2 ms·

> or be influenced by lobbyists for the most expensive or politically well connected ones. Sanders has categorically rejected PAC money and large donations fro

> or be influenced by lobbyists for the most expensive or politically well connected ones. Sanders has categorically rejected PAC money and large donations from high-profile donors. If you had a rate a candidate's platform based on likelihood of lobbyist influence, this would undoubtedly be one of the least corrupt proposals.

api 7y ago
I think Sanders is pretty honest in this department. The problem is that if he becomes President (or influences the next one) and puts a gigantic trillion dollar money pot out there, lots of politicians and bureaucrats are going to be involved in doling that out. It's gonna be a wild pork stampede and we'll end up with a lot of BS shell companies doing "green" stuff that involve no real engineers or other people who know how to actually build anything. Edit to clarify: I also think we'll end up with a lot of well-meaning people who simply don't understand the science or the engineering wasting a lot of money. Corruption is a problem but it's not just corruption. That's why I like incentives much more, whether they be tax incentives or general goal-oriented subsidies. There's a lot of surface area to work with here, not just carbon taxes: * Extending and deepening EV tax credits. * Reforming zoning laws to encourage density and eliminate impediments to it. This is largely a state thing but the Fed could apply pressure or incentives to states. It would also help with the housing affordability crisis that exists in some cities and states. * Tax credits to encourage higher density housing, such as an increased mortgage deduction for condominiums in multi-story buildings and a rent deduction. * Building public transit, a lot of public transit, and fixing/elminiating the regulatory and bureaucratic nonsense that stops the US from building high speed rail like other developed nations. * Funding R&D by labs and universities with a record of producing results in areas like batteries, next-generation nuclear power, fusion, better solar PV, etc. There are also some areas where you might have to fight with environmentalists, like expanding hydropower. I've long wondered how much hydropower potential there is in Northern Canada and how efficiently it could be transported by HVDC lines to the US. Would Canada like another big export?
- atmosx 7y ago
  The new deal worked fine and it was put forward by a politician.
- save_ferris 7y ago
  That's a very understandable reaction, and very much a possibility. What data do we have on how much is skimmed from proposals like this, or fraudulent companies that are set up to exploit this funding? Michael Lewis talked a bit about this in The Fifth Risk, particularly the Solyndra scandal. The Obama administration took a lot of heat politically for Solyndra, which in reality amounted to a tiny tiny fraction of funds made available for solar development, and the overall solar research fund that Obama allocated wound up turning a profit for the government. You wouldn't know that based on the reporting though.

api 7y ago

I think Sanders is pretty honest in this department. The problem is that if he becomes President (or influences the next one) and puts a gigantic trillion dollar money pot out there, lots of politicians and bureaucrats are going to be involved in doling that out. It's gonna be a wild pork stampede and we'll end up with a lot of BS shell companies doing "green" stuff that involve no real engineers or other people who know how to actually build anything. Edit to clarify: I also think we'll end up with a lot of well-meaning people who simply don't understand the science or the engineering wasting a lot of money. Corruption is a problem but it's not just corruption. That's why I like incentives much more, whether they be tax incentives or general goal-oriented subsidies. There's a lot of surface area to work with here, not just carbon taxes: * Extending and deepening EV tax credits. * Reforming zoning laws to encourage density and eliminate impediments to it. This is largely a state thing but the Fed could apply pressure or incentives to states. It would also help with the housing affordability crisis that exists in some cities and states. * Tax credits to encourage higher density housing, such as an increased mortgage deduction for condominiums in multi-story buildings and a rent deduction. * Building public transit, a lot of public transit, and fixing/elminiating the regulatory and bureaucratic nonsense that stops the US from building high speed rail like other developed nations. * Funding R&D by labs and universities with a record of producing results in areas like batteries, next-generation nuclear power, fusion, better solar PV, etc. There are also some areas where you might have to fight with environmentalists, like expanding hydropower. I've long wondered how much hydropower potential there is in Northern Canada and how efficiently it could be transported by HVDC lines to the US. Would Canada like another big export?

atmosx 7y ago
The new deal worked fine and it was put forward by a politician.
save_ferris 7y ago
That's a very understandable reaction, and very much a possibility. What data do we have on how much is skimmed from proposals like this, or fraudulent companies that are set up to exploit this funding? Michael Lewis talked a bit about this in The Fifth Risk, particularly the Solyndra scandal. The Obama administration took a lot of heat politically for Solyndra, which in reality amounted to a tiny tiny fraction of funds made available for solar development, and the overall solar research fund that Obama allocated wound up turning a profit for the government. You wouldn't know that based on the reporting though.