The way I read it, as a law, this bill will raise electric rates 90% and 55% for fuel. If my calculations are correct this will really put our economy in shambles and wipe any real chance of a recovery. My main concern outside of these big companies passing the tax on to us consumers is that the bill is based on past phenomenon. Truth is that the Earth has not warmed in over ten years. Not to mention I don’t know why carbon is so special seeing that the same companies pump a lot more poison in the air including the likes of arsenic and mercury. Add to that the fact that deforestation does twice as much to presupposed climate change than carbon based greenhouse gases.
And folk wonder why I am so hard on poly-tricksters, namely because they don’t keep up with the science and likely failed each and every science class they took for the sake of mastering public relations. Other wise the objective of the bill would be some type of tangible change instead of because truth is that the temperature will only increase .18 degrees over the next twenty years.
Most climatic fluxation are do to reoccurring astrological events like the rotation of the earth on its axis around the geographic or true North Pole, as well as its rotation around the sun in its same ecliptic hemisphere. No Bill or Law passed by congress will ever alter such.
This American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 although marketed as a way to create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, and reduce global warming will do none of the aforementioned. Especially the first and the latter. The only jobs produced will be a bunch of desk jobs for bureaucrats which are just more government pen pushers as well as a waste of loot. Seems that the current leadership all across
15 comments:
Several occasions on my drive home, my car temp registered a 4-5F degree drop after I leave the main highway (shopping centers) and drive on back roads (farms). I love those 11 minutes.
You are completely right. But I'm glad at least one person got to read it. The ones that voted didn't!
Congress should be using PDA's or Kindles to read all these pages and pages of legislation.
Our electric/water co keeps raising our rates. They've been marketing "Save Water campaign" for a year. trying to get people to stop wasting water. Well, the raised the bill a few months ago due to lack of consumption...i thought that was the point!!
Well folk, the elasticity of demand is a mugg ain't it? Of course as you pointed out: on the micro-economic side of this the incidence of taxation will fall heavily on consumers.
I'll have to look into this further.
Honestly I've not paid any attention to the political climate much in the last week. Time to get back to work.
RiPPa,
You haven't missed a thing. Just like a hog trough, it's empty to night but will be filled with the same slop tomorrow.
rainywalker
Electric rates 90% and 55% for fuel?!
Im going to have to read that my self I know there is something to balance that, no way it would have past if it were that simple.
i cant believe they actually passed this bill
word to te wise
whenever you se both parties signing off on a bill
you know there is a problem with it
this bill is only going to send more factory jobs to china
this is what many politicians argued
and i guarantee you this is what is going to happen
even though the states need to manufacture our own products more than ever
watch
This bill is troubling on so many levels. Thing is that well before it was signed in to law Mr President did a press conference wherein he stated in plain english that these astronomical cost would be passed on to the consumer. As is usually the case most obviously didn't pay attention. Had they, perhaps it would've prompted a call or letter to their rep. or sen.
What really gets me is that when the bill came out and immediately started getting blasted folks who had little or no idea about the content spoke out in support lamenting that "it's a first step", "at least he's doing something to address it". It's a small wonder he's holding steady at 60% approval rating. Ignorant masses.
I say poppycock!
The earth has not warmed in 10 years? That's news to me, Dawg. Really?
TORRANCE: Isn't it funny that two libertarians like you and I oppose Cap-N-Crunch? We're "supposed" to be in favor of market-based solutions to "negative social externalities," si o no?
Well, like, you, I say in this case "NO!" I say it, though, with a theoretical understanding of the concept behind Cap-N-Crunch: THE (RONALD) COASE MECHANISM.
This is very dense stuff but worth a glance if anyone's really into the philosophy of it:
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=kDX7SiDfOK0C&oi=fnd&pg=PA291&dq=%22Schweizer%22+%22Externalities+and+the+Coase+Theorem:+Hypothesis+or+Result%3F%22+&ots=4vf4Pjpx8i&sig=6zuGcgHq6TokX5AAsUb2iJJ3iFU
The problem here is that Coase was writing in a GLASS-STEGALL, pre-NEW CFTC world. With the total deregulation (YET NOT A TOTAL LIBERTARIAN DISPERSION OF FUNGIBILY THROUGHOUT SOCIETY) of derivative instruments, Cap-N-Crunch is bound to fail.
I'll use the naive case. They say that the number of CO2 emissions credits would be reduced by some amount at the end of each year by not replacing some number of settled or expired contracts.
Great. But it's total bullshit. If I sell you one put-option on the right to prevent the expulsion of so much CO2 particulate over such a period of time with such a strike price, interest rate, and premium...THEN, I buy from you a call-option on the right TO POLLUTE in such a manner by such a date with the same characteristics as the other contract, WE HAVE CREATED A SYNTHETIC RIGHT TO POLLUTE THAT DIDN'T EXIST BEFORE, OVER-THE-COUNTER AND UN-REGULATED, YET WHOLLY LEGAL AND BINDING WITH THE FORCE OF LAW ANYWHERE IN THE USA. YES, WE'VE CREATED RIGHTS TO CAUSE NEGATIVE SOCIAL EXTERNALITIES IN POOR NEIGHBORHOODS JUST BY A LITTLE HAND WAVING!
Cap-N-Crunch is therefore a fraud and a lie and all it does is set into law the right to pollute as much as possible. The man who first started discussing this idea is also the man who is the majority shareholder in the company that will make, design and HELP THE FED SUPERVISE the CO2-EMISSIONS MARKETS.
That man's name is (drum roll please).........AL GORE, JR.
@ NICKI NICKI TEMBO: I also write in opposition to the measure and to the same ignorance that you describe. I posted Dennis Kucinich's speech against the Air Thingy on my Facebook page and I got bombed with the same commentary.
"It's a start."
"You're just like Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh."
"It's fine for you in Panama. What about us?"
"The SIERRA CLUB is for it"
"Al Gore is for it"
And so on...I really don't know why it falls to me so often to be critiquing bad policy. Well, in this case, I do know why. Because in addition to having studied Ronald Coase's work in grad school, I AM A COMPLEX SYNTHETIC O-T-C DERIVATIVES TRADER. My job isn't to save the world. My job is to make good money from bad. I can see the flaws in the legislation because that's how I've made my living, by catching errors of construction of markets and errors in pricing of markets.
I know a lot of people just like me -- people who are comfortable making money in the anonymity of portfolio trading, but who oppose tyranny, oppression, subjugation, war,pollutants,the criminal IN-justice SLAVERY SYSTEM,etc.
There are even famous libertarian and progressive finance thinker practioners like John Meriwether and Barr Rosenberg whose examples I follow on this. I thought Dennis Kucinich's speech covered the problems in more down to earth way than I did, employing progressive critiques of the physical damage to people, especially poor, and libertarian critiques of vesting ever-more social control to the government.
Yet, when I start speaking or writing about LOOT AS LOOT AS LOOT, I am assumed to be some kind of right-wing Nazi thug. Last I checked, I just used what I know from my training and practice to show why the Obama measure is PROMOTIVE OF POLLUTION NOT PREVENTATIVE OF IT.
The unsurprising thing was when I asked Obama-luvvers if they'd read even an executive summary of the legislation, NONE HAD.
yea well i dont kno how saying u have to pay me to expel CO2 is not saying u can pollute as much as u want as long as you have the money to pay for it. Then where is that money generated gonna go? To Goldman Sachs alumni and Al Gore, private hands, etc. Not to education, security, etc.
Or am i wrong?
@JM: That's how it looks to me, and it's yet another danger of fiat money and fractional reserve banking as Ron Paul says every day during his minutes.
I still think this whole global warming fiasco is something more based in propaganda. Do I think the environment has warmed over the centuries, well of course, but do I think it requires a law so as to manage it, no. People have enough since to create the technology that will clean our environment without a law being passed that could very well shake the fabric of our economy even more.
P.S.-You can also follow me on Twitter bro: twitter.com/newsrevolver
Post a Comment