Time for a carbon tax

[RandomGuy]

Do economists all favour a carbon tax?


LAST week, a Twitter conversation broke out among a few economists concerning whether any serious economists opposed a carbon tax. No, concluded the tweeters, but Tyler Cowen begged to differ. Mr Cowen writes that he personally favours a carbon tax but can imagine a number of principled reasons other economists might not.

Why would we expect economists to support a carbon tax? It's very close to the economic ideal. Global warming is a phenomenon associated with emissions of greenhouse gases over and above natural cycles—largely those resulting from the burning of carbon fuels humans have dug up out of the ground. We expect normal economic activity to maximise social good because each individual balances costs and benefits when making economic decisions. Carbon emissions represent a negative externality. When an individual takes an economic action with some fossil-fuel energy content—whether running a petrol-powered lawnmower, turning on a light, or buying bunch of grapes—that person balances their personal benefits against the costs of the action. The cost to them of the climate change resulting from the carbon content of that decisions, however, is effectively zero and is rationally ignored. The decision to ignore carbon content, when aggregated over the whole of humanity, generates huge carbon dioxide emissions and rising global temperatures.

The economic solution is to tax the externality so that the social cost of carbon is reflected in the individual consumer's decision. The carbon tax is an elegant solution to a complicated problem, which allows the everyday business of consumer decision making to do the work of emission reduction. It's by no means the only economically sensible policy response to the threat of climate change, but it is the one we'd expect economists to embrace.

Mr Cowen argues for caution on this point for several reasons. A carbon tax will be less effective if it's not universally applied, potentially leading to carbon leakage to countries with looser environmental rules. He worries that where carbon fees have been applied innovation has not been quick to respond. He fears that good substitutes for carbon fuels don't exist, especially in the transport sector, and worries that higher fuel prices might harm the economy. He suggests that a "green-energy subsidies first" policy might make more sense, and he talks about distributional and rent-seeking costs of the policy.

I think the weakness of these arguments is telling, and it's not surprising that Mr Cowen continues to support a carbon tax. What if a carbon price doesn't immediately drive emission reductions? Then the tax will be an effective revenue raiser, much more efficient than a tax on income. Either way you win. The worry about carbon leakage is a real one, but this dynamic also implies that each new country that prices carbon increases the benefit of existing carbon-price policies in other countries.

Substitution in the transport sector is somewhat problematic, but a viable carbon price would not have much effect on petrol costs at the outset. A carbon tax of $30 per tonne of CO2 would only increase petrol costs by about 9 cents per gallon. This is dwarfed by moves in the market price of petrol. The vulnerability of the American economy to oil shocks argues for an increased tax on petrol, but that's a different policy debate. Mr Cowen seems to ignore the fact that oil is just one small part of the American economy's fossil-fuel use.

A carbon tax would attract rent-seeking, but arguably less than alternative policies, like subsidies or a cap-and-trade system. Importantly, money spent on adaptation or post hoc climate-disaster relief is also subject to rent-seeking and corruption issues. Given that many poor countries with weak institutions are likely to feel the brunt of the impact of global warming first and are likely to be poor spenders of the aid money that will invariably flow, a carbon tax looks like one of the policy solutions best suited to the minimisation of these ills.

Mr Cowen doesn't mention what I see as one of the most important roles of a carbon tax: as a check on other ill-advised programmes. A carbon tax would have quickly made the net dirtiness of corn-based ethanol obvious (by helping to offset subsidies and making corn-based ethanol more expensive). It would be more difficult to roll out and sustain such misguided programmes with a carbon tax, and the ones that went ahead anyway would do less damage. A carbon tax is also the easiest way to capture whatever low-hanging emission-reduction fruit is out there. Right now, consumers are generally indifferent between similarly-priced goods with wildly different carbon profiles. A carbon tax encourages consumers to realise the easy carbon gains available from switching to good low-carbon substitutes wherever they exist.

The biggest problem with a carbon tax is that America's government seems unable to deliver one. Attitudes may change, however, and near-uniform economist support for the policy (probably) doesn't hurt its odds of eventual passage.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/09/climate-policy

The weakest point in climate change skeptics arguments is that taking steps to reduce GHG emissions will be catastrophic to the economy.

The overall consensus of economists is that taking moderate steps such as a fairly small carbon tax would have benefits that would outweigh the costs.

I would argue, and have, that even were the causes of the current warming trends turn out to not have any manmade push at all, these kinds of solutions would benefit our economy greatly in the long run.

[TDMVPDPOY]

and what are they going to use the carbon tax revenue on?? seems like another tax policy dump on the citizens to raise taxes for failed funding policys...

australia and nz currently has the tax, dunno why, but they dont emit much carbon to justify having this stupid tax.....its the big economies and industrulized manufactuers that should be paying the tax...aka china, india, the west...

another stupid tax that will be passed onto the consumer...nothing to see here...

[Borat Sagyidev]

We need something like 92 square miles to power the entire country with solar panels. That of course could be supplemented with wind and energy storage with air pressure as done in some places already in the south.

We already have the best 2 electric vehicle companies in the world, Tesla and GM.

A lot of people would lose a lot of money, especially in the UK. We have to get around that issue.

[Th'Pusher]

and what are they going to use the carbon tax revenue on?? seems like another tax policy dump on the citizens to raise taxes for failed funding policys...

australia and nz currently has the tax, dunno why, but they dont emit much carbon to justify having this stupid tax.....its the big economies and industrulized manufactuers that should be paying the tax...aka china, india, the west...

another stupid tax that will be passed onto the consumer...nothing to see here...

