I ran across this "infographic" claiming to explain the Inflation Reduction Act. Let's see whether it manages to say anything whatsoever of substance. Click the previous link or following image for the source. I have also done my best to transcribe it below in case anything happens to the image file or source link.
01 IN A NUTSHELL
It will lower costs for healthcare, medicine, and energy bills by making giant corporations pay the taxes they owe.
It will also reduce the deficit, and create good paying jobs
Please. We've all seen grandiose political promises of lowered costs through political intervention. How will this bill bring about these changes? Why do politicians keep proclaiming more taxation and enforcement will help the economy? This "nutshell" is just nuts. This neither reduces inflation of the money supply nor boosts the economy to lower prices for the goods most demanded by consumers. In fact, none of the claims made by the proponents of this bill demonstrate any understanding of the real causes of inflation.
02 LOWER HEALTHCARE COSTS
It will save millions of Americans $800 per year on healthcare.
It will also allow Medicare to negotiate medication prices and put a limit on out-of-pocket costs.
See above. How will this bill perform as advertised, and what new costs will it impose behind the scenes? We need pricing transparency and consumer choice. Neither more government bureaucracy nor the current corporate cartel bureaucracy offer a solution. The current system of corporate protectionism is deeply flawed, but price controls are not a real solution.
03 LOWER ENERGY COSTS
It will save millions of Americans $500 per year on energy bills.
And it will make clean energy options more accessible with a focus on low-income consumers
Once again, we have a promise of savings while government funnels money into favored industries. "Clean" energy never seems to involve nuclear, but wind and solar are simply not economically viable for much of the planet, and each have their own pollution concerns. Meanwhile, nuclear power can be scaled up or down for centralized or distributed power generation, plants can be designed with modern fail-safe systems, and waste can be dramatically reduced.
It's not a flashy show for the public, though, and politics is built on anything but scientific and economic rigor.
04 CORPORATIONS PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE
It makes greedy corporations making over $1 Billion in profits pay a 15% tax.
With no tax increases for any of us making under $400,000
There is no "fair share" of taxation. It is systemic expropriation of wealth from the productive economy. Government subsidies ensure waste, corruption, and abuse in any industry as incentives shift from satisfying the consumer to gaining political favor to prosper.
What are the current tax brackets for corporations? How will imposing new costs on businesses boost the economy and fight inflation? Income tax was sold to the public in 1913 as only ever applying to the top 3% or so of the population. Now, the IRS wants reports from every transaction over $600 in our massively-devalued fiat money. This enforcement will hit the poor hardest.
The greed of government is the greatest danger to us all. Time to end the scam altogether and cut both the taxes and accompanying protectionism for crony corporations instead.
05 JOB GROWTH
It will create 1.5 million good-paying jobs in communities across the country in: construction, clean manufacturing, transportation, clean energy, and more.
How will this lead to job growth? Just asserting it is meaningless drivel. Government cannot produce without first taking wealth out of the economy and filtering it through innumerable tax-feeders before passing it along to whatever they plan. This isn't job creation, it is plunder. Meanwhile, the taxed economy loses the potential real benefits of spending wealth where it satisfies real individual wants and needs directly.
Frédéric Bastiat debunked this line of justification for political intervention in his 1848 essay, That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen, but the siren song of central planning lures suckers to destruction every generation.
06 ENERGY INDEPENDENCE
It will reduce our dependence on foreign oil by increasing the use of American-made energy sources like solar and wind power.
So we don't need to rely on countries like Russia, Saudi Arabia, and China
While foreign governments are definitely corrupt and abusive, trade is an incentive to peace instead of war, and we need solidarity with the people of foreign lands instead of government belligerence.
If energy should be domestic, solar and wind power are not a panacea. Nuclear, coal, and oil are essential for real energy independence, at least in the short term. Cheap, widely-available energy is the fuel for a thriving economy. Alternative energy is an added cost, and must be developed organically instead of mandated in order to discover what works best.
