51–60 of 125 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s already happened for almost everyone employed mining coal, because of automation. No climate change needed.
Just for perspective, coal mining employs about half as many Americans as Whole Foods. That’s one specialty grocery chain. The amount of attention given to coal miners is absurd.
Some Gov intervention may accelerate the change. But overall I’m weary of their efforts.
[0] “Natural gas, which emits about half the amount of CO2 as coal, is being used more extensively due to its lower price and is displacing coal-fired generation...” https://www.c2es.org/content/u-s-emissions/
I want clean energy as much as the next guy, probably more (it's one of my top concerns). But plans like this are extremely naive. I agree, we need to get the of fossil fuels as fast as possible. But very few articles like this mention what we'd replace it with. Wind, solar, and hydro are all fantastic, but hydro is the only one that can produce constant output. It is also difficult to throttle the other two and brin…
The solutions are out there if we put the money into it. It's that simple. The only thing needed is really battery technology which research had been promising. We put a man on the moon in less than a decade doing all calculations by hand and doing all physical testing. All that's needed is funding and the drive.
If you're suggesting with putting that money into research and solving the problems then yes, I 100% agree (not sure how this wasn't conveyed in my post. In fact every time I post something like this I'm surprised people still respond this way. What am I doing wrong?). If you're saying with existing technology well... maybe. But I'm assuming the former because of the moon analogy (where we had to invent a lot of stuff).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US Government started printing money as you say for government projects as early as 1930, 12 years before the war. Hoover dam for example. So are you saying it takes 12+ years for your theory to work? Also, how many millions more have died due to over-printing of money? MMT is a disaster waiting to happen because at the end of the day Credit=Trust and you can only borrow so much before you lose that trust. Trust…
They printed money starting in 1930? Yup, the dam. But they didn't print enough. And Bernanke didn't print enough fast enough -- we were in the Great Depression for about 12 years and nearly that long in the Great Recession. Bummer. You are correct about the threat of inflation. But we know how to stop inflation: Reduce the money supply, e.g., by raising interest rates. Then the member banks will return their loans f…
After 2008 the Chinese government dealt with falling demand and exports by building 10,000km of high speed rail network.
In either case despite dire predictions of economists the sky didn't fall in.
Also riddle this: The US spent about 2% of gdp to send a dozen men to the moon. And the sky didn't fall in either.
The US can certainly spend a couple of single digits worth of GDP on renewables without everything falling apart.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Now, we have a choice between serious lifestyle discomfort in the short term or famine and death in the long term. I expect we'll opt for our grandchildren's generation to starve It's statements like this, which are completely absurd, which are hindering our progress of making meaningful change. Please stop using armegeddon like language to describe climate change. It doesn't help if you sound like a crazed cultist…
> It's statements like this, which are completely absurd, which are hindering our progress of making meaningful change. Only the degree of certainty of the statement is exaggerated. The content is well within any reasonable scenario-planning approach. Near-term catastrophe may not be the most likely outcome, but on all accounts it is likely enough to be the most genuinely alarming threat we've yet faced. You may not…
You sound exactly like a Jehovah's witness or a Mormon missionary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They printed money starting in 1930? Yup, the dam. But they didn't print enough. And Bernanke didn't print enough fast enough -- we were in the Great Depression for about 12 years and nearly that long in the Great Recession. Bummer. You are correct about the threat of inflation. But we know how to stop inflation: Reduce the money supply, e.g., by raising interest rates. Then the member banks will return their loans f…
If you look at debt between 1920 and 1945 you see that between 1940 and 1945 the war economy resulted in private and corporate debt replaced almost entirely by Federal government debt. After 2008 the Chinese government dealt with falling demand and exports by building 10,000km of high speed rail network. In either case despite dire predictions of economists the sky didn't fall in. Also riddle this: The US spent about…
The sky fell in on the Soviet Union. The main difference was the Marshall plan and the fact that the US was financing the rebuilding of Europe
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They printed money starting in 1930? Yup, the dam. But they didn't print enough. And Bernanke didn't print enough fast enough -- we were in the Great Depression for about 12 years and nearly that long in the Great Recession. Bummer. You are correct about the threat of inflation. But we know how to stop inflation: Reduce the money supply, e.g., by raising interest rates. Then the member banks will return their loans f…
If you look at debt between 1920 and 1945 you see that between 1940 and 1945 the war economy resulted in private and corporate debt replaced almost entirely by Federal government debt. After 2008 the Chinese government dealt with falling demand and exports by building 10,000km of high speed rail network. In either case despite dire predictions of economists the sky didn't fall in. Also riddle this: The US spent about…
Yup, not everything would "fall apart". Yup.
But 50 projects each taking just 2% of GDP would take 100% of GDP! 2% of GDP is a lot, e.g., what the NATO countries are supposed to have been spending on defense but long didn't.
Let's see: IIRC Trump is spending about $807 billion a year on defense, and just now from Google the US GDP per year is about $19.39 T. Sooooo,
100 * 807 / 19,390 = 4.162
says that we are spending just over 4% of GDP on defense. So, a "couple of single digits", i.e., if I read you correctly, would be 2% of GDP and about half of defense -- definitely not small potatoes.
I have a friend with a lot of money in a family with a lot of money. Whenever anyone asks him to spend some of his money, his first question is "Why should I?". Without a good answer, he doesn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People can't switch from fossil-dependent careers to renewable-dependent careers in a week, or even a year. Or ever, perhaps. I can no longer remember where, but I recently read an article about a backlash by California Democrats against Green New Deal-type ideas. What stood out was someone saying that the idea of retraining workers for other types of jobs was offensive. If people in the oil and gas industry liked…
That's a tough thing. Imagine someone was telling you that you had to change your career because people decided it's no good. What will you do? Put your life on hold and go retrain for something you never intended to train for? Possibly (probably) earn less? Potentially need to move for work? It's complicated. I think it needs to happen. The US and Canada both spend major subsidies on oil and gas, and that money woul…