Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
The Trump Effect On Environmental Investing: Positive?
It seems to me an obvious contributor to global warming is the global-trade import-export model which causes large, unnecessary carbon releases transporting goods across vast distances. Not to mention all the garbage accumulating from this trade in the Pacific garbage gyre. Then too, the manufacturing being done is in countries (e.g. China) with weaker environmental controls, resulting in more severe environmental degredation. Its strange the “green crowd” seems to ignore or at least downplay the role of global trade has in environmental degredation. Well, its strange, unless one understands the elites who benefit from exporting American jobs are often the same ones who are pushing the “green” agenda. Exporting jobs results in a diminished lifestyle for millions of American; “green advocacy” provides a philosophical justification for that diminished lifestyle. All the while, the elites who advocate the green agenda continue to live lavish lifestyle in contradiction to what they expect of the average American living under a "green regime".
Well-meaning folks who truly buy into the climate-change argument should be honest about the carbon impact of the prevalent global-trade model – and look for lower-carbon alternatives to the current import/export model.
If I were in the Trump Administration, I’d direct the Dept of Commerce to tally/estimate the carbon impact of relying on vast, trans-pacific supply chains from dirty Chinese plants, and use that impact to further buttress the argument for fair trade & argue that producing locally should be a “green imperative”.
@edmond Most members of the "green crowd" oppose free trade deals just like Trump ostensibly does: http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Green_Party_Free_Trade.htm In fact it is the "Republican elite" that generally supports free trade and will seek to reign Trump in if he suggests severe tarrifs. It will be interesting to see if Trump follows through on his pandering to the working class because it will be bad for his businesses that sell foreign made goods and terrible for the stock market in general. Most multinational companies will crash the day any serious tarrifs pass. https://greenparty.org/Platform.php From the Green Party Platform: "Fair Trade: Withdraw from the World Trade Organization, NAFTA, and all other corporate-managed trade agreements that are driving down labor and environmental conditions globally. Establish an internationalist social tariff system that equalizes trade by accounting for the differences among countries in wages, social benefits, environmental conditions, and political rights. Tariff revenues to a democratic, international fund for ecological production and democratic development in poor countries in order to level up social and environmental conditions to a high common standard. " Any here's what the Sierra Club, The NRDC, Greenpeace and other "green elite" organizations think of the TPP. They all oppose it: http://sierraclub.org/compass/2015/10/more-dozen-environmental-organizations-warn-trans-pacific-partnership-risks
LB, that's good to know... yet strangely, I suspect the Greenies all voted for HRC and agin' DJT. And probably for BHO b4 that, and tend to vote "Blue" every election.
DJT should sell his trade policies as green-friendly. (Which they are).
@Edmond Yes, about as strange as the working class voting for a party that seeks to reduce and ultimately eliminate their Social Security and Medicare benefits and will actively seek to preserve and expand those trade agreements to keep their corporate donors happy. Each side tends to believe their own party's lies.
Also, Reagan was the first to tax Social Security benefits and significantly raised payroll taxes on the working class, effectively reducing their income and benefits. The goal of the party has largely been to dismantle these social programs, by reducing benefits, raising the age you need to be to receive benefits and privatizing them.
Boy, if given the chance over 40 years ago to go with SS or use that money to fund my own retirement, I would have picked the latter in a heartbeat. Yea some don't know how to save or invest but don't include those who want to do better, which is a big chunk of society.
I have always liked the idea that out of the 12.5% tax for SS, let me invest 10%. The rest goes into a pool fund for those who are physically disabled or unable to work. We do have a compassionate streak among us.
No disability ends at full retirement age and the regular SS fund picks up the rest. Also, presently the SS fund is quite healthy but the disability fund is not so it is spending from the SS fund. (At least it was. I am assuming that it still is.)
Comments
Well-meaning folks who truly buy into the climate-change argument should be honest about the carbon impact of the prevalent global-trade model – and look for lower-carbon alternatives to the current import/export model.
If I were in the Trump Administration, I’d direct the Dept of Commerce to tally/estimate the carbon impact of relying on vast, trans-pacific supply chains from dirty Chinese plants, and use that impact to further buttress the argument for fair trade & argue that producing locally should be a “green imperative”.
In fact it is the "Republican elite" that generally supports free trade and will seek to reign Trump in if he suggests severe tarrifs. It will be interesting to see if Trump follows through on his pandering to the working class because it will be bad for his businesses that sell foreign made goods and terrible for the stock market in general. Most multinational companies will crash the day any serious tarrifs pass.
https://greenparty.org/Platform.php
From the Green Party Platform:
"Fair Trade: Withdraw from the World Trade Organization, NAFTA, and all other corporate-managed trade agreements that are driving down labor and environmental conditions globally. Establish an internationalist social tariff system that equalizes trade by accounting for the differences among countries in wages, social benefits, environmental conditions, and political rights. Tariff revenues to a democratic, international fund for ecological production and democratic development in poor countries in order to level up social and environmental conditions to a high common standard. "
Any here's what the Sierra Club, The NRDC, Greenpeace and other "green elite" organizations think of the TPP. They all oppose it: http://sierraclub.org/compass/2015/10/more-dozen-environmental-organizations-warn-trans-pacific-partnership-risks
DJT should sell his trade policies as green-friendly. (Which they are).
The left was spouting this when Reagan was President. Another story is that old people will have to eat pet food to get by.
It hasn't happened and most likely won't. BTW, the price of pet food makes that option too expensive.
foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/12/trump-advisers-back-deregulation-privatized-social-security.html
mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/opinion/the-medicare-killers.html
Also, Reagan was the first to tax Social Security benefits and significantly raised payroll taxes on the working class, effectively reducing their income and benefits. The goal of the party has largely been to dismantle these social programs, by reducing benefits, raising the age you need to be to receive benefits and privatizing them.
I have always liked the idea that out of the 12.5% tax for SS, let me invest 10%. The rest goes into a pool fund for those who are physically disabled or unable to work. We do have a compassionate streak among us.
Derf