• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hi Guest. We've rebooted and consolidated our Communities section, so be sure to check it out and subscribe to some threads. Thanks!

Bernie Sanders unveils comprehensive $16.3 trillion Green New Deal plan

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
39,725
15,222
1,395
recessions only come when there's a foreseeable glitch in the economy like the subprime, two negative quarters does not a recession make

many of the left are such atrocious pieces of shit that they want a recession to happen for political gain

bill maher is dead to me for this reason
 
Last edited:

Gashtronomy

Member
Apr 19, 2019
2,131
2,531
375
Is it just me or do some of his ideas sound nationalistic?

Pull back army from middle east (close ranks, defend borders)
No more importing/exporting of products (ignore international trade, close ranks, home grown only)
Tax importers/exporters and those who rely on foreign commodities (oil and gas from the middle east)
Create green utopia (through tough policies and fascistic idealogies?)

Although, tbf, at some point, a country in the west, has to say no to fossil fuel and take that difficult transition from tradition to future. It is inevitable.
 

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,697
2,175
550
We are on the verges of a paradigm shift.

 

rorepmE

Member
Jan 20, 2019
289
409
290
Republic of Val Verde
Any investment on anything from any government relies on predicting the market. That's why there is debt in the first place. So why is this any different from any other longterm investment plan?
Because when it comes time to make the hard decisions they will always--ALWAYS choose political expediency.

You're basically saying that the government won't fail because they can predict and avoid business cycles. That the post-oil economy is a shoe-in and not a speculative market. Zero risk.

They've been fucking lousy at predicting the market. Their track record is trash. But hey lets put all our eggs in this one basket.
 

Foxbat

is on their last warning for console warring
May 30, 2018
649
704
425
Why? I mean, Bernie is at least providing a plan and explanation how he plans to do it. So far his detractors are like "it's not possible" without much explanation or pointing where the plan fails and why so I think I trust Bernie's team more...
The plan fails on several fronts. Bernie also isn't explaining on how to do it either like you're thinking. He's saying that he'll spend 16 trillion dollars over a relatively short period of time. $200 billion to give to other countries? His plan includes eliminating fracking. Fracking is crucial to obtaining natural gas... which burns far cleaner than coal. He wants to basically cripple the oil and gas industry, along with the cars that use it. What's going to replace those automobiles by 2030? Electric? There aren't enough rare earth minerals available to make all the batteries that would be required to do that. He wants the electric grid to cut out coal plants, but his plan doesn't include building any new nuclear plants, and as I mentioned before... Natural gas is apparently off the table too. So what's going to replace all those coal fired plants? Solar and wind? That doesn't work because again, you can't just build an infinite amount of batteries to store all that energy, and it's a rather poor way to do so to begin with.

His plan is fantasy wet dream wishlist. So yeah... It's simply "Not possible."
 
  • Like
Reactions: pr0cs and Tesseract

HeresJohnny

Member
Mar 14, 2018
2,224
3,051
415
Th money is just fucking laughable. It’s like Rick Moranis in Spaceballs screaming “Ludicrous speed, GOOOOO!” First it was billions and now it’s trillions, next they’ll be using words like bajillion gazillions like third graders.
 

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,697
2,175
550
Because when it comes time to make the hard decisions they will always--ALWAYS choose political expediency.

You're basically saying that the government won't fail because they can predict and avoid business cycles. That the post-oil economy is a shoe-in and not a speculative market. Zero risk.

They've been fucking lousy at predicting the market. Their track record is trash. But hey lets put all our eggs in this one basket.
Lol where did i say there is 0 risk? Please quote me. Nice strawman. If you're going on that premise and expecting the worst of every investment must as well the government don't do any plan or investment then...
 

Sacred

Member
Aug 22, 2018
445
442
285
What a fucking pipe dream. He wants to raise taxes on everyone except government assistance individuals by 25%, tax the rich over 60%. Which is going to make most fortune 500 companies move overseas and will destroy the economy and sky high unemployment. Then inevitably that will cause the market to flatline and fuck us all. Fuck you Bernie, you should just drop out you wackjob.
 
Last edited:

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,697
2,175
550
Fracking is crucial to obtaining natural gas... which burns far cleaner than coal.
That it is less contaminant doesn't mean it is a healthy procedure or that we shouldnt look for better alternatives.


He wants to basically cripple the oil and gas industry, along with the cars that use it.
Yes, transition away from it, which will happen eventually anyways since oil and gas are not infinite. So might as well start the transition now.


What's going to replace those automobiles by 2030? Electric? There aren't enough rare earth minerals available to make all the batteries that would be required to do that.
Source? Also there are other energy sources other than electric. Sun, Wind, water, geothermic, etc. So it can be a combination of many.


That doesn't work because again, you can't just build an infinite amount of batteries to store all that energy, and it's a rather poor way to do so to begin with.
You don't need infinite. And again source that says it is basically Impossible to substitute oil and gas for other sources.

Again you didnt provide much other than "it cant be done". If i see a good argument why it cant be done i will reconsider but not just because some random people on the internet say it cant be done.
 

womfalcs3

Member
May 11, 2007
5,589
685
1,250
"Let's destroy the economy!" 2020 Bernie slogan.
Didn't Trump already do that by signing the tax cuts bill and adding trillions of dollars to the debt at a time when the economy was/is doing well?

