Connect with us


‘Cum Laude’



Cum Laude

If one is to believe the Wikipedia description of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, she graduated from Boston University with a degree in International Relations and Economics. Her Baccalaureate robes showed off Cum Laude cords. Obviously, she is qualified to comment on issues impacting the economy.

As the Quora thread on the subject notes, the study of economics at BU is “not a program that lets you off easy.” This is understandable, since it includes courses in “Economic Statistics,” “Macroeconomic Analysis,” “Statistical and Economic Decision Making,” and “Statistics and Probability.” Not for the faint of heart.

The mathematical basis for this course of study is not trivial. Statistical and probability analysis is based in calculus, a discipline I studied as part of my mathematics major in my premedical studies. Indeed, the requirements for AOC’s economics program include studies in calculus (and more). But let us assume a lesser standard. For while a proper understanding of economics requires foundations in higher math, our analysis today only needs to involve simple arithmetic. And surely AOC can understand basic math. We should hope so, since she has a seat on the House Financial Services Committee.

The “Green New Deal” resolution is AOC’s first major legislative effort, co-sponsored with several Leftists in both houses of Congress. The segment that has brought the most guffaws from sober thinkers is the proposal that all of our energy production should be “carbon-neutral” and 100% renewables within ten years. Remember that time window.

I’ll let others dispel this pipe dream. Put simply, the $7 trillion price tag has to come from somewhere. The Modern Monetary Theory that allows for this spending is better described as “Voodoo Economics.” By pronouncing certain spells over the economy, the massive currency inflation that would turn the US into a Brave New Venezuela somehow would turn into a public good. But those sixteen examples listed by Wikipedia should show any rational person that this isn’t possible. Of course, we’re ignoring the $32.6 trillion price tag of her Medicare for All proposal and all her other “socialist” feel-good insanity. We should propose that her name is misspelled. It’s really Alexandria Airhead-Cortez, since that’s as substantial as her “thinking” gets.

Airhead-Cortez has blithely declared that, “the world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.” Curious. That’s what the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said. And we know how accurate they’ve been. Andy May has documented how far from reality the IPCC has been. Dr. Roy Spencer, the keeper of the satellite data on temperature, shows that there has been no net warming in 20 years. But Airhead-Cortez’ “Green New Deal” calls for rebuilding every building in the United States over the next ten years to stave off the ClimApocalypse by making them all “energy efficient,” whatever that means.

Now we have an easily testable proposition. Airhead-Cortez grew up in the internet age, so she should be at least as facile with internet searches as this 66 year-old geezer. And I was able to find the salient facts in less time than it took to locate all the proper citations in the paragraphs you’ve just read. Here’s what we know.

There are about 327 million people in the US. At roughly 4 people per household, that means that there are about 82 million households. Yes, many are in apartments, but this is irrelevant to our analysis. Please note that we aren’t using the calculus that Airhead-Cortez supposedly understands. We’re only using arithmetic that any seventh-grader is supposed to be able to do. And we’re ignoring every non-residential building in the country. All those businesses, police stations, and hospitals will just have to wait.

Next, we find that there are 10.7 million construction workers and 8.4 million production workers in the housing industry in the US. These workers contribute to about 1.25 million housing starts per year. To replace the 82 million homes in ten years, we’d have to tear down and rebuild 8.2 million homes a year. That is 6.56 times as many as we build now. That means that instead of 19.1 million workers, we’d need 125.3 million. And that doesn’t include the people needed to tear down all those homes. Or the people to work in the hotels that would house the people who are waiting to have their homes rebuilt.

The total US labor force is about 161 million, with 154 million actually working. (This assumes that the 2.8 million Federal employees actually work.) If we devote 125 million to construction, that leaves about 26 million people in the private work force to run our power grid (I forgot! There won’t be one.), fly our airliners (Oops, those will be eliminated.), do the work involved in Universal Single Payer Health Care, grow our food, run our grocery stores, and so on.

Of course, Airhead-Cortez and her space cadet friends (including Kamala Harris) haven’t bothered to look at even this simple exercise in arithmetic. They’ve been happy to let the conversation revolve around exotic exercises in cost analysis. Most people listening aren’t. Analytics are too long for a millennial’s 8 second attention span. “Green” alliterates with “good,” so it must be good. And that is about as deep as the analytics on the Left

Perhaps we should change our conversation from dollars to the number of workers needed for the Green New Deal. Of course, that would lead us to wonder about why the Left wants so many unskilled people to cross the border.

