Green New Deal

Don't want to be the guy to put politics on here but thought this would be a good thing to discuss.

The resolution presented today says the US can achieve this through a series of steps over the next 10 years, including:

  • Funding projects and strategies to build the US's capacity to face climate-related disasters
  • A guaranteed job with a family-sustaining wage, paid medical and family leave and retirement security
  • Repairing and upgrading US infrastructure, including "eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible."
  • Upgrade or replace every building in the country
  • Meeting all of the US's power needs through clean, renewable, and zero-emissions energy sources, including upgrading buildings to make them more energy efficient
  • Working with farmers and ranchers to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gasses "as much as technologically feasible."
  • Creating more growth in the clean manufacturing industry
  • Build up high-speed trains to the point where air travel is no longer necessary
  • Overhauling US transport systems to reduce pollution and greenhouse gases
  • Restoring and protecting fragile ecosystems
  • Cleaning hazardous waste sites
  • No Nuclear Energy

Consulting Case Interview Course

  • 2,037 questions across 209 consulting firms. Crowdsourced from over 600,000 members.
  • 11 Detailed Exclusive Cases developed by a McKinsey Associate and 10+ hours of video.
  • Trusted by over 1,000 aspiring consultants just like you.

Comments (120)

Most Helpful
Feb 7, 2019

Nuclear energy is actually one of the more proven and immediately available methods to cut down on carbon emissions while trying to focus on renewable energy production.

Feb 7, 2019

Yeah this is the most telling bullet point that proves the Green New Deal is more political than practical. By the way, they're also against hydroelectric investment. It's the Jill Stein, pie-in-the-sky version of what could otherwise be characterized mostly by heavy investment in sustainable infrastructure.

You can't have a serious discussion about reaching sustainability quickly while excluding nuclear, hydro and biomass.

Feb 8, 2019

The official resolution leaves room for nuclear FYI. It says carbon-free (which includes nuclear) energy so idk where OP got his info.

EDIT: I was mistaken, initially I read it didn't exclude nuclear but that's incorrect.

    • 7
Feb 7, 2019

No problem.

Feb 10, 2019

There is no viable alternative to oil and gas. I will further that by saying there NEVER will be.

Take advantage of this fucking stupidity and buy undervalued oil and gas assets.

    • 2
    • 2
Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Feb 10, 2019
JDC1:

There is no viable alternative to oil and gas. I will further that by saying there NEVER will be.

Take advantage of this fucking stupidity and buy undervalued oil and gas assets.

This is absurdly stupid

    • 5
    • 2
Feb 10, 2019

Brilliant reply. Perhaps you could enlighten me on the current source breakdown of major market power grids? Better yet, maybe you could tell me what global oil demand growth has been in the last 5 years? What about daily global oil demand? What about LNG? That is pretty telling.. And then, of course, you can explain how the dispersion from that growth rate has been caused by renewables.
Why don't you back your statement up?

    • 1
Feb 10, 2019

The fact that you think current oil demand has any bearing on the validity of near future and future non-oil energy solutions is telling enough. It'll "NEVER work" I'm sure.

eye roll

    • 1
    • 2
Feb 11, 2019

What is plastic made out of?

    • 2
Feb 11, 2019
BubbaBanker:

Nuclear energy is actually one of the more proven and immediately available methods to cut down on carbon emissions while trying to focus on renewable energy production.

"Immediate" in that we have the technology, but it actually takes over a decade to build and deliver a new nuclear plant from scratch versus only a couple years for solar. I've read before that it takes something like 15 years for nuclear energy to then offset the carbon footprint during the development process, as it takes an obscene amount of energy and resources to make one. Of course that is then met with 50 years of carbon free energy, but there is some logic towards avoiding nuclear energy while working towards carbon neutrality, especially in light of the timeline being proposed to abate or mitigate climate change.

But also important to keep in mind that the deal is called the Green ND, not the Carbon ND, so it seems like it's trying to take a more holistic environmental approach rather that JUST cutting down emissions. This is not necessarily a bad thing IMO, especially in light of the horrific damages that can occur when nuclear goes wrong. I'm not an engineer but the safety and reliability of even new plants does worry me. If there are alternatives available, those should be encouraged.

On that, the pay back period for nuclear is something like twice the time for solar. So some renewable energies, especially solar, might make more economic sense that nuclear for new energy development, even with the long operational time period for nuclear energy.
So in the end you can agree or not agree with the GND, I have some concerns myself, but the argument that it is hypocritical because of the stance on nuclear energy is unfair.

Feb 7, 2019

Why are people so supportive of paying more taxes?!?

Funniest
Feb 7, 2019

Because they aren't going to be the ones paying.

    • 20
Feb 9, 2019

This isn't funny, it is just true.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

    • 1
Feb 7, 2019

Mindless political theater.

Feb 10, 2019

I wish it was that innocent.. Between the masses of left-leaning have-nots and semi-retarded millennial generation, this is no innocent political theater.

    • 7
    • 1
Feb 8, 2019

What generation are you?

    • 1
Feb 10, 2019

Doesn't matter.

Feb 11, 2019

Semi-retarded millennial here, can confirm this is true

Cash and cash equivalents: $7,286
Financial instruments and other inventory positions owned: $313,129

    • 1
Feb 7, 2019

Just heard a DNC strategist say that, basically, Alexandra listens to her heart when she acts, but she forgets to bring her brain with her, so...

