Only 24% Voters Know Cap And Trade Is About Enviroment

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: miketheidiot

let me tell you, i'm pretty heartbroken to hear that the untied states no longer producers such advanced technology as locksets. Seriously, i'm pretty upset here.

You live upto your handle with a comment like that. It was an example of one industry of many where policies like the ones you favor drive them overseas.

So you think we should force americans to take lower wages do we can buy domestically made crap goods, instead of importing them cheaply from a aboad and making useful things instead?

It's only cheaper to run a factory there for labor intensive goods, the government of china places a higher burden on its industry sector than cap and trade could ever do here.

In what way?

you can't be serious.

byzantine government with no accountability and no guaranteed rights? Yes, that's where I want to do business.


Lets make one thing clear, industries that are leaving the united states are doing so because of labor costs, not government actions, pollution controls, etc. Thats not really something that's up for debate.

That is a bunch of crap. I have worked for a manufacturing company. One of the biggest issues was the actual cost of running a factory due to regulation regardless of labor costs.

what sort of manufacturing? The World bank calls you a liar, and i would trust them before you're anecdotal crap.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
this is a market solution. They are creating a market for permits. this isn't that hard.
Permits handed out by the government... it isn't that hard :roll:

The model-T was a market solution. People wanted cars, but couldn't afford them, so Ford came up with a solution.

The iPod was a market solution. People wanted a way to listen to their digital music, so Apple created a way.

Reusable shopping bags is a market solution. People wanted a way to carry their groceries, but not use throw away bags, so someone came up with a solution.

A market solution involves a business coming up with a solution to a problem and has nothing at all to do with the government or government created permits.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Lets make one thing clear, industries that are leaving the united states are doing so because of labor costs, not government actions, pollution controls, etc. Thats not really something that's up for debate.
It not just labor costs. It is the overall cost of doing business.

World Bank

pay particular attention to table 1.2

Top 20 economies on the ease of doing business
1 New Zealand 11 Switzerland
2 United States 12 Denmark
3 Singapore 13 Netherlands
4 Hong Kong, China 14 Finland
5 Australia 15 Ireland
6 Norway 16 Belgium
7 United Kingdom 17 Lithuania
8 Canada 18 Slovakia
9 Sweden 19 Botswana
10 Japan 20 Thailand

clearly, businesses are leaving do to the difficulty of doing business here, and not because labor is 50% of their costs and if they go to china they can cut 40% of their expenses. The world bank (a very liberal institution there :roll:) doesn't know whats its talking about
ease of doing business ? cost of doing business
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: trooper11
not to jump in the middle of a debate, but arent businesses in the US also looking oversees becuase of the high tax rate in this country compared to others?

I agree that cheap labor is surely a driving force, but I believe taxes have been a big motivator as well.


in general; no, though there are almost certainly exceptions.

Tax burden in the united states is low and relatively simple compared to most countries. Compare how we do things, to say, the European VAT.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
this is a market solution. They are creating a market for permits. this isn't that hard.
Permits handed out by the government... it isn't that hard :roll:

The model-T was a market solution. People wanted cars, but couldn't afford them, so Ford came up with a solution.

The iPod was a market solution. People wanted a way to listen to their digital music, so Apple created a way.

Reusable shopping bags is a market solution. People wanted a way to carry their groceries, but not use throw away bags, so someone came up with a solution.

A market solution involves a business coming up with a solution to a problem and has nothing at all to do with the government or government created permits.

sorry, no.


are you trying to say that this solution does not use markets? That's pretty obliviously not the case.
 

mect

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,424
1,637
136
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: mect
I don't get this? Why are republicans against this and democrats in favor? That is absolutely backwards of how it should be. Cap and trade provides a market solution to the environment. I thought republicans were for market solutions and democrats against. Basically, the role of government would be the same as it is now, to set an acceptable level of pollution. The only difference would be that it would set the acceptable total amount, not a set amount per company, and then the free market would allow a company to determine where it most efficiently operated based on the now finite resource of pollution. Certainly everyone agrees that pollution should be a finite resource. It seems that since most democrats agree that cap and trade is a good policy, the only argument should be on where the cap is set. That seems a common misconception, however. Cap and trade doesn't necessarily mean more stringent environmental requirements. It is not an environmental policy, it is a free market policy. I think the real argument coming from conservatives must be that there shouldn't be any CO2 restrictions. But what if this wasn't about CO2, but rather pollutants that are already restricted. For example, what if this were about Sulfur emissions that are already controlled. Are conservatives still opposed to using cap and trade there? I'm just really confused by this whole issue, and the only conclusion I can come to is that conservatives aren't opposed to cap and trade if there must be regulation, but rather against any regulation at all. Is that it?
No, this is not a market solution.

This is a government imposed solution.

A market solution is the Toyota Prius, or reusable shopping bags, or solar water heating etc etc.

People who want to save energy or the environment buy one of the above. A company that comes up with a means of satisfying 'green consumers' stands to make a lot of money with the right product.

Right now though the market for 'green' items isn't large enough to really propel companies in that direction, beyond lip service. i.e. when I buy my next computer I am not going to compare energy usage and buy the one that uses the least energy etc.

No, that isn't even comparing the right policies. Cap and trade is not a green policy. Whether or not it is green depends totally on where the cap is set. It has nothing to do with company products. It has to do with company waste. The primary competing policy is just blanket individual caps. You are allowed to release so much waste into the environment. This assumes that all corporations have the same needs and is a stupid policy. It makes a ton more sense to instead say, this is the total amount of pollution that is acceptable. You guys (industry) distribute it as you see fit.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Lets make one thing clear, industries that are leaving the united states are doing so because of labor costs, not government actions, pollution controls, etc. Thats not really something that's up for debate.
It not just labor costs. It is the overall cost of doing business.

World Bank

pay particular attention to table 1.2

Top 20 economies on the ease of doing business
1 New Zealand 11 Switzerland
2 United States 12 Denmark
3 Singapore 13 Netherlands
4 Hong Kong, China 14 Finland
5 Australia 15 Ireland
6 Norway 16 Belgium
7 United Kingdom 17 Lithuania
8 Canada 18 Slovakia
9 Sweden 19 Botswana
10 Japan 20 Thailand

clearly, businesses are leaving do to the difficulty of doing business here, and not because labor is 50% of their costs and if they go to china they can cut 40% of their expenses. The world bank (a very liberal institution there :roll:) doesn't know whats its talking about
ease of doing business ? cost of doing business

lol, there ease of doing business measurement index measures the costs imposed by the government on the act of doing business. Costs of doing business would include things like labor and capital, which are dependent on local market conditions.

also, how to you type the =/= thingy?
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: mect
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: mect
I don't get this? Why are republicans against this and democrats in favor? That is absolutely backwards of how it should be. Cap and trade provides a market solution to the environment. I thought republicans were for market solutions and democrats against. Basically, the role of government would be the same as it is now, to set an acceptable level of pollution. The only difference would be that it would set the acceptable total amount, not a set amount per company, and then the free market would allow a company to determine where it most efficiently operated based on the now finite resource of pollution. Certainly everyone agrees that pollution should be a finite resource. It seems that since most democrats agree that cap and trade is a good policy, the only argument should be on where the cap is set. That seems a common misconception, however. Cap and trade doesn't necessarily mean more stringent environmental requirements. It is not an environmental policy, it is a free market policy. I think the real argument coming from conservatives must be that there shouldn't be any CO2 restrictions. But what if this wasn't about CO2, but rather pollutants that are already restricted. For example, what if this were about Sulfur emissions that are already controlled. Are conservatives still opposed to using cap and trade there? I'm just really confused by this whole issue, and the only conclusion I can come to is that conservatives aren't opposed to cap and trade if there must be regulation, but rather against any regulation at all. Is that it?
No, this is not a market solution.

This is a government imposed solution.

A market solution is the Toyota Prius, or reusable shopping bags, or solar water heating etc etc.

People who want to save energy or the environment buy one of the above. A company that comes up with a means of satisfying 'green consumers' stands to make a lot of money with the right product.

Right now though the market for 'green' items isn't large enough to really propel companies in that direction, beyond lip service. i.e. when I buy my next computer I am not going to compare energy usage and buy the one that uses the least energy etc.

No, that isn't even comparing the right policies. Cap and trade is not a green policy. Whether or not it is green depends totally on where the cap is set. It has nothing to do with company products. It has to do with company waste. The primary competing policy is just blanket individual caps. You are allowed to release so much waste into the environment. This assumes that all corporations have the same needs and is a stupid policy. It makes a ton more sense to instead say, this is the total amount of pollution that is acceptable. You guys (industry) distribute it as you see fit.

don't even try, they've been too heavily indoctrinated. I can start to see the cognitive dissonance in profs posting though :)
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
If cap & tax is passed, there WILL be massive rate increases. And the same politicians that passed C&T will blame the greedy corporations for raising poor people's electricity bills.

exactly.
 

trooper11

Senior member
Aug 12, 2004
343
0
0


My problem with the whole policy is that it is putting a large burden on us, the taxpayers, even if you say its short term, to subsidize a risky venture. None of this is garunteed to turn around, we are stepping into unknown territory.

Sure, the reward sounds good and all, I just dont see why taking that risk in near future is neccesary. Why couldnt this be done after the recession has passed, for example?

