Marcharino’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Your zero-transfer of wealth principle in government regulation just doesn't add-up to me.  My experience has always proven that the end-product consumer ALWAYS pays for government intervention with restrictions and regulations on climate control.

  To give an example of how I paid for CFC regulations just recently: I own a 1990's vehicle that needs a recharge of refrigerant, and it uses the A/C R-12 refrigerant that I can't get refilled because no one has the ability to get it, and no one is authorized to service the A/C units (it requires certifications and equipment that are cost-prohibitive).  The automobile repair facility or manufacturer doesn't get paid by the government to work on my car, and neither will they work on my A/C any longer because of government regulations and costs prohibiting it.  Rather, I HAVE TO PAY to convert the A/C to R134 because of the government's cap on refrigerant, or I would have to convert it myself with hours of labor and parts costs absorbed by me.  Where is the zero-transfer of wealth in this picture?

  My expenditures just increased and well beyond the cost to the industry or the government. In fact, I was the only one to lose in this scenario...as always with government regulations. Pragmatism is the rule--not speculation or wishful thinking with economic models.  None of these optimistic thoughts outweigh the philosophy that practicality that I will pay for the cost of government regulation, whether it is in finance, manufacturing, energy production or air conditioning service and repair!

   

  On Cap & trade: Carbon tax or wealth transfer? posted 5 months ago 5 Responses