-phase. Look up the Maunder minimum. There are no SUVs on Mars or other planets, yet they are also experiencing the same solar variability.
    Environmentalism has been the method used to impose communist principles on western society, especially in the USA.
    Environmentalists are not content with promoting clean water, air and land, but are hell-bent on controlling human behavior, and yes, promoting extermination plans for much of humanity as these anointed types consider mankind to be a pestilence (except for themselves) to be reduced in population by any means necessary.
    Environmentalists HATE the God-given concept of private property and have imposed government-backed and enforced land use controls on private property owners without compensation clearly an unconstitutional taking of private property. If environmentalists want to control land use, let them purchase it themselves-not by government force. Today the only method of negating government-imposed land use restrictions is shoot, shovel, and shut up.
    If environmentalists had their way, the earth’s human population would be reduced by approximately 90%, with the remainder to (be forced) to live in cities, in soviet-style high rise apartments, utilizing bicycles, buses and trains for transportation. The use of automobiles and access to pristine wilderness (rural) areas would be off-limits to us mere mortals, and would only be available for these anointed environmentalists.
    The endangered species act is another abuse of environmentalism. Species are always changing, to adapt to their environments-survival if the fittest. In fact, the hoopla over the spotted owl (that placed much northwest timber land off-limits to logging) turned out to be nothing but scientific misconduct and arrogance. There are virtually identical species in other parts of the northwest.
    More scientific malpractice occurred when government biologists attempted to plant lynx fur in certain areas to provide an excuse for making those areas off-limits for logging or development. Fortunately, these scientists were caught, however, no punishment was given.
    In a nutshell, today’s environmentalism IS communism like watermelon-green on the outside and red (communist) on the inside.
    It is interesting to note that communist and third-world countries have the WORST environmental conditions on the planet. Instead of the USA and other developed countries spending billions to get rid of that last half-percent of pollution, it would behoove the communist countries to improve their conditions first. Here is a question for you environmentalists: Why is there a push for restrictive environmental regulations, but only on the developed first-world countries, and not the gross polluters such as India and China?

    • Replies: @Pericles

    If environmentalists had their way, the earth’s human population would be reduced by approximately 90%
     
    Terrible, that would leave the world with almost only Whites.
  29. @Stavros H
    1. What country is anywhere near 50% in wind & solar in terms of total primary energy consumption, not just electricity? I very much doubt that anything like that will ever be achieved.

    2. The French state, not Macron, are considering shuttering the country's nuclear power stations in the coming decades due to their age and cost of maintenance. The "environmentalist" angle is always deployed as a smokescreen in order to get naive collage girls and soy boys on board.

    3. If there is any global warming, it's almost negligible. And yes, it is a conspiracy, not by the Chinese government, but by western governments (especially European) that are in desperate lack of hydrocarbon reserves *and above all* fear Russia. Ever increasing global hydrocarbon consumption will gradually tip the global balance of power towards Russia's favor, hence the hypocritical hysteria over climate change and all the associated expensive "green" energy projects, especially in Europe.

    4. A few years back, Chinese officials were saying that global warming is a conspiracy against the developing world in general, and China in particular, on the part of the rich world so that they are kept down. Once the Chinese saw that they could also exploit the newly formed state-funded "markets" for solar panels and windmills, they also jumped aboard the "climate change" bandwagon.

    5. Global Warming is a global anti-Russian conspiracy. (one of many)

    #2 is reasonable, but for the rest:

    5. Global Warming is a global anti-Russian conspiracy. (one of many)

    Apart from the fact that if Global Warming is an anti-Russian conspiracy then it must have been an extraordinarily deep one, dating back to when Svante Arrhenius wrote his groundbreaking paper “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground” in 1896, there is also the inconvenient issue that cutting hydrocarbons consumption while also going on an atomophobic jihad is the one thing sure to boost Russia’s influence in Europe by making it more reliant on its natural gas.

    • Replies: @Silva
    Well, there's no evidence the Svantes ever got over losing the empire ...
  30. Right wingers don’t need to win arguments, they only need balls to firmly tell leftists to go fuck themselves.

    If you tell me that “all scientists agree” about global warming and I have to give up beef for soy and bugs, give up my diesel SUV for some hybrid gay Prius or an overpriced impractical Tesla or some shit, and not reproduce while infinity niggers are imported in Europe, I’d say that even if it were true, the planet ain’t worth saving if that’s the kind of life it can support.

    Not to mention why are we even still on this planet when disassembling the asteroids alone for O’Neill cylinders will give a million times the Earth’s living area. And the atomophobia is one of the big reasons why the real space age has not begun yet, the other is subsidizing subhumans.

    Certain disciplines of science nowadays are political to the point of being useless. You can’t trust anything. I don’t even laugh at anti-vaxxers anymore, they could be right for all I know.
    After all, I haven’t had a flu shot in more than 25 years and I haven’t got the flu in the last quarter of a century. My colleague does a flu shot almost every year and also gets the flu almost every year. Coincidence? Fuck if I care, but it makes me think a little.

    The scientific consensus was also that the Sun was orbiting the Earth in Galileo’s days, or how about that doctor who got the idea that it’s not bad to wash hands when operating and was laughed at by the “intellectuals” at the time.

  31. @silviosilver

    Wind and solar are at best accessories to hydrocarbons/nuclear, not replacements.
     
    So your position is that in the deep future - 2000 years, 20,000 or 200,000; pick a number - when even the upper estimates of nuclear fuel reserves have been exhausted there is literally (and I mean literally literally) no chance that humankind (or whatever has replaced us) will generate electricity solely via solar means?

    Prior to the industrial revolution we lived only off solar, wind, hydro. So on some level it can obviously be done. Will that scenario support a huge brown population living a life of ease though?

  32. @songbird
    Atomophobes who want to force me to eat eggplant should be shot with depleted-uranium bullets.

    Atomophobes who want to force me to eat eggplant should be shot with depleted-uranium bullets.

