Cap and Trade: Solving global warming with market forces

[Deadskins]

Lots of good points there, Ray. But you're wrong about the planet actually cooling. It, along with all the other planets in the solar system, is heating up.

[RayNAustin]

Lots of good points there, Ray. But you're wrong about the planet actually cooling. It, along with all the other planets in the solar system, is heating up.

This was true for the the last decade, which in and of itself proved that the warming was not man made, but a natural cycle.

Since 2000 however, there has been a cooling period for almost 10 years, however slightly. And much of the warming models before are flawed due to temp sensors being placed in urban areas that provide inaccurately high readings.

You're just a little behind the curve on this one.

http://iceagenow.com/Top_Scientists_say ... _a_lie.htm

[KazooSkinsFan]

Actually cap and trade has proved to be a really effective way of reducing emissions

There are two problems with this argument.

1) The reason it worked was it drove more industry out of California. Nevada has been a great beneficiary of California citizens and businesses as the State continues to go Left. There was no net pollution reduction, it just helped drive the state into the mess it's in as it keeps losing industry and jobs.

2) Let's ignore that reality and pretend it did work. The Left always does this with Cap and Trade. Well it "worked" in a market controlled not even across the US but inside one State with dictatorial powers over an industry. Therefore it would work across the globe where it's the wild west of diplomacy and hundreds of governments none in control and making politically motivated decisions and excempting 90% of them from standards which will be phased in later according to rules negotiated in international diplomacy with dictator governments. And yet you present it there just like the Left and drop it right there without a whiff of the recognition of the incredible difference between doing this in California and across the globe.

[HEROHAMO]

Just another program to punish Corporations and Companies.


The more you tax and fine Companies. The more cuts they will make. Which means less jobs. It hurts the working Americans in the end. Who are the ones paying for this cap and crap.
Even if a Company manages to buy some credits from a less pollutant. That Company just lost money from there budget. The more the budget shrinks the more cuts that will happen. Wake up!
We need to create jobs! This is not helping the situation at all.

How about putting money towards science in which burns fuel more efficiently and cleaner? I would much rather go for that.

I just don't get it. Is it plain ignorance or just thievery? Am I missing something here?
I have read part of this bill. The working middle class and lower class will be taxed most on this program. This Cap and Crap is supposed to be the way this Administration plans on paying for the Universal Health Care.
Money from this Cap and Crap will also go to paying out the tax credits.
For Companies it is actually worse then a tax. At least with a tax you can get some part of it back. In this case you just have money going out.

It is definatley a socialist program disguised as a "Save the Earth" program.

[HEROHAMO]

Oh and another point I wanted to make.

Why on Earth is there a whole new tax for this program?

What exactly do the taxpayers have to do with a Company or factory burning cleaner air?
Ok an inspector has to get paid to inspect the level of pollution. I do not see where all the other costs come in. The more and more I read this bill the more it stinks.

Someone please explain to me why an additional tax is needed to tell a Company they are polluting too much.
Only cost I see is paying a guy to inspect the Company. Which does not explain why so much money is needed from taxpayers?

[KazooSkinsFan]

Oh and another point I wanted to make.

Why on Earth is there a whole new tax for this program?

The only direct "tax" would be the cost of the bureaucracy to administer the program. Though in reality those buying credits are paying a "tax" and those selling them actually make money. The real tax though would be that the US like California would lose more industry and the jobs and economic benefit that goes with it.

For example in California you virtually can't build a power plant because of the eco wackos. I was #2 in the IT organization at GE Nuclear which was then based in San Jose and then I managed development of sales websites at GE Power in Atlanta, so I know that industry well. So what happens?

California buys massive energy from surrounding States. They pay higher rates then producing it, the States prioritize their own needs first on high energy usage days. So does the cost of sending the jobs and money out of State help the environment? Well, since California buys the energy on the market, they have no control over the companies producing it, so they don't meet California standards. It's another stupid liberal solution. I want to help my wife rinse the dishes, so I'm going to throw my shoes out the window.

[KazooSkinsFan]

The more you tax and fine Companies. The more cuts they will make. Which means less jobs. It hurts the working Americans in the end. Who are the ones paying for this cap and crap.
Even if a Company manages to buy some credits from a less pollutant. That Company just lost money from there budget. The more the budget shrinks the more cuts that will happen. Wake up!
We need to create jobs! This is not helping the situation at all.

