|
Post by Pooh on Nov 2, 2008 21:33:43 GMT
Tax and Tax Cut (Bribe): Piling It On For Great Depression IIPolitical ClimateAuthor: Robert J Samuelson, George F. Will Quotes: " Boxer Claims Recession is Best Time to Raise Energy Costs (6/3/08) 'recession is the precise time' to enact the Lieberman-Warner global warming cap-and-trade bill because it 'brings us hope.' (Just Call It ‘Cap-and-Tax’ (6/2/08)) "The chief political virtue of cap-and-trade—a complex scheme to reduce greenhouse gases—is its complexity. This allows its environmental supporters to shape public perceptions in essentially deceptive ways. - "Cap-and-trade would act as a tax, but it’s not described as a tax.
- "It would regulate economic activity, but it’s promoted as a “free market” mechanism.
- "Finally, it would trigger a tidal wave of influence-peddling, as lobbyists scrambled to exploit the system for different industries and localities.
"Carbon’s Power Brokers (6/1/08) An unprecedentedly radical government grab for control of the American economy will be debated this week when the Senate considers saving the planet by means of a cap-and-trade system to ration carbon emissions. “Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), the chairman of the Environment & Public Works Committee, declared in her opening floor speech today that a ‘recession is the precise time to’ enact the Lieberman-Warner global warming cap-and-trade bill because it ‘brings us hope.’ “Despite these economic woes, Senator Boxer claimed that now is the ‘precise time’ to pass a bill that will raise energy prices. ‘Why do this [the Lieberman-Warner bill] now? We’re in a recession. Precisely because we’re in a recession is why we should be doing this. This bill is the first thing that brings us hope,’ Senator Boxer said during her opening remarks on the Senate floor today." Website: ICECAP URL: This Item icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate/boxer_claims_recession_is_best_time_to_raise_energy_costs/URL: More References on AGW Politics: icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate Accessed Tuesday, June 03, 2008
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Nov 2, 2008 19:56:23 GMT
Tax and Tax Cut (Bribe): A (Rubber) Chicken in Every PotIn The Politics of “AGW”: reply #1 on Oct 28, 2008, I wrote: “The Democrat Candidate will have no problem keeping his pledge not to raise Income Taxes. Trillions of dollars will come in through Turnover Taxes, lots of wealth to share.” Here is the support: Democrats Call Largest Tax Increase -- A ‘Big Tax Cut!’ Author: Marc Morano Quoted: “The Lieberman-Warner global warming cap-and-trade bill has been called many things, but this appears to be the first time it has been called a “huge tax cut.” The reference to the bill as a “big tax cut” was made by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), despite the bill’s being considered the largest tax increase in American history. “The biggest pieces of this bill, is funds for the American people, a big tax cut. If my [colleague] opposes a tax cut, he ought to say it. It is a huge tax cut for the American people,” Boxer said on the Senate floor on June 3. Boxer also said on Monday, “This bill has one of the largest tax cuts in it that we've seen around this place in a very long time.” Website Title: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page Date: June 3, 2008 URL: epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=509dea32-802a-23ad-42ef-729d220328a8&IsPrint=True accessed: Sunday, November 02, 2008 And for a little light reading, too late for Halloween , see The Economic Costs of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Change LegislationAuthors: WILLIAM W. BEACH, DAVID W. KREUTZER, PH.D, BEN LIEBERMAN, NICOLAS D. LORIS Download URL: www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/upload/cda_0802.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Nov 2, 2008 5:29:23 GMT
A Third Woe to Come from Across the Pond: The Carbon Credit, aka Rationing (Comments)(The Carbon Credit proposal may explain why we read that "Climate Change", i.e., AGW, is comparable to World War II. We accepted rationing in that war; the external totalitarian attack meant the end of Liberty. But this time, the attack comes from within. )Personal carbon credits: the trick Author: Mick Hume Abstract: "We are under attack from a noxious army of doom-troopers demanding that we treat climate change as a rerun of the Second World War. In the latest move to militarise everyday life, the Environmental Audit Committee of MPs has seriously proposed energy rationing, aka 'personal carbon credits'. "What solution do the doom-troopers propose to the problem of public resistance? Let's suspend democracy, like we did in the good old days!" Website Title: Times Online Date: May 27, 2008 URL: www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/mick_hume/article4009605.ece accessed Monday, June 02, 2008 9:50:28 AM Socialist Rationing Carbon CreditsAbstract: "Remember Tim Yeo? He was the Conservatives spokesman who intervened during one of the most ghastly episodes in the appalling history of Britain’s Labour Government. It was the dreadful holocaust during the foot and mouth epidemic. Yeo complained that the Government were not doing enough slaughtering. "Now he has excelled himself in making a statement of pure