Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
tell me....do you and watermark support James Tobin's theories? he won a nobel prize....
APP - The textbook economics of cap-and-trade
- Thread starter FUCK THE POLICE
- Start date
Tobin is on this thread where?
Is that your counter to the first post?
In post after post on one of your cut and paste threads you complain about non reply replies. You did the very thing you consistently complain about.
I would support a Tobin Tax, you?
Last edited:
There are several problems with Krugman's analysis. But I will just stick with the simple one. It assumes the blue bar, the rents collected by the government, will be spent just as efficiently as if they were in private hands. But they will be spent on war, occasional enforcement of trade barriers, locking up drug offenders, and the proverbial $600 hammer. And if you think this hidden tax will offset other taxes, i.e., the government will tax less in other areas due to this new revenue source, then you are a complete sucker.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
he is a nobel prize winner....you and watermark have this fetish for nobel prize winners as this making them somehow right and better than anyone else....
so it was in fact a direct reply to you....and i don't cut and paste, you are a liar and your post is nothing but babble
LOL dumbass, he used the example to show how your use of the fallacy of appealing to authority is flawed
I was hoping someone would comment on the problem of the inefficiency of government spending. But since there is no comment...
These criticisms are somewhat out of the scope of Krugman's apparent intent. His intent seems to be bashing Beck and trying to associate all critics of cap and trade with Beck, which is the same thing he did on health care reform.
The second obvious problem, nAHZi touched on it and Krugman has acknowledged in other articles, is the cost of the cap itself. If the cap effectively reduces emissions it must increase the costs of production or retard growth. In order to meet growing demands while maintaining/reducing emissions cleaner and more costly production methods have to be used. If those cannot be implemented then growth must be restricted.
Another problem, glossed over, is that no one knows what the permit price is going to be. It's a moving target now and will be in the future. There is no guarantee that the price will not drastically change with each new administration. This creates instability and indecision for a going concern and the markets.
These criticisms are somewhat out of the scope of Krugman's apparent intent. His intent seems to be bashing Beck and trying to associate all critics of cap and trade with Beck, which is the same thing he did on health care reform.
The second obvious problem, nAHZi touched on it and Krugman has acknowledged in other articles, is the cost of the cap itself. If the cap effectively reduces emissions it must increase the costs of production or retard growth. In order to meet growing demands while maintaining/reducing emissions cleaner and more costly production methods have to be used. If those cannot be implemented then growth must be restricted.
Another problem, glossed over, is that no one knows what the permit price is going to be. It's a moving target now and will be in the future. There is no guarantee that the price will not drastically change with each new administration. This creates instability and indecision for a going concern and the markets.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Tard.
C
Cancel5
Guest
No, he asks you to show him where Krugman is wrong and I don't think you can, or don't want to?so that always makes him right.....
so anyone who has ever won a nobel prize always gets to be right and no one can disagree with them....you're as bad as watermark
Lao Tse
Verified User
It was done multiple times in this thread. Do you like multiples?
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Well, RS, if you get to arbitrarily assign what part of the government the money goes to anywhere you want, I do too. And I say it reduces the debt, which reduces future taxes/increases future spending. PWNT.
Lao Tse
Verified User
We have to look at history. Paying down debt has been a statistically less favorable act for politicians than using tax money to grow government programs.
But that aside, this simplistic hypothetical graph of yours is meaningless in many ways. it's completely disconnected from known reality. It has an internal logic on it's own, but it's still science fiction.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
You mean the anti-government fanatics get their cake and eat it too just by referencing some vague government conspiracy? No way!
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Yes. Everyone knows that their are right-triangles in reality that don't conform to the science (?) fiction of the Pythagorean theorom, as well.
Lao Tse
Verified User
The government is real, dude. It's a conspiracy to control us and take our money for their own power. That's what governments do, fudgepacker.
Lao Tse
Verified User
Your metaphor is not apt.
Economic predictions are wildly less accurate that geometry.
Additionally. Our people cannot withstand a "loss triangle" of any size, especially when the justification for the self inflicted wound, man made global warming, is a lie.
Last edited:
I did not arbitrarily assign it anywhere, but gave several examples. Government spending is usually inefficient and often counterproductive.