First, you're not increasing the cost of goods and energy, you're increasing the cost of carbon. The idea is that the money flows to whoever can create those goods and services using the least carbon. While the cost of goods does go up, the increase is minimal because the system is designed to find the least expensive solution. The money comes in because the entrepreneurs who are able to find the most cost-effective ways to reduce carbon will get billions of dollars. So tons of highly intelligent and competent people will flock to the valley in an attempt to make it rich, creating dozens of public companies and several million jobs in the process.
These "tons of highly intelligent and competent people" will probably not sit down and roll their fingers in either case. Rather, programs like this drains brain power from other sectors of the economy. There is an alternative usage for most resources! ANY new program would not increase our wealth. Building pyramids, for example, is just a waste of resources. Even if it would "create" a great deal of jobs for construction engineers, it would take away resources from _useful_ production.
The increased demand for carbon licenses does not come out of thin air. Someone does pay for it - while reducing other expenses!
Even if it would "create" a great deal of jobs for construction engineers, it would take away resources from _useful_ production.
In the U.S., we have no shortage of "useful" production, and no shortage of not-very-useful production (see also: Cougartown).
Reducing pollution is useful production. I appreciate the idea that we'll assign a cost to traditional externalities whose cost is usually foisted on society at large, at which point the market will be forced to find new ways to decrease those costs.
The increased demand for carbon licenses does not come out of thin air. Someone does pay for it - while reducing other expenses!
It will also force incumbent, stagnant industries to invest in research and development, and disperse wealth more broadly, both of which pay significant future dividends beyond simply a reduction carbon output.
> It will also force incumbent, stagnant industries to invest in research and development, and disperse wealth more broadly, both of which pay significant future dividends beyond simply a reduction carbon output.
"force to invest" concedes the argument that these "investments" don't make any economic sense absent artificial costs, aka a govt mandate. As a result, the resources used by these "investments" would have been better used elsewhere.
"force to invest" concedes the argument that these "investments" don't make any economic sense absent artificial costs, aka a govt mandate. As a result, the resources used by these "investments" would have been better used elsewhere.
You're twisting an out of context quote to provide a stupid strawman worthy of attacking with your worldview.
... these "investments" don't make any economic sense absent artificial costs, aka a govt mandate.
There are real costs to pollution (pollution is not 'artificial'), but those costs are levied against communities (and world) without any recourse against those who externalize them.
> You're twisting an out of context quote to provide a stupid strawman worthy of attacking with your worldview.
I quoted your whole paragraph. The only context that I left out was what you were responding to, which people can easily see above. If there's some context "missing" that changes what you wrote into something that withstands scrutiny, that's because you never wrote it.
However, feel free to provide that missing context now.
Or, maybe you can point out how I'm wrong. You know, provide some evidence supporting "stupid". I'll help. If you're "stupid" as "you're mean, I don't like you, and I'm not going to respond to your arguments", I'll agree.
Or, maybe you can point out how I'm wrong. You know, provide some evidence supporting "stupid". I'll help. If you're "stupid" as "you're mean, I don't like you, and I'm not going to respond to your arguments", I'll agree.
Stupid, as in: In the context of the sentence, the use of "force" was clearly in terms of market forces, and didn't "concede" anything about the rationality or reality of investing in cleaner energy and processes.
It's clear that any discussion with you devolves into responding to ridiculously irrational devices of rhetoric, so I'll stop here.
> the use of "force" was clearly in terms of market forces
This market isn't free - the price is forced by govt. You remember govt - they're folks who shoot you if you don't do what they want. (They're not the only folks who will do that, but ....)
Without that threat of force establishing a price, there would be a lot less investment.
You may like the price established, but that doesn't change the fact that the price would be different without the threat of force, and there would be a lot less investment.
> ridiculously irrational devices of rhetoric
Since when does pointing out how govt mandates work qualify?
Right, well first we have to decide that the products and services created by cap-and-trade are a good use of our country's talent and resources. That's an entirely separate debate, but once we've already decided that then the broken window analogy no longer applies.
> Right, well first we have to decide that the products and services created by cap-and-trade are a good use of our country's talent and resources. That's an entirely separate debate, but once we've already decided that then the broken window analogy no longer applies.
Um, no. The broken window analogy applies whenever you artifically impose costs. Let's rewrite the above to see why.
Right, well first we have to decide that the products and services created by the increased need for glass cause by the glass-corp smashing windowsare a good use of our country's talent and resources. That's an entirely separate debate, but once we've already decided that then the broken window analogy no longer applies.
"First, you're not increasing the cost of goods and energy" ... "While the cost of goods does go up"
An input cost to production (energy) will rise in price. This will increase the cost of goods and services. This is basic economics. This new "market" is a drain on other parts of the economy in both money and talent.
