bostonbubble.com

[john p]

As far as cap and trade, manufacturing things typically involve running machines which run on fuel which typically create exhaust. If a car is not in motion it creates no exhaust. What are we supposed to do, not manufacture anything?

The stupid part about this whole thing is that unless the global population stops using stuff, stops driving cars, building homes etc. the stuff is going to be made somewhere right? So if we don't make it because we've regulated manufacturing out of the country, then the stuff will be made in China or other areas that are ten times the polluters that we are. So will transferring the scope of manufacturing to the polluting countries really save the world from pollution?

They tried cap and trade in Europe and it didn't work, it just cost people tons of money and it only helped the connected politicians. Basically it is a scam.

For all you guys that are looking to buy a house, I'd think about our economic future. I mean people talk about the debt under Bush, but fail to remember that we were at War. Further, next year's deficit is 1.4 times the entire cost of the Iraq War. For all those that think that Bush dug us into a ditch, Obama's dug a Grand Canyon of debt. They have left wingers that are pissed that we were trying to water board terrorists or tried to tap their phones. Do these people forget that we were at War with these extremists? I mean we let the Party of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and Nancy Pelosi call the shots. I am honestly trying to be hopeful, but these people have these crazy ideas that will bankrupt us.

The other thing regarding cap and trade, China forces car manufacturers to actually build other nations cars in China and bring over their entire supply chain. They manipulate their currency and they put big tariffs on imports. Do we really need to tilt the playing field further to them? Do we really need Obama offering apologies to countries that do this to us?

[GenXer]

Humans do not cause global warming. The sun activity does. Now that we've gotten this out of the way, what's the point of cap'n'trade again?

[admin]

[GenXer]

Let me put it this way. Unproven hypothesis leads to a law which in effect would put a multi-trillion dollar tax on our economy and will almost for sure cause other unintended consequences, and will subject the entire economy to strict government control. On one hand we have a hypothesis that is found to be without much evidence, AND a law that would do immense damage to our economy. On the other hand we have overwhelming evidence against the hypothesis.

If this is how we want our future to look, then we are doomed because there are plenty of leftists and statists who would like to pass legislation simply because it feels good, not because it is based on any evidence. Even if it was a proven scientific fact that humans contribute to global warming, this legislation would still not accomplish anything since nobody else in the industrial world is ready to follow us head first. But given what we know today, there is nothing we can do about the sun's immense energy output and cycles, so this legislation is less than pointless - it is an open sabotage of our economy designed to grab as much control over us as possible under the guise of another made up threat with made up evidence.

[WestCoastXPlant]

Actually saying that you wouldn't do something good because noone else in the world would follow you is...well, not so smart.

Why don't we drop people's pay to $2mo and setup shanty towns -- that would make us competitive with India and China...Truth is if you want to compete with countries which follow practices illegal here, you should just tax at the border. People will buy lead-laden toys for their kids because they're cheap. I have news -- it's not going to kill you to buy fewer toys that are well made and made locally.

The problem IMHO isn't that the US has tougher laws, it's that they hold importing countries to a lower standard...But then again, that supports the greed of the american consumer.

[GenXer]

First of all, the 'pollution' we are talking about is CO2. Its a naturally occurring gas. Even if this was indeed the problem, we would account for only a fraction of all of the 'pollution'. So it would make no sense to do anything unilaterally it if would destroy our competitive advantage. China and India would continue to manufacture cheaper goods, and we will still buy them. Why should the 'greedy' consumer spend more money than they should? If you have the money, you are welcome to spend it. Most of us prefer not to overpay for American-made goods which are also not always better quality (like cars, for example). I prefer to buy American, but there is a point where there isn't enough money to buy all the necessities, and more regulations like cap'n'trade would make it literally impossible to manufacture ANYTHING in USA competitively, therefore making the problem of outsourcing worse.

[WestCoastXPlant]

[GenXer]

I thought Democrats were all about staying out of other countries' business? Are we now going to go around the world telling everybody what they should or shouldn't do? Its a bit arrogant to claim that we have the moral upper hand, isn't it? Not very accepting or multicultural. We should not only tolerate but learn from other cultures. For example, Chinese. Do we have the moral right to say that their culture is inferior and their companies are not good enough to do business in USA? Which way is it, then?

[WestCoastXPlant]

I don't know about Democrats -- never been one.

It is not about judging cultures, it is about applying a uniform standard on goods and services used in the US. Your point was about putting US companies at a disadvantage. My point is that it's very easy to remedy this issue on goods and services consumed in the US.

It's not about having a moral upper hand, it's about walking the walk as opposed to talking the talk. If we're holding domestic companies to a certain standard, then we should make sure they're not disadvantaged in the domestic market.

[GenXer]

If it is more economical to do business this way, then everybody will do it. If it pays to be 'clean', everybody will use 'clean' energy. You can not force somebody who is investing their money to apply business practices which are guaranteed to be non-competitive. This is simply not done. You can do it up to a point, after which the business would simply move where they can make money selling their product. We can not expect businesses to simply absorb the costs - they will pass the costs on to the consumer, and the consumer will try to find a product which is cheaper, so the business would simply not be competitive.

[admin]

[GenXer]

The purpose of cap'n'trade is to make people do what some statist thinks they should do based on falsified science. Nothing more, nothing less. The intended and unintended consequences will be so costly that any problem solved will be trumped by the resulting problems created by these legislations.

[admin]

OK, I'll rephrase... the proper purpose of cap and trade as a general tool is to put a market price on externalities so that side effects are paid for by those who cause them. Yes, it can be misused, as can any tool. I think the concept is good when used for its original purpose since it leaves it to the market to determine how to best achieve the goal (e.g., reduced pollution) rather than adding a level of indirection, inefficiency, and complexity by having the government attempt to craft regulations that they hope will do the same. Cap and trade predates widespread concern about global warming, so it wasn't concocted just to dupe people into buying ethanol, or whatever it is you consider the underlying motivation for the implementation in this instance. In the case of a carbon market in particular, it seems that your issue is with the end goal of limiting carbon emissions rather than with the concept of cap and trade itself.

- admin

[balor123]

[balor123]