I' pretty sure Australia emits more carbon on a per capita basis than any other country.

[mavs>spurs]

pretty sure that carbon levels are already at a historically low level. don't believe everything al gore tells you.

[baseline bum]

I don't like the idea of us implementing a carbon tax at all. It would be a great solution if it could be done worldwide, but I don't see it making any sense here. China and India now put more CO2 in the air than we do, and their emissions are going to start dwarfing ours as they're experiencing rapid growth. Our best hope is to lead the charge on things like solar to make them economical so that China and India will want to adopt them. Obviously China doesn't give a shit about the rest of the world when you see how they treat their own, so the pocketbook is the only way to lead them. It would suck to basically to subsidize their asses under this plan, but we're going to run into some pretty major diminishing returns with a carbon tax that extends though only our own borders.

[DarrinS]

Do economists all favour a carbon tax?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/09/climate-policy

The weakest point in climate change skeptics arguments is that taking steps to reduce GHG emissions will be catastrophic to the economy.

The overall consensus of economists is that taking moderate steps such as a fairly small carbon tax would have benefits that would outweigh the costs.

I would argue, and have, that even were the causes of the current warming trends turn out to not have any manmade push at all, these kinds of solutions would benefit our economy greatly in the long run.


Just keep an eye on the economy of California because they have already decided to "save the planet" with their own legislation.

[CosmicCowboy]

I don't like the idea of us implementing a carbon tax at all. It would be a great solution if it could be done worldwide, but I don't see it making any sense here. China and India now put more CO2 in the air than we do, and their emissions are going to start dwarfing ours as they're experiencing rapid growth. Our best hope is to lead the charge on things like solar to make them economical so that China and India will want to adopt them. Obviously China doesn't give a shit about the rest of the world when you see how they treat their own, so the pocketbook is the only way to lead them. It would suck to basically to subsidize their asses under this plan, but we're going to run into some pretty major diminishing returns with a carbon tax that extends though only our own borders.

Agreed. A unilateral carbon tax would be economic suicide.

[RandomGuy]

I don't like the idea of us implementing a carbon tax at all. It would be a great solution if it could be done worldwide, but I don't see it making any sense here. China and India now put more CO2 in the air than we do, and their emissions are going to start dwarfing ours as they're experiencing rapid growth. Our best hope is to lead the charge on things like solar to make them economical so that China and India will want to adopt them. Obviously China doesn't give a shit about the rest of the world when you see how they treat their own, so the pocketbook is the only way to lead them. It would suck to basically to subsidize their asses under this plan, but we're going to run into some pretty major diminishing returns with a carbon tax that extends though only our own borders.

Hmm, let's start with the factual error. India puts out less then half the co2 that the US did in 2008.

Let's go with the "subsidszing" of other countries. A carbon tax in this country would not meet the definition of a subsidy. It would reduce our demand for fossil fuels overall, and in that regard make it cheaper for those two countries to use fossil fuels, given supply/demand. It would also make them more dependent on those fuels, which, given depletion factors, would harm them in the long run, just as they would anyone else who made their economy vulnerable to declines in supply.

Lastly, a carbon tax would make forms of solar/wind in this country more economically competitive. Simple economies of scale would do the rest, leading to a shift from oil/gas/coal to those renewables, with all the R & D that goes with it, to improve efficiency/output per unit of cost.

If you want to encourage that, then the people who study this stuff say that a carbon tax, even if just within the US, would go a long way towards making that happen.

[RandomGuy]

and what are they going to use the carbon tax revenue on?? seems like another tax policy dump on the citizens to raise taxes for failed funding policys...

australia and nz currently has the tax, dunno why, but they dont emit much carbon to justify having this stupid tax.....its the big economies and industrulized manufactuers that should be paying the tax...aka china, india, the west...

another stupid tax that will be passed onto the consumer...nothing to see here...

It would indeed. But as noted in the OP the effects would not be all that severe.

The benefits, in terms of mitigating the risks of AGW, and the side benefit of encouraging innovation in renewables, make that worth the cost, IMO.

[baseline bum]

I meant subsidizing the development of solar and other cleaner sources (perhaps Hydrogen?) so that it can be cost-efficiently used by developing nations (otherwise they won't use it). I didn't mean India on it's own was putting out more CO2 than the US: I meant India and China together (I should have been more clear on that).

[RandomGuy]

pretty sure that carbon levels are already at a historically low level. don't believe everything al gore tells you.

http://co2now.org/images/stories/widgets/co2_widget_brundtland_600_graph.gif

[101A]

Too much ice tied up in the caps. Too much land covered by ice to support a human population that will exceed 12 Billion at the turn of the next century. Biggest problems we're going to have then? Not some Beach front condos, or even Manhattan underwater - the problems gonna be food and water.

I'm not going to argue about weather global warming happening or not, or whether we're causing it. I don't care. I don't think heating things up is a bad idea. Where do people live? SoCal or Alaska? If we cold make Alaska more like SoCal, why the hell wouldn't we?

Against the tax.

[RandomGuy]

I meant subsidizing the development of solar and other cleaner sources (perhaps Hydrogen?) so that it can be cost-efficiently used by developing nations (otherwise they won't use it). I didn't mean India on it's own was putting out more CO2 than the US: I meant India and China together (I should have been more clear on that).

China actually puts out more than the US by itself, according to the data I looked at.