Those policies and the trade wars will bite the economy in 2020, and end the Obama recovery that Trump enjoyed.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DeafTourette

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
39,725
15,222
1,395
nothing is infinite and gas can already be processed with 0 emissions, green energy has its own problems like energy storage / extraction and conflict mineral mining and processing

we should expand nuclear but ultimately we don't have a carbon problem in this country, it's just not an issue

the rest of the world needs to catch up to our environmental pollution laws (which are pretty exculpatory)

the market will move to green when it's ready, if you don't think oil companies are watching the inflection point on minerals for mass profit then you're not deep enough in the game
 
Last edited:

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
1,056
1,204
420
Yes, comrades, let us seize the means of production while pretending we are doing so for the environment.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Tesseract

Sacred

Member
Aug 22, 2018
445
442
285
Didn't Trump already do that by signing the tax cuts bill and adding trillions of dollars to the debt at a time when the economy was/is doing well?

Those policies and the trade wars will bite the economy in 2020, and end the Obama recovery that Trump enjoyed.
This is yet another false flag.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rockbottom12

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
15,138
28,955
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
Didn't Trump already do that by signing the tax cuts bill and adding trillions of dollars to the debt at a time when the economy was/is doing well?

Those policies and the trade wars will bite the economy in 2020, and end the Obama recovery that Trump enjoyed.
Tax cuts > gov't expenditures. Surely you are aware that is the Republican mindset?

Regarding the "Obama recovery", you're misinformed:

 
  • Like
Reactions: HeresJohnny

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
4,517
5,716
420
The plan involves "prioritizing what activists call a "just transition" for fossil fuel workers who would be dislocated during the transition." And also postulates the creation of 20 million jobs.

And, again, recession is coming with or without this plan anyways. So spending must not be such a bad idea.
you cannot be this fucking gullible.

How many infrastructure projects have we seen that promised thousands of jobs, but delivered very few? The big dig on the east coast, the HSR debacle in California, The solar power batteries in Nevada, Solyndra. That just off the top of my head. You are going to lay off thousands, and 'transistion' them to what? Whatever farce 'activists' can think of next? Pardon me if I don't trust them to have the best interests of american workers at heart.

A recession is "always" coming. Just because a recession is suspected of coming soon doesn't justify stupid government policy. It doesn't justify destroying one of our strongest economic sectors, forcing more people into deeper poverty, and strengthening our foreign enemies who will replace our oil with their own in the market
 
Last edited:

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,697
2,175
550
nothing is infinite and gas can already be processed with 0 emissions, green energy has its own problems like energy storage / extraction and conflict mineral mining and processing

we should expand nuclear but ultimately we don't have a carbon problem in this country, it's just not an issue

the rest of the world needs to catch up to our environmental pollution laws (which are pretty exculpatory)

the market will move to green when it's ready, if you don't think oil companies are watching the inflection point on minerals for mass profit then you're not deep enough in the game
But when will it "be ready"? Why not make it ready now with a plan such as this?

Also it's not true that natural gas is processed with 0 emissions. It is lower than with oil but it still had problems.


Also people are assuming doomsday scenarios like the substitution is 100% there's not going to be need for oil and natural gas anymore and those are going to be 100% phased out from one day to the next and then everything is going to implode but the usual way to do it is to supply as much energy as possible with renewables and have stuff like oil and natural gas for back up. Costa Rica, my country, managed to use renewables to power the whole population for long periods of time but when the renewables were not enough the grid kicks back to using oil and traditional methods. Granted in Costa Rica there are only 5 million people but the territory and resources are minuscule next to the US and we are a poor country and we managed to do it partially anyways. So I don't see it as so farfetched.
 

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,697
2,175
550
you cannot be this fucking gullible.

How many infrastructure projects have we seen that promised thousands of jobs, but delivered very few? The big dig on the east coast, the HSR debacle in California, The solar power batteries in Nevada, Solyndra. That just off the top of my head. You are going to lay off thousands, and 'transistion' them to what? Whatever farce 'activists' can think of next? Pardon me if I don't trust them to have the best interests of american workers at heart.

A recession is "always" coming. Just because a recession is suspected of coming soon doesn't justify stupid government policy. It doesn't justify destroying one of our strongest economic sectors, forcing more people into deeper poverty, and strengthening our foreign enemies who will replace our oil with their own in the market
Yeah that's an emotional judgement from yours. Like I said earlier in the thread, there are good and bad investments. So if this project has rational and informed arguments against it it can and should be challenged. But right now you're basically resorting to emotional kneejerking and fallacies equating past projects to this one without a proper analysis.
 

Lamel

Member
Nov 2, 2009
11,615
331
815
Shoot for the stars and you'll reach the moon.

I do think he should incorporate nuclear and be a bit more realistic with the timeline. I don't have any qualms with the price tag. Climate change is real and it's here, drastic action needed to be taken years ago.
 

rorepmE

Member
Jan 20, 2019
289
409
290
Republic of Val Verde
Lol where did i say there is 0 risk? Please quote me. Nice strawman. If you're going on that premise and expecting the worst of every investment must as well the government don't do any plan or investment then...
You implied it.

predicting the market
If you can predict the market with any reliable accuracy, you wouldn't need a market to allocate capital in the first place. Business cycles would vanish because we'd know exactly when, where and how to allocate capital.

