207 replies to this topic

[Balloon guy]

So the newest deal in Washington that 'has to be done right away' is Cap and Trade

The basics of this are as follows;

Companies that use energy are going to be limited on what they can use, let's say 10 energy bucks per day. That's the 'Cap'

If they use 11, then they must buy energy bucks from the government. That's the 'Trade'

So company XYZ has to pay for the right to use energy in this country. Does anyone here need to learn the reality of how a company decides on a price for their product? They take the cost to make it, add the tax and their profit, and that's the price.

So they are going to be forced to buy these energy credits, from the government, and therefore increase the cost to make thier product.

The price of the product goes up. Which means if you the consumer want an XYA company's widget, you will pay an inflated price. This money will make it to the government. In all other instances when you pay money that goes to the government, they call it a tax.

In this case they are pretending they are saving the enironment, therefore you can feel good that you are now going to pay extra for every single thing you buy. Nothing in this bill claims to stop global warming, or even slow it down if it's really caused by humans.

"95% of you will get a tax cut": Obama in December of last year.



BTW every European country that has done the cap and trade has seen dramatic job loses and increased prices, and so far nobody is saying the earth is getting cooler because the people in Spain pay extra for a toothbrush.


Luckily though when the government finds themself in a bit of a shortage financially, they can just decrease the allowed energy usage for all companyies, thereby increasing their take. This will not require a vote to raise taxes, but instead it will require a vote to 'save the planet'.

[CaneBrain]

climate change is a real problem that we have to address.

cap and trade is a bad way to do so.

[strategy]

The price of the product goes up. Which means if you the consumer want an XYA company's widget, you will pay an inflated price.

this is not true.

pretty sure we've been over it.

[LongLiveYorke]

So company XYZ has to pay for the right to use energy in this country. Does anyone here need to learn the reality of how a company decides on a price for their product? They take the cost to make it, add the tax and their profit, and that's the price.

So they are going to be forced to buy these energy credits, from the government, and therefore increase the cost to make thier product.

What if you're company D that uses well under their energy limit and sells their credits to other companies for profits? Do their costs go down and do they then pass that down to the consumer?

[vbnautilus]

The basics of this are as follows;

Companies that use energy are going to be limited on what they can use, let's say 10 energy bucks per day. That's the 'Cap'

If they use 11, then they must buy energy bucks from the government. That's the 'Trade'

Uh, no. Please get the basics right first, THEN post your witty-but-wrong criticism.

[vbnautilus]

What if you're company D that uses well under their energy limit and sells their credits to other companies for profits? Do their costs go down and do they then pass that down to the consumer?

But then you have the *actual* cap and trade system, not the "Balloon Guy Fantasy CnT".

[Balloon guy]

Silly boys.

After all these years why would you doubt me.

First, no, company XYQ is not going to make a widget for less energy and pass the savings on because they have to plan for the increase in business when they also use too much energy, so they will build reserves etc. They also will need to hire a team of lawyers and accountants to quatify their energy usage which will cost them money. To prove this ask why company XYZ can remain in business if XYQ is already building the same thing at lower costs.

Second, cap and trade is being done in Europe with disasterous resutls, but I guess it's possible that Pelosi and Reed will run it better, but I think that's a bad bet.

C. I probably mixed in a little hyperbole with my facts in order to save myself the much dreaded excursion into goggle hell and the 500,000 hits my search results would have found. But the basic premise that Cap and trade is bad, is nothing but a hidden tax and will result in lost jobs is pretty much spot on.

5th, In the bill is a provision for money to help the unemployment insurance funds which are going to be taxed with the increases EXPECTED from the results of this bill.

Last, they are running this through with a "We have to get this done right away" for a reason. Because it's worked for them on the stimulus, the bail outs and the spending bills recently, might as well stick with what works.

And finally I haven't heard any of you tell me why Cap and Trade is a good idea, just trying to tear down my bad job of explaining it, which may make you feel warm and fuzzy, but it still leaves you defending something that is horribly bad for this country.

And later I will post links to stories that support me and make you guys look dumber. If that's possible

[El Guapo]

There is no reason something like this would ever need to be rushed at the 11th hour. It's ridiculous and as needed as TARP was it has set a horrid precedent.

[brvheart]

At least it will create jobs....

[JustDoIt]

I think Al Gore needs to let everybody know how much money he has made off this fraud every time he speaks out.....you know a disclaimer.

[Plus one]

Edit for obvious reasons

The idea that puny humans hold veto power over the incredible forces of nature is lol.

WE couldnt influence a simple warm front, let alone a tornado or hurricane if we wanted to.

Every volcanic eruption put more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere than humans have throughout history combined.

Finally, greenland used to be green. Long before we polluted anything. What caused that global warming?



Flame on Macbeth!

[hblask]

What if you're company D that uses well under their energy limit and sells their credits to other companies for profits? Do their costs go down and do they then pass that down to the consumer?

Basically, they would have a competitive advantage, driving company A out of business -- more unemployment, less government revenue. So now the govt needs more money, so they lower the caps, driving up prices for company D.

