The Green New Deal

Jerrymander said:
Does anybody know the concept of aiming high so you'll atleast get something good.
Click to expand...

Yes, but we also know the concept of aiming too high and getting laughed out of the negociations.

Say you want to sell your house. It's valued at 200k. You start at 250, you might get 220. But if you start at 1 million, no one will bother.
 
Solitaire said:
Very bad. Like most forms of mining. Since 95% occurs in China, one hopes they have a program that charges the end user a fee for reclamation of the land and waste products. Unlike the United States where the taxpayer picks up the cost of the clean up decades or centuries later for a very high price.
Click to expand...

Hope away, that's not the reality.
 
Jerrymander said:
Does anybody know the concept of aiming high so you'll atleast get something good.
Click to expand...

Sure. But it's not always the right concept for the issue at hand. If I demolish a building and excavate the land to place the foundation of a new high-rise that nobody wants, and the project gets blocked, the community doesn't "atleast get something good". The community loses an actual building and gains a bigass hole in the ground.

---

My workplace has the concept of "stretch goals". We list out all the things we want to accomplish by the end of our current effort period (usually 3 months). Then we note that it's more things than we can probably accomplish. So we prioritize our commitments, and leave open the possibility that if we hit our goals with time and resources to spare, we can do some of the other stuff we wanted to do.

This is very effective. We don't usually get everything we asked for, but we always get a lot of good stuff in the process.

But this process involves actually taking the time to examine what we want, in detail. It involves actually understanding our available resources, making priorities, and setting measurable milestones to work towards. It involves knowing with some confidence what we're actually going to work on, in practical terms, and how much progress we realistically expect to make.

I'm not sure that "aiming high so you'll atleast get something good" actually works anywhere except sometimes in negotiations. And even then, I bet it only works when both parties have a concrete list of actual negotiable points, such that they can add and subtract points until they reach a mutual agreement.

When one party comes to the table with a clown car of vague notions, the proper negotiating response isn't "let's cut this list down to something more reasonable". The proper negotiating response is "let us know when you have something to negotiate".

Assuming that this is actually supposed to be a negotiation, and not a PR stunt. If it's supposed to be a PR stunt, then the operative concept is completely different.
 
Belz... said:
Yes, but we also know the concept of aiming too high and getting laughed out of the negociations.

Say you want to sell your house. It's valued at 200k. You start at 250, you might get 220. But if you start at 1 million, no one will bother.
Click to expand...

I sold a house recently. My experience was pretty much exactly this, but with a smaller variance between my initial price range and the actual market price range. As long as we stayed in our initial price bracket, we got some initial interest from buyers, but no real offers. As soon as we figured out the actual market bracket, we sold.

But I suspect the GND isn't actually a policy bid. It's more of a policy billboard - a marketing gimmick.
 
Belz... said:
Yes, but we also know the concept of aiming too high and getting laughed out of the negociations.

Say you want to sell your house. It's valued at 200k. You start at 250, you might get 220. But if you start at 1 million, no one will bother.
Click to expand...

More modest things have been proposed and still get rejected. The fact is, the Republicans are dead set against doing anything.
 
Sure. But it's not always the right concept for the issue at hand. If I demolish a building and excavate the land to place the foundation of a new high-rise that nobody wants, and the project gets blocked, the community doesn't "atleast get something good". The community loses an actual building and gains a bigass hole in the ground.
Click to expand...

Renewable energy is a gain so your point falls apart.
 
theprestige said:
What disinformation? The US government spent *$528 million of taxpayer money on a non competitive renewable energy company.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to imply that the only way to produce competitive renewable energy is through corrupt business models and incompetent management?

How does the failure of any specific, flawed company serve as accurate reflection of the industry in general?
 
theprestige said:
Tell me what I gained from the $528 million of taxpayer money that was spent on Solyndra.
Click to expand...

Downward pressure on the market. Solyndra failed because China invested far more resources in building solar production. And by China doing that, the prices for solar panels went through the floor. This resulted in tremendous savings in other areas.

Also, you're perhaps viewing it wrong. If you look at the way a VC operates, they will invest in multiple companies and technologies and only a dew will pay off.
 
theprestige said:
What disinformation? The US government spent *$528 million of taxpayer money on a non competitive renewable energy company.
Click to expand...

You tried to use this to argue that we shouldn't invest in renewable energy. Even though the failure of one company was not a reflection of the industry as a whole.

A lie by omission is still a lie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom