[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/news/ - Current News

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 84 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]


Now accepting credit card payment for 4chan Pass purchases and renewals. Click here for details.


File: 1549812491266.jpg (73 KB, 1263x517)
73 KB
73 KB JPG
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/congress/the-mysterious-case-of-aocs-scrubbed-green-new-deal-details
On Feb. 5, the congressional office of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez posted a new blog entry under “energy issues” detailing her "Green New Deal" proposal and answering “frequently asked questions.”

The page, announcing an 8:30 a.m. launch on Feb. 7, is now gone, and a top adviser suggested Friday it was actually authored and distributed by the GOP.

By the afternoon of Feb. 7, Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., removed the document from her website without explanation but following backlash and even ridicule over the radical plans outlined within it, including a call to "eliminate emissions from cows or air travel" — which would functionally ban the latter — and to provide “economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work.”

The document vanished just hours after Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., formally unveiled a "Green New Deal" resolution that has so far attracted 67 Democratic co-sponsors in the House. It’s a nonbinding measure that is less detailed than the now-deleted FAQ document but calls for a complete and speedy overhaul of the nation’s energy, transportation, and farming sectors in order to eliminate carbon emissions in the coming decades.

The communications staff has so far not responded to an inquiry about the now-missing blog post.
>>
>>354553
But on Saturday morning, chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti tweeted that the FAQ page was indeed posted by the Ocasio-Cortez staff but was done so in error. He called the page "an early draft of a FAQ that was clearly unfinished and that doesn’t represent the GND resolution got published to the website by mistake (idea was to wait for launch, monitor q's, and rewrite that FAQ before publishing)."

Ocasio-Cortez later Saturday admitted the same, tweeting at a Washington Post reporter, "There was also a draft version that got uploaded + taken down. There's also draft versions floating out there."

A policy adviser to Ocasio-Cortez, though, told Fox News Friday night that the claims were some kind of hoax perpetuated by Republicans.

Robert Hockett, professor of law and finance at Cornell University, appearing on "Tucker Carlson Tonight," called the contents of the now-missing blog post “some kind of document that somebody other than us has been circulating.”

Hockett said Ocasio-Cortez does not endorse the idea of paying people “unwilling to work” and does not want to ban airplane travel.

He said Ocasio-Cortez “tweeted it out to laugh at it.”

He added, “It seems apparently some Republicans have put it out there.”

Hockett may have been referring to the Ocasio-Cortez Friday tweet of a doctored version of the blog post by frequent tweeter and humorist David Burge and others that called for recycling urine to conserve water.
>>
>>354554
Ocasio-Cortez again referred to "doctored versions" in her Saturday tweet, though she did not address why the original post on her website, which initially said "we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast" and was apparently later updated to instead include the emissions language, was edited and removed.

Chakrabarti tweeted a link Saturday to the green economy group New Consensus, which has authored an "explainer" of the Green New deal. "Don't worry," New Consensus tweeted. "Policy deets are coming."

As for the blog post, it has not been restored to her congressional website as of Saturday morning but is available via archive (https://web.archive.org/web/20190207191119/https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/blog-posts/green-new-deal-faq) and its text saved online (https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5729035/Green-New-Deal-FAQ.pdf).

There are no new entries under the site’s “Energy Issues” section, just a picture of an oil rig, where the post once appeared.

The page at the original web address for the post says "Page Not Found."
>>
>it's another AOC hit piece from a conservative trash site
Do they ever get tired of making a first term House of Reps member seem like the second coming of Marx? Pander to the 80 year old boomers who are still afraid of Cubans less next time, please.
>>
>>354563
>conservatives made me ban cows farts and private vehicles
Evil white wizards
>>
>>354563
>I can't refute what's being presented so I'll attack the source
Crying about your prog-queen falling onto her face and demonstrating why exactly she ever only managed to become a barista despite having an Ivy league college degree, and lashing out about it being factually reported isn't the kind of constructively-conversational replies I was hoping for, but do you I guess
>>
You don't have to embarrass a commie. They do it by themselves
>>
>>354553
so it was bernies idea to begin with.
the saying is true then
behind every great man is a lying woman scheming to get the credit
>>
>release a plan this retarded
>blame it on complete strangers after people turn on you
>delete everything and ignore any demands for comments
People will still defend this
>>
wait...uh how could the FAQ, posted by Democrats, have been authored by Republicans?
>>
>>354602
The russians hacked it into their blog
>>
>>354611
This is a good narrative. Russia done did it.
>>
>>354565
The RNC was spreading lies; Republican congresspeople were spreading a rumor on twitter that she never had a job and that she got evicted and had a bad credit score.

Then they spread a lie that the Green New Deal proposal mentioned to ban airtravel, which it did not anywhere.

>The Green New Deal sets a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, at the end of this 10-year plan because we aren’t sure that we will be able to fully get rid of, for example, emissions from cows or air travel before then. However, we do believe we can ramp up renewable manufacturing and power production, retrofit every building in America, build the smart grid, overhaul transportation and agriculture, restore our ecosystem, and more to get to net-zero emissions.

>>354565
>she ever only managed to become a barista despite having an Ivy league college degree
i worked a service job out of college before I was able to get one in programming, I'm not ashamed of that; that's what I had to do to pay my bills until I found a better opportunity. She has done the same.
>>
>>354602
Most democrats are basically controlled opposition for Republicans, since Democrats have mostly the same donors.

AOC's campaign was funded 100% small dollar donations, she didn't even accept money through the party.

The dude that claimed the document was a fabrication was an adviser for her campaign, she didn't claim it herself. And even then the claim that the document sought to end air-travel was a lie.

Maybe it wasn't sabotage but unfortunately in our system I wouldn't be surprised. The only folks who hate AOC more than Republicans are other congressional Democrats, at least for now.
>>
>release just an absolutely blisteringly stupid proposal
>so bad you have to scrub it from your own site
>democrats still defend it
Classic.
>>
Enjoy massive famines, everyone. When the response to taking action against ecological disaster is met with this much hostility, you just KNOW we're fucked.
>>
The fact that the idiotic FAQ that was put up by Democrats was circulated to news outlets and placed on the website itself is a sign that nobody in AoC's office saw anything wrong with it until people started pointing it out. It outlines what her campaign really wants and goes to show you what the decision-making process actually is: make a laundry list of things you want and call it a well-thought-out policy package.

>>354624
There's "action," and then there's retarded proposals that mix idiotic social policy (money for everyone! even those who refuse to work!) with pipe dream announcements.
>>
>>354624
Humans need a bottleneck.
>>
>>354617
The democrats and republicans exist to serve as a distraction to the people while their donors actually run the country.
>>
>>354651
There is no bottleneck when a dozen nations can trivially end the world as we know it.

