Tim Haab is still looking for ‘low-hanging fruit’ in Carbon emissions, thinking Carbon permits should be low initially, and rising in price as more expensive Carbon containment techniques are adopted. The trouble with this assessment lay in the fact all types of Carbon containment must be introduced conjointly, due the necessity of building effective technological Plant, and it will take a serious jolt to impel rapid adoption of all technologies. I prefer a Purchase of Carbon Permits in Dollar denominations, One where the EPA assesses a Tax based on levels of Carbon emissions paid in Permits; where these level Costs can vary in assessment based upon desired Carbon levels, and Business has to buy, borrow, or receive greater volumes of Carbon Dollar Permits from Sale of their Product. The intrinsic benefit to this system comes in the form that Congress, lobbied by both Business Interests and the EPA, will set and reset the minima and maxima of the Carbon tax assessed. The political interplay will assure the Carbon tax does not get egregious while the Carbon containment efforts do not lose impetus.
Chris Dillow examines the potential economic Costs of lacking friends. A Friend today called my two Posts of yesterday Communist in nature, clearly expressing his failure to read either. My Take on the issuance of Carbon Permits would actually eliminate Government intervention in the arena of Carbon taxation or Permits, reducing Government action to simple issuance of Permits at Taxable price, and the largesse of Permits Business would need to Produce. I have hopes Those who read my Posts reached a higher understanding. Some of Chris’ listings as benefits for Friendship may be doubtful, but it is an overall interesting and informative assessment. One role of Friendship networks of immense economic benefit comes from their great use as a Sounding Board for ideas with Individuals with expertise in the areas called into play when evaluating ideas.
William Polley and Max Sawicky remind me of the Supply and Demand curves themselves, as they help to bolster each other. They outline the positive and negative features of each other’s position. This is a definite Post for want-to-be Economists, though it is written for the value of ordinary educated Readers as well. My major problem with Traditional Economics lies in its dedication to Marginal Readings. Economists can never fix the magnitudes of economic change realistically, this because they believe that minor Changes (Marginal readings) will impact the greater economy. I realize that multiple minor changes must move in a proscribed mode to achieve structural economic vector changes. No minor change, in isolation, will impact the greater economy sufficiently to redirect Market forces. This is true for minor Tax Cuts, minor Price increases in Resources, minor Raises in Wage, or minor Drops in Consumer Demand. Corporate Executives charge what the Market will bear, irrespective of the Profitability of Corporations. Workers will strike or balk when faced with rising Consumer prices, no matter what Productivity rates they have attained. Health Care races ahead in Cost because they as an industry can maintain Monopoly pricing. Everything I have cited has nothing to do with minor changes, and Everything to do with the creation of economic environments. lgl
No comments:
Post a Comment