And to think that supposedly rational people voted to put Airhead-Cortez in Congress…


NOQ Report Needs Your Help



  1. Noah Way

    February 9, 2019 at 10:25 am

    How are we going to pay for it? (Followed by a bunch of big scary numbers)

    Basic logic is all that is required to blow up Ted Noel’s ill formed opinion based on a lack of intelligence in economics and the way things work.

    To begin, the US has absolutely no problem paying countless trillions for ongoing wars, corporate welfare, tax cuts for the already waaaay too wealthy, etc. To “save us” from the Great Recession, the government pumped some $17 trillion into the economy (into banks, not citizens) – but where did that money come from? The US national debt was $10 trillion at that time. That all of this money has been magically created is undeniable, and that it has had no inflationary effect is also undeniable.

    Use your brains, people. The poisonous fearmongering nonsense posted by Dr. Ted is aimed directly at you. AOC is a representative of the people, not ‘special’ interests, and is speaking the truth to power. There is an excellent article on Raw Story showing AOC exposing the complete and total corruption of congress while in session.

    Search “Watch: AOC schools Congress with ‘Lightning Round Game’ exposing the chilling role of money in politics”

  2. Ted Noel

    February 9, 2019 at 8:13 pm

    It’s obvious that Mr Way did not read the article. My point was that we can toss all the economics aside and look at the labor force required to achieve her goal. While you can print money (bad idea), you can’t print people, and the GND requires a massive increase in the labor force, just for construction. There aren’t enough people, by a long shot, to do it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Conspiracy Theory

Did the ‘party of science’ prank themselves with the greatest practical joke ever, the ‘Green New Deal’?




Did the ‘party of science’ prank themselves with the greatest practical joke ever the ‘Green New Deal’

There is one big problem with trying to ‘net-zero’ greenhouse gases, it can never happen.

Sometimes it is hard to shake the thought that a higher power played a practical joke on the Authoritarian Socialist-Left with history’s greatest prank. Those familiar with the subject know that the highest manifestation of this ‘art form’ is when the target plays it on themselves and from a source that no one expects. The coincidences leave one gobsmacked as to how it all could be mere happenstance.

The Left’s inherent arrogance has led them to believe they can never be wrong. Even if the result is that they ‘rule the population’ in the end. The problem for them is that they can’t exactly cast themselves as the ‘the party of science’ when they forget about the most abundant greenhouse gas.

Full disclosure, we had been very reluctant to critique the purveyor of this plan knowing that her ‘proclivities’ would be her downfall, knowing it would pay a handsome dividend. We knew that everyone’s favourite socialist would eventually go off the deep end, bringing the rest of the Socialist-Left along with her. Little did we know that it would happen so quickly.

Losing the plot on promises.

While the abject fraud of socialism will have it’s disciples make all manner of promises that will never come to fruition. At least some have a little bit of grounding in reality, neglecting the fact that they will quickly run out of other people’s money. However, in the ‘Green New Deal’ we substantially have an historic first, a completely impossible goal. Consider this passage in their napkin pencil sketch of the outline of a plan to rebuild our entire economy from the ground up:

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that—

(1) it is the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal—

(A) to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers;

[Our Emphasis]

Trying to get to ‘net-zero’ is a fool’s errand because it’s impossible to get to that point with the most important greenhouse gas: Water Vapour.

Never mind that other parts of the scheme are beyond feasibility. Or that the rest of the world will just take up the slack after we self-immolate [After buying the appropriate carbon credits of course]. No, they ignored the most important greenhouse gas and thus rendered their entire plan scientifically absurd.

The problem for them and the indication that this was the greatest prank of all time is that water vapour is the most abundant greenhouse gas. Now perhaps they overlooked this scientific fact because the powers that be in the Global Cooling, Global warming, Climate Change, Global Cooling cabal also tend to ignore this ‘inconvenient truth’ to coin a phrase.

