(08-30-2018, 05:21 PM)mikesez Wrote: (08-29-2018, 10:31 PM)jj82284 Wrote: A.) Go deeper. The basic principal is that the state fundamentally controls everything as a function of state social policy. The profit motive is driven not by personal innovation but by centrally planned state aims.
And we aren't trying to limit options we are trying to limit coercion.
B.) Liar liar, both are a means of taxation artificially making certain kinds of energy more expensive. It's childish. America lead the world in carbon reductions while the Paris countries actually increased carbon emissions. The state can't make sure that soldiers have their toiletries but they can micro-manage the atmosphere? Lol.
C.) What did he believe. What did he advocate. How did that play out.
DETENTION!!!!!
LOL.
A) I don't think any of this is relevant to the point that either of us are trying to make.
B) a cap-and-trade scheme doesn't necessarily involve anybody giving more money to the government. The government does a one-time auction of pollution licenses, but the amount of money the government raises this way is not significant to the plan and the initial price is supposed to be low. These licenses can then be traded on the private Market as the individual needs of the companies that bought the licenses change. this gives you greater certainty about the amount of carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere in a given year, but the companies that have to buy and trade these licenses will not have very much certainty about the price from year to year. so as they do anything that is energy-intensive, they will face the uncertainty about the cost of the fuel itself plus the uncertainty of the cost of the license. and the government will not collect any revenue on an ongoing basis, just one time. The carbon tax allows the government to collect revenue on an ongoing basis and does not add to uncertainty.
C) the only thing that I know about Obama in his State Senate years were is speech against the Iraq War. so you tell me what he believed and advocated for and how that played out.
A.) It's perfectly relevant. The current iteration of socialism, much like that of fascism, isn't necessarily predicated on the full nationalization of industry. Ocasio cortez isn't advocating that she actually get out and run day to day operations. It's based on the theory that all businesses exist to serve the STATE not the individual wishes of the consumer. As such, the state has full control on the flow of capital, pricing, eligibility, etc. Etc. And profit is derived from compliance with state goals not individual goals. You could say it's a derivative of socialism, but it's still state control of the means of production.
B.) Lol. Again all the bloviating about government schemes to reduce emissions (not even talking about the premise of climate change) and once again the market creates the best solution with competative alternative energy.
Cap and trade and pollution licenses or a direct tax on carbon are two sides of the same flawed coin: the idea that the state, which can't run a basic annuity program or buy mortgages, or have solvent healthcare, is going to accurately manage THE ATMOSPHERE. putting aside the blatant absurdity and lack of credibility, Most assessments of behaviors that actually lower emissions are wrong. The left is pushing more expensive feel good alrternatives. Price is a reflection of the actual goods and services needed to bring a product to market. Making The overall economy less efficient will either a.) Increase emissions overall (like cars that require batteries hand crafted by the ghost of Christmas past and flown around the world twice) or b.) You accomplish your goal by having people freeze to death.
Whether it's a cap and trade scheme or a direct carbon tax the problem is with whoever actually comes up with the assessment of which economic behaviors are actually going to have more overall impact on emissions. No one on the left is pushing increased natural gas tracking opposed to some electric car that sounds clean but has to be charged on a fossil fuel grid with batteries that take a lot of resources to make and fail over time.
C.) The community organizer ORGANIZED grass roots activism to affect, wait for it, housing policy. Redlining, disparate impact etc. You name it he, and his forerunner Valerie Jarrett were fully in favor of and advocated for government intervention in AFFORDABLE HOUSING. Because the market is greedy u see, and it can't meet the needs of ordinary people. So we can't leave it up to bankers, no. We have to come up with elaborate government schemes to hold up bank mergers if they don't comply with certain quotas. We have to actually go in and change the definition of what is a conforming loan and package these new AFFORDABLE loans into bundles to encourage the 'market' to find mechanisms to fund these new instruments of equality.
And then when it all blows up we just blame capitalism? Keep it classy San Diego.