No need to directly subsidize solar/wind/renewables, when you make their alternatives more expensive.

Although taking the tax money and using it on R & D and technology incubator areas would probably help too.

[baseline bum]

I don't think that R&D money should come from a highly regressive tax on energy; not in this country with its lousy public transportation infrastructure.

[RandomGuy]

Too much ice tied up in the caps. Too much land covered by ice to support a human population that will exceed 12 Billion at the turn of the next century. Biggest problems we're going to have then? Not some Beach front condos, or even Manhattan underwater - the problems gonna be food and water.

I'm not going to argue about weather global warming happening or not, or whether we're causing it. I don't care. I don't think heating things up is a bad idea. Where do people live? SoCal or Alaska? If we cold make Alaska more like SoCal, why the hell wouldn't we?

Against the tax.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/World-Population-1800-2100.png/587px-World-Population-1800-2100.png

Best estimates are that world population will top at about 10bn.

Food and water will be fine, we will simply have to eat far less cows and other meat.

Even with some warming, land covered by ice is minimal compared to overall land masses. Humans dont' take up that much space anyway.

Heating things up by itslef isn't bad, it is the changes in weather patterns and the potential for the loss of a lot of real estate in coastal cities that should concern anyone.

Just ask the farmers/ranchers in Texas whether it was the heat or the lack of water that is putting them out of business. The latter is more likely to be given as the cause.

There is only a finite amount of gas/coal/oil and a lot of the easy to get to stuff is gone. The sooner we face the facts that the sources of energy we currently rely on are going to get less and less efficient, the better, IMO.

[101A]

Meh.

I like meat.

Against the tax. Gonna buy a bunch of property a couple of miles inland; beach front in a few decades. I'll make a mint.

[RandomGuy]

I'm not going to argue about weather global warming happening or not, or whether we're causing it. I don't care. I don't think heating things up is a bad idea. Where do people live? SoCal or Alaska? If we cold make Alaska more like SoCal, why the hell wouldn't we?

The last thing is that the warming we are talking about would never make Alaska like SoCal, even at the largest estimates.

[RandomGuy]

Meh.

I like meat.

Against the tax. Gonna buy a bunch of property a couple of miles inland; beach front in a few decades. I'll make a mint.

Honestly, probably not a bad bet, depending on where you buy. IMO.

[TeyshaBlue]

It would indeed. But as noted in the OP the effects would not be all that severe.

The benefits, in terms of mitigating the risks of AGW, and the side benefit of encouraging innovation in renewables, make that worth the cost, IMO.

I'm not quite sure there's any mitigation to be had when the extra cost can, and will be, passed directly onto the consumer.
If we want to tax for R&D, it would be much more straightforward to do just that rather than saddle a tax onto the bucking bronc of AGW.

[Wild Cobra]

Any of you who want to pay a carbon tax can always write a check to the IRS.

[boutons_deux]

everybody here and on the planet just continue on the same trajectory,
eyes closed,
full speed ahead,
100% comfort zone,
everything's gonna be alright.

[RandomGuy]

I'm not quite sure there's any mitigation to be had when the extra cost can, and will be, passed directly onto the consumer.
If we want to tax for R&D, it would be much more straightforward to do just that rather than saddle a tax onto the bucking bronc of AGW.

You think the extra costs of droughts, floods, and other disruption won't be passed on to the consumer?

You did read the OP, yes?

[TeyshaBlue]

You think the extra costs of droughts, floods, and other disruption won't be passed on to the consumer?

You did read the OP, yes?

Of course I did. That doesn't change the fact that a miniscule tax, in the bigger scheme of things, will do just about zippo to address AGW. The intertia will simply be passed right on down to the consumer....not to a solution set for carbon consumption. Pretty thoughts tho. Not believable for a moment.

[MannyIsGod]

pretty sure that carbon levels are already at a historically low level. don't believe everything al gore tells you.

Um, what?

[MannyIsGod]

Too much ice tied up in the caps. Too much land covered by ice to support a human population that will exceed 12 Billion at the turn of the next century. Biggest problems we're going to have then? Not some Beach front condos, or even Manhattan underwater - the problems gonna be food and water.

I'm not going to argue about weather global warming happening or not, or whether we're causing it. I don't care. I don't think heating things up is a bad idea. Where do people live? SoCal or Alaska? If we cold make Alaska more like SoCal, why the hell wouldn't we?

Against the tax.

If Alaska was suddenly the climate of the great plains and the great plains were suddenly like the southwest how long do you think it would take us to switch over to farming in Alaska? In the meantime what would you do for food production?

AGW definitely has the capacity to make some places throughout the world more suitable for food production but that doesn't mean we have the infrastructure in place to take advantage of that for a long time. You don't shift a nation's inertia on a dime so look at the situation in such simple terms is not an honest assessment of the way things would play out.

[MannyIsGod]

Now all that being said, a Carbon Tax won't ever pass - at least not in a an way it should work - so any discussion on the subject is a purely academic one.

[Wild Cobra]

The weakest point in climate change skeptics arguments is that taking steps to reduce GHG emissions will be catastrophic to the economy.

The overall consensus of economists is that taking moderate steps such as a fairly small carbon tax would have benefits that would outweigh the costs.

I would argue, and have, that even were the causes of the current warming trends turn out to not have any manmade push at all, these kinds of solutions would benefit our economy greatly in the long run.
I would argue that once a moderate system is in place, there is nothing to keep it from becoming punitive.

[Wild Cobra]

pretty sure that carbon levels are already at a historically low level. don't believe everything al gore tells you.
I hope you aren't stupid enough to really believe that, unless you are referring to a period on earth's development long before it has matured to these last million years or so.

Yes, Al Gore lies with his information. However, CO2 levels are increasing. At least argue with the factual data.

I am simply one who disagrees with those who say CO2 warms as much as they claim, but it does cause some minor warming. Look at the below graph. If CO2 caused as much warming as it is claimed to, then why don't we see a distinct change in temperature as CO2 started climbing 7,000 years ago? Notice that 12,000 years ago, CO2 started climbing with temperature increases and lagged the temperature.

I will contend that the rise in CO2 7,000 years ago is attributed to more life flourishing on earth and that CO2 is more dependent on output and equilibrium with the ocean and plant life. Ocean temperature changes that equilibrium between the atmosphere and oceans, and the atmosphere only contains about 2% carbon as the ocean does. It takes very little average ocean temperature change to make a dramatic change in atmospheric CO2.

See Henry's Law, and how temperature affects solubility of gasses in liquids.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/TemperatureandCO2overthelast1200-2.jpg (http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/TemperatureandCO2overthelast12000ye.jpg)

[mavs>spurs]

http://co2now.org/images/stories/widgets/co2_widget_brundtland_600_graph.gif

i'm talking about big picture, historically in earth's history. i'm pretty sure that today carbon only makes up a fraction of a % of the air composition

[mavs>spurs]

I hope you aren't stupid enough to really believe that, unless you are referring to a period on earth's development long before it has matured to these last million years or so.

Yes, Al Gore lies with his information. However, CO2 levels are increasing. At least argue with the factual data.

I am simply one who disagrees with those who say CO2 warms as much as they claim, but it does cause some minor warming. Look at the below graph. If CO2 caused as much warming as it is claimed to, then why don't we see a distinct change in temperature as CO2 started climbing 7,000 years ago? Notice that 12,000 years ago, CO2 started climbing with temperature increases and lagged the temperature.

I will contend that the rise in CO2 7,000 years ago is attributed to more life flourishing on earth and that CO2 is more dependent on output and equilibrium with the ocean and plant life. Ocean temperature changes that equilibrium between the atmosphere and oceans, and the atmosphere only contains about 2% carbon as the ocean does. It takes very little average ocean temperature change to make a dramatic change in atmospheric CO2.

See Henry's Law, and how temperature affects solubility of gasses in liquids.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/TemperatureandCO2overthelast1200-2.jpg (http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/TemperatureandCO2overthelast12000ye.jpg)

temperature doesn't seem to correlate with CO2 levels at all imho

[Wild Cobra]

temperature doesn't seem to correlate with CO2 levels at all imho
That's my point. CO2 equilibrium between the oceans and atmosphere is dependent on temperature. As CO2 increases, the carbon levels of both will increase at a 50:1 ratio with the oceans absorbing 50 times that of the atmosphere. As temperature increases, the oceans will release CO2 until equilibrium is established. As temperatures decrease, the oceans will absorb CO2 until equilibrium is established.

[Big P]

If all these bullshit green businesses were were such a sure thing, the private sector would have already been all over the different viable verticals. As it is, the technology does not exist yet, or it is too expensive to introduce these "green" options to the average joe/jane. Notice that it's the government throwing our tax money down the green rat hole. obummer and gore can stick the carbon tax up their ass.

[Wild Cobra]

If all these bullshit green businesses were were such a sure thing, the private sector would have already been all over the different viable verticals. As it is, the technology does not exist yet, or it is too expensive to introduce these "green" options to the average joe/jane. Notice that it's the government throwing our tax money down the green rat hole. obummer and gore can stick the carbon tax up their ass.
Yep. Throwing our money away at such rates, we are throwing our children's future money away.

[MannyIsGod]

i'm talking about big picture, historically in earth's history. i'm pretty sure that today carbon only makes up a fraction of a % of the air composition

SMH. So you're talking completely out of context then with irrelevant information? Good job! It amazes me the stupid shit people spew on this subject.

[MannyIsGod]

Man, remember when the free market gave us such great advances like the internet and computing? Its a good thing government never did anything to advance technology because the free market has got that shit covered!

[Parker2112]

Do economists all favour a carbon tax?



http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/09/climate-policy

The weakest point in climate change skeptics arguments is that taking steps to reduce GHG emissions will be catastrophic to the economy.

The overall consensus of economists is that taking moderate steps such as a fairly small carbon tax would have benefits that would outweigh the costs.

I would argue, and have, that even were the causes of the current warming trends turn out to not have any manmade push at all, these kinds of solutions would benefit our economy greatly in the long run.


Putting your taxes into government-program-solutions is like storing your drinking water in a peice of cheescloth. By the time you need it, the best you can do is wring out a few drops. The bulk of it is wasted over the heads of politicians, waste, and other failed programs.

Constructing a global scheme exposes your tax dollars to siphoning by politicians/criminals the world over.

Even if we are warming, more failed/wasteful/criminal/fraudulent/bribed government is not the answer.

Wake up and think for yourself RG. Are you so dim as to think government is the answer to every problem?


"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."
Ben "Smarter Than Random Guy" Franklin


At the end of the day, this is another excuse to grow government. It is another threat proposed to steer popular opinion, for the ultimate aim of directing commandeered tax dollars to the wealthiest of special interests...on a global scale no less.

Please see my signature on this issue.