Bam, now that's what I'm talking about.

How about putting money towards science in which burns fuel more efficiently and cleaner? I would much rather go for that.

What about getting government out of energy completely? Prices will rise and people will adapt (by smaller cars, ...) and energy advances to reduce energy needs will thrive. Did ending government protection for the Ma Ma Bell monopoly drive up long distance costs like they said it would? Did air fares go up when government stopped setting prices? Fewer energy regulations would lead to a far better energy picture in this country.

It is definatley a socialist program disguised as a "Save the Earth" program.

Yes it is.

[crazyhorse1]

This is TOOOOOO funny.

Cap & Trade ... another ponzi scheme designed to bilk the sheeple out of Billions in additional taxes, and create another "market" to be exploited by select corporations.

Got to hand it to them ... selling snake oil on a global scale is quite an impressive scheme.

Here's how it works. A company is created .. "The Green Zone" (TGZ) who buys and sells carbon credits to and from other companies around the world. The governments of the world set arbitrary figures on CO2 emissions. Company A that exceeds those limits can buy carbon offset credits from Company B that doesn't. Company B makes a couple of bucks, while company A still pumps out the pollution just as before. Company A then raises the prices of their products to pay for the carbon offset credits, and the consumer pays for the profit that TGZ company makes for doing absolutely nothing.

Meanwhile, company A still pumps out just as much pollution as it ever did (meaning no change in the levels of pollution) while the average Joe pays more for everything.

Now with the system firmly in place, individual carbon limits will be issued to everyone ... the wealthy can buy their offset credits and keep their air conditioning set at 65 or their heat to 80, while the rest will either freeze or sweat.

BRILLIANT.

And they say you can't fool all of the people all of the time ....

You misunderstand the concept, Ray. Read Kazoo's post again. It's on target. It doesn't involve sheeple or taxes. That's the beauty of it. One manufacturer has to pay the other and pollution is controlled across the board. Also, if it worked on an individual level, the rich would be paying the poor, which would prevent the poor from freezing or sweating, or, if they choose, make money for doing both. I would love it if my doctor had to pay me for wearing a sweater or T-shirt and shorts. Social justice is something I wrap around. I wish they'd extend the concept to cars.

Your model miserably fails. The company emitting a high level of pollution would initially try to mark up its prices, sure, but then it would be undercut by the more efficient company that can reduce its prices because it is taking money directly from the account of the first company producing too much pollution. The result would be a competion to produce product with the lowest level of pollution possible and at the lowest prices.

[crazyhorse1]

Actually cap and trade has proved to be a really effective way of reducing emissions.

Yes, California is cited as the model program.

Isn't California in a financial Apocalypse right now?

Would you follow your broke Uncle's advice only 'cause he put some solar panels on his roof to "go green", only to find out the bank is about to foreclose on his house?

I understand Cap and Tax is not to blame for the financial woes in CA (at least not directly, to my knowledge), but to copy what CA has done, IMO, doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement for Cap and Tax.

Cap and Trade doesn't involve taxing anyone for anything. Also, cap and trade has nothing to do with California's problems. The post is illogical.

[crazyhorse1]

Company B makes a couple of bucks, while company A still pumps out the pollution just as before. Company A then raises the prices of their products to pay for the carbon offset credits, and the consumer pays for the profit that TGZ company makes for doing absolutely nothing

One more question, Ray. Let's say you're right on this. I produce and sell turnip juice makers and I charge $5. Now cap and trade comes and it's going to cost me another buck to make them to pay for my above the cap pollution. Being your evil capitalist stereotype I get my 350 pound body off my butt, twist my handlebar mustache, laugh my cackling, evil laugh and just raise prices a buck. The consumer now just pays the extra buck for every turnip juice maker I sell.

Here's the problem. According to your scenario I can just raise my prices a buck because I feel like it. Why not raise my prices to $6 now and keep the profit myself then if they do cap I'll use the money for cap and trade. Or better yet raise prices $2 when cap and trade comes and spend a buck on cap and trade and make another buck. Why don't I just raise my price to $50 bucks? According to you consumers have no choice but to pay it. So why don't I do that?

Here's a totally unrelated follow up question. Do you know what "supply" and "demand" are?

When it comes to this scenario, the supply is controlled. The demand is unending since you're talking about energy that everyone needs to survive.

This is not about 40 inch LCD's that people can choose not to purchase. And if you had HALF a brain, this would be obvious to you.

I swear, I think my dog could whip you in a chess game.

Cap and trade is not necessarily about energy supply, Ray.

[crazyhorse1]

This is TOOOOOO funny.

Cap & Trade ... another ponzi scheme

You don't know what a Ponzi scheme is, do you Ray? What you described isn't one. Ponzi doesn't mean "bad" it actually has a specific meaning. I realize to liberals any bad word can be applied to anything they don't like, but we're not all liberals so you may want to learn what words actually mean if you're going to use them outside liberal arenas.

Instead of pounding on Ray for his semantics, could you provide an explanation as to why Cap and Tax is NOT a scam, as Ray points out.

As of my typing of this post, you have not addressed his argument directly.

Can you please explain why, IYO, the little guy WON'T end up being the victim, like those of a Ponzi scheme?

Kazoo has very clearly addressed what cap and trade is and it is evident from what he has stated there are no scam elements. Instead of asking him to prove the non-existence of the Great Pumpkin, try understanding the concept. It's blatantly obvious you don't. It doesn't involve taxes and it doesn't involve a raise in prices. The only beneficiary (other than you and other members of the public) is the manufacturer who stays within acceptable pollution levels and the only victim is the manufacturer who doesn't.
The overall result is lower pollution.

[crazyhorse1]

This is TOOOOOO funny.

Cap & Trade ... another ponzi scheme

You don't know what a Ponzi scheme is, do you Ray? What you described isn't one. Ponzi doesn't mean "bad" it actually has a specific meaning. I realize to liberals any bad word can be applied to anything they don't like, but we're not all liberals so you may want to learn what words actually mean if you're going to use them outside liberal arenas.

Look the word up. It's very applicable. It's fraud in which investors invest in a non existent (totally bogus) enterprise. The first investors ( the ponzi schemers) reap the benefits of the successive investors (the captive audience relying on honest government).

This quite appropriately describes cap & trade ... or as Redeemedskin so accurately labeled "Cap & Tax".

No way to apply the definition to Cap and Trade, Ray. No investors. No fraud. No enterprise. No captive audiences. Manufacturers raise prices according to supply and demand, as always. They don't need excuses to try to raise prices-- they always go for what they can get. The notion that a private company in real competition with another company can just pass its increased costs along to consumers is nonsense. Companies with increased costs die. That's the real reason Cap and Trade works, in case you missed the point.

[crazyhorse1]

Sorry, Kaz. No matter what the state mandate, if it is a state mandate, it cannot create "market forces." You can't polish a turd.

That point is far from "theory" and no closer to fact. It is akin to "yahoo" opinion and is contradicted by Cap and Trade itself, which obviously creates market forces. What state mandates don't create market forces?

[crazyhorse1]

Just another program to punish Corporations and Companies.


The more you tax and fine Companies. The more cuts they will make. Which means less jobs. It hurts the working Americans in the end. Who are the ones paying for this cap and crap.
Even if a Company manages to buy some credits from a less pollutant. That Company just lost money from there budget. The more the budget shrinks the more cuts that will happen. Wake up!
We need to create jobs! This is not helping the situation at all.

How about putting money towards science in which burns fuel more efficiently and cleaner? I would much rather go for that.

I just don't get it. Is it plain ignorance or just thievery? Am I missing something here?
I have read part of this bill. The working middle class and lower class will be taxed most on this program. This Cap and Crap is supposed to be the way this Administration plans on paying for the Universal Health Care.
Money from this Cap and Crap will also go to paying out the tax credits.
For Companies it is actually worse then a tax. At least with a tax you can get some part of it back. In this case you just have money going out.

It is definatley a socialist program disguised as a "Save the Earth" program.

That last paragraph is so wrong in every detail that I assume you are missing something.

[Irn-Bru]

Sorry, Kaz. No matter what the state mandate, if it is a state mandate, it cannot create "market forces." You can't polish a turd.

That point is far from "theory" and no closer to fact. It is akin to "yahoo" opinion and is contradicted by Cap and Trade itself, which obviously creates market forces. What state mandates don't create market forces?

I'm not denying that market forces are still at work. But they work in spite of hurdles and destructive policies, like the black markets in Soviet Russia that kept (some) people from starving for those 80 years of terror. But if you like redistributions from the poor to the rich, cap and trade is a pretty good way to effect it.

[crazyhorse1]

Just another program to punish Corporations and Companies.


The more you tax and fine Companies. The more cuts they will make. Which means less jobs. It hurts the working Americans in the end. Who are the ones paying for this cap and crap.
Even if a Company manages to buy some credits from a less pollutant. That Company just lost money from there budget. The more the budget shrinks the more cuts that will happen. Wake up!
We need to create jobs! This is not helping the situation at all.

How about putting money towards science in which burns fuel more efficiently and cleaner? I would much rather go for that.

I just don't get it. Is it plain ignorance or just thievery? Am I missing something here?
I have read part of this bill. The working middle class and lower class will be taxed most on this program. This Cap and Crap is supposed to be the way this Administration plans on paying for the Universal Health Care.
Money from this Cap and Crap will also go to paying out the tax credits.
For Companies it is actually worse then a tax. At least with a tax you can get some part of it back. In this case you just have money going out.

It is definatley a socialist program disguised as a "Save the Earth" program.

Taxing and fining companies doesn't cause companies to cut workers. Lost sales do that. Companies make a profit on each worker. Salaries aren't a give-away by noble companies willing to sustain losses for the public good as you seem to think. If anything, taxes and fining companies cause companies to hire more workers to increase profits to offset taxes and fines. Companies aren't "job providers." They are worker exploiters. I don't mean this in a negative sense. It's natural to hire a worker if the worker makes you money and fire a worker if he costs you a loss. I have no argument with the principle. What I have an argument with is the idea that the worker is somehow a luxury charity case for his good-hearted employer that he can't afford if he is taxed or fined. A tax can't cause a collapse because only profits are taxed. A fine can't cause a worker to be fired because a fine must be paid, which means the worker-- the means of making money-- must be retained.

[crazyhorse1]

Just another program to punish Corporations and Companies.


The more you tax and fine Companies. The more cuts they will make. Which means less jobs. It hurts the working Americans in the end. Who are the ones paying for this cap and crap.
Even if a Company manages to buy some credits from a less pollutant. That Company just lost money from there budget. The more the budget shrinks the more cuts that will happen. Wake up!
We need to create jobs! This is not helping the situation at all.

How about putting money towards science in which burns fuel more efficiently and cleaner? I would much rather go for that.

I just don't get it. Is it plain ignorance or just thievery? Am I missing something here?
I have read part of this bill. The working middle class and lower class will be taxed most on this program. This Cap and Crap is supposed to be the way this Administration plans on paying for the Universal Health Care.
Money from this Cap and Crap will also go to paying out the tax credits.
For Companies it is actually worse then a tax. At least with a tax you can get some part of it back. In this case you just have money going out.

It is definatley a socialist program disguised as a "Save the Earth" program.

Taxing and fining companies doesn't cause companies to cut workers. Lost sales do that. Companies make a profit on each worker. Salaries aren't a give-away by noble companies willing to sustain losses for the public good as you seem to think. If anything, taxes and fining companies cause companies to hire more workers to increase profits to offset taxes and fines. Companies aren't "job providers." They are worker exploiters. I don't mean this in a negative sense. It's natural to hire a worker if the worker makes you money and fire a worker if he costs you a loss. I have no argument with the principle. What I have an argument with is the idea that the worker is somehow a luxury charity case for his good-hearted employer that he can't afford if he is taxed or fined. A tax can't cause a collapse because only profits are taxed. A fine can't cause a worker to be fired because a fine must be paid, which means the worker-- the means of making money-- must be retained.

[crazyhorse1]

Sorry, Kaz. No matter what the state mandate, if it is a state mandate, it cannot create "market forces." You can't polish a turd.

That point is far from "theory" and no closer to fact. It is akin to "yahoo" opinion and is contradicted by Cap and Trade itself, which obviously creates market forces. What state mandates don't create market forces?