Practically saying that these green investments in the trillions will absolutely bear fruit ie no fucking risk when there is in fact an enormous risk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: autoduelist

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,697
2,175
550
No I didn't, I will never say such a thing so please don't put words in my mouth.

If you can predict the market with any reliable accuracy, you wouldn't need a market to allocate capital in the first place. Business cycles would vanish because we'd know exactly when, where and how to allocate capital.

Practically saying that these green investments in the trillions will absolutely bear fruit ie no fucking risk when there is in fact an enormous risk.
Like I said any investment will involve having to predict the market and will have a risk associated with it. That's why there are ways to estimate risks in any serious project. If you want to avoid risk 100% then you might as well avoid 100% of investment and planning anyways.
 

rorepmE

Member
Jan 20, 2019
289
409
290
Republic of Val Verde
How about you stop playing stupid? You implied they (the government) wouldn't invest unless they (the government) predict the future market with certainty.

You can't predict new markets with certainty. No one can. That's why companies become insolvent despite their best efforts to predict it and private sector has a much better record of that.

His plan is stupid because he's a retard with zero business sense. He's not going to be president and you're a no body so whatever.

I'm going to Chick-fil-A for some breakfast.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rockbottom12

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,697
2,175
550
How about you stop playing stupid? You implied they (the government) wouldn't invest unless they (the government) predict the future market with certainty.

You can't predict new markets with certainty. No one can. That's why companies become insolvent despite their best efforts to predict it and private sector has a much better record of that.
First, when you start insulting it shows that your argument is pretty weak or sucks. Second, no I didn't imply what you're saying, I never ONCE used the word "certainty", that is coming 100% from your side. So again, stop strawmanning.

And like I already said, that's why any serious investment project has risk assessment and other ways to see if the risk is worth it or not. Right now, all the arguments against this project here has failed to be convincing because non use any sort of analysis or rational arguments against it, they are either "it can't be done" or "this and this will happen" without explaining why or how.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Tesseract

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
4,517
5,716
420
Yeah that's an emotional judgement from yours. Like I said earlier in the thread, there are good and bad investments. So if this project has rational and informed arguments against it it can and should be challenged. But right now you're basically resorting to emotional kneejerking and fallacies equating past projects to this one without a proper analysis.
It's not emotional. It's common sense. We have seen the government make these same promises before and fail,

But this time it will work for sure. 🙄


I've already given you multiple reasons why this is a bad idea. You can't actually defend this stupidity, so you ignore them. Let me restate them again.

1. Why should we believe that this "transition" will work?
2. Why should we sacrifice our power in the energy sector and relinquish it to foreign nations. This is not conjecture. The plan explicitly calls for this.
3. Why should we increase taxes and increase energy costs on Americans while at the same time laying off hundreds of thousands of them?
4. If you are worried about a incoming recession, why are you defending policies that will make the recession worse?

You're the one demanding we make these changes. The onus is on you to prove why it will work.
 

womfalcs3

Member
May 11, 2007
5,589
685
1,250
He added what was it 1.2 trillion, Obama's gave Iran 3 times that alone. Obama's economy was a fucking failure keep gasping at those straws.
1.) Obama was facing Bush's recession. Trump was given Obama's recovery. You don't add 1 trillion dollars a year in economic prosperity, and Trump is foolishly doing that.
2.) Trump is adding over 1 trillion dollars to the debt in a single year.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Tesseract

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
Feb 9, 2009
37,108
2,864
1,600
He added what was it 1.2 trillion, Obama's gave Iran 3 times that alone. Obama's economy was a fucking failure keep gasping at those straws.
Obama gave Iran 3.6 trillion? What??
 

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,697
2,175
550
It's not emotional. It's common sense. We have seen the government make these same promises before and fail,

But this time it will work for sure. 🙄


I've already given you multiple reasons why this is a bad idea. You can't actually defend this stupidity, so you ignore them. Let me restate them again.

1. Why should we believe that this "transition" will work?
2. Why should we sacrifice our power in the energy sector and relinquish it to foreign nations. This is not conjecture. The plan explicitly calls for this.
3. Why should we increase taxes and increase energy costs on Americans while at the same time laying off hundreds of thousands of them?
4. If you are worried about a incoming recession, why are you defending policies that will make the recession worse?

You're the one demanding we make these changes. The onus is on you to prove why it will work.
So you're telling me no infrastructure investment made by the government has ever worked? Because you're showing examples of projects which have not worked but there are also examples of projects that have worked. So nitpicking the ones which have not worked and making a conclusion about this project is not really convincing...

1. Because there is a plan for it and you can asses the risks against the benefits taking this plan into account. Of course there needs to be more analysis but right now there is no real credible challenge to the plan. If a detractor is serious about the dangers then I'm sure they can come up with a risk assessment that will convince people it is going to be a bad investment.
2. Because the use of traditional power sources is helping damage the planet irreparably, so making a transition to cleaner energy sources is a smart thing to help avoid environmental problems. And also the transition could mean the US becoming a leader and powerful in alternative energy sources, so giving up on outdated energy sources for more current and popular ones could also give status and power to the US.
3. Who says taxes are going to be increased? At least the plan suggests taxing oil companies not americans, granted those taxes could translate into increasing costs for americans in general for traditional energy sources but they could also mean americans will pay less for energy if they don't need to use so many oil-powered stuff which is what the plan intends anyways. Also, like I said already the plan includes the transition to help energy workers when they are laid off and proposes the creation of 20 mill jobs.
4. Like I said already too, spending during a recession is actually a good idea and could mitigate the effects of the recession so this plan could actually be helping mitigate the recession instead of worsening it.

Btw, those are not arguments, you're asking questions which is valid and should be done. But questions are not arguments and many of your questions are loaded ones. For example "why are you defending policies that will make the recession worse", this is a loaded question, you're assuming the implementation of this will make the recession worse, how and why do you know this? where is the analysis behind this reasoning? That would make an argument, not assuming it will happen and then making a loaded question with it.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Tesseract

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
1,056
1,204
420
1.) Obama was facing Bush's recession. Trump was given Obama's recovery. You don't add 1 trillion dollars a year in economic prosperity, and Trump is foolishly doing that.
2.) Trump is adding over 1 trillion dollars to the debt in a single year.
I don't agree with the flagrant lack of care put toward the deficit in this (or most) administrations. I don't think we realistically have any party willing to tie revenue to expenditures. And, to be honest with our level of baked in social program spending and demographics, we are not going to have any budgets that don't add to the debt for the foreseeable future.

I'm not sure what the answer to that really is, without enacting a form of senicide/geronticide by refusing medical care/only treating pain in people above a certain age. It's terribly cruel, but at the moment we're currently snatching resources from the young in order to use it on the extremely old, which is also cruel.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Tesseract

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
10,065
13,154
840
The plan involves "prioritizing what activists call a "just transition" for fossil fuel workers who would be dislocated during the transition." And also postulates the creation of 20 million jobs.

And, again, recession is coming with or without this plan anyways. So spending must not be such a bad idea.
So what you are saying is that Bernie's just trying to slash the bicycle tire of capitalism, and we shouldn't be alarmed by the size of the knife he's wielding?

Seriously, though, advocating for a 16 trillion dollar plan because "a recession is coming with or without it" is so barking crazy I don't even know where to start.


47 recessions in our history. Yet the fact we will have 48 means we need to go full retard. C'mon.

Yeah that's an emotional judgement from yours. Like I said earlier in the thread, there are good and bad investments. So if this project has rational and informed arguments against it it can and should be challenged. But right now you're basically resorting to emotional kneejerking and fallacies equating past projects to this one without a proper analysis.
If only there was an economic system which allowed these 'good and bad investments' to compete on the open market. Those well versed in implementation and knowledgeable in the subject matter can each throw their hats in the ring, and the bad ideas might fail and the best ideas might rise to the top. Perhaps we could even reward those who provide the best ideas with money.

But perhaps you're right. Maybe we should give a dottering old man man and a team of bureaucrats more money than god to implement a massive plan regarding subject matter they have only a surface knowledge of and destroy hundreds of existing, successful businesses in the process? What the fuck can go wrong?

The govt can't handle the DMV efficiently and still people want to hand over everything else to them. It boggles the mind.
 
Last edited:

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,697
2,175
550
So what you are saying is that Bernie's just trying to slash the bicycle tire of capitalism, and we shouldn't be alarmed by the size of the knife he's wielding?

Seriously, though, advocating for a 16 trillion dollar plan because "a recession is coming with or without it" is so barking crazy I don't even know where to start.


47 recessions in our history. Yet the fact we will have 48 means we need to go full retard. C'mon.
Lol, capitalism will not be destroyed because of this plan. In fact capitalism benefits from increased product diversity and offer which increases competition so diversifying the energy market is also a capitalist endeavor.

And I never said the plan is good because a recession is coming, but it could help in the eventuality of a recession coming which is very probable. But the plan in itself could be good not just because of a recession.


If only there was an economic system which allowed these 'good and bad investments' to compete on the open market. Well designed ideas, by those well versed in implementation and knowledgeable in the subject matter, can each throw their hats in the ring, and the bad ideas might fail and the best ideas might rise to the top. Perhaps we could even reward those who provide the best ideas with money.
Exactly! and right now this is a plan for an investment and the ones trying to convince me here it is a bad one are doing a lousy job. So maybe it is a well-designed idea afterall. Also you act as if Bernie has no expert advisers and that he writes the plans himself...
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Tesseract

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
15,138
28,955
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
Invest in farmers (which we are already doing by subsidizing a ton of products to pay for the expensive agro-chemical industry) and increase our carbon drawdown through regenerative land practices. As a bonus, our food becomes healthier, our plots are more productive, and farmers save hundreds of millions a year.

We have so many inexpensive technologies out there to update our agriculture to the 21st century instead of using till-and-fert practices designed after World War 2 (gotta sell that leftover TNT...)

We can use nanoclay to make pure desert into arable land. We can use worm compost / fungal compost / compost teas to jump straight from damaged soils (beginning stage) to middle-stage and late-stage successional soils. We can use biochar both for carbon sequestration and for boosting soil fertility. We can use intense mixed-planting + livestock pasturing to produce all our meat while sequestering carbon in the pastures. The farmers who are doing this are making bank, and the lure of money is what drives these changes anyway.

