dmspilot00’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  mihan

  mihan, maybe you should research the issue more before assuming that you are smarter than famous Nobel Prize winning Economists. But let's say, for a minute, that you're right, and that Ron Paul's plan did not work. Since Ron Paul does not have any hidden agendas (he doesn't support big corporations, he doesn't take money from lobbyists, etc.), I'm sure he would come up with a better way. He wouldn't let the environment suffer just so he could say that he's applying a particular theorem.

  Also, let's not forget that the President of the United States is a leader, not a dictator (despite what Bush wishes). If Congress disagreed then his plan would not get implemented. We need to look at the big picture and get someone with principles, integrity, and intelligence in the White House.

  Oh, and I completely forgot the reason I even came to this site. I am sick of Ron Paul's campaign being called "quixotic." If anybody in politics is deserving to be called quixotic, it's President Bush, who calls himself "the decider," and "the decision maker," and who started an unwinnable war in the name of idealism (at least his own view of idealism), and to eliminate the imminent threat of nonexistent WMDs (Wind Mill Devices?)On An interview with Ron Paul about his presidential platform on energy and the environment posted 2 years ago 55 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Incentives are needed

  Good post, Vince. Let me add something to my earlier post...

  In order to reduce pollution, the polluters need an incentive. Property rights and litigation (as Ron Paul recommends), taxes, and cap-and-trade approaches all would give companies very good incentives for curbing pollution.

  But what incentives do companies have under our current system, a system of regulatory bodies setting seemingly arbitrary limits? Currently, the incentive is not for companies to reduce their pollution, but to pollute up to the maximum allowable amount. And even more insidiously, the current system gives companies a strong incentive to lobby and capture their regulatory bodies so that they work in their favor. Under the current system, there is very little incentive to minimize pollution.

  On An interview with Ron Paul about his presidential platform on energy and the environment posted 2 years ago 55 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Paul is not like Bush

  Ron Paul is not like President Bush at all. Bush may say he is in favor of free markets, but he's not. He favors heavy subsidies to the oil industry; and when that backfires, making us dependent on foreign oil, his solution is heavy subsidies to the nuclear industry. The only reason he expanded Medicare to give people free prescription drugs was to subsidize the pharmaceutical industry. Bush was responsible for one of the biggest expansions of government ever in a very short period of time.

  Favoring big government and favoring free markets are mutually exclusive positions. Bush is a liar, he lied about being for small government, he lied about his religious beliefs, he lied about being against nation building, he lied about the Iraq war, he lied about being against mercury in vaccines, etc., etc...On An interview with Ron Paul about his presidential platform on energy and the environment posted 2 years ago 55 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  private vs. public land

  I ran across this article on Google News. I am a Ron Paul supporter. I have a degree in economics and I consider myself somewhat of an environmentalist, too.

  Private land is better than public land. Haven't you ever heard of the Tragedy of the Commons? Public goods are overused and abused to the detriment of the environment and all parties involved.

  If public resources are abused, then the answer, as Ron Paul says, is property rights. He is obviously familiar with the Coase Theorem, that states that when property rights are well defined, bargaining will result in the optimum outcome for everyone. Take, for example, our air and water--they are polluted because they are usually considered public goods rather than having private property rights. If I owned my own air, I could prevent companies from excessively polluting my air by charging them a fee--in effect, I sell some of my air to them. And I say "excessive pollution" because if the maximum pollution allowed was zero, the economy would grind to a screeching halt.

  I do disagree with Ron Paul a little bit on the subject of pollution taxes, because the Coase Theorem doesn't work perfectly due to "transaction costs" which are almost always present in the real world. Either a pollution tax or a cap-and-trade approach are sound alternatives both economically and environmentally.

  So, although I disagree with Ron Paul on some of the details, I am still going to vote for him, because of the "big picture" -- this will be the first time in my lifetime that I've had an opportunity to vote for a principled, intelligent candidate with true integrity; and with his strong grassroots support, he has a real chance of winning. On An interview with Ron Paul about his presidential platform on energy and the environment posted 2 years ago 55 Responses