Economist 'gagged' over ETS attack

[NobodyYouKnow]

Earthling wrote:

<quoted text>As I said before, call it whatever you like, it would be an unnecessary increase in costs.

Price. The COSTS would be equivalent since there would be a rebate.

Since you haven't the education or intelligence to be able to debate economics, I will leave you to your babbling.

[Earthling]

NobodyYouKnow wrote:

The COSTS would be equivalent since there would be a rebate.

You really are away with the fairies if you believe that.

[NobodyYouKnow]

Earthling wrote:

<quoted text>You really are away with the fairies if you believe that.

It isn't about my BELIEFS. It is about how to do it RIGHT.

Personally, I believe that the politicians and corporate lobbyists will 'f*ck it up' by using Cap And Trade punitive measures that they then 'escape' by means of 'free permits'. This ends up doing nothing for the emissions but makes for a big 'barrier to entry' for competition that can't get the same political inside edge and a false 'justification' for price increases (for emissions permits) that are not tied to real cost increase ( since the permits are obtained for free ).

I am WAY more cynical than you, trust me. I just have an 'infernal optimism' that says we CAN do better and the first step is to start talking about what is the RIGHT way to do it, rather than just sitting around with the thumb in the bum and the mind in neutral.

[Brian_G]

The very poor never see a cent of rebates, they just starve or freeze when costs go up.

[Earthling]

NobodyYouKnow, I wasn't addressing, how to do anything right, I was referring to your mention of imaginary rebates.
Over here in Europe, we know what it costs, we can see it in our electricity bills that don't include a, "rebate" of any description.

[NobodyYouKnow]

Earthling wrote:

NobodyYouKnow, I wasn't addressing, how to do anything right, I was referring to your mention of imaginary rebates.

How can you claim that the rebates are immaginary when the policy is not implemented. That is just pessimism and cynicism turned into a religion.

[I Am DigitaP]

NobodyYouKnow wrote:

<quoted text>
How can you claim that the rebates are immaginary when the policy is not implemented. That is just pessimism and cynicism turned into a religion.

No what YOU are shilling is pessimism and cynicism turned into a M.a.g.i.c. L.e.n.s. that's ENDING the world religion.

You've got NO lens, you've got a Church Savior who was a "racial purity expert" who sterilized the handicapped so they couldn't breed

A NOBEL FRAUD PEDDLER

A FAKE "doctor" determining which of Swedens' handicapped were deemed needy of being STERILIZED so they couldn't BREED any more.

Your CURRENT CHURCH HIGH PRIESTHOOD

has falsely PROPHESIED that:

Global Cooling was going to create catastrophe

A "SUPER" el nino in 2006

A PROVEN NON EXISTENT M.A.G.I.C.A.L. L.E.N.S.

A form of STATISTICS named after one of them called MANNIAN statistics: meaning, "designed to give a fraudulent answer"

and who won't SHOW THEIR FACE in PUBLIC to answer questions about your church.

[Earthling]

NobodyYouKnow wrote:

How can you claim that the rebates are immaginary when the policy is not implemented. That is just pessimism and cynicism turned into a religion.

If you can claim, "The COSTS would be equivalent since there would be a rebate," when the policy hasn't yet been implemented, why can't I claim they're imaginary?
At least I know from experience that there are no rebates here in Europe, whereas you're just guessing there will be rebates in the USA.

[Brian_G]

They call it paying the real costs of fossil fuel, but economists call it taxation.

[LessHypeMoreFact]

Earthling wrote:

<quoted text>
If you can claim, "The COSTS would be equivalent since there would be a rebate," when the policy hasn't yet been implemented, why can't I claim they're imaginary?

Because we were discussing a 'potential solution' where a carbon surcharge is applied and rebated in direct payments from the fund collected. You can't dismiss the solution by changing the terms.

We can always debate a different situation that you consider with any flaw or fault you want, but only if we both agree to change the subject. And why talk about a corrupt government as a 'solution'? That is silly.

Earthling wrote:

<quoted text>
At least I know from experience that there are no rebates here in Europe, whereas you're just guessing there will be rebates in the USA.

And there is no Democracy either, but people still can use the term and discuss what it would be like ( Representative Democracy is really a form of Capitalist Aristocracy, aka Plutocracy, with no direct public input)..

Cynicism is not a barrier to improvement, unless you make it one.

Nor are we talking about whatever 'Carbon Tax' you might have in Europe. If it has no rebate, it is a tax. Which may still be useful if it can reduce other taxes.

Anyway I was commenting on a 'Carbon Surcharge' concept rebated to the consumer and even if it never happens, it is still a viable solution as it would penalise waste of energy, and reward conservation, while not producing punitive costs to anyone that
works towards real reduction in energy needs.

[LessHypeMoreFact]

Brian_G wrote:

They call it paying the real costs of fossil fuel,

Yes. Internalizing the 'externalised costs' from pollution and other flaws in the markets.

Brian_G wrote:

but economists call it taxation.

No. Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations spoke on externalised costs and did NOT confuse them with taxation. No economist ever confuses externalised costs with taxation. They don't want to be laughed out of the room.

[I Am DigitaP]

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes. Internalizing the 'externalised costs' from pollution and other flaws in the markets.
<quoted text>
No. Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations spoke on externalised costs and did NOT confuse them with taxation. No economist ever confuses externalised costs with taxation. They don't want to be laughed out of the room.

Total lying bullsh*t.

I googled "external costs taxes"

FIRST RETURN: YOU GUESSED IT:

"Taxes are ESSENTIAL to internalizing external costs."

http://www.google.com/search...

Go on down the page and read. Then read this serial fraud's words again.

[Brian_G]

I searched for Adam Smith and externalized costs, but no joy. Wiki's page on Smith doesn't seem to mention externalized costs, either.