>Is it something we want to make happen or not.
>
>Yeah, it's POSSIBLE that it would expand the economy enough to
>increase tax revenues to cover this spending. But there's no
>guarantee of that.

I never said that the economic expansion would cover spending. I'm just saying "nope, can't afford it" etc doesn't even consider the possible changes to the economy.

The critique of "gov spending would = 75% of economy" or whatever assumed everything else would stay the same, for instance.




>
>It's exactly the same argument that the Republicans make about
>tax cuts, and we mock them mercilessly for it, and rightly so.
>These supply-side true believers say every penny of tax cuts
>will be paid for because the economy will expand and the
>overall amount of tax income will increase.
>
>They aren't just making that shit up. There are SOME
>circumstances where a tax cut will stimulate the economy, even
>enough to pay for itself (generally the cuts have to be
>targeted to the poor and middle-class, but these GOPers aren't
>into details). That's why a tax cut was such a big part of the
>Obama stimulus.

Well, sure. You're speaking to a Demand side guy. They argue tax cuts to the rich stimulate the economy, when they don't.

And even if they do, they don't stimulate the economy as well/efficiently as giving tax cuts to middle class.


>
>But I'm sure I don't need to convince you that tax cuts DON'T
>always pay for themselves. And in some cases (like the latest
>giant federal tax cut) they don't even stimulate economic
>growth.

Right. The gains mostly went to the top, and they pocketed it. Since trickle down is some bull shit.



>
>Similarly, federal spending doesn't NECESSARILY stimulate
>economic growth. And a lot of this stuff in this version of
>the Green New Deal is especially sketchy, in economic terms.
>That doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do. I'm just
>saying it isn't easy to be sure that these initiatives will
>pay for themselves, in the short term or even in the long
>term.
>
>Putting up solar panels and windmills, and retrofitting the
>energy grid to use them, would put a huge number of people to
>work. It would also put a huge number of people out of work by
>disrupting existing industries (particularly natural gas).

Right. Which is why it would have be done in a very careful way so that, ideally, those folks could transition to clean jobs.

>
>(Also, speaking as a physicist, it's questionable how much
>we'd gain in energy efficiency and environmental impact doing
>this, since it would require huge amounts of energy storage
>and transportation, both of which are quite inefficient, and
>can be heavily polluting, especially in the case of big
>batteries, which are the simplest way to store energy, but
>also require a lot of natural resources themselves, and
>produce significant pollutants over time. But that's part of
>the environmental argument, so separate from the economic
>argument.)

Interesting. What is your preferred alternative/plan then?

>
>Medicare for All, again, might be stimulative in that it would
>save the average person quite a bit of money. But at the same
>time, if it ends private insurance (which I agree with most
>OKPs is an inefficient and inhuman relic of the past), then it
>would put millions of people out of work. In and of itself,
>this would cause a major recession or more likely a
>depression.

I agree that M4A needs to be a long term goal because of this. The other thing is that, crazy as it seems, there are folks who like their insurance as it is.

It should definitely happen in phases.

But maybe starting at M4A this time, gets us the public option.


>
>Now admittedly, that's ignoring the fact that the CONSUMERS of
>health care would be better off under Medicare for All. But if
>a hundred million people are saving money on health care
>(paying more in taxes but mostly saving more than that in
>premiums), but a few million people have their lives
>completely destroyed -- I don't see how that shakes out, and I
>don't see any of these "bold ideas" progressives putting any
>effort into figuring it out. And even less into using whatever
>we know about the economics of health care to inform their
>bold proposals.

What is your preferred alternative?


>
>It's a similar story on a slightly smaller scale for free
>College tuition. Again, it's the right thing to do, if we can
>ever get it done. But everybody who works for a private
>nonprofit university or college (including me) would be
>putting zero dollars into the economy or the federal treasury
>for the foreseeable future.
>

As lefty as I am, I am even iffy on free college. I need to do more research to be honest. But my knee jerk reaction is that a plan like that should be purely needs based.

Also, college isn't for everyone and the left needs to stop speaking like it is.

I think this should be dead last on the priority list, actually.

>
>It would be great if we can find a way to do these things. And
>I'm not even certain that this approach is unaffordable. I
>just don't see the supporters showing any interest in the
>question of WHETHER it's possible. What worries me about so
>much of the new left is that the proposals seem specifically
>*designed* to be impossible. Designed that way so that we
>never have to find out whether they could have worked or not.
>It's like we've all just given up on progress and just want to
>feel better about ourselves as everything we care about goes
>down the shithole.
>
>
>


The problem, though, is if the left puts forth a complicated, nuanced plan- then they lose the audience, as the left often does.

In general, I think presenting a "new deal for a new generation" is a very good idea/plan- especially one that sets a moon-shot type goal of zero emissions.


Are the specifics of the plan what I would personally put in there? Not in every case, certainly. But overall, I think it is a good idea/strategy.


And when a criticism is put forth that essentially assumes nothing else would change, we gotta call them on it.