Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Green New Deal: Fact versus Fiction" video.

Same with 90% of republicans want universal background checks. That wasn't the question asked.
12
@Hans how the fuck was it advanced? The Nazi government was pathetically inefficient.
4
@Captain_Fantasy watch the Thunderf00t videos on Fukushima. Yeah, you can find radiation in the Pacific. You get more from the potassium in bananas than from the fish, but that doesn't make for good headlines.
3
@krisofamerica Fukushima was the result of a flawed 1950's/1960's design protected by an insufficient seawall absolutely tanking a huge natural disaster but then failing because backup generators and switching stations were placed in areas that could be flooded rather than uphill.
3
@Hans "mass unemployment because there was no unemployment benefits" - how would unemployment benefits be responsible for unemployment rates?
2
@Hans the most efficient? It was an absolute clusterfuck. Hitler burned through nearly 1 billion Reichmarks in gold reserves in his "economic miracle". Food prices increased due to the Nazi agricultural policy. The unemployment figures were completely fudged by ignoring how many women stayed home due to the financial incentives, the number of refugees who fled Germany and the unemployed who were absorbed into the armed forces and work camps. Their economic policy was so terrible that they had to sacrifice rearmament to prevent the demoralizing food rationing which in the end made Germany rely heavily on horses for logistics, despite the popular conception that the Germans were highly advanced and mechanized.
2
@Captain_Fantasy "there are different types of radiation" - I mean, there are but you don't know what that actually means and you're just parroting an observation. "no one gets cancer from bananas" - precisely because your own body's radiation output is actually greater than the decay of potassium in a banana. If the fish in the Pacific with the record levels of radiation are actually less radioactive than bananas... "I never see any headlines about Fukushima" - then I suppose you just learned of all of this telepathically?
1
But it was a catastrophe, and it was the concrete that really sealed the meltdown.
1
It's difficult to turn tidal motion into something that can spin a generator. Minutephysics here on youtube had a video about it, I think.
1
Please watch the videos on Fukushima by Thunderf00t here on youtube. He is an expert unlike the journalists.
1
They're great to augment capacity and off grid but they still need batteries or else they only work during the day.
1
@Hans "unemployment benefits would have helped to stabilize people's income and thus demand for businesses and that would have prevented more layoffs." - the unemployment benefits have to be paid by those businesses so all the extra business they get is money taken from their pockets. They're gonna lay off people to be able to keep the lights on.
1
@jhespinosa because through the benefit of hindsight we know that the new deal actually made the depression worse, so it didn't work.
1
@Hans "Libertarianism is based upon the idea that the individual regardless of his value and actions for society would have the right to life and freedom. Which is nothing but wishful thinking" - funny, who's to say it's you who doesn't deserve to have those rights? Always happens with you fuckers, it's always other people who are undesirables, not you. "In nature there exists no such thing." - yeah, it is. The gazelle has the right to kick the cheetah in the mouth. "These things are the result of natural observation" - naturalistic fallacy "they are science" - no, it isn't. "thus the true natural law and the only valid moral" - Bullshit. Your naturalistic fallacy pretty much detaches mankind from the ownership of their actions and if you do not own your actions there is not objective moral code to follow. "the fake moral finger at the Nazis for performing natural laws" - that's pretentious and fallacious.
1
@jhespinosa from you own source: "While the economy had somewhat recovered, it was far too weak for the New Deal policies to be unequivocally deemed successful. In 1933, at the low point of the contraction, GDP was 39% below the trend before the stock market crash of 1929, and by 1939, it was still 27% below that trend. Likewise, the number of private hours worked was 27% below trend in 1933 and was still 21% below the trend in 1939. Indeed, the unemployment rate in 1939 was still at 19% and would remain above pre-Depression levels until 1943." I mean...
1
@Hans comments disabled ahahah oh wow OP is a coward, thanks for putting pro-Nazi propaganda on my internet history you bitch. "You can't escape the natural laws" - natural laws allow you to escape from natural laws. "Things that are observed as a rule in nature are no naturalistic fallacy" - nature allows for contradictory observations, and mere observations can be affected by a huge number of possible biases (for example survivorship bias, you can make observations that are indeed correct but the conclusions being wrong). You're trying to justify your ideology with nature while vehemently ignoring all the instances where nature does not conform to your ideals. "but the foundation of science" - not really. Mere observation is not science. Look at Cesar Milan. He is famous for understanding dogs but his understanding of dogs comes from flawed observations of wolves in captivity. Therefore his knowledge is not scientific in the slightest because his hypothesis was never confirmed into theory and he never did the scientific work required to do so. Just like yours. "there is no right to win." - literally nobody said that. "If the cheetah wins the fight, the Gazelle can not claim some rights to life and liberty, because there is no one going to enforce that." - but if the gazelle had human understanding they would figure out a plan to take advantage of the fact that cheetahs can only sprint at full speed for a few seconds. They would entrap and kill the cheetahs to eliminate the danger and avenge the fallen. Fortunately they do not possess the level of understanding and rationality or else animals themselves would have upset the natural balances, but we do. Obviously I cannot jump off a cliff and argue with gravity I have a right to life. But my right to life postulates that once you break the unwritten contract and kill me, you have put up a bounty on yourself.
