There are plenty of viable sources of energy if we do it right. Wind power, micro wind, solar, more localized distribution, use reduction.
??? It isn't an expenditure. So I don't know what you mean by it would be a better way to spend public money.
also, prove that it would skyrocket energy prices.
Cap and trade will punish the people that pass on the extra costs to consumers. They will go out of business or change. The ones that do produce less pollution will gain a market edge.
Forcing business to pass on costs to the consumer is fundamentally no different than a tax. Businesses don't pay taxes, their customers do.
Consumers don't pay taxes, their employers do. See what I did there?
Essentially, it's a government agenda funded by public money (as all government agendas are), but it doesn't address the underlying issue. It simply punishes people for not complying.
Why do you have such a mad on about this particular "tax"? Why not get mad about other taxes businesses have to pay. If your contention is that cap & trade is a tax that will be passed onto consumers, doesn't that also imply that other taxes are passed directly to consumers as well? You seem to be advocating that businesses pay no taxes at all.
Why do you have such a mad on about this particular "tax"? Why not get mad about other taxes businesses have to pay. If your contention is that cap & trade is a tax that will be passed onto consumers, doesn't that also imply that other taxes are passed directly to consumers as well? You seem to be advocating that businesses pay no taxes at all.
There have been a lot of posters (especially on Slashdot) who assert that this plan would drive out industry to other less regulation-happy parts of the world.
How would an import tax on goods produced in more polluting countries not address this? Or how else could we mitigate this effect?
The pollution intensive manufacturing industries were given permits for free. They get to use or sell those once the system goes into place.
Sadly.
It's not necessarily sad. These types of permits/credits are one-use only or usuable within the given year. As such, once the companies' allotted gratis allocation is exhausted, they'd have to buy new ones. So, giving away gratis emissions is probably a way for the government to lessen the immediate impact on businesses as well as getting industry support for the cap-and-trade plan.
The bill does'nt go into effect the day it's signed so there is no immediate impact. Never mind the fact that this thing has been a long time coming and anyone who wasn't 'hiking the appalachian trail' (that needs to become a euphemism) could see that and prepare for it even if it did take effect in '09 rather than 2012.
Those handouts don't stop until 2020 or 2030 (I forget which), by the way and do nothing but help entrench incumbent operators for that whole time. They really aren't defensible outside of the simple fact that you need to bribe people in order to get votes.
moniker on
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Wind Farms require electrical infrastructure which is not being built because no one wants to see a wind farm out their front door. Running solar panels along our Interstates could provide enough electricity to power the entire country on a scale of overkill (meaning we wouldn't need to repave every single mile of highway. I don't remember exact figures, but something along the lines of a year's consumption generated in a day sticks out).
Wrong on both counts. Try again.
Esplain.
Chanus on
Allegedly a voice of reason.
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
edited June 2009
Oh, well then, that's an amazingly stupid way of allocating gratis emissions credits if they're going to be doled out for that long.
Wind Farms require electrical infrastructure which is not being built because no one wants to see a wind farm out their front door. Running solar panels along our Interstates could provide enough electricity to power the entire country on a scale of overkill (meaning we wouldn't need to repave every single mile of highway. I don't remember exact figures, but something along the lines of a year's consumption generated in a day sticks out).
Wrong on both counts. Try again.
Esplain.
basically everything. I would never want to explain how wrong that entire paragraph is.
geckahn on
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Why do you have such a mad on about this particular "tax"? Why not get mad about other taxes businesses have to pay. If your contention is that cap & trade is a tax that will be passed onto consumers, doesn't that also imply that other taxes are passed directly to consumers as well? You seem to be advocating that businesses pay no taxes at all.
Mainly because this thread isn't about other taxes. All taxes levied on businesses are passed to the consumer. I'm not advocating no taxes, we need taxes, I just find too many taxes are levied with either an "Eat the Rich" or "Invest in the Rich" mentality.
We wouldn't need nearly as many taxes if our government was responsible with our money.
I also think vice taxes are wrong, and this essentially amounts to a vice tax.
Chanus on
Allegedly a voice of reason.
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Wind Farms require electrical infrastructure which is not being built because no one wants to see a wind farm out their front door. Running solar panels along our Interstates could provide enough electricity to power the entire country on a scale of overkill (meaning we wouldn't need to repave every single mile of highway. I don't remember exact figures, but something along the lines of a year's consumption generated in a day sticks out).
Wrong on both counts. Try again.
Esplain.
basically everything. I would never want to explain how wrong that entire paragraph is.
Okay, so I'm just wrong and yet no one has the capacity to explain why.
Wind Farms require electrical infrastructure which is not being built because no one wants to see a wind farm out their front door. Running solar panels along our Interstates could provide enough electricity to power the entire country on a scale of overkill (meaning we wouldn't need to repave every single mile of highway. I don't remember exact figures, but something along the lines of a year's consumption generated in a day sticks out).
Wrong on both counts. Try again.
Esplain.
Photovoltaics lining the median in Maine would make absolutely no sense what so ever and with the present efficiency rating would be far from the most effective use of investments in renewables. BIPV's are worth it if you price them into the life of the building rather than sticker shock, but otherwise the sensible thing to do is wait for them to become more efficient in their conversion rates and less expensive before making major investments there.
As far as wind farms...the places where they would actually make sense to be implemented are loving them. Talk to any farmer in the plains states and they'd be more than happy to give up 20 s.f. in exchange for a check that's worth a hell of a lot more than the corn they'd have been growing there. As far as coastal communities not wanting them, the only real issue there is how close are they to the beach so as to be visible on the horizon. Move 'em out a bit further and nobody cares.
Hyperbole is fun. I'm glad you noted that the "gazillions of dollars" are going to be a revenue stream for the government. Hey, I thought Republicans were very concerned about the deficit. Here's a way to reduce the deficit! Surely you're for it?
Not really. That revenue stream will come from higher energy costs. It will also disproportionately affect the bottom half of the income scale.
Some of us think that it's about time that everyone paid the true costs for our way of life. We've been running up debt environmentally, so to speak, and pretending like a bill won't come due. If energy is going to cost more in order to bring greenhouse gas emissions down, then that's what we need to do. An added benefit is that the increased price might encourage people to conserve energy, just like many were doing when gas got stupidly expensive last year. The alternative is to suffer the inevitable consequences of climate change. If all you care about is that you can get cheap energy and your taxes, then maybe you'll think differently. Personally, though, I prefer to live in a world where the breadbaskets aren't dustbowls and the weather isn't retarded.
Uh, ok. I'm all for the environment, but I haven't seen anything that tells me that this is the way to do it. But your hyperbole of the end of the world is noted.
[
What problems and incorrect assumptions are you referring to? Also, your words make me think that you don't understand that you don't understand that bills are usually not completely read by Congresmen, but by their aides. Not that it even matters; with all the time spent wrangling and deal making with this legislation, the only way you could not be informed about the contents of a bill is if you're unimportant (hi there freshmen Representatives) or incompetent.
The stimulus bill was heralded as the only way to keep unemployment from exceeding 8%. It had to pass NOW GODDAMMIT in order to save the nation. It was a lot of hyperbole.
And no, I don't believe an individual congressman reads every page of every bill, but someone should. Aides are a good start. But I seem to remember Congress railing against bonuses to be paid out, despite the fact that the stimulus bill they voted on specifically allowed for them. And I'm not talking about a minor or niche level bill, I'm talking about sweeping bills that will literally impact the entire economy. You sound nonchalant about that.
Because they're big enough issues that we can't afford to kick them down the field, but too contentious for Democrats to let them wait, lest their momentum stalls.
So? I agree with you that they shouldn't be kicked down the field. That happens too often. But there's little reason it needs to be passed by next week. Wasn't Obama saying Healthcare had to be passed by this summer or else? Or that they stimulus bill needed to be passed before Pelosi went to Rome, only to sit on the president's desk? These are big issues, and I agree with all three of them in principle, but they deserve measured and careful debate. That means the GOP needs to engage on all them and help shape them.
They don't do that you say? They are alarmist right wing nuts? That doesn't take away the responsibility of the other party to work the issue responsibly.
Links to the Heritage Foundation are automatic fail.
No thanks. I don't know if their analysis is correct, but it's a competing viewpoint that has yet to be debunked. Unless you can point to an analysis that specifically refutes it, dismissing it out of hand is lame at best.
All taxes levied on businesses are passed to the consumer.
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG
I'm curious, how much econ have you taken?
Okay, maybe not 100% correlation. The point, however, is that you can't just tax a business and expect it to eat the cost. Roosevelt tried that... 1938 delivered the response.
I would be pumped to see a wind farm out my door. Complaints about the sound are largely overblown, and besides, are they any uglier than a smog cloud and a smokestack? I think they are actually quite pleasing to look at.
But anyway, I think the wind farm is the wrong way to look at it. Micro wind turbines are an amazing thing. any building above a certain height makes a downdraft at its edge. Put them on buildings and then you don't even have to distribute that electricity. 7 - 8 % of electricity is lost in transmission, perhaps more.
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
All taxes levied on businesses are passed to the consumer.
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG
I'm curious, how much econ have you taken?
Okay, maybe not 100% correlation. The point, however, is that you can't just tax a business and expect it to eat the cost. Roosevelt tried that... 1938 delivered the response.
Prices of goods (ie the profit margin) are wholly dependent upon the level of competition in the marketplace. Do you think Publishers get a 40% return on investment because they're just so much smarter than manufacturers?
All taxes levied on businesses are passed to the consumer.
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG
I'm curious, how much econ have you taken?
Okay, maybe not 100% correlation. The point, however, is that you can't just tax a business and expect it to eat the cost. Roosevelt tried that... 1938 delivered the response.
Not even close to a 100% correlation.
The way the burden of taxes work depend largely on how competitive a firms given marketplace is. I think I've said this like 3 times in this thread already. Monopolistic firms, which also lack competition from other goods that can take their place in a consumption bundle, will be able to pass most of the tax on to the consumer. This is the only case in which you are somewhat correct. Every other case, which is almost the entire economy, you are incorrect.
Wind Farms require electrical infrastructure which is not being built because no one wants to see a wind farm out their front door. Running solar panels along our Interstates could provide enough electricity to power the entire country on a scale of overkill (meaning we wouldn't need to repave every single mile of highway. I don't remember exact figures, but something along the lines of a year's consumption generated in a day sticks out).
Wrong on both counts. Try again.