    • 1
Feb 10, 2019
iBankedUp:

Just heard a DNC strategist say that, basically, Alexandra listens to her heart when she acts, but she forgets to bring her brain with her, so...

She was a bartender and waitress just a few years ago - not sure how she became a thought leader for the Democratic party. Displays the absolute lack of mid-bench talent the party has.

    • 8
Feb 8, 2019

I love how the left parade the fact she was a bartender a few years ago. Just shows the lack of intellectual depth in the Dems

RIP LEHMAN
RIP MONACOMONKEY
RIP THEACCOUNTING MAJOR

Feb 9, 2019

She took advantage of a political strategy that fringe groups have used to wrangle power from sane people. It uses the primary process to knock off long serving leaders who don't put effort into the primary process.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Feb 10, 2019

Who has said that she is a thought leader for the democrat party? Getting media attention does not make one a thought leader.

    • 1
Feb 7, 2019
CRE:
iBankedUp:

Just heard a DNC strategist say that, basically, Alexandra listens to her heart when she acts, but she forgets to bring her brain with her, so...

She was a bartender and waitress just a few years ago - not sure how she became a thought leader for the Democratic party. Displays the absolute lack of mid-bench talent the party has.

She's pretty cute. I'd plaster her face all over too. If it wasn't the DNC, maybe it'd be Harvey Weinstein to do it.

    • 1
Feb 7, 2019

Half of it looks good, the other half looks terrible. I'm generally in favor of a green new deal but this isn't it.

    • 4
Feb 8, 2019
Rahma:

Half of it looks good, the other half looks terrible. I'm generally in favor of a green new deal but this isn't it.

What I don't understand is how they are trying to shoehorn a job and housing guarantee into something that's supposed to be an environmental resolution. Hate the job and housing guarantee, like the commitment towards investment in green energy and repairing U.S. infrastructure - would like a longer time horizon and more focus on free market solutions.

    • 3
Feb 8, 2019
BobTheBaker:
Rahma:

Half of it looks good, the other half looks terrible. I'm generally in favor of a green new deal but this isn't it.

What I don't understand is how they are trying to shoehorn a job and housing guarantee into something that's supposed to be an environmental resolution. Hate the job and housing guarantee, like the commitment towards investment in green energy and repairing U.S. infrastructure - would like a longer time horizon and more focus on free market solutions.

A guaranteed job is a terrible idea because it breeds laziness and waste. Think I'm wrong then go visit your local DMV or SSA office and see how "hard" those obese women and men work and why it takes them hours to process something that should take minutes.

    • 4
    • 2
Feb 7, 2019
RedRage:

A guaranteed job is a terrible idea because it breeds laziness and waste. Think I'm wrong then go visit your local DMV or SSA office and see how "hard" those obese women and men work and why it takes them hours to process something that should take minutes.

It has nothing to do with breeding laziness and waste, but all to do with the misallocation of resources. There needs to be a feedback system that enables flexibility, and things written in law generally aren't the best place for that. Market-mechanism + stabilizers is good, relying entirely on stabilizers is bad.

    • 2
Feb 7, 2019
BobTheBaker:
Rahma:

Half of it looks good, the other half looks terrible. I'm generally in favor of a green new deal but this isn't it.

What I don't understand is how

Pork barrel legislation my friend, probably a lot of bridges to nowhere

Feb 7, 2019
BobTheBaker:
Rahma:

Half of it looks good, the other half looks terrible. I'm generally in favor of a green new deal but this isn't it.

What I don't understand is how they are trying to shoehorn a job and housing guarantee into something that's supposed to be an environmental resolution. Hate the job and housing guarantee, like the commitment towards investment in green energy and repairing U.S. infrastructure - would like a longer time horizon and more focus on free market solutions.

Agreed. I want a 100 year plan, dammit!

    • 2
Feb 9, 2019

You don't understand why? It is pretty simple, if you believe that people are willing to do anything to combat "climate change" you add tons of pork and other pet projects into this because you believe people will stomach it to cover what they like.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

    • 1
Feb 7, 2019
BobTheBaker:
Rahma:

Half of it looks good, the other half looks terrible. I'm generally in favor of a green new deal but this isn't it.

What I don't understand is how they are trying to shoehorn a job and housing guarantee into something that's supposed to be an environmental resolution. Hate the job and housing guarantee, like the commitment towards investment in green energy and repairing U.S. infrastructure - would like a longer time horizon and more focus on free market solutions.

Because it isn't really a climate bill. It's a progressive economic plan. If this thing passesand this Sesame Street politican turns 35, we're going to have a socialist president, and I'm not sure what would stop her from going full blown commie.

    • 1
Feb 10, 2019

"In favour of a green new deal" lol... whatever that means.

Daily global oil demand: 100 Million FUCKING Bbl/day and growing.

    • 1
Feb 8, 2019

My favorite is the elimination of airplanes and building high speed trains over the oceans. For someone from New York, she seems to forget how inconsistent a subway train runs, let alone a bullet train in some 30 foot swells.