No one favors pollution. Clean energy is a worthwhile goal, but political mandates are like saying everyone must have a Tesla tomorrow. Saying something in the political world doesn't make progress occur in the real world. It's a hard road, but liberty makes the journey easiest.
07 REDUCE INFLATION
The bill's deficit reduction policies paired with investments that lower healthcare, prescription drug, and energy costs, will help bring down inflation.
Central banking through the Federal Reserve with its fiat money, interest rate manipulation, and direct money supply inflation are the root cause of inflation. Any act which does not address this root cause is not even pretending to bring down inflation. Instead, this bill taxes, spends, further inflates the money supply, and imposes new costs and compliance hurdles on people who are already struggling.
When have government program budget forecasts ever been accurate? It always costs more and delivers less. That is why they can't fund their schemes voluntarily.
The false prophets at United Today Stronger Tomorrow explain nothing and promise everything. Their infographic propaganda demonstrates only hollow claims. his kind of zero-sum game where our futures are dictated by a political class is anti-human destruction masquerading as compassion. When this scheme fails as all others have before, it will be chalked up to reactionary adversaries and forces beyond their control, with the only conclusion that more government control is needed again.
There is hope, just not where the liars lead. Cryptocurrency, gray markets, and local connections are part of our real path forward. If you're not on Hive yet, I invite you to join through PeakD. If you use my referral link, I'll even delegate some Hive Power to help you get started.
It's a rather lovely, utopian like infographic, isn't it? It's promising everything the general populous has been asking for. Yet all I can think of is where's the part that says how they will accomplish this?
Lower healthcare costs seems to go against all those companies who are basically funding the government, so I don't see that happening. Maybe there will be a small drop in costs initially to make it look like they've achieved something, then it will just creep back to how it was.
While I realise "clean energy" in the form of wind, solar and hydro isn't going to actually be able to replace what we currently have in place, I'm curious as to why people are saying we should reconsider nuclear power for clean energy. For me the risks of disposal of the waste still seem too high and Fukushima reminded us all that even the best fail-safes don't always work. I believe the radioactive waste has reached America's shores from that and they've been wanting to just flush what's left out into the ocean and have done with it. When nuclear power runs, it's certainly clean, but when it fails it's disastrous and there's nothing clean about it.
I've been reading about hydrogen power lately as a renewable energy option, but seeing that most hydrogen gas comes from fossil fuels in the first place, I'm not sure on the validity of that.
Modern reactors can be designed to fail in a safe state, and as I understand it,fuel can be re-enriched in breeder reactors, especially using thorium instead of uranium. And maybe building somewhere out of tidal wave reach would be a good idea. A lot has changed in the 50 years since Fukushima was built. The nuclear industry is already arguably the safest in the energy sector.
Political promises are just a more eloquent version of a child describing super powers. "And then he's gonna look at the rich people with his greed-rays to cure them of being mean, and the money machine will make everyone rich, and he'll make everything run on sunshine with his solar powers, and everyone lives happily ever after!"
What about the waste? Do they still have to keep it cooled for decades? I know South Australia wanted to use the North of the state as a dumping ground for it. "It'll bring lots of money into the state and create jobs". More like it will line the pockets of a very few people and 50 years down the line they'll have run out of money to keep managing the stuff.
Lol! Good description. I feel like you could write a children's book in that style.
"Spent" fuel is still highly radioactive. I would argue only government would waste that potential. Besides, how much of the horror stories are from bomb-making compared to power?
I can't say I've heard of horror stories from bomb making. I guess we only really hear about Chernobyl and Fukushima.
Look up the "demon core." Despite Fukushima, Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl, nuclear is still safer and less polluting than coal or natural gas per megawatt according to the last stats I read. When I have more time, I'll try to source that properly.
EDIT: Here's a link, although it requires signing in or using some kind of bypass method. It's one of several studies mentioned in this article, if you want more references.
!BEER
View or trade
BEER.Hey @jacobtothe, here is a little bit of
BEERfrom @eii for you. Enjoy it!Do you want to win SOME BEER together with your friends and draw the
BEERKING.