Esplain.
basically everything. I would never want to explain how wrong that entire paragraph is.
Okay, so I'm just wrong and yet no one has the capacity to explain why.
Wind farms aren't being built because they don't pay for themselves in enough time to justify their upfront expense.
Running solar panels along our Interstates is batshit insane. What's good for highway land might be terrible for solar panels. I don't believe I actually have to explain this.
The reason solar panels aren't being built is for the same reasons that wind farms aren't. That and solar panels are horribly inefficient and environmentally damaging to manufacture, but both are improving at a breakneck pace.
I would be pumped to see a wind farm out my door. Complaints about the sound are largely overblown, and besides, are they any uglier than a smog cloud and a smokestack? I think they are actually quite pleasing to look at.
But anyway, I think the wind farm is the wrong way to look at it. Micro wind turbines are an amazing thing. any building above a certain height makes a downdraft at its edge. Put them on buildings and then you don't even have to distribute that electricity. 7 - 8 % of electricity is lost in transmission, perhaps more.
Building efficiency would save more energy than you'd be able to generate with smaller turbines. Never mind the fact that the would be far more intermittent and difficult to gauge with weather patterns than a wind farm of multiple turbines cranking out their 59%. That being said a small scale VAWT is kinda sexy (I like quite revolution's) but, again, the smart money is to wait until they reach their peak efficiency before putting one up individually. It's a collective action problem and a true cost problem rolled into one.
All taxes levied on businesses are passed to the consumer.
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG
I'm curious, how much econ have you taken?
Okay, maybe not 100% correlation. The point, however, is that you can't just tax a business and expect it to eat the cost. Roosevelt tried that... 1938 delivered the response.
Prices of goods (ie the profit margin) are wholly dependent upon the level of competition in the marketplace. Do you think Publishers get a 40% return on investment because they're just so much smarter than manufacturers?
You'll need to explain more, because as written this makes no sense.
I was going to try to reason it out, but I'd be shooting in the dark at what you were trying to say here.
Prices of goods (ie the profit margin) are wholly dependent upon the level of competition in the marketplace. Do you think Publishers get a 40% return on investment because they're just so much smarter than manufacturers?
You'll need to explain more, because as written this makes no sense.
I was going to try to reason it out, but I'd be shooting in the dark at what you were trying to say here.
The way I read it, he's saying that the only determining factor in market prices is competition. Development costs, taxes, and the cost of training and retaining employees have nothing to do with it.
I would be pumped to see a wind farm out my door. Complaints about the sound are largely overblown, and besides, are they any uglier than a smog cloud and a smokestack? I think they are actually quite pleasing to look at.
But anyway, I think the wind farm is the wrong way to look at it. Micro wind turbines are an amazing thing. any building above a certain height makes a downdraft at its edge. Put them on buildings and then you don't even have to distribute that electricity. 7 - 8 % of electricity is lost in transmission, perhaps more.
Building efficiency would save more energy than you'd be able to generate with smaller turbines. Never mind the fact that the would be far more intermittent and difficult to gauge with weather patterns than a wind farm of multiple turbines cranking out their 59%. That being said a small scale VAWT is kinda sexy (I like quite revolution's) but, again, the smart money is to wait until they reach their peak efficiency before putting one up individually. It's a collective action problem and a true cost problem rolled into one.
Mini wind farms (3-10 or so turbines) are getting to be all the rage out in the flatlands. The wind never stops blowing in Western Kansas, and wind turbines are basically a crop you don't have to plant three times a year.
I would be pumped to see a wind farm out my door. Complaints about the sound are largely overblown, and besides, are they any uglier than a smog cloud and a smokestack? I think they are actually quite pleasing to look at.
But anyway, I think the wind farm is the wrong way to look at it. Micro wind turbines are an amazing thing. any building above a certain height makes a downdraft at its edge. Put them on buildings and then you don't even have to distribute that electricity. 7 - 8 % of electricity is lost in transmission, perhaps more.
Building efficiency would save more energy than you'd be able to generate with smaller turbines. Never mind the fact that the would be far more intermittent and difficult to gauge with weather patterns than a wind farm of multiple turbines cranking out their 59%. That being said a small scale VAWT is kinda sexy (I like quite revolution's) but, again, the smart money is to wait until they reach their peak efficiency before putting one up individually. It's a collective action problem and a true cost problem rolled into one.
You misunderstand how micro turbines work. They are independent of the local weather and function on the downdraft created by tall buildings. When I say micro turbines I mean very, very small. Think the size of a bass fishing boat propeller.
But yes, building efficiency is great.
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
Wind Farms require electrical infrastructure which is not being built because no one wants to see a wind farm out their front door. Running solar panels along our Interstates could provide enough electricity to power the entire country on a scale of overkill (meaning we wouldn't need to repave every single mile of highway. I don't remember exact figures, but something along the lines of a year's consumption generated in a day sticks out).
Wrong on both counts. Try again.
Esplain.
basically everything. I would never want to explain how wrong that entire paragraph is.
Okay, so I'm just wrong and yet no one has the capacity to explain why.
Wind farms aren't being built because they don't pay for themselves in enough time to justify their upfront expense.
Running solar panels along our Interstates is batshit insane. What's good for highway land might be terrible for solar panels. I don't believe I actually have to explain this.