    • 1
Feb 8, 2019

Yea bullet trains work in Japan, which is smaller than the size of California. But it is not realistic to think that will work and eliminate air travel across the entire U.S.

Feb 9, 2019

The hilarious part is that there are studies that have shown in some areas rail is less efficient than flight.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Feb 8, 2019

still plenty of years away from 100% renewables. Just not in the money.

Feb 10, 2019

The fact you even think 100% renewables is ever achievable should bar you from getting a job in finance where critical thinking is required. You sound like a dreamer university student.

    • 2
    • 1
Feb 10, 2019
JDC1:

The fact you even think 100% renewables is ever achievable should bar you from getting a job in finance where critical thinking is required. You sound like a dreamer university student.

FWIW, the oil market is acting as if we are going to go through a new energy transition fairly soon. What do you think are the reasons why the world can't transition to a 100% non-oil based energy infrastructure in say 50 years?

PS. In my experience, assigning a zero probability to anything is is just as misguided as assigning a 100% probability. Maybe you don't belong in finance as much as @ASUgrad2017 does not

    • 4
    • 2
Feb 8, 2019

The fact that you argue my point and then make a claim that I "don't belong in finance" is laughable.

Feb 8, 2019

I would not rule out the potential of 100% renewables in the next century. If that makes me "a dreamer university student" that shouldn't get a job in finance in your opinion so be it. I just happen to work in O&G Finance.

    • 1
Feb 10, 2019

Pelosi herself, a very "green" California Democrat, seems to roll her eyes at this. It seems more theatre than actual policy.

Looking at the list and taking OP's word that those things are accurately representative of what the Green New Deal seeks to accomplish (I haven't had time to read it, only read about it) - some of the things are fantastic and absolutely necessary ideas, such as funding projects and strategies to build the US's capacity to face climate-related disasters, Repairing and upgrading US infrastructure, including "eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible," meeting all of the US's power needs through clean, renewable, and zero-emissions energy sources, Working with farmers and ranchers to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gasses "as much as technologically feasible," creating more growth in the clean manufacturing industry, overhauling US transport systems to reduce pollution and greenhouse gases, restoring and protecting fragile ecosystems, and I suppose "cleaning hazardous waste sites" even though I'm not sure who is arguing against that.

Other things, such as "upgrading or replacing every building in the country" are asinine. There are so many issues with that from a priority standpoint, a historic preservation standpoint, a cost standpoint, a positive impact standpoint, etc.

Finally, guaranteed jobs, replacing all air travel with trains, and no nuclear energy are just stupid ideas. We don't need to talk about the first, the second can't possibly happen, and the third is the opposite of "green."

One more aside is the uncomfortable tying of fighting climate change and supporting renewable energy to socialism. It's already incredibly frustrating how they are "liberal issues" and not "issues that face literally everyone in the world." Making them "socialist issues" will automatically entrench the opposition even further.

    • 8
Feb 7, 2019

Let's write up a bill with the first half of your list and build the wall / border security w/ DACA instead of the second half. Trump would sign it today and we can all work toward the future.

Feb 8, 2019

Stop with this wall shit lmao. It's ineffective, costly, and a horrible idea for the environment

    • 5
    • 10
Feb 9, 2019

Interesting that the areas of the border that do have fence, well the people there seem to think it is highly effective.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

    • 1
Feb 8, 2019
heister:

Interesting that the areas of the border that do have fence, well the people there seem to think it is highly effective.

Show me the data, thanks.

    • 1
    • 2
Feb 9, 2019

Look at the flow patterns of where people are crossing the border illegally, tends to be in places where fencing doesn't exist. Shocking I know.

But hey if you want to read it here is a report by the US Navy that in summary says a wall in the most effective barrier type, however it may not be necessary in all locations depending on geography, proximity to population centers and terrain among other factors.

https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=808155

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

    • 1
Feb 8, 2019

I'll take a look at it. Thanks

Feb 9, 2019

This is such a terrible take and is in completely bad faith. Walls / fences / barriers exist all over the world to disrupt the movement of people, and have been used for literally millennia to accomplish this goal.

Any assertion that a physical barrier does not affect the ability of people to go from point A to point B is an absurdity. Asking for a study to confirm this is simply a way to create an opportunity for pseudosciencists (left wing social "scientists") to obstruct logical debate.

Not surpringsly, your position on border security serves the same purpose as this "green" new deal: both are merely a means to appropriate wealth from current American citizens. The former by destabilizing and destroying concepts of identity, nation, and citizenship, with the hopes of implementing new social programs on the basis of race (guess who pays for it); the latter through excessive taxation and endless government growth.

I look forward to you posting some intentionally shitty "study" that asserts that "walls don't work" in preventing people from walking somewhere.

    • 2
    • 1
Feb 8, 2019
PeterMBA2018:

This is such a terrible take and is in completely bad faith. Walls / fences / barriers exist all over the world to disrupt the movement of people, and have been used for literally millennia to accomplish this goal.

Any assertion that a physical barrier does not affect the ability of people to go from point A to point B is an absurdity. Asking for a study to confirm this is simply a way to create an opportunity for pseudosciencists (left wing social "scientists") to obstruct logical debate.

