Effects of burning fossil fuels:

[Tin Man]

TM, I like the idea of a carbon tax too...for the same reasons you mentioned. It is technology neutral, it pushes for *both* alternative fuels that release less atmospheric carbon AND carbon dioxide sequestration...the market will sort out the variables as to what exact balance is economically best if the tax is simple and straightforward.

Also, in your proposal, it will level the playing field, as essentially India and China get a huge free ride based on their export relationship to us....since we are the marketplace to the world, why don't we dictate a sensible tax that is fair to all technologies, neutral toward carbon source, transparent in implementation, and heads us in the right direction! Tell me more!

But! as you alluded to:

We absolutely MUST resist the urge to inflate our way out of debts by manipulating monetary policies, as has been the regular practice in the past...nhmike, the service to the debt might be high now, but it has been higher before, and past administrations have whipped out the old trusty method of monkeying with monetary policies (fed chairman) to just inflate our way out of paying full price on those treasury notes....this has been done many times in a regular cycle since shortly after the civil war.

The only way for a carbon tax to work is to set it up as TM outlines, then to not screw with monetary policy! IOW: keep our damned hands out of the cookie jar! If not, we'd end up screwing ourselves as well as our creditors because that would form a tremendous hegemonic monopoly....and you can be certain our trading partners would react viciously in the economic realms.

Thanks! Yes, I believe the carbon tax might work like you say.

Another advantage of a comprehensive carbon tax would be it can be spread across the economy so it doesn't have to be punitive. However, goods that have concentrated carbon use would be hit hard, I suppose.

It doesn't make sense that US goods are not more attractive overseas with us so much out of wack trade wise - we are probably printing up too much money and the Chinese (perhaps others?) are getting it! The dollar should have been trashed by now, but the Chinese and others are buying up treasury bonds and propping it up! Does this mean that other countries have fiscal/monetary policy that is worse?

I like France, for example, which also adds nationalism to their consumer purchases - generally giving French products the biggest support. They were so good at sequestering gold in the 1950's and 1960's that Nixon took us off the gold standard!

TM

 

[dieselgrandad]

Gotcha!

Quote:
Originally Posted by TornadoRed
But what if we were already burning all we could produce.

Oroginally posted by nhmike
Paint the artctic with black paint.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Mikey, Mikey, Mikey (shaking head) That will NEVER work. At the rate the Arctic is melting, we'd never absorb enough radiant heat before all the paint all washes away.

We should paint the Antarctic instead!

 

[TornadoRed]

It doesn't make sense that US goods are not more attractive overseas with us so much out of wack trade wise - we are probably printing up too much money and the Chinese (perhaps others?) are getting it! The dollar should have been trashed by now, but the Chinese and others are buying up treasury bonds and propping it up! Does this mean that other countries have fiscal/monetary policy that is worse?

Just remember that the trade deficit is equal to the capital flow surplus (Current Account + Capital Account = Zero). This is a fairly normal situation when your currency is the de facto currency of the world -- every country wants to hold your currency in reserve, and many individuals want to hold dollar assets as part of their savings. Generally this is a good thing that the dollar is a desirable asset -- certainly better than the alternative.

I like France, for example, which also adds nationalism to their consumer purchases - generally giving French products the biggest support.

France is in terrible condition, by almost every measure. There is practically nothing about the French state, economy, or culture that is worthy of imitation.

 

[Tin Man]

France is in terrible condition, by almost every measure. There is practically nothing about the French state, economy, or culture that is worthy of imitation.

To stay on topic, they burn less fossil fuel. Their nuclear power industry is to be envied. I can mention a lot of other things, but that would take us too far off topic.

TM

 

[nh mike]

nh mike

The carbon tax I propose IS on all fossil fuel related goods/services. It can also be administered by the IRS. We don't need a syndicate of beleaguered nations to have such authority.

What I'm saying is that if our goal is to reduce global net CO2 emissions, we need global cooperation on this. You've suggested that our US carbon tax would be assessed on products made in other countries based on how much fossil fuel they use - but how would we know how much is used in making widget A in CHina, compared to widget B in India? And if India primarily sells widget B to countries that don't have any form of carbon tax, why would they care if we do? It wouldn't stop them from using fossil fuels in the making of it, or for producing the required electricity.

A US carbon tax would be very effective at reducing our use of fossil fuels (and since we're the world leader in that, that would have a big effect) - but I don't think we could accurately assess the fossil fuel input in every product made in other countries, to achieve the desired goal of eliminating the incentive to ship jobs to countries without such emissions regulations/taxes - at least not without the cooperation of those other countries. While you may not like the UN, it is the only body that brings together practically every country of the world - so it's essentially the only place to work out the details of something like this.

Rather than continuing to back away from the UN, which is facilitating its death spiral, why not work on making it a much better organization?

Remember oil for food?

Yup. Something that private companies in many countries (including the US) took advantage of, because of lack of oversight. Rather than walking away from the UN because of screwups like that, wouldn't it be more useful to work with the UN on solving problems like that, so that they don't happen again?

Using the US economic power by adding the tax to goods from countries who do not control their carbon use is a good start.

True, I agree with that. The issue is how we monitor their claimed carbon control. And would it be strictly on a country-by-country basis? SO, for example, if China has no carbon regulations, but some company builds an extremely environmentally friendly plant in CHina (maybe it's entirely solar powered for example), would they still be hit with the carbon tax because they're in China?

It may seem like nitpicking, but the details are something that could hold up such a proposal, so I think how to handle these issues needs to be addressed.

There are hidden costs to maintaining Europe's defense. They should pay taxes to the US government according to your analysis.

For many, many years, "maintaining the free flow of oil" has been a key element of our national security strategies, specifically spelled out (although it's been removed in recent years, since it wasn't desirable to have it so explicitly spelled out). Nowhere do any US national security strategies specifically state "defending Europe" is a focus of our military. Many European countries have decent militaries, that manage their own defense. Pretending that we're in the business of defending EUrope nowadays is rather silly.

How about the hidden costs of maintaining a free economy? Lets collect taxes for that too.

Such as?

Oh, and the Internet, printing up dollars, etc.

The government does not maintain the internet, private companies do. Taxpayers pay for the printing of dollars.

Lets get all the hidden stuff out. Even tax those that collect government benefits without working for a living and can - Kentucky is full of them!

I'm all for that.

Lower taxes don't mean they are low at all. They are probably too high. If 10% of our taxes go to service our debt, why does 30-50% or more of our income go to service the government and its social/welfare programs?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2007
37% goes to social security, medicare, medicaid, and welfare, combined. I was wrong, it's slightly under 10% right now for interest - 8.7%. It grew at a higher rate than any other budget item though (growth of 13.4%).

Where else can you get restraint on unlimited promises and spending than by tightening the purse-strings?

I'm all for tightening the purse-strings. A good place to start would be fixing the ridiculous 2002 medicare bill, which prevents the government from negotiating with drug companies for lower drug prices. That's why the same drugs are cheaper in Canada - their government negotiates with drug companies, while our government made it illegal to do so (can't have anything to do with those campaign contributions, eh?).

Seek a bit more compromise in your positions. It does you better.

I'm not sure what compromise you are suggesting.

 

[nh mike]

A comprehensive single-rate tax would be better for all, I think, because it would end so many deductions.

I'm all for eliminating all deductions and credits, but not shifting from progressive tax rates to a single rate. The reason we need a progressive rate is because the upper 5% of the population "earns" something like 60% of the income in the country each year (and owns somewhere around 80% of all the wealth in the country). I don't have the numbers in front of me right now, but from memory they are in that neighborhood. Reducing the tax rate on the wealthiest results in a BIG drop in tax revenue. The only way to offset that is by having the single rate not all that much lower than what the wealthiest currently pay - which makes it much harder on about the bottom 80% of the population.

Also, with a single standard deduction it would still be progressive, if that's what you want.

You didn't mention anything about a standard deduction. That would make it slightly progressive, but depending on the size of the standard deduction, it may not be very progressive. What would the size of the deduction be?

Maybe that's because the same folks who want a new tax are usually the same ones who 1) always want to tax more and spend more, and 2) always vote against tax cuts.

Yet in my proposal I carefully explain how it is a revenue neutral system, with no additional tax. So, how can you be opposed to it purely on the basis of it creating a new tax, and using the above argument?

 

[nh mike]

The alternatives are already subsidized, so I'm not sure I agree with your objection.

I'm in favor of getting rid of all of the subsidies - they are a very ineffective way of encouraging something.

Now if plug-in electric cars ever become popular, then we can talk about how to tax them, and the same with fuel cells or hydrogen or whatever. But they will always be a niche, I think, and so will ethanol and biodiesel.

yes, they will always be a niche, as long as we have no petroleum or carbon tax, and we will remain fully dependent on petroleum until we're forced to get off of it by some calamity.

(Until nuclear fusion electricity generation, and then we can switch almost completely away from liquid transportation fuels.)

Mmm-hmmmm....

So, another person taking the approach of "let's not do anything, and wait for scientists to solve the problems for us".

 

[TornadoRed]

I'm all for eliminating all deductions and credits, but not shifting from progressive tax rates to a single rate. The reason we need a progressive rate is because the upper 5% of the population "earns" something like 60% of the income in the country each year (and owns somewhere around 80% of all the wealth in the country). I don't have the numbers in front of me right now, but from memory they are in that neighborhood. Reducing the tax rate on the wealthiest results in a BIG drop in tax revenue.

The top 1% already pay more than 1/3 of all federal income taxes. The top 25% pay 84%, and the top 50% pay nearly 97%. How much larger do you think their share ought to be?

But there is plenty of room to redefine what is income. Do a search for Robert Haig, Henry Simons, or the Haig-Simons income concept.

You didn't mention anything about a standard deduction. That would make it slightly progressive, but depending on the size of the standard deduction, it may not be very progressive. What would the size of the deduction be?

I don't know, maybe ~$10k for primary taxpayers and something a bit less for dependents.

Yet in my proposal I carefully explain how it is a revenue neutral system, with no additional tax. So, how can you be opposed to it purely on the basis of it creating a new tax, and using the above argument?

In Europe the VAT was supposed to replace the income tax -- now some countries continue to raise both of them.

 

[TornadoRed]

yes, they will always be a niche, as long as we have no petroleum or carbon tax, and we will remain fully dependent on petroleum until we're forced to get off of it by some calamity.

There is not enough farmland in the world to produce enough biofuels to replace petroleum.

So, another person taking the approach of "let's not do anything, and wait for scientists to solve the problems for us".

No, but let's do the right thing -- let's not cut down all the rain forests to make ethanol or biodiesel.

 

[troy_heagy]

The idea is to tax consumption, not productivity. Also, to have imports that avoid the costs of environmental regulations get less favorable treatment.

NATIONAL SALES TAX would address the issue of reducing consumption & encouraging citizens to not be so disposable. (If it breaks, don't junk it.... repair it.)

As for the "rising oceans" problem, any shoreline lost will be recovered via formerly frozen Canada/Siberia/Antarctica being arable & open for food production. We would GAIN more useful land than we lose.

 

[nh mike]

Thanks! Yes, I believe the carbon tax might work like you say.

Another advantage of a comprehensive carbon tax would be it can be spread across the economy so it doesn't have to be punitive. However, goods that have concentrated carbon use would be hit hard, I suppose.

Goods with a concentrated carbon use *have* to be hit hard, IMO, for it to work. Hitting high fossil users hard is a feature, not a bug.

It doesn't make sense that US goods are not more attractive overseas with us so much out of wack trade wise - we are probably printing up too much money and the Chinese (perhaps others?) are getting it! The dollar should have been trashed by now, but the Chinese and others are buying up treasury bonds and propping it up! Does this mean that other countries have fiscal/monetary policy that is worse?

I think it means that other countries realize what problems would be caused globally if our economy were to collapse - so they are propping us up. Essentially, the mismanagement of our economy by our leaders (all of 'em) is forcing other countries to prop up the dollar to keep us afloat.

Our leaders think nothing of running a deficit (perhaps that's because most have never had to work for a living themselves, or balance their own personal budgets) - but what happens if China decides to stop "lending" us money (by stopping their practive of buying US bonds)?

Yes, we can use fiscal practices to lessen the value of the loans we've already racked up - but if we do that enough, no country is going to want to buy US bonds anymore.

 

[nh mike]

Just remember that the trade deficit is equal to the capital flow surplus (Current Account + Capital Account = Zero). This is a fairly normal situation when your currency is the de facto currency of the world -- every country wants to hold your currency in reserve, and many individuals want to hold dollar assets as part of their savings.

The problem is our continuous habit of racking up debt year after year is making many countries rethink that policy, and move away from the dollar (and to the Euro, gold, etc.). The approach most often suggested for handling our massive debt is to devalue the dollar so our loans aren't worth as much, and our goods can sell better overseas. The problem with that is that it makes other countries stop wanting to buy up our bonds (how they loan us money). Companies have already begun moving away from the dollar (US bonds) - when China moves away, we're screwed.

Generally this is a good thing that the dollar is a desirable asset -- certainly better than the alternative.

I agree. The problem is our continuous debt is making it become less and less desirable, because it's becoming obvious that the only way we'll be able to handle this debt down the road is by devaluing the dollar - which means countries are becoming less inclined to want to "invest" in the dollar.

 

[BioDiesel]

The costs of polluting your environment

A common argument used to counter pollution measure sis that it will ruin the economy.

Here is a report that states that China's reported 10% economic growth rate is negated all the way to _none_ once the environmental damage is accounted for.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/JubaksJournal/HowLongCanChinaPolluteForFree.aspx

 

[troy_heagy]

If you gave me 10 years I could eliminate the national debt. Problem: It would require cutting programs like "studying butterflies" and "planting roses along the interstate". In addition I would cut all agencies funding (except the retirement/SSI fund) by 50%. The excess taxes would then be used to pay-off the previously-unpaid bills.

PROBLEM: Nobody is willing to make those sacrifices.
We live in a spend, spend, spend society.
Hence the huge national debt & the huge individual debt.
Few americans know how to control themselves & say "no" to spending.

The environmental figures out of China, even the official ones, are appalling. More than 400,000 of China's 1.3 billion people die from air-pollution-related illness each year, according to the Chinese Academy on Environmental Planning.

Maybe the Chinese government has discovered a new way to control population? ;-) Forget the one-baby-per-couple law..... they'll use air pollution to shrink the country via faster means.

 

[TornadoRed]

I think it means that other countries realize what problems would be caused globally if our economy were to collapse - so they are propping us up. Essentially, the mismanagement of our economy by our leaders (all of 'em) is forcing other countries to prop up the dollar to keep us afloat.

I've lived through periods of mismanagement -- and this is not one of them. If you want to take a long view, the economy has been growing with only a couple minor glitches for the last 25 years. This has not been an accident -- it's been good monetary policy and reasonably good fiscal policy.

And not only have these policies been good for us, but they've been good for the whole world. Never before in human history have so many people had such a high standard of living as right now, or been able to eat as well as right now -- incidentally, never before have so many people lived in a state of peace. None of this has been an accident.

 

[TornadoRed]

The problem is our continuous habit of racking up debt year after year is making many countries rethink that policy, and move away from the dollar (and to the Euro, gold, etc.). The approach most often suggested for handling our massive debt is to devalue the dollar so our loans aren't worth as much, and our goods can sell better overseas. The problem with that is that it makes other countries stop wanting to buy up our bonds (how they loan us money).

Central banks, institutional investors, and individuals are continuously revising their portfolios, shifting money in and out of dollar assets. If there is inadequate demand for dollars at 5.75%, there is plenty when the rate goes up to 5.80%.

The fact that interest rates have been attractively low for so many years is a sign of confidence in the dollar.

 

[fixer]

I would be strongly opposed to anything created, imposed, managed, or controlled by the UN. I would in fact be so opposed that I would actually campaign for any politician that was also against it. As I always say, US out of the UN, UN out of the US. I have no interest in the US trying to save or reform the UN. No Thank You.

Regards a carbon tax administered by the IRS, you must be kidding, once again I would rather have no solution than that. Regardless of what the weight of scientific evidence shows I believe the "threat" of global warming will be used by politicians globally to justify a massive power grab and impose draconian solutions to "save" us and that the "cure" will be worse than the disease.

I am firmly in the let's do loads more study and research and not rush into any ill conceived (which they all seem) solutions side of this.

 

[dieselgrandad]

And not only have these policies been good for us, but they've been good for the whole world. Never before in human history have so many people had such a high standard of living as right now, or been able to eat as well as right now

And don't tell me let me guess, all because of the benevolence and magnanimity of the good ol' US of A, right?

incidentally, never before have so many people lived in a state of peace. None of this has been an accident.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Israel/Palestine, Ethiopia, Sudan, Congo, Nigeria, (most of central Africa) Indonesia, Phillippines, Chechnya, just to mention a few, all very peaceful.

 

[TornadoRed]

Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Israel/Palestine, Ethiopia, Sudan, Congo, Nigeria, (most of central Africa) Indonesia, Phillippines, Chechnya, just to mention a few, all very peaceful.

Parts of all those countries are unsafe. But most of Iraq is relatively safe. I don't know about Somalia or Chechnya -- they were bad in the past, maybe not so bad now. Gaza may be the least safe place on your list, with Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan right up there.

I am not sure if I'd pick some parts of Africa for a vacation destination, but I'd be more afraid of crime than war. I'd happily visit Indonesia or the PI.

The point is that maybe a few hundred thousand combatants are causing problems, but that is a tiny percent of the 6.6 billion people on the planet. A nearly-constant state of war has been the norm in most parts of the world, for all of human history. Now the problem is less than 0.005% of the world's population.

 

[Tin Man]

The problem is not whether there is a perfect solution, its where to start.

The UN can be fixed. Lets see, how to do that?

To find out the amount of carbon used in producing goods in China is not rocket science. It should be done fairly and transparently, yes.

If the IRS doesn't collect the carbon tax, who will? It should lower income taxes. The carbon tax would be a national sales tax skewed in favor of carbon neutral products and services. It would also be a VAT like in Europe. And yes, ANY tax can be fooled with. That is why its always a political issue.

The numbers support the notion that we are safer and richer as a WORLD than ever before. So one can argue that technology, diplomacy, and wealth have all contributed. I don't know how to prove these notions, but there would need to be some studies done to do so.

TM

 

[nh mike]

I've lived through periods of mismanagement -- and this is not one of them.

Shocking! A Republican thinks that the current Republican administration is managing the country well! Alert the presses!

If you want to take a long view, the economy has been growing with only a couple minor glitches for the last 25 years. This has not been an accident -- it's been good monetary policy and reasonably good fiscal policy.

IMO it's more of a result of capitalism thriving on rampant consumerism. As long as people shop 'til they drop, our economy thrives (at least until no manufacturing is left in the US). What you're completely ignoring is the issue of the national debt. You can't just look at the growth of the GDP, or the standard of living of the average American as the sole measure of how well our economy is being managed.

Consider the personal equivalent. If I make $50,000 a year, and 10 years from now I make $100,000 a year, we could say that I've been doing very well for myself. But, if I'm in debt up to my eyeballs, with credit cards maxed and unable to pay them, a second mortgage on my home, etc.., I'm not really doing all that well, am I? The problem is that our leaders (all of 'em, I'm not saying only Republicans, or only Democrats - the whole lot of them) can't balance a budget. So, no matter what our GDP is doing, they just keep racking up more and more debt. That can be ok for a while, as long as other countries are willing to keep lending us money. THe problem is they are increasingly becoming less willing to do so. I explained why in the post you just responded to - do you have any comments on that?

There's some interesting reading on that issue here:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/FRA501A.html

The basic crux of it is that the US has to deal with the huge amount of debt we've accumulated by devaluing the dollar, so that what we end up paying is less than we borrowed in the first place. This makes it less and less appealing for other countries to lend us money in the first place (by buying dollars/treasury notes). THink about it - would you make an investment if you know with 95% certainty that you're going to lose money on the deal? That's essentially how other countries now perceive loaning us money, since we have to devalue the dollar to keep from being overwhelmed by our debt. CHina is the biggest holder of US dollars (our biggest lender). It's now at the point though where their economy would be MUCH better off if they would invest their money in gold, the euro, or into themselves. So, when our leaders keep racking up $300+ billion deficits - what happens when nobody is willing to lend us that money?

And not only have these policies been good for us, but they've been good for the whole world. Never before in human history have so many people had such a high standard of living as right now, or been able to eat as well as right now -- incidentally, never before have so many people lived in a state of peace. None of this has been an accident.

Wow. What flavor kool-aid is that you're drinking, by the way?

 

[nh mike]

Central banks, institutional investors, and individuals are continuously revising their portfolios, shifting money in and out of dollar assets. If there is inadequate demand for dollars at 5.75%, there is plenty when the rate goes up to 5.80%.

The fact that interest rates have been attractively low for so many years is a sign of confidence in the dollar.

Huh? So, the interest rates being low has nothing to do with Alan Greenspan setting the interest rates so low year after year? Interest rates were lowered in large part to spur our own economy, by creating a housing boom. Essentially, if interest rates are low, that encourages individuals to spend their money rather than investing it. Since our economy thrives on spending, reducing interest rates boosted our economy (Greenspan deserves more credit for the growth of our economy in the past 15 years than either CLinton or Bush IMO). The problem is that Americans stop saving money, and rack up more and more debt. Meanwhile, low interest rates combined with the US intentionally devaluing the dollar start making it less and less desirable for other countries to buy up our debt.

Read this:
http://www.willthomas.net/Convergence/Weekly/United_States.htm
(this is from two years ago, when signs of this were beginning to become very apparent. Yes, the author isn't a fan of Bush, but he cites many important points from economists about what I'm saying)
Note:
"Wall Street trembled last week when Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned that foreign investors might starting dumping dollars whose value is falling as fast as the US trade deficit is climbing. “The current account deficit is too big, and asking foreigners to lend us $600 billion a year to cover it is creating great risk for the dollar,” says Lehman Bros. chief economist Ethan Harris. He means “risk” as in “wipe out”.

It’s beginning to look like 1929 all over again. As Jeremy Rifkin remarks, in the 1920s wages remained flat for decades, while many workers lost their jobs in the wake of “downsizing” and cheaper technological substitutions. Worried over weak consumer demand, banks, brokerages and retailers extended lots of cheap credit to keep people buying what they couldn’t afford – including stocks. By late 1929, consumer debt was too high to be sustained. “Finally,” Rifkin relates, “the entire house of cards collapsed.” [Guardian Oct 24/00]

“ No nation in the history of the world has ever escaped this level of indebtedness - annual and cumulative - without a severe and totally involuntary adjustment,” declares economist Harry Chernoff. [Los Angeles Times Nov 20/04]

“Though the timing is anyone’s guess, the US dollar is poised to be overwhelmed by the deficit,” agrees Asia Times. Noting that the current US trade deficit imbalance stands at 5.4% of Gross Domestic Product, Asian observers note that the previous record trade deficit of 3.5% of GDP was enough to wipe out a third of the dollar’s value when “Black Monday” sent the stock market into free-fall in 1989. [Asia Times Oct.14/04]
Problem is, the USA owes its creditors about $4.4 trillion. Paying just the interest due on all those loans means more borrowing, which requires still more loans to keep “rolling over” all those 10-year Treasury notes as they become due for repayment, plus interest. But with the dollar plummeting in value and inflation rising, foreign lenders are losing confidence in the worth of Bush’s IOU’s. Oil-producing nations are starting to say they prefer payment in Euros, gold dinars (at left), or maybe even yak hides – anything but more bogus bucks.
Until a few months ago, big commercial banks in Japan and China were financing America’s huge appetite for consumer products, weaponry and warfare. “At some point we’re going to have to pay back all those borrowed trillions,” says Peter Peterson, chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
In the meantime, foreigners end up owning much of America. Now those lenders worry that their loans to Uncle Sam are unpayable. With total state and federal government debts currently passing $14 trillion dollars in a near-vertical climb, US taxpayers have shelled out $15 trillion in interest payments since 1960 – while the principal continues to rise. As the US debt exceeds both belief and relief, Peterson worries, “Foreigners lose confidence in us. The dollar falls, the stock markets fall, the bond markets fall, the interest rates go way up.”
Higher interest rates means more interest on the national debt, which is really the debt of American children, and their children – just as oil scarcity and climate change start to really kick in. "​

 

[nh mike]

I would be strongly opposed to anything created, imposed, managed, or controlled by the UN. I would in fact be so opposed that I would actually campaign for any politician that was also against it. As I always say, US out of the UN, UN out of the US. I have no interest in the US trying to save or reform the UN. No Thank You.

Regards a carbon tax administered by the IRS, you must be kidding, once again I would rather have no solution than that. Regardless of what the weight of scientific evidence shows I believe the "threat" of global warming will be used by politicians globally to justify a massive power grab and impose draconian solutions to "save" us and that the "cure" will be worse than the disease.

I am firmly in the let's do loads more study and research and not rush into any ill conceived (which they all seem) solutions side of this.

Is there any point at which you would NOT be in the "let's do loads more study and research and not rush into" anything camp?

Look at it this way - likely >95% or more of the scientists in the world with relevenet knowledge are firmly convinced that we are causing global climate change, and it's going to get much worse. Sure, there are a small handful who dispute that - you'll never get a 100% consensus on anything. So, what is required for you to think we should do more than just study the problem?

Even if you go for the notion that we aren't completely certain we're causing potentially catastrophic damage, IMO the notion of not doing anything is foolhardy. If you've been blindfolded, and are maybe only 50% sure you're walking towards a cliff - do you try to stop walking in that direction, or do you keep heading that way since there may be a 50% chance you won't plummet to your death?

 

[nh mike]

Parts of all those countries are unsafe. But most of Iraq is relatively safe. I don't know about Somalia or Chechnya -- they were bad in the past, maybe not so bad now. Gaza may be the least safe place on your list, with Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan right up there.

Mm-hmmmm.......

The point is that maybe a few hundred thousand combatants are causing problems, but that is a tiny percent of the 6.6 billion people on the planet. A nearly-constant state of war has been the norm in most parts of the world, for all of human history. Now the problem is less than 0.005% of the world's population.

By that argument, as long as the population keeps growing, we're relatively certain to meet the requirements of fewer people living in peace than at any time in previous history.

If we were to instead look at it in terms of how many countries are involved in wars currently....

 

[nh mike]

The problem is not whether there is a perfect solution, its where to start.

The UN can be fixed. Lets see, how to do that?

#1 I'd say no country currently know to be violating accepted human rights standards, and funding terrorists, should be allowed to have a seat on the security council. That's big part of many problems in the UN - the security council (which ultimately determines how much sway the UN holds when it comes to enforcing resolutions) has become meaningless by allowing countries like Libya to have seats on it - since it's purely decided based on a rotation system, ignoring the country's policies.

Beyond that, there are many other changes that need to be made, largely focused on setting accepted standards (human rights, etc.) that can be used to determine to what degree countries can be involved in voting on resolutions, etc.. That would create a big incentive for countries to clean up their act.

Those first two steps wouldn't solve everything, but they would help the UN to become a more meaningful body.

To find out the amount of carbon used in producing goods in China is not rocket science.

It's not rocket science, but it's no trivial task either.

If the IRS doesn't collect the carbon tax, who will? It should lower income taxes. The carbon tax would be a national sales tax skewed in favor of carbon neutral products and services.

Yup, sounds good to me.

 

[Tin Man]

I agree with nh mike on the UN and carbon tax advantages.

As far as national debt, I'm not so sure we should EVER have a STRICT balanced budget. This is more economics theory as well as political science, but essentially the argument goes that a country benefits from deficit spending to a certain extent, especially with the realities of recession/boom cycles and other ups and downs.

Much of the progressive (not a capital P) programs relied on deficit spending, including getting us out of the Depression and other difficult situations like world wars. Its a fine balance, IMO.

The system of international monetary exchange DEPENDS on lowering the value of a currency which is printed too much or whose citizens spend too much on imports. That is why the price of gold, the stock market, a barrel of oil etc. when it "goes up" does not necessarily mean more wealth. It may mean less value to the currency that is used to buy it.

TM

 

[nh mike]

I agree with nh mike on the UN and carbon tax advantages.

Excellent (said while tapping fingers together a la Mr. Burns)...