Cyberweapons, nukes, plagues, all those dumb cyberpunk ideas that nobody would use under a functional global economy are going to come out.
>>
>>354653
oy veeeeeeeeyyyyyyy
>>
>>354565
Why are Americans so Anti-Labour? You guys seem to hate anyone and everyone who has ever worked and aren't trust fund babies
>>
>>354653
Cool it with the anti Semitic remarks.
>>
>>354681
Because despite how half the nation can't scrounge up more than a few thousand should an emergency arise, they think they'll be a millionaire any day now, so keeping them socializing commies at bay will benefit them.
>>
The funniest thing about all this is this:
Here in America we produce about 20% of the world's emissions. For laughs, let's say the plan actually was possible, and we reduce all emissions to zero.
The current prediction for how much reduction is needed to significantly decrease climate change? 40% global reduction.
China and India are currently ramping up their emissions. Even if this idiot plan was remotely in the world of sanity or possibility it wouldn't fucking work for the goal it was intended unless we started attacking other countries to force their emissions down, too.
So, US ENVIROIMPERIALISM NOW
>>
>>354716
the red pill is that we should have never allowed the third world to industrialize.

keeping them eternally cavemen would have been the superior option. the only way to save the world from global warming is to nuke the third world into extinction 40 years ago
>>
So how is this not a smear job against AOC? The right wing has already been caught multiple times creating fake stuff to attack people.
>>
>>354723
You're kidding right?
All the people running for president say how they like the green new deal and love the proposal. How many mainstream media outlets ask Kamala Harris "how do you feel about abolishing air travel, where are you on paying people unwilling to work?"
>>
>No it's not true, the right wing are lying! They lied this one unrelated time!
>No I refuse to believe this existed! AOC deleted the page because that was Right wing propaganda she uploaded!

https://web.archive.org/web/20190207191119/https:/ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/blog-posts/green-new-deal-faq
Web Archive doesn't forget.
Now all the shills can fuck off back to the pit they crawled out from.
>>
>>354750
Nice try posting your Nazi archives. Your fascism has no place here Trumptard
>>
>>354755
>literally accusing the archive of the proposal of being a Nazi... Tool? Creation?
Surely this is a parody.
>>
>>354622
>>democrats still defend it
No, they don't. Read better.
>>
>>354716
1. europe s also working on reducing their emission
2. China is actively investing in that too (more and more people in China complain about smog)
3. If the US has a technological breakthrough allowing to have zero emission, it means it's possible for other countries and selling the technology will be a plus.
>>
>>354739
>"how do you feel about abolishing air travel,
Please, stop being a moron. IT NEVER CONTAINED THE PROPOSAL TO BAN AIR-TRAVEL. could you stop being a gullible shit-head.
>>
Lol the part about providing income for those “incapable OR UNWILLING TO WORK” was real and you’re damage controlling about air travel
>>
> Economic security to all who are unable or unwilling to work
> Economic security to all who are unable or unwilling to work
> Economic security to all who are unable or unwilling to work
> Economic security to all who are unable or unwilling to work
>>
>>354759
Oh yeah? This >>354624 isn't defending the bill? The senators and congressmen who endorsed this idiotic, insane bill aren't defending it? You're an idiot.

>>354760
>Europe is reducing their emissions
Still will not be enough to cover China, India, and all of Africa going through their industrial revolutions
>China reducing their emissions
This is just a lie, their government says they are but satellite imagery from third parties says otherwise
>if the US has a breakthrough
The US will not have a breakthrough after it completely destroys it's own economy with insane legislation which will do literally nothing

>>354761
>bill proposes a goal which is literally impossible on its face without nuclear power (which the author of the bill stated wouldn't be used)
>Bill has zero funding method, presumably will sink us literally incalculably further into debt (how much does refurbishing every building in the country cost?)
>but in order to defend it I'll latch on to a tiny exaggeration my opponents are making so as to ignore the literally provably insane parts
Filth.
>>
Look the only way this works is if the first world flexes its muscle and drags the third world into the light by force. Just like AOC said, this is the WWII of our time, we have to build a global coalition to win this one. We can do it, our opponents are third worlders, and we'll be making their lives and the lives of every living thing on the planet better.
US ENVIROIMPERIALISM NOW!

>>354717
Cat's out of the bag now, gotta enlighten them. It'll be better for everyone! Think how many doctors and poets Africa will produce after we depose their cruel governments and raise their people into the light of enlightenment!
>>
>>354764
>Oh yeah? This >>354624 isn't defending the bill?
Nope, it's saying measure have to be taken, not defending that bill specifically.
>>but in order to defend it I'll latch on to a tiny exaggeration my opponents
Just don't propagate bullshit.
>>
>>354769
Oh, okay, glad that anon was only calling for generalized action in a thread directly about it. If only I had mentioned the Democratic senators and congressmen/women who have sponsored this garbage
>oh wait I did
Fuck I'm really beginning to hate you people
>>
>>354763
Yes let's support literal bums who are unwilling to work and only want to be a drain on society! It's the progressive way! give them more free money for having more babies!!
>>
>>354781
Based. Lets kill people for working. I'm a Republican Christian, and I don't care about the value of human life. I just want to kill people who don't live the same life as me, and I want poverty because I can't live without the fact of knowing my friends, the Koch Brothers, not being able to have six yachts instead of five.
>>
>>354625
>The fact that the idiotic FAQ that was put up by Democrats was circulated to news outlets and placed on the website itself is a sign that nobody in AoC's office saw anything wrong with it until people started pointing it out. It outlines what her campaign really wants and goes to show you what the decision-making process actually is: make a laundry list of things you want and call it a well-thought-out policy package.

This is pretty much what Trump and every modern politician does now adays. Create a list of shit that sounds nice with no real thought on how to do it or its consequences.
>>
>>354716
Are you saying facts matter?

Where the fuck have you been since 1990?
>>
>>354763
Say goodbye to private businesses I guess.
>>
>>354794
We'll lose most species before we get off the capitalism train.

We were losing most private businesses to monopolies regardless.

"lol im ded" - Small Business Owner
>>
>>354795
>imagine believing this is true

https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/2018-Small-Business-Profiles-US.pdf

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonnazar/2013/09/09/16-surprising-statistics-about-small-businesses/#5019f3475ec8
>>
The Green New Deal is actually extremely valuable. We can use this as a litmus test to see who is a complete, piss-soaked idiot that doesn't understand economics.
>>
>>354617
if commie mommy is the best that grassroots efforts can come up then I'll stick with the corrupt oligarchs thanks
>>
>>354806
She's still too young to be a mommy. Maybe in 5 years if she's still alive.
>>
>>354750
nice russian hacker lies
>>
>>354809
I wonder how many of these posts are submitted unironically
>>
>>354807
look at those brown milkers and say that again
>>
>>354811
She looks like Mr. Ed
>>
>>354810
Id give it 50/50. You have to read into how wild the caricature goes
>>
>>354761
I didn't say that the bill was saying it would make air travel illegal
I said the bill would abolish air travel. Which it said it would.
>The Green New Deal sets a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, at the end of this 10-year plan because we aren’t sure that we will be able to fully get rid of, for example, emissions from cows or air travel before then.
>We aren't sure that we will fully get rid of air travel before then
Source is this
>>354750
And again. You ignored the main crux of my post. Why did all of the liberal politicians get away with not having to defend this policy that they endorsed?
Why didn't they have to answer questions about the bill they endorsed?
>>
>>354750
And this isn't a forgery how?
>>
>>354832
The timestamps show it was entire internal changes with the AOC crew up until they pulled it. The internet archive (by extension of the Wayback Machine) has cleared the bar to be used as legal evidence since the implementation. Unless you want to start claiming that multiple internet archives are in cahoots in a nefarious Kremlin plot theres not much to refute the actual content of the page.
>>
>>354750
>archive.org
a website constantly used by alt-right and other trumptards to push their conservacucked agenda.
into the trash it goes.
inb4 you post breitbart links
>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpuyvg8uTZE&t=4s
>>
>>354763
Don't we already have that?
>>
>>354857
>a website constantly used by alt-right and other trumptards to push their conservacucked agenda.
That's not a valid point. Alt-right also use forks a lot, it doesn't make those bad.

