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.
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.
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.
the safest policy: make em lobby all 50 states. at least then they will have to make hard choices about which politicians to buy.
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. , 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 compe ive 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.
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 ty 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?
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 cons utions commerce clause to force that other state to legalize your product, be it substandard cheese, airplanes with weak airframes, or heroin.
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."
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.
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 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 cons uents, 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.
property rights in this hypo are a matter of state law.
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?
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'.
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.
Im tired of the monopoly problem. Im not terribly interested, and dont have a ton of info on the subject tbh.
Last edited by Parker2112; 10-29-2011 at 02:53 PM.
State govts are not. But they are under a more watchful eye, not removed from their cons uents, 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 su ion 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.
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 ins ute 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.
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 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.
please. your not even dealing with my real response here.
duplicate post.
dont concern yourself with me, RP, or any of the above, and its still easy to see that the bull Washington solutions you lean on have created a ing 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 cons utional 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.
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.
You don't have any real responses. That is the problem.
This sounds su iously like projection. Going to call me a next?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote