Deep thought of the day 14

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   falsecast Posted 11:19 am
   22 Jan 2008

   First, lets kill all the...I'd say go for the tax first. Regardless of where the revenue goes, consumer behavior will change. As consumer behavior changes so to will the revenues of all carbon competitors, in favor of the low-carbon producers. It might be easier to sell the argument against tax breaks and subsidies (and grandfathers) after the tax regime has culled some of the more inefficient producers. Greg Mankiw on the carbon tax: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/business/16view.html?ex ...
   
   "The conjunction of ruling and dreaming generates tyranny."
   
   

   Permalink

2. 

   GRLCowan Posted 1:08 pm
   22 Jan 2008

   Taxes affect the behaviour of those who spend themThe ease of getting regulators' consent for new natural gas combustion turbines suggests that natural gas, at least, is allowing more regulators to draw salaries, or for those salaries to be larger, or some combination. If natural gas were subsidized the opposite effect would occur: fewer and/or poorer regulators -- and long, difficult licensing processes.
   Petroleum and natural gas revenues subsidize all government spending -- including the wind power PTC.
   This shows, I think, the harm that existing carbon taxes do. Some of the revenue from high-carbon energy is given to token low-carbon sources to make them look like competitors. None goes to you-know-what, and it still faces a long paper chase because its fuel isn't expensive enough.
   So that's one thing to do now: stop pretending the slope of the playing field isn't already strongly in renewable energies' favour, precisely because even given that advantage, they still are only token competitors. The pretence is stupid and undignified.
   How shall the car gain nuclear cachet?

   Permalink

3. 

   amazingdrx Posted 1:59 am
   23 Jan 2008

   Shift subsidies"No new tax" swifboaters will kill our favorite green politician's careers otherwise.
   Hillary has been talking this up.  Take the subsidies away from energy corporations, who are experiencing record profits, and direct them to renewables and conservation.
   It's just that simple.
   Energy prices will rise as energy corporations pass the cost of the lost subsidies on to US.  The swiftboaters will call it a tax passed on to consumers, but it isn't.  Our green legislators can make that case.
   They can point out that as kwh replace gasoline (with the advent of plugin hybrids), the cost per mile will drop precipitously.  And with geo heat exchange heating/cooling home energy bills will also drop.
   And the economy will recover.  Many experts agree, the graph of oil prices and energy prices going up, mirrors the graph of the economic downturn
   How did the Clinton administration reverse the trend of the huge debt built up during the raygun/bush era?  With an economic boom.  How will the new Clinton administration do it again, with the national debt tripled again in only 8 years by the duuhbyaist regime?
   With a renewable energy and conservation boom, of course.  Start by shifting those 10s of billions in subsidies for big oil, coal, nukes, and fuel farming over to plugin hybrids, solar, wind, distributed smart grids, and geo heat exchange heating/cooling.
   Millions of unit orders of these devices for government use will prime the US manufacturing juggernaut.  It still can be a juggernaust, we haven't lost the most important part of it yet.  A well educated adaptable innovative hard working population motivated by the pursuit of financial happiness.
   They haven't given up yet.  Even after this titanic corporatsi bushwacking.
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

   Permalink

4. 

   odograph Posted 2:09 am
   23 Jan 2008

   No Subsidies"It would be awesome if all government tax breaks and subsidies were removed from the energy sector [and farm sector..]"
   Yes, excellent.
   "However, that's never going to happen."
   Nobody's going to cut in this time of panic and stimulus, but I think there might be an opportunity on the other side.  The numskulls who said "I don't care, as long as you cut my taxes" have left the government with unsustainable debt (long term).
   One way to reduce that debt is to reduce subsidies.

   Permalink

5. 

   odograph Posted 2:12 am
   23 Jan 2008

   debt"How did the Clinton administration reverse the trend of the huge debt built up during the raygun/bush era?  With an economic boom.  How will the new Clinton administration do it again, with the national debt tripled again in only 8 years by the duuhbyaist regime?"
   Unfortunately the new Clinton administration would not be able to wish away the hangover.  Check out graphs of personal debt, or government debt, over time.  Both spike strongly in W's (Greenspan's) reign.
   It will be interesting to see how well we can grow as we suddenly realize we have to service that debt. That "taking equity" from the house leaves you with a loan to pay.
   Now, one way to escape the hangover is to inflate your way out of it ... but I personally would rather not see that.

   Permalink

6. 

   odograph Posted 2:23 am
   23 Jan 2008

   2005 dataThis 2005 article on household cash, investment, and debt, has much food for thought.

   Permalink

7. 

   amazingdrx Posted 2:25 am
   23 Jan 2008

   WheeewBlame it on Greenspan?  With Bernanke Bush (following the Bandar Bush mode) blundering, right in our faces Tues morn?
   No other central bank will lower rates to bolster the banking system after hedge fund excesses.  They are stating the obviouis today, obvious here under Greenspan, the fed does not adjust interwest rates in response to stock markets, until Bernanke Bush.
   market pundits are now saying Bernanke bush ought to have let the markets corect that 500 to 700 points on the dow that was needed to start a turn around.  Instead he has spread the pain out until after the regular fed meeting.
   He squandered 75 basis points of economic insurance (that's what that rate setting is reserved for), and now has a shockingly low reserve of 3.5%.  Can't lower it beyond zero.
   And now this moron has all but promised to lower another 50 points to 3%.  This in insane.
   Bernanke Bush maybe duuhbya's most destructiive appointment of all, far worse than all the other disastrous "Brownies" (as in yer doin' a heckuva job brownie).
   Raygun started the debt slide, tripling the debt, including the Bush the first years.
   Now duuuhbya has triple it again.  Yer doin' a heckuva job brown 25 for brains!  
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

   Permalink

8. 

   odograph Posted 2:37 am
   23 Jan 2008

   credit crunchI've heard first that small business people are facing sudden new requirements from their banks.  (Banks are afraid to loan.)
   I've heard that Bernanke cut his teeth on 1930's studies, and how banks being afraid to loan led to the Great Depression.
   I don't mean those observations as doom-mongering, or to say that were are in a worse place than we are  (where are we?).
   I only mean that the 75pt cut should probably be considered in light of banks freezing up at least as much as the equity markets.
   This is a sub-optimal situation, but keeping the banks running (actually writing new business) probably is a necessity now.
   Greenspan may have faced similar problems.  I don't think he's faulted for his cuts, rather more for keeping money too easy as the recovery formed and housing prices started to bubble.  (His "what bubble?" was definitely not useful.)

   Permalink

9. 

   odograph Posted 2:38 am
   23 Jan 2008

   BlameBTW, I am unpopular for putting blame on a "debt friendly society."
   That is society from top to bottom.

   Permalink

10. 

    amazingdrx Posted 3:00 am
    23 Jan 2008

    No reasoningWith a raygunner.  Blast 'em buck Rogers!
    
    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

    Permalink

11. 

    odograph Posted 8:09 am
    23 Jan 2008

    Dead ManDon't tell me, Ronnie, from his grave, made everyone rip out those kitchens and in a fit of conspicuous competition, put in marble counter tops and Viking ranges?  Made them take that 6 year SUV loan?
    It is kind of childish to personalize a general social failing.
    ... and strange too, because conspicuous competition in consumption should be so counter to the Grist ethos.
    Not only did Americans (and most industrialized democracies) over-consume, reaching a frenzy in the last 10 years, but they did so not with wealth but by increasing debt.

    Permalink

12. 

    falsecast Posted 9:14 am
    23 Jan 2008

    You mean we can't have it all, right now?Odo-I'll join you in the unpopular corner. The fashion of living beyond one's means through the miracle of other peoples' money is a huge part of the problem. Can we afford it? was replaced with We can make that payment each month (forget the term of the loan)! and viola, a negative savings rate, McMansions with only two rooms furnished, urban parents who need ladders to get the kids into the SUVs, etc. Easy credit (post-Volcker)helped to pump up this "what me worry?" attitude towards debt accumulation. Ironic that one of the few policy solutions available to address the credit crunch is to move towards lower rates again.
    
    "The conjunction of ruling and dreaming generates tyranny."
    
    

    Permalink

13. 

    bookerly Posted 10:21 am
    23 Jan 2008

    How About
       How about if we start with a really heavy luxury carbon tax on things like hummers, SUVs, pleasure boats (the kinds with engines), MacMansions and the like??
       That way the tax is not regressive, and is targeted at where most of the harm originates.
    patrick in Beijing

    Permalink

14. 

    odograph Posted 11:38 am
    23 Jan 2008

    luxurious carbonFine with me bookerly, though think the old "revenue neutral" carbon tax (with offsets to social security or some such) is more systematic, without being regressive.

    Permalink