I'm not denying that market forces are still at work. But they work in spite of hurdles and destructive policies, like the black markets in Soviet Russia that kept (some) people from starving for those 80 years of terror. But if you like redistributions from the poor to the rich, cap and trade is a pretty good way to effect it.

My assumption is that the redistribution would be temporary and from the rich to the poor rather than the opposite. Do you have stats? My knee jerk reaction is that the well heeled and well connected, being traditionally arrogant and corrupt, are the most outragerous polluters of our time.

[Irn-Bru]

I'm not denying that market forces are still at work. But they work in spite of hurdles and destructive policies, like the black markets in Soviet Russia that kept (some) people from starving for those 80 years of terror. But if you like redistributions from the poor to the rich, cap and trade is a pretty good way to effect it.

My assumption is that the redistribution would be temporary and from the rich to the poor rather than the opposite.

That's also the assumption behind minimum wage laws, manifold regulations, government takeovers of entire industries, bailouts, and taxes. The rich you target in your post have the power, they lobby for these very same laws that you advocate, and yet we're to assume that the poor will benefit? That's the rhetoric, but I'm not buying it. The middle class in this country are feeling the squeeze, and status-quo seekers who are trying to solve today's problems with 1930s solutions (government takeovers, more taxes, more regulation and "oversight") are part of the problem.

Do you have stats? My knee jerk reaction is that the well heeled and well connected, being traditionally arrogant and corrupt, are the most outragerous polluters of our time.

Sure, but the people who will be hurt by this specific legislation are the regular guys, not the rich, and the poor most of all. It's not a question of intent; it's a question of economics. The relevant question isn't "what group of people does this legislation allege it will help?" The relevant question is: "what actually happens when massive restrictions like this are imposed? Is the common person better off or worse off?"

[KazooSkinsFan]

You misunderstand the concept, Ray. Read Kazoo's post again. It's on target

Actually my post was a complete and utter lie, I wrote it for fun.

Here's how you construct a liberal argument:

Pick an objective you want to achieve

Pick an action you want to perform

State without reason, support or logic the action will achieve the objective. Accuse anyone of arguing against your proposed action they don't wand the objective.

That's how I wrote the cap and trade argument. Pretending to be a liberal I want to end global warming (assuming it exists, which is increasingly in doubt). I want more government control over industry.

Therefore, my whole post ignoring all reason and support just assumes that government control will lead to decreased greenhouse gasses. It was EASY. And apparently worked well into snaring liberals into believing it even though it was drivel.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Cap and Trade doesn't involve taxing anyone for anything. Also, cap and trade has nothing to do with California's problems. The post is illogical.

Wrong and wrong.

Taxes paid by companies are incorporated into the price of products and paid by them. Liberals get as long as no self serving political points are involved that if the price of steel goes up the price of products that use steel will go up to reflect that cost. But taxes, no, they aren't pass on, they are paid by the company. Actually ALL corporate taxes are paid by consumers, which is a huge reason to go to the Fair Tax.

As for having nothing to do with California's problems, that's just an ignorant statement. California is being hammered by flight of the rich and businesses to Nevada and other states for exactly the reason they are endlessly doing stupid programs like this.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Taxing and fining companies doesn't cause companies to cut workers. Lost sales do that

Right, matches didn't cause a forest fire, the twigs the matches set on fire did. Dude, taxes raise the cost of producing products, the cost of producing products causes the price of buying them to go up. First, that reduces demand, which reduces sales because people buy less of things as the price goes up. Second, which companies do the taxes hurt most? The ones who pay the tax. Who are they? The ones in California. Think about that, you want jobs and are charging your OWN companies more raising THEIR products. Exactly the opposite of what you want. So yes, Virginia, taxes are causing jobs to be lost. And it's not just theory, California is bleeding jobs because of this programs and others like it.

And in terms of Cap and Trade internationally, the program is so much less consistently run and China, India, Brazil and our major competitors outside the West and Japan are exempt. It's just a stupid idea.

[KazooSkinsFan]

My assumption is that the redistribution would be temporary and from the rich to the poor rather than the opposite

Typical liberal analysis, I'm right if you "assume" I am. Suppose you run a kindergarten and you are setting up a game. The kids get candies according to how well they do. You want the liberal children, I mean the stupid ones to have a "fair" chance in the game. So you set up rules and the smart ones keep winning and getting more candy.

