The Green New Deal learnt nothing from the 20th century, did they?

You know, that experiment conducted between directed and market based economies? The one we tested as we looked east from the Brandenburg Gate in 1989?

From the Green New Deal report:

First, we need to transform the way
the economy is managed, so that our democratically elected government, not the ‘invisible
hand of the market’, set our future direction. With government back in the driving seat,

Cretinous fuckers.

The Green New Deal we proposed in 2008 has the same fundamental structure as
the Green New Deal that we propose now, although it has evolved. The challenges
we face have shape-shifted, but the fundamental issues remain the same:

That the problem has changed but the solution remains the same is a certain signifier of Woo, is it not?

The way our financial system is currently structured means that government
has given away the ability to make big decisions about the availability and
mobilisation of finance.

We must stop allowing people to spend their own money as they themselves wish.

Yes, they’re cretins:

To make that possible, we will need to do
what governments do in war time and bring offshore capital back onshore to
make sure that government, not markets, can make the big economic decisions
we need.

The UK’s net balance sheet position is that foreigners have already invested more in the UK then Brits have invested in foreign.

We’ve already got more than our own capital onshore that is. You twats.

Since the introduction of austerity, monetary policy has been expansionary,
and has enriched the 1%. Fiscal policy, which benefits the public, has been
contractionary.

Taxing people more benefits the public? Increasing the national debt does? Sure, some sorts of fiscal policy might benefit the majority at the expense of the minority. But seriously, this as a bald statement of fact?

This requires greater coordination between the Bank of England, the
treasury and the debt management office

Abolish the independence of the Bank of England so as to make sure there’s no voice questioning the policies we’re going to enact.

The most important point
is that there is no excuse, economic or political, not to invest in a Green New Deal.

That it’s a ghastly waste of money suggested by idiots is apparently not an economic reason these days.

Agro-ecological farming
methods deliver multiple benefits. They are rich in employment,

A translation – more peasants will have to work in the fields.

Once, unearned income was
enjoyed by the minority in Britain who had significant assets which went up in value, it was a case of ‘to those
who have shall be given’. But trials of a version of basic income scheme revealed a wide range of benefits that
made economic and social sense. It released an entrepreneurial spirit

The entrepreneurs then recreating inequality you useless, stupid, toads.

Sigh.

32 comments on “The Green New Deal learnt nothing from the 20th century, did they?

  1. They are rich in employment,

    A translation – more peasants will have to work in the fields.

    Result: food costs more.

    But hey, that only affects poor people, so who cares.

  2. And the added advantage of calling our new paradise the Green Democratic Republic (or GDR for short) I presume in the new paradise us peasants won’t even be allowed to own trabants – they’ll be reserved for the Nomenklatura – the added bonus being of course that the engines of said vehicles being below 1600cc which will keep the green fuhrer (capt potato) happy.

  3. They are rich in employment

    Lol

    Farming is rapidly being automated. Sweating peasants toiling over a yoke is old hat. New hat is autonomous tractors using GPS and 5G to plough and plant more precisely than humans ever could. AI hoovering up data from IOT sensors in real time to determine what to plant, when to plant it, and exactly when it needs harvesting.

    Drones are already being developed to pick fruit and do the other things farmers currently rely on Romanians to do. A self-driving fleet of distribution lorries, operating from completely roboticised agri-warehouses, is coming to a supermarket near you soon.

    The future of farming looks a lot like Skynet, but with a rhotic accent. The only jobs it’ll sustain in the not-too-distant are security guards to prevent pikeys from nicking the equipment.

  4. I think that there may have been instances of governments running farms before. I seem to recall that this tends to lead to mass starvation. Maybe that is the plan.

    Back in the early eighties I had a 3.5 litre V8 Rover which I really loved. My current ride is a 2 litre intercooled turbo diesel. It is far more spacious, just as speedy and twice as fuel efficient. It is also Korean, I bet you can’t guess which part of Korea it came from.

  5. I was in Letchworth Garden City today, and the kiddies klimatklatsch was, not to put too fine a point on it, less than persuasive. A few mums & kids – may even have been a teacher, a few flags, plus a lady on clarinet & a guy with a guitar to serenade them. Definitely no shouting & pissing people off. I think they were enjoying the sunshine instead…

  6. i thought that the experiments in ubi – finland etc had shown no increase in employment rates but recipients had shown a marked increase in wellbeing, as if giving most people a free sack of money each month wouldn’t increase their well being. duh.you can sign me up for the free cash, the slaving in the fields planting vegetables and freezing me gonads off because of no central heating not so much.