You have to prove Archive.org might be tampering thing if you want to discredit it. Plenty of non-far-right people use it too and it's a good way to find previous or dead websites.
>>
>>354862
no
>>
>AOC derangement syndrome, the thread
>>
>>354764
Folks on her campaign put up a proposal and then took it down later after reconsidering it. I honestly don't understand why people are losing their shit, she's pretty much throwing stuff against the wall and seeing what sticks which is fine since it isn't legislation.

One of the few bits of Trump's campaign that attracted bipartisan rank-and-file support was the trillion dollar infrastructure plan. I don't see why it's so disagreeable now. I've been to developing countries in south and southeast asia that have more modern metros and rail than we do in much of the country. Maybe we can use public infrastructure renewal.

>>354764
lol; if anybody is destroying anything, it's the folks who just blew a several trillion dollar hole in our deficit with tax cuts that did absolutely nothing to increase the forward momentum of our economy, let alone pay for themselves. And then upped the DOD budget to 770B US$/yr to spend on what? Troop deployments in south america now? More cost overruns (totally unintentional, lockheed martin assures you!) by defense contractors, whose effective budget is apparently infinity?

The American working class is a cancer patient and the trickle down proponents have been talking up fresh air and moderate living as the solution for the last 40 years, now they've tried their solution and the goal is to "keep america great" while our working class and ecosystems crash and burn.

It is now time to try something different.

>Still will not be enough to cover China, India, and all of Africa going through their industrial revolutions

Right; these places have had historic carbon emissions a fraction of our own. We're not against all industry; we should all be entitled to a share of our carbon budget. And more developed countries like our own have greater means to take the lead here while also producing agreements with newly industrializing countries that they aren't being allowed blank checks.
>>
>>354885
>One of the few bits of Trump's campaign that attracted bipartisan rank-and-file support was the trillion dollar infrastructure plan.
Whatever happened to that?
>>
>>354885
>trillion dollar infrastructure plan
>retrofitting every single building in America
One is insane, the other is not. Upgrading roads, bridges, trains, border security and all that makes sense, and would likely cost about that much. Retrofitting every fucking building in the US is crazytown.
>just seeing what sticks
Lo and behold, Democratic senators and congressmen came out in support of the idiotic bill, so it looks like it stuck. What sort of idiot argument is this anyway?
>we drafted and put forward a completely retarded and impossible bill
>but uhhhh it was just to test the waters... To see if people like retarded policy?
>>
>>354885
>democrats whining about the national debt
You fucktards want Medicare for all and you're complaining about the debt? Go FUCK yourself. For your information we also collected more income tax this year because of the tax cuts, not that you like to let facts enter into any of your arguments.
>whining about increased defense spending
If you weren't aware, we have been in an arms race with China and Russia for the past seventy years or so, and both have been getting more aggressive in their spere. The DOD and the devices they are developing are keeping not only us but a huge part of the world safe. Nice strawman about South America though.
>whining about the middle class
A) consumer goods have massively decreased in price
B) the wages of the middle class come increasingly from non payed benefits such as health insurance
These things together show a far different picture, not that you'd ever like to look.
>it's time to try something different
Socialism killed over 100 million of its own citizen non combatants last century alone, and it certainly won't be "different" this time, from the looks.
>others should be allowed to pollute
This last paragraph is the richest of all. It clearly shows that your true intention is not to help the environment. Just lowering the first world's emissions wouldn't do the job as I've pointed out. No, your true goal is only to punish America. If you gave a shit about the environment, really, you would actually care about the other places in the world polluting more than us
>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpuyvg8uTZE&t=25s
>>
>>354885
>I honestly don't understand why people are losing their shit,
It's called conservatives and their billionaire owners desperate to find anything to smear with with since they're scared shitless of her
>>
>>354553
Tell me about AOC?
Why does she hate cow farts and airplanes?
>>
>>354970
AoC's statement can be read as either:
- claiming that cows and airplanes should be phased out but can't within the next ten years
- claiming that emissions from cows and airplanes should be made emission-zero but can't within the next years
- simply acknowledging that cows and airplanes aren't going anywhere within the next ten years

That statement is the least of the problems with the plan.
>>
>>354907
Are you aware of anything holy fuck

China can only fight a land war against its nearest neighbors, it has a brown water navy and no ability to project force.

Russia has an economy the size of Texas.

Our economy is going to endlessly boom and bust, concentrating wealth into fewer and fewer hands.
>>
>>355154
>China can only fight a land war... Brown water navy only
Which is why they've been building up their fleet and presence in the waters they consider theirs
>Russia has an economy the size of Texas
Which will not stop them from investing more into their technology, as their new missile development indicates, you double retard.
Was your point that we're not in an arms race? Because that's just fucking seriously idiotic.
>our economy will endlessly boom
Unless you socialist fucktards get your way
>and concentrate wealth into the hands of the few
Meanwhile if you take any demographic and compare them to the American version they're more wealthy on average. Meanwhile due to American philanthropy and business world poverty has been dropping at a rate faster than the UN predicted or hoped.
>but fuck it let's destroy our economy why not
>>
>>355203
The UN is a neolib organization and saying "but poverty is decreasing!" is weak shit when it could be decreasing faster.
>>
>>354805
The economy is a facade based almost entirely on sentiment, and very little to do with anything real or substantial. Even moreso after the ascendency of Wall St. and non-tangible stock markets.

It exists to serve us. If it's not meeting our needs, then we have to change it. It really is that simple.
>>
>>354870
Unemployment benefits exist, but only if you can't find a job.

SSI for cripples too, obviously.

Nothing for someone who refuses to work though, someone who refuses to work and demands free shit deserves nothing but euthanization.
>>
>>354807
She's 29, that's not young at all.

If she waits much longer to produce goblins they'll all end up retarded or autistic.
>>
>HOW ARE WE GONNA PAY FOR IT?!?!?!
>Let's put a few more billion into our annual military budget
>>
>>355237
Our military is 17% of our spending. Not even $1 trillion yet. Nowhere near as large as you think it is and not as much to pay for an idiotic half-baked plan like this.
>>
>>355238
still more than the next 8 countries combined some of whom are our allies
we spent 1.5 trillion on the new f35 fighter jets you dont think we can sprinkle some of that down onto the lowly peasants
>>
>>355239
Wrong, or deliberately misleading again. The F35 project will cost that much over it's lifetime of 55 years. The DOD didn't just cut a $1.5 trillion check. It still cost too much though and anyone would agree with that. That being said I don't know what you think the governments job is. Your job is supposed to pay you, not the government. This country has the greatest class mobility ever, you don't have to be a pesant your whole life.
>>
>>355239
>He didnt get in on some of that F35 chedder
The US military industrial complex is probably the greatest job oppurtunity if you have a tech or engineering degree. You get treated and paid like a valuable professional while working on a project that isnt a scam for startup money.
>>
>>355238
>Our military is 17% of our spending
That's bigger than the next six largest military spenders on this planet, COMBINED. 12 nuclear aircraft carriers ain't cheap. Don't act like that's nothing.
>>
>>355255
And our allies still don't meet their military spending obligations as part of NATO, really makes me think...

