Betraying the Planet

[Ramo]

When you start loading a bill down with crap then what WAS a reasonable question (no legislation versus legislation) becomes tilted far in favour of no legislation.

I'm not at all convinced about that. Legislation can always be made better later. Time spent dicking around over the next few years would be a lot harder to recover. Whether it's worth a couple hundred billion in deadweight spread over several years is a decidedly nontrivial question.

I have no idea what opposing "from the right" due to lack of giveaways means. Most of the people opposing the bill would oppose it even if all the permits were given away. And why do you consider it rightist economically to subsidize producers?

I didn't say it was. I said that 41 out of 44 Democrats opposed the legislation because its targets are too aggressive. The giveaways are the price that hostile legislators (folks who would NOT be inclined to support cap and trade) exact from the legislation so they can bring in the bacon for major donors and industries in their districts.

[KrazyHorse]

Legislation can always be made better later.

This is nonsense. Legislation always gets worse over time. After a while it gets bad enough that it gets dumped and new legislation is put in its place. Rinse, repeat. If the legislation starts out bad it will only get worse.

[KrazyHorse]

The giveaways are the price that hostile legislators (folks who would NOT be inclined to support cap and trade) exact from the legislation so they can bring in the bacon for major donors and industries in their districts.

Yes, but this is simple bribery, not rightist opposition being placated by compromise.

[Ramo]

This is nonsense. Legislation always gets worse over time. After a while it gets bad enough that it gets dumped and new legislation is put in its place. Rinse, repeat. If the legislation starts out bad it will only get worse.

New American political institutions are very hard to create. Consider that in all likelyhood, that this bill is dead in the Senate (with 59 "Democrats"!). And not a single vote against will be because the amount being auctioned is too small (three members of the House voted that way, luminaries such as Dennis Kucinich). It's not like we can scrap this and try again next year, expecting vastly different results.

Europe is moving from give-away to auction; we can do the same thing.

Yes, but this is simple bribery, not rightist opposition being placated by compromise.

See my DanS, but seriously, I don't see much of a distinction here.

[KrazyHorse]

You don't see the difference between bribery based on regional concerns versus compromise based on ideological/intellectual concerns?

[Ramo]

There isn't a meaningful difference. The regions bribed away are predominantly on the right wing of the political spectrum. Whether the compromise in question gets a stamp of approval from Mankiew isn't particularly germane.

[KrazyHorse]

The regions bribed away are predominantly on the right wing of the political spectrum.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the question.

[Ramo]

This has absolutely nothing to do with the question.

I don't know what you're getting at. Are you arguing that politics isn't in large part a transactional game? Carbon-related industries and their employees have a material stake in any kind of taxation of carbon. Their political patrons are primarily Republicans and conservative Democrats. Together, they can easily block cap and trade. So some of these people have to be bought off through some compromise that's going to ameliorate the losses of these firms. Whether this compromise is something Milton Friedman would approve of is immaterial to my point.

[tinyp3nis]

Dennis Kucinich Lays Out Why He Voted Against Clean Energy Act

[KrazyHorse]

This has absolutely nothing to do with the question.

I don't know what you're getting at. Are you arguing that politics isn't in large part a transactional game? Carbon-related industries and their employees have a material stake in any kind of taxation of carbon. Their political patrons are primarily Republicans and conservative Democrats. Together, they can easily block cap and trade. So some of these people have to be bought off through some compromise that's going to ameliorate the losses of these firms. Whether this compromise is something Milton Friedman would approve of is immaterial to my point.

I'm explaining to you that hanging the bribes on realpolitic and the initial opposition on ideology is silly.

Those satisfied by bribes will be the ones with no strong ideological objections.

[Patroklos]

Their political patrons are primarily Republicans and conservative Democrats.

This is utterly and obviously false, and why Democrats should pray this doesn't pass the Senate.

[Ramo]

I'm explaining to you that hanging the bribes on realpolitic and the initial opposition on ideology is silly.

Those satisfied by bribes will be the ones with no strong ideological objections.

I was making the point that dis-aggregating these categories doesn't make a difference to the bottom line. You can make a distinction between weak/strong ideological opposition, but this is semantic wankery.

This is utterly and obviously false

Really?

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E1210&goButt2.x=12&goButt2.y=10&goButt2=Submit

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E01++&goButt2.x=9&goButt2.y=7&goButt2=Submit

[KrazyHorse]

Complementary goods, Ramo. UAW and Teamsters, for example

[Patroklos]

Really?

Yes, when these energy and manufacturing concerns start cutting operations do you imagine the layoffs are going to be on the executive side? Who does a general spike in goods prices hurt?

[Ramo]

Complementary goods, Ramo. UAW and Teamsters, for example

Meh. Like I said, semantic wankery.

Yes, when these energy and manufacturing concerns start cutting operations do you imagine the layoffs are going to be on the executive side? Who does a general spike in goods prices hurt?

You are making a completely incoherent argument. I said this: "Carbon-related industries and their employees have a material stake in any kind of taxation of carbon. Their political patrons are primarily Republicans and conservative Democrats." Again. How is that "utterly and obviously false," as you asserted?