All of these pie-in-the-sky "green energy" grafts are a distraction. Wind and Solar have lagged substantially, and they still take an absurd amount of non-renewable materials to create. Switching from coal to natural gas seems to have done more for carbon reduction. We have methods available that are much, much cheaper. Plus, we should focus more on carbon drawdown/sequestration (which this proposal seems to ignore. How... unscientific) instead of just reducing total output. Barring some kind of worldwide carbon crackdown, the USA could go carbon zero tomorrow and it wouldn't be enough to save the earth in 12 years (lol).
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Tesseract

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
39,725
15,222
1,395
But when will it "be ready"? Why not make it ready now with a plan such as this?

Also it's not true that natural gas is processed with 0 emissions. It is lower than with oil but it still had problems.


Also people are assuming doomsday scenarios like the substitution is 100% there's not going to be need for oil and natural gas anymore and those are going to be 100% phased out from one day to the next and then everything is going to implode but the usual way to do it is to supply as much energy as possible with renewables and have stuff like oil and natural gas for back up. Costa Rica, my country, managed to use renewables to power the whole population for long periods of time but when the renewables were not enough the grid kicks back to using oil and traditional methods. Granted in Costa Rica there are only 5 million people but the territory and resources are minuscule next to the US and we are a poor country and we managed to do it partially anyways. So I don't see it as so farfetched.
it's ready when it comes to market at scale

forcing the issue will destroy the economy and take the working class back into another recession, which means an uptick in loss of capital and a loss of life i'm not willing to bargain with

i love bernie dude, he's my kind of authoritarian, but this shit is wack AF

and yes we can process gas with 0 emissions, google the allam cycle
 
  • Like
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
10,065
13,154
840
Exactly! and right now this is a plan for an investment and the ones trying to convince me here it is a bad one are doing a lousy job. So maybe it is a well-designed idea afterall. Also you act as if Bernie has no expert advisers and that he writes the plans himself...
No, not exactly. Not even close. Implementation by government fiat is not remotely similar to ideas rising to the top based on competitive implementation. Conflate all you want, but you are advocating for us all to eat rats for dinner.
 

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,697
2,175
550
No, not exactly. Not even close. Implementation by government fiat is not remotely similar to ideas rising to the top based on competitive implementation. Conflate all you want, but you are advocating for us all to eat rats for dinner.
Here some great investment projects done by the government.


Good investment projects by the government increase competitiveness inside the capitalist system. For example the highways project provides way for thousands of private companies to transport goods faster, cheaper and farther away. Or the human genome project all the companies and agencies that are now using its findings to finance private services and new research.

So a good government program can be a catalyst for private investment and innovation.
 

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,697
2,175
550
it's ready when it comes to market at scale

forcing the issue will destroy the economy and take the working class back into another recession, which means an uptick in loss of capital and a loss of life i'm not willing to bargain with

i love bernie dude, he's my kind of authoritarian, but this shit is wack AF

and yes we can process gas with 0 emissions, google the allam cycle
I don't know, I wouldn't call it "forcing", I mean when the US invested in creating the biggest and most ambitious highway system in the world nobody would have said they were forcing ship routes or other means of transportation out of business. It was simply a good investment into diversification and better infrastructure.
 

Foxbat

is on their last warning for console warring
May 30, 2018
649
704
425
That it is less contaminant doesn't mean it is a healthy procedure or that we shouldnt look for better alternatives.



Yes, transition away from it, which will happen eventually anyways since oil and gas are not infinite. So might as well start the transition now.



Source? Also there are other energy sources other than electric. Sun, Wind, water, geothermic, etc. So it can be a combination of many.



You don't need infinite. And again source that says it is basically Impossible to substitute oil and gas for other sources.

Again you didnt provide much other than "it cant be done". If i see a good argument why it cant be done i will reconsider but not just because some random people on the internet say it cant be done.
1. There are net zero natural gas power plants. Zero carbon emission. I'd like to hear about any cleaner alternatives for mass power generation.

2. We're transitioning towards electric now. There are going to be bumps along the way, but we are on our way there. Forcing tech advancement via law, and forcing everything to be done by 2030 isn't going to happen. Not every person or company can afford to replace their entire fleet of cars, trucks, ships, planes, lawn mowers, etc... over to all electric at once.

3. Sun, wind, water, geothermic doesn't work on automobiles. At least not to power them. Each vehicle requires a massive lithium ion battery. Those batteries use rare earth elements. Most notably Cobalt, among others. Not only does China have a complete stranglehold on almost all of those elements. The supply chain for them isn't always dependable. Not to mention that there simply isn't enough of some of those to replace every automobile on earth.

4. Solar, wind, water, etc... can't completely replace oil and gas over the next 11 years. Not even close. Wind doesn't blow all the time, the sun goes down every night, and there are only so many rivers you can dam up. The power those ways create isn't constant. Therefore you have to store the energy somewhere in order to use it later. That requires batteries at every sub station, and as I already pointed out... That's not sustainable.
Even ignoring the REE aspect, batteries are dirty as hell. That's why you don't dispose of them in a regular trash bin. Or at least you're not supposed to. The lead and acid is hazardous and must be dealt with seperately than other trash. Increasing battery consumption the way Bernie is suggesting would do more harm than good for the environment. I mean... why fight climate change if your best plan is to render the planet useless anyway.

Doing a little research and using a bit of common sense goes a long way towards knowing when something is just a pipe dream vs asking for GAF users for an explanation, proof, and "sources".
 

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
39,725
15,222
1,395
I don't know, I wouldn't call it "forcing", I mean when the US invested in creating the biggest and most ambitious highway system in the world nobody would have said they were forcing ship routes or other means of transportation out of business. It was simply a good investment into diversification and better infrastructure.
true, i would only add that highways were good military expenditure as well

let's see how green energy expands in ongoing trial balloon states before we set out to federalize it (there's already significant storage issues in florida)

unless the concern is global destruction via climate change, which a green deal won't come close to solving
 
Last edited:

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
10,065
13,154
840
Here some great investment projects done by the government.

So what? Of course some investments have worked out in the past. That does not mean they have a good track record, nor that better ideas might not have surfaced if they didn't subsidize their ideas giving them an unfair advantage.

Now do Solyndra.

Good investment projects by the government increase competitiveness inside the capitalist system. For example the highways project provides way for thousands of private companies to transport goods faster, cheaper and farther away. Or the human genome project all the companies and agencies that are now using its findings to finance private services and new research.

So a good government program can be a catalyst for private investment and innovation.
Oh, god, not the roads. First, infrastructure investment like roads is absolutely nothing like what is being discussed here. Finding someone against basic road infrastructure being a public good is a rare unicorn indeed, but if you did, i promise you they would point out that if the government had not done it, industry would. Did you notice we have various nationwide networks like fiber done competitively? We would still have roads... they might be implemented differently, sure, but the economic benefit of roads would have guaranteed roads were implemented competitively even with a barebone govt.

You are making the mistake of thinking that if the govt funded something in the past, then the govt is the reason we have X. No. If the guy who invented the elevator died as a baby, we would not all live on the first floor. Someone else would have stepped up [or used an escalator] and invented it. Likewise, govt investment in X is not the only reason we have X [with the exception of taxes and politicians, i suppose].

Anyway, Bernies idea is 16 trillion dollars of dumb. I'm not wasting more breath on it. He's a charlatan at best.
 
Last edited:

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,697
2,175
550
1. There are net zero natural gas power plants. Zero carbon emission. I'd like to hear about any cleaner alternatives for mass power generation.

2. We're transitioning towards electric now. There are going to be bumps along the way, but we are on our way there. Forcing tech advancement via law, and forcing everything to be done by 2030 isn't going to happen. Not every person or company can afford to replace their entire fleet of cars, trucks, ships, planes, lawn mowers, etc... over to all electric at once.

3. Sun, wind, water, geothermic doesn't work on automobiles. At least not to power them. Each vehicle requires a massive lithium ion battery. Those batteries use rare earth elements. Most notably Cobalt, among others. Not only does China have a complete stranglehold on almost all of those elements. The supply chain for them isn't always dependable. Not to mention that there simply isn't enough of some of those to replace every automobile on earth.

4. Solar, wind, water, etc... can't completely replace oil and gas over the next 11 years. Not even close. Wind doesn't blow all the time, the sun goes down every night, and there are only so many rivers you can dam up. The power those ways create isn't constant. Therefore you have to store the energy somewhere in order to use it later. That requires batteries at every sub station, and as I already pointed out... That's not sustainable.
Even ignoring the REE aspect, batteries are dirty as hell. That's why you don't dispose of them in a regular trash bin. Or at least you're not supposed to. The lead and acid is hazardous and must be dealt with seperately than other trash. Increasing battery consumption the way Bernie is suggesting would do more harm than good for the environment. I mean... why fight climate change if your best plan is to render the planet useless anyway.

Doing a little research and using a bit of common sense goes a long way towards knowing when something is just a pipe dream vs asking for GAF users for an explanation, proof, and "sources".
Thanks, at least for making a more thoughtful response. I will answer this later more carefully. But I don't think it is a pipe dream. Like I said my country mostly managed something similar and right now something like the highways project in the US would also be considered farfetched and still it was done back in the day. So dreaming big is allowed.
 

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,697
2,175
550
So what? Of course some investments have worked out in the past. That does not mean they have a good track record, nor that better ideas might not have surfaced if they didn't subsidize their ideas giving them an unfair advantage.

Now do Solyndra.



Oh, god, not the roads. First, infrastructure investment like roads is absolutely nothing like what is being discussed here. Finding someone against basic road infrastructure being a public good is a rare unicorn indeed, but if you did, i promise you they would point out that if the government had not done it, industry would. Did you notice we have various nationwide networks like fiber done competitively? We would still have roads... they might be implemented differently, sure, but the economic benefit of roads would have guaranteed roads were implemented competitively even with a barebone govt.

You are making the mistake of thinking that if the govt funded something in the past, then the govt is the reason we have X. No. If the guy who invented the elevator died as a baby, we would not all live on the first floor. Someone else would have stepped up [or used an escalator] and invented it. Likewise, govt investment in X is not the only reason we have X.

Anyway, Bernies idea is 16 trillion dollars of dumb. I'm not wasting more breath on it. He's a charlatan at best.
Well the US has one of the most ambitious highway infrastructures in the world. I don't think any other country comes close to match it. So, even though it would have eventually been done, maybe it wouldn't have been done in such a good and extensive way.

And that "someone will eventually do it" doesn't mean it will be done in fast enough or in the same way. If everyone will use that argument for everything then nothing would ever be done.
 