[RandomGuy]

i'm talking about big picture, historically in earth's history. i'm pretty sure that today carbon only makes up a fraction of a % of the air composition

More specious logic.

The earth was at one time a molten glob.

Let's examine

"There was more CO2 in the air in the past than we have today, so therefore we should not worry about CO2 today, because current levels are within historical variability."

Let's trade that out for the fact that, at one point, the earth was a superheated molten blob.

"At one point in the past the temperature was 500 degrees Celsuis on the surface of our planet, so therefore we should not worry if it rises to 450 degrees tomorrow, because temperature would still be within historical variability."

The point is not where it was in the past, but the rate of change, coupled with the fact that most ecosystems have formed under very specific conditions, and fast changes are very disruptive.

[RandomGuy]

Putting your taxes into government-program-solutions is like storing your drinking water in a peice of cheescloth. By the time you need it, the best you can do is wring out a few drops. The bulk of it is wasted over the heads of politicians, waste, and other failed programs.

Constructing a global scheme exposes your tax dollars to siphoning by politicians/criminals the world over.

Even if we are warming, more failed/wasteful/criminal/fraudulent/bribed government is not the answer.

Wake up and think for yourself RG. Are you so dim as to think government is the answer to every problem?

At the end of the day, this is another excuse to grow government. It is another threat proposed to steer popular opinion, for the ultimate aim of directing commandeered tax dollars to the wealthiest of special interests...on a global scale no less.

Please see my signature on this issue.

Govenment is not the answer to every problem.

A carbon tax is not the singular answer here either. The free market is the ultimate mechanism for the change.

All a carbon tax does is change the selective pressure in the evolution of technology and energy usage, and allows the free market chaos to pick the best lower carbon solution.

That is why economists generally tend to favor it, because it is a way of doing this with the *least* disruption to the free market economies.

[Parker2112]

What do taxes have to do with a free market solution?

Taxes dont disrupt free markets?

Do you really think that a huge pool of tax dollars can be thrown at global warming, through all the corruption and inefficiency of government programs, and those dollars will: (a) be better spent than they would in free markets? (b) get er' done? (c) not, for the most part, find their way into the hands of criminals and thieves?

[RandomGuy]

What do taxes have to do with a free market solution?

Taxes dont disrupt free markets?

Do you really think that a huge pool of tax dollars can be thrown at global warming, through all the corruption and inefficiency of government programs, and those dollars will: (a) be better spent than they would in free markets? (b) get er' done? (c) not, for the most part, find their way into the hands of criminals and thieves?

I swear I could hear your mental gears grinding from here. It is kind of obvious that you aren't really following what I am saying, no offense.

Taxes, in and of themselves, do not usually "disrupt free markets", Mugabe-level stupidity notwithstanding.

I'm not saying we use a "huge pool of tax dollars" to throw at global warming. Hell, take the tax money and use it to trim taxes in other areas, what happens to those dollars isn't the point.

The point is that the negative externalities the free market fails to assign to carbon intensive fuels needs to be reflected in the market costs of those energy sources. The competitive mechanism of the free market will therefore assign more private capital to alternative, competing sources of energy not subject to those negative externalities.

Capiche?

[RandomGuy]

F-QA2rkpBSY

The free will drive us off the cliff of depletion, if no one is paying attention.

[Leetonidas]

Economically, taxes do fucking nothing. The government needs to quit the taxing, quit lengthening unemployment benefits, quit dildoing around in the economy basically and let the business cycle sort itself out. All meddling in it does is fuck it up more.

[RandomGuy]

Yeah, that's right. I broke out a boring youtube about basic mathmatics.

[RandomGuy]

Economically, taxes do fucking nothing. The government needs to quit the taxing, quit lengthening unemployment benefits, quit dildoing around in the economy basically and let the business cycle sort itself out. All meddling in it does is fuck it up more.

Quit the taxing and how do you get things like meat inspected? Airplanes?

No one interfered in the business cycle when monopolies like stanard oil retarded economic growth to enrich themselves.

[Parker2112]

I swear I could hear your mental gears grinding from here. It is kind of obvious that you aren't really following what I am saying, no offense.

Taxes, in and of themselves, do not usually "disrupt free markets", Mugabe-level stupidity notwithstanding.

I'm not saying we use a "huge pool of tax dollars" to throw at global warming. Hell, take the tax money and use it to trim taxes in other areas, what happens to those dollars isn't the point.

The point is that the negative externalities the free market fails to assign to carbon intensive fuels needs to be reflected in the market costs of those energy sources. The competitive mechanism of the free market will therefore assign more private capital to alternative, competing sources of energy not subject to those negative externalities.

Capiche?

You talk out of both sides of your mouth, just like [insert favorite politician's name here]. You give lipservice to a free market solution, then lay out your plan to tax your way to carbon reduction, and resort to insults when someone points out your short-sightedness, contradictory speak and overall bullshit.

Even when you try to pick your fumble back up, you just resort to rehashing the same argument you were spouting in '08. The one that al gore gave you in '06.

Get back with me when you can assure us all that tax dollars taken by force from American citizens and turned over to global authorities in an effort to combat excess carbon dioxide will (1) be administered efficiently, (2) not be subjected to misuse, and (3) save us all from certain doom.

[Parker2112]

Quit the taxing and how do you get things like meat inspected? Airplanes?

No one interfered in the business cycle when monopolies like stanard oil retarded economic growth to enrich themselves.

Monopolies like standard oil greased the political machine to rise to power/monopoly. And you want to increase the size of the machine.