Just in case there are any Leftists reading this, we will spell it out for those of the ‘Party of science’: We can never net-zero water vapour since that would entail getting rid of all the water on the planet. Perhaps they don’t realise that Approximately 71 percent of the Earth’s surface is covered by this ubiquitous substance, sometimes referred to as dihydrogen monoxide.

But its impossible elimination would certainly help in providing high-speed rail service to Hawaii.

We can add to this by pointing out that the climate boffins prefer to use terms such as ‘scientific uncertainty’ when referring to poorly understood effects of the ‘positive feedback loop’ of Water vapour. From the National Climatic Data Center on Greenhouse Gases:

As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil). Because the air is warmer, the absolute humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to ‘hold’ more water when it’s warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal IR energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so on. This is referred to as a ‘positive feedback loop’. However, huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of this feedback loop.

As water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth’s surface and heat it up). The future monitoring of atmospheric processes involving water vapor will be critical to fully understand the feedbacks in the climate system leading to global climate change. As yet, though the basics of the hydrological cycle are fairly well understood, we have very little comprehension of the complexity of the feedback loops.

[Our Emphasis]

In other words, they don’t want to admit how water vapour can act as a means for the planet to keep Global Cooling, Global warming, Climate Change, Global Cooling in check. They don’t know for certain about this crucial aspect of the issue. But those of the climate cult do know that if we don’t hand over control of our entire lives to them, entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by the year 2000, as in this report from the Associated Press:

U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked June 30, 1989

UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control. We all might have been too busy dealing with Y2K and the millennium, but entire nations being swept off the face of the earth most assuredly wouldn’t of escaped notice of everyone.

Of course the alarmism never stops with criticism of predictions of world-wide disasters being ‘too rosy’ as in this report from the New York times Nov. 18, 2007: Alarming UN report on climate change too rosy, many say:

VALENCIA, Spain — The blunt and alarming final report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released here by UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, may well underplay the problem of climate change, many experts and even the report’s authors admit.

The IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, an engineer and economist from India, acknowledged the new trajectory. “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late,” Pachauri said. “What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”

Okay, they were over blown about having to do something that ‘in the next two to three years’, but it’s a certainty that in 2009 Barack Obama had only had four years to save the world from The Guardian:

President ‘has four years to save Earth’
Sun 18 Jan 2009 00.01 GMT

Barack Obama has only four years to save the world. That is the stark assessment of Nasa scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen who last week warned only urgent action by the new president could halt the devastating climate change that now threatens Earth. Crucially, that action will have to be taken within Obama’s first administration.

Lest anyone think that since the world ended a few years ago that it would have stopped the predictions of doom, other lists have been since published here and here.

The problem for the Global Cooling cult is that they keep on predicting disaster in a few years and they keep on coming up short. But, we’re not supposed to notice the decades of alarmism, we’re not supposed to rhetorical sleight of hand of the change from Global Cooling in the 1970’s to Global warming when that didn’t happen to Climate Change when that also didn’t happen as well. We’re not supposed to notice the extraordinary claims that demand extraordinary evidence. Most certainly we’re not supposed to notice that these claims that demand immediate action requires that we all give up our Liberty to the very people making the demands.

The takeaway.

Perhaps this epic practical joke on the Socialist-Left will serve as a prime indicator to the rational majority to reject the Green New Deal and the rest of their ancient collectivist ideas. That finally enough people will recognise their socialist snake oil for what it truly is, a fraud of the highest order. It certainly has wrought enough destruction, leaving behind a body count in the millions to make that case.

Continue Reading


Dear proponents of limited government: It’s time to start speaking up now



Dear proponents of limited government Its time to start speaking up now

For nearly a year, I’ve given the Republican Party a pass for the most part. I left the party in 2016 and after pursuing a third party for over a year, life pulled me back from the fray. When things calmed down (thank you, Lord!), I made a conscious decision to be lighter in my condemnation of the GOP as a whole for two very important reason.

First, there were signs of life in the party. They were faint, but it seemed at times to be possible for the party to do some good things like eliminating bureaucracy, cutting taxes, promoting a business-friendly atmosphere, and making proper foreign policy moves. They were far from good, let alone ideal, but I thought if we could keep pressing them towards smart moves on the border, gun owners’ rights, Obamacare, Planned Parenthood, and other areas in which they’ve failed so far, perhaps their decent work on taxes and regulations could be translated into other areas.