I don't know why you keep repeating the fact that we spend the most on our military. A 5th grader could tell me that, this isn't new information you spastic.
>>
>>355216
>world poverty decreases by 50%
>faster than literally every estimate
>but it could be faster
>meanwhile in socialist countries people are starving and eating their dogs
You're a fucking idiot
>>
>>355239
Ok? And? Do you have any idea what the military budget actually entails? Or the benefits that it provides for the homeland? I'm all about cutting military spending but to pretend that military spending is the biggest evil in the entire budget is just stupid. Why should we care what the other countries are spending in the first place?
>>
>>355227
good slave
>>
>>355348

>world poverty decreases by 50%

World poverty has been decreasing since long before our experiment with trickle down economics began ~40 years ago.

In most recent cases it's just involved countries like China and India gaining access to mechanized agriculture, or getting out of their own way in some very basic ways that nobody has contested.

>meanwhile in socialist countries people are starving and eating their dogs

When you say socialist we can be talking about Germany, Denmark, Finland, China, India, Israel Canada just as easily as we can lump Venezuela and North Korea in. Just as easily as we can uphold Somalia and rural Pakistan to be models of small government.
>>
>>354763
>> Economic security to all who are unable or unwilling to work

Economic security for some folks unwilling to work has been a concession to the political right, since provisioning for retooling workers from defunct industries was part of that draft of the GND. In 2016 Democrats proposed phasing out coal power in the US because of climate change, acid rain birth defects, cancer, COPD. It's a toxic way of generating power.

But many coal miners were quite vocal that they would refuse to train in a different field if it were offered them. For that part of the Republican voting bloc the best option is to tell these 55 years olds they can do whatever they want after their mine closes and they'll be supported until they come around to working in a new industry.
>>
>>355403
Okay.
Firstly.
Can you find any politician purporting "trickle down economics"?
Or are you referring to people keeping the money they earn, rather than being heavily taxed.
In which case, we can look at things like the laffer curve, and that as taxation rates go down, tax receipts go up, as does the amount of total wealth created.
As people are allowed to make their own decisions, their self interest allows them to be better off.
>>
>>355348
But the socialists in the US don't talk about installing a military oligarchy like you have in Venezuela; they talk about a public option and socialized healthcare like you have in Scandinavian countries.
It's important to make distinctions between particular policies because they can clearly be component to very different outcomes on the national and individual levels.
>>
>>355414
>Or are you referring to people keeping the money they earn, rather than being heavily taxed.
When you say they earn it in that way, it just begs the question. The question of how much someone is owed for a given unit of work is a complex. It's not clear one was deserving of all the conditions necessary for the transaction in the first place so redistribution isn't inherently wrong.

Property itself is a subjective concept; the government is the party that enforces one's claim over any given property. So writing limitations into the system by which control over wealth is delineated, ie by taxation, isn't inherently wrong.

>In which case, we can look at things like the laffer curve, and that as taxation rates go down, tax receipts go up, as does the amount of total wealth created.
I'm not familiar with that data, I'd have to research it. But there are only so many private jets a multi-billionaire can purchase. They horde a much larger portion of wealth they control. Whereas when it's spent on our working class, the velocity of money is far greater; a much larger portion of income is spent.

>As people are allowed to make their own decisions, their self interest allows them to be better off.
Right but many things contribute to human freedom. Private property to an extent, for certain. But also good infrastructure, education, technology, security in healthcare, nutrition, and utilities. All of these things may directly one's options in life.
We're talking about taking some money from folks who won't miss it, and using it to vastly improve freedom of many others. If someone goes from controlling one billion US$ in wealth even as far down to 500 million US$, that hurts their quality of life not at all. Income inequality in the US is record high; if there was a time to increase taxes on the rich and wealthy, now is it.
>>
>>355414
Even if the economy grows faster, I'd rather preserve our precious ecosystems. The economy is important; but it isn't the only important thing ever.
>>
>>355417
>When you say they earn it in that way, it just begs the question. The question of how much someone is owed for a given unit of work is a complex. It's not clear one was deserving of all the conditions necessary for the transaction in the first place so redistribution isn't inherently wrong.
That's where consent comes in.
Both parties are made better off through the process. That's the foundation of capitalism. When I get a cup of coffee, the cafe isn't being exploited, nor am I. That's why I say thank you, and the Barista says thank you. I want the coffee more than the change in my pocket, and the business would rather have the change in my pocket than the coffee in their pot. Voluntary transactions only happen when both parties are made better off.

The government is acting as a bandit, and not providing any additional value to that transaction. It is stepping in the centre, and saying unless you give us our cut, this transaction will not happen. And if you refuse to give us our cut, we will send men with guns to your home to take you away.
>>
>>355425
>By the late 1800s, large cities all around the world were “drowning in horse manure". In order for these cities to function, they were dependent on thousands of horses for the transport of both people and goods....
>This problem came to a head when in 1894, The Times newspaper predicted... “In 50 years, every street in London will be buried under nine feet of manure.”
>This became known as the ‘Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894’.
>The terrible situation was debated in 1898 at the world’s first international urban planning conference in New York, but no solution could be found. It seemed urban civilisation was doomed.
I am sure progressives of the era suggested a manure tax, or horse tax, or other such things to solve the problem. Surprisingly, none of those solutions worked. It was the invention of a new technology, the automobile that solved the problem. In the same way a new technology will solve our climate change problem. Something like this perhaps
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/07/carbon-engineering-and-harvard-find-way-to-convert-co2-to-gasoline.html
And, there's a question to the preservation of the enviroment.
Would we rather have a forest, or a home to live in?
A home, obviously.
If you disagree, you can live in a tent in the forest, but most people of the world vote with their feet and their wallet, and would rather destroy the forest or plain that used to be there and live in a home with their family.
>>
>>355426
>The government is acting as a bandit, and not providing any additional value to that transaction
That's a lie.
>>
>>355426
>That's where consent comes in.
But consent implies they're giving something of theirs. Taxed wealth isn't considered their property in the first place.

>Both parties are made better off through the process. That's the foundation of capitalism. When I get a cup of coffee, the cafe isn't being exploited, nor am I. That's why I say thank you, and the Barista says thank you. I want the coffee more than the change in my pocket, and the business would rather have the change in my pocket than the coffee in their pot. Voluntary transactions only happen when both parties are made better off.

I'm not sure what relevance this has; nobody is speaking of outlawing private property. We recognize the importance of profit motive in generating productivity and innovation toward immediate social demand.

>The government is acting as a bandit, and not providing any additional value to that transaction. It is stepping in the centre, and saying unless you give us our cut, this transaction will not happen.
The government is saying society will recognize your claim to some of this wealth but not an absolute claim to all of it. Whether taxes facilitate transactions is again a complex question but overall working class folks spend a larger portion of their paycheck. The ultra-wealthy are much more likely to horde it or spend it on stock buybacks or mergers that harm growth in the first place. So even if the goal was maximum transactions (sort of arbitrary but whatever) there's a stronger argument to be made for redistribution down the income/wealth ladder.
>>
>>355437
How is wealth acquired without taxation?
>>
>>354908
cute, voting for her in her re-election now.
>>
>>355428
What if I told you having a home or a forest isn't a zero sum equation? You can have both.
>>
>>355428
The problem inherent with carbon capture technologies is that the release of co2 is a direct byproduct of hydrocarbons undergoing combustion reaction to produce heat which gets converted to electrical energy.

