Socialist and US Senator Elisabeth Warren is calling for a rapid cut in interest rates in the United States because green projects are no longer profitable. She is living proof that green clown politics would have no chance of ever surviving in a normal market environment. It is therefore important to let interest rates continue to rise and to hope that the Federal Reserve tightens its stance and perhaps even raises interest rates again to flush all this junk out of the market.
pull down to refresh
31 sats \ 10 replies \ @Undisciplined 19 Mar
Ugh. The thing is they'll just subsidize or bail out those projects anyway.
reply
65 sats \ 9 replies \ @TomK OP 19 Mar
Yep. But markets are clearly voting against it
reply
10 sats \ 8 replies \ @Undisciplined 19 Mar
If only people understood that when the market rejects something it means they themselves rejected it as consumers.
Maybe then they'd quite supporting politicians who try to force them to do things they don't want to do.
reply
153 sats \ 6 replies \ @freetx 19 Mar
Even the entire "recycling" movement is largely a scam. 80% of "recycled" materials are never recycled and simply thrown away in landfills.
Driving around hundreds of trucks to transport material isn't "carbon neutral".
Basically the scam is: Be mayors brother in law, open a recycling center, have city pay to transport material to you for free, selectively pick out the 20% of items that are worth recycling, sell material for a profit. Greenwash the entire operation and brow-beat anyone who sees thru the grift.
reply
131 sats \ 4 replies \ @Undisciplined 19 Mar
As an economist, recycling always bugged me. If these are valuable inputs, shouldn't someone be paying me to sort them and make them available? Alternatively, why weren't recyclers basically just mining this stuff out of landfills themselves?
As with all this stuff, the market can tell you what is worth doing from a resource use standpoint.
reply
230 sats \ 3 replies \ @freetx 19 Mar
When I was growing up in 70s there was a "can man" who used to come down the street on his bike and dig thru the trash cans and get any aluminum for recycling. To make things easier for him we would put cans on the top.
I was talking with a colleague of mine who was born in Mexico and we got on that subject and he said he had similar in his neighborhood but more extensive. There were multiple people who would specialize in things....aluminum, glass, cardboard, etc.
Economically I have to assume: If its not worth someone coming to get it for free, then its probably not worth recycling.
reply
32 sats \ 1 reply \ @Bell_curve 19 Mar
I sort of recycle aluminum. I place bags of aluminum cans in my alley for someone to take.
We used to have a big problem with dumpster diving
I only recycle aluminum because making it uses a lot of energy.
I never recycle glass
reply
20 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 19 Mar
We do cardboard as well as aluminum, but that's largely because our local trash collection makes throwing cardboard boxes away difficult.
reply on another page
20 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 19 Mar
Exactly. Of course, there could be weird stupid regulatory hurdles that are getting in the way of a potentially profitable venture, but then the answer would be to repeal those and let the market function.
reply
5 sats \ 0 replies \ @TomK OP 19 Mar
Right
reply
22 sats \ 0 replies \ @TomK OP 19 Mar
these normies also don't understand, for example, that this entire eco-politics in connection with the climate apocalypse only serves the purpose of usurping political power with the help of a moral imperative. that's asking too much already
reply
31 sats \ 11 replies \ @herschel 19 Mar
Fossil fuel energy is a socialized industry. Clean products are as viable as any others. People want to go clean. There is market demand. Political meddling favors the fossil fuel industry. There are zero people in Washington to listen to about energy and economics. They are all gamed one way or another. There is zero honesty about energy from any quarter. Nothing is more heavily subsidized than fossil fuels. Energy is a socialized industry. The military is the largest emitter of greenhouse gasses and the plants, like the Greta Thunbergs, never bring it up, all they say is you have to sacrifice and they never protest the war machine. Any statistics you get about fossil fuel and other energies is skewed and it's lies.
The IMF analysis found the total subsidies for oil, gas and coal in 2022 were $7tn (£5.5tn). That is equivalent to 7% of global GDP and almost double what the world spends on education. All of you fake patriots and libertarians are 666% dependent on socialism to prop up your fake arguments about letting the market work.
reply
10 sats \ 8 replies \ @TomK OP 19 Mar
That's total nonsense. The free market would kill this bs in a minute. And You know that.
reply
10 sats \ 7 replies \ @herschel 19 Mar
In a free market. There would be divestment from fossil fuels because it's not profitable at cost. And YOU know THAT. How much war and subsidies and "quantitative easing" do you need?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/24/fossil-fuel-subsidies-imf-report-climate-crisis-oil-gas-coal
The thing they won't do is balance the subsidization. Instead of cutting fossil subsidies, they add new subsidies. There should be a gradual balancing of them, then a complete phasing out of them over time. They won't. When the renewables get more subsidies, then the fossils demand more, and they get more, too. Most of the renewable energy companies are owned by fossil fuel companies, so the whole thing is a scam, and you're high if you're ideological about this. It's just greed from people who don't want to work or produce anything for a living.
We can cut subsidies on the grid right now, and we'd be fine. It would be hard for a lot of people at first, but there are solutions right now that can power homes. It would be wise to incentivize homeowners and perhaps create a financing model for us, but we are just citizens who work for a living, and we need to keep propping up the fossil fuel and war companies, so whatever.
https://www.cato.org/testimony/power-struggle-examining-reliability-security-americas-electrical-grid
reply
10 sats \ 6 replies \ @TomK OP 19 Mar
words fail me! Arguing with the IMF, the Guardian and the Cato Institute, of all places, speaks for itself. How do you explain the huge success of the German energy transition, in which renewable energies have so far been subsidized to death with trillions of euros and the energy-intensive industry is leaving the country faster than degenerates like Robert Habeck have quietly wished? I assume that you are German and can therefore live quite stably in this green bubble. But neither the earth's resources nor economic principles will be able to be reinterpreted in such a way that your green socialist paradise will appear in the future. And if you still believe in the climate apocalypse, it really is a religious cult for all to see. you have to grow up in Germany, otherwise things will soon look bleak
reply
0 sats \ 5 replies \ @herschel 19 Mar
I think you could do better with your reading and analysis. You just put so many words in my mouth and attributed so many ideas to me that are not mine it is showing that you're not serious about this discussion and you favor a position rather than objectivity. enjoy your subsidized free lunch.
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @TomK OP 19 Mar
I'm right, aren't I? you're a German.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @herschel 19 Mar
another proof of your lack of brightness. no. i'm not german.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @TomK OP 19 Mar
okay you little wise guy. probably from austria, right? it's interesting that people as smart as you, such little commies, don't even know the means by which power is exercised over them. that your climate apocalypse is an instrument to influence your behavior probably never occurred to you, did it? Have fun, read a book!
view replies
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Bell_curve 19 Mar
Can you link the IMF analysis?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @herschel 19 Mar
above.
reply