Re: Chuck Norris says "Drill now in America for oil"

On Jun 16, 1:58 pm, Dan O'Reilly <d...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
At 11:24 AM 6/16/2008, AEF wrote:

The point is, the use of taxes in the manner of those suggested by "carbon
tax" is that it's fundamentally punitive in its nature, and it attempts to
force technology. The free market dictates that change that is practical
in its nature to implement (and yes, the reality is that $$$$ do enter in
here, I'm already taxed more than enough) will be the driving force in
changing to whatever the fuel of the future is. A carbon tax is simply a
way to "legislate technology", or more appropriately, redistribute income.

The point of "pollution taxes" is to reflect the costs to society that
aren't taken into account by the market. Pollution is a cost that
isn't included in the price. Would you really prefer a return to the
dirty air of the 60's? That was largely cured by gov't mandates on
pollution levels from car exhaust and industry. I just think that at
least in some cases a pollution tax is the better way to go to
accopmlish the same thing for reasons I already explained.

I think that's a canard. There's no way this country would ever return to
the pollution of the 60's. I agree the government played a big part in
cleaning that up, but enough is enough. The government unfortunately
doesn't believe the people are smart enough to know that cleaner is
better. And they certainly don't know when to quit (the government, I mean).

This is a bogus argument. Of course people know cleaner is better but
who's going to be the first to spend hundreds of extra bucks on a new
car hoping everyone else will? Would you?

Return to 60's levels? What? The big advantage of the pollution tax
method is that you avoid wasting huge amounts of money to make just a
marginal gain. With this method, the business decides how much to
reduce its emissions vs. how much it will have to pay the tax and they
will shoot for the mix that gives them the lowest cost. I really wish
I could refer you to my old economics textbook but I no longer have
it.


Speaking of taxes, many tax deductions that help people who buy
houses, have capital gains income, have kids, use solar panels, and
zillion of other favored things are effectively punishing those who
don't, so why focus on pollution taxes whose purpose is to reflect the
true cost of polluting products and to minimize them with the greatest
possible efficiency?

Because the market will take care of that WITHOUT the heavy hand of the
government. Look at what's happening in the auto industry, if you need a
really obvious example. Toyota has the Prius and what's going
on? Tremendous profits from the Prius and terrible sales figures from
their bigger V8 products. This is a DIRECT result of the marketplace

I read that profits on hybrids are not as great per vehicle as on
SUV's. And Toyota and freinds also made plenty of SUV's. And hybrids
wouldn't have sold nearly as much without encouragement from gov't.
Didn't people get tax breaks for buying hybrids? Hybrids are much more
expensive than similar non-hybrids. So who would buy them without some
kind of break or having an obsession with being "cool first adopters"?

speaking without the government forcing the issue. Why is it necessary to
legislate what the market is demonstrably already taking care of? Same

Because it's not taking care of it. People tend to buy the cheapest
things, even if it costs them more in the long run. Look at CFL's,
e.g. People are buying them now that they're must cheaper than
initially. How did cars get seat belts and air bags? Market forces?
They didn't and would have never happened that way. Oh, and CFL's were
heavily pushed by Wal Mart, not the gov't.

thing with houses: try to sell one that's less energy-efficient. Or
appliances: who's selling more, the company with bad energy efficiency or
the high-efficiency washer/driers? Again, all things largely being done

People buy plenty of not-so-efficient appliances for reasons I've
already explained.

because the marketplace is demanding it, not because of some
government-mandated program!

Have you heard of the U.S. patent office? Enforcement regarding
counterfeit goods? The Fed? Police and firemen? Safety standards?
(Look at increasing frequency of collpasing cranes in NYC, e.g.) FDIC
insurance? Are these bad, evil things somehow? Need I go on?

Sometimes the gov't does very badly. Take the subprime disaster.
Increasingly lax regulations on finance is in large part to play.
Market forces were all over the place and look what happened. You like
the result?


Let me throw one back at you: CF light bulbs. Technology legislated by the
government, but legislation that never took into account what happens when
you need to dispose of one, or you break one: POLLUTION that never was an
issue with incandescent bulbs.

Boy, that tiny amount of Hg must be even worse than turning the planet
into Venus! Hey, people have been using regular fluorescents for a
long time and mercury thermometers (and breaking them!) and somehow
we've gotten by.

How about legislated ethanol? It burns

I agree that gov't blew it big time with this one. As I said, gov't
does both smart and stupid things. And there's all the pork barrel
spending and corruption. Well, things like that happen in the business
world, too. Look at all the CEO's who ruin companies and walk away
with hundreds of millions because they have "incesutous" relationships
with the boards, having them in their pockets (or whatever the
expression is). This is good?

Enron, MCI/Worldcom, Tyco. These are things to like about business?

What about the town in Montana that was economically destroyed by the
local electric utilities' executives with the aid of Goldman Sachs?
This is a good thing?

What about the electricity traders who ripped off California holding
its citizens captive to rolling blackouts and ever increasing rates.
This is something good about business? (OK, both gov't and buisness
were to blame for that one.)

DIRTIER than the petroleum-based products it's supposed to replace, it
takes a tremendous amount of money to distill, and it's having a
demonstrable negative impact on food prices and supplies (and before
someone says it, no, it's not the ONLY reason, but it's still a big part of
it).