Recapturing the CO2 typically involves reversing that reaction, which requires expenditure of energy. Which makes the whole process redundant. Or at the very least, makes the process so energy inefficient that it's more cost-effective to transition directly to renewables.
>>
>>355452
There can be trees on a piece of land, or a home.
Not both
>>
>>354553
I love watching this stupid cunt fail.
Between her and Congressman Burqa she's helping the gop gain millions of voters.
>>
>>354615
lol all they did was post what was on her own site.
>>
>>354617
Imagine being this stupid.

The document clearly states they want to make air travel "unnecessary".
>>
>>354624
Oh no we're all gonna die in 12 years!!!!!

Man made climate change is a joke.
>>
>>355452
habitats for wild life and cities are mutually exclusive, unless we are talking about crows, pigeons, racoons, rats, mice, and sea gulls.
>>
And now Democrats are mad because the senate will put it up for a vote.
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/12/694060405/mcconnell-plans-to-bring-green-new-deal-to-senate-vote
>>
>>354885
>I honestly don't understand why people are losing their shit
Because AOC is a walking caricature of the far left. She's full of feelgood ideas but doesn't understand how this deal would literally send America back to the Dark Ages. I mean let's take a look at a few things that she listed.
>Upgrade or replace every building in US for state-of-the-art energy efficiency
Cool, so she not only plans to redo the electrical infrastructure of 40K+ buildings, but also update the electrical grid of every US city. Stuff that hasn't been touched since the late 1800's, left in catacombs and such.
>Massively expand clean manufacturing (like solar panel factories, wind turbine factories, battery and storage manufacturing, energy efficient manufacturing components) and remove pollution and greenhouse gasemissions from manufacturing
>Restore all our damaged and threatened ecosystems
Ignoring for the moment that manufacturing Solar Panels produces a disastrous amount of toxic waste, you would need 10K square miles of solar panels to power the entirety of the unites states. Wind turbines devastate bird species so it's a wonder why she included those as an example.
>Invest in R&D of new clean and renewable energy technologies
>The Green New Deal makes new fossil fuel infrastructure or nuclear plants unnecessary. This is a massive mobilization of all our resources into renewable energies.
So not only does this plan necessitate the invention of an unknown, clean form of energy, but AOC also expects everybody to go back to using candle light until we can find out what the fuck that actually is. Holy fucking shit, what a winner.
>>
>>354615
>The RNC was spreading lies

LOL! Communist Barbie is an airhead and that's obvious to all when she doesn't have the Mainstream Media managing her statements.
>>
>>355652
LOL! You didn't say anything but ad hominems. Found the real airhead.
>>
>>355653
No the was a mild argument in there about msm managing her statement.
Your argument in the other hand was 100% ad homs
>>
>>355564
What’s the benefit to the gop voting on this? I know it won’t pass but what does it do?
>>
>>355653
No he was right. The green new deal was presented raw and uncut. It flopped and now cortex is backtracking.
>>
>>355656
They want to get podium time to speech about how it is dumb and a waste of money and against TRUE AMERICAN VALUES.

They've been sucking down losses faster than an American w/ opiods so they're hoping to farm soundbites for their moron base.

Then they'll vote against it after getting all worked up and go home happy.
>>
Save the Vegetables
>>>/pol/203048877
>>
>>354553
shes absolutely right though this is a good idea and it can be done, its not impossible no matter how much /pol/tards want to think otherwise

if you look at the numbers this basically pays for itself and is a great idea, just take for example
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
Dumping Stack
0x400895 <shill+125> movl $0x1,-0xc(%rbp)
0x40089c <shill+122> movl $0x0,-0x8(%rbp)
0x4008a3 <shill+129> cmpl $0x9,-0x8(%rbp)
0x4008a7 <shill+133> jg 0x4008b5 <shill+147>
0x4008a9 <shill+135> mov -0xc(%rbp),%eax
0x4008b3 <shill+45> jmp 0x4008a3 <shill+129>
0x4008b5 <shill+47> mov -0x4(%rbp),%eax
0x4008b8 <shill+50> mov %eax,%esi
Dumping Registers
rax 0x1 1
rbx 0x0 0
rcx 0xc0 192
rdx 0x7fffffffe108 140737488347400
rsi 0x7fffffffe0f8 140737488347384
rdi 0x1 1
rbp 0x7fffffffe010 0x7fffffffe010
rsp 0x7fffffffe000 0x7fffffffe000
r8 0x7ffff7dd5980 140737351866752
r9 0x7ffff7dca720 140737351821088
r10 0x6 6
r11 0x7ffff7187250 140737338962512
r12 0x400790 4196240
>>
What's the difference between the NPC meme and sheeple? Why do we need a nerdier version of the same joke? Also shouldn't it be ai since NPCs in games don't interact based on scripts, they're more like objects painted with dialogue?
>>
>>355790
Fucking yikes
>>
>>354857
>archive.org
>a website constantly used by alt-right and other trumptards to push their conservacucked agenda.
God forbid people don't let something get flushed away down the memory hole, that's bad because some of the people who recall things from the past are douche bags I don't like.
>>
>>354764
>>if the US has a breakthrough
>The US will not have a breakthrough after it completely destroys it's own economy with insane legislation which will do literally nothing

says who?
I mean, what's your alternative plan?

>let's do nothing because everything will be fine if we do nothing.
>whatever you do don't tax the rich because some lolbertarians say that would be bad.
>>
>>354857
It's easy to use to throw hypocrisy back in asshole's faces when it's archived. And the left are massive hypocritical assholes. Asshole
>>
>>355908
>>let's do nothing because everything will be fine if we do nothing.
How did government fix the problem of peak oil?
>>
I never paid too much attention to Ocasio-Cortez because shes just a first term backbencher in the lower house. The amount of attention she gets compared to her position is retarded so I decided to not be part of the problem, but I liked it when I found out she was recently working as a bartender and ostensibly rubbing elbows with normal people.
She so all over the place its hard to miss everything. Anyway if she if going to turn into a swelled headed asshole like the rest of the folks in congress that quickly then I'll just forget anything I ever thought nice about her. She's only been in there a month and already infected, fucking shame
>>
>>355940
learn to spot a false flag
and a lazy one at that

>hypocrisy
what hypocrisy?
Literally nobody I know outside of right wing circles is still saying anyone's claiming the FAQ was still faked. Nobody on "the left" cares because it was a thing that was written, reconsidered, and then taken down. It isn't legislation.
>>
>>355951
most americans agree with the lion's share of the GND. If you ask just about anyone (anyone that doesn't think taxes are slavery):

>transition to green energy
sure, that's important

>infrastructure renewal
yeah we're long overdue

>trans national high speed rail
cool!

>retooling programs for folks from defunct industries
makes sense
>>
>>355959
Not if you tell them how much it would cost.
>>
>>355959
People support the policies of Sweden.
Just ask people "Would you support paying up to 60% of your income in taxes if you're making 37,000$ a year and above to fund these policies?" and you'll get a different answer.
>>
>>355959
Hell, most of thsoe are things the republicans THEMSELVES have proposed at one point or another. They're mad about it because the dems put it on the table first.

And no, they don't actually care about cost - they only gripe about the defecit when they're not the ones spending. Trump's tax cut pushed us over the 22 trillion mark and they're annoyed because the GND is *too expensive?* gimme a break.
>>
>>355960
>>355961
>muh defecit
And yet you supported the tax cuts just fine, even though they didn't even help you (pretty sure gorillionaires don't browse 4chan).

You don't care about the money. You just don't like democrats.
>>
>>355963
Did either of those posts use the word deficit?
And yes, the tax cuts did help me, by resulting in more goods and services being produced in the future that I will use every day, in addition to the ones already produced by the United States. Lets compare the United States and Europe.
How many things that have shaped the modern world have come from Europe?
Computers have increased my quality of life, and the standardization of a quality operating system through Windows has increased it. Didn't come out of Europe.
Having a smartphone in my pocket, and being able to instantly access any form of media, information, or tutorial on how to do something in my pocket. What national government made that? None, it was American free enterprise, same with the website hosting all the tutorials and media.
How about the entire classification of Unicorn companies, startups that are shaping the world we live in, by turning resources people had like cars and houses into something they can make money with, The Ubers and Airbnbs of the world. How many of those came out of Europe?
One, Spotify.
Seems like all the quality of life increases are coming out of the united states, with a less redistributionist policy. And that will result in more innovation, because if you tax something less, people do more of it. And if you tax people less for providing goods and services, they will provide more goods and services.
>>
Unicorns
>>
>>355966
That's a hell lot of nothing concrete, then irrelevant bull.
Why bother typing all that shit.
>>
>>355966
This is the stupidest response to the tax cuts that I have ever seen. Thanks for that, anon. You show you don't understand a goddamn thing.
>>
>>355986
Because you can't point at things that aren't invented yet, because you have people stomping on the economy.
Nobody is going to tell you 50 years from now when you have dementia, that if there wasn't redistributionist policies there would be a cure for the disease, but because there was, there's nothing they can do.
The free market innovates.
When's the last time you saw an innovation come out of the DMV?
What did government do to solve the problem of peak oil?
Nothing, they put price controls on gasoline in the 70s, and resulted in rationing, gas lines, and a massive economic downturn
>>
>>355986
>>355989
imagine being so triggered by the observation that america produces more globally successful businesses and products than europe that you have to ignore it entirely
>>
>>355989
Why would you work when you're keeping less than half of what you earn?
Why would a world class heart surgeon perform surgery when he's getting less than half the money for the same amount of work. He wouldn't, so the waiting list gets longer, or the price of the surgery gets even higher so that he can get adequately compensated, because the government is taking more than half. Meaning people die on waiting lists or can't afford surgery.
The Rock has a valuable skillset. Why would he star in another movie when he gets 30% of the money for the same amount of work. He wouldn't, so he stays at home, the movie doesn't get made, and all the other people who would have gotten a job if he signed on, the boom mic operator, the extras and so on don't get a job.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2012/10/15/do-tax-cuts-increase-government-revenue/
That's why Reagan was pushing for the tax cuts, he was realizing that there was no reason for him to put out more movies, because he would be working the same hours but keeping less then half of his salary.
The same could be said of private investment. If you lose 100% of every dollar you lose, but keep 65 cents of every dollar you earn, you're going to go down to 0, and so you're going to change your behaviour to minimize risk, and end up with stagnation
>>
>>355991
Success in spite of adversity is not success because of adversity.
>>
>>355993
Man, first time I saw this pasta I actually thought someone was seriously arguing this.
Guy dropped arguing with me when the new thread about Trump gained traction and he moved threads.
>>
>>355996
I guess if anyone ever doesn't get the last word in a conversation he's never allowed to bring up the topic again.
>>
>>355997
He can sure, but running away isn't the same as not getting the last word.
If he wants to continue, then start here where we left off, not repeat pasta.
>>
>>355996
You're doing the same work for diminishing returns.
Why work the same hours for less stuff, when you can pursue an expensive with your new found wealth, like yachting or skiing or something?
>>
>>355995
i don't see what this has to with my post unless you're claiming that the united states has a more adverse business environment than europe does
>>
>>356000
Because it's not diminishing. Your premise is flawed, therefore so are your conclusions.
>>
>>355989
Why is it stupid?
Explain
>>
>>356003
>Because it's not diminishing. Your premise is flawed, therefore so are your conclusions.
increasing marginal tax rates create diminishing returns on income earned versus work performed almost by definition
>>
>>356001
I don't see why others being shit means the less shit way is perfect.
Shit is shit. Get rid of it if you want to claim best.
>>
>>356003
It is, under a graduated system
First 10,000$ I earn, I keep 100% of every dollar
next 50,000$ I keep 80% of every dollar
next 100,000$ I keep 60% of every dollar
next 5,000,000$ I keep 50% of every dollar
next 4,000,000$ I keep 40% of every dollar.
>>
>>356006
>I don't see why others being shit means the less shit way is perfect.
well ideally we'd all have perfect government policies, but since nobody actually knows what the perfect policies are all we can do is engage in comparative analysis to figure out what policies are better than others
>>
>>356005
>>356007
Okay, if we want technicalities then I can work with that. Then are we arguing tax at all also has the same effect being claimed?
Or how much is "allowed" for diminishing?
>>
>>356008
That's fair.
Under America's golden age in the 50s, small business boomed. Now they struggle.
What policies are we comparing there for an individual to make money on their in instead of being reliant on the govern- I mean corporations?
>>
>>356010
What do you mean technicalities
It's by definition diminishing returns.
That is the entire thing of marginal tax rates.
You earn more, you pay more taxes, and so you take home less money.
Why work the same hours for less stuff, when you can pursue an expensive with your new found wealth, like yachting or skiing or something?
First week of the year you're working 40 hours and taking home the salary of 40 hours. Later in the year you're working 40 hours and taking home the salary of 12. And so you stop working, and your human capital is wasted.
It's not just the heart surgeons or the rock, but any high skill profession.
>>
>>356011
We should bomb all the competition, so the supply of factories that can produce cars are only in the united states?
>>
>>356010
the characteristic of a diminishing return curve is downward convexity. a flat tax (even a flat tax of 70% across the board!) doesn't accomplish this because it's a straight line.

however, technically, a fixed 70% tax over 10M is not quite a diminishing returns curve because it's not a smooth curve; once you pass it there's no more "diminishing return" curve, because it concentrates the change at a single fixed point. in general many diminishing return arguments still apply though.

>>356011
if i had to throw a theory out there i'd guess that it's because the winner-take-all economy more or less ate someone
>>
>>356014
ate everyone*
>>
>>356014
100% right

The Macroeconomics of Superstars[1]

>Abstract

>Recent technological changes have transformed an increasing number of sectors of the economy into so-called superstars sectors, in which a small number of entrepreneurs or professionals distribute their output widely to the rest of the economy. Examples include the high-tech sector, sports, the music industry, management, fnance, etc. As a result, these superstars reap enormous rewards, whereas the rest of the workforce lags behind. We describe superstars as arising from digital innovations, whicih replace a fraction of the tasks in production with information technology that requires a fxed cost but can be reproduced at zero marginal cost. This generates a form of increasing returns to scale. To the extent that the digital innovations are excludable, it also provides the innovator with market power. Our paper studies the implications of superstar technologies for factor shares, for inequality and for the effciency properties of the superstar economy.
https://www.imf.org/~/media/Files/Conferences/2017-stats-forum/session-3-korinek.ashx
Which is true, and intuitively true.
Why listen to a second rate musician, when you can listen to the Beatles, because you can make infinite perfect copies at no additional cost.
Why play Nickelodeon Kart Racers when you can play Red Dead Redemption 2?

If we could make infinite copies of a Rolls-Royce at no additional cost, who would be driving a Toyota Corolla?
>>
>>356012
>What do you mean technicalities
If we didn't work at all, we wouldn't be taxed at all, and therefore have less diminishing returns than any above tax bracket.
So naturally, we should just not pay anyone anything, make money illegal!
That's stupid but technically correct. That's what I mean if we're arguing any diminishing return is worth counting.

The problem as you pointed out is going from high skill to nothing is a waste of the capital. Yet you also think they would rather take nothing than take less of a lot.
>>356014
So you're claiming not just "less", but curved. Also including smoothnes which does that happen for all/most/none tax brackets?
>>
>>356018
>Also including smoothnes which does that happen for all/most/none tax brackets?
the smoothness of the curve is not actually the most important part of the analysis. any curve that is actually curved can be made into a bunch of line segments stapled together just by bracketing at the $1000 dollar level or whatever.

i don't actually care that much about the diminishing returns argument myself because a 70% flat rax rate is non-dimishing and presumably our friend would hate it just as much. the issue is in how it simply disincentivizes the earning of income at any bracket that is taxed as such. ie, some sort of very highly compensated individual might put in overtime to earn 1M if he gets to keep the whole 1M but not if he only gets 300K of that 1M. it's very hard to argue whether or not this effect exists; what i think is more important is arguing about how much it actually matters.

>>356017
yeah, i feel like i've read stuff like this before. other factors i think are:

- winner-take-all effect even in industries that don't enjoy free replication (think about how hard realistically it is to compete with amazon)
- labor market globalization: manufacturing for non-boutique goods is automatically unprofitable in america because of access to markets with 10x lower labor costs
>>
>>356012
you still take home more money though anon, you take home a lesser percentage of the money though.
>>
>>356011
BORK in the 70s was head of the Antitrust area of Federal Law and decided that monopolies were good.

That pretty much heralded the end of small business in America and they've been dying in droves since then.
>>
>>355990
>When's the last time you saw an innovation come out of the DMV?
If you want to discuss the Government's inability to innovate talk about grants, the dmv is not meant to innovate.
>>
>>355221
b-but muh nasdaq
>>
>>356037
You still get returns when you have diminishing returns
They're just diminishing
>>
>>356054
Name a single useful innovation that has come from government grants.
>>
>>356174
Internet, GPS, Space Travel, Velco, Wifi, Computers, Transistors...
>>
>>356174
>>356192
Duct Tape, Microwaves, MRIs, Blood Transfusion, Prosthetics...
>>
>>356174
Nuclear Power, Ballpoint Pens, Seat Belts, Metal Cans...
>>
>>356199
>>356174
GPS, The highway system, airbags, cell phones, pretty much any new medicine or drug...
>>
>>355966
Computers were invented by the British though. Not to mention the world wide web.
>>
>>356174
GPS, baby formula, freeze dried icecream, super glue, radar, doppler techniques, accelerometer, the insulation material they use in space, moder fire resistant clothing, 2d bar codes, research into both AI and cryptography
>>
>>356174
has anyone ever been btfo this bad
>>
>>356319
Most people dont realize how much of the tax dollars pumped into the Military Industrial Complex are going towards R&D of useful shit. The air force actually has programs to license out the wierd shit we make to anyone who can market it or use it in a profitable way.
>>
>>356322
R&D of useful shit that's about 2 years behind the latest in university research. But, seriously speaking you are correct, and they fund a whole lot of university research too.
>>
>>356192
>>356199
>>356200
>>356204
>>356210
The question is not did the government fund the invention of those things, but the efficiency or usefulness of that research.
It's like a staircase or bathroom. Government can build them, but for 150,000$. Government can build a bathroom, but for millions.

https://globalnews.ca/news/3614167/tom-riley-park-stairs-removed-toronto/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKRuhiMDOjo&
Metal cans would be invented, with or without government intervention. A method of managing inventory would have been invented with or without government.
>>
>>356208
Government computers
>cost millions
>take up half a room
>Can be used to decode codes
>weighs multiple tons
Free market computers
>Cost under a hundred
>fits in your pocket
>can be used to do millions of things
>weights under half a pound
>>
>>356441
>invention of radical new technologies can occur without the extra-deep govt pocketbook
[x] doubt

I mean, yes, we did have technology advance before government subsidizing, it was just fucking slow. Like pre-industrial-revolution slow.
>>
>>356443
What government made the iphone?
>>
>>356444
>muh planned-obsolete consumer gadget is the first piece of computer technology ever made
>>
>>356463
Okay. What technology shaped the last decade more than the smartphone?
>>
>>356467
The smartphone is a cell phone slash personal computer.

Who subsidized the development of those technologies?
>>
>>356475
If the government had a first mover advantage with the technology, why did none of the governnments of the world make the iPhone?
>>
>>356210
>>356200
Fuck.
Freeze dried ice cream.
Ballpoint Pen
Jetpacks
Where would we be without the government dumping tens of millions into researching these?
The government spent at least $518,000 in federal grants to study how cocaine affects the sexual behavior of Japanese quails. My life would be awful if not for this research.
The goverment spent $850,000 on A Made-for-TV Professional Cricket League in Afghanistan, where would my life be without that?
Teaching Mountain Lions to Ride a Treadmill: $856,000
The National Science Foundation shelled out nearly a million taxpayer dollars to determine if captive mountain lions could be trained to ride a treadmill.
Studying if Wikipedia is Sexist: $202,000
The NSF sent nearly a quarter of a million dollars to NYU and Yale researchers to study if any gender bias existed on the website Wikipedia.

My life would be so much worse without the piles of money they took from us at gunpoint to fund these.
>>
>>356483
>Teaching Mountain Lions to Ride a Treadmill: $856,000
This one is actually valuable in regards to helping us understand them better. 800K is chump change, all things considering.
>>
>>356485
Why does the taxpayer have to pay for it?
If it's valuable research, why not have investors invest in it, and eat the fruits of their success if they're right, and taste bitter failure if they are wrong?
>>
>>356486
Because the government has a hand in species and natural habitat preservation.
>>
>>356488
As does the Sierra Club
>>
>>356488
How much should we spend on teaching goats how to use exercise bikes?
>>
>>356488
thats just window dressing, the government is who permits and makes socially acceptable all of the enviornment destruction that their campaign contributors commit while turning a profit, then they spend a fortune of your money on window dressing to make it all not looks quite so bad.
government keeps on twiddling it's thumbs over climate change while the big money people cash in on making the problem worse than it already is and then they go out and act like they're the only possible solution to a problem they looked the other way on for decades, and you need to give them more money and power because of it.
>>
>>356492
Goats can't use exercise bikes.
>>
>>356486
Because not everything valuable generates a return on investment.
Not everyone can be trusted with properly stewarding the natural resources of their property.
Earth's irreplaceable ecology deserves preservation for its own sake, not just if wealthy enough investors decide to part with their wealth for it.

