The world has never seen such freezing heat

[KrazyHorse]

America (as opposed to viewing this issue from a worldwide pov) stands to incur greater costs if we allow the european and asian economies reap the initial benefits of modernizing while we hold off 'distorting behavior'.

???

No, America stands to benefit from free-riding off the research and sacrifice of others.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


How do you arrive at the value of a ton of carbon?

I don't. I threw the number (40$ a ton) as one of the reasonable (say, within an order of magnitude) estimates I've seen.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


I don't. I threw the number (40$ a ton) as one of the reasonable (say, within an order of magnitude) estimates I've seen.

I've seen the number before you used it. Ahem...

But what makes it a reasonable estimate?

Why not $4, or $400?

Or $70?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


I've seen the number before you used it. Ahem...

But what makes it a reasonable estimate?

Why not $4, or $400?

Or $70?

Why not? Feel free to make the case for any of those.

[notyoueither]

I think a better question would be why some pay for the carbon, but others do not.

As for why that number, it sounds like boiling the frog to me.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I think a better question would be why some pay for the carbon, but others do not.

The key concept is that the tax incidence or tax burden does not depend on where the revenue is collected, but on the price elasticity of demand and price elasticity of supply

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence

As for why that number, it sounds like boiling the frog to me.

I have, thankfully, no idea what the hell this means.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

The key concept is that the tax incidence or tax burden does not depend on where the revenue is collected, but on the price elasticity of demand and price elasticity of supply

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence

I'm not buying that as I am not convinced the costs of the tax will make it through to consumers as opposed to being stuck at the production stage.

If I could be convinced that the tax can be passed through I would be positively inclined. I just don't see it going that way.

As for why that number, it sounds like boiling the frog to me.

I have, thankfully, no idea what the hell this means.

It means the only reason I can see for some governments to be positively disposed towards the accumulated silliness of Kyoto and carbon taxes is that very few governments and fewer bureaucracies ever saw a reason for a new tax as a bad thing.

$40 may sound like a reasonable number. Put the frog in the water at a temperature that you think will not cause him to jump. Turning up the heat comes later.

The EU is and was ahead of their Kyoto targets. That did not prevent governments there from going further in introducing new taxes using climate change as the excuse that would lubricate the electorate to accept further bending over action.

Meanwhile, emissions go on unchecked in the new homes of the factories, and immense amounts of fossil fuels are burned to transport goods.

The entire scheme is idiocy on a global scale.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


I'm not buying that as I am not convinced the costs of the tax will make it through to consumers as opposed to being stuck at the production stage.

That's because you evidently have no idea how supply and demand work.

If I could be convinced that the tax can be passed through I would be positively inclined. I just don't see it going that way.

See above. The amount of cost borne by producers and the amount of cost borne by consumers is dependent on the relative price elasticities of supply and demand. If the price elasticity of supply is high relative to that of demand then consumers bear most of the cost, and vice versa.

It means the only reason I can see for some governments to be positively disposed towards the accumulated silliness of Kyoto and carbon taxes is that very few governments and fewer bureaucracies ever saw a reason for a new tax as a bad thing.

Pigovian taxes are good taxes. All non-Pigovian taxes are bad taxes. The goal to raise as much money as possible through Pigovian taxes and as little as possible through non-Pigovian taxes is a just, noble and pure one. Amen.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
See above. The amount of cost borne by producers and the amount of cost borne by consumers is dependent on the relative price elasticities of supply and demand. If the price elasticity of supply is high relative to that of demand then consumers bear most of the cost, and vice versa.

The classic example of this are the FICA taxes in the US.

7.2% of every employee's paycheque is taken by the Fed. gov't for medicaid and social security.

Also, the employer pays 7.2% of every employee's paycheque to the same programs.

Does it matter who the government collects the money from? Hell no. All that matters is the total amount. The government imposes a 14.4% tax wedge between employees and employers. The equilibrium post-tax price is the same for employees and employers no matter who writes the cheque. In fact, it's generally thought that employees pay the lion's share of that 14.4%

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


That's because you evidently have no idea how supply and demand work.

That's a less than helpful comment. See many posts above and elsewhere. Your accomplishment with such comment is negative. You could convince people, but rather than do that you seem to be engaged in some game of how fast you can destroy the esteem you were once held in within a community.

Sure, Drake and the kid with a lot of toilets are there for you.

Many of the rest are rapidly losing patience with the fizziks crank.

Now...

See above. The amount of cost borne by producers and the amount of cost borne by consumers is dependent on the relative price elasticities of supply and demand. If the price elasticity of supply is high relative to that of demand then consumers bear most of the cost, and vice versa.

Yes, and?

How do costs borne by some but not by others distort trade?

Pigovian taxes are good taxes. All non-Pigovian taxes are bad taxes. The goal to raise as much money as possible through Pigovian taxes and as little as possible through non-Pigovian taxes is a just, noble and pure one. Amen.

OK, Ben.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


The classic example of this are the FICA taxes in the US.

7.2% of every employee's paycheque is taken by the Fed. gov't for medicaid and social security.

Also, the employer pays 7.2% of every employee's paycheque to the same programs.

Does it matter who the government collects the money from? Hell no. All that matters is the total amount. The government imposes a 14.4% tax wedge between employees and employers. The equilibrium post-tax price is the same for employees and employers no matter who writes the cheque. In fact, it's generally thought that employees pay the lion's share of that 14.4%

And these policies increase the cost of American goods everywhere, from Detroit to New Delhi.

How much higher cost of goods sold can Yankee industry support? Oh, right. Get back to us about this, will you?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


That's a less than helpful comment.

That's because I directed you to the place where you can read why it's true. If you'd like, I can post the relevant graph.



The only thing to note here is that the P on the vertical scale is the price seen by the consumer. If I were to make a chart with the P seen by the producer then I would have one blue line (original supply curve) and two red lines (original demand curve and new demand curve below the original). The quantity Q, price seen by producer and price seen by consumer would be identical no matter which scale I choose to move. That is the point. It doesn't matter whether the government tells a merchant that they have to charge customers GST or whether the government tells merchants that they have to pay GST.

How do costs borne by some but not by others distort trade?

I don't understand what you're asking.

[KrazyHorse]

And these policies increase the cost of American goods everywhere, from Detroit to New Delhi.

Not particularly. Most of the cost is borne by workers, as previously stated. The elasticity of labour supply is low compared to the elasticity of labour demand.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


That's because I directed you to the place where you can read why it's true. If you'd like, I can post the relevant graph.



The only thing to note here is that the P on the vertical scale is the price seen by the consumer. If I were to make a chart with the P seen by the producer then I would have one blue line (original supply curve) and two red lines (original demand curve and new demand curve below the original). The quantity Q, price seen by producer and price seen by consumer would be identical no matter which scale I choose to move. That is the point. It doesn't matter whether the government tells a merchant that they have to charge customers GST or whether the government tells merchants that they have to pay GST.

That's all very nice, but it doesn't work that way, doofus. There is no way in hell that carbon taxes will work like a sales tax. You continually express this delusion.

BC had implemented a carbon tax. Do you care to show me the export credit? In what way are they taxing imports?

I don't understand what you're asking.

You want us to discuss this in acedemic language, yet you are unwilling to even try to understand plain English?

That's chutzbah.

Can I explain in simpler words how industries with higher costs are at a disadvantage to those with lower?

[KrazyHorse]

That's all very nice, but it doesn't work that way, doofus.

Go **** yourself, ignoramus. I've broken it down to the simplest possible terms at this point. I'm left with the conclusion that you are terminally stupid. Feel free to continue your know-nothing masturbation fest.