Paul Krugman Asks An Excellent Question

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Consumers would end up poorer than they would have been without a climate-change policy.

Finally, someone comes out and says it. Thanks, Paul. I think I'll pass on the wonderful prospect of being poorer, even if it's just by a little

I've noticed that many who balked at Obama's tax cut are the ones now complaining about an even smaller amount increase in their utilities. ...about as consistent as lumpy clay.

How do you know it'll be even smaller? Because a study said so? Put a concrete number to it, if people know precisely what to expect it won't be as scary. As it stands now, you're basically saying the experts say it'll be a small increase in taxes so you should just trust them. Never mind the fact that experts have been wrong about a lot of things.

It's an easy number to obtain. Take the expected revenues forecasted by the M.I.T. study, and divide by the number of U.S. households. The result is endless posts about how that can't possibly be the right number.

...as if you are not a contributor.

[mawilson 2,133]

Cap and trade is a straightforward market solution to a straightforward market failure. There's no earthly reason why anyone who believes in the marvelous benefits of markets to decide that when it comes to reducing carbon emissions, those benefits will magically cease to exist.

Well, one could turn this question around asking what's the earthly reason - after stipulating a straightforward market failure - to propose a straighforward market solution. The answer to that question, seeing that cap and trade is a government mandate, is that the proposed solution isn't exactly a straightforward market solution; the cap and trade market isn't being established by the market, it's established by the government.

Well said.

[Ban Hammer 13,364]

... and people should be able to go with those figures.

kinda like those figures we were given touting social security when it first came out?

I have no idea what you're talking about, old man.

care to go for a 20 mile rucksack march?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

... and people should be able to go with those figures.

kinda like those figures we were given touting social security when it first came out?

I have no idea what you're talking about, old man.

care to go for a 20 mile rucksack march?

that's how all old people react to being called old!

[Ban Hammer 13,364]

... and people should be able to go with those figures.

kinda like those figures we were given touting social security when it first came out?

I have no idea what you're talking about, old man.

care to go for a 20 mile rucksack march?

that's how all old people react to being called old!

i'll take that as a no.

[mRx 16]

If emission permits were auctioned off -- as they should be -- the revenue thus raised could be used to give consumers rebates or reduce other taxes, partially offsetting the higher prices.

So some will benefit, and other's will not. Wealth redistribution all dressed up, eh?

Krugman is right. One of the main points of markets is to provide incentives to people to use their ingenuity to solve problems in the most efficient way. Cap and trade is a straightforward market solution to a straightforward market failure.

The market is not perfect, and I doubt anyone is proclaiming it to be. However, it is just and fair; Unlike government schemes where some benefit at the expense of others. In this case, high cost renewable energy corporations will benefit at the expense of consumers, and those wicked carbon-emitting corporations.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The market is not perfect, and I doubt anyone is proclaiming it to be. However, it is just and fair; Unlike government schemes where some benefit at the expense of others. In this case, high cost renewable energy corporations will benefit at the expense of consumers, and those wicked carbon-emitting corporations.

I know this is a whole other topic, but I'd like to know how the market is fair and just, but outside forces on the market that come from governmental regulations is a scheme?

Edited May 1, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The market is not perfect, and I doubt anyone is proclaiming it to be. However, it is just and fair; Unlike government schemes where some benefit at the expense of others.

I don't know but when productivity increases outpaces wage increases then one might question how fair and just that market really is. It would then appear much more like a scheme where some benefit at the expense of others. And that particular market dysfunction usually ends in economic disasters.

Edited May 1, 2009 by Mr. Big Dog

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The market is not perfect, and I doubt anyone is proclaiming it to be. However, it is just and fair; Unlike government schemes where some benefit at the expense of others.

I don't know but when productivity increases outpaces wage increases then one might question how fair and just that market really is. It would then appear much more like a scheme where some benefit at the expense of others. And that particular market dysfunction usually ends in economic disasters.

...why that sounds like redistribution of wealth?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The market is not perfect, and I doubt anyone is proclaiming it to be. However, it is just and fair; Unlike government schemes where some benefit at the expense of others.

I don't know but when productivity increases outpaces wage increases then one might question how fair and just that market really is. It would then appear much more like a scheme where some benefit at the expense of others. And that particular market dysfunction usually ends in economic disasters.

...why that sounds like redistribution of wealth?

...Nevertheless in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty much applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of production and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distiction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of child factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with production, etc.

Marx and Engles, 1948

Happy May Day!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The market is not perfect, and I doubt anyone is proclaiming it to be. However, it is just and fair; Unlike government schemes where some benefit at the expense of others.

I don't know but when productivity increases outpaces wage increases then one might question how fair and just that market really is. It would then appear much more like a scheme where some benefit at the expense of others. And that particular market dysfunction usually ends in economic disasters.

...why that sounds like redistribution of wealth?

...Nevertheless in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty much applicable.

Which countries today, do those lists of attributes apply?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The market is not perfect, and I doubt anyone is proclaiming it to be. However, it is just and fair; Unlike government schemes where some benefit at the expense of others.

I don't know but when productivity increases outpaces wage increases then one might question how fair and just that market really is. It would then appear much more like a scheme where some benefit at the expense of others. And that particular market dysfunction usually ends in economic disasters.

...why that sounds like redistribution of wealth?

...Nevertheless in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty much applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of production and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distiction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of child factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with production, etc.

Marx and Engles, 1948

Happy May Day!

1948? This is impressive. Marx and Engels died in 1883 and 1895, respectively.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The market is not perfect, and I doubt anyone is proclaiming it to be. However, it is just and fair; Unlike government schemes where some benefit at the expense of others.

I don't know but when productivity increases outpaces wage increases then one might question how fair and just that market really is. It would then appear much more like a scheme where some benefit at the expense of others. And that particular market dysfunction usually ends in economic disasters.

...why that sounds like redistribution of wealth?

...Nevertheless in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty much applicable.

Which countries today, do those lists of attributes apply?

Good question. That is a blueprint for after the socialist revolution, when "the proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie."

It's a short book, only 48 pages, available in most college bookstores. I bought mine used, for ninety-five cents.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The market is not perfect, and I doubt anyone is proclaiming it to be. However, it is just and fair; Unlike government schemes where some benefit at the expense of others.

I don't know but when productivity increases outpaces wage increases then one might question how fair and just that market really is. It would then appear much more like a scheme where some benefit at the expense of others. And that particular market dysfunction usually ends in economic disasters.

...why that sounds like redistribution of wealth?

...Nevertheless in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty much applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of production and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distiction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of child factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with production, etc.

Marx and Engles, 1948

Happy May Day!

1948? This is impressive. Marx and Engels died in 1883 and 1895, respectively.

Right. January 1848. My edition was copyrighted in 1948.

[mRx 16]

The market is not perfect, and I doubt anyone is proclaiming it to be. However, it is just and fair; Unlike government schemes where some benefit at the expense of others. In this case, high cost renewable energy corporations will benefit at the expense of consumers, and those wicked carbon-emitting corporations.

I know this is a whole other topic, but I'd like to know how the market is fair and just, but outside forces on the market that come from governmental regulations is a scheme?

Think of it as a basketball game. It's a minimalistic analogy, but the basic principle remains.

What if an external force determined that one basketball team must play with one hand tied behind their back; or, if for every 4 points they score, they must give up 2 to the opposing team? This arrangement wouldn't be very fair, would it? Sure, it may be sad that without such coercive handicaps the other team wouldn't win, but the system is fair, and just; And nobody disputes it.

The same principle applies to the market.

It's easy to get clouded with the complexity of our economy, but everything boils down to the same economic axioms. Any genuine unjustness or unfairness must be layed at the doorstep of external forces; just as it would be basketball.

It's playoffs, so I figured basketball was appropriate.