I also dont have alot of faith in government, so trusting them to decide whats fair and look out for us isntead of themselves is a huge stretch. I dont love the idea of any government having the power to push a market in the way it feels is best instead of the market being pushed by the consumers that use or dont use their product/service.
 

mect

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,424
1,637
136
Originally posted by: Genx87
That is a bunch of crap. I have worked for a manufacturing company. One of the biggest issues was the actual cost of running a factory due to envrionmental regulation along with labor costs.

This is exactly the reason that cap and trade would be beneficial. If environmental regulations are extremely cost intensive for one company and not for another, we should have lower environment regulations for that company than for another. This is what cap and trade would allow. I can understand if you are opposed to the cap level you think the democrats will set, but that shouldn't equate to being opposed to the policy.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: mect
No, that isn't even comparing the right policies. Cap and trade is not a green policy. Whether or not it is green depends totally on where the cap is set. It has nothing to do with company products. It has to do with company waste. The primary competing policy is just blanket individual caps. You are allowed to release so much waste into the environment. This assumes that all corporations have the same needs and is a stupid policy. It makes a ton more sense to instead say, this is the total amount of pollution that is acceptable. You guys (industry) distribute it as you see fit.
The whole premise of your argument is based on a government set limit to pollution. Thus this is a government regulation based on government created rules and has nothing to do with the free market.

Yes, the 'trade' part is a market based solution, but you are trading a government created entity that would not naturally exist on its own.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: trooper11

Sure, the reward sounds good and all, I just dont see why taking that risk in near future is neccesary. Why couldnt this be done after the recession has passed, for example?

I agree to a degree, however one potential advantage of doing it now it that we are in a period of depressed economic output, is instead of having a tighter cap relative to the size of output in the future, we can put a smaller cap on now and grow with it.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: mect
No, that isn't even comparing the right policies. Cap and trade is not a green policy. Whether or not it is green depends totally on where the cap is set. It has nothing to do with company products. It has to do with company waste. The primary competing policy is just blanket individual caps. You are allowed to release so much waste into the environment. This assumes that all corporations have the same needs and is a stupid policy. It makes a ton more sense to instead say, this is the total amount of pollution that is acceptable. You guys (industry) distribute it as you see fit.
The whole premise of your argument is based on a government set limit to pollution. Thus this is a government regulation based on government created rules and has nothing to do with the free market.

Yes, the 'trade' part is a market based solution, but you are trading a government created entity that would not naturally exist on its own.

whats wrong with that? The government is creating a market for something that should exist, but do to market failure, cannot.

Government created bankruptcy, property rights, police and courts of law, etc, perhaps we should do away with them as well since they are not 'market' solutions. None of those would naturally exist on their own.
 

mect

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,424
1,637
136
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: mect
No, that isn't even comparing the right policies. Cap and trade is not a green policy. Whether or not it is green depends totally on where the cap is set. It has nothing to do with company products. It has to do with company waste. The primary competing policy is just blanket individual caps. You are allowed to release so much waste into the environment. This assumes that all corporations have the same needs and is a stupid policy. It makes a ton more sense to instead say, this is the total amount of pollution that is acceptable. You guys (industry) distribute it as you see fit.
The whole premise of your argument is based on a government set limit to pollution. Thus this is a government regulation based on government created rules and has nothing to do with the free market.

Yes, the 'trade' part is a market based solution, but you are trading a government created entity that would not naturally exist on its own.

It already does exist. There are government limits on pollution. Unless you believe that industry should be able to pollute without limit, then this assumption is completely valid. But then you should be advocating the repeal of all current government regulations on pollution. Is that what you favor? That pollution be a limitless resource? Then yes, even as a conservative, I'm totally against that.

However, what if for starters we just set the cap limit at the current total pollution standards for industry. That means that each company can pollute exactly as much as they already are. Company A could cut costs by 2 million dollars if they were allowed to pollute an extra 5 credits. Company B can pollute 5 credits less at an additional cost of 1 million dollars. So company B sells company A 5 credits for 1.5 million dollars. Each company has an additional .5 million dollars. That is the premise behind cap and trade. Whether or not it is an environment policy depends purely on the cap. The government doesn't even have to be given money. The government could simply assign the total number of credits, and then all transactions would be between companies. All the government would do is monitor that companies are polluting lower than the credit level they possess.
 

XMan

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,513
49
91
Someone said, "The government isn't Constitutionally allowed to issue permits?" Technically, no, they aren't. It's not an enumerated power, and as such, is reserved to the States.

Doesn't change the fact that Congress will attempt to pass it, but to call it a "permit" is ridiculous. It's a tax. Changing the language to make it more palatable to the average citizen is intellectually dishonest.

Of course, average citizen problably doesn't care, because the government has already assumed more power than is their Constitutional right. See below. That's what the federal government is enumerated.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.