authoritarian socialism, as readers following the last link in the piece immediately above might have noted. Still pursuing the insubstantial global warming theory, in complete disregard of the ever-mounting contrary evidence, he and his cross-party mates are urging the introduction of a personal carbon tax. Yeo offers his justification in a paraphrase of this succinct and honest one by Moonbat himself: 'It's more progressive than taxation, it tends to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor; it's transparent; it's easy for everyone to understand, you all get the same carbon ration.' "Ration books disappeared after we managed to get rid of the post war Labour government, but socialists still have a sentimental attachment to the idea of forced equality for everybody (except MPs of course)." Date: May 2008 URL: www.numberwatch.co.uk/2008%20May.htm#face Accessed Wednesday, May 28, 2008 10:46:03 AM
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Nov 2, 2008 5:09:57 GMT
A Third Woe to Come from Across the Pond: The Carbon Credit, aka RationingMPs back personal carbon creditsAuthor: Environmental Audit Committee Abstract: "The government should go ahead with a system of personal 'carbon credits' to meet emissions targets, MPs have said. The Environmental Audit Committee said the scheme would be more effective than taxes for cutting carbon emissions. Under the scheme people would be given an annual carbon limit for fuel and energy use - which they could exceed by buying credits from those who use less. "In the meantime there is no barrier to the government developing and deploying the policies that will not only prepare the ground for personal carbon trading, but will ensure its effectiveness and acceptance once implemented." "He said it could be administered by the private sector, following the model of supermarket loyalty schemes in which a complex computer system is accessed by a "single plastic card". There would also be difficulties in deciding how to set the rations, taking into account a person's age, location and health. Website Title: BBC NEWS | Politics | Date: May 26, 2008 URL: newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7419724.stm Accessed Thursday, June 05, 2008 1:26:29 AM Notes:(British) Environmentalist George Monbiot applauded the scheme. "It's more progressive than taxation, it tends to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor; it's transparent; it's easy for everyone to understand, you all get the same carbon ration. "It also contains an inbuilt incentive for people to think about their energy use and to think about how they are going to stay within their carbon ration." (I believe I've heard something similar to George Monbiot's comment recently. Just where escape's me. Perhaps I'll recall it by Tuesday.)
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Nov 2, 2008 4:33:49 GMT
Piling Woe upon Woe: Cap-And-Trade plus Carbon Taxes
Looking back on Dingell's proposal, we see he includes both Cap-And-Trade and Carbon Taxes in his future hopes.
Re: The Politics of “AGW” « Reply #41 Yesterday at 8:25pm Carbon Tax Summary: Summary of Draft Carbon Tax Legislation "In addition to an economy wide cap-and-trade program, ... a fee on carbon ...."
Re: The Politics of “AGW” « Reply #43 on Oct 31, 2008, 8:41pm » Troubles To Come: Carbon Content Tax Legislation Carbon's Power Brokers Suggested and rejected as politically infeasible: "And a carbon tax (alone) would avoid the uncertainties inseparable from cap-and-trade's government allocation of emission permits...."
Re: The Politics of “AGW” « Reply #44 on Oct 31, 2008, 8:58pm Another Woe To Come: Carbon Content Tax Legislation Dingell to Take On Global Warming "The cuts would come from a previously untested national cap-and-trade program ...."
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Nov 1, 2008 21:00:47 GMT
A Different Version of the Same Woe: Cap-And-Trade LegislationThe Lieberman-Warner Cap and Trade Bill: Quick Summary and AnalysisAuthors Senator Lieberman and Senator Warner Which is: America's Climate Security Act of 2007 (S. 2191) was introduced in the Senate on October 18, 2007 by Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA). The bill states as its purpose: " rompt, decisive action is critical, since global warming pollutants can persist in the atmosphere for more than a century." Review at www.nationalcenter.org/NPA570.html Accessed Monday, October 27, 2008 4:58:07 PM
Notes: 1) The (Lieberman-Warner) bill would create a national "cap and trade" policy for greenhouse gas emissions. Companies would be allocated right-to-emit credits based on how much greenhouse gas they currently emit. The proposal -- frequently referred to as a cap-and-trade plan -- would establish an emissions trading system that would permit companies that emit fewer greenhouse gases than they are allowed to sell the excess portion to companies that exceed their allowances. The Act's sponsors estimate the bill would reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by up to 63% by 2050. The initial limits between the years 2005 and 2012 would cap emissions at 5,200 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent to estimated levels during 2005. Between 2012 and 2020, emissions would be further reduced two percent per year, resulting in a 15% reduction below 2005 levels.
2) Lieberman-Warner would establish: - A domestic offset program, allowing regulated facilities to meet up to 15% of their compliance obligation in any given year with allowances generated through domestic offset projects certified by the EPA. They could meet their emissions limits, provided they receive approval from the EPA, by purchasing credits on the international emission trading market or by borrowing from credits they would normally receive in future years.
- The Bonus Allowance Account, established using 4 percent of all emission allowances for calendar years 2012 through 2035, that would be used to reward firms that sequester their carbon emissions in geological formations.
- The Carbon Market Efficiency Board to monitor and report on the national GHG emission market.
3) Within the Treasury Department, it ( Lieberman-Warner ) would establish: ... (8) The Climate Change Credit Corporation to auction emission allowances. Cost and Impact Studies: Meeting the goals of the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade plan would impose enormous financial strain on Americans, according to four independent econometric studies. A study commissioned by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) projects that by 2014 retail gasoline prices would increase between 13 and 50 percent; residential electricity prices would rise between 13 and 14 percent; and natural gas prices would increase between 18 and 21 percent. The study, "Analysis of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S.2191) using the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS/ACCF/NAM)," www.accf.org/pdf/NAM/fullstudy031208.pdf also projects that the U.S. economy will suffer employment losses of 850,000 jobs by 2014 and between 1.2 and over 1.8 million more lost jobs in 2020. Moreover, households stand to lose between $1,010 and $2,779 of income each year by 2014. The economy would suffer Gross Domestic Product (GDP) losses of between $135 billion and $269 billion by 2014. Estimates are based upon 2007 baseline energy prices and produced a range of estimated price increases depending on the future availability of energy technologies and various socio-political constraints. | The Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change projects that, if Lieberman-Warner becomes law, in 2015 gasoline prices would increase 29 percent, electricity prices would jump 55 percent, and natural gas prices would be pushed up 15 percent. The MIT study, titled an "Assessment of U.S. Cap-and-Trade Proposals," w3.mit.edu/globalchange/www/MITJPSPGC_Rpt146_AppendixD.pdf is based on 2005 baseline energy prices and accounts for subsidies for carbon capture and storage (CCS), as well as 15 percent of emissions covered by the trading mechanism. | An assessment by the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University estimates that in 2015 gasoline prices would cost up to six percent more, electricity would be roughly 18 percent more expensive and natural gas prices would increase about 15 percent. Moreover, the study projects economy-wide GDP losses of $75 billion in 2015 and $245 billion in 2030. The 2007 study, "The Lieberman-Warner America's Climate Security Act: A Preliminary Assessment of Potential Economic Impacts," www.nicholas.duke.edu/institute/econsummary.pdf considers credit trading as well as domestic offsets in its projections. | The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis projects that Lieberman-Warner would cripple the future economic health of the United States. GDP losses are estimated to be between $45.7 billion and nearly $170 billion in 2015 (2000 dollars) - totaling as much as $4.8 trillion of lost GDP by 2030.10 In addition, Heritage analysts estimate annual employment drops could be as high as 901,000 as early as 2016 and will exceed 500,000 per year before 2030. By 2030, skyrocketing energy prices will mean the average household will spend an extra $608 for heating oil, $647 for electricity and $303 for natural gas per year from projected 2012 levels. www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/upload/cda_0802.pdf | More: Patrick Michaels, "Cato Scholar Comments on Warner-Lieberman Climate Security Act," The Cato Institute, May 30, 2008, available at www.cato.org/pressroom.php?display=ncomments&id=34 as of May 30, 2008. Ben Lieberman, "Five Myths About the Lieberman-Warner Global Warming Legislation," The Heritage Foundation, May 30, 2008, available at www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1940.cfm as of May 30, 2008 National Center for Public Policy Research, "Overwhelming Majority of Americans Oppose Lieberman-Warner Global Warming Proposal, New Poll Suggests," May 28, 2008, available at www.nationalcenter.org/PR-Poll_Lieberman_Warner_052808.html as of May 30, 2008.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Nov 1, 2008 7:35:35 GMT
A More Prudent Woe: Carbon Content Tax Legislation by the Other SideEconomic cost drives Senate climate debate - Yahoo! NewsAuthor: H. Josef Hebert Abstract "A separate GOP proposal, from Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, would set milestones for carbon dioxide reductions over the next 20 years. It would allow for mandates after that time once a clearer picture develops about new, low-carbon energy technologies. Senators advocating aggressive action on climate change say that would be too late to avert the worst effects of global warming. Also in dispute is the distribution of pollution allowances. Many Democrats, including Clinton and Obama, to auction all allowances. The Senate bill would give about half of them to states, municipalities and affected industries. Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont , said he will try to get that changed so that none goes to what he considers to be special interests. Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., also wants most, if not all, the allowances auctioned and the money going out in checks to anyone earning $150,000 or less, or $300,000 for couples. news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080601/ap_on_go_co/climate_showdown_10;_ylt=Ano_aMFsV7kSTxRqkygdl08E1vAI Accessed Sunday, June 01, 2008 4:20:25 PM Comment: Why more prudent? - Milestones for tracking progress (and perhaps assessing model skill?)
- Twenty years to develop alternative low-carbon energy sources
- Mandates only after 20 years; I assume this means no carbon taxes
In my opinion, the Senators "advocating aggressive action" will have none of this, as they are already dividing up the spoils: - Auctioning allowances, redistributing proceeds to states, municipalities and affected industries
- So that none goes to what he (Sanders) considers to be "special interests"
- checks to anyone earning $150,000 or less, or $300,000 for couples
"Special Interests" can be better understood when you consider that Senator Sanders is a Socialist (even though he calls himself an "Independent"), and addressed the Democratic Socialists of America's (DSA) National Convention. In the DSA's position paper, Toward An Economic Justice Agenda, your will find (pg 11) "climate change is an economic, scientific, and labor issue much more than a traditional environmental issue". We should understand "special interest" as the DSA defines it. Finally, those advocating aggressive action on climate change say Voinovich's delay would make it too late to avert the worst effects of global warming. On the contrary, delay might make it too late to impose carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, or carbon credits. Data from PDO, ADO, La Nina, and the Sun may demolish the Beloved Models. Alternative energy sources may mature to economic feasibility in 20 years. And with that, we might hope that CO 2-driven AGW may follow the "Turnover Tax" into the dustbin of history.
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Nov 1, 2008 0:58:13 GMT
Another Woe To Come: Carbon Content Tax LegislationDingell to Take On Global WarmingAuthor: Geof Koss Abstract: "The climate bill he’s writing would likely seek to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 60 percent to 80 percent by 2050, which would require deep reductions across virtually the entire U.S. economy. The cuts would come from a previously untested national cap-and-trade program, under which the government would set annual emission levels of greenhouse gases and issue pollution permits that could be traded or sold by companies to meet the limits. The cap would be tightened over time." Website: Roll Call - CongressNow Date: August 28, 2008 URL: www.rollcall.com/issues/54_23/news/27688-1.html?type=printer_friendly Accessed: Saturday, August 30, 2008 1:24:39 AM Notes: 1) "...reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 60 percent to 80 percent by 2050, which would require deep reductions across virtually the entire U.S. economy. The cuts would come from a previously untested national cap-and-trade program," (Remember, the last time the U.S. achieved a leveling or slight decline in CO2 levels is now known as the Great Depression.)2) "...under which the government would set annual emission levels of greenhouse gases and issue pollution permits that could be traded or sold by companies to meet the limits. " 3) "The cap would be tightened over time." 4) "Many economists believe that cap-and-trade can achieve the necessary reductions, but they also agree the plan will come with a big price tag — costs that are expected to be passed on to ordinary Americans in the form of higher energy bills. " 5) “I’ve been trying to warn everybody there’s going to be a huge cost increase, and I’ve gotten a rich flow of denunciation for that,” he said. “ Let’s be honest, cap-and-trade is going to result in a very significant increase in energy prices.” -- John Dingell
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Nov 1, 2008 0:41:40 GMT
Troubles To Come: Carbon Content Tax LegislationCarbon's Power BrokersAuthor: George F. Will Abstract: " If carbon emissions are the planetary menace that the political class suddenly says they are, why not a straightforward tax on fossil fuels based on each fuel's carbon content? This would have none of the enormous administrative costs of the baroque cap-and-trade regime. And a carbon tax would avoid the uncertainties inseparable from cap-and-trade's government allocation of emission permits sector-by-sector, industry by industry. So a carbon tax would be a clear and candid incentive to adopt energy-saving and carbon-minimizing technologies. That is the problem. ...Lieberman guesses that the market value of all permits would be "about $7 trillion by 2050." Will that staggering sum pay for a $7 trillion reduction of other taxes? Speaking of endless troubles, "cap-and-trade" comes cloaked in reassuring rhetoric about the government merely creating a market, but government actually would create a scarcity so that government could sell what it had made scarce. The Wall Street Journal underestimates cap-and-trade's perniciousness when it says the scheme would create a new right ("allowances") to produce carbon dioxide and would put a price on the right. Actually, because freedom is the silence of the law, that right has always existed in the absence of prohibitions. With cap-and-trade, government would create a right for itself-- an extraordinarily lucrative right to ration Americans' exercise of their traditional rights." Website: WashingtonPost.com Date: Published Sunday, June 1, 2008 in Richmond Times-Dispatch, page E3 URL: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/30/AR2008053002521_pf.html Accessed Saturday, July 12, 2008 1:05:12 PM