>>356483
Taking select details of select studies out of context and citing numbers associated with them could conceivably make any otherwise worthwhile research sound frivolous. The ammount we spend on researching our environment absolutely pales in comparison to the hundreds of billions we hemorrhage into cost overruns for DOD projects like F35 and railgun.
>>
>>356483
>My life would be so much worse without the piles of money they took from us at gunpoint to fund these.
That's just a total misunderstanding of how property works. Society doesn't recognize your ownership of taxed wealth and income.
>>
>>356506
They're not rights given by society.
These are god given rights
>>
>>356503
Not with that attitude (or hundreds of thousands of dollars from taxpayers)
>>
>>355455
That's factually wrong though, homes are built in wooded areas all the time. Some places bulldoze all the trees in the area but others only cut one or two to clear for groundwork.
>>
>>356693
Is there a tree growing through the center of your house?
No. Because you can have one or another on a piece of land. I didn't say that your lot can't have any trees on it. But your houses foundation is unstable if there is a tree growing through the center of it.
>>
>>355557
Cool bro he wasn't talking about cities, so good job there. Suburban, if that. And you can encounter all those animals and more depending on the region.
>>
>>355961
Probably because you're not telling them what that remaking 40% is going for. The social programs in Sweden are used by a vast majority of the populace, whereas in the states it's used primarily by rural whites and urban blacks.
>>
>>356697
Again, a forest and a house can still co-exist. Moreover, you said forest ie multiple trees. You're just trying to use semantics to cover your smallbrain logic.
>>
>>356697
Coexistence is not the same time/place as each other.
By that logic, literally nothing coexists with literally anything.
>>
>>356757
> By that logic, literally nothing coexists with literally anything.
Which is true. Coexistence is impossible. It's a leftist fantasy that they invented to try to justify importing millions of shitskins even though that has always destroyed any civilization that has done it.
>>
>>354624
>massive famines
like in the USSR, China, Cambodia, NK, Cuba, and Venezuela?
>>
>>356796
Hoarding of power and wealth into select few instead of the people means the people don't have wealth, more at 11
>>
>>356800
>but really if you let ME hoard the power and wealth I'll totally do communism right just trust me it will work this time
>>
>>356805
Replace communism with capitalism and it still holds true.
>>
>>356806
Capitalism produced the greatest prosperity and generation of wealth the world has ever seen in the United States of America. Under capitalism no one is granted control over power and wealth.
>>
>>356809
That's a lie. All capitalist countries are poor as fuck.
>>
>>356809
Only for America. And even then, it's held by only a handful of people at most.
>>
>>356789
The very notion that people use the word "white" to describe one group kind of disproves that.
>>
>>356811
Why is it when centrally planned economies begin to crumble they introduce capitalist principles to prop themselves up?
>>356812
America, Europe, Hong Kong, Singapore...
>>
>>356816
We literally just stated China suffers from famine, now we're using it as a model of success.
Do we have an actual argument here, or are we just disagreeing with at most one post behind.
>>
>>356819
Either you're incredibly stupid or you're feigning ignorance. I'm not sure which is worse, to be honest. I'll break it down for anyone else reading, though, since you're obviously not going to be swayed by reason:
>two nations: A and B
>two economic models: a and b
>nation A employs model a on a macro level and enjoys success, while employing model b on a micro level; in those places where model b is being employed the economies are failing
>nation B employs model b on a macro level and experiences widespread famine and economic devastation, while employing model a on a micro level; in those places where model a is being employed the economies are being bolstered

>YOU'RE USING NATION B AS A MODEL OF SUCCESS AND FAILURE AT THE SAME TIME YOU'RE A HACK

Communists truly are the most shallow thinkers of the last two centuries.
>>
>>356819
we're not using china "as a model", china is a single party state and developing country, Trump uses them as a model.
We're going to use Denmark as a model.
>>
>>356821
I'm reading through
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong
And it specifically mentions income inequality with its failings.
Is there another source you'd prefer to use?
>>
>>356825
Why is income inequality inherently negative? Let's do a thought experiment:
Which is worse?
>low income inequality where no one can afford to eat meat
>high income inequality where those on the bottom can afford cable tv and other luxuries

There's nothing inherently wrong with income inequality. The problems arise when those at the top use the power of government to force others into compliance as is the case with socialism and communism.
>>
>>356825
>>356829
Just to accentuate, please note the poverty line in Hong Kong is anyone who makes an income of less than $23,900(USD), while the MEDIAN income in mainland china is half that.
>>
>>356838
how much does housing cost in hong kong vs the rest of mainland china
how much does food cost in hong kong vs the rest of mainland china
>you'll change the goalposts again and start talking about how cities are terrible and overrated
>>
>>356809
part of that is regular government intervention in the economy though, and part of capitalism's "increase in prosperity" was in fact fueled on the conquest and expansion of the america's elsewhere.
>>
>>355228
>29 isn't young for a congressperson.

lol
>>
>>356850
>you'll change the goalposts again
When did I change them the first time? You claimed income inequality was inherently bad and I just asked why.

And to answer your question: the price of rice in HK is ~$2.60(usd)/kg, while the price in Beijing is ~$3.55(usd)/kg. The cost of a 1 bedroom apartment in HK is ~$2,100(usd)/mo while the price in Beijing is ~$1,800(usd)/mo

Funny you bring up numbers you haven't researched as if they'll confirm your bias.

>>356854
The growth didn't occur until after the industrial revolution, which is post-expansionism
>>
>>356829
>There's nothing inherently wrong with income inequality.
There is, your premise is flawed from the beginning.
>>
>>356872
When your skills are in high demand you should earn more.
A failed liberal history taxi driver should not earn the same as the guy that designs our new CPUs at Intel.
>>
>>356873
Is life not in demand? I missed that meeting.
>>
>>356873
So if liberal history was in demand over Intel CPUs, you'd be totally okay with the former making bank and the latter being a failed taxi driver. Which shows you have no objective argument, you have justifications for arbitrary groupthink.
Unless you have an actual argument to present?
>>
>>356872
>waaaa you're wrong because muh feelings
Are you able to articulate what is inherently wrong with income inequality? I feel I illustrated quite well why there's nothing inherently wrong with two people owning different amounts of wealth, especially when the system that allowed that raised the lower person above where either would be in a different system.
>>
>>356881
Care to rephrase? Your comment comes off as nonsensical.
>>
>>356883
Currently all you've done is explain that it works, just like pets and owners work.
Your argument does not stand when generalized, as with pet relations, or slavery in general really, therefore there are elements you seem to be assuming that you have yet to articulate.
Do so if you want to chimp out like that next time without looking like a fool.
>>
>>356888
>it works
What works? I'm desperately trying to get you to explain the inherit problem with income inequality.
>>
>>356888
This is the most NPC response I've seen in a long long time. Congratulations.
>>
>>355403
>Denmark
We may have a socialist welfare program, but our economy sure as hell isn't based in socialism. Fucking retard.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.