Not surpringsly, your position on border security serves the same purpose as this "green" new deal: both are merely a means to appropriate wealth from current American citizens. The former by destabilizing and destroying concepts of identity, nation, and citizenship, with the hopes of implementing new social programs on the basis of race (guess who pays for it); the latter through excessive taxation and endless government growth.

I look forward to you posting some intentionally shitty "study" that asserts that "walls don't work" in preventing people from walking somewhere.

I don't need to get into diatribes. There is plenty of evidence that drones/increased spending on border patrol/ tech is cheaper, more effective, and does less environmental damage in combating illegal border crossing than a wall. Is a wall a deterrence? Yes. But that's really not the debate we're having here (which you conveniently ignore). The debate is simple: is a massive $20+ billion environmental debacle effective enough at what its intended to do (limit illegal border crossings) to make the cost to the environment and taxpayers worth it when compared to other alternatives (drones for example)? I get it, you want Trump's pet project to happen. But don't ask me to ignore evidence in lieu of your narrative.

    • 3
    • 4
Feb 9, 2019

The use case to look at is the Eastern European countries that erected razor wire fences in a matter of days to keep middle eastern migration from coming into their countries. These fences essentially stopped the problem overnight. No one is claiming it is perfect, but the idea that "technology" is more effective is dubious at best. Those in government who support "smart walls" are just pandering for their donor base. The problem with technology is that it isn't a static solution. It requires constant upgrades, massive service contracts and is only effective if backed by human muscle power. The great part about a wall is that once you put it up, well it is just kind of there.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

    • 2
Feb 11, 2019

The fact that you have to even argue this is so fucking asinine and annoying. Build a fence with razor wire and blam you've stopped a large portion of illegal immigration. Are people really this fucking stupid?

    • 1
Feb 11, 2019

Are you really this fucking stupid? If you were on foot trying to sneak into another country, would a razor wire fence deter you? How about a 20 foot wall? Would it be easier or header for you to cross a boundary line with or without a wall?

The cognitive dissonance with you people is astounding...

Feb 11, 2019

Razorwire would 100% stop average people. I'm from close to the border. I understand these intricacies. The fact that we don't, at the very least, have a physical barrier is beyond fucking stupid.

Drones and other things are good too... but you're a fucking moron if you believe that securing the border shouldn't be a top priority for the US Gov. Why the fuck else do we have a government?

Feb 11, 2019

We are on the exact same page - I misread your comment.

I live in Texas and have plenty of buddies from South Texas. It's 100% political warfare on behalf of the politicians that (a) play the identity politics / SJW community and (b) are bought by corporations that benefit from cheapening American labor.

A fraternity brother of mine has a large number of family members in Alpine. They have to carry AR-15's everywhere they go because of cartels. Cartels trespass on ranch land daily; if you try to stop them they will kill you.

Feb 7, 2019
InVinoVeritas:

We are on the exact same page - I misread your comment.

I live in Texas and have plenty of buddies from South Texas. It's 100% political warfare on behalf of the politicians that (a) play the identity politics / SJW community and (b) are bought by corporations that benefit from cheapening American labor.

A fraternity brother of mine has a large number of family members in Alpine. They have to carry AR-15's everywhere they go because of cartels. Cartels trespass on ranch land daily; if you try to stop them they will kill you.

It seems like polls and majority of stories from people living along the border oppose the wall, even many Trump supporters.

I really don't see how it's obvious and pragmatic to think that a freaking wall is necessary and without a doubt necessary to stop people. Number one, there are many natural "walls" or boundaries, including climate, terrain, and natural obstacles. Data shows that much of the smuggling at the Mexican-US border is done through the gates. And, it seems more obvious that a continuous wall along the border would disrupt everything from scenery to natural habitats to land ownership versus it completely preventing illegal crossings.

    • 2
    • 1
Feb 11, 2019

Polls and stories from biased leftist media outlets? I've hiked Big Bend three times and a portion of my family lives out there. I was just down by the Rio Grande on the border and could easily swim across. Enormous stretches of that area are completely unprotected.

Feb 7, 2019
InVinoVeritas:

Polls and stories from biased leftist media outlets?

Idk, how about the Dallas Star-Telegram? Seems like just a local paper to me.

Feb 11, 2019

What % of journalists do you assume are conservative? 10%? 20%? The entire profession is terribly biased.

Remember, Madame President was projected as having a 99% change of winning...

Feb 7, 2019
InVinoVeritas:

What % of journalists do you assume are conservative? 10%? 20%? The entire profession is terribly biased.

Remember, Madame President was projected as having a 99% change of winning...

No idea. The data point for support of a wall is 43% from Quinnipiac, which I think usually conducts independent polling.

I wouldn't be surprised to find a lot of border residents want a wall, but seems like the majority oppose it. Just thinking rationally about it, it definitely seems more disruptive than helpful. When you account for the shutdown, appropriations, etc., then it's already been disruptive and has already cost us some $10B, in the DC area alone.

    • 1
Feb 11, 2019

It's not a perfect solution, but it will definitely help border security. To what exact degree, no one knows. However, $20b is a rounding error in our Federal budget, so the expensive argument is baseless...

Feb 7, 2019
InVinoVeritas:

It's not a perfect solution, but it will definitely help border security. To what exact degree, no one knows. However, $20b is a rounding error in our Federal budget, so the expensive argument is baseless...