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Nov 1, 2008 0:25:32 GMT
Things To Come: Carbon Content Tax LegislationCarbon Tax Summary: Summary of Draft Carbon Tax LegislationAbstract: "The earth is getting warmer and human activities are a large part of the cause. We need to act in order to prevent a serious problem. The world’s best scientists agree we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60-80 percent by 2050 in order to limit the effects of global warming and this legislation will put us on track to do just that. This is a massive undertaking, and it will not be easy to achieve, but we simply must accomplish this goal; our future and our children’s futures depend on it. In order to get to this end we need to have a multi-pronged approach. "In addition to an economy wide cap-and-trade program, which would mandate a cap on carbon emissions, a fee on carbon is the most effective way to curb emissions and make alternatives economically viable. - Tax Carbon content ($50/ton) - Tax Gasoline ($0.50/gallon in addition to $50/ton) - Phase out mortgage tax deduction (on houses over 3000 sq ft) - Expand Earned Income Tax Credit, but phase out based on income "Transfer the revenue to: - Gas tax to mass transit (40%) and road (60%) trust funds - Carbon emissions to other accounts" Website: House of Representatives, John D. Dingle www.house.gov/dingell/carbonTaxSummary.shtml Accessed: Saturday, May 31, 2008 12:21:29 PM Notes:1) Carbon Content Tax: $50 / ton of carbon (phased in over 5 years and then adjusted for inflation) e.g., Coal, including lignite and peat, Petroleum and any petroleum product, Natural gas 2) A tax on gasoline: $0.50/ gallon of gas, jet fuel, kerosene (petroleum based) etc… The $0..50 gas tax is in addition to what is derived from the per ton carbon tax) (added to current gas tax) (phased in over 5 years and then adjusted for inflation). (Exemption for diesel) 3) (Your Home: )Phase out the mortgage interest deduction on large homes. These homes have contributed to increased sprawl and longer commutes. Despite new homes in and of themselves being more energy efficient, the sheer size, sprawl and commutes lead to dramatically more energy use – or to put it more simply, a larger carbon footprint. (You should feel guilty, guilty, guilty by now. No more suburban living for you, Bucky. Join the huddled masses yearning for liberty in Metropolis.)4) Spread The Wealth Goodies: - The Earned Income Tax Credit will be expanded. This helps lower income families compensate for the increased taxes on fuels.
- The revenue from the gas tax goes into the high way trust fund, with 40 % going to the mass transit and 60 % going to roads. The revenue from the tax on jet fuel goes into the airport and airway trust fund.
- More Goodies: The revenue from the fee on carbon emissions will go into the following accounts:
- Medicare and Social Security
- Universal Healthcare (upon passage)
- State Children’s Health Insurance Program
- Conservation
- Renewable Energy Research and Development
- Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Oct 31, 2008 22:22:56 GMT
Input-Output Accounts Data (BEA)Here is support for the assertion that Energy is the Commodity essential to all Industries (you can't do without Energy) in Reply #1 . Author: Bureau Of Economic Analysis U.S. Industry Economic Accounts from the Bureau Of Economic Analysis. " 1998-2006 Supplementary Industry-by-Commodity Total Requirements Table after redefinitions at the summary level" Download from URL www.bea.gov/industry/io_annual.htmDownloads the table: www.bea.gov/industry/xls/Sum_IxC_TR_98-06.xls"Contains estimates of the inputs for each industry that are directly and indirectly required to deliver a dollar of the commodity to final users: (XLS - 813KB)" Accessed: Monday, October 27, 2008 11:51:40 AM Note that the following energy-specific Industry/Commodity PubIndCodes are "required by" (essential to) every other Industry. - 211: Oil and gas extraction
- 22: Utilities
- 324: Petroleum and coal products
There is an energy entry under each industry; it is the existance of an entry that is important, even although the entry values are the fraction of GDP. Sorry that 2006 is the most recent available from BEA.
