Green New Deal – 2030

Commenting on The Green New Deal would waste my time, except for the attention some influential people have given it. It would, if passed, lead to a life of misery that would make catastrophic climate change seem like a marvelous alternative.

I receive letters from strange people and strange places. Most of them, If they make reasonable comments, I respond to privately. Recently I received a letter from a rather different place: the future. Because it discusses a topic of present-day interest, I have posted it in its entirety.

Dear Jim,

Roughly 10 years have passed since the signing of the Green New Deal bill in 2020. Climate change hysteria rose to such a fever that voters elected Kamala Harris as President and Cory Booker as Vice President. The House of Representatives elevated Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to the speaker of the House.

The rapidity with which they passed this legislation surprised many people except a few who remembered chants of,” Better off Red than dead.” I found it equally surprising how quickly they acted on the legislation. I guess people liked the Nirvana promised by the supporters.

I have nearly gotten used to having to make these entries by candlelight. I hardly remember the day before May of 2026 when we had to turn in our last smartphones. We just don’t produce enough power for recharging those devices and transmitting the messages we composed. I do have more time during the day to do my writing since I lost my job. But, I hear that pencil and paper will soon become in short supply.

Losing that job does not bother me so much, because the government sends me a check every month. I had planned, when I first heard of this change, of traveling a lot and seeing the world. I had to scuttle those plans when I found I could not get airline reservations. The airlines were not overbooked by people in my situation. They just could not fly because of the lack of fuel. You can still fly, if you need to, but you have to book your flight three months in advance, and it can cost millions of dollars-subject to increase at boarding time. That brings up the issue of inflation.

I have noticed, when I have an opportunity to walk to the store, that the prices of the few items available have increased dramatically. I get an increase in my government stipend every month, but it never seems to keep up with price increases. I have heard that price inflation amounts to 1,000% per month. I have no way to verify that because I get no regular news. I have to rely on rumor.

Someone told me that the central planners have adopted the strategies of the Modern Monetary Theorists. Having government “spend money into the economy,” according to them, will stimulate the economy. I have not seen the results yet. But, what can I do?

I would like to continue, but I have to leave to get to my Chinese language class.

The Chinese have done relatively well in the past ten years. Maybe not adopting their own “green new deal” has something to do with their progress.

Anyway, they allow a few immigrants each year, if they speak and write Chinese. I might get a job there that pays a lot more than my government stipend, or, I might get a job at one of the companies in the U.S. that the Chinese have acquired.

More later,
Roger

I hope Roger does better than this. We can change the future now, if we choose to.

 

The Politics of Socialism

Even if you’re willing to ignore the economic costs, socialism brings a political cost most people — particularly in America — would find unacceptable. Socialism eventually leads to the loss of liberty and tyranny.

In previous posts, I’ve explained the impracticality of socialism as an economic system. We cannot deliver full value to workers when we don’t know the price of the final products, and we can’t separate the contribution of labor versus the contribution of capital. Although I want to focus primarily on economics in this blog, socialism causes a political price that I don’t think most people would be willing to pay.

Central Planning

Having workers own the means of production sounds like a wonderful program. But, have you ever experienced large groups making decisions? When groups get together and try to make decisions in unison, they tend to be impractical and ineffective. The larger the group, the worse the results achieved. So, imagine a nationwide economy depending on all the owners of production making decisions in unison.

Even ardent socialists agree with this picture. They know that having all the members of society deciding together how resources get distributed simply would not work. Socialism, therefore, requires central planning. When initially presented the idea of “central planning” seems quite reasonable and harmless. Why not let the representatives of the workers decide how does distribute resources and work?

Was it Lord Acton who pointed out the problem of corruption that arises from power? Whether the attribution is correct, the observation certainly is. Central planners would discover the benefit of having the power given to them, and they would do their best to increase that power. The end result would be something we’ve seen in most, if not all, socialist countries: absolute tyranny.

But couldn’t this be avoided with a democratic form of government and a socialist economy?

Democratic Socialism

Democracy, as pointed out by Alexis de Tocqueville and Hans Herman Hoppe, has its own set of problems. But, even in the idealized form of democracy, the socialism part of Democratic Socialism would drag the system down.

In the economic system known as socialism the countervailing power of open markets does not exist. Elected officials would have far more power than they would under a democratic government and a market economic system. Since those who have power tend to strive for more, the system would ultimately break down, and some form of tyranny would arise. Look, for example, at the “democratically” elected president of Venezuela. Not working too well.

Socialism, even under a democratically elected form of government, would eventually lead to lost liberty.

Lost Liberty

The Lurking Threat of Socialism

Regardless of the form of government socialism will always lead to a loss of liberty. In the abstract, that may not seem too bad. Most people would give up a certain amount of liberty in exchange for a bit more certainty on the economic front. Who wouldn’t prefer to have education, healthcare, retirement, and other essential economic concerns guaranteed by someone else?

At a more personal level, however, lost liberty would mean, particularly for Americans, the loss of a reasonable lifestyle. How would you like to have someone else to decide what you do for work, where you go to school, what you eat, whether you eat, where you live, who you associate with, and anything else that you control through your own free choice?

Free stuff comes at an extremely high price.

Conclusion

Socialism represents such an outrageously impractical economic system it seems incredible that anyone would suggest it in the first place. But, even in an idealized form, socialism comes at a price that includes a lot more than the loss of economic well-being.

Under any political system, socialism robs you of free choice and your very humanity.

Serious consideration of socialism represents a far greater threat to humanity than climate change, volcanoes, asteroids, or any other natural disaster. For the sake of your economic well being and your personal liberty, reject the concept now.