AOC "New Green Deal" Stunningly Absurd: Far More Ridiculous Than Expected

-edited

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) released her bill for a "Green New Deal". It's stunningly absurd.

Today AOC released her New Green Deal Proposal.

It's a wish list of socialist and green ideas, most of which are obviously absurd to all but the most economically clueless persons.

It has zero chance of passage and it's nonbinding, but here are some of the key ideas.

  1. Upgrade all existing buildings in the US
  2. 100% clean power
  3. Support family farms
  4. Universal access to healthy food
  5. Zero-emission vehicle infrastructure
  6. Remove greenhouse gasses form the atmosphere
  7. Eliminate unfair competition
  8. Affordable access to electricity
  9. Create high-quality union jobs that pay prevailing wages
  10. Guaranteeing a job with a family sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States

Here are a couple of comments from Twitter.

Fyre Festival of Legislative Proposals

As Bad as Expected

No, it was far worse. Perhaps Heritage is more imaginative than I am.

Revenge of the Millennials

Bloomberg writer Karl W. Smith calls it Revenge of the Millennials

Almost every major new economic initiative proposed by Democrats — the Green New Deal, Medicare for all, debt-free college — has a common feature: Unlike most current social programs, it would benefit younger Americans at the expense of older Americans.

Now, finally, it seems that they have had enough. They want to use fiscal policy to help repair the damage wrought by monetary policy. This isn’t necessarily the way I would address the issue; I would argue for fixing monetary policy instead of spending vast additional sums to support a new suite of government entitlements. I am certainly sympathetic, however, to those who think otherwise.

Smith is mistaken. This proposal sounds just like the lofty socialist goals of Castro, Chavez, Maduro, and Mugabe (Cuba, Venezuela, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe).

Implementing AOC's plan would do just what Stukey suggested to which I add:

If someone blows off your left arm with a shotgun, it's best not to blow your right arm off as "revenge".

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Comments (107)
No. 1-41
gregggg
gregggg
  1. Entertain the constituency to keep the circus going while 1-10 fail to materialize.
Hansa
Hansa

Everything's a creepy carnival these days. AOC clears tables for a living but is turned into a superstar by a corporate media conspiracy to create the next BHO. Typical that AOC and BHO are both hollow empty shells to be filled with whatever excrement their owners desire. As for the G.N.D., it is cartoonish and clearly used to dupe the DNC's own followers, much in the way the GOP duped their followers by endlessly chanting "reduce the size and scope of government" while expanding it. Dupes are dupes. Still, the G.N.D. will die a quick death because people don't care about policy anymore, only personality. But honestly: who has more personality than DJT?

abend237-04
abend237-04

You have to relate and empathize if you're going to get anywhere in national politics today. Pick a large group with real or imagined gripes and grievances and feel their pain.

AOC's on it. She's picked the millennial living in mom and dad's basement, saddled with their portion of $1.4 Trillion in college debt, and suffering from TDS and Hillary withdrawal.

Her "plan" looks suspiciously like Huey Long's February, 1934 "share the wealth" screech. In fact, if you inflate Huey's $2,000 guaranteed income offering by 3.55% annual inflation for the 84 years, it's now $37,466.

Said differently, our friendly politicians have destroyed 94.7% of the dollar's purchasing power in only 84 years...because we've let them, while waiting for the socialist Godot to arrive. Here she is.

davebarnes
davebarnes

At least we are discussing something other than a stupid wall. At least it is not a tax cut ("reform", my ass} that benefits only very high income earners (aka, rich people). Yes, it is naïve. But, it is about moving forward towards solutions for our problems.

Ossqss
Ossqss

Hummm, considering that solar and wind power devices cannot be manufactured with wind or solar power, we have a problem Houston. Let alone the fact that wind and solar currently contribute maybe 1% of global energy needs. Energy, not just electricity.

I particularly chuckled on the transoceanic train idea.

Back to your caves people ;-)

Supplimental item I remembered from a while back.

Ossqss
Ossqss

BTW, biofuels and waste are effectively burned to produce energy and contribut similar amount of CO2

thimk
thimk

Nancy will have AOC on a short leash .

JonSellers
JonSellers

"Remove greenhouse gasses form the atmosphere"

So, um, greenhouse gases are what store heat in the atmosphere. That's why they're called "greenhouse gases". They are why you can stand in the shade and the temperature doesn't drop by 80 degrees. The atmosphere still keeps you warm. Oxygen and Nitrogen can't store heat. Even though greenhouse gases make up a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, even tiny changes can have dramatic impacts over the long term. Which is why climate change is an issue to start with. Remove them, and we all freeze to death.

That sentence right there shows you that this is intended to be a socialist jobs program first, and anything green coming out of it is pure luck.

domain
domain

My favorite part was "eliminate unfair competition". One should know by now that with this bunch of communists that unfair competition is any competition. Good maintaining any sort of coordination of goods/services/advancements without competition...

ML1
ML1

AOC es muy loco.

Corto
Corto

Quite a bunch of cynical old guys here it seems....wait, let's spend trillions on wars and nation building instead. Oops, that didn't work. Why not spend/waste trillions on thing that may actually produce some benefits? More power to her. At least there are new voices, however naive you might think they are.

SMF
SMF

I've been in the construction industry for 30 years, in that time, I have engineered 1000s of residences. This has allowed me to give you all a professional opinion on just electric vehicles alone.

The National Electrical Code Section 220 is what you use to perform calculations for how much electrical power you need for homes, this includes what factors you can use when multiple homes are in the same electrical system.

The problem is that the entire US electric grid is woefully under capacity to deal with all homes having battery chargers. Electric car batteries are the biggest overall load for the vast majority of residences, by far.

Your electric range is usually 8000 watts, while your charger would be 7200 watts. But you do not run your electric range full on (more than one burner) for hours per day, while you charger does.

It simply won't work, and NIMBYs would fight tooth and nail about any extra capacity that would be required.

Fairy tales.

Carl_R
Carl_R

This site is messing with my paragraph numbers. They look fine in edit, but not as posted. I apologize for the formatting issues.

Addressing some of these:

  1. Upgrade all existing buildings in the US
  • In a free market, the owners of buildings will upgrade them, if it makes economic sense. Mandating updates means forcing them to make upgrades that do not make economic sense. Thus it is inherently wasteful.
  1. 100% clean power
  • The transition to clean power is happening already, but only at a pace that makes economic sense. It takes time, and money to build out power, and building faster is not necessarily a good idea, even if you could. Consider Solar, for example. Solar panels produced five year from now will be more efficient than those produced today. If you installed them all today, five years from now you'd have dated technology, but have to continue to use it for the remainder of it's 30-50 year life. It's better to put it in at a reasonable pace so that you get to benefit from the steady improvement.
  1. Support family farms
  • I'm not sure what this means. We already have policies that favor family farms, so I'm not sure how she wants to change those policies
  1. Universal access to healthy food -Again, I'm not sure what this means. If we have access to a grocery, we have access to healthy foods. The problem isn't that we don't have access to healthy foods, it is that we don't choose healthy foods.

  2. Zero-emission vehicle infrastructure -Again, I'm not sure what is meant

  3. Remove greenhouse gasses form the atmosphere -Umm, how?

  4. Eliminate unfair competition -As discussed in another post, what does this mean? Does it mean eliminating competition, and replacing everything with a regulated monopoly? Or does it mean breaking up existing monopolies? In the past it was usually the latter, in which case companies like Facebook, Google, and Amazon would be targets. Since those are all liberal, I kind of doubt she would target them.

  5. Affordable access to electricity

  • This is inconsistent with #2 above. If you mandate 100% clean power, you're going to radically increase the price of power. Clean power probably costs double the cost of current power generation to begin with, but if you force utilities to mothball existing power generation, they will have to write those off, and cover that loss in future power sales. I tend to think costs would triple, at least.
  1. Create high-quality union jobs that pay prevailing wages -Unions work by restricting competition. They can force labor rates up so long as they can eliminate competition. The increase in globalization means that everyone is competing with everywhere else in the world, and that has severely cut into unionization. Globalization is not going away. That's why the one place where unionization has been strong is in government jobs. For those there can be no competition (well, private schools can compete with public schools, but they start at a major disadvantage, since parents who send their kids to private school have to pay twice, once to public school, and once to the school of their choice). Thus, the only way to do #9 is to give more and more people government jobs. Since government jobs inherently are immune to competition, they are also inherently inefficient. The two go hand in hand - it is competition that drives efficiency. Therefore, if we create more government jobs as a way to create high-wage union jobs, we will cripple the economy by driving up inefficiency.

  2. Guaranteeing a job with a family sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States -Of course. But, what if the job doesn't produce enough to pay such a wage? The answer, of course, is more welfare, and more government jobs. See #8 above. If the goal is to crush GDP, and destroy the economic wealth of the country, this would be the ideal approach.

People complain about how the young won't be better off than their parents, and how workers aren't getting ahead. The reason why they aren't is simple enough. All wealth is created by private enterprise. The government takes a portion of that, and spreads it around. Over the last sixty years, the government has become a larger and larger portion of GDP, and private enterprise has become a smaller portion. That means that the number of those producing wealth keeps getting smaller, while the burden they are supporting keeps getting larger. What comes after economic stagnation? Economic shrinkage, of course.

One of the fundamental principles that applies here is that whenever government messes something up, the only possible solution is more government, until the entire system finally collapses. That's what we are seeing here. Government has been slowly consuming the capability of the American economy to grow, and now we are reaching the tipping point. In order to stop that, the only answer is to dramatically expand government, which in turn will implode the economy.

The US is getting long of tooth anyway. All my life I have said that the end will come sometime between 2033 and 2050. I continue to believe that to be true. The fact that ideas like this have any popularity shows just how close we are.

Six000mileyear
Six000mileyear

The fallacy of eliminating greenhouse gases is that plants would die without CO2. Then people would die without plants to produce oxygen. It's a symbiotic relation that has no single point of stabiity.

Blacklisted
Blacklisted

I would say, PLEASE let the Dems continue to implode, but they are taking us down with them. When you put AOC on the Finance Committee, and make Maxine Waters the Chair, two people with ZERO experience in the field, is there any doubt our govt is collapsing.

In financial terms, the Dems have been in a bear market since Roosevelt set us on the path of big govt, which AOC tried to blame on the private sector. Sorry, capitalism hasn't been tried in over a 100 years. When you combine the seats of the House and Senate, they peaked in 1936. Since then, every rally resulted in lower highs, and every low was lower - the definition of a bear market.

AOC's "green dream" is just further proof the Dem's are crazier than Trump, and destined to continue their bear market until the waterfall decline. Even good goals, like supporting family farms, access to healthy foods, and eliminating unfair competition would be made worse by bigger govt involvement, as proven by the fact it was GOVT that made these items worse in the first place.

It was GOVT regulators that let the banksters abuse their power and break the law, giving us the financial crisis, without any top executives going to prison. One of the top reasons health care cost are so high is due to GOVT regulators not enforcing EXISTING anti-trust laws - destroying competition. It was GOVT that established the food pyramid that has lead to chronic obesity, and we should all know that it was GOVT that destroyed the family farm. I almost forgot, she wants affordable access to electricity, while wanting to kill all cheap sources of energy.

Only a clueless numbskull would NOT believe that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. With AOC even getting elected and Liz Warren having the hubris to run for President, it proves once again how inept GOVT is - it's called the Dept of Education.

Mish
Mish

Editor

"So when there's a fresh voice, who may need some experience but otherwise has idealistic goals, I am in favor of seeing what she can push through."

Corto is in favor of proven economic stupidity - because it is "idealistic" just to get a "fresh voice"

Ossqss
Ossqss

Mish, this is not primarily about the economy. That is simply a distraction. It is about supply and demand basics.

If you look at the linked info in my prior post, or even the new IEA data, there is no way the globe makes up 90+% of its global energy needs with what is often referred to as renewable energy. Keeping in mind, most of the referenced renewable energy comes from sources that produce more CO2 than burning coal.

Think about a landscape covered in black solar panels and wind farms that provide globally for us, a 1% or a couple of points more energy, than it currently does. It ain't gonna happen unless we revert to the middle ages standard of living.

In fact a little know item is the impact of solar and wind on climate. You don't see studies on that anymore.

Example.

That said, it still remains a point of contention if we actually are harming anything with fossel fuels. The data on problems doesn't exist to date. It is only modeled, and not well statistically, verses observations to the tune of 2.5 x wrong.

This fellow did a good well sited report based upon the available data. Where are the trends touted? All publicly available information.

So, this is not about climate or weather, it is about trickle down control of our energy needs in the end.

All I can say is, I hope the documented, actual, facts come out with this visible initiative to reduce our global standard of living. Science is never done via concensus. Hence, why so many in the climate industial complex don't share the data for verification of theory.

Now, back in your Cave man!

JohnH
JohnH

Mish,

What would our economy look like if the Democratic Socialists were able to pull off these super expensive programs and use Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) to pay for it?

ChicagoMark
ChicagoMark

I boil the Green New Deal down to one thing. A 27 yr old Millennial who is pissed off at the Baby Boomers for 50 yrs of biosphere genocide in the name of “wealth” and the economic inequality of where that wealth went. Who can blame her?

killben
killben

AOC left out a small detail - how is she is going to fund her ideas.

She should read this till it is embedded in her brain...

Margaret Thatcher once said that "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

ChicagoMark
ChicagoMark

the “socialism” bogeyman is so laughable. We have several large socialist policies in place now like welfare and social security. We have a tremendous amount of corporate welfare also. As for how to pay for it, do it the American way...debt, or have the Fed print it up. I’d much rather pay workers to rebuild buildings for a lower energy future than spend $1T on DOD boondoggles. I could go o and on.

Mish
Mish

Editor

What would our economy look like if the Democratic Socialists were able to pull off these super expensive programs and use Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) to pay for it?