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Oct 31, 2008 7:56:03 GMT
Yes the old supply demand curve based on the assumptions that humans will make free rational decisions! It is also based on the assumption of informed decisions. It's close enough to reality, in the same way that Newtonian Physics is close to reality when things don't go too fast (relativity) or get too small (Quantum mechanics) Classical economics is a theoretical model that can be used to make approximate judgments on how things work. Probably true for calm, ordered markets like sugar & wheat etc. But in the current share market (where there is demand & supply of shares) we have wild fluctuations rather than an ordered market. It also doesn't work well when the market is very thin - one seller (monopoly) or one buyer. Nor does it work well when the means of exchange isn't stable (massive inflation/deflation) or in any situation of massive disruption. So it is fine to explain some situations, but don't get into the error of thinking that the supply demand curve is other than a theoretical construct. Otherwise you fall into the same pattern of thinking as the AGWers and their models. [/quote]
Three points: A. You are absolutely right! ;D and that's the point of the discussion (rant) in The Politics of “AGW”, post #1. B. I didn't sufficiently qualify the explanation of my intent here in Supply & Demand in Economics 101, post #1. But you identified many qualifications I should have included, but did not for the sake of brevity (resulting in over-simplification). I did say one thing at a time, but chaos is not one of them. C. Among your home runs: - Wheat. Right on! That was Samuelson's example, too.
- Free, rational decisions. Exactly! In a Command Economy there is no decision other than put up or shut up.
- Monopoly. In a Command Economy, the State is the biggest monopoly on the block.
- Rational decisions, informed decisions,
- Theoretical. I called it analytical. Interesting: both USSR used the approach and modeling, and Lehman Brothers (below) used computer models. Both collapsed.
- (in)stability, massive disruption and the share market. You may agree that an informed and rational Price decision can not be made without estimates of value and risk. Well, over here, our politicians and mortgage brokers decided to give "affordable" home mortgages to people who could not pay. Two levels of financial mixmasters churned this drek with other goods, and sold them to banks and financial institutions, including FreddieMac and FannieMay. These "securities" were counted as reserves, which affected how much they could lend out. Since no one could tell what the "securities" were worth, the credit markets came down with a bad case of constipation; too much drek in the mix.
Fortunately, Lehman Brothers had large commitments in this fiasco, and also had high hopes of cleaning up in the carbon credit market. They even had James Hansen as an scientific advisor and perhaps some relationship with Al Gore and his GIM. (Both mortgages and carbon credits sought to make gold out of thin air.) Justice was served as Lehman Brothers foundered, leaving nothing but a large slick. ;D I do regret what happened to the workabees there. And elsewhere. It's a crime (I hope).
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Oct 29, 2008 22:07:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Oct 29, 2008 19:29:19 GMT
Income Equality?
One of the more enduring popular illusions in “Spread The Wealth” political philosophy is that income distribution will be more equal. This is the heart of “Progressive” income tax rates.
If you think that “Spread The Wealth” (through carbon emission taxation) will help level income distribution, consult Figure 35-2, “Income distribution in U.S.S.R. resembles that in the United States”, Samuelson, Pg 777.
This chart shows the ratio of estimated income of the top 10% to the income of the bottom 10% in six countries: United States, Canada, USSR, Sweden, Britain and Czechoslovakia. Samuelson takes care to note that the ratio for the USSR includes that of the “communist elites”.
The ratio for the United States is 10. Surprise! The ratio for the USSR is 8. Canada, 8; Sweden, 5; Britain, 5; Czechoslovakia, about 4.5.
Source: Morrison, "Income Distribution in East European and Western Countries", Journal of Comparative Economics. June 1984.
How could this have happened in the worker’s paradise? Did income shift from Makers to Takers? Well, recall that the motivation for a Manager (apparatchik) is to Fulfill the Plan. Meeting the plan is rewarded with a Bonus; failing to meet it means Dismissal. Or worse. Remember the gulag.
This does not include perks, like the Boogie In Bali.
"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others." -- George Orwell
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Oct 29, 2008 17:04:57 GMT
Reference: Samuelson, Paul Anthony. Economics (12th ed). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1985.
|
|