How about State governments to inspect food.

As for airplanes, have you ever heard of privately managed self governing associations for safety, quality control, etc., with voluntary membership?

Here is one example that has been working for years: http://www.nelac-institute.org/

[RandomGuy]

You talk out of both sides of your mouth, just like [insert favorite politician's name here]. You give lipservice to a free market solution, then lay out your plan to tax your way to carbon reduction, and resort to insults when someone points out your short-sightedness, contradictory speak and overall bullshit.

Even when you try to pick your fumble back up, you just resort to rehashing the same argument you were spouting in '08. The one that al gore gave you in '06.

Get back with me when you can assure us all that tax dollars taken by force from American citizens and turned over to global authorities in an effort to combat excess carbon dioxide will (1) be administered efficiently, (2) not be subjected to misuse, and (3) save us all from certain doom.

Hmm. Didn't think I was being insulting, I just said I don't think you are really comprehending what I am trying to get across. I still don't, mostly because what I am saying points to something outside the field of view afforded by your limited worldview.

I have never advocated that any carbon tax would be "turned over to global authorities". I would not think that would be part of it.

Since the underlying premise of your requests #1 and #2 is moot, I will simply ignore them.

As for #3, such taxes would not save us from "certain doom", and no one said they would. They would simply nudge our energy profile away from carbon intensive energy sources, and on a bit more of a sustainable path.

As for the rest of the diatribe, I am somewhat flattered to be elevated to the villian in the little play you have constucted in your mind. I was not under the impression that I was all that important. I do find it kind of sad that anybody who might have a honest disagreement with you over public policy must be inherently evil. That must be a psychologically draining way to look at the world.

[RandomGuy]

Monopolies like standard oil greased the political machine to rise to power/monopoly. And you want to increase the size of the machine.

How about State governments to inspect food.

As for airplanes, have you ever heard of privately managed self governing associations for safety, quality control, etc., with voluntary membership?

Here is one example that has been working for years: http://www.nelac-institute.org/

State governments could inspect food, I guess. Does that mean that every state has to inspect food from every other state? Wouldn't that be hideously inefficient? What happens if one state chooses to have really lax standards, so they can funnel more food imports through their state?

I have heard of privately managed self-governing associations. Maybe it would be a good thing for airplane inspections. I am not sure if I fully trust entities with profit motives to police themselves, especially when it comes to matters of life and death, but hey, I am ultimately for what works.

[RandomGuy]

Monopolies like standard oil greased the political machine to rise to power/monopoly. And you want to increase the size of the machine.

That is not a solution to monopolies, that is a diatribe against government.

What is the "free market" solution to monopolies? Assume no intervention of government at all.

[Parker2112]

Hmm. Didn't think I was being insulting, I just said I don't think you are really comprehending what I am trying to get across. I still don't, mostly because what I am saying points to something outside the field of view afforded by your limited worldview.

I have never advocated that any carbon tax would be "turned over to global authorities". I would not think that would be part of it.

Since the underlying premise of your requests #1 and #2 is moot, I will simply ignore them.

As for #3, such taxes would not save us from "certain doom", and no one said they would. They would simply nudge our energy profile away from carbon intensive energy sources, and on a bit more of a sustainable path.

As for the rest of the diatribe, I am somewhat flattered to be elevated to the villian in the little play you have constucted in your mind. I was not under the impression that I was all that important. I do find it kind of sad that anybody who might have a honest disagreement with you over public policy must be inherently evil. That must be a psychologically draining way to look at the world.

Who would your taxes be collected by? What agencies would be created to administer them? How would they effectively manage carbon output on a global scale without global oversight? Who would ensure accountability? Who would have the authority to enforce global compliance?

Sounds like you haven't thought this through, much like RG/a politician. Complete sidestep of the issues is very typical of RG/ a politician. Some things never change.

[Parker2112]

That is not a solution to monopolies, that is a diatribe against government.

What is the "free market" solution to monopolies? Assume no intervention of government at all.

Not government. Federal govrnment.

And I can assure you that the federal government has been used by lobbyists to create far more monopolies than ever existed in a true free market.

Funny how you dont criticize Washington for its bias towards big campaign donors. I think your concern about the overreaching of monopolies is feigned.

[Parker2112]

A reliance on big federal government just make our tax dollars and our lawbooks easy pickins' for the controlling class.


As a country, we wish for an altruistic dictator to solve all our problems and make our lives a heaven on earth. In reality our tendency to turn over the reigns to government plays right into the hands of big business who steer policy and legislation in their favor. Worse, our civil liberties disappear as fast as the restraints.

[Parker2112]

the safest policy: make em lobby all 50 states. at least then they will have to make hard choices about which politicians to buy.

[RandomGuy]

Who would your taxes be collected by? What agencies would be created to administer them? How would they effectively manage carbon output on a global scale without global oversight? Who would ensure accountability? Who would have the authority to enforce global compliance?

Sounds like you haven't thought this through, much like RG/a politician. Complete sidestep of the issues is very typical of RG/ a politician. Some things never change.

The taxes would collected by the IRS, just like all taxes are.

No specific agency would be required to administer the funds, simply add them to the general fund. Hell, use the extra revenue to cut taxes elsewhere.

Managing carbon output on a global scale would simply require a general agreement among countries to moderate it, through whatever method the countries saw fit, I guess. Some countries might not even bother. The ultimate point is that you take some action. Given depletion factors of fossil fuels, and the development of new renewable technologies, simple efficiency gains and so forth, the countries that get out ahead of future fossil fuel price rises will have their own competitive disadvantages. If we take action, and they don't we get that advantage, and that is fine with me.

