Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
DJ Barry Hammond

Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

By DJ Barry Hammond, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

Buce

Buce

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Strokes said:

Top right looks like he perched on top of ivory tower tbf.

 

And appears to be clinically obese from all that caviar and champagne.

 

A few years in a gulag will soon put that right...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alf Bentley

Alf Bentley

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

transformation to pigeon thread successful. 

 

Image result for books about pigeons

 

Looks like someone enjoyed their pigeons a bit too much, judging from that splodge at top right.

 

(Bare-faced attempt to transform the pigeon thread into another smut thread)

Edited by Alf Bentley
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

This is something I read up on a bit maybe 18 months ago. Forgive me if I misremember a couple of things cos I can't find it again.

 

I personally would say it's a potentially smart way to go about it. The problem now is we're free to pollute the atmosphere at a cost to society but no cost to the polluters so there is very little incentive to stop polluting. I've seen it described as theft - it takes say clean air from people without compensating them for that. Currently, you would say that the incentive is to produce energy using carbon sources because its monetarily quite cheap but that doesn't capture the cost to society, carbon production is priced at 0 and demand is effectively infinite. So from what I've seen, economists broadly agree with the idea of capping carbon emissions and using a credit trading scheme to determine the cost of carbon. It's just creating a market where there previously hasn't been one. Caps demand and encourages innovation as its the only way to cut your cost. I think Congress has dismissed it and I think I'm right in saying the European scheme hasn't gone particularly well(?). Then there's a carbon tax, which is greeted with a bit more hesitation all around but still economists would broadly agree. You're not so much creating a market as forcing the current market to price in non-monetary costs. Similar effect in the fact the demand for carbon falls and switching to less carbon is the only way to cut cost (probably more so than with credits). I don't think anyone cannot be troubled by the fact pollution, essentially destruction is free, and a cost needs to be placed on that.

 

The only way that I can see to design a tax policy is to work out the cost to society of carbon (think its estimated at $40/ton but there's variation) and levy that on producers. It would probably have to be increasing with time as well given the cost of extra carbon will increase the more we continue to add(?)/also to continue forcing the issue. This is what they tried to introduce in Washington State and have done in British Columbia (but not as high). I can't see any other way of doing it.

 

By the way, you should check out the BC example as its the only real world example we have (Australia tried it apparently but it was too unpopular). In BC, it initially didn't impact growth and cut carbon emissions by more than in the rest of Canada. But taking out Alberta, it wasn't that big a difference in the end. 

 

Is it viable? I don't think so.

 

Firstly, how do you actually put a price on the cost of carbon? Underprice it and you fail with complete capture so you lose possible incentives. Overprice it and there's too much of an excess burden of the tax for producers and you stifle both growth and ability to develop new technologies. Admittedly, price it right and you'll get far more investment than you could ever get now. Scientists don't truly know the exact damage of our carbon emissions. Take the IPCC reports. In 2007 the bounds were 2-4 degrees, by 2013 that had become 1.5-4 degrees. Also the report from Oxford (?) academics that suggests we have more time than we previously thought, thus making the cost of carbon less. I'm skeptical of any forecasts. I take any long-term economic forecast with a pinch of salt, it's doing the impossible. Whilst the science of climate change might be more reliable and harder to affect than an economic forecast, I tend to have similar skepticism for climate forecasts. Whilst it's less specific than the weather, we still aren't able to forecast weather with much reliability further out than a few months at best. Simply, there's too much uncertainty to create a tax that is efficient. 