1
@jhespinosa "Did is work or did it not?" - there's evidence that it didn't, and the evidence that it did that you provided actually said it didn't do a whole lot. "The New Deal policies implemented by Roosevelt went a long way in helping to reduce income inequality in America" - okay, but was the objective to reduce income inequality or save the economy from crisis? "And that is my point, you can distort the facts to fit your ideology." - okay but you just distorted the fact that the New Deal reduced income inequality into the New Deal saved the economy from the Depression.
1
@Hans "Guess why we never had a depression again?" - remember when Reagan pulled the US out of a huge crisis in the 1980's? (and then fucked it up with massive spending) It was kind of a big deal. Unemployment actually hit a peak higher than the 2007-2008 recession. And before him JFK had also proposed to Congress that taxes were paradoxically too high. George Dubya also had great success with his tax cuts. So not only there have been serious economic downturns since the Great Depression, which shuts down your claim, there's also the fact that the US govt. adopted a lot of free market ideals since. You can claim that those free market ideas are what caused the recessions (even though they seem to have fixed them) but you cannot claim the New Deal is the reason recessions haven't happened since.
1
@jhespinosa you selected the facts, you just ignored what didn't fit your narrative.
1
@Hans how does that graph prove that anything is false?
1
@Hans it nearly duplicated govt spending in relation to GDP.
1
@Hans "spending to GDP ratio automatically increased without spending a single additional cent" - yeah that still counts as an increase in spending. If you're not scaling back spending along with the GDP then you're making a conscious decision to spend "more". "multiple times lower than during and after WWII " - yeah, wars tend to be expensive. That doesn't mean it's a good thing. "probably the most prosperous time in the American history" - because the rest of the fucking world was either broke or turned to rubble. Anyone in the field of engineering or manufacturing knows about this tale. American manufacturing was the best available at the time and there was no competition. After Deming popularized the idea that striving for quality and continuous improvement would lead to savings and increased productivity, Japan and then the rest of the world started to steal America's thunder. You can't replicate the 1950's unless you nuke half the fucking world and rise from the smoldering ashes as a place where even mediocre manufacturing quality can get you sales.
1
@Hans "The question wasn't wether wars are a good thing or not, but how government spending saved the economy" - it didn't. Government spending did not save the economy, demand for American products and thus labour saved the economy. Spend without a demand and you'll be stuck in Hitler's position. "And no, decreasing GDP and stagnant spending is still no spending increase." - it is a relative increase. If you earn less money this month but keep your expenses the same, you're increasing the rate at which you're going bankrupt. "The point wasn't to replicate the 50's" - by claiming that the 1950's had levels of prosperity that are desirable you are indeed pointing to certain conditions you defend being the determining factor by that prosperity. Except that they aren't. "The point was that since WWII there hasn't been a depression again" - but there have been. "because government spending went up and created the most prosperous age in the American history." - it didn't. The most prosperous age had to do with the fact that the rest of the world was either broke or in shambles. You can't ignore the most important factor behind the 1950's economic situation and attribute sole responsibility to government policy. "If government is so bad, why hasn't the standard of living and the economy collapsed since then." - cost has decreased and quality increased in the sector controlled by the free market while government-controlled housing, education and healthcare are in shambles. "And thus your libertarian ideology also economically debunked. " - pretentious and fallacious. Also, the Nazis lost and don't control any government. Nazism debunked lol get fucked kraut lover
1
@Hans "So your argument would be irrelevant, since sooner or later Europe and Japan did recover from the war." - and behold, the US loss some relevancy in the worldwide economic plan and hit quite a few speedbumps. It's almost like things aren't as good as in the 1950's, huh? "If big government would be really so bad as you Libertarians claim, why this period of big government has become the most prosperous and economically stable period in modern human history?" - the US has been losing prosperity. "Do you notice how you switched from "the New Deal was a disaster"" - I didn't. I'm just working with what you people have been giving me. ""but this economic miracle that was created in this period of massive government spending is not too blame on this massive government spending"" - yeah and I have this rock and there's no tigers around me, so clearly this rock repels tigers. It's not an economic miracle that the US bombed the absolute fuck out of the rest of the world and then became the leading industry for a few decades until Zee Germans, post-Mao China and the land of the rising sun caught up. That's not a miracle, that's a logical result. ""but only the private sector did prosper" ???" - way to miss the point. What I said is that we're living in a world where technology is getting more and more accessible despite of the fact that it's extremely complex and cost-intensive to produce due to how the free market works. But things like houses, which are relatively simple and we have been building for millennia are becoming more and more difficult to own. Our prosperity is tied to the fact that trinkets and creature comforts are extremely cheap, to the point the poor in America can afford a car, A/C and a smartphone. But break a leg and you won't be able to afford the hospital bill. Our actual living conditions are decreasing in comparison to previous generations. "Also you coming up with this ridiculous demand argument. Guess what? That demand was created by government first" - Hitler tried that and he entered an economic bubble. He needed war or else he would have to stop producing war material and send people home. Creating demand by government is the assbackwards way of doing it. "The Nazis were defeated militarily, not economically." - are you fucking kidding me? The Nazis were defeated economically through and through. Not only were their oil reserves insufficient to win and depended on the capture of Russian oil fields to have a chance of winning (they were pushed back before they could restore the Russian oil equipment into working condition) but they also depended on foreign alloys such as Swedish steel and Portuguese tungsten. Most of German's losses can be attributed to logistical factors, such as their inability to use Russian railroads and their dependence on horses.
1
It's funny how engineers quit and blew the whistle on the safety concerns but the regulatory agencies didn't fix it.
1