The "Green New Deal"

The Green New Deal has been introduced to Congress in the form of a non-binding resolution laying out a series of goals. ( Symbolism is important to these [people.) The specifics were in an online FAQ that appeared on Ocasio-Cortez’s website (but was later taken down.)  The website is instructive, offering an insight as to how these people think. (These are the non-environmental plans--the environmental plans are extensive and expensive...and extra).
Some of the objectives:

1. “a job with family-sustaining wages, family and medical leave, vacations, and retirement security”
2. “high-quality education, including higher education and trade schools”
3. “high-quality health care”
4. “safe, affordable, adequate housing”
5. “economic security to all who are unable or unwilling to work"

A rough cost estimate — which doesn’t include all of the promises listed in the FAQ (and, remember, does not include the environmental costs) --adds up to about $6.6 trillion a year. $6.6 TRILLION. That’s more than three times as much as the federal government collects now in tax revenue, and equal to about 34 percent of the U.S.’s entire gross domestic product. And that’s assuming no cost overruns. Total government spending already accounts for about 38 percent of the economy, so if no other programs were cut to pay for the Green New Deal, it could mean that almost three-quarters of the economy would be spent through the government. And this all without the promise that any of it would work. (Remember, for example, that the environmental plans, which are mainly "good intentions," all depend upon technologies we do not have or use and are funded by taxation upon people who do not exist.)

One of the dangers of the modern political scene is personified by Trump himself: Americans have become increasingly numb to the political declarations. While Trump is silly and loquacious, he is relatively philosophy-free; the Left is not. And, on occasion, the Left has the bad judgment to write their plans down.

These are arrogant, dangerous people with horrible, dangerous notions masquerading as ideas.

Sunday/Fisherman

In today's gospel, Christ preaches from a boat off the shore, then says to Simon the gospel's famous quote: "Put out into deep water and lower your nets for a catch." Commentators love the symbolism of it but, after the catch, Simon says something puzzling. He says, "Depart from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man."

Why would he say that?

Certainly, as the analysts say, Simon Peter, as a fisherman, may have been rightfully impressed. But enough to make a public confession?

Whatever happened, Simon Peter was more than impressed.

The Children of Mother Nature

The children of Mother Nature:

and

Aristotle's basic question of the nature of anything was "What is it for?"

The Deficiencies of Want

There is an old joke:
A:  Do you play the piano?
B:  No. But I would have done anything to learn.
A: Clearly not.



We are inundated with compilations of our preferences, what pollsters call our "wants," as if "wants" were not mere "desires." In most instances, such wants are wishes.

I want to fly first class; i.e. I wish I could.

I want a Mercedes CLS 53; I wish I could get one.

So the question, Do you want to build a wall on the border of Mexico? or, "Do you want Universal Health Care?" has one answer if you are paying for it, another if you are not.

Only the free market reveals genuine wants.

Realization

The number pi, a constant in math and, like the Pythagorean theorem, an example of the universality of forms, was not arrived at by insight.

The ancient Babylonians calculated the area of a circle by taking 3 times the square of its radius, which gave a value of pi = 3. One Babylonian tablet (ca. 1900–1680 BC) indicates a value of 3.125 for pi, which is a closer approximation.

In the Rhind Papyrus (ca.1650 BC) the Egyptians calculated the area of a circle by a formula that gave the approximate value of 3.1605 for pi.

And from the Old Testament: "Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits the height thereof; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about." (II Chronicles 4:2) Some authors claim this passage as evidence that the ancient Hebrews used a value of 3 for pi. This passage occurs as part of a description of the building of Solomon's temple, and all the measurements in it are very round numbers, so perhaps this was not meant to be more than a rough estimate.

Archimedes of Syracuse (287–212 BC), one of the greatest mathematicians of the ancient world, approximated the area of a circle by using multiple polygons of known areas and circumference. Archimedes knew that he had not found the value of pi but only an approximation within those limits. In this way, Archimedes showed that pi is between 3 1/7 and 3 10/71.

A universal truth was found step by step, approximation after approximation, over millennia. Yet, even at the beginning, its existence was known.

Gender Bias

Women have been the majority on U.S. college campuses for about 40 years. At the University of Michigan, women dominate in 17 out of 21 fields of study, with business and engineering being the only areas where women are underrepresented. Yet more than 50 programs at UM discriminate based on gender in favor of women.




So…..the reason for preferential treatment for women is....what?

% GDP

Carol asked about comparative government spending and GDP numbers.

In evaluating these countries, it must be kept in mind that the U.S. has a very significant military budget that others do not have.
Here are the ratios of government spending to GDP in some major economies:

Germany: 43.9% (2017)
Britain: 41.1% (2017)
Canada: 40.8% (2017)
Australia: 36.2% (2015)
Switzerland 34.0% (2015)


Government spending in the United States was last recorded at 37.8 percent of GDP in 2016 . Government Spending To GDP in the United States averaged 36.57 percent from 1970 until 2016, reaching an all time high of 43 percent in 2009 and a record low of 33 percent in 1973.

In fiscal 2017, the federal government spent $4 trillion. Of that, 40 percent — $1.5 trillion, or 8 percent of our gross domestic product — went to Social Security and Medicare.

Carol was asking specifically about Federal outlays.

Total Federal outlays are a net figure, consisting of gross payments minus the amount of business-like collections and intragovernmental transactions, in a given fiscal year. (excluding trusts like social security)