    Is it the name you object to? Because whether you’re vegetarian or carnivore there are lots of great recipes that use aubergine.

    https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/recipes/collection/aubergine

    • Replies: @songbird
    I'm indifferent to eggplant and not an epicurean. I object to giving up beef based on their weirdo desires, which include open borders.

    Not two weeks ago, I was eating lunch with someone who was giving stats about how much water cows need. That is insane globalist talk. America doesn't have a water shortage or a cow shortage. My ethnic culture is infused with ancient references to cattle raids. Not eggplant raids.

    I'd only give it up if I got something out of it. Not because they want something out of it, like four billion more Africans. Maybe, America should be a vegan country for nonwhites.
  33. @Stavros H
    1. What country is anywhere near 50% in wind & solar in terms of total primary energy consumption, not just electricity? I very much doubt that anything like that will ever be achieved.

    2. The French state, not Macron, are considering shuttering the country's nuclear power stations in the coming decades due to their age and cost of maintenance. The "environmentalist" angle is always deployed as a smokescreen in order to get naive collage girls and soy boys on board.

    3. If there is any global warming, it's almost negligible. And yes, it is a conspiracy, not by the Chinese government, but by western governments (especially European) that are in desperate lack of hydrocarbon reserves *and above all* fear Russia. Ever increasing global hydrocarbon consumption will gradually tip the global balance of power towards Russia's favor, hence the hypocritical hysteria over climate change and all the associated expensive "green" energy projects, especially in Europe.

    4. A few years back, Chinese officials were saying that global warming is a conspiracy against the developing world in general, and China in particular, on the part of the rich world so that they are kept down. Once the Chinese saw that they could also exploit the newly formed state-funded "markets" for solar panels and windmills, they also jumped aboard the "climate change" bandwagon.

    5. Global Warming is a global anti-Russian conspiracy. (one of many)

    What country is anywhere near 50% in wind & solar in terms of total primary energy consumption, not just electricity? I very much doubt that anything like that will ever be achieved.

    Sweden at this very time of writing generates 35% hydro and 15% wind (and 40% nuclear) for its power grid. Before the current wind power mania, it was more like 90% hydro+nuclear.

  34. @iffen
    (I am personally more a fan of downsizing the welfare state and replacing it with basic income).

    In the US, the entire welfare bureauracy can be eliminated except for a surrogate group of social welfare workers to work with the "truly" incompetent and disabled. However, the UBI needs to be a restricted UBI. Deducted from the UBI would be health insurance premiums and retirement premiums (including disability and long-term care premiums). Capable and motivated people could voucher their restricted income into better and supplementary plans. The government could "franchise" the basic programs to the insurance industry.

    This vision relies on a rather utopian view of the welfare class. Might work in certain countries, but unlikely in the US.

    • Replies: @iffen
    This vision relies on a rather utopian view of the welfare class.


    No, I have a very realistic view of the lumpen. Hell, but for the Grace of God, I …

    Notice the take backs: health care, disability, retirement and long-term health care.

    If they want to work and supplement their UBI, fantastic. If they want to be alkies or druggies and live in the street and eat out of dumpsters, that's their choice. But when they get sick, disabled, or too old to work, they have paid their premiums.

  35. @Anon
    Re. French brains, there is this license to print money called US medical license. Some countries, notably India and the Philippines, are extremely effective at making doctors to the America specifications. It does not take a massive genius, since Indians passing all the required exams can be as young as 20. (Yes, that's the age for graduating from med school in that shithole.)

    Browse any US hospital webpage, looking for profiles of current residents. My wife did it, in order to avoid wasting time with US supremacists who don't read applications from foreign doctors. (Funny enough, these tend to be places like Vermont, Kentucky, or Puerto Rico, where politicians tend to whine about lack of doctors.) You will never see a French resident doctor. British or German - very rarely; Irish or Italian - quite common; but never French.

    A similar exercise was done by me several years ago, when I went for an US PhD in STEM. There, Chinese and Indians students are common, especially at lower-ranked unis, where hands are more needed than brains. Germans and British are decently common, especially at better unis. Russians are common in loser's departments. (WTF, theoretical maths?) But I haven't seen a single French PhD student on any university website. I haven't seen a French PhD student in two Ivies.

    Some older lab bosses, whose best ideas came in France, are recruited to US universities, but it's a drop in a bucket. There are many Italians and Hungarians who got Nobels after moving to US, but I can't recall any such French.

    Yes, there are quite a few Frenchies in New York, but I wouldn't call them brainy. They are plainly rich and stupid. Who would live a better place, because it's expensive? That's why you have the money, to spend, in order to live in a nice place. If you want money, merely because you want to hold on to as much money as possible, you would be a moron.

    It does not take a massive genius, since Indians passing all the required exams can be as young as 20. (Yes, that’s the age for graduating from med school in that shithole.)

    In Sweden, medschool (and lawschool) are undergraduate, not graduate, programs. So you can, at least theoretically, be done a few years earlier than your US contemporaries.

    On the downside, I guess you lose some required humanities courses.

    • Replies: @Anon
    Almost anywhere in the world, medicine is an undergraduate degree, possibly longer than the usual school. This means interactions with patients start around the age of 22. But these Indian graduates claim the have cared for patients since the age of 18, which is patent nonsense. Human brains fail to grasp abstractions until the age of 12, and are rather devoid of morality up to maybe 17 years - so you can't start medical training earlier. "Poo in the loo" brains are struggling with abstractions even afterwards, but rote learning, combined with Western gullibility, can take them quite far.
  36. @for-the-record
    Atomophobes who want to force me to eat eggplant should be shot with depleted-uranium bullets.

    Is it the name you object to? Because whether you're vegetarian or carnivore there are lots of great recipes that use aubergine.

    https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/recipes/collection/aubergine

    I’m indifferent to eggplant and not an epicurean. I object to giving up beef based on their weirdo desires, which include open borders.

    Not two weeks ago, I was eating lunch with someone who was giving stats about how much water cows need. That is insane globalist talk. America doesn’t have a water shortage or a cow shortage. My ethnic culture is infused with ancient references to cattle raids. Not eggplant raids.

    I’d only give it up if I got something out of it. Not because they want something out of it, like four billion more Africans. Maybe, America should be a vegan country for nonwhites.

  37. Atomophobes.

    Nice strawman word.

    Coal is not made from atoms eh?

    But sure, the nuclear power industry would like us to think that they’ve got a monopoly on atoms in the same way it thinks it has a monopoly on clever wordsmiths to introduce mindbending, nonsensical words like atomophobes.

    Ye shall know them by their handiwork.

    There is no need for nuclear power plants when we have all that coal, enough coal in fact to last for centuries. Because there is so much coal, traditionally it has been our cheapest fuel, and should be our cheapest fuel still but for all the gratuitous penalties imposed on its use, making construction of new coal-fired power plants prohibitively expensive. Barrack Obama promised that his war on coal would necessarily result in skyrocketing energy costs, and still the poor people lapped it up.

    As they say, there ain’t no cure for stupid, but at least Uncle Barry delivered on that promise, and the folks down on the plantation just have to pick more cotton to get the juice.

    Coal is entirely too cheap and efficient for TPTB to let the poor folks have such a good fuel, because carbon bad. You can’t further squeeze your downtrodden masses with cheap energy, but you can drive them from their homes and onto the streets with expensive, inefficient, unreliable wind turbines and solar arrays, which can’t provide base load power, which need conventional back-up anyway, and which rely on subsidies to stay in business. But the solution is build more homeless shelters.

    The Green Weenies have convinced many gullible people that CO₂ in Earth’s atmosphere controls Earth’s climate, and that very much more of the magic molecule in our air may lead to runaway global warming, perishing polar bears, melting ice caps, sprinting spiders, migrating bird confusion, the lists go on…

    Global Warming Ate My Homework: 100 Things Blamed on Global Warming

    A (Not Quite) Complete List Of Things Supposedly Caused By Global Warming

    Atoms are fine, of course, but smashing them is another story.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Aubrey McClendon did more to kneecap coal than Barry ever did.
  38. @anarchyst
    If environmentalism restricted itself to truly caring for our natural resources, I would have no problem with it. However, with the secret science and questionable funding that these environmental groups taints the whole barrel. It turns out that many claims that environmentalists make have no basis in fact and are not based on good, honest, scientific investigation. This is why environmental scientists have to hide their data, as it does not fit their agenda. A good example of this is the so-called global warming crap, now renamed climate change. For one, the climate is always changing. The East Anglia University emails in which data was purposely falsified by climate scientists comes to mind. Not only that, the climate scientists purposely installed temperature monitoring sensors in cities, contrary to manufacturers recommendations and good scientific practices, in asphalt-covered parking lots, and other heat sink areas in order to prove their (faulty) hypothesis. This is scientific dishonesty at its worst.
    It turns out that the solar system is in a cooling cycle due to decreased solar activity. There are two long-term solar cycles that reinforce themselves when in phase and cancel themselves out when out-of-phase. Look up the Maunder minimum. There are no SUVs on Mars or other planets, yet they are also experiencing the same solar variability.
    Environmentalism has been the method used to impose communist principles on western society, especially in the USA.
    Environmentalists are not content with promoting clean water, air and land, but are hell-bent on controlling human behavior, and yes, promoting extermination plans for much of humanity as these anointed types consider mankind to be a pestilence (except for themselves) to be reduced in population by any means necessary.
    Environmentalists HATE the God-given concept of private property and have imposed government-backed and enforced land use controls on private property owners without compensation clearly an unconstitutional taking of private property. If environmentalists want to control land use, let them purchase it themselves-not by government force. Today the only method of negating government-imposed land use restrictions is shoot, shovel, and shut up.
    If environmentalists had their way, the earth’s human population would be reduced by approximately 90%, with the remainder to (be forced) to live in cities, in soviet-style high rise apartments, utilizing bicycles, buses and trains for transportation. The use of automobiles and access to pristine wilderness (rural) areas would be off-limits to us mere mortals, and would only be available for these anointed environmentalists.
    The endangered species act is another abuse of environmentalism. Species are always changing, to adapt to their environments-survival if the fittest. In fact, the hoopla over the spotted owl (that placed much northwest timber land off-limits to logging) turned out to be nothing but scientific misconduct and arrogance. There are virtually identical species in other parts of the northwest.
    More scientific malpractice occurred when government biologists attempted to plant lynx fur in certain areas to provide an excuse for making those areas off-limits for logging or development. Fortunately, these scientists were caught, however, no punishment was given.
    In a nutshell, today’s environmentalism IS communism like watermelon-green on the outside and red (communist) on the inside.
    It is interesting to note that communist and third-world countries have the WORST environmental conditions on the planet. Instead of the USA and other developed countries spending billions to get rid of that last half-percent of pollution, it would behoove the communist countries to improve their conditions first. Here is a question for you environmentalists: Why is there a push for restrictive environmental regulations, but only on the developed first-world countries, and not the gross polluters such as India and China?

    If environmentalists had their way, the earth’s human population would be reduced by approximately 90%

    Terrible, that would leave the world with almost only Whites.

  39. @songbird
    That the French use so much nuclear power is really quite interesting.

    I wouldn't personally say they are naturally less wacko than Germans. So, what then is the explanation? Well, I'd suggest French elites galvanized behind the idea, before the Left went antinuclear, and they've built such a culture of it, determining public opinions, that it had a much greater momentum than in Germany.

    Possibly even you could reduce it to the counterintuitive explanation that the French are more leftist than the Germans.

    The younger generation doesn’t seem to know it, but the root of atomophobia is the horror of nuclear weapons. That horror had always been stronger in Germany, for understandable reasons.

    • Replies: @songbird
    That may indeed be the answer.

    Not that the French had a nuclear deterrent. But that Germany was split, and they had communism on their doorstep. And perhaps more visceral memories of the war and cities being bombed.

    That psychological leakage or synesthesia probably explains a lot of modern politics.
  40. @inertial
    The younger generation doesn't seem to know it, but the root of atomophobia is the horror of nuclear weapons. That horror had always been stronger in Germany, for understandable reasons.