That would not require any global compliance measures, although if the problems get acute, then I guess countries could impose some sort of economic sanctions on the worst offenders, but I don't see that as needed or desirable.

What do I need to think through again? Seem like you are inferring a great deal of unnecessary structure to this that no one is advocating.

[RandomGuy]

Not government. Federal govrnment.

And I can assure you that the federal government has been used by lobbyists to create far more monopolies than ever existed in a true free market.

Funny how you dont criticize Washington for its bias towards big campaign donors. I think your concern about the overreaching of monopolies is feigned.

I haven't criticized Washington for its biasn towards big campaign donors, because it hasn't been brought up as relevant. I think it is shitty that is the way our government works, now that you ask. I would prefer it change.

I am not at all feigning concern about monopolies, absent governent intervention. Monopolies are nasty things that drag economic growth.

I noticed that, once again, you have failed to provide a free market solution to a large monopoly, and gone on another diatribe.

You don't really have a free market solution to monopolies, do you?

[RandomGuy]

the safest policy: make em lobby all 50 states. at least then they will have to make hard choices about which politicians to buy.

Easy solution. Same as what a large multinational criminal organization would come up with, absent an FBI to stop them.

Buy a really small state like wyoming or montana. Cheap and easy. Then use that state to ship out your goods and expand your base of operations.

If some state wants to make your products illegal, or taxes them too much, you can use the constitutions commerce clause to force that other state to legalize your product, be it substandard cheese, airplanes with weak airframes, or heroin.

[RandomGuy]

A reliance on big federal government just make our tax dollars and our lawbooks easy pickins' for the controlling class.

Take away the government, how exactly do you keep billionaires from preying on people with no money?

"Here is a subpeona, I am suing your for your land, for X reason. I would really like to build a golf course here, and the fact you won't sell to me has forced my hand. I hope you have enough money to pay lawyers for years to fight it."

[Parker2112]

Managing carbon output on a global scale would simply require a general agreement among countries to moderate it, through whatever method the countries saw fit, I guess. Some countries might not even bother. The ultimate point is that you take some action.

So you force taxpayers to pay into the till just for the sake of "taking some action?"

You act as if the money in their collective pockets is yours already.

And you aren't exactly winning over the confidence of taxpayers, who are already faced with huge debt and REAL ACUTE PROBLEMS (joblessness, homelessness, poverty, lack of health care, education cuts, etc.).

Sounds like you need to let this e-z bake some more.

[Parker2112]

I haven't criticized Washington for its biasn towards big campaign donors, because it hasn't been brought up as relevant. I think it is shitty that is the way our government works, now that you ask. I would prefer it change.

I am not at all feigning concern about monopolies, absent governent intervention. Monopolies are nasty things that drag economic growth.

I noticed that, once again, you have failed to provide a free market solution to a large monopoly, and gone on another diatribe.

You don't really have a free market solution to monopolies, do you?

The fact is, you cant prevent them. Through free markets or through big governments. But you damn sure cant argue that more government control is the answer.

My take at the best way to mitigate: diverse regulation through the states. Creates different market conditions in each state, thereby reducing the chance that any one corp will be able to dominate all markets.

[Parker2112]

Easy solution. Same as what a large multinational criminal organization would come up with, absent an FBI to stop them.

Buy a really small state like wyoming or montana. Cheap and easy. Then use that state to ship out your goods and expand your base of operations.

If some state wants to make your products illegal, or taxes them too much, you can use the constitutions commerce clause to force that other state to legalize your product, be it substandard cheese, airplanes with weak airframes, or heroin.

The first targets would be the governments with dense populations and the biggest economies. Such as NY, TX, CA. Probable DE.

The theory goes that state politicians function much closer to their constituents, thereby allowing the public to keep a better watch and sending them home when they stop rep'ing the people.

Washington politicians are much harder to keep reigned in, but conveniently gathered to make bribes and lobbying much easier.

[Parker2112]

Take away the government, how exactly do you keep billionaires from preying on people with no money?

"Here is a subpeona, I am suing your for your land, for X reason. I would really like to build a golf course here, and the fact you won't sell to me has forced my hand. I hope you have enough money to pay lawyers for years to fight it."

property rights in this hypo are a matter of state law.

[RandomGuy]

The fact is, you cant prevent them. Through free markets or through big governments. But you damn sure cant argue that more government control is the answer.

My take at the best way to mitigate: diverse regulation through the states. Creates different market conditions in each state, thereby reducing the chance that any one corp will be able to dominate all markets.

The sherman anti-trust act seems to have prevented monopolies from forming for the better part of a century. That is a "big government" solution.

Seems like big government has a solution to monopolies.

Creating different market conditions in each state seems to be a recipe for chaos and inefficiency.

Even then it just "reduces" the chances of a monopoly?

What is the solution if one arises anyway?

[RandomGuy]

property rights in this hypo are a matter of state law.

And you think a state legislature is going to be any more resistant to that billionaire or his company's lobbying? If we accept your assertions that governments are corrupt and inefficient, then please explain how state governments are immune to this.

Lastly, that is still calling for a governmental solution, not a free market one., But this is a tangent, unrelated to a carbon tax. Fun tho'.

[Parker2112]

Creating different market conditions in each state seems to be a recipe for chaos and inefficiency.

If you are trying to impress the hottest girl on the block, a ferrari comes in handy. if you are trying to take the family to HEB to pick up groceries...not so much.

We are enjoying a ferrari economy at the hands of daredevils. It hasnt been real good for families.

Some would call a volvo station wagon extremely inefficient when compared to a ferrari.

I think we need to pull the driver and change the car driving our economy. Enourmous economic horsepower has us heading straight for the edge of a cliff. We need a volvo at this point. My point: The inefficiency may slow down the looting of Americans and keep our kids safe to play another day.


Even then it just "reduces" the chances of a monopoly?

What is the solution if one arises anyway?

Im tired of the monopoly problem. Im not terribly interested, and dont have a ton of info on the subject tbh.

[Parker2112]

And you think a state legislature is going to be any more resistant to that billionaire or his company's lobbying? If we accept your assertions that governments are corrupt and inefficient, then please explain how state governments are immune to this.

Lastly, that is still calling for a governmental solution, not a free market one., But this is a tangent, unrelated to a carbon tax. Fun tho'.

State govts are not. But they are under a more watchful eye, not removed from their constituents, they are more readily available to the voters, and they are easier to be made to answer to the voting public than their Washington counterparts.

Consolidation of power serves up Americans to looting billionaires.


From the beginning, America was a hugely progressive experiment. A shiny new republic which bound the power of government out of suspicion for man's tendency toward a love of money and power..a new nation which unflinchingly favored the rights of individuals.

From that we have regressed backward, removing these controls on govt, eventually allowing criminals to steer our country completely opposite to the will of the electorate.

[RandomGuy]

Im tired of the monopoly problem. Im not terribly interested, and dont have a ton of info on the subject tbh.

That's kinda what I thought.

This is a real-world problem. Make believe fantasies like libertarian economic models don't tend to be very good at solving them.

This is not unlike Ron Paul himself.

Pretty words, but when you ask for actual substance, you get vague hand-wavy "solutions" or well-rehearsed diatribes against big bad gubmint.

Yet you ask that we scrap our entire societal and economic system to institute governance based on this emotionally appealing philosophy.

Sorry, not buying it. If it only takes me a few minutes to find the flaws in this system, it probably would end up creating more problems than it would solve.

[RandomGuy]

State govts are not. But they are under a more watchful eye, not removed from their constituents, they are more readily available to the voters, and they are easier to be made to answer to the voting public than their Washington counterparts.

Consolidation of power serves up Americans to looting billionaires.

More hand wavy arguments.

"What about this problem?"

"Under my solution, everything will work itself out."

I would believe you if your average voter could name their state representative, or more than one state government official beyond the governor, or hell if you had voter participation rates in state races over 15%

Given the average voter can't identify the vice president, I don't see them naming your average lieutenant governor.

It would be nice if things worked that way. Too bad they don't.

[Parker2112]

That's kinda what I thought.

This is a real-world problem. Make believe fantasies like libertarian economic models don't tend to be very good at solving them.

This is not unlike Ron Paul himself.

Pretty words, but when you ask for actual substance, you get vague hand-wavy "solutions" or well-rehearsed diatribes against big bad gubmint.

Yet you ask that we scrap our entire societal and economic system to institute governance based on this emotionally appealing philosophy.

Sorry, not buying it. If it only takes me a few minutes to find the flaws in this system, it probably would end up creating more problems than it would solve.

please. your not even dealing with my real response here.

[Parker2112]

duplicate post.

[Parker2112]

The fact is, you cant prevent them. Through free markets or through big governments. But you damn sure cant argue that more government control is the answer.

My take at the best way to mitigate: diverse regulation through the states. Creates different market conditions in each state, thereby reducing the chance that any one corp will be able to dominate all markets.

[Parker2112]

dont concern yourself with me, RP, or any of the above, and its still easy to see that the bullshit Washington solutions you lean on have created a fucking mess.

Call them handwavy or whatever you want, but all you preach is more of the same, and we all know how that story works out. More govt equals more privilege for the privileged, less middle for the middle class, more trampling of constitutional rights, and more atrocities overseas. No thanks.

RG your the guy that still licks the bosses boot even after he's ruined the company and fired all your best buds. No thanks.

[Parker2112]

and before you claim that RPs solutions are untested, and we cant chance his approach...that its the "destruction" of our economic system, our way of life, or whatever, just realize: his policies are a return to policies that we held when we were still the good guys. The one's who championed individual liberties and freedom. The ones who didnt start fights but finished em.

[RandomGuy]

please. your not even dealing with my real response here.

You don't have any real responses. That is the problem.

[RandomGuy]

RG your the guy that still licks the bosses boot even after he's ruined the company and fired all your best buds. No thanks.

This sounds suspiciously like projection. Going to call me a fag next?

[RandomGuy]

and before you claim that RPs solutions are untested, and we cant chance his approach...that its the "destruction" of our economic system, our way of life, or whatever, just realize: his policies are a return to policies that we held when we were still the good guys. The one's who championed individual liberties and freedom. The ones who didnt start fights but finished em.

Your curious blend of naivite and cynicism is amusing.

The USA, back before the income tax and so forth, a time you clearly idolize started plenty of fights, and we were most definitly not the good guys.

Power was quite devolved into state political machines that very obviously favored a few rich men who bought votes from people who were too busy to pay attention. You would have us substitute our own flawed system, to return to something even worse.

[RandomGuy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%E2%80%93American_War
Look into the creation of Panama...

That is a quick bit. There were other examples.