[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 33 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]


Janitor acceptance emails will be sent out over the coming weeks Make sure to check your spam box!



https://www.businessinsider.com/economist-survey-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-modern-monetary-theory-2019-3
A new survey shows that zero top US economists agreed with the basic principles of an economic theory supported by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
>>
No real American supports the green new deal
>>
>>368063
>A new survey shows that zero top US economists agreed with the basic principles of an economic theory supported by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

This is hardly surprising, all the "economists" are Wall Street Jews or work for Jews on Wall Street.
>>
I guess The Young Turks aren't sending their best eh? Alexandria Occidently Casted
>>
>University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Into the trash those idiots go.
>>
>>368063
>No economists support AOC
>Questions asked in surveys were vauge ideas thst she hasn't specifically mentioned, aside from 'we should talk about mmt', which wasn't part of the survey
Why you guys always gotta yellow journalism?
>>
We need to do something about climate change, but the Green New Deal isn’t the right thing. It claims to be an environmental resolution but also bundles in a bunch of social programs that have nothing to do with the environment. I do support investing in green infrastructure, cap and trade, a carbon tax, a tax credit for people with lower carbon emissions, and all that good stuff.
>>
>>368087
Could be worse.
https://youtu.be/bNwfY80M1NY
>>
>>368077
Boomer, get out.
>>
>>368098
https://www.geosociety.org/GSA/Education_Careers/Geologic_Time_Scale/GSA/timescale/home.aspx
This is a fairly obvious question. But, what's the right climate?
Over the hundred of millions of years of life on this planet there was different climates with temperatures and wild life.
Maybe the Norean climate is most ideal. In the mid Triassic period. Maybe something else. What's the right climate we are trying to go back to. And where was the discussion as to what the right answer was?
I find it's very hard to believe "whatever it was 200 years ago" is right
>>
>>368131
>Maybe the Norean climate is most ideal. In the mid Triassic period. Maybe something else.
There was nothing necessarily wrong with Earth when it was a burning rock ball with sulfuric acid for rain but back then there weren't people around to be impacted by it.

During the Cretacious, the United States looked like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Interior_Seaway

Was there anything objectively WRONG with this climate? No, maybe not, but if it happened today we'd have to move several trillion people and abandon several hundreds of trillions of dollars to the seas, so in general humans don't prefer it.
>>
>>368063
Economists are morons who are wedded to the idea of infinite growth on a finite planet.

We have to deal with climate change before it starts kicking everyone in the balls (we won't).
>>
>>368131
>this shitpost again
Are you a fucking reptile? Late holocene is clearly what's best for humanity you idiot.
>>
>>368124
>Youtube video
I raise.
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/432430-fox-killed-stormy-daniels-hush-money-report-before-election-new-yorker
>>
>>368175
Why?
>>
>>368063
>printing your way out of deficits only works when you incur those deficits through tax cuts, not spending on services!

what "economists" would actually have you believe.
>>
>>368145
>There was nothing necessarily wrong with Earth when it was a burning rock ball with sulfuric acid for rain but back then there weren't people around to be impacted by it.
I would agree this is not ideal. Luckily, C02 emissions do not cause acid rain.
https://ourworldindata.org/air-pollution
There's a clear distinction between something like Sulphur Dioxide, and Carbon dioxide. That's why when the EPA was established by Nixon, it was dealing with those things. Acid rain is adverse to human life. The global temperature being half a point higher is not.
>During the Cretacious, the United States looked like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Interior_Seaway
Then perhaps that wouldn't be the ideal climate. But, almost all the discussion is among climate scientists and politicians, and that's not an accurate representation, let me give you a historical example.

>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.
This conversations was also dominated by experts, in the form of city planners, and politicians. And yet, these experts were entirely wrong, and not able to capture reality. All of the policies they would have proposed, such as a manure tax, horse tax and so on would have been a waste of time and money. I am afraid the same thing is happening in the discussion of climate change.
>>
>>368174
Too bad this shit ignores nucular, the best solution, in favour of retrofitting literally everything. Don't worry though, Alexandria says we can just print more money to pay for everything, while also just giving people money if they don't want to work
>>
>>368220
>Too bad this shit ignores nucular
The truth is that energy companies don't want to invest in it, even if you slash regulations it's still a sunk cost nightmare that doesn't pay off for decades.
>>
>>368174
This idiots never heard of outer space.

There is a little thing called asteroid mining asshole.
>>
>>368238
Why would somebody mine copper or gold deposits from asteroids when that would crash the economy?
>>
>>368345
Why would somebody mine copper or gold deposits on earth?
>>
>>368346
Because they're a valuable resource? Problem being that if you start tapping asteroids for minerals then that brings an entirely different set of problems.
>>
>>368352
Does it? It's almost the same deal as how the diamond industry works. You get yourself a monopoly/oligarchy going and store all your valuable resource in warehouses and then sell it little bit by little bit as the economy grows to absorb it at your preferred price point.
>>
>>368353
Well, assuming we had the capacity to feasibly exploit nearby asteroids for minerals then we could produce a massive surplus of certain goods. You can slowly sell something like Gold off for your benefit, but what happens when it becomes clear that Gold is as easily available as salt water?
>>
>>368360
As I said, the economy expands, people multiply (rapidly!) with more resources and room.
I'm sure that metals with such high conductivity would be immensely useful in this sci-fi future, beyond simple aesthetic consumption for jewelry and whatnot.
>>
>>368362
I'm sure they would, but we're not talking about a two step process of advancement here. Certain nations rely on the export of exclusive goods and services to survive.
>>
>>368212
>C02
"how to lose any credibility in 3 characters" for $400, alex
>>
>>368382
How does carbon dioxide make you lose credibility?
Out of the 1400 characters of my post, you're acknowledging 3.
>>
>>368353

The main problem is that the capability to mine asteroids is bundled with the capability to weaponise them.

It's pretty close to the situation Japan has, where they don't have nukes, but they could have them pretty damned quick if they needed.
>>
>>368972
You are so right! ...I agree and think you everyone who believes in global warming should stop producing CO2 (breathing).
>>
>>368098
GND is 90% stealth welfare gibs and 10% retarded energy policy.
>>
>>369506
The US to provide almost $700 million in aid to Ukraine
US President Donald Trump has signed a package of legislation approved by Congress that increases aid to Ukraine to nearly $700 million, the Ukrainian embassy in the US reported on Facebook.

"The package includes Statement of State Appropriations, External Operations and Related Programs Act for the Financial Year 2019, The assessment of aid to Ukraine under this law was increased and approved to the amount of 445.7 million dollars,” the report said.

It is noted that a significant part of these funds will be used to increase the cost of providing military and technical assistance to Ukraine under the program up to 115 million dollars.

At the same time, as pointed out at the embassy, the total amount of aid to Ukraine in 2019 fiscal year, including 250 million previously allocated to the Pentagon, is almost 695.7 million dollars. The set amount of $75 million exceeds the appropriations provided for Ukraine in 2018.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTBdjqJbTQ975DTSdxdbr0MUJrg6Yhy6nzhLMwhQ3SL4t7YTvXsbQ
>>
>>368066
Unless your living under a rock, plenty do.
>>
>>368075
Or is it because it is an impossible deal?
>>
>rich people don't agree with person advocating the government seize their unimaginable riches
>>
>>370968
economists are like mathematicians, they're all academics and 99% are poor
>>
>>370978
Mathematicians have proofs. Economists have excuses.
>>
>>368063
lol, and who are these 'top economists'?
people with money?
Of course they are going to disagree with her, they are the group that will lose the most when she becomes prez
>>
>>370978
>economists are like mathematicians
go fuck yourself anon you literally have no idea what you are talking about if you believe this
>>
>>370978
Economics is a branch of social science you tard, which arguably isnt even science
>>
>>371015
>statistical analysis of market trends isn't a science
These threads are youtube comment section tier.
>>
>>371008
>>371015
http://www.math.uchicago.edu/~may/VIGRE/VIGRE2010/REUPapers/Turner.pdf
>>
>HEADLINE NEWS: RULING CLASS ZOG ECONOMISTS AGREE THAT NOTHING SHOULD BE CHANGED AND THAT THEY SHOULD REMAIN IN CONTROL OF ALL WEALTH AND POLITICAL POWER
>>
>>371015
>>371008
If you are going to talk about Economics in a Philosophical Manner than yes you may not need to engage in excessive amounts of mathematics but outside of that, the rest of it is maths.
>>
>>371028
The Green New Deal is shit m8.

Not only is the Proposed solution to Climate Change in it is shit.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/02/08/the-only-green-new-deals-that-have-ever-worked-were-done-with-nuclear-not-renewables/#7f7ed0c47f61

But it asks for an excessive amount of money to solve just 25% of the problem. (It doesn't effectively deal with transportation, meat and manufacturing which are the other 75%)
>>
>>368063
Aren't threads this old not supposed to get bumped anymore?



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.