You keep changing the rules to "even" it out and it keeps not working. As the rules get more complex to make them more "fair" no matter what you do the smart kids have more candy then the liberal kids. But what's happening as your rules keep getting more complex is everyone has less candy then they had when the rules were simple.

Liberal ideology results in your just continuing to change the rules and scratch your head, but I'll let you in on the secret. No matter what rules you come up with the smarter kids will have more candy then the stupid kids because they are...wait for it...smarter then the liberal kids. No matter the rules they learn how to gain the system better then the liberal kids.

So here's the question, do you want the liberal kids to have more candy then they have now even though it means the smarter kids will have even more then they have now? Or do you want to keep shutting down the candy distribution towards none for anyone because you can't get over some having more candy then others because they are smarter?

[Bob 0119]

What's going to be truly impressive is watching these politicians and world leaders try and keep a straight face now that the world knows the books have been cooked on man-made global warming.

Got news for ya folks, it's always been a sham!

Barry O has already admitted that under cap-and-trade your electricity bills "would necessarily skyrocket."

When Govt taxes business they figure they have a win-win. They still get more money, but instead of you seeing a direct increase in your taxes, and being angry at the Govt, you see a direct increase in your necessities and you blame the businesses!

The current warming trend started long before the industrial period.

Science has shown that the earth has frozen and thawed at least six times, and the explaination for the warming in each of the other times was based on natural occuences (since many of the warming periods happened long before man was even thought of).

The Govt isn't intrested in "how do we save the planet" or "how do we stop pollution" think closer to "how can we use this to make money."

Open your eyes on this, or be prepared to open your wallets. "Necessarily increase" is one thing; "necessarily SKYROCKET" is what the man said.

[crazyhorse1]

Taxing and fining companies doesn't cause companies to cut workers. Lost sales do that

Right, matches didn't cause a forest fire, the twigs the matches set on fire did. Dude, taxes raise the cost of producing products, the cost of producing products causes the price of buying them to go up. First, that reduces demand, which reduces sales because people buy less of things as the price goes up. Second, which companies do the taxes hurt most? The ones who pay the tax. Who are they? The ones in California. Think about that, you want jobs and are charging your OWN companies more raising THEIR products. Exactly the opposite of what you want. So yes, Virginia, taxes are causing jobs to be lost. And it's not just theory, California is bleeding jobs because of this programs and others like it.

And in terms of Cap and Trade internationally, the program is so much less consistently run and China, India, Brazil and our major competitors outside the West and Japan are exempt. It's just a stupid idea.

Dude. When companies are taxed less, we end up making up for taxes lost by paying more income taxes. That is an absolute. You seem to think that companies will give us a price break if their taxes are reduced. Won't happen. They'll always inflate their prices according to supply and demand and competition. They'll always squeeze us. It's just a question of how much money you have to pay the government. I prefer to pay less and let the rich pay more, or their fair share, which they do not pay. Your way of looking at the economy is conventional, I admit. Mine is not.
Large companies and corporations and their influence are currently out of hand. They must be leaner and less capable of buying influence, no matter how many jobs they provide or claim to provide. In the long run they cost jobs by driving small businesses under, as well as destroy democratic principles.

As we write to one another, the health bill is being destroyed by corruption. What started out as an attempt to get the insurance industry in line is going to end up generating huge profits for the insurance industry.
Your view of the economy is aid and comfort to the rich and well connected and injects a slave mentally. Not taxing the rich because they will pass their costs on to us is a far cry from what needs to be done. We need, in effect, to boycott any company trying to pass tax and fine costs onto consumers and call upon the Justice Department to enforce violations of anti-trust legislation, particularly in regard to price collusion. Needless to say, we ought to eliminate large contributions to political candidates from anyone, as well as stop all contributions from corporations, companies, and labor unions. In short, as a progressive, I believe that goverment's most pressing duty at present is to bring corporations to heel. Their threat to American freedom dwarfs any threat that government itself might impose because corporations are in a position to take over the American government and already have, to a great extent.
As a libertarian, you are focusing on the wrong thing.