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
4,517
5,716
420
So you're telling me no infrastructure investment made by the government has ever worked? Because you're showing examples of projects which have not worked but there are also examples of projects that have worked. So nitpicking the ones which have not worked and making a conclusion about this project is not really convincing...

1. Because there is a plan for it and you can asses the risks against the benefits taking this plan into account. Of course there needs to be more analysis but right now there is no real credible challenge to the plan. If a detractor is serious about the dangers then I'm sure they can come up with a risk assessment that will convince people it is going to be a bad investment.
2. Because the use of traditional power sources is helping damage the planet irreparably, so making a transition to cleaner energy sources is a smart thing to help avoid environmental problems. And also the transition could mean the US becoming a leader and powerful in alternative energy sources, so giving up on outdated energy sources for more current and popular ones could also give status and power to the US.
3. Who says taxes are going to be increased? At least the plan suggests taxing oil companies not americans, granted those taxes could translate into increasing costs for americans in general for traditional energy sources but they could also mean americans will pay less for energy if they don't need to use so many oil-powered stuff which is what the plan intends anyways. Also, like I said already the plan includes the transition to help energy workers when they are laid off and proposes the creation of 20 mill jobs.
4. Like I said already too, spending during a recession is actually a good idea and could mitigate the effects of the recession so this plan could actually be helping mitigate the recession instead of worsening it.

Btw, those are not arguments, you're asking questions which is valid and should be done. But questions are not arguments and many of your questions are loaded ones. For example "why are you defending policies that will make the recession worse", this is a loaded question, you're assuming the implementation of this will make the recession worse, how and why do you know this? where is the analysis behind this reasoning? That would make an argument, not assuming it will happen and then making a loaded question with it.
1. You have got to be kidding me. No one is saying that government infrastructure investments can't work. INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS LIKE THIS HAVE A LONG HISTORY OF FAILING.



Lets look at a infrastrucutre project you are touting. Interstate highway. Such a success, wow, Big props.



That wasn't built for economic development. It wasn't built becauase Eisenhower thought he could game the market. The interstate highway was built as a national defense initiative to allow the military to quickly move around the country. Economic development grew around the highway, but not because of it. The government didn't go to shipyard and airports and tell them to close down, the highway is the future. private investment naturally went to the sector with higher growth potential.



Bernie's plan is not the same. This is not a public need to national defense. This is the government trying to directly control and manipulate the economy.



2. America giving up the energy sector to foreign nations will not repair the planet or even slow down it's "damage".



The biggest irony is so much of this plan involves constructing new, dirty objects on a larger scale. Do you think these solar panels and other renewable goods will be produced with magic and fairy dust? Or will they be produced with minerals mined in China, transported on fossil-fueled shipping lanes and assembled in energy consuming factories?



Also, America already IS the leader in renewable energy. We subsidize the majority of it, we fund most of the production of electric batteries, windmills, solar panels, you name it. This "be a leader in alternative renewables" jargon is B.S.



3. Bernie Sanders literally said it. His plan explicitly calls for it.

Honestly, I know you don't want to be insulted, but come on. You are going to drive businesses to close, which even if that alone is implemented, the economic shock will cause prices to soar. Combine that with federal tax increases and mass layoffs, I'm stunned you think costs won't react to that.

And like I said before, the government has never been successful in using infrastructure projects to create long lasting jobs. There is zero reason to believe the government can create 20 million new jobs out of thin air.

But let's pretend they did. What is the economic return of installing a solar panel versus drilling for oil? In a lot of place, driller, engineers and geologists get paid over 80k -150k a year? How much do solar panel installers make? Why would anyone be willing to vote to lose their job and be paid less?

4. You spend in a recession to keep people in the job market. That is why you do things like cut payroll taxes. To stimulate short term hiring or convince companies to keep onto a worker for a little longer. YOUR PLAN EXPLICITLY CALLS FOR FIRING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE.



Do you really need a government study to explain why that isn't smart
 

Cucked SoyBoy

Member
Dec 18, 2018
509
708
290
Didn't Trump already do that by signing the tax cuts bill and adding trillions of dollars to the debt at a time when the economy was/is doing well?

Those policies and the trade wars will bite the economy in 2020, and end the Obama recovery that Trump enjoyed.

So Trump adding trillions to the debt is a bad thing, but Bernie's plan to add $16 trillion to the debt is OK?

Y'all need to get your stories straight before you come in here.
 

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
1,056
1,204
420
Following the logic of "Well it might be unrealistic, but you have to aim too high to get something done" as posted in a few different wordings in this thread:

Shouldn't people who don't want whatever unrealistic thing you are asking for and pretending to want just resolve not to entertain any argument on the subject? If your goal is to get 5 of something, so you ask for 10 from someone who doesn't want to give up any...isn't it logical that the other party in question should just refuse to give you any? Why should they give you 5 when you ask for 10?

If it's just a lame Overton Window exercise, then the people with brains in the room should just throw away the plan altogether.
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
7,041
8,187
880
Where are these jobs going to come from? 20 Million?

Where is this energy going to come from? How will it be sold and to who?

What happens when China/Russia/India are still using planes, cars, oil, fossil fuels etc and the US isn't?

What happens after you bankrupt the best energy companies in the world and throw the best minds into prison? Who now has the expertise to sell energy?

The end game of the plan looks like it will just turn into printing money and massive inflation.
 