I couldn't agree more. I've always been against turning food into
fuel.


What I'm saying is that if you want to REALLY screw something up, let the
government legislate technology.

You seem to be writing about the evils of gov't the same as what you
accused Bob of doing about oil companies. You say: Oh, gov't, of
course it's evil. But when Bob said the same about oil companies you
were all over him. I sense a, uh ... lack of consistency here.


I was not posting a view on climate
change. I was simply pointing out what it would take to address it
(*if* it were true) and also the issue of fuel prices that people are
blaming on the oil companies when the true fault lies with supply and
demand, OPEC, and perhaps trader speculation.

So we agree. I personally believe it's far more speculation than
supply-and-demand. In fact, Wall Street traders are actually finally
coming out and saying that.

Well, I don't think we agree. I just don't think I'm in a position to
judge whether global warming is really a serious threat or not and
therefore I don't.

I'm not aware of gov't telling anyone what and when to drive (though I
am aware of deductions and tax credits and taxes that encourage or
discourage use of certain products, having children, behavior, etc. I
tend to be libertarian on things when they truly do not cause harm to
others.

The government will seldom come right out and outlaw anything. Take CAFE
standards. I like my Jeep Grand Cherokee and I need it to get through the
snows around here (a Prius won't do it!). Frankly, I also feel much safer

And I like to sing, but I don't think you'd appreciate hearing it.

So buy a Cherokee. What's stopping you? CAFE standards have been
around for quite a while but that didn't stop anyone from buying
SUV's.

in one than I would in a tin can. But the government is legislating that
sort of vehicle away; not directly, but piece by piece by piece so soon
Chrysler CAN'T build one.

And how is this different from all the numerous tax incentives and
decentives on other apsects of life? Do you take lots of tax
deductions for various things? Would you sacrifice them so I, who
can't take most of them, can be treated more fairly. I have no kids.
Do you? If so, are you willing to pay my share of property taxes?

Hey, businesses do plenty of stupid or bad things. The auto
manufacturers repeatedly and consistenetly fought better pollution
controls. They said it couldn't be done. Yet somehow they managed to
do it. And it would have never happened with market forces. They also
fought air bags tooth and nail. Now you can't sell a car without one.
They also fought against other important safety standards. Would you
prefer a world filled with snake-oil salesmen and such (well, one
that's far worse than what we have with today's snake-oil salesmen!)?

Gov't regulation can provide a level playing field or floor below
which companies aren't allowed to go. This way the companies can
compete without resorting to increasingly low tactics, products, rip
offs, etc.

Look at all the food poisonings happening: beef, spinach, lettuce(?),
and now tomoatoes. I read that the FDA has been losing funds over the
last 7 years or so. Could there be a connection?

When you go to the store, how do you know when it says a quart of milk
it really is a quart? Or the net weight of a can of soup or
vegetables? Or is a gallon of gas really a gallon at the gas station?
Would you prefer to be measuring the amounts of every single volume-
or weight-based purchase you make?

And what about medicines? How do you have any idea if they're safe and
effective and have the claimed dosage? Are you going to conduct your
own large randomized double-blind studies? Good luck.

Banks fought the gov't mandate of $50 liability limits for people who
lose their credit cards, yet the banks are milking poor people and
making humoungous profits from these cards, which some argue would
have never taken off without the $50 liability limit. I think banks
should be reined in somewhat on such abusive practices. Just exactly
how is the market going to accomplish that.

Microsoft is a result of market forces, no?

I could probably come up with even more examples but I already spent
too much time on this.

The gov't has no monopoly on stupidity and evil and buisness have no
monopoly on genius and good.



------
+-------------------------------+----------------------------------------+
| Dan O'Reilly | "There are 10 types of people in this |
| Principal Engineer | world: those who understand binary |
| Process Software | and those who don't." |
|http://www.process.com | |
+-------------------------------+----------------------------------------+

AEF
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Chuck Norris says "Drill now in America for oil"
    ... The free market dictates that change that is practical ... The point of "pollution taxes" is to reflect the costs to society that ... The government unfortunately doesn't believe the people are smart enough to know that cleaner is better. ... Why is it necessary to legislate what the market is demonstrably already taking care of? ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: What works better: free enterprise or single payer healh care?
    ... The Market is their god. ... the belief that if you're rich, ... The tax system already takes from the rich and gives to the poor - the ... In what form of government are human not involved? ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Re: Proof motorists are getting SCREWED
    ... >> The US Government says "screw doing something about pollution, ... >> we'll add a tax and use it to do something about it." ...
    (rec.arts.sf.tv)
  • Re: AMDs well may be running dry
    ... the method of taxing pollution. ... it a certain rate -- so many dollars for so many tons of pollutant ... on scrubbers, etc., to reduce the pollution so as to reduce the tax. ... There is an outcry from the "poor", so the government ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: Petrol prices... yet another thing to "thank" the stock exchange for...
    ... at "market rates" if we hadn't sold off the rights to market forces.... ... extraction of crude oil from British Oil fields yet their government ... in the UK pay corporation tax on their profits in addition. ... government already get enough from their natural windfall. ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
Quantcast