Fairness in Economics

John Whitehead paraphrases this WSJ article which discusses the Cap-n-Trade, and in doing so explains the inferiority of the methodology when compared with the Carbon Tax. Caps, first of all, can be manipulated by Congressional action, and the Energy industry and Business possess the only lobby coalitions capable of affecting Congress effectively; this means that the Caps will never hold. Probably a great number of Economists, and most certainly the CBO, will have long and involved equations which will prove that Consumers will pay about 88% of a Carbon Tax by higher Prices with the introduction of the Cap-n-Trade provisions, even if the Caps are given away for free. The Energy industry, on the other hand, will get out of paying the Carbon tax, and will even gain from the Transactions which place the full blunt of the Cost on the Consumers and Government–if the Permits are free. Cap-n-Trade is basically only a Corporate Tax Break, injureous the Consumers, and does nothing to alter the Pollution problem.

Do Women know something We don’t? Caroline Baum certainly thinks so, though she doesn’t come straight out and Say it. The trouble is that I think she is right. The sensible Proof of the assertion is to check current News articles to following Events, to see how the Predictions co-aligned with resulting Reality per Quarter over the last 25 years, or 100 Quarters. I will not say that the Women would win, as I have not did the Survey, but I will take small Side-Bets. Men, even the most perceptive, tend to ignore unsavory signs which conflict with their desires, while Women are Achievement-oriented, and place Price frames on their Goals which will match final needs.

Mark Thoma leads Us to this Paper which tries to put a Price on distributive justice (fancy term for redistribution efforts) while they classify three Types of Distribution: Need, Equality, or Equity. This segregation is excellent for their Study, but highly irrelevant in the Real World. No one needs more than a Welfare recipient receives, but tell that to the greatest majority of People. 80% of People could not manipulate the funds adequately to produce a Surviving Economy, if funds were distributed equally. Equity possession can be either fair or unfair. Fair Equity would insist that Equity holders have no higher Tax exemptions than Average Income Earners, after which Equity holders would pay the full nominal Tax rates as real tax. Fair Equity would state Equity holders could not pass onto heirs more untaxed Equity, than that which is passed by the Average Death amount. Fair Equity would insist that Capital Gains be taxed by the same Progressive rates as Income tax. Notice that Fair Equity does not prohibit any current practice of Equity exercise, it simply insists that Equity pays in the same magnitude as Income Earners of Taxes designed to restrict individual division of their Earnings. Does this sound excessively altruistic? lgl