    That may indeed be the answer.

    Not that the French had a nuclear deterrent. But that Germany was split, and they had communism on their doorstep. And perhaps more visceral memories of the war and cities being bombed.

    That psychological leakage or synesthesia probably explains a lot of modern politics.

  41. Anon[297] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pericles

    It does not take a massive genius, since Indians passing all the required exams can be as young as 20. (Yes, that’s the age for graduating from med school in that shithole.)

     

    In Sweden, medschool (and lawschool) are undergraduate, not graduate, programs. So you can, at least theoretically, be done a few years earlier than your US contemporaries.

    On the downside, I guess you lose some required humanities courses.

    Almost anywhere in the world, medicine is an undergraduate degree, possibly longer than the usual school. This means interactions with patients start around the age of 22. But these Indian graduates claim the have cared for patients since the age of 18, which is patent nonsense. Human brains fail to grasp abstractions until the age of 12, and are rather devoid of morality up to maybe 17 years – so you can’t start medical training earlier. “Poo in the loo” brains are struggling with abstractions even afterwards, but rote learning, combined with Western gullibility, can take them quite far.

    • Replies: @Pericles
    Yes, quite unlikely to be up to Western standards. But, who knows, maybe at age 18 they still get to practice on some poor street squatters.
  42. I’m a skeptic on global warming but I don’t think most of the elites believe it at all. The Paris Accords are an impractical joke. If we were serious, we’d invest heavily in something like a thorium + hydrogen economy. Safer, cheaper nuclear energy and a more practical way to power our vehicles.

    • Replies: @(((They))) Live
    tTorium is a good idea but you can forget about Hydrogen, its a joke, you won't see it power cars in large numbers
  43. @Anon
    Almost anywhere in the world, medicine is an undergraduate degree, possibly longer than the usual school. This means interactions with patients start around the age of 22. But these Indian graduates claim the have cared for patients since the age of 18, which is patent nonsense. Human brains fail to grasp abstractions until the age of 12, and are rather devoid of morality up to maybe 17 years - so you can't start medical training earlier. "Poo in the loo" brains are struggling with abstractions even afterwards, but rote learning, combined with Western gullibility, can take them quite far.

    Yes, quite unlikely to be up to Western standards. But, who knows, maybe at age 18 they still get to practice on some poor street squatters.

  44. @Pericles
    This vision relies on a rather utopian view of the welfare class. Might work in certain countries, but unlikely in the US.

    This vision relies on a rather utopian view of the welfare class.

    No, I have a very realistic view of the lumpen. Hell, but for the Grace of God, I …

    Notice the take backs: health care, disability, retirement and long-term health care.

    If they want to work and supplement their UBI, fantastic. If they want to be alkies or druggies and live in the street and eat out of dumpsters, that’s their choice. But when they get sick, disabled, or too old to work, they have paid their premiums.

  45. @Anon
    Re. French brains, there is this license to print money called US medical license. Some countries, notably India and the Philippines, are extremely effective at making doctors to the America specifications. It does not take a massive genius, since Indians passing all the required exams can be as young as 20. (Yes, that's the age for graduating from med school in that shithole.)

    Browse any US hospital webpage, looking for profiles of current residents. My wife did it, in order to avoid wasting time with US supremacists who don't read applications from foreign doctors. (Funny enough, these tend to be places like Vermont, Kentucky, or Puerto Rico, where politicians tend to whine about lack of doctors.) You will never see a French resident doctor. British or German - very rarely; Irish or Italian - quite common; but never French.

    A similar exercise was done by me several years ago, when I went for an US PhD in STEM. There, Chinese and Indians students are common, especially at lower-ranked unis, where hands are more needed than brains. Germans and British are decently common, especially at better unis. Russians are common in loser's departments. (WTF, theoretical maths?) But I haven't seen a single French PhD student on any university website. I haven't seen a French PhD student in two Ivies.

    Some older lab bosses, whose best ideas came in France, are recruited to US universities, but it's a drop in a bucket. There are many Italians and Hungarians who got Nobels after moving to US, but I can't recall any such French.

    Yes, there are quite a few Frenchies in New York, but I wouldn't call them brainy. They are plainly rich and stupid. Who would live a better place, because it's expensive? That's why you have the money, to spend, in order to live in a nice place. If you want money, merely because you want to hold on to as much money as possible, you would be a moron.

    Absolutely, you are correct. There is no brain drain problem for France. There are some French in London but mostly in financial sector and advertising. There is also French Eurotrash in NYC. I would let them all go. Good riddance for France. This whining about the “bleeding its best”

    The neoliberal reforms he is pushing are ultimately necessary – under its high-tax economic regime, France is inexorably bleeding its best, brightest, and richest, as fellow UR columnist Guillaume Durocher would confirm.

    is what you may expect from neoliberals and their useful idiots. For lowering the taxes the neoliberals, the least loyal and least patriotic segment of any society will use arguments appealing to nationalist and patriots. Cunts.

  46. @Sparkon
    Atomophobes.

    Nice strawman word.

    Coal is not made from atoms eh?

    But sure, the nuclear power industry would like us to think that they've got a monopoly on atoms in the same way it thinks it has a monopoly on clever wordsmiths to introduce mindbending, nonsensical words like atomophobes.

    Ye shall know them by their handiwork.

    There is no need for nuclear power plants when we have all that coal, enough coal in fact to last for centuries. Because there is so much coal, traditionally it has been our cheapest fuel, and should be our cheapest fuel still but for all the gratuitous penalties imposed on its use, making construction of new coal-fired power plants prohibitively expensive. Barrack Obama promised that his war on coal would necessarily result in skyrocketing energy costs, and still the poor people lapped it up.

    As they say, there ain't no cure for stupid, but at least Uncle Barry delivered on that promise, and the folks down on the plantation just have to pick more cotton to get the juice.

