Saturday assorted links


#6. The GND should be understood and assessed as a bid for political power, not a real proposal with practical and econimic features. Rather like Venezuela, which left Chavez’s daughter with $3 billion dollars and the people eating the zoo animals.

These are bad people with ill intent. The details are not the point.

Yeah that's complete bullshit. Life is not an Ayn Rand novel. Understand your enemies better. You sound like a 9/11 truther.

You know I made a mistake there. I shouldn't have said "enemies". It's simply the other political side, but it's still Americans who want to help, even if they have the wrong ideas how. Don't you roll your eyes when the other team calls Trump evil? You're doing that

"These are bad people with ill intent" seems to be the only sentence there that's wrong.

The entire thing is wrong.

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez offers a Green New Deal to literally save the planet, and the faux outrage machine goes into overdrive.

Solar and wind power polls well, and is 100% practical and cheaper than natural gas. Cheaper than coal. Cheaper than oil.

The only reason we haven’t switched is because of fossil fuels lobbyists. Just cause you can’t make $$$ off of the sun or air. This is exactly what happened to Solyndra. Brilliant business destroyed by bankers and oil executives like Putin lover Rex Tillerson and physics and math.

Solar and wind may poll well, but if they were actually cheaper than gas, coal, and oil there would be no need to "save the planet" from fossil fuels because math.

The lack of nuclear power tells us the GND is not serious about global warming, either. Well, that and high general nonsense level of the thing.

Yes the conservative/Trumpian response: if you care about global warming you would support nuclear power.

It’s nonsense. We want CLEAN power. Green Party in every country demand all wind and solar.

There is no clean power. Both PV and wind require massive amounts of energy from fossil fuels to produce the finished product. In their entire lifetime they will never produce as much power as it took to create them, install them and maintain them. Their only real purpose it to extract billions in subsidies from those too stupid to understand that if their promise was real then they wouldn't need subsidies.

It is interesting that 100% of the "solutions" offered by the GND require higher taxes, higher costs and government regulations that take YOUR rights and give that power to someone else.

China and other countries are now selling decent quality solar panels for under 27 cents per watt. It's so nice of these countries to spend more energy producing solar panels than they'll ever produce, which is generally at least 40 kilowatt-hours, and sell them at a loss. I mean, it makes perfect sense:

Step 1: Sell solar panels at a loss
Step 2: ????
Step 3: Profit

And China is burning coal like mad to manufacture those toxic solar panels.

The marginal lump of coal is imported from Australia at about $100 a tonne. If it requires more energy to produce solar panels than they'll produce in their lifetime that's a fuel cost of around $1.20 per watt or more than 4 times what the panels cost.

"If it requires more energy to produce solar panels than they'll produce in their lifetime..."

Yes, and if pigs could fly, we'd need some sort of protection from pig poop falling from the sky. But pigs can't fly. And photovoltaic panels produce much more energy in their lifetime than it takes to manufacture them.

Yes, that is the propaganda. So why do these systems require hefty subsidies AND then end up raising the price of electricity by 300% even after the subsidy?

This is easy. Go price the cost of a PV panel and it's associated equipment to deliver power to you. Calculate your local solar potential from the sun and figure out what it would provide in actual power over it's 30 year life. Don't forget to calculate in that it loses about 3% efficiency each year. Make the calculation using actual costs so don't include any subsidies. Then you will understand. A typical PV panel will deliver about 12 cents worth of power per sunny day and will cost you about $400 (including everything needed). Now compare the results with investing that $400.

A 275 watt solar panel as part of a decent quality solar system in Australia costs around 1.20 US cents a watt fully installed for a total of $330 US. It will generate an average of around 1.1 kilowatt-hours a day. That saves around 15 US cents a day in my location for a total of around $55 US a year. That gives a simple payback period of 6 years for clean, low-emission electrical energy.

Yesterday rooftop solar supplied 22% of Australia's electrical power consumption around noon. In South Australia it was over 50%. This was a Sunday.