What about the arguments for stability to Americans? Or, the general idea of eliminating unnecessary government waste?

Feb 11, 2019

Yes, let's talk about the $1.1 trillion in Federal pensions.

Feb 11, 2019

Yeah that's one of the biggest farces ever. Work for government (and be shit--I used to work for DOD contractors and worked with USGov employees all the time-- they suck) and get your shit paid for. Also get a pension. Fucking insane.

Feb 9, 2019

The Dallas Star-Telegram is only slightly right of the NYT.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Feb 11, 2019

Nope. I worked with a lot of people from the South and am from Texas. Most people want the wall. You're an idiot if you don't. People are actually in danger from the cartels (at the very minimum this should be enough of a reason to build a wall/razorwire fence/whatever). The US Gov needs to protect it's citizens and to protect the border.

Why have a country (or government) if you don't protect your own citizens or secure a border? Fucking Canada secures its' own border. For fuck's sake. Build me a mother fucking wall or stop taking so much of my tax money for your bullshit that I won't ever get to see.

    • 1
Feb 7, 2019
trustmeimanengineer:

Nope. I worked with a lot of people from the South and am from Texas. Most people want the wall. You're an idiot if you don't. People are actually in danger from the cartels (at the very minimum this should be enough of a reason to build a wall/razorwire fence/whatever). The US Gov needs to protect it's citizens and to protect the border.

Why have a country (or government) if you don't protect your own citizens or secure a border? Fucking Canada secures its' own border. For fuck's sake. Build me a mother fucking wall or stop taking so much of my tax money for your bullshit that I won't ever get to see.

I mean, 43% of the general Texas population is a pretty big number. It wouldn't surprise me that everyone in your narrow social group of fanatical Trump supporters, everyone of them would believe the wall should be built.

    • 1
Feb 11, 2019

We actually live here and have to deal with the consequences of all the "vibrant" cultural enrichment the US so fortunately receives.

Feb 7, 2019
InVinoVeritas:

We actually live here and have to deal with the consequences of all the "vibrant" cultural enrichment the US so fortunately receives.

Like awesome Mexican food? To be fair, I think pressure on Mexico is good. Their government needs to be compelled to help their people, such as by raising more wages throughout the whole country. Doesn't change how stupid a fucking wall is.

Feb 11, 2019

Like MS13 gang bangers and alcoholic criminals who drink/drive then are released with no penalty?

Most that wait to get through the system and achieve citizenship are good people who work hard and want better for their children. That said, it is still a cultural problem because Latin Americans have a higher propensity to vote for socialism. Those on the left have no problem with this because they desire ever increasing socialism in this country.

If they can't vote it in themselves, why not import the votes?

    • 1
Feb 7, 2019
InVinoVeritas:

Like MS13 gang bangers and alcoholic criminals who drink/drive then are released with no penalty?

Most that wait to get through the system and achieve citizenship are good people who work hard and want better for their children. That said, it is still a cultural problem because Latin Americans have a higher propensity to vote for socialism. Those on the left have no problem with this because they desire ever increasing socialism in this country.

If they can't vote it in themselves, why not import the votes?

E-verify and voting based on citizenship.
/problem

    • 1
Feb 11, 2019
heister:

The use case to look at is the Eastern European countries that erected razor wire fences in a matter of days to keep middle eastern migration from coming into their countries. These fences essentially stopped the problem overnight. No one is claiming it is perfect, but the idea that "technology" is more effective is dubious at best. Those in government who support "smart walls" are just pandering for their donor base. The problem with technology is that it isn't a static solution. It requires constant upgrades, massive service contracts and is only effective if backed by human muscle power. The great part about a wall is that once you put it up, well it is just kind of there.

A) Apples to oranges. These cases I keep hearing about walls being "successful", including palestine and eastern europe, all have one thing in common. You are dealing with a concentrated population looking to cross on a relatively confined border. It is clear where to put the wall, the wall does not have to be very long, and the viable alternatives to people blocked by the wall are limited. But the larger the border and more dispersed the population the less effective and efficient a wall would be. Scale this up to a 2,000 mile border, straddled by remote coastline on TWO oceans, and it's a completely different ballgame. Not to mention the people crossing it know the landscape and already have decades of experience crossing that border (including tunneling under walls), so the comparison to a recently arrived middle easter population in eastern europe only goes so far.

B) Your criticisms of using technology are absurd in light of how far technology as come, how cheap it has become, and the extent that modern society is already so dependent on it just for daily life. And the idea that with a wall you can just set it and forget is equally ridiculous. A wall would also require maintenance and constant monitoring if it will actually serve its purpose, which is all the more difficult to do when it is 2,000 miles long. There is a reason the great wall of China has a watch tower every half mile. Without the same manpower and upgrades you need for technology, a wall is like using a pasta strainer as an umbrella.

C) at the end of the day there are simply too many viable alternatives for immigrants coming from latin america for a wall to be of much use, certainly not worth the $20B investment. The fact that southern border crossing have been declining for decades (now about 1/3rd of what it was 20 years ago) to now a small minority of illegal immigration suggests that people are already making use of those alternatives. https://www.npr.org/2018/06/22/622246815/unauthori...