Down the path of Venezuela

stillCJ
stillCJ

Editor

Mish, it's not very nice to pick on mentally retarded people like AOC.

stillCJ
stillCJ

Editor

Notice how politicians always get their pics taken with a flag behind them, even if they are very UN-American.

pgp
pgp

Extremism is the new normal in politics but it is simply an inevitable consequence of the incompetence of the wealth and favor driven political system we call modern democracy. A country racking up 20Trillion in debt and spending 600billion a year on defense (aka the armed public services) exemplifies a broken political institution. Why is anyone surprised when the middle class demands some of that money back.

Eff_yeul
Eff_yeul

You lost me at “stunningly absurd: upgrade buildings.” Mish’s next great talk: “evil badness: feed the orphans.”

ChicagoMark
ChicagoMark

It wouldn’t look any different than than the Republican socialism/crony capitalism we have now. The Green New Deal is a 10-yr plan. All easily funded with the tens of trillions we wasted the last 18-yrs on endless war.

The reason we aren’t Venezuela now is the world still believes in the USD. We can Print dollars to keep afloat.

Canadian Curls
Canadian Curls

Well Donald Trump must be real happy today. This list of stupidity from Alexandria Obsessive-Compulsive is the greatest re election campaign for the sitting President..

KidHorn
KidHorn

She clearly is completely clueless about science. I suspect her knowledge is no better than many junior high students. And she's the one deciding how to best combat climate change. Politicians who know nothing about global warming, reading articles written by journalists who know nothing about global warming, quoting whoever makes the most outlandish claims. How can this not be a good idea?

KidHorn
KidHorn

Not to mention longer average life expectancy every decade and a near record low in weather related deaths.

Realist
Realist

“Clueless on Science”. That’s something that applies to Trump, AOC, and far too many of the responders here. Many Americans appear to have become “anti-science”. How sad.

ksdude
ksdude

If she isnt a threat then why is she everywhere and continually being talked about? What if millenials support her in droves and elect more like her. I'll be surprised if she isnt an eventual presidential candidate.

St. Funogas
St. Funogas

On her point about "affordable access to electricity" I have a major bone to pick with the method electric companies use to charge us for power line maintenance. Maybe some readers have some answers.

In a perfect world, roads are maintained by the collection of fuel taxes at the pump. It's a rare case of what I consider a fair tax since you pay for road upkeep according to how much your vehicle tears the roads up. A Mini Cooper driving 10,000 miles per year getting 40 MPG and weighing 1,500 lbs damages roads a lot less than a semi-truck driving 200K miles per year, weighing a gazillion pounds and getting 7 MPG. While they both pay the same percent tax on fuel, the Mini Cooper donates a lot less to road upkeep, as it should be, by buying less fuel.

So why aren't power companies using that same model? Instead, they have a flat rate called a meter charge (among other names) and each customer pays the same rate for each meter. That's as insane as if a Mini Cooper and a semi truck were paying the very same flat rate for road upkeep each year. If they were to do away with the meter charge, and instead add a percentage to each kilowatt, they could collect the same amount of money but those using the power lines the most would be paying the most for their upkeep. Currently, guys like me who are very frugal with electricity, pay 30¢ per kilowatt for line maintenance on a kilowatt that only costs 8¢ to begin with. That's a 375% tax. Meanwhile, Walmart (and all other medium to large users) pays almost nothing. In my actual area, if the power company were to switch from a meter charge to a kWh tax, the tax would only be 2/10ths of a cent/kWh. (I downloaded all the financials from their website.) The power company would collect the exact same amount of money for line maintenance but it would be much more fair to homeowners, who are currently subsidizing business and large users.

Does anyone live in an area inside the US where they have a kilowatt tax instead of a meter charge? Does anyone understand why the power companies would choose to do it this way instead of a kilowatt tax like fuels have?

If Occasional Cortex wants affordable access to electricity for all, this would be a good place for her to start.

RonJ
RonJ

"It's stunningly absurd."

We are living in an era of extremes. One extreme begets the opposite, as for each action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

26 people own as much wealth as something like half the people on the planet. AOC is going to the opposite extreme. Take it away from them.

Cocoa
Cocoa

The Democrats promote her to make corporatist Democrats look moderate and normal. The Reoublicans probably donated to her campaign...to make Democrats look stupid. She is not there, with so much media, on her own volition. The more she talks the more both parties can leverage anti-socialist voters

Sechel
Sechel

The media are paying attention to something that will never happen. Pelosi staffed her environmental panel and guess who is not on it. Alexandria Cortez. Cortez is a freshman house democrat. She frankly has no power or chance at advancing any of this. The right is merely using her proposal for political purposes and conveniently ignoring the fact that it has zero chance at advancing.

I suspect the right is making Cortez a target because it serves some useful purpose having nothing to do with any legislation concerns.

themonosynaptic
themonosynaptic

She's moving the Overton window and getting the right wing to pee their pants. You're getting played. Wise up.