The reason solar panels aren't being built is for the same reasons that wind farms aren't. That and solar panels are horribly inefficient and environmentally damaging to manufacture, but both are improving at a breakneck pace.
Wind Turbines produce electricity at a cost of $0.07/kWh. Coal produces electricity at a cost of $0.04/kWh when their ability to shift the cost of pollution onto society is not taken into account. When you tax carbon at a price of around $30/tonne Coal becomes ~$0.065/kWh or cost competitive with wind turbines. Keep in mind that wind turbines have not hit peak efficiency just yet. They're at, like 57% conversion rates while the theoretical max is 59.8% so that might shave a few pennies off.
All taxes levied on businesses are passed to the consumer.
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG
I'm curious, how much econ have you taken?
Okay, maybe not 100% correlation. The point, however, is that you can't just tax a business and expect it to eat the cost. Roosevelt tried that... 1938 delivered the response.
Prices of goods (ie the profit margin) are wholly dependent upon the level of competition in the marketplace. Do you think Publishers get a 40% return on investment because they're just so much smarter than manufacturers?
You'll need to explain more, because as written this makes no sense.
I was going to try to reason it out, but I'd be shooting in the dark at what you were trying to say here.
The average level of profit per industry is dependent on how competitive that industry is. This factors directly into where the tax burden ends up.
Why do you have such a mad on about this particular "tax"? Why not get mad about other taxes businesses have to pay. If your contention is that cap & trade is a tax that will be passed onto consumers, doesn't that also imply that other taxes are passed directly to consumers as well? You seem to be advocating that businesses pay no taxes at all.
Maybe the savings would be passed down upon us, in some form of trickle!
Wind Farms require electrical infrastructure which is not being built because no one wants to see a wind farm out their front door. Running solar panels along our Interstates could provide enough electricity to power the entire country on a scale of overkill (meaning we wouldn't need to repave every single mile of highway. I don't remember exact figures, but something along the lines of a year's consumption generated in a day sticks out).
Wrong on both counts. Try again.
Esplain.
basically everything. I would never want to explain how wrong that entire paragraph is.
Okay, so I'm just wrong and yet no one has the capacity to explain why.
Wind farms aren't being built because they don't pay for themselves in enough time to justify their upfront expense.
Running solar panels along our Interstates is batshit insane. What's good for highway land might be terrible for solar panels. I don't believe I actually have to explain this.
The reason solar panels aren't being built is for the same reasons that wind farms aren't. That and solar panels are horribly inefficient and environmentally damaging to manufacture, but both are improving at a breakneck pace.
Not to mention the really cheap silicon based photovoltaic cells would "die" before they saved you significant amount of money.
How are they environmentally damaging to produce, I am not familiar so much in how they are manufactured.
Prices of goods (ie the profit margin) are wholly dependent upon the level of competition in the marketplace. Do you think Publishers get a 40% return on investment because they're just so much smarter than manufacturers?
You'll need to explain more, because as written this makes no sense.
I was going to try to reason it out, but I'd be shooting in the dark at what you were trying to say here.
The way I read it, he's saying that the only determining factor in market prices is competition. Development costs, taxes, and the cost of training and retaining employees have nothing to do with it.
He's saying that with normal levels of market competition, the amount of corporate tax that gets passed on as price to consumers is pretty small. Which is actually how it works.
I would be pumped to see a wind farm out my door. Complaints about the sound are largely overblown, and besides, are they any uglier than a smog cloud and a smokestack? I think they are actually quite pleasing to look at.
But anyway, I think the wind farm is the wrong way to look at it. Micro wind turbines are an amazing thing. any building above a certain height makes a downdraft at its edge. Put them on buildings and then you don't even have to distribute that electricity. 7 - 8 % of electricity is lost in transmission, perhaps more.
Building efficiency would save more energy than you'd be able to generate with smaller turbines. Never mind the fact that the would be far more intermittent and difficult to gauge with weather patterns than a wind farm of multiple turbines cranking out their 59%. That being said a small scale VAWT is kinda sexy (I like quite revolution's) but, again, the smart money is to wait until they reach their peak efficiency before putting one up individually. It's a collective action problem and a true cost problem rolled into one.
You misunderstand how micro turbines work. They are independent of the local weather and function on the downdraft created by tall buildings. When I say micro turbines I mean very, very small. Think the size of a bass fishing boat propeller.
But yes, building efficiency is great.
No, I've seen them and the various stupid proposals from the likes of Liebeskind and OMA with the supposition that they would provide X% amount of a building's power when most experimental applications have fallen way below the projected level of electricity production. The best you can get is to have a VAWT on the roof of >10 storey buildings, but the power they produce isn't going to be nearly as predictable to the degree necessary. They'll almost always be producing something, but not reliably enough to act as a base load.
Prices of goods (ie the profit margin) are wholly dependent upon the level of competition in the marketplace. Do you think Publishers get a 40% return on investment because they're just so much smarter than manufacturers?
You'll need to explain more, because as written this makes no sense.
I was going to try to reason it out, but I'd be shooting in the dark at what you were trying to say here.
The way I read it, he's saying that the only determining factor in market prices is competition. Development costs, taxes, and the cost of training and retaining employees have nothing to do with it.
He's saying that with normal levels of market competition, the amount of corporate tax that gets passed on as price to consumers is pretty small. Which is actually how it works.
