A new open thread for climate solutions in the new year (and the soon-to-be new US administration actions). As for the climate science open threads, please try to renew your commitment to constructive dialog that prioritises light over heat (like LED bulbs for instance!). Thanks!
96 AB: To even contemplate that he’s anti-Semitic takes a leap of illogic I can’t fathom. Not. Even. Possible.
BPL: Good Lord, Al, do you read what the man writes? E-P has defended Nazi Germany, denied the Holocaust, blamed Jews for the Soviet Union, the GULAG, and the Holodomor, and used “You will not replace us” rhetoric. Go back and read his posts again. OF COURSE he’s antisemitic.
K 97: Taxes fund NOTHING.
BPL: K says NOTHING accurate. There. Fixed it for you.
Ray Ladbury:
Among others, the kind with a narcissistic personality disorder. Note that the term “disorder” has a dimensional rather than categorical definition here. Everyone’s personality is more or less narcissistic. A more narcissistic personality becomes a disorder when it causes problems for the subject or for people he interacts with:
Once again, IANAP, but I observe that E-P’s narcissism negatively impacts our virtual lives here on RC, causing problems for numerous other commenters including you and me, along with our esteemed moderator, who has the power to exile him permanently. An attribution of NPD emphasizes the subject’s manifest lack of empathy: E-P knows he pisses us off, but thinks that’s our problem, not his! He’s simply unable to see himself through our eyes, poor fella.
Admittedly that’s relative (i.e. dimensional), of course. E-P just has it worse than most. Politician or poet, no one possesses perfect empathy:
O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An’ foolish notion:
What airs in dress an’ gait wad lea’e us,
An’ ev’n devotion!
–Robert Burns
Killian said:”it’s on you all to fix what you broke”
I’ve been reading and lurking here since the mid aughts, and you are hands down the worst thing about the Real Climate forums. Your childishness makes them almost unreadable, and that’s a real shame, since your actual message gets lost in the mess and it would be worth reading, otherwise.
Nobody owes you anything, just post, and act like an adult, I can’t see how someone as thin skinned as you can function in the real world.
Gavin was asking for ways to improve the forums, banning you would be the easiest single thing.
Get A Room,
Really guys, you know you were made for each other. Stop with the old-married-couple pretend arguments.
There is actually some interesting energy-tech stuff happening, but your love affairs with each other (and yourselves) is drowning out any attempt to discuss them.
Waddayasay, moderators? You have the “crankshaft” and the “borehole”, maybe you could set up a “men-cave” thread to accommodate these interactions which are best kept private?
Killian @99,
I think both you and RL made some good comments about the environmental issues.
“What really jumped out at me was this exchange between Ray Ladbury and I, for two different reasons. Look how similar our views are. Second, the absolute lack of rancor….Posts 231, 329, 371….”
Agreed there is no rancour, but it was only a brief exchange of views. I have no idea where the rancour comes from. I’ve been polite 95% of the time. If there is rancour I dont think its my problem but I certainly dont mean to cause any. I had a read Ray Ladburys comments but at best they are only very generally similar to your views. For example:
Ray says “Personally, I don’t think we will be able to make it without resorting to nuclear power, geoengineering and serious reductions in consumption”
The only common ground here between you and RL is serious reductions in consumption. You have definitely opposed nuclear power and I think you have opposed geoengineering (very wisely in the case of geoengineering). Its not clear what Ray means by serious reductions in consumption, it could mean anything. I have said we need reductions in consumption as well along the lines of 25% for the average person, so obviously more for rich people. There’s agreement on the wisdom of reducing consumption but I think its a question of what is a sensible target that wont totally turn people off. I support nuclear power but heaven help us if we have to resort to geoengineering.
The POINT I’m making here is we all have some similarity of views and some differences as well.
Ray says “When I say sustainable, i mean sustainable into the far distant future. I don’t think this necessarily means growth, although it may mean we need to redefine growth as something along the lines of improved standard of living via improved technology, etc. The extractive, increased-consumption notion of growth certainly isn’t sustainable. Nor, beyond a certain level of consumption does in equate to increased wellbeing. Some notion of growth, however, is probably needed for any economic system conceived to date.”
Ray doesn’t define what he means by sustainable so its impossible to know if its similar to your views. Your posts appear to simply oppose economic growth and I cant recall any nuance. Most of what he says in this paragraph is actually very similar to what I’ve written.
Ray says “As to our ability to decrease consumption, I agree there’s huge scope (and need) for savings in the US, Europe, Japan, etc., but you’ll face serious backlash given that shopping is considered a “leisure activity””
I have said we need to reduce consumption and made almost the exact same comments that its going to be hard to persuade people addicted to consumption. I think it will be hard to reduce consumption by numbers like 90%. It would be good if we could and maintain a decent life as well, but there are technical challenges to those levels of efficiency and people are addicted to high consumption. That is why I suggest 25% is a realistic goal short – medium term. Otherwise if we say to people cut your consumption by 90% right now, they will laugh. But you have mentioned or quoted 90% and Im not saying thats silly or a bad thing, just that we have to acknowledge the challenges of achieving that.
“You all got scared your way of life was over, or would be.”
No. Not for me. Its not a case of fearing a simplified life or the hard realities that the planets resources are finite or we have to look after the environment better. Those points you make are good points but I’ve pondered them myself decades ago. I am the sort of person that can survive in the bush on meagre rations, and look after myself, if I have to. Give me a good book and I’m happy. But naturally I prefer a normal tech. based life most of the time and I’m reluctant to give up too much stuff without very clear proof I should.
Its a question of how much we should we give up to help reduce potential future problems. Its hard to quantify, yet obviously we have to somehow, and so you need to be precise about the end game. Take Rays example. If humanity finds it increasingly hard to find the key materials for maintaining roads and bridges, this infrastructure could decay. Ok I think this could ultimately cause the price of transporting foods to go up, and force us to be more reliant on local economies and to work closer to home or from home. Scarcity is not going to happen overnight and cause a 24 hour collapse in society. It will develop and we will be FORCED to adapt and I just don’t see it as some extinction level event, although it would be painful. So I think it makes sense for people like us to aim to reduce consumption to some moderate extent that’s achievable and sensible and do things like reduce waste and these goals might be realistic, even to a public addicted to shopping.