    Coal is entirely too cheap and efficient for TPTB to let the poor folks have such a good fuel, because carbon bad. You can't further squeeze your downtrodden masses with cheap energy, but you can drive them from their homes and onto the streets with expensive, inefficient, unreliable wind turbines and solar arrays, which can't provide base load power, which need conventional back-up anyway, and which rely on subsidies to stay in business. But the solution is build more homeless shelters.

    The Green Weenies have convinced many gullible people that CO₂ in Earth's atmosphere controls Earth's climate, and that very much more of the magic molecule in our air may lead to runaway global warming, perishing polar bears, melting ice caps, sprinting spiders, migrating bird confusion, the lists go on...

    Global Warming Ate My Homework: 100 Things Blamed on Global Warming

    A (Not Quite) Complete List Of Things Supposedly Caused By Global Warming

    Atoms are fine, of course, but smashing them is another story.

    Aubrey McClendon did more to kneecap coal than Barry ever did.

  47. @iffen
    (I am personally more a fan of downsizing the welfare state and replacing it with basic income).

    In the US, the entire welfare bureauracy can be eliminated except for a surrogate group of social welfare workers to work with the "truly" incompetent and disabled. However, the UBI needs to be a restricted UBI. Deducted from the UBI would be health insurance premiums and retirement premiums (including disability and long-term care premiums). Capable and motivated people could voucher their restricted income into better and supplementary plans. The government could "franchise" the basic programs to the insurance industry.

    Paying people to do nothing is objectionable on principle.

    That said, if we as a society are determined to have a welfare state, then at the very least UBI is more efficient and eliminates an entire class of do-gooder sociologists, social workers, and other associated state parasites.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Paying people to do nothing is objectionable on principle.

    Then people on the Boards of Directors shouldn’t be paid.

    You understand the efficiency and appreciate the fact that entire departments, like HUD, for example, could be eliminated. All that you would be doing is rationalizing the welfare state, eliminating inefficiencies, removing the arbitrariness of the current system (not a small point), abolishing the rent seekers and sending “constituency representatives,” individuals and organizations, to the trash bin. The NGOs and charities could take up the slack not provided for in the UBI.

    Don't ever let principles get in the way of doing the right thing.

  48. @Thorfinnsson
    Paying people to do nothing is objectionable on principle.

    That said, if we as a society are determined to have a welfare state, then at the very least UBI is more efficient and eliminates an entire class of do-gooder sociologists, social workers, and other associated state parasites.

    Paying people to do nothing is objectionable on principle.

    Then people on the Boards of Directors shouldn’t be paid.

    You understand the efficiency and appreciate the fact that entire departments, like HUD, for example, could be eliminated. All that you would be doing is rationalizing the welfare state, eliminating inefficiencies, removing the arbitrariness of the current system (not a small point), abolishing the rent seekers and sending “constituency representatives,” individuals and organizations, to the trash bin. The NGOs and charities could take up the slack not provided for in the UBI.

    Don’t ever let principles get in the way of doing the right thing.

    • Replies: @songbird
    I think it is always interesting to reconsider how we spend money.

    Like for instance, we spend a lot or money keeping black males in jail. Probably would make more sense to pay them to move to a black country. Throw in the cost or educating them and welfare and it would probably be a tidy sum. We could probably guess the worst ones when they are only boys.

    But a lot of these things are politically difficult. Bureaucrats often have cushier jobs than they would be able to get in the private sector. The state is very maternalistic too.
  49. @Fidelios Automata
    I'm a skeptic on global warming but I don't think most of the elites believe it at all. The Paris Accords are an impractical joke. If we were serious, we'd invest heavily in something like a thorium + hydrogen economy. Safer, cheaper nuclear energy and a more practical way to power our vehicles.

    tTorium is a good idea but you can forget about Hydrogen, its a joke, you won’t see it power cars in large numbers

  50. @Spisarevski
    While I am far from an atomophobe, solar has a much bigger potential and it's a pity that nobody talks about the real issue - it has to be in space.

    We already have a giant fusion reactor (the Sun), just build stuff around it and collect the enormous amounts of energy it radiates every second.

    Isaac Arthur mentioned in an episode about power satellites that this is one of the better bets for a realistic kickstart of the real space age - the world energy industry is about 10 trillion dollars and coincidentally, that would be the cost to launch enough satellites to beam power back to Earth via microwaves and have 100% of the world energy needs covered with clean renewable energy. This will be economical and will pay for itself relatively soon, but it would require a huge initial investment and a grand political vision.

    Isaac Arthur is not to be taken seriously

    If anyone was going to push for space based Solar it would be SpaceX and Musk, but he has no interest in the idea, he says the numbers just don’t add up, keep in mind that musk is working on manned missions to Mars and a massive satellite communications system, the number for space solar must be terrible

    • Replies: @silviosilver

    Isaac Arthur is not to be taken seriously
     
    (((They))) Live is not to be taken seriously.

    See?

    It's not really a meaningful statement, is it.

    Personally, I like the guy. To my delight, I found that he has fleshed out ideas that I myself have had to much greater depth than I - woefully lacking in scientific knowledge - ever could have, and put forward many ideas that I'd never considered to boot.

    Space solar has spiritual possibilities in it that are lacking in all-out nuclear. All-out nuclear would be worth it just to savor the rivers of environutter tears it's sure to generate (not that it would in any way "hurt" the environment), but for me it doesn't even begin to compare to the appeal of expansion into space.

    Is Musk right about space solar? I'm in no position to say. Clearly, plenty of people with the relevant technical expertise disagree with him, so it's far from an open-shut question imo. I just think it pays to be skeptical whenever rich and powerful people - which Musk surely is - argue so forcefully for or against a certain idea, at least until you can ascertain what their personal stake in the matter is.

  51. What exactly is the difference between neoliberalism and neoliberalism.txt?

    Also, in regards to the budget, Republicans don’t have any credibility to argue against budget-busting programs due to the fact that their tax cuts for the rich have consistently blown huge holes in the budget.

    • Replies: @iffen
    What exactly is the difference between neoliberalism and neoliberalism.txt?

