Why Giuliani is Unqualified to be Prez

[Arrian]

I doubt taxing oil at even 1/2 its "real social cost" is politically feasible, LotM.

Look how much people whine now! And, setting aside whiners driving their shiny SUVs, there is a valid concern for the poor. Many people need a car to be able to have a job. It's not like it's a luxury. Now, in a perfect world we improve public transit so much that things are different, but that's a long way off if ever. So do you create "gas stamps" or somesuch?

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Conserving on grammar now, are we?

Snarkiness doesn't become you.

[Arrian]

Ecthy - well you used "Islamist." It may be my understanding of the meaning of that term is wrong...

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I would like to suggest we subsidize basic economics classes for everyone.

Ooh, getting high and mighty now, are we?

Hey, cut me some slack. It's been ~11 years since Econ101, ok?



-Arrian

[Ecthy]

Arrian, let's get to the point - the majority of those people is not western-friendly and not democratic in our understanding. But they're not all murderers and suicide bombers either. This majority will be adressed by Islamic forces as it was in Iran in the 70s. Iran is hostile not because of its government form but for geostrategic reasons FACT.

We can assume that a pan-Arab Islamic Republic can be a reasonable partner in the region.

Not for cheap oil though.

[Arrian]

Several industries will take a beating once you start ramping up taxes on oil. Now maybe that's a good thing - more rail over trucking and air transport, for example. However, in general don't we try to avoid major shocks? If so, there are two options:

1) Ramp the tax up very slowly (downside is, of course, that change will be slow)
2) Tax some, subsidize some. The cost of subsidies will be borne by all of society, not just particular industries. It may not be perfect from an economics standpoint, but it might be a necessary evil.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Iran is hostile not because of its government form but for geostrategic reasons FACT.

A bit of both, I think.

We can assume that a pan-Arab Islamic Republic can be a reasonable partner in the region.

I'd be careful about assuming anything about such a nation, actually.

Not for cheap oil though.

No, probably not. Then again they might find, much like various current ME governments found, that pricing too high is bad for business as well...

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
Hows about we subsidize alt energy and pay for the subsidies by taxing oil?

-Arrian

Oil consumption is a negative externality. That doesn't mean that consumption of alternatives is a positive externality, which is what would warrant a subsidy. As LotM pointed out already, just taxing oil consumption will provide incentive for the use of alternative energy.

Paying subsidies to companies who produce alt energy is comparable to subsidizing companies who don't produce polution. It's not efficient.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


"Save that going after oil in specifity targets by far and away the transportational sector not the electricity or industrial sectors. I should add my goal is an attempt to reduce foregin dependence with a minimum effect on teh economy. CAFE seems appropriate whilst increased transportional cost via taxation to encourage alternative sources seem much too long to allow the market to work itself out.

Truth be told the timeline to make fleets with higher standards seem a shorter time line than to re-engineer and develop alternative fuels and then have to re-engineer fleet to take advantage of them anyway. "


1. If youre reason for taxing/subsidizing is foreign dependence, not GHG, than you SHOULD hit the sectors that use oil, not those that use coal. If you think GHG imposes a real social cost (do I hear you saying that) than of course you should tax coal as well.
2. CAFE will increase the effect on the economy vs a tax. Im counting making consumers drive what they dont want to, or forcing new investments at auto plants, as economic costs - not just maximizing GDP.
3. Again, increasing costs of fuel will lead to changes in the fleet as well. It will also lead to more efficient driving habits, carpooling, etc.

"Besides those alts that have been established and in use are not what you are trying to encourage. "

Why not? Reduced oil usage is reduced oil usage, wherever it comes from. Why should we favor exotics over expansion of whats already in use?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
I doubt taxing oil at even 1/2 its "real social cost" is politically feasible, LotM.

Look how much people whine now! And, setting aside whiners driving their shiny SUVs, there is a valid concern for the poor. Many people need a car to be able to have a job. It's not like it's a luxury. Now, in a perfect world we improve public transit so much that things are different, but that's a long way off if ever. So do you create "gas stamps" or somesuch?

-Arrian

Simplicity itself. I use the funds from the fuel tax not for some subsidy program, but to cut Social security taxes on the lowest income groups, expand the earned income tax credit, etc. Raise the standard of living of ALL the poor, whether they are auto dependent, take the bus, or live across the street from their minimum wage job.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Snarkiness doesn't become you.

Im sorry, I really found your phrasing confusing. I could try to parse it, but I think it would be best if I not guess.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
Several industries will take a beating once you start ramping up taxes on oil. Now maybe that's a good thing - more rail over trucking and air transport, for example. However, in general don't we try to avoid major shocks? If so, there are two options:

1) Ramp the tax up very slowly (downside is, of course, that change will be slow)
2) Tax some, subsidize some. The cost of subsidies will be borne by all of society, not just particular industries. It may not be perfect from an economics standpoint, but it might be a necessary evil.

-Arrian

If youre going to establish a subsidy program, its going to take awhile. How many vacancies to you suppose their are at DOE now? How long to approve and fill new positions, write the regs for the program, train everybody, yada, yada, yada.

Even a slow tax will bring results faster, I betcha.

[Arrian]

Oil consumption is a negative externality

Nitpick: the consumption itself isn't the externality... things like the impact of our consumption on foreign policy and the environment - those are the externalities, right?

Having said that, I get the point of what you & LotM are saying. I think you'd just have to be careful about how you implemented the tax. We're highly oil dependant now, and you don't want to cause an economic shock.

I like the tax cuts/credits, LotM, paid for by the gas tax. That's better than "gas stamps"

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Why not? Reduced oil usage is reduced oil usage, wherever it comes from. Why should we favor exotics over expansion of whats already in use?

Reduced usage at a cost of economic activity is my problem.

CAFE minimizes that economic hit and is a shorter means to get there.

Look if you are going to say we have to find alternatives to gasoline to power transportation as would be the case with draconian oil taxes, then you'll be forced at looking to retool fleets to biodiesel or ethanol or any of a host of other technologies. That in of itself will take forever to work out between retooling the fleets and coming up with a production and distribution system for the new alternative fuels. While improving existing fleet standards is a relatively doable thing while the other requisite technologies are being developed, existing reserves explored and drilled, etc.

The point being is that the POTUS should be highlighting goals to reduce foreign oil dependence complete with milestones and goals. A timetable to withdrawl if you will.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


Nitpick: the consumption itself isn't the externality... things like the impact of our consumption on foreign policy and the environment - those are the externalities, right?

Having said that, I get the point of what you & LotM are saying. I think you'd just have to be careful about how you implemented the tax. We're highly oil dependant now, and you don't want to cause an economic shock.

I like the tax cuts/credits, LotM, paid for by the gas tax. That's better than "gas stamps"

-Arrian

The idea is to make it revenue neutral. If you want to change the deficit, thats a seperate policy decision.