It's such a bad idea it's almost unfathomable that it's not a prank.

[vbnautilus]

And finally I haven't heard any of you tell me why Cap and Trade is a good idea, just trying to tear down my bad job of explaining it, which may make you feel warm and fuzzy, but it still leaves you defending something that is horribly bad for this country.

Much more fun to just tear down your job of explaining it.

I don't know if CnT is a good idea or not. But the purpose is not to reduce costs. The purpose is to reduce emissions.

Sometimes I think people forget the world is not just an economy. It's a living organism.

[strategy's_touch]

Much more fun to just tear down your job of explaining it.

I don't know if CnT is a good idea or not. But the purpose is not to reduce costs. The purpose is to reduce emissions.

Sometimes I think people forget the world is not just an economy. It's a living organism.

yeah, this is pretty much my position. you couldn't persuade me to argue the issue either way, as I just don't know much on the issue.

[NickZepp]

At least it will create jobs....

For over seas. It'll lose more jobs in America.

[Balloon guy]

Much more fun to just tear down your job of explaining it.

I don't know if CnT is a good idea or not. But the purpose is not to reduce costs. The purpose is to reduce emissions.

Sometimes I think people forget the world is not just an economy. It's a living organism.

Well then this living organism is tired of taking the earth's punches without a little payback.

Yea..remember that earthquake in SF?

How about the Katrina storm?

Hey Thanks for making Viruses that adapt and mutate and stuff.

Seems like Global warming is mankinds way of fighting back.

Don't go whining Earth...you asked for it.

[Balloon guy]

yeah, this is pretty much my position. you couldn't persuade me to argue the issue either way, as I just don't know much on the issue.

well since you are fence sitting, maybe I should ask you if you are ready for $5 gasoline?


Huh?

[strategy]

well since you are fence sitting, maybe I should ask you if you are ready for $5 gasoline?


Huh?

as long as we continue to stay cool with the saudis, this won't happen

actually I think they could hate us with the fire of a thousand suns and they'd still keep prices under $4

[LongLiveYorke]

Basically, they would have a competitive advantage, driving company A out of business -- more unemployment, less government revenue. So now the govt needs more money, so they lower the caps, driving up prices for company D.

It's such a bad idea it's almost unfathomable that it's not a prank.

Are you implying that a taxation on a company will automatically cause it to fail? Because I'd argue that there is ample precedent of taxing companies and not having them all fail.

Cap and Trade adds economic pressure to decrease pollution by adding positive and negative reinforcement. Limiting the amount of pollution to me is one of the most obvious roles for government. Since there is very little natural incentive for companies to reduce emissions themselves, but it is widely beneficial for the greater population for them to do so, the government must step in and create artificial pressure. This is the role of government: to create incentives for beneficial actions that have no incentives without government.

Imagine a country with no pollution laws of any sort. It would benefit company A if every other company had no pollution. However, it doesn't benefit company A to reduce its own pollution (the gain for company A to reduce its pollution is offset by the loss it takes in doing so; only when all companies act alike are there real environmental gains). Thus, no company reduces pollution. This is simple game theory; it's basically the prisoner's dilemma applied to companies and pollution. Imagine a scenario where, that if all companies decided individually to have no emissions, the total gain over all companies from this decision is greater than the sum of the individual costs to reduce pollution. Even in this scenario, spontaneous reduction of pollution of all companies would not take place because there is no local path to that equilibrium point. It would take the all companies to act together globally to reach that point; the role of the government is to make these global movements take place.

[hblask]

Are you implying that a taxation on a company will automatically cause it to fail? Because I'd argue that there is ample precedent of taxing companies and not having them all fail.

Cap and Trade adds economic pressure to decrease pollution by adding positive and negative reinforcement. Limiting the amount of pollution to me is one of the most obvious roles for government. Since there is very little natural incentive for companies to reduce emissions themselves, but it is widely beneficial for the greater population for them to do so, the government must step in and create artificial pressure. This is the role of government: to create incentives for beneficial actions that have no incentives without government.

Imagine a country with no pollution laws of any sort. It would benefit company A if every other company had no pollution. However, it doesn't benefit company A to reduce its own pollution (the gain for company A to reduce its pollution is offset by the loss it takes in doing so; only when all companies act alike are there real environmental gains). Thus, no company reduces pollution. This is simple game theory; it's basically the prisoner's dilemma applied to companies and pollution. Imagine a scenario where, that if all companies decided individually to have no emissions, the total gain over all companies from this decision is greater than the sum of the individual costs to reduce pollution. Even in this scenario, spontaneous reduction of pollution of all companies would not take place because there is no local path to that equilibrium point. It would take the all companies to act together globally to reach that point; the role of the government is to make these global movements take place.

This is an issue that gets complicated quickly, so let me just say that in theory we could create government mandated economic incentives to achieve the goals we want without too much harm, but that this particular implementation is absolutely terrible, and will cause massive unemployment. It's too much, too fast, and implemented in a way that will lead to more political corruption and market distortions. A more complete discussion quickly turns into a research paper, so I'll leave it there.