    I think that he is trying to get at the difference between the elites that are the (real) neoliberals and the obsequious lapdog press and talking heads. Kids these days, as always, have to do the jargon thing in order to separate themselves from us old fogies.

  52. @Mr. XYZ
    What exactly is the difference between neoliberalism and neoliberalism.txt?

    Also, in regards to the budget, Republicans don't have any credibility to argue against budget-busting programs due to the fact that their tax cuts for the rich have consistently blown huge holes in the budget.

    What exactly is the difference between neoliberalism and neoliberalism.txt?

    I think that he is trying to get at the difference between the elites that are the (real) neoliberals and the obsequious lapdog press and talking heads. Kids these days, as always, have to do the jargon thing in order to separate themselves from us old fogies.

  53. Any real GREEN plan must exclude REDS.

    The only viable option for replacing high density, high reliability power sources (oil, gas, coal) is an alternate high density, high reliability solution (nuclear). The U.S. has tons of Thorium fuel buried in the desert (1) and technology from Oak Ridge Nuclear Labs to use it. A pilot scale Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor [LFTR] was run for 20,000 hours back in the 60’s and 70’s and all of the documentation was meticulously kept (2).

    The official RED non-solutions are:
    — Toxic Solar Death Cells that will position landfills, and
    — Bald Eagle (and other endangered species) exterminating Windmills

    These are intentionally chosen to fall short. This deliberate reduction of available electricity along with its intermittent nature destabilising the power grid are are opportunities for RED’s to invade homes and businesses with ‘smart’ solutions that expand government control over almost every part of life in the U.S.

    _____________

    (1) https://energyfromthorium.com/2006/07/07/how-to-throw-away-eight-years-worth-of-electricity/

    (2) https://energyfromthorium.com/msrp/

  54. @iffen
    Paying people to do nothing is objectionable on principle.

    Then people on the Boards of Directors shouldn’t be paid.

    You understand the efficiency and appreciate the fact that entire departments, like HUD, for example, could be eliminated. All that you would be doing is rationalizing the welfare state, eliminating inefficiencies, removing the arbitrariness of the current system (not a small point), abolishing the rent seekers and sending “constituency representatives,” individuals and organizations, to the trash bin. The NGOs and charities could take up the slack not provided for in the UBI.

    Don't ever let principles get in the way of doing the right thing.

    I think it is always interesting to reconsider how we spend money.

    Like for instance, we spend a lot or money keeping black males in jail. Probably would make more sense to pay them to move to a black country. Throw in the cost or educating them and welfare and it would probably be a tidy sum. We could probably guess the worst ones when they are only boys.

    But a lot of these things are politically difficult. Bureaucrats often have cushier jobs than they would be able to get in the private sector. The state is very maternalistic too.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Probably would make more sense to pay them to move to a black country.


    Well, this is their country too, but keeping them in jail does reduce the out of jail crime rate.
  55. @songbird
    I think it is always interesting to reconsider how we spend money.

    Like for instance, we spend a lot or money keeping black males in jail. Probably would make more sense to pay them to move to a black country. Throw in the cost or educating them and welfare and it would probably be a tidy sum. We could probably guess the worst ones when they are only boys.

    But a lot of these things are politically difficult. Bureaucrats often have cushier jobs than they would be able to get in the private sector. The state is very maternalistic too.

    Probably would make more sense to pay them to move to a black country.

    Well, this is their country too, but keeping them in jail does reduce the out of jail crime rate.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean

    Well, this is their country too, but keeping them in jail does reduce the out of jail crime rate.
     
    A Special Autonomous Region of New Afrika could be cobbled out of, perhaps, most of Georgia and parts of other states.
    , @songbird
    Anyone saying that should have to stand in front of a blue-screened backdrop of Detroit. But if there is any value in the ruin, it is in its lession: you cannot under any circumstances buy the status quo. It is a complete and total delusion. You can only buy a trend, and usually the trend is negative.

    US federal prisons cost about $32,000/per inmate annually. There's about 740,000 blacks in jail in America. Some of that is state and local, but it is still a large expense, which would probably be better as a more future-orientated investment.

    Locking up blacks, helps maintain the illusion that they are more functional than they are. It encourages immigration from black countries. The few people who notice, see it as an injustice, as do most blacks. It helps motivate them to agitate.
  56. @(((They))) Live
    Isaac Arthur is not to be taken seriously

    If anyone was going to push for space based Solar it would be SpaceX and Musk, but he has no interest in the idea, he says the numbers just don't add up, keep in mind that musk is working on manned missions to Mars and a massive satellite communications system, the number for space solar must be terrible

    Isaac Arthur is not to be taken seriously

    (((They))) Live is not to be taken seriously.

    See?

    It’s not really a meaningful statement, is it.

    Personally, I like the guy. To my delight, I found that he has fleshed out ideas that I myself have had to much greater depth than I – woefully lacking in scientific knowledge – ever could have, and put forward many ideas that I’d never considered to boot.

    Space solar has spiritual possibilities in it that are lacking in all-out nuclear. All-out nuclear would be worth it just to savor the rivers of environutter tears it’s sure to generate (not that it would in any way “hurt” the environment), but for me it doesn’t even begin to compare to the appeal of expansion into space.

    Is Musk right about space solar? I’m in no position to say. Clearly, plenty of people with the relevant technical expertise disagree with him, so it’s far from an open-shut question imo. I just think it pays to be skeptical whenever rich and powerful people – which Musk surely is – argue so forcefully for or against a certain idea, at least until you can ascertain what their personal stake in the matter is.

  57. @iffen
    Probably would make more sense to pay them to move to a black country.


    Well, this is their country too, but keeping them in jail does reduce the out of jail crime rate.

    Well, this is their country too, but keeping them in jail does reduce the out of jail crime rate.

    A Special Autonomous Region of New Afrika could be cobbled out of, perhaps, most of Georgia and parts of other states.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    It's child's play to invent such schemes on paper, and even to get a few like-minded internet commenters to voice enthusiastic support for them.

    Implementing the scheme is much more difficult, and requires all sorts of actual expertise (legal, logistical, and so on).

    But light years more difficult still is building real-world political support for the scheme. For now, these schemes reside solely in the realm of sheerest fantasy.

  58. @Hyperborean

    Well, this is their country too, but keeping them in jail does reduce the out of jail crime rate.
     
    A Special Autonomous Region of New Afrika could be cobbled out of, perhaps, most of Georgia and parts of other states.

    It’s child’s play to invent such schemes on paper, and even to get a few like-minded internet commenters to voice enthusiastic support for them.

    Implementing the scheme is much more difficult, and requires all sorts of actual expertise (legal, logistical, and so on).

    But light years more difficult still is building real-world political support for the scheme. For now, these schemes reside solely in the realm of sheerest fantasy.

    • Replies: @silviosilver

    But light years more difficult still is building real-world political support for the scheme. For now, these schemes reside solely in the realm of sheerest fantasy.
     
    When thinking about the magnitude of the task, consider this.

    In Israel, where awareness of the need to "do something" about the Arabs is orders of magnitude greater than the awareness of the need to "do something" about blacks is in America, political parties that expressly vow to "do something" don't enjoy anything like majority support.

    Also, regarding your specific proposal ("cobbled together out of Georgia" - not even the most negrofuxxated state, btw) runs smack bang into the NIMBY problem, itself a huge obstacle to overcome.

    , @dfordoom

    But light years more difficult still is building real-world political support for the scheme. For now, these schemes reside solely in the realm of sheerest fantasy.
     
    Agreed. And they distract people from looking for workable solutions, and they make it much much harder for workable solutions to gain political traction.
  59. @silviosilver
    It's child's play to invent such schemes on paper, and even to get a few like-minded internet commenters to voice enthusiastic support for them.

    Implementing the scheme is much more difficult, and requires all sorts of actual expertise (legal, logistical, and so on).

    But light years more difficult still is building real-world political support for the scheme. For now, these schemes reside solely in the realm of sheerest fantasy.

    But light years more difficult still is building real-world political support for the scheme. For now, these schemes reside solely in the realm of sheerest fantasy.

    When thinking about the magnitude of the task, consider this.

    In Israel, where awareness of the need to “do something” about the Arabs is orders of magnitude greater than the awareness of the need to “do something” about blacks is in America, political parties that expressly vow to “do something” don’t enjoy anything like majority support.

    Also, regarding your specific proposal (“cobbled together out of Georgia” – not even the most negrofuxxated state, btw) runs smack bang into the NIMBY problem, itself a huge obstacle to overcome.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean

    (“cobbled together out of Georgia” – not even the most negrofuxxated state, btw)
     
    I was basing it on the impression this was one of the territories they wanted. But I can see the 'core' seems to be western Mississippi and parts of Alabama.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/New_2000_black_percent.gif/1280px-New_2000_black_percent.gif

    As for being unrealistic, there are many ideas that seem or seemed unrealistic that nevertheless had an influence.

    As for Israel, I don't know why you say that. The Israeli right are gradually having their proposals implemented, even if some of them, like raising the electoral threshold, seem to backfire.
  60. @silviosilver

    But light years more difficult still is building real-world political support for the scheme. For now, these schemes reside solely in the realm of sheerest fantasy.
     
    When thinking about the magnitude of the task, consider this.

    In Israel, where awareness of the need to "do something" about the Arabs is orders of magnitude greater than the awareness of the need to "do something" about blacks is in America, political parties that expressly vow to "do something" don't enjoy anything like majority support.

    Also, regarding your specific proposal ("cobbled together out of Georgia" - not even the most negrofuxxated state, btw) runs smack bang into the NIMBY problem, itself a huge obstacle to overcome.

    (“cobbled together out of Georgia” – not even the most negrofuxxated state, btw)

    I was basing it on the impression this was one of the territories they wanted. But I can see the ‘core’ seems to be western Mississippi and parts of Alabama.

    As for being unrealistic, there are many ideas that seem or seemed unrealistic that nevertheless had an influence.

    As for Israel, I don’t know why you say that. The Israeli right are gradually having their proposals implemented, even if some of them, like raising the electoral threshold, seem to backfire.

    • Replies: @iffen
    The ghost of King Cotton!
  61. @iffen
    Probably would make more sense to pay them to move to a black country.


    Well, this is their country too, but keeping them in jail does reduce the out of jail crime rate.

    Anyone saying that should have to stand in front of a blue-screened backdrop of Detroit. But if there is any value in the ruin, it is in its lession: you cannot under any circumstances buy the status quo. It is a complete and total delusion. You can only buy a trend, and usually the trend is negative.

    US federal prisons cost about $32,000/per inmate annually. There’s about 740,000 blacks in jail in America. Some of that is state and local, but it is still a large expense, which would probably be better as a more future-orientated investment.

    Locking up blacks, helps maintain the illusion that they are more functional than they are. It encourages immigration from black countries. The few people who notice, see it as an injustice, as do most blacks. It helps motivate them to agitate.

  62. @Hyperborean

    (“cobbled together out of Georgia” – not even the most negrofuxxated state, btw)
     
    I was basing it on the impression this was one of the territories they wanted. But I can see the 'core' seems to be western Mississippi and parts of Alabama.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/New_2000_black_percent.gif/1280px-New_2000_black_percent.gif

    As for being unrealistic, there are many ideas that seem or seemed unrealistic that nevertheless had an influence.

    As for Israel, I don't know why you say that. The Israeli right are gradually having their proposals implemented, even if some of them, like raising the electoral threshold, seem to backfire.

    The ghost of King Cotton!

    • Replies: @Hyperborean

    The ghost of King Cotton!
     
    The boundary fits well with the Appalachian mountains.

    https://earthhabitat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/appalachian_mountains.jpg
  63. @utu
    From my comment today on Ocasio-Cortez on another thread.

