I've always thought that a carbon tax makes more sense than cap-and-trade since the latter is more susceptible to on-going abuse and political games.
But a fixed tax is harder to get around on.
For those who'd like to read more on the subject I suggest starting here.
Things like the government letting Lehman and Bear fail but then bailing out AIG so they can turn around and give billions to Goldman doesn't sit well with me. That and take a look at people in financial power in the this country and how many of them are former Goldman higher ups. It is no surprise that they would continue to help each other out.
And by exploited I mean them artificially inflating the prices to the point where the bubble pops and the tax payers are the ones sitting around picking up the pieces while Goldman walks away unscathed and much richer.
If cap and tax becomes a reality, my taxes should be offset by eliminating Social Security from my paychecks so I have enough money to pay my electric bill.
So let's make a deal. I will vote for the pollution tax if you vote to end Socialist Insecurity.
Last edited by StartingAt33; 07-01-2009 at 07:56 AM.
I also want to add that the rapid inflation spike is expected to hit us in 2012, thanks to The Fed injecting billions of stimulus dollars into the economy. (remember the 3 year rule) Couple that with the cap and trade taxes hitting at about the same time and well... you get the picture.
Last edited by StartingAt33; 07-01-2009 at 08:04 AM.
I think I did a really horrible job explaining in the prior post. The author seems to be pointing out that big players in any market can manipulate the market price to their advantage.
This is a very valid point, and we see this in most actively-traded markets (such as oil last summer, California energy markets in the late 1990s.... the examples go back 300-400 years).
The counterpoint is this: in markets where adults monitor the kids playing in the sandbox, it becomes difficult for a registered sex offender with a devious mustache to steal the sand.
The argument in the article you presented (and also a similar one by occasional Congressional opponents) seems to be the following:
"If you enact this regulation, people will simply manipulate the markets. This manipulation is allowed by deregulation in financial markets which started 12 years ago (or 30, depending on the definition)."
The solution is pretty simple. You can create markets for pollution and re-enact the financial oversight. It would seem to me that that would at least partially solve the objection of the Rolling Stones author.
I realize you didn't write the article, perhaps I should be explaining this to him. The logic in the article seems really twisted.
I am really stupid, because I don't get the picture. Please elaborate on the connection.
Also, the Fed is not injecting money through "stimulus dollars". The former controls monetary policy, the "stimulus dollars" are fiscal policy controlled by the government. The two are currently working in the same direction but the Fed should have little say over the Federal Budget.
I don't really see what my own personal beliefs have to do with Al Gore having ****ty information sources however.
Best lifts: 615/475/660, Raw w/ Wraps
Bench: 45 lbs Bench: 235 lbs
Squat: 95 lbs Squat: 285 lbs
Deadlift: 100 lbs Deadlift: 330 lbs