Second, the Democrats started to terrify me. Seriously, I’ve been contemplating moving the family to a remote area of Montana and going off the grid before the Democrats got their hands on enough power to do the damage they’ve been promising to do for the last year or so. I wasn’t one who thought Bill Clinton was a radical or Barack Obama was the antichrist. I always thought Clinton was a run-of-the-mill Democrat who could do some damage but not much, while Obama was an ambitious progressive who was nevertheless too smart to think he could make socialism a thing. Since the 2016 election, we’ve seen the Democratic Party go from progressives with bad ideas to far-left radicals who think the only way to go is to destroy America in a glorious explosion of their new Communist Manifesto, also known as the Green New Deal.

This site is 100% crowdfunded by readers like YOU. Please consider donating and keeping the right side of news going strong.

Now that the GOP has demonstrated a toxic mixture of incompetence and false adherence to limiting government with their latest omnibus debacle, it’s time to return to my old stance of refusing to accept the binary choice. When choosing between bad and worse, it’s only a valid choice if the less-terrible option won’t kill you as well. The binary choice between hanging and drowning isn’t really a binary choice, and neither is the choice between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.

There are three things that must be done going forward.

  1. Conservatives, Federalists, and Classical Liberals must find a way to united against the two party system. Whether that’s the formation of a new party (which I failed to do once already), a grassroots effort similar to the Tea Party (which worked for a short time before finding irrelevance), or some other method of unification against the putrid system that has engulfed nearly all of Washington DC, we have to find an outlet.
  2. NOQ Report will become a hub for bringing these thoughts together. This is something that I’ve found success with when I ran The New Americana. Now, it’s time to collect the voices of reason once again.
  3. Prayer. Lots of prayer.

I’ve reached out to some of my conservative and federalist friends. Over the next few weeks, we’ll see what can be done to make DC listen. In the meantime, be discerning and prepare to abandon the tribal mindset that has plagued this nation for too long.


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading


Veronique de Rugy: Green New Deal would be hundreds of TRILLIONS of dollars in federal commitment



Veronique de Rugy Green New Deal would be hundreds of TRILLIONS of dollars in federal commitment

If there’s a word that’s not necessarily negative one could use to describe the Green New Deal, it would be “ambitious.” The deal has so much wrapped into it that it’s hard to tell which components are designed to save the environment and which ones are intended to destroy the economy.

Estimates put costs for the “green side” of the resolution at somewhere between $12-$20 trillion. Then, there’s the Medicare-for-All component that is estimated at $32 trillion over a decade.

And that’s just the start.

This isn’t just a “green” deal. It’s a hodgepodge of policy proposals that include massively growing the welfare state, inserting government even more into the job markets, and a universal basic income that they refuse to actually call a universal basic income. The much-maligned FAQ that was posted and quickly removed from the website of sponsor Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) mentioned paying people who were unable or even “unwilling” to work.

“Even in the best case scenario where you substitute a UBI for all the other forms of welfare, it’s insane,” said Veronique de Rugy, Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, on ReasonTV.

But here’s the problem. The Green New Deal doesn’t substitute a universal basic income for other welfare programs. In the Green New Deal, the programs recommended are supposed to be additions, not substitutions.

“It’s a really hard system to support even in its ideal form,” de Rugy continued. “Then there’s this Green New Deal version which doesn’t even seem to entertain this notion of actually substituting for all the rest, so it’s on top of what we have now.”

This site is 100% crowdfunded by readers like YOU. Please consider donating and keeping the right side of news going strong.

The real question we need to ask is whether or not the Democratic Party is actually going to support this. In its current form, the Green New Deal is a fantasy, and perhaps that’s what the more-sane Democrats are shooting for by supporting it. By giving it their attention now, they can work their way down to more reasonable proposals for everything from environmental protection to job creation programs to different versions of socialism.

In other words, they may be using the hyper-leftism of the Green New Deal as a gateway to get to the palatable leftism of what’s quickly becoming mainstream socialism.

The Green New Deal shouldn’t scare conservatives because it can’t happen. What should concern us is the end result negotiated down from this starting point. Given the GOP’s negotiating track record lately, we don’t know what we’re going to get when the Green New Deal is trimmed down to reality.


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading



Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report