So, you see, the Green New Deal won’t pay for itself, it will be expensive

And such are the likely real margins inside many economies that nothing like the Green New Deal could be done by simply using government injection of funds without there being a superficial demand for additional tax payable, and quite possibly in significant amount if inflation was to be avoided. There are spare resources in the economy, but not that many.

We will lose what we would have had if we’d not had the Green New Deal.

The first relates to the necessary reallocation of resources to create the capacity for something as radical as the Green New Deal, because let’s not pretend that this will happen with all existing activity within the economy coexisting beside it.

Yep, there’s an opportunity cost to the Green New Deal. It’s expensive that is.

Eh?

My proposal that pension fund and ISA savings be used to finance the Green New Deal should be seen within this context. Let us not pretend that these do not change aggregate demand within the economy. First of all, by providing tax subsidised savings mechanisms they do distort demand by diverting financial resources: this in itself has an impact upon the real economy. And, secondly, any argument that they merely create stocks of notional financial assets with no real impact is far too limited a perspective. The fact is that massive amounts of resource are actually reallocated by this savings process this process and this has a very real current impact upon resource allocation within society, both in consumption and investment terms, and both have real consequence.

But Snippa’s entire rant is that mere savings don’t have any impact upon that real economy.

So, what I have done is link the need for change in aggregate demand to the tax reform that has promoted current resource misallocation and have

Which is exactly how real economists have said we should tackle climate change. A carbon tax.

24 thoughts on “So, you see, the Green New Deal won’t pay for itself, it will be expensive”

  1. The fat fuckwit wants to use vast numbers of peoples savings/pension investments to pay for this Marxist farce? No –people need to stop that by any means up to and including direct action.

    Luckily the amount of greed in the world outweighs even the left’s vast well of evil cockrot so I doubt it will come to that. I don’t think Greeter is fooling anyone not a dumb juvo and she doesn’t come over well esp with the tantrums.

  2. The irony is that pension funds and ISAs are the Little People’s money. That is to say if you’re really minted, you don’t f*ck about with ISAs and pension funds, you have cash and other directly held investments. Only the masses use collective funds like pensions and the limited amounts available to put into ISAs. So the 1% get off scot free, while Mr and Mrs Brown have their pension fund invested into eco-woo.

  3. So instead of my pension fund being used by Bloggs Tools to make hammers and Bert’s Bakery to make bread, it must be used in Green New Deal stuff. Bloggs’ and Bert’s can go hang.

  4. It’s the Old Red Deal.

    ‘Which is exactly how real economists have said we should tackle climate change. A carbon tax.’

    What happens when economists try their hand at meteorology.

  5. Saving into a pension (or merely saving, I.e. not consuming) is now a ‘misallocation of resources’ which must be ‘corrected’.

    Evil fucking bastard.

    Working on the idea that the worst ideas on the Far Left are Leftist orthodoxy five years later, and mainstream establishment dogma ten years after that, expect to see your pension and savings confiscated some time around 2035.

  6. And given that he believes this can all be paid for by the State by merely creating money, the pensions and savings theft can be put down to pure malice. They aren’t needed.

  7. Rob

    I’ve often said he is among the most evil men in Britain, if not the world – I see no difference between his proposals and the current economy of North Korea – not even a figleaf. A dangerous if ultimately delusional figure

  8. From which we conclude that so-called real economists are no less utter cunts than fake economists. Seems like they should all be invited to stand next to a wall, with or sans a blindfold.

  9. 2035. Hmm, my first two pensions will start paying out before then. A couple will still be at risk (even if the pension age isn’t hiked again.)

  10. Ho Hum. Due diligence. Prove it. And so on. Don’t take it as read, it is a scam, a political construct. It can’t be fixed with a carbon tax BECAUSE IT IS NOT DESIGNED TO BE FIXED.

  11. But MMT says you can spend any amount to get anything you wish achieved. So there can be no need to steal the widders n orfins pennies.

    The idiot Left; if it weren’t for inconsistency, they’d have no consistency at all…

  12. Who cares? It is now Labour policy to abandon any restrictions on free movement of people from anywhere into the UK or on their rights to welfare, housing, healthcare etc once here.

    Tim, that favela in Portugal you live in is looking more and more appealing

  13. Bravefart–Its Beto O’Fart’s plan to seize all US guns but I don’t think he will get the chance somehow.

    Likewise ZaNu–if they were trying to shift the white working class against them they could not do a better job.

    Jizza ‘s career is sinking faster than Captain Bob carrying a cannonball.

  14. It is not even about raiding pensions or ISAs.

    How is spending more money making our energy infrastructure more expensive some kind of good growth or an investment opportunity.

    It is simply a cost and nothing more.

    It could be argued we need to foot this cost for ecological reasons etc, but it really isnt growth in any organic way. Its deciding, politically, to increase costs of the fundamental and basic input of the economy – energy.

  15. “the fundamental and basic input of the economy – energy.”

    Which is of course why those evil coal fired power stations in China and India had contributed hugely to reductions in poverty in those countries.

    But it upsets Tristan Trustfund-Nobollocks who is worried about seals or rain or no rain or something so the peasants in other parts of the world should carry on wallowing in poverty so he can feel smug about himself.