 

Secondly, it would have to be revenue neutral. The cost would be far too high to not compensate. It would stifle innovation and sink GDP growth and living standards. Okay maybe government could do it itself. But most importantly, the cost would be passed on to consumers and it would hugely regressive so it would hit the poor too hard not to compensate. Existing petrol taxes are hard enough on the poor as it is, this would add to those costs further. Then the question is how you compensate. The RFF (pro a carbon tax) forecast growth rates with a revenue-neutral $30/ton carbon tax. It looked at fours ways of refunding carbon tax receipts; a capital or corporation tax cut, an income tax cut, a cut in consumption taxes, or a lump-sum transfer back to citizens. The only one that didn't harm GDP growth was a cut in capital taxes (this may well change given US tax reforms). I'm not sure it would be desirable or politically possible to convince people that a regressive tax that heavily redistributes money from the poor to big, rich corporations is a good idea. And once you start complicating tax systems to avoid that, they become more and more ineffective. Tbh if anything, it shows the harm capital taxes do in the first place.

 

The other thing to add to that but is slightly different is it worth it for us to sacrifice growth and living standards now when those in the future will be much richer than us. Yes okay, we should preserve the wonder that is our planet for future generations, and not be pig ignorant about health consequences etc just because they will likely be richer in spite of climate change. I don't agree with Lord Lawson at all on climate change, nor do I necessarily trust his figures but he raises a reasonable point that even with worst case scenarios for climate change citizens of the future will be 2.6x better off than us compared to 2.7 and in developing countries 8.5x instead of 9.5x. Of course that ignores if its worse than we expect (more than possible) and I'm still skeptical of any such forecast's reliability, it may well underplay the damage to the wealth of those in the future. But it's a valid enough point, it makes the tax all the more regressive for people now. And obviously, not everything is about money, but when it comes to taxes its hard to escape it.

 

And the final reason I'll say for why it isn't viable, politicians. Politicians love to be seen to be doing something, it's what gets them votes. A tax is always a hard sell for a start. Big infrastructure projects or direct action such as pledging millions of turbines have more glamour and political appeal (increasing as old people die so more put green policies at the top of their preferences). Even if it started revenue neutral, it would soon be eroded (as in BC). As green credentials become a bigger vote winner, the more influence politicians would look to exert. Rather than leaving a tax to those that know, they'd alter it, make it complex, go on a big spending spree with it. If you created a carbon market, they'd love fiddling with it. Politicians are always the barrier to good policy. And I don't say that solely out of my belief in the free-market. I've seen good policy proposals come from left-wing economists that are ruined by politicians meddling because they need to win votes. For example, TfL runs transport far better than DfT because the Transport Secretary has too much influence whereas TfL is run by people knowing what they're doing.

 

So there is widespread support amongst economists for some kind of carbon pricing as a way to transition away from carbon sources and its a strong argument because even if you are a climate change skeptic, you must be uncomfortable by pollution being free. There is definitely a case for imposing a cost of carbon, basic market supply and demand theory is all you need for that. But widespread support amongst economists doesn't count for much. Poll taxes are not far from being universally supported by economists but Thatcher showed it to be politically unviable (ofc ignoring the BBC license fee which is actually a poll tax but nobody seems to see it). The Washington State example showed its infeasibility. You had environmental groups joining forces with climate change skeptics to defeat the vote because of the revenue neutral issue and the potentially regressive nature of it. I think when that happens you know its probably unlikely to be the solution. 

 

Edit: Yeah I forgot one thing. It's great if you can get international agreement on it, or at least say EU agreement, but it's that expensive that it's gonna have a pretty hard effect on trade if not.

Regulation has got to be simpler?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lifted*fox

lifted*fox

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Strokes said:

Prefer doves tbh at least they’re handsome beasts.

 

Doves and pigeons are from the same family. 

 

Doves are pretty much just prettier pigeons. 

 

Quote

While there are many species within the Columbidae family, the truth of the matter is that “dove” and “pigeon” are both interchangeable names that can be applied to any of the Columbidae species. There’s no official differences between the two.

 

Learnin' every day, baby. :cool:

Edited by lifted*fox
Link to comment
Share on other sites
nnfox

nnfox

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, ajthefox said:

Interesting article about tuning out to the news, social media and all of the day to day hysteria.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/jan/18/my-year-of-living-ignorantly-i-entered-a-news-blackout-the-day-trump-was-elected

I gave up watching the news on the tv a long time ago and went about 3 months literally going out of my way to avoid all sources of news (except sport). I have to say that my positivity about life in general has been notably higher.  I admit that I do scan headlines now fairly regularly and will dive into some articles but actually I was much happier when I paid no attention to it at all, so will likely revert back to living without the news at all.

 

Things that I came to realise:

 

1. Virtually all news is bad/negative news of some description. The media flourish on bad news rather than broadcasting good, heartwarming stories.

2. There is nothing that I can do to change the news.

3. Virtually all news has very little direct impact on me personally, especially international matters.

4. If it something of great importance that I need to know about, someone will tell me anyway. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lifted*fox

lifted*fox

Posted
Posted

the news and the media are there to keep the man down - to keep us living in fear.

 

there is no independent 'media' outlets - every single one is somehow funded visibly or via backhanders / brown envelopes. 

 

people high up in media organisations are all in the pockets of politicians and world leaders.

 

the sooner everyone stops watching TV news and reading newspapers the sooner everyone will be free of the fear and scaremongering they push. 

 

the internet has given us plenty of ways to source our own news, news from the people, from the ground, real news - this is what we should all be reading. 

 

**** mainstream media - it's all bullshit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buce

Buce

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, nnfox said:

I gave up watching the news on the tv a long time ago and went about 3 months literally going out of my way to avoid all sources of news (except sport). I have to say that my positivity about life in general has been notably higher.  I admit that I do scan headlines now fairly regularly and will dive into some articles but actually I was much happier when I paid no attention to it at all, so will likely revert back to living without the news at all.

 

Things that I came to realise:

 

1. Virtually all news is bad/negative news of some description. The media flourish on bad news rather than broadcasting good, heartwarming stories.

2. There is nothing that I can do to change the news.

3. Virtually all news has very little direct impact on me personally, especially international matters.

4. If it something of great importance that I need to know about, someone will tell me anyway. 

 

Well, of course.

 

Nobody died today just isn't news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buce

Buce

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Well, of course.

 

Nobody died today just isn't news.

 

1 minute ago, Fox Ulike said:

Not true.

 

 

 

 

Actually, I completely retract what I posted. I've just been looking at the BBC news website and the 5th most read story is Harry and Megan visit castle. I mean, who the fvck reads that shit? Basically it's telling us that some minor relative of the Queen and his girlfriend took a day trip. So. Fvcking. What.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fox Ulike

Fox Ulike

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, lifted*fox said:

the news and the media are there to keep the man down - to keep us living in fear.

 

there is no independent 'media' outlets - every single one is somehow funded visibly or via backhanders / brown envelopes. 

 

people high up in media organisations are all in the pockets of politicians and world leaders.

 

the sooner everyone stops watching TV news and reading newspapers the sooner everyone will be free of the fear and scaremongering they push. 

 

the internet has given us plenty of ways to source our own news, news from the people, from the ground, real news - this is what we should all be reading. 

 

**** mainstream media - it's all bullshit. 

 Yes there’s no such thing as independent media –but that also means that there’s also no such thing as “real news”. So ignoring the MSM just means that you’re choosing to be uninformed.

 

News is always given from a point of view, based on a pre-existing value judgement. This is true whether it’s Fox News, the Guardian, or some angry vlogger on YouTube. To be informed, you need to try and get as many views of possible of any news event – not shut yourself off from huge chunks of it.

 

“Don’t believe everything you hear”. That’s never been truer than it is today!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jon the Hat

Jon the Hat

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, lifted*fox said:

 

Doves and pigeons are from the same family. 

 

Doves are pretty much just prettier pigeons. 

 

 

Learnin' every day, baby. :cool:

 

Kylie Minogue and the least attractive woman in the world are both female humans.  What is your point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...