As far as national debt, I'm not so sure we should EVER have a STRICT balanced budget. This is more economics theory as well as political science, but essentially the argument goes that a country benefits from deficit spending to a certain extent, especially with the realities of recession/boom cycles and other ups and downs.

Much of the progressive (not a capital P) programs relied on deficit spending, including getting us out of the Depression and other difficult situations like world wars. Its a fine balance, IMO.

True. I'm not saying that we shouldn't ever borrow money. If it weren't for being able to borrow money on a personal level, I wouldn't have a house. But, there's a difference between borrowing money when necessary, but within limits, vs. borrowing to the point that you can barely keep up with your interest payments on your credit cards. On the federal level, there's nothing wrong with borrowing when necessary. What I have a problem with is making borrowing (deficit spending) a habitual practice, and racking up debt so large that we essentially have to borrow money to be able to pay the interest on our debt, and devalue our currency to be able to handle it. That goes beyond reasonable borrowing, into the realm of drowning in debt.

The system of international monetary exchange DEPENDS on lowering the value of a currency which is printed too much or whose citizens spend too much on imports. That is why the price of gold, the stock market, a barrel of oil etc. when it "goes up" does not necessarily mean more wealth. It may mean less value to the currency that is used to buy it.

True. The problem is that our country now needs to rely on intentionally devaluing the dollar to keep our debt from becoming overwhelming. That makes countries less and less interested in loaning us money, since they know that they're likely to lose money in the process. The only reason countries like China have been willing to do so is that they know that if they don't, our economy could collapse, and cause a global recession. Since we have allowed our debt to rise to the point that we have to borrow money to be able to pay the interest on our debt (in addition to the rest of our budget), what happens though if/when countries decide they're no longer willing to lose money to keep our economy moving, and instead invest the money either in their own country (i.e. CHina could choose to spend that money building domestic infrastructure instead of loaning it to us), or in the Euro?

Effectively we've put ourselves at the mercy of whether or not CHina and a few other countries are willing to keep loaning us money, while knowing that they'll lose money in the process (since we'll devalue the dollar to be able to pay off the loan). That, IMO, is not good fiscal policy.

 

[Tin Man]

Yes, and if there comes a time when the currency pressure is too much, a precipitous fall in the dollar would be even worse. I agree, fiscal restraint is the best course. Fixing the trade deficit would make it a moot point.

TM

 

[fixer]

Even if you go for the notion that we aren't completely certain we're causing potentially catastrophic damage, IMO the notion of not doing anything is foolhardy. If you've been blindfolded, and are maybe only 50% sure you're walking towards a cliff - do you try to stop walking in that direction, or do you keep heading that way since there may be a 50% chance you won't plummet to your death?

Your analogy is what is so wrong with this "debate" as it grossly overstates the threat. I reject the "walking towards a cliff" analogy, which makes it sound like the danger is imminent when it isn't. Instead of a cliff it's more like a long gradual slope and one that I'm still many miles away from. More correctly stated, I've been blindfolded and been told if I kept walking in my chosen direction that bad things may happen to me, but not sure what things, or when they'll happen, possibly in 10-20 years, or 20-50 years or 50-100 years or even further out, or not at all.

 

[nicklockard]

There is actually one more layer of complexity to the situation with our currency and heavy borrowing. The reason China won't cut us off today is because it would hurt them in the process. Our currency is the de facto world currency; most of our creditor nations also hold large dollar assets and purchase oil in dollars from OPEC. They do not want their dollar assets to be devalued, which would happen were they to stop loaning us bales of cash. They are stuck in this relationship of "the devil you know is better than the one you don't." They can not afford to stop propping up the dollar, or the price of oil would become too dear.

However, our creditor nations must have a breaking point where they can no longer afford to do this. At some point, the more economically healthy creditor nations of ours will begin shifting assets to Euro backed assets and take thier medicine on the dollar fall and the resultant pain at the pump.

This four-way relationship between the dollar, oil, trade imbalance, and our status as a debtors nation (also marketplace to the world) is threatened by any viable alternative like the Euro as a substitute for the dollar in this complex relationship. As time goes on, the Euro is starting to look like a more and more acceptable substitute...it all depends on stability and safety. Because of our galloping around the globe and starting wars we can't finish properly, we risk losing our prime spot in this relationship.