That's almost the exact opposite of true.
Let's say a market is highly competitive and EBIT is razor thin, essentially enough to keep you afloat. You'd see an almost 1:1 correlation of taxes to costs because there is nowhere else it could be absorbed.
In a non-competitive market the same would be true, as the firm would have no incentive to absorb those costs.
In a market with multiple substitution goods, the firm that chose to absorb those taxes by reducing their profit could see better revenue from being cheaper. But now you have a case where investment into that firm and/or industry is curtailed becuase returns are lowered.
Prices of goods (ie the profit margin) are wholly dependent upon the level of competition in the marketplace. Do you think Publishers get a 40% return on investment because they're just so much smarter than manufacturers?
You'll need to explain more, because as written this makes no sense.
I was going to try to reason it out, but I'd be shooting in the dark at what you were trying to say here.
The way I read it, he's saying that the only determining factor in market prices is competition. Development costs, taxes, and the cost of training and retaining employees have nothing to do with it.
He's saying that with normal levels of market competition, the amount of corporate tax that gets passed on as price to consumers is pretty small. Which is actually how it works.
That's almost the exact opposite of true.
Let's say a market is highly competitive and EBIT is razor thin, essentially enough to keep you afloat. You'd see an almost 1:1 correlation of taxes to costs because there is nowhere else it could be absorbed.
In a non-competitive market the same would be true, as the firm would have no incentive to absorb those costs.
In a market with multiple substitution goods, the firm that chose to absorb those taxes by reducing their profit could see better revenue from being cheaper. But now you have a case where investment into that firm and/or industry is curtailed becuase returns are lowered.
A market that can support X number of competing entities is obviously profitable enough to allow any of those competing entities to absorb a certain level of tax burden in order to keep their prices low enough to be a viable option for consumers. If it wasn't there wouldn't be X separate companies in that line of work.
Prices of goods (ie the profit margin) are wholly dependent upon the level of competition in the marketplace. Do you think Publishers get a 40% return on investment because they're just so much smarter than manufacturers?
You'll need to explain more, because as written this makes no sense.
I was going to try to reason it out, but I'd be shooting in the dark at what you were trying to say here.
The way I read it, he's saying that the only determining factor in market prices is competition. Development costs, taxes, and the cost of training and retaining employees have nothing to do with it.
He's saying that with normal levels of market competition, the amount of corporate tax that gets passed on as price to consumers is pretty small. Which is actually how it works.
That's almost the exact opposite of true.
Let's say a market is highly competitive and EBIT is razor thin, essentially enough to keep you afloat. You'd see an almost 1:1 correlation of taxes to costs because there is nowhere else it could be absorbed.
In a non-competitive market the same would be true, as the firm would have no incentive to absorb those costs.
In a market with multiple substitution goods, the firm that chose to absorb those taxes by reducing their profit could see better revenue from being cheaper. But now you have a case where investment into that firm and/or industry is curtailed becuase returns are lowered.
yeah. I forget to add the other exception of industries in which profits are almost non-existent, industry wide.
Wind Farms require electrical infrastructure which is not being built because no one wants to see a wind farm out their front door. Running solar panels along our Interstates could provide enough electricity to power the entire country on a scale of overkill (meaning we wouldn't need to repave every single mile of highway. I don't remember exact figures, but something along the lines of a year's consumption generated in a day sticks out).
Wrong on both counts. Try again.
Esplain.
basically everything. I would never want to explain how wrong that entire paragraph is.
Okay, so I'm just wrong and yet no one has the capacity to explain why.
Wind farms aren't being built because they don't pay for themselves in enough time to justify their upfront expense.
Running solar panels along our Interstates is batshit insane. What's good for highway land might be terrible for solar panels. I don't believe I actually have to explain this.
The reason solar panels aren't being built is for the same reasons that wind farms aren't. That and solar panels are horribly inefficient and environmentally damaging to manufacture, but both are improving at a breakneck pace.
Not to mention the really cheap silicon based photovoltaic cells would "die" before they saved you significant amount of money.
How are they environmentally damaging to produce, I am not familiar so much in how they are manufactured.
No, they pretty much always have a net positive effect on your pocketbook. It just takes a while and most people don't have the cash on hand to make that large of an investment in order to receive a pretty small profit 20 years down the road. Particularly when you aren't likely going to be able to increase the sale price of your house due to a photovoltaic array in the event that you have to move. Which is why it would be great for structural reforms to take place shifting the cost burden on BIPV's to either the property tax or something else so as to not hit that sticker shock problem or the simple fact that you can't take it with you.
As far as their manufacturing, it does tend to be pretty toxic but that's being improved as they try new things. Solar is literally 20 years behind wind, but it has a more promising future since the conversion ratio can keep improving way past what propellers can make. It's just going to take a decade to get there.
A market that can support X number of competing entities is obviously profitable enough to allow any of those competing entities to absorb a certain level of tax burden in order to keep their prices low enough to be a viable option for consumers. If it wasn't there wouldn't be X separate companies in that line of work.
I know this is only tangentially related, but has anyone ever seen one of the blades on a wind farm fan? They are preposterously light - like, 30 or 40 lbs. You could easily lift one off the ground.
A market that can support X number of competing entities is obviously profitable enough to allow any of those competing entities to absorb a certain level of tax burden in order to keep their prices low enough to be a viable option for consumers. If it wasn't there wouldn't be X separate companies in that line of work.
Obviously.
It makes sense, but that doesn't make it true.
If it's not true, capitalism is built on gumdrops and fairy tales. I'll let you figure out which is more likely.
Not really. That revenue stream will come from higher energy costs. It will also disproportionately affect the bottom half of the income scale.
Yes, you see, that's the point of the system: to make carbon positive energy and manufacturing expensive enough that industry changes to carbon neutral or carbon negative production. Your problem is that you think that demand for energy and manufacturing is inelastic, when its clearly not. And you're ignoring that energy producers aren't the only ones affected, so unless rich people don't pay for energy or buy things, the idea that the poor will be most affected doesn't ring true.
Uh, ok. I'm all for the environment, but I haven't seen anything that tells me that this is the way to do it. But your hyperbole of the end of the world is noted.
You don't see how forcing American industry, the largest producer of carbon in the world, to reduce emissions will affect climate change? Because that's what cap and trade will do.
The stimulus bill was heralded as the only way to keep unemployment from exceeding 8%.
Seriously, where and when was this said?
It had to pass NOW GODDAMMIT in order to save the nation. It was a lot of hyperbole.
You base this off of what? It passed four, five months ago? It's barely gotten moving, and by most accounts I've heard of, it's saving jobs and putting people to work. Woo, hyperbole.
And no, I don't believe an individual congressman reads every page of every bill, but someone should. Aides are a good start. But I seem to remember Congress railing against bonuses to be paid out, despite the fact that the stimulus bill they voted on specifically allowed for them. And I'm not talking about a minor or niche level bill, I'm talking about sweeping bills that will literally impact the entire economy. You sound nonchalant about that.
No, I just understand that this is the way things work, and that these issues are big and important and only a truly stupid congressman is going to be ignorant of the main points. Yes, they're huge bills and things will slip through, but that happens with every bill. The point is that it's mostly a sound bill, and with all eyes on this one, I'm pretty confident it won't be a total fuck up.
So? I agree with you that they shouldn't be kicked down the field. That happens too often. But there's little reason it needs to be passed by next week. Wasn't Obama saying Healthcare had to be passed by this summer or else? Or that they stimulus bill needed to be passed before Pelosi went to Rome, only to sit on the president's desk? These are big issues, and I agree with all three of them in principle, but they deserve measured and careful debate. That means the GOP needs to engage on all them and help shape them.
First, cap and trade isn't new, at least not for congressmen. They ought to know the main idea. What's going on now is horse trading on specifics, but the main ideas have been fleshed out for some time. What you really mean is that Republicans should stall the issues until momentum is lost. That's not going to happen with Democrats in charge, sorry. As they say, elections have consequences.
They don't do that you say? They are alarmist right wing nuts? That doesn't take away the responsibility of the other party to work the issue responsibly.
Which is what they're doing. You're implying otherwise because you don't agree with their stance on the issue.
Links to the Heritage Foundation are automatic fail.
No thanks. I don't know if their analysis is correct, but it's a competing viewpoint that has yet to be debunked. Unless you can point to an analysis that specifically refutes it, dismissing it out of hand is lame at best.[/QUOTE]
No, seriously, if you get to link to Heritage Foundation, can I link to a far left think tank and have you take it seriously? Or, how about this, we avoid linking to studies performed by groups that have a definite bias and agenda?
Prices of goods (ie the profit margin) are wholly dependent upon the level of competition in the marketplace. Do you think Publishers get a 40% return on investment because they're just so much smarter than manufacturers?
You'll need to explain more, because as written this makes no sense.
I was going to try to reason it out, but I'd be shooting in the dark at what you were trying to say here.
The way I read it, he's saying that the only determining factor in market prices is competition. Development costs, taxes, and the cost of training and retaining employees have nothing to do with it.
He's saying that with normal levels of market competition, the amount of corporate tax that gets passed on as price to consumers is pretty small. Which is actually how it works.
That's almost the exact opposite of true.
Let's say a market is highly competitive and EBIT is razor thin, essentially enough to keep you afloat. You'd see an almost 1:1 correlation of taxes to costs because there is nowhere else it could be absorbed.
In a non-competitive market the same would be true, as the firm would have no incentive to absorb those costs.
In a market with multiple substitution goods, the firm that chose to absorb those taxes by reducing their profit could see better revenue from being cheaper. But now you have a case where investment into that firm and/or industry is curtailed becuase returns are lowered.
yeah. I forget to add the other exception of industries in which profits are almost non-existent, industry wide.
Which generally doesn't apply to any industries that will be directly impacted by this tax. Suppliers to them might, but that would be an equal rise in cost amongst all competitors so as to be moot. The real issue is more that a lot of the companies being taxed do have a near monopolistic hold over their consumers.
Posts
Why do you have such a mad on about this particular "tax"? Why not get mad about other taxes businesses have to pay. If your contention is that cap & trade is a tax that will be passed onto consumers, doesn't that also imply that other taxes are passed directly to consumers as well? You seem to be advocating that businesses pay no taxes at all.
Then everything would be free!
The bill does'nt go into effect the day it's signed so there is no immediate impact. Never mind the fact that this thing has been a long time coming and anyone who wasn't 'hiking the appalachian trail' (that needs to become a euphemism) could see that and prepare for it even if it did take effect in '09 rather than 2012.
Those handouts don't stop until 2020 or 2030 (I forget which), by the way and do nothing but help entrench incumbent operators for that whole time. They really aren't defensible outside of the simple fact that you need to bribe people in order to get votes.
Esplain.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
basically everything. I would never want to explain how wrong that entire paragraph is.
Mainly because this thread isn't about other taxes. All taxes levied on businesses are passed to the consumer. I'm not advocating no taxes, we need taxes, I just find too many taxes are levied with either an "Eat the Rich" or "Invest in the Rich" mentality.
We wouldn't need nearly as many taxes if our government was responsible with our money.
I also think vice taxes are wrong, and this essentially amounts to a vice tax.
Okay, so I'm just wrong and yet no one has the capacity to explain why.
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG
I'm curious, how much econ have you taken?
Photovoltaics lining the median in Maine would make absolutely no sense what so ever and with the present efficiency rating would be far from the most effective use of investments in renewables. BIPV's are worth it if you price them into the life of the building rather than sticker shock, but otherwise the sensible thing to do is wait for them to become more efficient in their conversion rates and less expensive before making major investments there.
As far as wind farms...the places where they would actually make sense to be implemented are loving them. Talk to any farmer in the plains states and they'd be more than happy to give up 20 s.f. in exchange for a check that's worth a hell of a lot more than the corn they'd have been growing there. As far as coastal communities not wanting them, the only real issue there is how close are they to the beach so as to be visible on the horizon. Move 'em out a bit further and nobody cares.
Matter of opinion. I'm more concerned of the size and scope of the bills, not really the number.
Not really. That revenue stream will come from higher energy costs. It will also disproportionately affect the bottom half of the income scale.
Uh, ok. I'm all for the environment, but I haven't seen anything that tells me that this is the way to do it. But your hyperbole of the end of the world is noted.
It was mentioned in one of the links below.
The stimulus bill was heralded as the only way to keep unemployment from exceeding 8%. It had to pass NOW GODDAMMIT in order to save the nation. It was a lot of hyperbole.
And no, I don't believe an individual congressman reads every page of every bill, but someone should. Aides are a good start. But I seem to remember Congress railing against bonuses to be paid out, despite the fact that the stimulus bill they voted on specifically allowed for them. And I'm not talking about a minor or niche level bill, I'm talking about sweeping bills that will literally impact the entire economy. You sound nonchalant about that.
So? I agree with you that they shouldn't be kicked down the field. That happens too often. But there's little reason it needs to be passed by next week. Wasn't Obama saying Healthcare had to be passed by this summer or else? Or that they stimulus bill needed to be passed before Pelosi went to Rome, only to sit on the president's desk? These are big issues, and I agree with all three of them in principle, but they deserve measured and careful debate. That means the GOP needs to engage on all them and help shape them.
They don't do that you say? They are alarmist right wing nuts? That doesn't take away the responsibility of the other party to work the issue responsibly.
No thanks. I don't know if their analysis is correct, but it's a competing viewpoint that has yet to be debunked. Unless you can point to an analysis that specifically refutes it, dismissing it out of hand is lame at best.
Okay, maybe not 100% correlation. The point, however, is that you can't just tax a business and expect it to eat the cost. Roosevelt tried that... 1938 delivered the response.
But anyway, I think the wind farm is the wrong way to look at it. Micro wind turbines are an amazing thing. any building above a certain height makes a downdraft at its edge. Put them on buildings and then you don't even have to distribute that electricity. 7 - 8 % of electricity is lost in transmission, perhaps more.
but they're listening to every word I say
Prices of goods (ie the profit margin) are wholly dependent upon the level of competition in the marketplace. Do you think Publishers get a 40% return on investment because they're just so much smarter than manufacturers?
Not even close to a 100% correlation.
The way the burden of taxes work depend largely on how competitive a firms given marketplace is. I think I've said this like 3 times in this thread already. Monopolistic firms, which also lack competition from other goods that can take their place in a consumption bundle, will be able to pass most of the tax on to the consumer. This is the only case in which you are somewhat correct. Every other case, which is almost the entire economy, you are incorrect.
Wind farms aren't being built because they don't pay for themselves in enough time to justify their upfront expense.
Running solar panels along our Interstates is batshit insane. What's good for highway land might be terrible for solar panels. I don't believe I actually have to explain this.
The reason solar panels aren't being built is for the same reasons that wind farms aren't. That and solar panels are horribly inefficient and environmentally damaging to manufacture, but both are improving at a breakneck pace.
Building efficiency would save more energy than you'd be able to generate with smaller turbines. Never mind the fact that the would be far more intermittent and difficult to gauge with weather patterns than a wind farm of multiple turbines cranking out their 59%. That being said a small scale VAWT is kinda sexy (I like quite revolution's) but, again, the smart money is to wait until they reach their peak efficiency before putting one up individually. It's a collective action problem and a true cost problem rolled into one.
You'll need to explain more, because as written this makes no sense.
I was going to try to reason it out, but I'd be shooting in the dark at what you were trying to say here.