I can't really understand the position of the Green lobby on renewable power. On the one hand they tell us they are lower cost than existing fossil fuels, on the other hand they say they need subsidies. Well which is it? If renewable power is really cost competitive then great news - we can all sit back and forget about AGW - it's solved right?

Do you seriously see a single green lobby, a single market, a single system of investment, and a single system of incentive?

I'm not sure about the "more than they'll ever produce" side of this is actually correct, but your comment obviously doesn't refute it.

Chinese in this set up only cares about if overseas importers and the state enterprises that are bankrolling these things pay enough to keep them in business, and profitable. If they do that, they don't care about if solar is actually are an efficient energy production strategy that captures more energy than it costs, or if pivoting to solar now is the right strategy.

The decisions are being made upstream, by regulators in the importing countries, who may be ideologically influenced, and in the technocratic top command level of the derpy world of Chinese state run enterprises (who have lately been investing in all kinds of weird debt fueled excess infrastructure to keep GDP growth figures on the up).

So China with its horrible and ridiculous value destroying economic management has quadrupled per capita GDP over the past 12 years while the USA has only increased it by a third over the same period.

The US should take note. Actually, Trump makes sense now. Cluearly the US's economic management is not horrible and value destroying enough.

If you know much about history of economic growth and convergence and demographics, you'd know this is a stupid comment.

If you knew much about the recent history of cooling Chinese growth and expanding investment budget and vast empty state constructions, you'd doubly know it was a stupid comment.

You have the greatest searchable resource of information at your fingertips, so theres no reason for any of this.

And if you'd thought about it you'd realize that China, South Korea, Malaysia, Philippines, Mexico, etc. that are all selling PV modules for the same price for similar quality are unlikely to all be selling PV modules at a loss for no adequately explained reason.

All energy production creates waste. Nuclear just concentrates all that waste, which makes management very convenient.

If the G20 nations got 90% of their energy supplies from nuclear, would we be having this conversation about stopping global warming? We might have to deal with a local accident every 40 years, but that is a rounding error compared to man going extinct globally.

My sibling is laying it on a bit thick. Check my link below. Wind and solar are cheaper in rapidly expanding domains.

there's no link _--_ (bearded dragon). Is not mutas mutandis the "the heart-lessness of the healthy, well-fed, and unsorrowful person?"

There is no such thing as historical science. There is no such thing as solar power. Wind power?

Wow. That's a whole lot of BS packaged in one post. Even for you.

I wish alternative energies were practical now, but they aren't. Someday maybe.

Know your anonymouses.

Thank you!

The real anonymouse would not have written this:

"Brilliant business destroyed by bankers and oil executives like Putin lover Rex Tillerson and physics and math."

He might be a rabid leftist (== SF Bay resident) but he is not a dummy.

@msgkings - I wonder if you'll still love AOC after her minions come for your greasy spoon restaurant? The revolution devours its own young.

The USA has already been devouring the young for some time now. For example, the sky high school loans basically required to get middle class jobs and the debt is nondischargeable. The mandated costly health insurance that the young and healthy are forced to buy (benefits of which mostly go to the elderly and sick). The exploding deficits from the Wall Street bailouts and from all the Middle Eastern wars will be paid for generations to come. See, you don't need a revolution to devour your young when a series of slow boils will do. AOC and her ilk are just symptomatic of something much, much deeper.

On the face of it Engineer, you're saying "The 'Justice Democrats' faction (her backers and the people who tell her what to do and say) believe that their voters and backers are stupid enough to go for this, but they're not actually stupid enough to believe it themselves".

But there seems no evidence that they're any different than the run of the mill who would vote for them. They probably do believe it.

Ahh yes. Stealing from the people. How do you think all those million dollar condos in Miami get sold? Its not US soybean farmers buying them.

Stop demeaning billionaires, please.

1) If you want to really help girls, guide their essential nervousness to its best use: taking care of small children.

Sorry, just feeling a little extra anti-New York Times this afternoon.

more time alone outdoors dressed comfortably in layers
questioning other peoples assumptions?

1. Or are boys conditioned to overestimate their knowledge of a subject? (Lack Socratic ignorance).

6. One misnomer we should confront is that climate change will not be stopped in our lifetime. Perhaps curbed, reduced, but not stopped. Seeing the outline of the GND, I am pessimistic and optimistic at the same time. I had hoped for a Manhattan Project. I am frustrated like Noah, but I have come to realize that this outline is the beginning of a conversation. He approaches this from an economics/innovation point of view, which is not wrong. But I am also looking through a historical and class lens. The Great Depression is viewed as a financial failure, but it was also an environmental disaster that caused mass migration of people. New Orleans, Houston, Paradise. I see a pattern emerging. My question is as climate change risk intensifies what will people need? Health insurance, shelter, and jobs in a more mobile form. I want to see innovation in green technology, regulation and clawback of subsidies to dirty technology, international cooperation, investment in infrastructure, and a recognition that a lot of people are going to need public assistance.

Re #6 How many other 4 billion year old processes do you think we can stop?

Lots. Already we've caused Global Warming, and a 1970s book by John McPhee pointed out an Iceland engineer, despite cautions that it was impossible to do so, diverted a volcano so the lava flowed away from a town, saving it. We're in the Anthropocene epoch.

@Evans_TN - "The Great Depression is viewed as a financial failure, but it was also an environmental disaster that caused mass migration of people. New Orleans, Houston, Paradise" ??? What? You talking about the Oakies? They largely moved to California, not Texas. (Wikipedia): "Paradise is a city in Wise County, Texas, United States. The population was 441 at the 2010 census. According to tradition, the area was a cowboy's "paradise", hence the name. "

Bonus trivia: I don't know if Evans is from TN, but whenever I talk to Southerners I'm amazed at their ignorance, some of it religious based (Baptists are big down there). They literally believe in Noah's Ark. I was trying to explain to one such self-identifying "Christian" woman, in a nice way, to flatter her, that the fish icon seen on bumper stickers is from a Greek acronym early Christians used, but she basically said "my pastor said to not listen to people outside our church at they will try and pollute our thinking" and that was the end of the conversation, lol. These are Trump voters. Unlike Evans I doubt most of them believe in man-made global warming.

#2. A grotesque place. Billions upon billions of petrodollars, war on terra money, war on drugs money, year after year, decade after decade. It had to be stashed somewhere. Thanks US taxpayers!

#4. Seeing Lagos more and more. The UK show "Worlds most extraordinary homes" was there recently iirc.

#6. GND is a bit disappointing. Amateurish. It won't go anywhere but the Depends sellers will be making money. It's AOC omg everybody start freaking out!!!

#6 Don't bother buying stock though. AOC's travelers have been peeing their pants about something new every year for 40 years. It's already priced in.

" AOC's travelers have been peeing their pants "
Better than getting peed on by Russian hookers, ain't that right, Orange Moscow?

1. The confidence gap (NYT).

That experience — of succeeding in school while exerting minimal or moderate effort — is a potentially crucial one. It may help our sons develop confidence, as they see how much they can accomplish simply by counting on their wits.


That is what I remember, to the extent I remember. It was skill in and of itself. One could decipher real quick what what teacher though fundamental, then produce just that, optimally skipping any of the extra work.

The second trick was using short term memory. Then you are not wasting brain cells, you circulate the necessity in your spiral neurons, repeatedly, it works. Take the test, then immediately dump the pattern and restart another for another class exam. Never once wasting precious long term memory on stupid school stuff.

Once you had that, you had the skill needed to squeak through a bureaucracy.

There doesn't seem a lack of confidence with AOC? What seems to me the best explanation is that females are good in more structured environments whereas men are better where there is a range of possibilities and a risk needs to be taken. Work environments are very like this - if the answer is already codified we don't really need high paid professionals to figure things out. Whether this is social or genetic (perhaps driven by testosterone) I don't think we know.

GND....Control F : nuclear.

Oh, so it’s a joke. A joke in which 75% of the economy would be controlled by the federal government. Assuming no economic contraction or spending bloat.

Carry on.

What I have not seen in the "green part" of the GND is an estimate for the total energy the US should use in 2030. By assumption all this energy should be used in the form of electricity, and all this electricity should be produced by renewable means: solar, wind, hydro-electric -- no fossile fuel, and in addition no nuclear. The plan even gives very precise percentage of the electricity that should be produced by each of these renewables methods -- but without even a gross estimate of the total electricity we want to produce in 2030, this is quite ridiculous.

The plan say total energy used should be reduced, by making more efficient building, etc. It doesn't say how much saving on our energy consumption it hopes to make in the long run -- is it more like 10% or 50% or 90%? without knowing it, we have no way to evaluate how realistic is the plan, nor to compute an estimate of how much it will cost... I wonder how Noah arrives at his figure of $400 billion a year for the "switching energy" part of the plan.

Germany I don't know, but my local experience with nuclear was not super positive.

And geeeez, some local complaint here, but really. Stop reading glossy brochures and check out "owner's problems."

6. Ramez Naam also references Noah and the GND here:

To make a long story short, if you want to control GHG you need solutions cheap enough for poor countries.

Ramez Naam has interesting ideas, and that was quite an interesting read. But there is something I do not understand.

Naam says: "Our biggest climate problems - the sectors that are both large and that lack obvious solutions, are: a) Agriculture and land use changes and b) Manufacturing / Industry. Together, these are 45% of global emissions. And solutions are scarce."
And "In industry, despite progress in recycling steel, *primary* steel production is still incredibly carbon intensive. As is cement. As is much of manufacturing."

I know almost nothing to steel production, but can't we use electricity to produce the heat we need rather than burning coal? If we can, since for Naam producing cheep renewable electricity is a minor problem, then we have a natural way to solve the industry emissions problems. So what are the technical issues that make difficult to transform our coal or fuel-burning factories to electricity-powered factories ?

This is totally off the top of my head while I have a moment, but I think I've heard that the coking process requires coal, but after that you can use electricity for everything.

Coking, burning ore expansively?

There’s no reason steel can’t be produced without releasing carbon into the atmosphere. Just capture it and bury it.

An easy solution would be to come up with an international framework with the EU and Canada and demand carbon neutral steel production. And make it illegal to import any product with steel made in a non zero emission plant. We’re talking 7% of total emissions, and all of the production would shift from the West to China, but you could definitely try.

I doubt any European countries would sign it.

The carbon from the coal is used to react with the oxygen from the iron-oxide (aka ore). The net result is CO2 and elemental iron (with some carbon in solution in the iron).

The oxygen has to bond with something; turning it into O2 would be very energy intensive.

Thanks for this clear chemical explanation.

Okay, to understand better, I have made the following back-of-the-envelope computation.

I understand that the Carbon in fossil fuels (say coal) used as a chemical reactor to take the Oxygen atoms out of the ore molecules
and get pure Iron is very hard to replace by something else.
But how much Carbon do we need for steel production?

Roughly speaking, in the reaction you describe and other I've seen on wikipedia, you produce one molecule of CO2 for every atom of Iron you get (or perhaps, it is 2 to 1, etc, depending on the type of ore you use, but for the gross computation that follows, this doesn't matter).
The mass of an atom of Iron is roughly 4 times the mass of a Carbon atom, so for each tonne of steel (which is 98% iron) we produce, we roughly a quarter of tonne of Carbon in the atmosphere (in the form of CO2 molecules) -- remember I am only counting the carbon used as chemical reactor with ore, not the carbon used to produce heat by burning it.

Now the world production of steel in 2017 is 1.6 GigaTonnes, which would put in the atmosphere about 0.4 GigaTonnes of Carbon (still not counting the production of heat). But the total carbon emission from fossil fuels in 2017 were about 10 Giga tonnes of Carbon. That means that the chemical use of Carbon in steel production amounts to about 4% (very rough estimate, it could be half or the double) of total carbon emission. It is indeed a significant part of global carbon emission, and if you add other industries with similar patterns, it can be one of the most important and difficult problem to solve, as Naam says.

Note steel's recycling rate is 86% which greatly reduces the amount of iron ore that needs to be processed. The world appears to have passed peak steel production so decreasing amounts of iron ore will be required in the future.

Using coke (coal) is convenient for reducing iron ore but is not necessary. Whether coal continues to be used will depend on what sort of carbon price gets put in place.

Who the hell is Ramez Naam?

Oh, an SF writer. He is far too optimistic.

Germany burns more coal than ever:

True, but that was not Naam's point. His point was that Germany's early research in solar and wind energy made the needed technology cheaper for everyone, allowing many countries to use this technology to reduce greenhouse gas emission -- of course countries that didn't do the stupid choice of closing all well-working nuclear powerhouse like Germany did.

So Germany did bad but showed other how to do good, is the point Naam makes. It is easy to laugh about it, but there still may be some truth in it -- I don't know enough about the history of the price of solar panels and wind turbines to be sure. (Even for current prices and costs, it is difficult to find reliable, non-partisan information at least y casually looking on the web.)

Prices for solar modules per watt are at the bottom:

Yet when solar was used to replace coal in Australia the cost of electricity went up.

And now the cost of electricity is going down. Does that mean solar is now using its ability to affect electricity prices for good instead of evil?

"...Even for current prices and costs, it is difficult to find reliable, non-partisan information at least y casually looking on the web."

There's the Crux of the problem right there.

#6...As near as I can tell based upon the two op-eds, the MMT says we should run higher deficits until we run into real trouble, at which point we'll deal with it. It's the "At that point we'll deal with it" that worries me. I worry similarly about the GND. It seems to accept cash being handed out left and right that miraculously gets spend appropriately and efficiently. I agree that Helicopter Drops can be useful, we should prudently spend money on infrastructure, and push the envelope on interests rates to see if we can get more employment. I advocate a version of "A narrower program that only covered, say, one out of three Americans who are “unable or unwilling” to work, it would cost about $1.3 trillion. By comparison, free college would be cheap at about $47 billion a year." But, if we are willing to spend money for the common good, I'm not sure why we don't want to pay for it. I understand we can use government borrowing usefully, but what's the hangup about paying for government services we all benefit from? I agree that taxes should fall higher on the wealthy, but the only reason I can understand for not paying for what we spend is that we don't think we get our money's worth. None of us. In that case, a smaller government is the solution, not "let's wait till things explode to deal with them."

In any case, since we're likely to spend more money than we collect in taxes indefinitely, we will, most likely, increase the deficit until something awful occurs. MMT advocates should be pleased, as we're running their experiment whatever we call it.

1. The author thinks we should treat boys and girls differently in order to get girls to perform like boys in the same fields? Underlying assumption is that they should be in the same fields in the first place, they shouldn't. Telling girls to excel at school and work is what cost us a nation in the first place. Tyler likes promoting some aspects of mormonism, but he seems to ignore the high status of marriage and motherhood and how much it is praised both explicitly and implicitly in the LDS church, and working mothers are still somewhat discouraged, even if very subtly (used to be more, probably like most christian churches 50 years ago).

6. $6.6T per year? Krugman must love it, it'll stimulate the economy all the way into heaven.

6. I suspect they are using “green” to evoke Green party. Which implies both environmental and economy topic.

Based on the analysis, it will cost about the same as the bank bailouts...

You’re off by about $7 trillion a year.

Yes, the bank bailout is about double Smith's estimates for GND

Cool. Someone wrote an op-Ed.

It’s still wrong. Like not even Bernie Sanders wrong. More like Trump wrong. Like orders of magnitude wrong.

But hey he worked for a machine shop in Vancouver. Obviously machine shop experience means he’s qualified to write about the finance industry.

Hail Trump I guess ?

Yeah, Forbes runs amateur garbage all the time

Totally predictable on the ad hominem. That's B-13 for those people playing along at home.

TARP was profitable. You can only reach trillions of dollars by counting the Fed's quantitative easing as a "bank bailout."

+1, this is correct

The bank bailout was all loans and credit support. The GND is all cost. The two are completely different.

#1 I reject her "confidence" theory outright - she needs to make a better case.

Why not examine why girls do so well in school and boys less so?

Here are some possible reasons:

1. Schools are run by women - most teachers are women. In our schools, all the counselors are women. The superintendent of the school district is a woman, as are all her direct reports.

2. Most boys are action oriented, but school requires then to sit still all day.

3. Except for band, shop, chemistry lab (where kids get to burn and blow up stuff), and sports school is boring, tedious, and constraining for boys.

The effeminate boys love school.

As for how women do in business, my experience in high tech is that they do quite well. I have managed and worked for many women managers. I haven't seen as many female entrepreneurs. I don't what that implies.

"The effeminate boys love school."

I really like the excuses the stupid invent to justify their failures.

Who you talkin' about?

#1 Old colleges (e.g. oxforfd) used to actually devalue hard work and students that tried were belittled. Under that culture, only natural talent was rewarded. If, as the author suggests and experience confirms, most boys still adhere to such norms, what we arguably see are primarily talented men emerging from top institutions. Women, on the other hand, would emerge as a more diverse group from top institutions (some smart, some hard workers). Most high end professional services positions require the ability to process new information very quickly and present coherent analysis to multiple constituents on the spot - hard work is fairly irrelevant under extraordinary time constraints.


^this assumes education primarily serves as a filtering mechanism

#6 This GND is as crazy as AOC's eyes! It is so crazy I don't know if I should be happy, because the voters will reject it, or frightened because the people might vote for it.

If this ever gets implemented it will be curtains for the USA.

I don't even have enough time to cover all the absurdities in the plan.

I have to ask, "Do the Democrats want all this and open borders too?"

The US already spends $0.6T on the military. Reduce military spending to zero, and go only 10% the way of AOC's plans, and you're totally revenue neutral!

Still cheaper than all the GOP wars and GOP bailouts combined.

No. Not even close.

And that's precisely the problem.

Tyler, how does Noah manage to keep in his head the notions of "how are we going to pay for..." Universal Healthcare, Green Anything, yet all first world nations manage yet these guys are always willing to support a blank check and dig deeper sunk costs ($2 trillion+, 500,000+ deaths for Afghanistan and Iraq) for questionable wars for questionable "partners" with no discernible end state or ROI?

I thought you guys pride yourselves on rationality?

Oh, let them go out on the campaign trail promising they'll pay for what they're looking for by de-funding the US military, talking about how foreign wars don't provide return on investment, about the need to abandon a US international military role.... after a good few years of criticizing Trumpism for seeing international war in mercenary terms (looking for the ROI) and irresponsibly stepping back from US interventionism into isolationism.

Seems more like AOC is going with more debt+"fiscal multipliers from Narnia" though: "We actually do have the evidence. For every $1 invested in infrastructure, we get $6 back." (

Welcome to your own personal "Belt and Road Initiative" debacle...

I was unaware of Noah going on a campaign of any sort?

And what does the US get out of being a global cop that benefits the US?

You guys claim rationality and are bean counters when it comes to any social program as it applies to the US but only appeal to emotional arguments or get stuck in cognitive traps such as sunk cost fallacies when it comes it open ended, no end state foreign engagements and military budgets.

Cost is meaningless when there are omni-threats around!!

I'm not advocating zero military and I'm not supporting AOCs proposals carte blanche.

The *they* in my post who would be campaigning would be those who would be campaigning for GND. Anything less than a presidential landslide, and control of both Houses would be insufficient, otherwise, in both process and mandate, for such a totalising 'Year Zero" transformation of the US economy.

The wars - good policy or bad - are a fraction of the cost of the GND.

#1 Confidence
It seems there's a chance for Confidence to be a double edged sword for women (hypothesis only): If it's true that women have / are expected to have lower confidence than men, a normal (male-level) confident or high confident woman may be seen as abnormal, threatening, etc. by both sexes.

Life experience is that women with more self confidence tend to be seen in a solely positive light... where it's genuine (e.g. not highly confident one minute, weeping and fragile the next). Doesn't seem like there's a different overconfidence threshold for men or women, and that it's mostly based on objective and gender neutral standards.

So I don't think this is a "girls are disincentivized to display confidence" thing. Though it may be a "boys are more incentivized to display confidence" thing - primarily, girls have more of a taste for confidence in boys than boys do in girls (if she's pretty, confidence is optional), and boys are more interested in competitive activities where confidence is useful to display.

praising indian female economists will help you build up your liberal street cred ... and at least they are not just pretending an ethnicity like presidential candidate elizabeth warren that said she was a minority in order to benefit from affirmative action

B.S. Indians will grab on to as much POC cred as they possibly can, and usually despise white americans. They are excellent at grabbing various diversity positions around campus.

Re: #6
Who even does all this? Are there enough contractors / skilled construction workers in the country to do all the work to make every structure carbon-neutral / design & build the infrastructure to electrify transportation (and doesn't building everything in a 10-year period pigeonhole us into relatively current technologies)? How valuable are most of those skills when the transition is complete? There certainly doesn't seem to be a good way to pay for it (even with those billionaires paying their "fair share"), and my guess is that there are not enough skilled people either to complete it that quickly.

6. Lol AOC wins again. In one years time she’s gone from a bartender saddled with student debt, to the outlandish left wing freshman congress woman that nobody can stop talking about.

Like all things Trump and AOC, it’s not the actual conversation that matters- China trade policy, Green new deals, walls on the Mexican border, etc......It’s keeping the conversation alive that is key. The talking points are nothing but the kindling...

There is a less than ten percent chance that AOC goes to bed at night thinking the bull work of her policy goals are absolutely vital to moving America in the right direction....

The Lagos art scene piece is lovely, and it pairs nicely with these articles on the city’s fashion culture.

1. “a job with family-sustaining wages, family and medical leave, vacations, and retirement security”

2. “high-quality education, including higher education and trade schools”

3. “high-quality health care”

4. “safe, affordable, adequate housing”

5. “economic security to all who are unable or unwilling to work”

I read that and say technically easy to do with less spending than today, but politically impossible until and if the t-bond market goes south dramatically.

Replace Social Security, minimum wage SNAP and TANF with a negative income tax. Force state and local gov to allow any residential building increases density.

Replace medicare and medicaid with a plan with a very high deducible based on income that only cover care that has strong evidence of dollar efficacy.

Cut defense spending in half.

Quality education can be done for 30% (at least) less than is spent now and many go to school longer than they should. Cut enrollment at state schools in half and we'll be fine. Cut university spending per student in half and we'll be fine.

People can live well on less than many think see:

The Democrats and AARP will not lat any of that happen except defense spending cut and the republicans will not let that happen.

So do they really think AGW in an existential danger. I think not. Nor do they think much of the above are really important.

The left hates negative income taxes.

Their darling pride and joy-“willing to die on that hill”- policy issue is the minimum wage.

I don’t quite understand the infatuation with it. It’s a really crappy policy tool....

I don't see Republicans lining up to support NIT either.

#2). Very good and spot on description of the UAE. I give her props for her seeing as much as she did on her six day trip.

The Confidence gap is one big whoosh. Has she ever even worked in an office? Its all about risk taking. The women in the office always need to cross every 'T', dot every 'I' and get approval from for everything. Several men though take risks (while the rest just do enough to not get fired). They move fast and break things and when it turns out badly their careers suffer and they move on to a different company to try again there, or their risk taking pays off big time and they are handsomely rewarded. Women and Men did not evolve to be identical, Women aren't typically as comfortable taking risks and taking actions without out approval. They should play to their strengths instead of trying out-men men. Men will always have a larger appetite for risk. She has a clear bias here, she sees all the men that are really successful in their career, but how many times did they take risks and fail before that? I bet a lot. I took lots of risks before I was successful and I was comfortable doing so: I was giving my self more ways to win, and only some of them needed to pay off to accelerate my career.

Comments for this post are closed