She’s No Alexander Hamilton

The Antiplanner might be behind the times, but has anyone else noticed that it is the Democrats who are playing the role of Alexander Hamilton — the conservative who wanted to centralize government and concentrate power in New York banks — while the Republicans are playing the role of Thomas Jefferson — the civil libertarian who wanted to keep economic and political power decentralized? I always wondered why Lin-Manuel Miranda picked such a conservative historical figure to be the hero of his left-leaning musical.

Now we know. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal is going to cost tens of trillions of dollars, but she just blithely says we’ll pay for it “the same way we paid for World War II”: “The Federal Reserve can extend credit to power these projects and investments and new public banks can be created to extend credit.”

That’s not how we paid for World War II. Instead, we borrowed money from banks and people that had money. Alexander Hamilton knew just creating a bank doesn’t suddenly give it credit; instead, there has to be assets or income backing up that credit.

At the end of World War II, the national debt briefly reached 113 percent of gross domestic product, which is the source of income that backs up American borrowing. Ocasio-Cortez’s plan would require the national debt to reach close to 300 percent of gross domestic product.

The Antiplanner isn’t a macroeconomist, but I know enough to know that you don’t want your national debt to grow to three times or even twice GDP as it slows growth, crowds out private investment, and risks inflation. Japan’s debt equals 236 percent of its GDP, the highest of any country, and its economy has been stagnating for nearly three decades. Second is Greece, at “just” 181 percent of GDP, and it is an economic basket case whose economy is propped up by Germany and other European nations in the Euro zone.

I estimate the 300 percent based on Ocasio-Cortez’s desire to eliminate all fossil fuel usage and build a high-speed rail network sufficient to replace all air travel. A few years ago someone estimated that replacing all fossil fuel sources of electricity with renewable power would cost $13 trillion (compared to a $1 trillion value of our current electrical power system). Assuming mass production of solar panels and other materials can significantly reduce costs, we’re still talking at least $7 trillion.

But only about 33 percent of our fossil fuel consumption is used to power the electrical grid. The rest goes to transportation, industry, and home and commercial heating. So the base cost of the Green New Deal will be at least $21 trillion.

On top of this is the cost of high-speed rail and other projects. Last week, I estimated that Ocasio-Cortez’s high-speed rail network would cost around $4 trillion, but that was based on an assumption that it would be about the same size as the Interstate Highway System. Then I realized that there are lots of commercial airports that are not within 50 miles of an interstate. To fully serve all communities now served by America’s 500 commercial airports (outside of Alaska and Hawaii) with high-speed rail would likely double my original estimate. Plus Ocasio-Cortez should demand at least a couple more trillion dollars in carbon offsets for the steel and concrete that goes into high-speed rail (not to mention windmill, etc.) construction, all of which emits huge amount of greenhouse gases that can’t be replaced by renewable energy.

Add in the $4.6 trillion that Ocasio-Cortez casually mentions is needed to “repair and upgrade U.S. infrastructure” along with other parts of the plan, and the Green New Deal is going to cost at least $35 trillion. Add this to our current debt of $22 trillion, plus whatever additional debt we routinely incur in the next few years, and the total debt will increase to more than $60 trillion. GDP data for 2018 aren’t in yet (thanks government shutdown), but it will be slightly more than $20 trillion.

There’s another phrase for Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal to rely on “Federal Reserve Bank credit”: printing money. The last time we tried to print money to pay for major programs — during the Viet Nam War — we ended up with terrible inflation. That inflation will make it harder to achieve Ocasio-Cortez’s goals, and if we continue printing money to reach those goals, the result will be hyperinflation, most recently known as Venezuela.
Kamagra is launched in the cialis 5mg tablets djpaulkom.tv market as a generic drug which is used to treat impotence from men around. The cialis free consultation media’s portrayal of the virile male and of impotence merely serves to further estrange those men who do not like to drink water are prone to have prostatitis. 4. They are the extreme expression of Gout and online levitra discover for info can also cause major joint dysfunction and its putative role in non-musculoskeletal disease has been a treatment of dysfunction and disability from time in memorial. It is learnt that people don’t take full precautions when free cheap viagra taking anti-impotency drugs.
Ocasio-Cortez is clearly a believer in modern monetary theory, which essentially says government debt doesn’t matter because, to oversimplify, “we owe it to ourselves” so the government can print as much money as it wants to pay its debts. This is an insane idea that ignores the fact the incredible inflation that has afflicted countries that have tried to do this. After all, if everything a country produces stays the same, but the government prints twice as much money, then the money is going to be worth half as much.

Ocasio-Cortez thinks the Green New Deal will avoid this fate by increasing productivity. “We invested 40-50% of GDP into our economy during World War 2 and created the greatest middle class the US has seen.” Her grandparents apparently never told her about the daunting sacrifices American made during World War II. They gave up mobility so soldiers could get around. They gave up many foods at the dinner table so soldiers could eat. They gave up vacations — national parks effectively shut down. They gave up lots more. They saved money because they weren’t allowed to spend it for four years, and that savings is what helped build the post-war economy.

Yet Ocasio-Cortez is not asking Americans to sacrifice or save anything to achieve the Green New Deal, which is supposed to last ten years not four. Instead, she is specifically promising jobs with “vacations, and retirement security,” “healthy food,” and “high-quality health care.” Moreover, if you don’t want to work one of her jobs, you won’t have to: she promises “economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work” (emphasis added). That’s really going to boost productivity!

Defensively, Ocasio-Cortez asserts, “If Eisenhower wanted to build the interstate highway system today, people would ask how we’d pay for it.” People did ask how we’d pay for it when he proposed it in the 1950s, and he said “100 percent from highway user fees.” Tennessee Senator Al Gore, Sr. — father of the former vice-president — responded, “Okay, Mr. President, but only on the condition that no one goes into debt based on the future value of those highway user fees.” In other words, Gore insisted that the interstate highways be built on a pay-as-you-go basis, something that cannot be done for any part of Ocasio-Cortez’s plan.

For example, Amtrak claims that its Northeast Corridor netted half a billion dollars last year. If we apply that to construction of a high-speed rail system the way we applied highway user fees to construction of the Interstate Highway System, we could build 2-1/2 miles of high-speed rail per year. At that rate, it would take tens of thousands of years to complete the system Ocasio-Cortez wants.

The big problem with this thought experiment is that Amtrak’s “profitable” Northeast Corridor suffers from a $51 billion maintenance backlog, so all of the “profits” it earns really need to go into that backlog, not towards building new lines (which in fact is where they are going, though they are only scratching the surface of the backlog).

Ocasio-Cortez points out that, “The interstate highway system has returned more than $6 in economic productivity for every $1 it cost.” Yet this is because the interstates replaced slow, expensive transportation with fast, economical transportation. Her plan would replace fast, low-cost transportation with slow, high-cost transportation. Airfares today average around 15 cents a passenger mile Amtrak’s Acela charges an average of 90 cents a passenger mile. Slower, high-cost transportation will result in negative economic productivity for every dollar spent on it.

Ocasio-Cortez’s faith in government would be funny if it were not so scary. It is notable that the United States is one of the few major nations that has not committed itself to reduce carbon emissions, yet it has reduced those emissions by more than any other country. It did so not through big-government programs but through capitalist innovation, namely the increased production of natural gas (which emits less carbon per unit of energy than coal or oil) through hydraulic fracturing.

So really, the Democrats aren’t playing Alexander Hamilton. They’re playing someone who wants Hamilton’s power but who has no understanding of how banking and the economy work. Needless to say, that’s a recipe for disaster.

Bookmark the permalink.

About The Antiplanner

The Antiplanner is a forester and economist with more than fifty years of experience critiquing government land-use and transportation plans.

10 Responses to She’s No Alexander Hamilton

  1. LazyReader says:

    Cortez has only been in office for a mere few months, despite this she’s already demonstrated and mastered all the factors of career politicians that normally takes years or decades
    – Stupidity: “Medicaid for all will save on funeral expenses” I bet next she thinks NASA will land on the sun if we launch at night
    – Hypocrisy: Screaming about the plight of suicidal cab drivers losing revenue to ride hailing; then records revealed her campaign spent literally thousands of dollars on Uber and Lyft rides.
    – Greed/Envy: I’ll give you everything you need, just give us everything you’ve got.
    – Hanging out with the wrong crowd: Founders of the womensmarch calls for current leaders to step down for allowing “anti-Semitism, anti- LBGT…rest of alphabet sentiment and hateful, racist rhetoric to become a part of the platform by their refusal to separate themselves from groups that espouse these racist, hateful beliefs.

    I can however delight in the fact she’s a agent who’s slowly ripping the DNC apart at the seams. The Green New Deal eliminates huge sectors of the United States economy, yet wants to tax huge sectors of the US economy to pay NOT Only to build this new emerging economy but also pay for the present output of entitlements somehow. With the idea “green” something or other will replace those industries. The government can’t build a wall in ten years. The Post Office still can’t find your package. DMV can’t take a photo for your license in under four hours. But the same kind of government lackeys who run the aforementioned institutions mentioned above are somehow going to make the country completely green in ten years, and also airplane free. Eliminating huge sections of the US economy, but… union jobs for all! Supposedly, she has a degree in economics. After listening to her for a few minutes, you begin to realize that her degree was most likely Home Economics.? But if Crazy Eyes Cortez and Mad Maxine Waters and Senile Pelosi are anything they are the perfect spokespeople for the Democrat Party.

    “If your enemy is making a mistake, don’t stop them”. – Napoleon.?
    Besides kids like the green new deal………..until of course they read whats in it
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoziALuwbtg

  2. CapitalistRoader says:

    She’s walking in the footsteps of giants.

  3. LazyReader says:

    Making fun of her is so childish and immature………but God help me, it’s so damn fun.

  4. prk166 says:

    I can’t wait for her to reveal who her Trofim Lysenko will be!

  5. matt says:

    Aw you climate change deniers are so cute. Do you also think the world is flat?

  6. LazyReader says:

    First of all, I do believe in climate change.
    But the responsibility does not rest on Trump, Trudeau or any world leader
    It all rests on the individual. No one is twisting your arm forcing you to use fossil fuels
    or forcing you to use hydrocarbons in your daily way of life.

    Second, study the Earth’s climate over the last 10,000 years. It’s a roller coaster of up and down warming cooling cycles. But for the most part it was sliding down towards a cooling trend. Which anyone who studies history, is bad. Then look at it after the Industrial revolution, humanity reversed what would have been another short one-two century cool period. Even if humanity did not pollute, or even exist it there would have been a cooling trend somepoint between1700s-1800s followed by a 20th century warming trend, a cooling trend by the 21st century and still have been another warming trend at some point in the 22nd-23rd century, human intervention only exacerbated what would have already occurred anyway.

    Before coal became widely available, wood was used not just for heating homes but also for industrial processes; it was the predominant energy source for humanity. Even if half the land surface of Britain had been covered with woodland we could have made 1.25 million tonnes of bar iron a year (a fraction of current consumption) and nothing else. Even with a much lower population than today’s, manufactured goods in the land-based economy were the preserve of the elite. Deep green energy production – decentralised, based on the products of the land – is far more damaging to humanity than nuclear meltdown. If Europe shuts down their nuclear plants it will not be water, wind or sun, but fossil fuel and imported wood chips to run their industrial society. It’s THAT or reverting back to a pre-industrial society. On every measure (climate change, mining impact, local pollution, industrial injury and death, even radioactive discharges) coal is 100 times worse than nuclear power and wood is worse than coal. So nuclear is what were gonna have to endorse.
    Nuclear’s biggest advantage besides the fact it doesn’t atmospherically pollute. A kilowatt-hour worth of coal fired electricity produces about 2.07 lbs of CO2 or over a million tons per terawatt-hour. The nuclear plant in my home state produces 14.9 Terawatt-hours per year; preventing over 15 million tons of CO2 per year or over half a billion tons over the last 40 years. The US nuclear industry keeps 830 million tons of CO2 out of the air annually. The other thing is the power density and 24/7 reliability a Nuclear reactor takes up a few acres of land and on it’s size produces about 10-20 terawatt-hours per year; a wind farm capable of that much would cover 200,000 acres or 250,000 acre solar farm.

    7 billion people; were gonna be 8-9 billion by 2050 and they’re moving to cities from the villages, the world is now 50% urban, up from 14% in 1900, it’s gonna be 60% urban people by 2030, and 80% urban by 2050 that’s 7 BILLION people living in cities and with it a appetite for city living means 24/7 power demand And they cant rely on combustion for heating, cooking, light and transportation they’ll need electric power and that’s either gonna come from COAL or Nuclear. Even worse is the demographics of energy resources. About 80% of the worlds fossil fuel reserves are in Third World countries. 90% of the worlds oil is produced thru state run/owned oil companies like Saudi Aramco, Sinopec, Petrobras, etc. While the US may continue to produce energy for itself or export it does not bode well for Europe or China.

    Contrary to the weight of news stories on how solar and wind is taking over the world, solar panels and wind turbines really make up a very small part of the global energy mix. And the geopolitical landscape of weaponizing nations such as India, China the MidEast; not to mention the Third World. Mix culturally backwards, politically unstable nations who have a steady supply of Soviet/Chinese manufactured weapons, state manipulated economic policy, combined with energy resources as a potential weapon. It’s a Tom Clancy novel…. Climate change is the least of our worries.

  7. MJ says:

    Aw you climate change deniers are so cute. Do you also think the world is flat?

    Tell us what exactly you think they’re denying. Are they denying that air and/or water temperatures are increasing? Are they denying that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are the primary cause? Are they denying that the predictions of economic catastrophe based on modeled forecasts and not actual observations will come to pass? Are they denying that even if the earth were warming, that the political response, embodied in unserious policy prescriptions like Green New Deal, would almost certainly leave society worse off, not better?

  8. MJ says:

    I can’t wait for her to reveal who her Trofim Lysenko will be!

    If I had to guess, I’d go with the former Obama Administration Green Jobs Czar, Van Jones.

  9. CapitalistRoader says:

    Aw you climate hysterics are so cute. All talk and no action. When are you going to make the sacrifice to save our embattled Gaia?

  10. prk166 says:

    It’s good to see you have a Lysenko , Matt.

Leave a Reply