  16. Bloke in North Dorset

    OT,

    Going back to the recent discussions on WeWork, Matt Stoller has written a good post which is worth a read, not least because of its explanation of what he refers to as counterfeit capitalism:

    Neumann was an untested CEO with an unlimited line of credit. As I read more stories about him, I noticed reporters dance around his personality. They call him ‘quirky,’ ‘charismatic,’ ‘unorthodox,’ and so forth. These are code words for something else.

    Consider a few descriptions of how he and his family behaved. His wife, a New Age guru who was the chief impact officer, would fire employees because she ‘didn’t like their energy.’ They banned employee expensing of meals with meat (employees later saw Neumann eating meat). And then there’s this episode, which I found particularly revealing:

    Adam Neumann is not “quirky,” he is not “charismatic,” and he does not have “an unorthodox leadership style.” He is an untalented and abusive monster who lies to get what he wants. And he was given an unlimited credit line from which he could legally steal.

    Dimon’s role is prosaic; his bank essentially financed WeWork after Dimon was tricked by Neumann into thinking the real estate money losing enterprise represented the future. Dimon wanted JP Morgan serve as Neumann’s personal banker, to serve as the commercial banker to WeWork, to take the company public, and to offer credit services as well.

    If you know Dimon’s actual reputation, him getting suckered isn’t surprising. From what I heard back in 2009, Dimon is a mediocrity who essentially got lucky his bank was too slow to get in on the subprime scam in 2006; he then used his bank’s incompetence at getting into the bubble as justification for how prudent he was. In this case, however, Dimon didn’t miss the fraud boat. JP Morgan managed to just make it into WeWork, the last round of the money losing fake tech bubble. Dimon will now portray himself as the adult cleaning up the mess, but of course, he’s more of an arsonist pretending to be a firefighter.

    What predatory pricing does is to enable competition purely based on access to capital. Someone like Neumann, and Son’s entire model with his Vision Fund, is to take inputs, combine them into products worth less than their cost, and plug up the deficit through the capital markets in hopes of acquiring market power later or of just self-dealing so the losses are placed onto someone else. This model has spread. Bird, the scooter company, is not making money. Uber and Lyft are similarly and systemically unprofitable. This model is catastrophic not just for individual companies, but for their competitors who have to *make* money. I’ve written about this problem before. Amazon has created a much less competitive and brittle retail sector. Netflix’s money-losing business is ruining Hollywood.

    Endless money-losing is a variant of counterfeiting, and counterfeiting has dangerous economic consequences. The subprime fiasco was one example. Another example was the Worldcom fraud in the late 1990s, which forced the rest of the U.S. telecom sector to over-invest into broadband. Competitors have to copy their fraudulent competitors. It’s a variant of Gresham’s Law, which says that “bad money drives out good.” If you can counterfeit something for cheap, the counterfeit will eventually take over the entire market and drive out the real commodity. That is what is happening in our economy writ large, a kind of counterfeit capitalism as ‘leaders’ like Neumann are celebrated and actual leaders who can make things and manage are treated like dogshit.

    That’s why Neumann was given an unlimited charge card and a license to abuse his employees. As it turns out, the S-1 was correct; he was pivotal to WeWork, because WeWork only exists due to his ability to get money from investors.

    It’s a good thing Neumann’s stepped down. And if we restore laws against predatory pricing and centralized financial control, the entire counterfeit capitalism model will go away. We can then get back to the business of making and selling things to each other without engaging in celebrated cases of fraud and abuse under the guise of ‘quirkiness.’

  17. So, in the short-term, consumers benefit. But in the longer term, they get shafted because the banks and pension funds get bailed out?

    A dance to the music of time.

  18. “Its deciding, politically, to increase costs of the fundamental and basic input of the economy – energy.”

    . . . as part of a greater plan.

    Climate Change™ is a United Nations initiative to destroy Western industrial society. You can’t move to a one-world socialist government while powers like the U.S. and Britain remain.

    “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.” – Christiana Figueres

    (Investors Business Daily, February 10, 2015)

    “But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy…One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy any more.” — Ottmar Edenhofer, Co-chair of IPCC WG III, New American, Nov. 19, 2010

    Radically increasing energy prices in the West, via weather dependent renewables (sic), or with a carbon tax, will shift production away from the West. The West bans coal generation; China increases coal generation, production moves to China. Shazam! Who didn’t see that coming?

    China went from being the 9th leading economy in 1980 to the #2 economy in 2010.

    ‘Which is exactly how real economists have said we should tackle climate change. A carbon tax.’

    ‘Real’ economists? No true Scotsman fallacy.

    Supporting the UN mission to destroy the West tackles nothing. A carbon tax is suicidal, shifting the core of Western business elsewhere.

    Shifting industry East is worse on climate (sic). The prosperous West is far more friendly to environments than the East. Even today, air pollution in China is biblical.

    Economically, a carbon tax is destructive. Environmentally, a carbon tax is destructive.

  19. @Tim Worstall

    Which is exactly how real sensible economists have said we should tackle climate change. A carbon tax. Adapt as we’ve done for millennia

    FTFY

    Stop giving succour to the Left wing control freaks and their eco-loon cheerleaders

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *