I wrote this a while back and noticed that Jill Stein is still relevant so I figured I'd post this here. I'm sure some of you will have interesting thoughts on it.
The "New Green Deal" being touted as an alternative liberal agenda. Obama is not good enough, so they thought this up. ... A climate change Keynesian. Full employment. Demand deficiency. Basic economics is not something this person understands. But, the suggestions and policy implications are hilarious. ... Just in the introduction to the paper she cites (a forthcoming publication from Cambridge University Press), the author (Philip Harvey) tells you, in between the lines that, 'this is not economic theory, it is political theory dressed as economic theory'. And it is international political theory, not just national...(Claiming to link economic theory with the U.N Declaration of Human Rights...as opposed to the U.S. Bill of rights.)
...
A climate change Keynesian. Full employment. Demand deficiency. Basic economics is not something this person understands. But, the suggestions and policy implications are hilarious.
Just in the introduction to the paper she cites (a forthcoming publication from Cambridge University Press), the author (Philip Harvey) tells you, in between the lines that, 'this is not economic theory, it is political theory dressed as economic theory'. And it is international political theory, not just national...(Claiming to link economic theory with the U.N Declaration of Human Rights...as opposed to the U.S. Bill of rights.)
One of the best parts is where they suggest government spending programs aimed at "paying you for raising your own children" and "capital intensive programs." I'll let you read the reasoning behind the "capital intensive projects." You'll either chuckle or drink a glass of bleach.
I remember reading parts of that paper a while ago. The first part is standard New Deal worship, the kind of thinking that's prevalent right now and that's killing any possibility of a recovery. It's unbelievable people holding prestigious titles from prestigious universities, people who by all accounts should be the best and brightest, still hold such views in face of utter failure. As we were taught in General Chemistry laboratory, if it doesn't work it doesn't work. Try something different.
I had to read the second part twice because I saw no mention of how to finance a program whose cost, according to the author, would be over 660 billions, "excluding hourly wage". However, this being a very Keynesian-oriented paper I take it would be financed through a combination of public debt and inflation. Again this begs the question: if didn't work in the past four-five years, why would it work right now?