    Ocasio-Cortez created an opening, a perfect window of opportunity for the new right to step in and create the populist movement. Ocasio-Cortez is not hated by Democrats because she talks nonsense but because she broached the taboo subject which is the economical power structure, financial elites, workers right. If the new right wants to become successful and turn into a populist movement it has to adopt this part of Ocasio-Cortez platform. Trump won because he alluded to these issues. The border security and the crimes of illegals was just salt and pepper added to the main dish. Do not believe whatever the horse faced Ann Coulter is saying.
     
    And I should add that environmental issues should be coopted in the good old tradition of populist parties of the 20 c. because the environment is our national heritage and treasure with less emphasis of saving Mother Earth and such nonsense. And the CO2 is not a pollution and should not be a chief concern but it could be use for tactical reasons to attract the loonies.

    Okay, so basically you are advocating a combination of cuckservative race-blindness and populist economic policies, while welcoming an ever increasing number of legal immigrants.

    How would this prevent mass immigration transforming America and all other white countries in the world into countries of color?

    And why would it actually be either more successful or better than the current Bernie Sanders type leftism? I guess it wouldn’t get more elite support.

    If you added immigration restrictionism, it’d be indistinguishable from Steve Sailer’s civic nationalism, except Sailer wants to use IQ as an explanation for black failure, but you are against that either, so you won’t be in a position to deny that black failure is caused by the legacy of slavery and institutional racism.

    I think you should go back to using the AaronB moniker to write New Age mumbo-jumbo, at least it makes more sense than this.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @utu
    Okay, so basically you are advocating ... - No, I don't. Read my comment with understanding before wasting you breadth next time.
  64. @iffen
    The ghost of King Cotton!

    The ghost of King Cotton!

    The boundary fits well with the Appalachian mountains.

  65. The boundary fits well with the Appalachian mountains.

    Yes, and the Mississippi River.

    You can see where the Appalachian foothills end in the curve of the fishhook (the Black Belt) in Alabama which then merges further west with the Delta of the Mississippi. You can also see the bottomlands of the Tennessee River.

  66. @Thorfinnsson
    The growing popularity on the left of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is disturbing, even if MMT is substantially true. Too many of its proponents (and various stripes of leftists) act like there are no constraints on public spending--that we can have a free lunch.

    Even when deficits are noninflationary (which has been the case in the past generation), they still inexorably increase the future interest share of the government budget as well as ongoing financing requirements (and contrary to myth, public bond auctions can and do fail).

    The New Deal was not particularly expensive. Even the bank bailout wasn't. In fact, the government made a profit on bailing out the banks and did so quite quickly.

    Quantitative easing wasn't part of the government budget to begin with, and in any case was arguably deflationary since it reduced income to the private sector.

    People do need to stop viewing the government budget as a household, but the idea we can have everything we want is dangerous nonsense. A more mature mentality is comparing a government's balance sheet to that of a business as well as incorporating the macroeconomic effects of the government's own spending.

    Money is a “virtual product”. Making it costs very little. Its function is like the lubricant in a machine. The wealth-making part of the economy is the difficult part – it involves work. Clearly to have a prosperous economy, you need people working in a well-organised fashion, with good management clear, rational aims and rational supply chains.

    The current problems faced by the western world are entirely caused by allowing a small clique to control the money supply and pretending that what REALLY matters is the money.

  67. @Thorfinnsson
    As for the "Green New Deal" itself, its proponents should be shot.

    For starters, as AK points out, AOC is an atomophobe. Therefore unless she wishes to dismantle industrial society itself, she's a fraud.

    Then there's the fact that these idiots always want to scrap perfectly useful infrastructure long before it has depreciated. I'm 100% okay with requiring all new electric power plants to be green. But scrapping perfectly good thermal fossil fuel plants? Outrageous.

    Atomophobia also stops us from addressing other sources of emissions. Industrial process heat for instance (used in things like cement production and oil refining) could be derived from very high temperature reactors and at lower cost than current fossil fuel methods. This is never even discussed.

    Yet these same atomophobic fools are now increasingly convinced that cattle represent a massive climactic threat and that we must all go vegan!

    No one should be shot with depleted uranium bullets. They should be completely outlawed.

  68. @Anatoly Karlin
    #2 is reasonable, but for the rest:

    5. Global Warming is a global anti-Russian conspiracy. (one of many)
     
    Apart from the fact that if Global Warming is an anti-Russian conspiracy then it must have been an extraordinarily deep one, dating back to when Svante Arrhenius wrote his groundbreaking paper "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground" in 1896, there is also the inconvenient issue that cutting hydrocarbons consumption while also going on an atomophobic jihad is the one thing sure to boost Russia's influence in Europe by making it more reliant on its natural gas.

    Well, there’s no evidence the Svantes ever got over losing the empire …

  69. @silviosilver
    It's child's play to invent such schemes on paper, and even to get a few like-minded internet commenters to voice enthusiastic support for them.

    Implementing the scheme is much more difficult, and requires all sorts of actual expertise (legal, logistical, and so on).

    But light years more difficult still is building real-world political support for the scheme. For now, these schemes reside solely in the realm of sheerest fantasy.

    But light years more difficult still is building real-world political support for the scheme. For now, these schemes reside solely in the realm of sheerest fantasy.

    Agreed. And they distract people from looking for workable solutions, and they make it much much harder for workable solutions to gain political traction.

  70. @reiner Tor
    Okay, so basically you are advocating a combination of cuckservative race-blindness and populist economic policies, while welcoming an ever increasing number of legal immigrants.

    How would this prevent mass immigration transforming America and all other white countries in the world into countries of color?

    And why would it actually be either more successful or better than the current Bernie Sanders type leftism? I guess it wouldn’t get more elite support.

    If you added immigration restrictionism, it’d be indistinguishable from Steve Sailer’s civic nationalism, except Sailer wants to use IQ as an explanation for black failure, but you are against that either, so you won’t be in a position to deny that black failure is caused by the legacy of slavery and institutional racism.

    I think you should go back to using the AaronB moniker to write New Age mumbo-jumbo, at least it makes more sense than this.

    Okay, so basically you are advocating … – No, I don’t. Read my comment with understanding before wasting you breadth next time.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Anatoly Karlin Comments via RSS