The way I read it, he's saying that the only determining factor in market prices is competition. Development costs, taxes, and the cost of training and retaining employees have nothing to do with it.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
You misunderstand how micro turbines work. They are independent of the local weather and function on the downdraft created by tall buildings. When I say micro turbines I mean very, very small. Think the size of a bass fishing boat propeller.
But yes, building efficiency is great.
but they're listening to every word I say
Wind Turbines produce electricity at a cost of $0.07/kWh. Coal produces electricity at a cost of $0.04/kWh when their ability to shift the cost of pollution onto society is not taken into account. When you tax carbon at a price of around $30/tonne Coal becomes ~$0.065/kWh or cost competitive with wind turbines. Keep in mind that wind turbines have not hit peak efficiency just yet. They're at, like 57% conversion rates while the theoretical max is 59.8% so that might shave a few pennies off.
The average level of profit per industry is dependent on how competitive that industry is. This factors directly into where the tax burden ends up.
Maybe the savings would be passed down upon us, in some form of trickle!
*hides*
Not to mention the really cheap silicon based photovoltaic cells would "die" before they saved you significant amount of money.
How are they environmentally damaging to produce, I am not familiar so much in how they are manufactured.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
No, I've seen them and the various stupid proposals from the likes of Liebeskind and OMA with the supposition that they would provide X% amount of a building's power when most experimental applications have fallen way below the projected level of electricity production. The best you can get is to have a VAWT on the roof of >10 storey buildings, but the power they produce isn't going to be nearly as predictable to the degree necessary. They'll almost always be producing something, but not reliably enough to act as a base load.
That's almost the exact opposite of true.
Let's say a market is highly competitive and EBIT is razor thin, essentially enough to keep you afloat. You'd see an almost 1:1 correlation of taxes to costs because there is nowhere else it could be absorbed.
In a non-competitive market the same would be true, as the firm would have no incentive to absorb those costs.
In a market with multiple substitution goods, the firm that chose to absorb those taxes by reducing their profit could see better revenue from being cheaper. But now you have a case where investment into that firm and/or industry is curtailed becuase returns are lowered.
Anyway, this is getting waaaayy off topic.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
yeah. I forget to add the other exception of industries in which profits are almost non-existent, industry wide.
No, they pretty much always have a net positive effect on your pocketbook. It just takes a while and most people don't have the cash on hand to make that large of an investment in order to receive a pretty small profit 20 years down the road. Particularly when you aren't likely going to be able to increase the sale price of your house due to a photovoltaic array in the event that you have to move. Which is why it would be great for structural reforms to take place shifting the cost burden on BIPV's to either the property tax or something else so as to not hit that sticker shock problem or the simple fact that you can't take it with you.
As far as their manufacturing, it does tend to be pretty toxic but that's being improved as they try new things. Solar is literally 20 years behind wind, but it has a more promising future since the conversion ratio can keep improving way past what propellers can make. It's just going to take a decade to get there.
Tax Incidence (i.e. who "pays" taxes)
Pigovian Taxes
Cap and Trade
before inserting foot into mouth.
Personally: Yeah for taxing externalities! Boo if those tax raises aren't (mostly) offset by tax cuts elsewhere!
Obviously.
It makes sense, but that doesn't make it true.
In other words, market capitalism shitting itself.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Yes, you see, that's the point of the system: to make carbon positive energy and manufacturing expensive enough that industry changes to carbon neutral or carbon negative production. Your problem is that you think that demand for energy and manufacturing is inelastic, when its clearly not. And you're ignoring that energy producers aren't the only ones affected, so unless rich people don't pay for energy or buy things, the idea that the poor will be most affected doesn't ring true.
You don't see how forcing American industry, the largest producer of carbon in the world, to reduce emissions will affect climate change? Because that's what cap and trade will do.
Seriously, where and when was this said?
You base this off of what? It passed four, five months ago? It's barely gotten moving, and by most accounts I've heard of, it's saving jobs and putting people to work. Woo, hyperbole.
No, I just understand that this is the way things work, and that these issues are big and important and only a truly stupid congressman is going to be ignorant of the main points. Yes, they're huge bills and things will slip through, but that happens with every bill. The point is that it's mostly a sound bill, and with all eyes on this one, I'm pretty confident it won't be a total fuck up.
First, cap and trade isn't new, at least not for congressmen. They ought to know the main idea. What's going on now is horse trading on specifics, but the main ideas have been fleshed out for some time. What you really mean is that Republicans should stall the issues until momentum is lost. That's not going to happen with Democrats in charge, sorry. As they say, elections have consequences.
Which is what they're doing. You're implying otherwise because you don't agree with their stance on the issue.
No thanks. I don't know if their analysis is correct, but it's a competing viewpoint that has yet to be debunked. Unless you can point to an analysis that specifically refutes it, dismissing it out of hand is lame at best.[/QUOTE]
No, seriously, if you get to link to Heritage Foundation, can I link to a far left think tank and have you take it seriously? Or, how about this, we avoid linking to studies performed by groups that have a definite bias and agenda?
Which generally doesn't apply to any industries that will be directly impacted by this tax. Suppliers to them might, but that would be an equal rise in cost amongst all competitors so as to be moot. The real issue is more that a lot of the companies being taxed do have a near monopolistic hold over their consumers.
I am having a serious case of brain fart, theres an entire class of goods that are under this distinction, but i cant think of the name.
Think garment factories, or generic flour manufacturers.