Feb 11, 2019

$20b is too much? BULLSHIT. We spend $1.11 Trillion per year on Federal pensions...

Also, the statistics about border crossings we see may as well be random numbers. Meth and heroin is moving into this country in staggering numbers daily.

Feb 11, 2019
InVinoVeritas:

Meth and heroin is moving into this country in staggering numbers daily.

Hidden in cargo through legal points of entry that a border wall would not stop.

Feb 11, 2019

Both. Guys come right across the Rio Grande with it and immediately load it into trucks down in Big Bend.

Feb 11, 2019
InVinoVeritas:

Both. Guys come right across the Rio Grande with it and immediately load it into trucks down in Big Bend.

You can say "both", but 90% comes through ports of entry https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/...
Of the remaining 10%, don't forget the shit being tunneled under the wall...flown over by drones or light aircraft...or mailed via usps. Walking over with the drugs on your back is literally the least efficient and desirable option considering all the other ways.

Feb 11, 2019

So more welfare to big tech and the nanny surveillance state is the answer? All of you keep referencing "evidence" but never have any to share. I have evidence that walls work - centuries of successful implementation...

Feb 8, 2019

I'm just happy that the left finally has their Sarah Palin.

    • 4
Feb 8, 2019

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and Mr. Markey, what you've just proposed is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent plan were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on the planet is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Feb 8, 2019
whitecollarandsuspenders:

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and Mr. Markey, what you've just proposed is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent plan were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on the planet is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

adam sandler

    • 1
Feb 8, 2019

First off, whenever I see something like that which has all sorts of "Progressive" components, I immediately become derisive of it. If you read the context of the resolution, it highlights so much crap about social justice, equality, and other progressive targets that the environmental issues are forced to take a back seat. That said, my thoughts can be boiled down quite simply to this is essentially a Progressive Democrat road map for 2020. Everything they want that placates the far-left's need for identity politics, victimization politics, "Justice", and so on and so forth are outlined here. The majority of this resolution is entirely unattainable. Moving to clean, renewable, zero-emission energy sources in 10 years without the use of Nuclear Power is insane, especially when you consider that Nuclear is a zero-emission energy source. Just think about what would happen if Indian Point, the nuclear plant that provides NYC and Westchester with 25% of their power, were shut down and replaced. Even after replacing Indian Point with whatever it the GND considers environmentally friendly, clean, renewable and zero emission, NYC and Westchester would become importers of energy to make up for the deficit and see an increase in emissions, which is anathema to what the environmental portion of the GND is trying to do. Requiring all buildings to go green and overhauling infrastructure (which, don't get me wrong, we need to invest in fixing our infrastructure but that's a separate issue) to be green compliant is an impossibly high standard. All of the progressive components will be difficult to achieve because the GND is fundamentally saying that it wants to institute socialist concepts and effectively redistribute wealth. In examining the talking points set forth by AOC, it's pretty clear that this entire policy heavily relies on Modern Monetary Theory, which is by the scariest thing. Print until we can't print any more. This is an economic death knell created by unchecked issuance of debt. It's unattainable. Like everything else... it's a common theme across the GND.

However, being that it's a policy piece and a road map for 2020, it'll be interesting to see how the right challenges whomever is left standing based on this road map that appeals to the furthest left of the progressive wing of the democratic party.

Feb 8, 2019

Agreed on most things, but would like to point out that Indian Point is already scheduled to be shutdown 2020-21 with lost power generation likely to be replaced by natural gas. Indian Point has a long checkered history of mini disasters.

Feb 8, 2019

Yeah... Indian Point isn't the best choice, but it was easier to use that to prove the point (as it was much easier to find the percentage of power supplied to NYC) that it would have been using Seabrook, which powers part of Boston, or Oyster Creek, which powers part of Philly, than talking in hyperbole. I mean, I could have brought up Vermont Yankee too - which showed a similar effect in Vermont after they shut down their nuclear power plant.

With Indian Point shutting down, I can only assume that considerations were made to account for the changes in the amount of power being supplied to the region. However, given the GND, I honestly doubt issues like that will be considered when they shut down these facilities.

Feb 8, 2019

NOT MUH FOSSUL FUELS

    • 2
Feb 11, 2019

Count how many items you touched today that are made of plastic. Now rethink your smug elitist attitude.

Feb 8, 2019

In related news, AOC would beat Trump in 2020 according to polls (which failed in 2016 anyway). She can't run for now, but she probably will if she manages to stay popular for the next decade.

Feb 8, 2019

She'll run in 2024 if a democrat doesn't win the presidency in 2020. And I think she has a good chance at winning. We live in this little WSO world where people don't love free stuff but... newsflash! People do. That's what she is offering, and they don't care about how to pay for it. Socialism the word is taboo for now, but how long will that last. People like "free" shit. And she's charismatic, photogenic, and the demographics are to her advantage. She has a very good chance in 2024 if Trump wins in 2020.

    • 2
Feb 8, 2019
BobTheBaker:

She'll run in 2024 if a democrat doesn't win the presidency in 2020. And I think she has a good chance at winning. We live in this little WSO world where people don't love free stuff but... newsflash! People do. That's what she is offering, and they don't care about how to pay for it. Socialism the word is taboo for now, but how long will that last. People like "free" shit. And she's charismatic, photogenic, and the demographics are to her advantage. She has a very good chance in 2024 if Trump wins in 2020.

I think by 2020 millennials will be already the largest electoral age-group and socialism isn't taboo for them. So yeah, I agree with you entirely. Unless she burns out before, she'll run and she'll likely win due to the factors you mentioned.

Feb 7, 2019

A reason independents and moderates to vote for a Biden/Sherrod Brown ticket?

Feb 7, 2019
BobTheBaker:

She'll run in 2024 if a democrat doesn't win the presidency in 2020. And I think she has a good chance at winning. We live in this little WSO world where people don't love free stuff but... newsflash! People do. That's what she is offering, and they don't care about how to pay for it. Socialism the word is taboo for now, but how long will that last. People like "free" shit. And she's charismatic, photogenic, and the demographics are to her advantage. She has a very good chance in 2024 if Trump wins in 2020.

Slight tangent--IMO, the real battle line is not right vs. left, but open vs. closed. I don't mind open conservatism or open socialism, but closed forms of either don't seem very appealing.

    • 1
Feb 8, 2019
Rahma:
BobTheBaker:

She'll run in 2024 if a democrat doesn't win the presidency in 2020. And I think she has a good chance at winning. We live in this little WSO world where people don't love free stuff but... newsflash! People do. That's what she is offering, and they don't care about how to pay for it. Socialism the word is taboo for now, but how long will that last. People like "free" shit. And she's charismatic, photogenic, and the demographics are to her advantage. She has a very good chance in 2024 if Trump wins in 2020.

Slight tangent--IMO, the real battle line is not right vs. left, but open vs. closed. I don't mind open conservatism or open socialism, but closed forms of either don't seem very appealing.

Not a great fracture tbh. Too much openness clashes with the social necessity of self-preservation. Too much closedness causes social stagnation. Open vs close is one those choices where moderation is the key.

Feb 8, 2019

I find it interesting that everything environmental has to be green. seems to me that this is toxic colourism (discrimination against other colors for you alt-right fascists). over 70% of the world is ocean (BLUE), most mass of trees is the trunk/bark/branches (BROWN), and most air is CLEAR. where's the green in that? just another plan to benefit the 1%, it's shameful the direction this country is headed. leave it to Washington to put forth racist policy wrapped in the cloak of progressivism.

    • 6
Feb 8, 2019
thebrofessor:

I find it interesting that everything environmental has to be green. seems to me that this is toxic colourism (discrimination against other colors for you alt-right fascists). over 70% of the world is ocean (BLUE), most mass of trees is the trunk/bark/branches (BROWN), and most air is CLEAR. where's the green in that? just another plan to benefit the 1%, it's shameful the direction this country is headed. leave it to Washington to put forth racist policy wrapped in the cloak of progressivism.

It's because of watermelons: green outside, crimson red inside.

Feb 8, 2019

...

    • 1
Feb 8, 2019

Some of my close friends work in Nuclear Energy, and the discussions we have can be quite interesting. I am still all for nuclear energy.

That being said, this is more of a show of force for the Democratic party. I think she is also one of the proponents of taxing the rich (70% anyone?). I am not sure how she won, to be quite honest.

@CRE - I know a lot of the leaders of the Democratic party, having met through at the DNC and knowing a handful of delegates. It's baffling. She is pretty much placed herself aside since there is very little support as she believes she is the "better" politician.

I sincerely doubt she will win re-election, or even a another chance at a political career.

No pain no game.

    • 1
Feb 8, 2019

The only way she loses is if she is primaried and I'd say that is fairly unlikely.

Feb 8, 2019
H13x:

Some of my close friends work in Nuclear Energy, and the discussions we have can be quite interesting. I am still all for nuclear energy.

That being said, this is more of a show of force for the Democratic party. I think she is also one of the proponents of taxing the rich (70% anyone?). I am not sure how she won, to be quite honest.

@CRE - I know a lot of the leaders of the Democratic party, having met through at the DNC and knowing a handful of delegates. It's baffling. She is pretty much placed herself aside since there is very little support as she believes she is the "better" politician.

I sincerely doubt she will win re-election, or even a another chance at a political career.

She already won her seat again a multi-term incumbent backed by money, she's not going to lose it any time soon.

I strongly recommend you familiarise yourself with the principle of the ''intolerant minority'' by Taleb.
https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-win...
In the long run, it's the uncompromising, stubborn, radical minority that prevails over the tolerant, silent majority. This is pretty clear in the US where political polarization is driven by activists, whose positions tend to be significantly more extreme than the median. The average Democratic moderate is terrified of being branded ''racist and sexist'' by the activist base and the Democratic leaning media, hence put up with nonsense. A good example is Ilhan Omar. She's pretty clearly an anti-semite, however she's also a non-white, non-Christian, non-man and that ranks her high in the oppressed scale of value of the left, thus she gets a free pass.

Feb 11, 2019

Calling out AIPAC isn't anti-semitic. Nor is criticizing Israel or Jewish people. What is good for Israel is not always good for the USA, even if much of the time it is.

Jews are open game for criticism just like everyone else in our (currently) free speech society.

Feb 9, 2019

She primaried a guy who didn't even try and only won by a few thousand votes, in a district that votes Democrat around 80%.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Feb 8, 2019

I do love the fact that four 2020 Democratic candidates came out in support of the GND before they read it. Very smart to endorse: (i) the abolition of air travel in favor of rail (Hawaii is fucked), (ii) the retrofitting of EVERY building in the U.S to be more environmentally friendly, (iii) the complete elimination of the use of fossil fuels w/in 10-years (which, according to the IPCC, may lower global temperatures by a whopping 0.2 degrees in 20-years, assuming the rest of the world's emissions don't outstrip the projections), (iv) wages and benefits for those unable or UNWILLING to work, (v) the nationalization of the energy industry and swaths of the financial industry, and (vi) the possible elimination of cows, and many more pragmatic and commonsensical goals.

I come from down in the Valley, where Mr. when you're young, they bring you up to do like your daddy done.

    • 4
    • 1
Feb 11, 2019

"Possible elimination of cows..." my sides

Feb 8, 2019

I'm all in favor of environmental stuff because if we screw things up, the planet will be fine. WE ARE FUCKED

An infrastructure and reinvestment into America plan is EXACTLY what America needs, upgraded for sustainability. Me gusta.

On a side note, watch this. There is a very simple way to pull carbon out of the air while using cows etc. for real: https://youtu.be/vpTHi7O66pI

Feb 9, 2019

How did boomers create a generation of such colossal stupidity/ignorance that socialism is no longer a taboo word? I'm a (millennial) immigrant whose grandparents and parents lived through socialism, and believe me, socialism is dogsht. At some point you run out of other people's money to pay for those who are unwilling to work. Wtf is the incentive to work?? Stop. Giving. Away. Free. Sht.

Didn't the experiment with universal basic income in the Nordics fail recently?

I do like the infra investment idea -- it's absolutely necessary.

    • 4
Feb 8, 2019
Aerfally1:

How did boomers create a generation of such colossal stupidity/ignorance that socialism is no longer a taboo word? I'm a (millennial) immigrant whose grandparents and parents lived through socialism, and believe me, socialism is dogsht. At some point you run out of other people's money to pay for those who are unwilling to work. Wtf is the incentive to work?? Stop. Giving. Away. Free. Sht.

Didn't the experiment with universal basic income in the Nordics fail recently?

I do like the infra investment idea -- it's absolutely necessary.

You might want to look at the ratio of liberal to conservatives in humanities for that answer. If people go to college and they are told that socialism is great, what do you think they'll believe in the end?

Feb 11, 2019

It's an endless cycle of stupidity my friend. The Republic will convert to Direct Democracy eventually, and Direct Democracy will vote in Socialism. Under Socialism the State will crumble and lead to the rise of Fascism/Civil War/Balkanization.

    • 2
Feb 8, 2019
InVinoVeritas:

It's an endless cycle of stupidity my friend. The Republic will convert to Direct Democracy eventually, and Direct Democracy will vote in socialism. Under Socialism the State will crumble and lead to the rise of Fascism/Civil War/Balkanization.

I'm stealing this.

ditto for life too, greatness comes through struggle.

Feb 11, 2019

I second this, also a kid from a socialist country. It doesn't work, will never work.

Cash and cash equivalents: $7,286
Financial instruments and other inventory positions owned: $313,129

    • 1
Feb 9, 2019

These MFers might just get Trump re-elected.

Feb 9, 2019

Might is an understatement.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

    • 2
Feb 9, 2019

Yeah. Correct move for dems this time around will be to run a moderate that can let trump out trump himself and mostly stand aside while that happens.

Instead they appear to be gearing up to run a bunch of shrill socialist hacks. Between a brash, dickish billionaire and a member of the sophomoric shrieking bartender/pocohontas group, america's going to go with the brash, dickish billionnaire 100%, as they probably rightly should.

Feb 9, 2019

You cannot critique her with remedial math, otherwise you are racist and sexist. Unfortunately, this is where American demographics are trending. Be a victim, demand free shit, call anyone who disagrees with you a racist, homophobic, and sexist.

Capitalist is the new curse word in America's youth.

    • 4
Feb 9, 2019

I have no problem paying higher taxes but I do have a serious issue with the way she wants to spend money. Completely inefficient.

Feb 11, 2019

Then you should have a problem with higher taxes.

Feb 9, 2019

This entire thing is propaganda, and it's working because everyone is talking about it. They're releasing this because they know the left-wing media shops and talk show hosts will blabber about it endlessly while the right-wing media shops will endlessly rebuttal with logic and math. Problem is - the media (on both sides) is only being watched by its own base, so everyone just drills the same crap into the same heads every day. There is nothing new on, and no side will listen to the other. Seriously, read the GND...it is not possible to accomplish that list. it is just BS to get their mindless base to show up to the polls and post BS on social media.

TLDR This is pure marketing strategy that's being used to get the enraged base that doesn't understand the basics of math, economics, and finance to vote with their emotions. It's Trump's playbook, but for the other side. Trump's border wall = Left's GND

    • 1
    • 1
Feb 11, 2019
Feb 11, 2019
Feb 11, 2019

Cash and cash equivalents: $7,286
Financial instruments and other inventory positions owned: $313,129

Feb 11, 2019
Feb 11, 2019
Feb 9, 2019