But I cant see any evidence shortages would cause a full on human extinction level event so I’m a little bit reluctant to make truly massive reductions in what I consume, such as giving up owning a car and trying to walk or cycle for hours each day. I would give up a car if public transport was brilliant but it isn’t. But I’m happy to own a small car and use public transport when it is workable and I do both those things.
“Well, I don’t think there’s a solution for nigel unless or until YOU all call him out for his obvious Straw Men, etc., so I don’t have to.”
I have already commented on this. I don’t believe I do those things to you or others, with maybe the very occasional exception by accident, and it might occur to you the reason other people don’t accuse me of doing them might be because they don’t think I do them either. And I think you have said plenty of inaccurate things about what I’ve said, as I’ve pointed out and Piotr has questioned the accuracy and logic of some of your arguments.
I suggest forget about this sort of stuff. The thing to do is for us to focus more on what similarities of views we have, and not quite as much on the differences and accidental missquotes.
AB @96
“And EP is brutally logical, focused on IQ as a prime Good, believes in the heritability of IQ, and is certainly aware of the average Jewish IQ score. To even contemplate that he’s anti-Semitic takes a leap of illogic I can’t fathom. Not. Even. Possible.”
I tend to agree, but EP would help himself if he stated his views a little more unambiguously, simply and plainly. He asks for trouble and trouble is what he gets. Maybe he enjoys the trouble!
The climatic upside of the Capitol coup de foudre is that the American Petroleum Institute has broken off diplomatic relations with President Trump:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2021/01/api-viciously-unceremoniously-strips.html
Killian: You see me as the common enemy
AB: Naw. You’re one of our Identified Patients. I’m certainly another. Crappy competitive terms lead to conflict.
Killian: but it’s on you all to fix what you broke.
AB: Bullshit. Blaming and shaming is a pathetic way to teach better behavior.
It’s on everyone to help get from where we are to where we want to be. The question is whether you can trust folks from now on (nobody can change the past). Is that what you’re really looking for, a sign of trustworthiness, a sign that they (we) care about what you care about?
Killian @98 says “SURPRISE! So, for some time now, and I don’t recall how long, I have stated we need about 2 to 4 generations of what I call Deep Simplicity: About 90% less resource consumption as today for a nation like the U.S. …Maybe Steve follows me more closely than I thought”
Suggestions we can or should reduce consumption of resources around 90% are nothing new. This one is from 2015 but I’ve read similar suggestions going back at least 10 years. It mentions up to 80% reductions in energy use. I suspect various people have independently arrived at such numbers.
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/1951Sustainable%20Consumption.pdf
Its not difficult to calculate such a number of 90% if you assume people will do a lot of walking and cycling, all use double glazing, keep the thermostat down very low, and that we can hugely improve the energy efficiency of motors for example. The key word is assume. Its a good ultimate goal to have obviously, that goes without saying, but achieving all this is going to be challenging to put it mildly. I think in terms of promoting environmentalism we should suggest people aim for something more achievable like 25 – 50%, otherwise there might be a risk of being totally dismissed out of hand?
nigelj @86: prl @73, wow impressive, thanks for that analysis!
Thanks. It took a bit of digging to find a source for NZ’s historical cost of debt service.
Killian (81): Piotr, poor lad, is all upset about tone, but not fallacies? Hmmm… Intelligent people are more concerned with WHAT is said than HOW it is said.
So what does it say about your intelligence, if you have no clue WHAT my post was about? It was NOT about you, but about Mike, and NOT about “tone”, but about “hypocrisy”. Namely:
– Killian (52): “That’s… uninformed at best, flatly stupid at worst: You cited Krugman about MMT? Are you out of your damned mind? LOL… Let’s ask Trump about democracy next. Bwahahahahaha!!!!!”
– DBB (55) “Paul Krugman has a Nobel Prize. When you receive yours I’ll pay attention to your remarks on economics.”
– Nigel(60) “Same with me.”
Mike seeing this, lectures … Nigel on the virtues of “civility”. Hence my response. Not to you, but to _Mike_:
Piotr(77):”after reading: “Are you out of your damned mind? LOL… Let’s ask Trump about democracy next. Bwahahahahaha!!!!!“(Killian 52) and “nigel continues to show idiocy WRT… everything…[…] … idiot” (Killian 51) you lecture on the virtues of “civility” not Killian, but … Nigel??? I’ll have what you smoke, Mike.”
Our resident Towering Intellect reads this and concludes that my post was NOT
about Mike’s hypocrisy:
Killian (81): “Piotr, poor lad, is all upset about tone”
As a certain sage said: “ If you can’t parse basic English, should you be commenting at all? Rhetorical question, of course.“.
Killian (81): “Remember, gas is bad for the environment.”
You should know.
Mike(94): “I don’t see any point in asking the most outspoken and insulting folks to refrain from flaming and baiting folks. I am talking about civility with the folks who might be persuaded to lower the temp of the comments a bit.
So does it mean that you consider Killian a member of the first group? This changes things. Still, you may have chosen a better example of baiting Killian than Nigel’s post: “Same with me” [i.e. that he considers Nobel winners in economy a bigger authority on economy than Killian].
On the second thought, I think I see how this could inflame Killian… ;-)
Not Important Document,
(Not important like “I said you said no I said no you said I’m so great and noble no I’m so great and noble…. blahblahblah…blahblah.”)
But here it is anyway:
https://cdn.ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/SLPG_Electricity.pdf
Brief quote suggesting solutions:
And then there’s this:
https://cleantechnica.com/2021/01/07/the-future-is-autonomous-nrels-autonomous-energy-grids-research/
The world moves on, with people who have some expertise, and actually care about the task at hand, and work to deal with it.
#99 Killian:
The problem, Killian, is that you impute every disagreement to character defects on the part of the person disagreeing. Stop doing that, and you will find that you don’t have so many “personality conflicts–and you will have a much better chance of making your substantive points.
As it is, you’re largely unreadable. In fact, it’s kind of a miracle that I even saw your comment to respond to it; I think it mostly happened because it came at the bottom of the comment list, so the scrolling came to an abrupt halt.
(No animosity, just plain speaking. And don’t bother attacking me in turn–which is what I expect you to do–because I’ll scroll over that, too.)
To actually post a comment which is on-topic, here is Bill McKibben on urgency:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-a-warming-planet/our-best-chance-to-slow-global-warming-comes-in-the-next-nine-years
“Sure yes spending vast sums on the military is a waste, but rather beside the point. This could still happen easily under a MMT system.”
This actually did happen under an MMT system. As did the quantitative easing, the covid stimulus, etc. When the federal government decides it has to fund something these days it authorizes the expenditure and the funds appear. There are no linked tax hikes, no war bonds, no covid bonds, etc. The US simply creates the money to fund what it decides are necessary projects.
The trillions spent on Iraq and Afghanistan may come back to haunt us with inflation, but they haven’t so far. If/when they do, the haunting would appear in the form of inflation and that can be addressed with tax hikes to cool the economy by taking money out of the private sector economy. Hiking interest rates will also cool and slow an economy, but they also make debt servicing more costly, so as a tool to address inflation, higher interest rates are not as good as levying taxes.
This video goes over the current use of MMT in the context of covid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqDmCpVJfv4
Start watching/listening at 2:30 where that discussion begins. Pay close attention at 3:30 to what Professor Wray has to say if you are interested and have doubts about whether MMT is already being used in the global economy.
Cheer
Mike
nigelj: I think the core issue you are missing is MMT cannot print endless money to fund anything and everything
AB: When a system has two balancing parts it is beyond dorky to whine that if one of the parts is used alone the result would be unbalanced.
BPL: Good Lord, Al, do you read what the man writes?
AB: EP is a racist, but not all racism is about you. EP has weighed in on this subject; he’s said that his attacks on your group were motivated by his disagreement with you. Hmm, that reminds me of your and my recent tiff.
zebra 105 “Get A Room…..Really guys, you know you were made for each other. Stop with the old-married-couple pretend arguments……There is actually some interesting energy-tech stuff happening, but your love affairs with each other (and yourselves) is drowning out any attempt to discuss them…..Waddayasay, moderators? You have the “crankshaft” and the “borehole”, maybe you could set up a “men-cave” thread to accommodate these interactions which are best kept private?”
Ridiculous comment, if its directed at me. There is nothing pretend about anything I say, and all my discussions have been on issues related to mitigation and the environment. If someone attacks what I say and calls me names I should have a right to respond. I don’t constantly crow about myself. I don’t constantly call people idiots or idiotic. I’m tempted to at times.
And if anything should be boreholed it should have been your endless posts where you tried to lecture an electrical engineer on the absolute basics of electrical engineering, and very badly. I still cant work out why you did that. And you argue all the time. Hypocrite.
@99 “Taxes fund NOTHING.
Various money flows fund EVERYTHING. Taxes are simply one means of getting hands on a flow of money.
at Piotr at 114: Yes, I think you have that figured correctly. I just skim or skip over comments from a group of folks who just seem too excitable/angry/delusional.
I also engage with some of these folks on occasion because like a broken clock, almost all of us get things right on occasion and I don’t want to miss it when some folks hit the bullseye.
There are others here who I engage with where I really wonder if it is worth the effort. Sigh. Time will tell on that.
I will continue to revisit some of these choices in 2021
I do think it is a good idea not to call folks out by name quite as much and as frequently as happens here. I am thinking it makes sense for me to reduce that in my comments unless the discussion warrants, as in this instance, maybe.
Cheers
Mike
I’m tired of the people on this website who repeatedly indulge in name calling, insults, bullying, nastiness and empty assertions, just because they disagree with the content of what that person says. We don’t have to be painfully polite but its obvious when thing are getting out of control. Surely free speech is the right to an opinion not a right to post endless invective? So please could this website make considerably more use of the delete button or borehole?
Al Bundy @119
“nigelj: I think the core issue you are missing is MMT cannot print endless money to fund anything and everything”
“AB: When a system has two balancing parts it is beyond dorky to whine that if one of the parts is used alone the result would be unbalanced.”
I didn’t argue that. This is what I said @99 in full: “I think the core issue you are missing is MMT cannot print endless money to fund anything and everything because this causes inflation so taxes have to be used to shut the process down. At best the end result is you might fund a little bit more social services, provided the democrats are in power. Fixing poverty somewhere like America is going to have to be more about some wealth and income redistribution like the Nordic countries do.”
mike @118
The video link on MMT was interesting, but I don’t accept MMT is only a description of how the economy has worked in the past. It describes some things like deficit financing and its results and short periods where there’s higher than normal money printing. I suggest MMT is mainly a theory describes how things ‘should’ be done. MMT suggests printing money is ‘primary’ funding method all the time, not just during wars, and manipulating tax rates is used to modulate that system. These things haven’t been done to my knowledge and certainly not at scale, and we don’t know how it would go at large scale on a full time basis.
I don’t think it would be easy to raise tax rates to modulate the MMT system in tax adverse America. MMT has these practical difficulties. And you havent answered the criticisms in the two links I posted, and the link you posted only addressed a small number of them at best.
All your country has really done is print some extra money in a couple of emergencies, and in some cases target it directly at what is needed rather than shower the whole economy with money, and with no tax manipulation Im aware of. And thats REALLY GOOD, as I’ve said several times now. That is way different to full scale MMT, and I don’t think its a sufficient reason to switch over to MMT as a formal over arching system. Surely you understand the difference Im getting at? This is unlikely to be inflationary given the world is currently in a deflationary environment, for now. Its unlikely to even need tax changes.
And note that QE is not the same as MMT, and its generally recognised that QE has inflated asset bubbles, so you do get sector specific inflation.
Governments creating jobs and employing the unemployed is a different thing. I think it might be a good idea as a way of employing the unemployable and the long term unemployed, but obviously it can be funded in different ways.
And I definitely support governments helping people during this covid 19 issue, one way or the other. Many countries are doing this is various ways.
118 mike: “Sure yes spending vast sums on the military is a waste, but rather beside the point. This could still happen easily under a MMT system.”
This actually did happen under an MMT system. As did the quantitative easing, the covid stimulus, etc. When the federal government decides it has to fund something these days it authorizes the expenditure and the funds appear. There are no linked tax hikes, no war bonds, no covid bonds, etc. The US simply creates the money to fund what it decides are necessary projects.
The trillions spent on Iraq and Afghanistan may come back to haunt us with inflation, but they haven’t so far. If/when they do, the haunting would appear in the form of inflation and that can be addressed with tax hikes to cool the economy by taking money out of the private sector economy. Hiking interest rates will also cool and slow an economy, but they also make debt servicing more costly, so as a tool to address inflation, higher interest rates are not as good as levying taxes.
LOL… yes… it’s amusing that certain people think MMT is a SYSTEM when it is merely a more accurate understanding of what money actually does and can do. It’s basically, so far as I understand it, a new theory of debt, money and inflation and how they actually function that, if understood by the powers that be, would lead to far more equitable economic policies.
Because poverty and deprivation are choices made, and imposed, by governments.
102 Barton Paul Levenson:
K 97: Taxes fund NOTHING.
BPL: K says NOTHING accurate. There. Fixed it for you.
Note: I did not create MMT.
Note: I did not create the concept that taxes fund nothing.
Note: I am merely sharing it with you.
Note: Regardless whether it is or is not my idea, it correct.
LOL… It’s clear you refuse to watch any of the videos posted to educate yourself. Let go of your ideologies and learn something.
Let me help:
1. Something is funded.
2. Long after, taxes are recovered.
3. Any taxes collected as cash, i.e. dollars, are destroyed.
4. Taxes collected as 0’s and 1’s are simply deducted from accounts.
5. Either way, they disappear.
Taxes fund nothing.
Watch the videos.
84 prl:
That will surprise the Nobel Foundation
No, they are quite aware Nobel did not create a prize for Economics, not being a fool. Thanks for confirming what I said, but it’s pretty common knowledge.
83 nigelj: At least 75% of what you post is on so called climate mitigation solution, the so called simplification solutions and related matters. You cant even get the % content of what you post right.
I posted no percentage. At all.
And don’t try to categorise simplification as forward looking analysis because it isn’t.
Future changes are not foreward-looking.
Can’t make this stuff up….
87 nigelj:Many commentators point out there is a high risk politicians will print too much money to fund their crazier ideas, risking inflation, and will be very reluctant to use taxes properly to control the excessive money / inflation problem. Its a very real and fair criticism.
Let me say this real slow for you: Printing money and not recalling it with taxes *is* *not* *applying* *MMT,* it is doing what those idiots on Capitol Hill have done since the founding of the nation.
You are literally arguing if people CLAIM MMT but don’t actually DO MMT, that would be bad.
We finally agree on something.
104 BrettnCalgary:
You’re welcome to your opinion. I was posting in the mid-oughts. There was no problem between me and others here till 2014-15. I did not initiate the change.
You can pretend it’s all me, but it’s a lie you have to sell yourself on because the truth is opposite.
The groupthink that allows you to even post that is exactly the problem and something develops on virtually every internet forum that is not tightly managed. The greatest failing of this site is that the owners have never policed the core group of posters, and that allowed this groupthink, feeding frenzy.
Think for yourself. Do the research. Check the archives. The flip happened in the ’14~’15 time period. I’m still searching for the genesis, but these fora are difficult to search.
110 Al Bundy:Killian: but it’s on you all to fix what you broke.
AB: Bullshit. Blaming and shaming is a pathetic way to teach better behavior.
That’s not blaming and shaming. A drunk doesn’t get help until they realize they need to. This forum has convinced itself I created the problem. This is factually inaccurate. It is a FACT that the common core of posters here started turning on my me and my messaging, becoming increasingly insulting and dismissive, that I repeatedly pointed out that most of us were allies based on our core stated views and basically begged people to stop being shitty.
It never happened.
Again, groupthink. They decided I was the enemy because I had the temerity to hit back at the bullying, and they still believe they are the innocents in all this.
If they never realize they created the problem, they will never realize they have to change their behavior for the forum to be civil.
Another fact: I have tried a number of times to encourage civility, and it always breaks down becuase the core posters here don’t seem to even know they have become what they have become.
Go back and find the start of all this in the 2014-15 archives. Dare ya.
124 nigelj: I’m tired of the people on this website who repeatedly indulge in name calling, insults, bullying, nastiness and empty assertions, just because they disagree with the content of what that person says. We don’t have to be painfully polite but its obvious when thing are getting out of control. Surely free speech is the right to an opinion not a right to post endless invective? So please could this website make considerably more use of the delete button or borehole?
Then stop doing it.
Stop the various forms of lying you do, primarily the Straw Man.
Stop being dismissive of others’ views, as you so very often are.
Stop using logical fallacies to make your arguments: “So-and-so agreess with me!”
Stop claiming to have known this or that or said this or that when you did not until you were proven very badly wrong. Man up.
Stop using the “Uh-uh! YOU did!” argument when your behavior, logic, etc., are shown to be wrong, hpocritical, etc.
Etc.
Admit you post here too often for what you contribute, and that you, literally, contribute nothing unique.
You will think claim that last comment is an insult; it is not. You have never offered an insight on this forum that wasn’t stated by someone else. You always lag behind the curve becasue, as you say in this current FR, above, you prefer a middle way approach. I have pointed out this is inappropriate in the current historical context, no matter how many times you have shifted your stances towards where I have been all along. You do not have he selfawareness, or the ego?, to admit that the evidence pushes you further and further from the middle all the time and closer and closer to where people like me have already been for a decade or longer.
None of the new data or info on climate – or anything else – has moved toward the center, but only further and further from it, yet you persist in stating so declaratively we must stay to the center.
And that’s Biden territory.
And that’s suicide.
I am not insulting you, I’m being honest with you.
122 jgnfld: @99 “Taxes fund NOTHING.
Various money flows fund EVERYTHING. Taxes are simply one means of getting hands on a flow of money.
“Various money flows” = “taxes?”
Come on…
Loans create money. Even printing doesn’t create money. The gov’t doesn’t print money and then buy something, it buys something then prints money. (Well, it used to. Now it’s just key strokes. Money is printed and sent to banks to distribute as loans. Money is a debt instrument.)
116 Kevin McKinney: The problem, Killian, is that you impute every disagreement to character defects on the part of the person disagreeing.
You know this is hyperbole.
Stop doing that, and you will find that you don’t have so many “personality conflicts–and you will have a much better chance of making your substantive points.
No, all that would do is allow rudeness and disrespect to go unchallenged.
You can keep pretending my “style” here arose out of the blue, but that’s not going to fix anything. You aren’t willing to call anyone out but me. So long as that is true, you are enabling the abuse that got us here in the first place.
I won’t matter if I clean up my act if they do not. And that is exactly what has happened every time. You’re basically saying the victim should just shut up and take it.
I doubt you’d make that argument anywhere but this forum.
I decided to do a detailed, month-by-month search.
This is the very first rude comment directed at me, and there is none BY me before it.
223 Ray Ladbury says:
5 Feb 2015 at 5:39 AM
Killian O’Brien: “More later. Busy writing something else.”
The translation of this from the original bullshit is:
“I have no idea what I am talking about. I need time to think of something that doesn’t sound like complete crap.”
———————
Here we see others are noticing, of course, just one opinion, the responses to me are becoming unfair:
76 Jasper Jaynes says:
13 Feb 2015 at 10:01 AM
BPL#72,
“Better mileage matters. We can’t achieve 100% purity overnight, and it’s silly to say we shouldn’t try.”
…Killian’s general thesis is correct, and I find much of the flak he is receiving focused on winning debating points rather than helping to solve this overwhelming problem we face.
————————–
Here Ray is edging into general rudeness, not just me, but others, by calling their concerns hobby horses and being patronizing.
88 Ray Ladbury says:
13 Feb 2015 at 2:45 PM
OK, Killian, let me draw you a map.
Patronization isn’t the most effective technique for binding allies together.
…or most of the other hobby horses some here straddle.
————————-
Dudly simply dismissing my comments. My response was a bit rough, but dismissing others’ views is not ever going to go well.
115 Killian says:
14 Feb 2015 at 10:05 PM
#100 Chris Dudley said, “Killian (#93),
Again, you seem very out of touch with what is going on.”
I cannot respond to this in any way that could be considered polite, so I won’t bother trying: Pull your head out of your butt.
1. Did I say there were no HSR projects in the US?
No. What’s wrong with your head?
2. Does me saying we need to build out “faster than a demon” in any way = there is none happening?
No. What is wrong with your head?
3. Does the planning currently in place come within more than a tiny fraction of what is needed to get us out of cars, or equal a rate reflected by “faster than a demon?”
No. What is wrong with your head?
This is what happens when you get uppity and personal when over-matched, rather than just discussing what needs discussing.
———————————–
So, it turns out February 2015 was the tipping point. There are so many assumptions, dismissals, Straw Men, etc. This is where it all boiled over.
Here’s me replying to some of it:
136 Killian says:
15 Feb 2015 at 6:12 PM
#116 Kevin McKinney says,”
“I have tried and cannot imagine a truly sustainable wind generator. Perhaps if you could get all but the copper and magnets out of the windmill, like all wood, e.g., then maybe.”
Wow. Are you really saying that sustainability requires going back to the Bronze Age (ie., steel is not to be considered ‘sustainable’?)”
Sure. It’s right there in post #INeverSaidThat.
This whole Feb thread is where the faux sustainability/true sustainability debate just blew up, and that was the genesis of ALL the rancor.
Have we not been over the very high recyclability of steel and other metals? Steel is not the issue. The recycling of steel and building the recycling factories for steel, etc., is the issue. What *your* simplified community uses or doesn’t use will depend completely upon your resource analysis.
No more straw men, please.
I was trying – and still am!!!! – to get people to realize you can use recycling, but if you plan for recycling while assuming recycling makes everything sustainable, then you are going to plan very, very badly. it is *necessary* to understand TRUE sustainability, and recycling is a form of kicking the can down the road because the recycling process itself is not sustainable.
———
Dudley had become consistently rude, and I was fed up. Me being snarky:
#118 Chris Dudley says, “I’m an E2 English Language Learner. Not really. I just have that same level of language skills, so I insult people to make up for it… or out of ignorance. Whatever…”
Why? Because…
Killian (#109),
You write “No more GHG increases in five to ten years?
Again you demonstrate being out of touch.”
First of all, I wasn’t out of touch the first time. I rebutted your first insult.
“The IPCC has studied a pathway (RCP 3.0) where carbon dioxide emissions start to fall in 2020, in just 5 years. So, this has been modeled. Perhaps you should read their report.”
Note the bolded word. Whereas *I* said, “No more GHG increases in five to ten years?” See, that’s an absolute stop, not the beginning of slowing.
I taught English communication for eleven years. Happy to help you with your comprehension issues. Your tendency to be rude? Well…
So, he had been dismissive while not understanding what he had read.
Anywho…. it never recovers after this February 2015 thread, and it all came about because people kept characterizing my comments as out of touch, with Straw Man arguments, dismissiveness, patronization, etc.
At the end of the day, the ones who were trying to dismiss me were the ones who were, and basically still are, unwilling to accept the true constraints we face even though this really is a 2+2=4 level issue.
I suppose we might be stuck with this forever as the denial of true sustainability still runs deep on this forum.
But may be we can choose to be more careful and be respectful of others.
125 nigelj: Al Bundy @119
“nigelj: I think the core issue you are missing is MMT cannot print endless money to fund anything and everything”
“AB: When a system has two balancing parts it is beyond dorky to whine that if one of the parts is used alone the result would be unbalanced.”
I didn’t argue that. This is what I said @99 in full: “I think the core issue you are missing is MMT cannot print endless money to fund anything and everything because this causes inflation so taxes have to be used to shut the process down. At best the end result is you might fund a little bit more social services, provided the democrats are in power. Fixing poverty somewhere like America is going to have to be more about some wealth and income redistribution like the Nordic countries do.”
Because he says so, Al, apparently. Maybe he doesn’t realize the U.S. led off the social safety net thing during the Great Depression and used high taxation of excess income and wealth to do it. 90% taxes on excess income, I believe.
Big Business got that whittled down to under 40% over the next 70 years, and we got an awful lot of poor people and ridiculously poor infrastructure because of it.
But the worst thing about this post is that it makes no sense. The Straw Man:
I think the core issue you are missing is MMT cannot print endless money to fund anything and everything because this causes inflation so taxes have to be used to shut the process down.
Who has missed this? Everybody understands this. It’s the whole point of MMT, really, that money is debt and taxes take money out of circulation, controlling inflation.
Even the wording: Taxes *have to be used*, as if it’s against somebody’s will to be sane about the economy. No, taxes simply are used if you understand MMT. Taxes are fully expected if money supply gets too big. It is a key insight in MMT: Taxes prevent inflation, not all the other things people *think* control inflation. (This is a bit simplified, but accurate.)
At best the end result is you might fund a little bit more social services, provided the democrats are in power.
Why “a little bit more?” Why not a lot more? What is the limit? Ah, here it is:
provided the democrats are in power.
So, thinking systemically, if the U.S. economy were to come heavily under the influence of MMT – enough to change basic economic policies – would that not imply a sea change in who is getting into office? And, with what has just happened with the Republicans shooting themselves in the arse, doesn’t that seem kind of likely they will not be getting their way for a while?
Fixing poverty somewhere like America is going to have to be more about some wealth and income redistribution like the Nordic countries do.
Again, this is exactly what proponents of MMT are saying. While it might not be accurate to claim income equality is *part* of MMT, it is MMT that is allowing people to realize economic inequaluity is an utterly political choice. There is zero reason for absolute poverty. MMT blows up the idea poverty is necessary and unavoidable, or the choice of the lazy.
MMT is not a Leftist philosophy, it is a new understanding of how economics works that explodes all the reasons used to keep people unserved and poor.
Oh, fer Chrissake, stop it you big babies!
Don’t feed the trolls, at least not at great length. Scroll past. If you deprive the offender of attention, it will stop taking so much scrolling to get past buttal and rebuttal. Also, personal attacks/namecalling are a distraction, and obscure rather than emphasizing the point.
It’s not all about you or your “opponent”.
Ray Ladbury has a superb ability to stick to the point and leads by example: brevity is the soul of wit.
Endless repetition of argument and counterargument only obscures what’s true, interesting, and/or important. Repeating what’s wrong gives it importance.
AB: he’s said that his attacks on your group were motivated by his disagreement with you.
BPL: And you believed him? You took him at face value? Dear God, Al, how naive are you?
One possible attraction to MMT as a model is that because it posits taxes as the means to control inflation, it brings the idea of taxes out of the shadows and into the light of day.
I think we all know that doctrinaire rightwingers will still suggest that all taxes are bad. That looks like an exaggeration to me. It’s kind of like the argument that folks make that MMT is about endless printing of money. Governments that issue their own currency will, of course, be endlessly printing money. I think that has to be done. MMT says we can do what we have to do, but we can’t do everything at once without triggering an economic crisis that will likely be marked by high inflation, so we have to be patient and measured about what we choose to do and when we choose to do it.
In that vein, maybe the US can’t afford to spend huge amounts of money for the defense budget? Maybe we have to rein that in a bit so we can fund some other important projects like addressing global warming or a pandemic. In any case, we need to push the idea/meme that taxes are the control on inflation that happens after something close to full employment. Taxes have a function in the macro-economic world of MMT where they are used instead of hiking interest rates to address inflation. That is an MMT idea as best I understand such things.
Cheers
Mike
Killain, @136–
Not intentionally so, though I will concede that “every” is almost always wrong when it comes to describing human behavior. So, maybe not “every disagreement.”
However, I would say that in my experience of our past interactions, my disagreements with you have very frequently been attributed to character defects on my part (usually dishonesty, but sometimes over-sensitivity.) I suggest that this is unhelpful.
But thanks for taking a restrained tone this time, at least in the bit I read.
Killian @131
“Let me say this real slow for you: Printing money and not recalling it with taxes *is* *not* *applying* *MMT,* it is doing what those idiots on Capitol Hill have done since the founding of the nation.”
I don’t agree. Most government funding in the USA has been the traditional way through taxes and some deficit financing. Money has been printed a couple of times to help fund things like wars like Iraq, but not to fund the governments full finances. And I dont recall taxes being manipulated to control any associated inflation. The only tax changes I recall are republican tax cuts for their usual bullshit reasons, and the occasional attempt by democrats to raise taxes on the rich to find extra funds. So we just don’t really know if MMT would work applied at large scale. And it looks very unlikely that the public would support a system requiring quite a lot of tax increases in a place like America, even if its temporary. I think MMT is just not practical unless its used in a very targeted limited form that doesn’t require the use of tax changes.
“You are literally arguing if people CLAIM MMT but don’t actually DO MMT, that would be bad.”
Nope.
———————————–
Killian @133
“That’s not blaming and shaming. A drunk doesn’t get help until they realize they need to. This forum has convinced itself I created the problem. This is factually inaccurate. It is a FACT that the common core of posters here started turning on my me and my messaging, becoming increasingly insulting and dismissive, that I repeatedly pointed out that most of us were allies based on our core stated views and basically begged people to stop being shitty.”
Please don’t include me in that description. I have criticised some of you views and material in links you have posted. I have been polite 95% of the time about it. I bet you wont see anyone else dispute that. I’ve even given you positive feedback. I treat you no differently to anyone else. You take any criticism of your views as an insult for some reason. Maybe you should also look in a mirror. But to your credit you have toned things down in these latest comments. Just keep that up and nobody will complain.
———————-
Killian @134
124 nigelj: I’m tired of the people on this website who repeatedly indulge in name calling, insults, bullying, nastiness and empty assertions…..”
“Then stop doing it. Stop the various forms of lying you do, primarily the Straw Man. Stop being dismissive of others’ views, as you so very often are.Stop using logical fallacies to make your arguments: “So-and-so agreess with me! Stop claiming to have known this or that or said this or that when you did not until you were proven very badly wrong. Man up. Stop using the “Uh-uh! YOU did!” argument when your behavior, logic, etc., are shown to be wrong, hpocritical, etc.”
I haven’t posted any lies or strawman arguments, unless its occasional misquote by accident. The only person accusing me of that is you. If I did it these scientists would be all over me. I think you somehow misinterpret things or make mountains out of mole hills. Its not a logical fallacy to point out people are in agreement. For example there is a climate consensus right? Im no more dismissive of other peoples views than YOU ARE. I haven’t claimed to have always thought things were like something other people have argued, and you provide no specific examples of this.
AND even if I was guilty of those things, which I’m not, then two wrongs don’t make a right. You don’t have to respond to alleged strawmen or misquote with personal abuse. You would be much better to clarify what you really meant.
“You always lag behind the curve becasue, as you say in this current FR, above, you prefer a middle way approach.I have pointed out this is inappropriate in the current historical context, no matter how many times you have shifted your stances towards where I have been all along.”
I haven’t shifted my stance. I had much the same views on how humanity should deal with environmental problems since right back in the early 1980s, before I heard of you or RC: Namely get population growth to stop, reduce our per capita levels of consumption, recycle, and try to prioritise needs over wants. I also heard of regenerative agriculture before reading this website. That’s not to say I don’t appreciate new details you and others have posted. I just have different views about how much we can probably realistically reduce consumption levels. The one thing I’ve changed my mind on recently is to be more accepting of nuclear power, and I suspect you wont like that. And of course you have never changed your mind on anything, and perhaps its because you just cant seem admit to yourself that you get anything wrong, for some reason. But to your credit you have toned things down in these latest comments.
Killian @137
Yes a few people made snarky, impolite comments to you back then in 2015, but that is not a justifiable reason for you to escalate things with even worse personal abuse. Two wrongs don’t make a right. People make snarky comments about me at times, but notice how I control my temper, mostly anyway, as do others like KM. Its smarter to do this, unless in extreme circumstances, for example JDS deserves a little bit of ridicule, and obviously if someone does something dangerous like drink driving I might call them an idiot if all else fails.
A few other observations:
“KM: “I have tried and cannot imagine a truly sustainable wind generator. Perhaps if you could get all but the copper and magnets out of the windmill, like all wood, e.g., then maybe.”
“Killian: Wow. Are you really saying that sustainability requires going back to the Bronze Age (ie., steel is not to be considered ‘sustainable’?)”
Yet more recently you have said renewables are not sustainable, and that metals are not a sustainable resource. (FR Thread around april 2020) Remember you posted a definition of sustainability that things must be capable of being used indefinitely, and I said that excludes everything except a very traditional wood or stone based culture, and you agreed. Remember Piotr made several related comments. So I just find some of your commentary very confusing and ever changing.
“At the end of the day, the ones who were trying to dismiss me were the ones who were, and basically still are, unwilling to accept the true constraints we face even though this really is a 2+2=4 level issue.”
I have always accepted all constraints: All resources are finite and some are relatively scarce, like lead for example, and we are using some of them up quite fast. With a population of 7 billion and counting its a huge challenge and population growth is also putting huge pressure on the fisheries and native forests for example. But given peoples shopping addiction as Ray Ladbury pointed out, solving it will be difficult and I think is going to mainly require reducing waste and getting size of population down. Of course people might disagree.
———————-
Killian @138
“I didn’t argue that. This is what I said @99 in full: “I think the core issue you are missing is MMT cannot print endless money to fund anything and everything because this causes inflation so taxes have to be used to shut the process down. At best the end result is you might fund a little bit more social services, provided the democrats are in power. Fixing poverty somewhere like America is going to have to be more about some wealth and income redistribution like the Nordic countries do.”
“Because he says so, Al, apparently.”
No not just because I say so. But you don’t show any flaw in the idea or the reasoning.
” Maybe he doesn’t realize the U.S. led off the social safety net thing during the Great Depression and used high taxation of excess income and wealth to do it. 90% taxes on excess income, I believe.”
This has nothing directly to do with MMT and money printing. I’m also roughly aware of your history, and New Zealand (where I live) also introduced a huge social safety net in the Great Depression along with the government funding house building. It has been whittled down a bit, unfortunately. And we had high tax rates back then, I cant remember the exact number. But heres material on the social safety net:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Joseph_Savage
“Who has missed this? Everybody understands this. It’s the whole point of MMT, really, that money is debt and taxes take money out of circulation, controlling inflation.”
The ‘point’ I made is that the net result of this ‘process’ is the funds available to government are not going to be infinite or much larger than previously so there is only so much government can spend them on.
However some selective use of creating new money is likely to be benign in the current deflationary environment. And I would hope some of it goes to the poor.
“There is zero reason for absolute poverty. MMT blows up the idea poverty is necessary and unavoidable, or the choice of the lazy.”
I agree to the extent there is no reason for western countries at least not to ensure everyone has enough money to live on, a fixed basic income, whether its funded by a conventional tax system or something like MMT. Poverty is not a choice of the lazy but its often caused by substance abuse, gambling, and other self inflicted problems and they are hard things to fix. You can have something like a UBI (universal basic income) which may have merit, but a lot of people will probably still waste that money away and so still be poor. About all we can do is minimise the problem.
Wow, that was a lot of bloviation even for Killian. And I used to read Mencius Moldbug!
Mike @141
“I think we all know that doctrinaire rightwingers will still suggest that all taxes are bad. That looks like an exaggeration to me”
True. Their views are ideologically based and impractical and so they ultimately don’t work.
“I think that has to be done. MMT says we can do what we have to do, but we can’t do everything at once without triggering an economic crisis that will likely be marked by high inflation, so we have to be patient and measured about what we choose to do and when we choose to do it.”
Which is pretty much what ive been saying all along namely: “I think the core issue you are missing is MMT cannot print endless money to fund anything and everything because this causes inflation so taxes have to be used to shut the process down. At best the end result is you might fund a little bit more social services, provided the democrats are in power.”
It should be obvious I meant print endless money within a limited time frame say one decade. Over a century it would obviously add up.
141 mike: 11 Jan 2021 at 4:18 PM
One possible attraction to MMT as a model is that because it posits taxes as the means to control inflation, it brings the idea of taxes out of the shadows and into the light of day.
I think we all know that doctrinaire rightwingers will still suggest that all taxes are bad. That looks like an exaggeration to me.
It’s not an exaggeration because they are not misstating the role or function, just their preference to not have to pay them, largely because they believe their money is being given to other people who are supposedly not deserving of their largess. Where MMT might help with this is for such people to become knowledgeable and realize their taxes don’t pay for anything. If they “get” MMT, maybe it would be easier for them to think of them paying to keep inflation down instead of the 1/10 or 1%, who used to pay for it, and decide going back to that practice might actually be fairer.
However, the problem, besides not understanding economics, money, taxes, etc., is as someone once said, the reason the Americans 99% hate taxes (besides the ignorance and propaganda) is that the U.S. is a nation full of people who believe they will be a millionaire someday, so don’t want those high taxes on that imaginary future income.
It’s kind of like the argument that folks make that MMT is about endless printing of money. Governments that issue their own currency will, of course, be endlessly printing money.
Yes, but the conceit in that argument is the idea all the printing presses would be running full tilt at all times to fund social programs (which does essentially happen to support the massive military budget – well, if that were how money were really created) and enough taxes wouldn’t be passed to keep inflation down. But, again, this is nonsense as the entire premise is the gov’t adopting MMT theory which means Congress would clearly understand the need to tax in inflationary times. The one thing that must be different is that the taxation must shift back toward the wealthy. America’s Golden Age had something in the range of 70-90% taxes on extreme wealth. Those taxes are exactly why there was a “Golden Age.” (That and the U.S. economy being 50% of the global economy. However, we were throwing cash at various gov’ts via Lend Lease, etc.)
nigel: “[Krugman] has a nobel prize in economics.”
Killian: “There is no such thing.”
prl (84) “That will surprise the Nobel Foundation”
Killian (129) No, they are quite aware Nobel did not create a prize for Economics, not being a fool. Thanks for confirming what I said, but it’s pretty common knowledge.”
Strong claims require strong evidence. Your claim is as strong as they get:
“ There is no such thing”, “fallacy”, “That’s like getting a Nobel in Theories of Faeries“.
The evidence, on the other hand, not so strong, more like trying to get out on a technicality: yes – there is an award called usually: “The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences”, officially: “Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel”, administered by the Nobel Foundation, with laureates selected by the Nobel Foundation and listed by the foundation next to the laureates of Nobel Prizes,
BUT because it was not founded by Nobel himself – then it is as worthless and ridiculous as: “ Nobel in Theories of Faeries “.
And based on _this_ Killian ridicules the notion that anybody could take
the opinion of Paul Krugman, who got this worthless prize, over the expertise on the economics by Killian: “ You cited Krugman about MMT? Are you out of your damned mind? LOL… Let’s ask Trump about democracy next. Bwahahahahaha!!!!! ”
K 128: Taxes fund nothing.
BPL: So Killian doubles down on the stupidity. I guess he doesn’t receive Social Security.
143 nigelj:
11 Jan 2021 at 9:29 PM
Killian @131
“Let me say this real slow for you: Printing money and not recalling it with taxes *is* *not* *applying* *MMT,* it is doing what those idiots on Capitol Hill have done since the founding of the nation.”
I don’t agree.
That doesn’t matter. You say yourself you prefer slow, measured responses to things, to state things generally and simply for brevity, and that is what you do here. You are not “getting” MMT, yet keep making these declarative statements about it. Every post on MMT you have made (that I read), contradicted itself, as you do, again, here.
It doesn’t matter if you disagree because you don’t understand MMT.
Most government funding in the USA has been the traditional way through taxes and some deficit financing. Money has been printed a couple of times to help fund things like wars like Iraq, but not to fund the governments full finances. And I dont recall taxes being manipulated to control any associated inflation.
Again, MMT is not a new economics system, like Capitalism, Democratic Socialism, Communism, etc., it is a new explanation of what happens in an economy, particularly WRT the function of money.
So, you haven’t seen anyone say more taxes to bring down inflation because that hasn’t been their reason for doing so. Because they don’t understand the economy they are trying to manage. So we get all these crises. Because they are clueless. What MMT says is that *whether they realize it or not,* when you increase taxes, you decrease inflationary pressures.
I think MMT is just not practical unless its used in a very targeted limited form that doesn’t require the use of tax changes.
Sigh…. MMT is NOT a system. It doesn’t make any sense whatsovever to say waht you just said. It is literally nonsense. MMT is not a policy, it is a *description of how money functions* vs how people have **believed it functions.**
Understanding MMT requires no change to economics whatsoever. What it will do is change policies because lawmakers and banks and gov’ts will better understand the consequences of their choices. They will understand they can say yes to social programs without destroying the economy. They will realize they can raise taxes on the 1%, if sanity prevails, to slow an overheating economy. They will understand funding the lower classes is the best way to boost the economy and be willing to tax the wealthy, and the wealthy shouldn’t care because the poor/middle classes will have money to buy their shit.
The real danger of MMT is it justifies a lot of spending, which pushes growth. It will make it harder to reduce consumption once it is realized austerity is an ideology, not a good economic policy.
The problem with the wealthy will be their ability to get rich during disasters will be strongly curtailed, which they will really not like.
“You are literally arguing if people CLAIM MMT but don’t actually DO MMT, that would be bad.”
Nope.
Yep.