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,697
2,175
550
1. You have got to be kidding me. No one is saying that government infrastructure investments can't work. INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS LIKE THIS HAVE A LONG HISTORY OF FAILING.



Lets look at a infrastrucutre project you are touting. Interstate highway. Such a success, wow, Big props.



That wasn't built for economic development. It wasn't built becauase Eisenhower thought he could game the market. The interstate highway was built as a national defense initiative to allow the military to quickly move around the country. Economic development grew around the highway, but not because of it. The government didn't go to shipyard and airports and tell them to close down, the highway is the future. private investment naturally went to the sector with higher growth potential.



Bernie's plan is not the same. This is not a public need to national defense. This is the government trying to directly control and manipulate the economy.



2. America giving up the energy sector to foreign nations will not repair the planet or even slow down it's "damage".



The biggest irony is so much of this plan involves constructing new, dirty objects on a larger scale. Do you think these solar panels and other renewable goods will be produced with magic and fairy dust? Or will they be produced with minerals mined in China, transported on fossil-fueled shipping lanes and assembled in energy consuming factories?



Also, America already IS the leader in renewable energy. We subsidize the majority of it, we fund most of the production of electric batteries, windmills, solar panels, you name it. This "be a leader in alternative renewables" jargon is B.S.



3. Bernie Sanders literally said it. His plan explicitly calls for it.

Honestly, I know you don't want to be insulted, but come on. You are going to drive businesses to close, which even if that alone is implemented, the economic shock will cause prices to soar. Combine that with federal tax increases and mass layoffs, I'm stunned you think costs won't react to that.

And like I said before, the government has never been successful in using infrastructure projects to create long lasting jobs. There is zero reason to believe the government can create 20 million new jobs out of thin air.

But let's pretend they did. What is the economic return of installing a solar panel versus drilling for oil? In a lot of place, driller, engineers and geologists get paid over 80k -150k a year? How much do solar panel installers make? Why would anyone be willing to vote to lose their job and be paid less?

4. You spend in a recession to keep people in the job market. That is why you do things like cut payroll taxes. To stimulate short term hiring or convince companies to keep onto a worker for a little longer. YOUR PLAN EXPLICITLY CALLS FOR FIRING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE.



Do you really need a government study to explain why that isn't smart
1. It doesn't matter it is not made for the same reasons, the fact is that the highway did provide a way to boost economic growth. Also Bernie's plan includes saving on money by dismantling military presence in places where it is serving just to protect or acquire energy assets. A long held position is that the extended US military presence and foreign interference for energy resources is in large part responsible for the rise of radical groups and terrorism worldwide. So IT IS ultimately a matter of defense to cut on the foreign influence from the US that is and has stirred up the hornet's nest creating more extremism and migration by creating conflicts for energy resources elsewhere.

2. The plan doesn't say it is "giving the energy sector to foreign nations". It can be seen as actually putting pressure on foreign nations to also move away from more traditional energy sources and meet cleaner and more sustainable standards. And how do you know it won't have an impact on the damage? Until now developed nations are still the biggest polluters in the world.

3. I'm sorry but I don't subscribe to emotional doomsday scenarios. Do you think Bernie wants to become president to destroy the US? What could possibly be his motivation for that? It is a nonsense argument. I respond to arguments who are rational and analytic not to emotional nonsense. Then you are no better than the average reseteran kneejerk reacting to anything Trump says without an ounce of critical thinking in between.

And like I said before, the government has never been successful in using infrastructure projects to create long lasting jobs.


This isn't true, I showed above a bunch of government projects that created investment and prosperity in the very long term.

4. The plan also calls for the creation of 20 million jobs, why do you insist on ignoring this. Emotional keenerking again...

Do you really need a government study to explain why that isn't smart
Or something like it yes, because emotional arguments don't work for me and shouldn't be used to decide on public policy at least.
 
Last edited:

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,697
2,175
550
Shouldn't people who don't want whatever unrealistic thing you are asking for and pretending to want just resolve not to entertain any argument on the subject?
Of course you can do it, but I would say the democratic process would be enhanced if people uses more critical thinking to choose and vote instead of emotionally reacting and voting. I mean we've seen from the other side to what that leads to, we have a bunch of people who refuse to even entertain anything Trump says or does and just kneejerk react to his proposals in a bad way. Now you have a super divided country where most people are lead by emotion instead of careful analysis and critical thought. I mean if that's the society you strive for by all means keep doing it but I think the US could do better.
 

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
1,056
1,204
420
Of course you can do it, but I would say the democratic process would be enhanced if people uses more critical thinking to choose and vote instead of emotionally reacting and voting. I mean we've seen from the other side to what that leads to, we have a bunch of people who refuse to even entertain anything Trump says or does and just kneejerk react to his proposals in a bad way. Now you have a super divided country where most people are lead by emotion instead of careful analysis and critical thought. I mean if that's the society you strive for by all means keep doing it but I think the US could do better.
?

That has nothing to do with what I said.

It's literally been brought up in this thread to make ridiculous proposals so you can then end up with something in the direction you want. That is a tactic.

I'm asking why the other side shouldn't use the same tactic, and just resolve to block all movement whatsoever in the direction you want. My point being that if you act in bad faith an ask for things you know you can't get, don't be surprised when people don't feel like playing that game.