  7. “Agro-ecological farming methods deliver multiple benefits. They are rich in employment,”

    Farming in the Uk is marginally profitable. If you strip out the subsidy then the entire industry makes no more than a couple of billion per year in profit, sometimes virtually nothing at all. Many farms would run at a loss without subsidy. So where exactly is the extra income going to come from to pay for all this labour intensive ‘agro-ecological’ farming? There won’t be any extra production due to such methods, thats for sure, so that leaves one source – the price of the food produced. Food prices would double or maybe triple in the shops.

    And these are the people telling us Brexit is the end of the world…….

  8. @Jim:
    Are food prices in New Zealand double or even triple the prices in the UK? Or even 20-30% more than prices in the UK for that matter.
    Their Rugby team looks rather well nourished – the team representing the country that gets the highest per head subsidy ( which has a similar size population to NZ ) look like they are underpowered on the protein front and will be out in the first round.

  9. The fact that Roosevelt’s original New Deal didn’t actually work and that it took a global war to kick start the USA’s economy does nt augur well.

    The German colaition unveiled its new climate policy today it seems hell bent on deindustrialisation.

  10. The largest single reason for the current world food surplus is the abolition of Stalinist collective farms in Russia and Ethiopia and several other places.
    Russia is now a wheat exporter again – millions of tons of wheat a year – instead of having to buy millions of tons from Australia or starving millions of Ukrainians to death. Haile Mariam’s Collective Farms created the need fore “Band Aid”.
    Green New Deal wants to resurrect Famine

  11. Thought Germany was pushing climate stuff to stop other countries re-industrialising, don’t want them building new factories in the cheaper southern countries to undermine the German industrial base after all.

  12. “Definitely no shouting & pissing people off. I think they were enjoying the sunshine instead…”

    Yep, I’ll believe their sincerity when they turnout out on a freezing January Saturday morning when it’s pissing down horizontal sleet. The entry qualification for the march being that they’ve shown they’ve given up their smart phones, iPads etc and that they’ve deleted all their energy consuming photos from the cloud.

  13. “Are food prices in New Zealand double or even triple the prices in the UK? Or even 20-30% more than prices in the UK for that matter.”

    Are you saying NZ practises ‘agro-ecological farming’? I don’t think it does. It has a far more extensive production system for sure, which is largely down to a combination of climate (grass grows all year round) and space (NZ has under 50 people per square mile, the UK has over 700). It still farms using mechanisation, fertilisers and pesticides like farming does the world over. The UK cannot farm like NZ does – we are very different countries physically.

    If you take the existing UK production systems that work with our climate and space constraints, and reduce the use of mechanisation, fertilisers and pesticides, and increase the amount of labour significantly, that will result in less production, then and someone has to pay for the extra labour. That can only mean higher prices (or far higher subsidies, which is kind of the same thing).

  14. @ Jim
    Or less food for everyone to eat. Less “obesity” with 11 stone Rugby forwards and 7 stone scrum halves etc

  15. Jim: I think the ‘rich in employment’ bit means the peasants eat all the stuff they produce, i.e. subsistence farming. No doubt the Nomenklatura will have some kind of tithe system like the medieval church. After all Gerbil Worshipping is the new religion. I think the rest of us are just supposed to FOAD.

  16. “Or less food for everyone to eat.”

    A LOT less………….organic yields of food production are far lower than conventional farming. Wheat for example is 50% lower, plus you can’t grow a continuous crop of organic wheat, you need to grow a rotation of crops, including grass, so that animals can help increase soil fertility (incidentally, if meat is off the menu, then organic farming won’t work at all, livestock are a cornerstone of organic farming).

    The Uk is about 50-60% self sufficient in food, if the entire country was farmed organically that could easily drop by half. Plus of course organic crops are by definition far more prey to pests and diseases, so the chances of a catastrophic crop failure rise considerably. At the moment organic farms are insulated from each other by conventionally farmed land, so the chances of a crop disease spreading widely are massively reduced. If all land was organic then there would be no firebreaks so to speak, and large areas could be wiped out by rapidly spreading pests/diseases.

  17. @ Jim
    Correct – my comment would have looked OTT if I had said “a lot less”.
    However the chance of a catastrophic crop failure is also greater if we have a monoculture with arable farming over all the lowlands so there is some (small) benefit from organic farming apart from the feelgood factor.
    Crop rotation still looks like a sound insurance policy..

  18. Lets run the argument for subsidies for qualifying agricultural land in the opposite direction.
    So let’s say there’s a case for NZ having no hand outs, and the UK having some.
    Surely that means the farmland owners of high density Hong Kong and Singapore should get utterly spunktacular levels of public subsidy, rather than using the green spaces for recreation and buying in from other countries with a comparative advantage in food production.
    The reasoning doesn’t cut it for me, I’m afraid. But when the hand is out, logic walks the long way about.

  19. It may be true that as you make society poorer and poorer, which has long been a progressive and green goal, people may have to work harder to survive, so perhaps it would be richer in employment, or work at any rate.

  20. Steve,

    Yeah. It’s all pretty cool. The cost of drones, small computers and cameras has lots of people putting together robots with image analysis to do things. There’s a strawberry picking robot that gets about 70% of the ripe crop with about 1/10th of the people. There’s winemakers using leaf photography from drones to see if there’s disease anywhere. The big combines are already GPS controlled, and can turn, and by the right amount to get everything without much overlap.

  21. I’ll believe their sincerity when they turnout … when it’s pissing down horizontal sleet

    I’ll believe they are serious about communism then.

    I’ll believe they are serious about global warming when they also come out in favour of nuclear power and against imports from China.

  22. I’ll believe their sincerity when they turnout out on a freezing January Saturday morning when it’s pissing down horizontal sleet

    I’ll believe it when they give up the school run in Mummy’s Range Rover and walk to school in the pissing rain in Winter. However, I expect the morning rush hour will be crammed with mums and kids on Monday, as usual.

  23. The irony is that to convert the UK to organic farming would require more livestock production than we have now. As things stand most land suited to arable crops is growing them, on continuous rotation, using conventional fertilisers and pesticides. And land not suited for arable crops is used to keep livestock (upland areas, poor soils areas and unsuitable climate areas) . But organic farming would require all the land currently growing continuous arable crops to include livestock in their rotation, to increase fertility, so the area available to produce arable crops would reduce by about a third or quarter (depending on whether grass was one year in 3 or 4 in the rotation). But that lost arable production could not be moved to the current livestock areas, because they can’t grow arable crops anyway. So there is a net increase in livestock area and a net reduction in arable area.

    I suppose you could just let the livestock areas revert to nature, which would please the ‘re-wilding’ crowd, but its not exactly going to do much for the overall productive capacity of the nation.

    In such a scenario one suspects that obesity will no longer be an issue. More a case of ‘Where’s my ration book?’

  24. Just another “kill all the rich people and take their stuff” scheme.

    ‘crisis of inequality, climate breakdown and failed finance’ is just gibberish to get people to accept it.

  25. NZ has under 50 people per square mile, the UK has over 700

    Figures for the ‘UK’ understate reality by a large margin, because a lot of the UK (north of Glasgow) has population density comparable to Norway. This allows those with axes to grind to point out that NL has a higher population density.

    If we look at the part of England, where most people live (a quadrangle with corners at Liverpool, York, Dover and Bristol) the population density is more like 1800 per square mile (and that area is substantially larger than NL. In fact to find an area of a similar size with more people, you’re looking at Bangladesh or Greater Tokyo. And that’s what most people in the UK experience.

  26. XR truancy OK, Great

    Just rang the school and told them I’m taking the kids to Benidorm for two weeks for a Climate Change convention….well what are they gonna do about it

  27. “If we look at the part of England, where most people live (a quadrangle with corners at Liverpool, York, Dover and Bristol) the population density is more like 1800 per square mile (and that area is substantially larger than NL. In fact to find an area of a similar size with more people, you’re looking at Bangladesh or Greater Tokyo. And that’s what most people in the UK experience.”

    Well precisely. And the converse is the case in NZ – the majority of the population lives in a handful of towns and cities and the countryside is largely uninhabited. So farming practices that work fine in NZ would be unimaginable in the UK, there’s just too many people around. Look whats happening around the Midlands at the moment – sheep being slaughtered in the fields by gangs of thieves. Thats the kind of stuff that happens when you have millions of people within an hours drive of working farms.

  28. Look whats happening around the Midlands at the moment – sheep being slaughtered in the fields by gangs of thieves. That’s the kind of stuff that happens when you have millions of people within an hours drive of working farms.

    Yes. Sadly, it seems to have reached the Chilterns.

  29. @Jim & Chris

    UK Gov’t used to export criminals to Aus. Now our Gov’t imports hundreds of thousands of murderous lawless anti-UK devils/RoPs every year

    I understand, though loathe, why Labour do it. Why the Conservative MPs do too makes no sense – unless they want to be the opposition (salary for no responsibility).

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.