Climate Change "Debate"

[Aeson]

That has nothing to do with the value of money. Notice that I only said that labor is more valuable in the future (not the same as money). If you work today you can avoid expenses in the future. So the sooner you get your work done the more valuable your output will be.

So the sooner we fix the climate the cheaper it will be to do so. Thanks for admitting that.

[Kidlicious]

What you don't understand is that the 6% or 8% return on investment isn't given. That depends on world growth and events. With a climate catastrophe, the best return is likely to be very very negative (even worse than the Great Depression and for a continuing duration). Even without a catastrophe, there are solid arguments to be made the the post war (1946 to now) years have been highly abnormal and we are returning to normality where 2% should be usual instead of 6% pr 8%.

JM

Saying that climate change will cause something like the Great Depression is fear mongering. The Great Depression was an economic collapse. What we are talking about is reduced resources. That's the exact opposite of what happened during the Great Depression. Then we had a glut of resources.

We don't know what economic growth will be in the future. You are only speculating. We only know what we can get today. And we can typically get 8%. And for those that have to pay for this that don't invest in stocks it will cost whatever they would consume which is MORE valuable than stocks.

[Aeson]

What you guys don't understand is that taxpayers have to pay for this. I was being conservative with 6%. You can make 8% in financial markets. But people aren't just going to not invest in financial markets. They want to do other things like use it for consumption. In that case it's over 8%.

So what you’re saying is Trumps wall at $10bn + $1bn/y maintenance will cost the US taxpayer $40 trillion by 2150?

[giblets]

It's very simple. If we have $90b we can invest that money (private sector is best) and have $100t in 81 years if make 6%.

Can we take the $100 trillion the US currently has in wealth and have $10 quadrillion in 2100? No, we can't. The output of one worker in 2100 is not equivalent to the output of 100 workers in 2020. That some people who are a small part of the overall economy can get a 6% return on investment until they retire isn't meaningful on the level of an entire society.

[Aeson]

He’s still applying cost of capital and inflation on the cost of addressing climate change, but not on the cost of not addressing climate change. Any damage that happens along the way is compounding as well. It’s not like everything is fine and dandy until we hit 2100.

And the damage continues to accrue and worsen for centuries or millenia (or until there’s nothing left to damage)

And of course his own source states it’s only considering a fraction of the total costs.

[rah]

Kid doesn't care how many people die if he can save a few bucks.

[Jon Miller]

What you don't understand is that the 6% or 8% return on investment isn't given. That depends on world growth and events. With a climate catastrophe, the best return is likely to be very very negative (even worse than the Great Depression and for a continuing duration). Even without a catastrophe, there are solid arguments to be made the the post war (1946 to now) years have been highly abnormal and we are returning to normality where 2% should be usual instead of 6% pr 8%.

JM

[Kidlicious]

What you guys don't understand is that taxpayers have to pay for this. I was being conservative with 6%. You can make 8% in financial markets. But people aren't just going to not invest in financial markets. They want to do other things like use it for consumption. In that case it's over 8%.

[Kidlicious]

@8% is $196b

[Kidlicious]

Oops I missed a zero. Not 90b. It's $891,712,621,021.50

[Kidlicious]

It's very simple. If we have $90b we can invest that money (private sector is best) and have $100t in 81 years if make 6%.

[Kidlicious]

It's ludicrous to assume the value of labor increases at a rate of 6% a year when total factor productivity in the USA has grown by less than 1% a year on average since 1970.

That has nothing to do with the value of money. Notice that I only said that labor is more valuable in the future (not the same as money). If you work today you can avoid expenses in the future. So the sooner you get your work done the more valuable your output will be.

[giblets]

Labor has a different value in the future you stupid socialist.

It's ludicrous to assume the value of labor increases at a rate of 6% a year when total factor productivity in the USA has grown by less than 1% a year on average since 1970.

[Kidlicious]

It’s worse when you read his article and find out he’s pricing the suffering of millions and deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans and altogether ignoring the suffering of hundreds of millions and deaths of tens of millions around the world. And that is only a fraction of the effects in a relatively short timeframe.

I mean, I can understand a denier being unconcerned with it, as they just don’t understand the problem. But Kid takes Climate Change to a whole new level of genocidal accounting.

Accounting is accounting. If you insist on pretending that the cost of climate change is $100 trillion because that's what it's going to cost in 81 years there is no point in this conversation because you live in a fake world.

[Kidlicious]

The sh!t believers in capitalist ideology say...

Labor has a different value in the future you stupid socialist.