On Mar 8, 2:04 pm, ro...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 20:37:22 -0800 (PST), Liesander
>
> <lysan...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >On Mar 6, 12:38 am, "J.H.Boersema" <jo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >> Trading pollution rights what they are now setting up is a
> >> bad idea.
>
> >It is actually a great idea.
>
> For the polluters...
>
Al Gore has invaded your mind.
> >Taxing pollution means that people who
> >have a high cost of cleaning up are affected just as equally as people
> >who can clean up easily.
>
> Wrong. They are affected more.
>
On the contrary they are the one's who get rents under a setting where
pollution over X is amount is taxed to all firms equally. Recall
profit above normal stemming from regulations is one form of rent.
> >Tradeable permits yields similar amounts of
> >low pollution but at lower cost.
>
> To the polluters.
>
Which is also lower cost to society. Are you daft enough to believe
that the tax is only paid by producers?
> >Those who can clean up cheaply do not
> >want the permits and sell to those with a high cost of reducing
> >pollution. Society gets the same amount of lower pollution but at less
> >cost.
>
> To the polluters. Higher cost to everyone else.
>
Roy misses the concept. Taxes do not create 0 pollution nor is 0
pollution the goal. A Pigouvian tax will lower emissions by making
firms pay the cost of emitting. To get to optimal emissions means
tweaking the tax code over and over. A permit says we permit X amount
of pollution, whatever level is seemed optimal (that is where people
pay the cost of emitting). Above X you are taxed. A permit is not a
free ride to pollute as much as you want. Taxes influence the limit of
pollution. Permits set the limit of pollution, like regulations do,
but allows markets to determine how the pollution is allocated.
> >> An entity making great profits from polluting can
> >> buy a lot of pollution rights leaving other companies starved of
> >> op****tunity,
>
> >It is not about who makes the most profits from pollution.
>
> ROTFL!! Says the guy who wants to secure the profitability of the
> worst polluters...
>
An appeal to emotion. You are a follower of Al Gore. Have you read the
news re****ters about how the Bush ranch in Crawford is millions of
times more green than Gore's house. I bet you drive an SUV and
complain about dependence on foreign oil and how bad pollution is.
Gore has no alternative energy in his home and flies a private jet
that emits multiple times the pollution any of do in a year each time
he flies to warn people about pollution.
> >It is about the cost to clean up.
>
> No, it's about who rightly _BEARS_ that cost: society, or those who
> profit by violating others' rights.
>
Society bears the cost of pollution when no regulation or tax is in
place. Under taxes or tradeable permits firms must pay for the
pollution they create. This is the point making the person who does
the damage pay for the damage. It really matters little if the
polluter must pay me for the pollution or someone else, the incentive
to pollute is lower.
> >If steel mills cost $1 million to comply to no
> >pollution and it cost me $10 then if I get a permit I sell it to the
> >steel mill for something under $1 million. Pollution is reduced at the
> >cost of $10.
>
> Translation: you get to pocket up to $999,990 in economic rent, and
> the steel mill still pollutes.
>
No economic rent is reduced. Under Regulations the company with the
lowest cost pocketed rent because regulations applied equally. These
firms had abnormal profits due to the fact the cost was higher on
competitors but all had to reduce by the same amount. That is rent,
the extra profit that was given to low cost firms by the regulations.
Under permits the low cost company does not have rent. They have to
bear more cost of cleaning up and the high cost company has the
playing field leveled by being somewhat excluded from the cost of
cleaning up. This makes markets more competitive and lowers rents. Roy
does not understand what rent is.
> >If we tax or require all to have the same emissions we
> >get similar emissions but at higher cost.
>
> To the polluters. That's called, "justice" -- a concept with which
> you have proved you have no familiarity whatsoever.
>
Why is it Justice to excessively punish one and lightly punish
another. If we want less pollution is not fairer to ask those who can
clean up their emissions the most easily to do more than those who
have little recourse and high expense to lowering pollution?
> >It is those firms who will
> >have the highest cost of avoiding pollution that will want the permit.
> >Those who can clean up cheaper than they get a permit will not want
> >the permit.
>
> Preferring to pocket rent, instead. Right.
>
No the rent is reduced. The low cost companies have their rents
reduced and eliminated because they have to do more to clean up this
brings the cost in line with the high cost of clean up companies. This
eliminates rent as the low cost firms are driven closer to normal
profit and their government given advantage in the market is taken
away.
Note a Pigouvian tax works similarly. Low cost of clean up companies
will clean up more rather than pay the tax. Those who have high cost
to clean up will pay the tax and continue to pollute. Taxation and
permits give similar results. The point is that it is harder to tweak
taxes right to get the desired amount of pollution. Permits combine
regulation, setting the amount of pollution, with the ability of the
market to determine allocation of pollution as taxes do.
Regs determine the amount and generally how the pollution is
allocated. Taxes determine how much it cost to pollute, the extra cost
of pollution lowers emissions. The market determines how pollution is
allocated. Permits do both they determine the amount of pollution and
allow the market to allocate pollution. They allow the market to set
the price of the pollution to where the determined amount of pollution
is achieved. Taxes set the prices and hope the desired level of
pollution is achieved.
> >>it seems vulnerable to corruption, even worse when done
> >> internationally.
>
> >Much less vulnerable to corruption than regulation or taxation.
>
> Lie.
>
Roy believes the word lie is an argument. Fascists also believed just
saying these are lies was an argument. As I said before replaced the
Jews in Nazism and the Capitalist in Communism with land owners and
you have Roy's philosophy.
|
