07 Jan 11
Originally posted by sh76Your augmented tax should also be used for what the current (pathetically meager) tax on gas is used for: infrastructure improvements. It makes sense that the more you drive the more you should pay to maintain the roads.
Gas prices are too low. There should be a gas tax to make up the difference between the market price and $4/gallon. The tax revenues can be used to fund electric car research or given back to the people in the form of tax credits. (Or maybe to shrink the deficit... nah... who wants to do that?)
If that happens, you'll see the Chevy Volts of the world and alternative energy development solve the "problem" in a few years.
07 Jan 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe idea is that whatever goals government is seeking to meet, we should be looking for a way to attain these goals with the minimum amount of taxation or regulation -- while still being able to effectively meet the goals. So obviously, "minimal government" doesn't mean zero government.
The minimum is zero taxes and zero government. Do you, or do you not, think that lowering taxes increases economic output? If you believe this, economic output will be maximized with no government.
07 Jan 11
Originally posted by MelanerpesNo, but what whodey is saying does imply zero government. I think that many government services add value, e.g. a police force, and this service cannot be provided in the free market. Therefore the assumption that reducing taxes always increases economic output (assuming a balanced budget) is false if one accepts my premise.
The idea is that whatever goals government is seeking to meet, we should be looking for a way to attain these goals with the minimum amount of taxation or regulation -- while still being able to effectively meet the goals. So obviously, "minimal government" doesn't mean zero government.
08 Jan 11
Originally posted by no1marauderYour link is a dud.
Good idea; that's what the bill passed by the House did:
•Requires electric utilities to meet 20 percent of their electricity demand through renewable energy sources and energy efficiency by 2020.
•[b]Invests $190 billion in new clean energy technologies and energy efficiency, including energy efficiency and renewable energy ($90 ...[text shortened]... p://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/06/28/house-narrowly-passes-climate-bill-reaction-roundup/
08 Jan 11
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't know that your analysis of the situation could be more off the mark. Barrel pricing fluctuates based on a broad range of economic indicators, certainly not the simple 'supply and demand' scenario you depict.
Oil is a finite resource for which there is growing global demand. That spells increased prices given the laws of supply and demand. In the long run, there is nothing that can be done to change this but to decrease consumption.
08 Jan 11
Gas prices are rising partly due to the fall of the US dollar. This is actually the same reason it happened during the bush administration. It is also the reason other commodities have been rising like gold and silver.
Once again you should point the finger at the Federal Reserve System. They are devaluing the US dollar. Obama has little say so in what the FRS does, but he is saying nothing to indicate he has a problem with it and he was for reappointing Bernanke. Obama and bush are both puppets.
End the Fed!
08 Jan 11
Originally posted by Metal BrainWell its a funny thing. You have Ben Barnanke get up before Congress and give dire warnings to the Federal government about spending, but then he turns around and monitizes the debt.
Gas prices are rising partly due to the fall of the US dollar. This is actually the same reason it happened during the bush administration. It is also the reason other commodities have been rising like gold and silver.
Once again you should point the finger at the Federal Reserve System. They are devaluing the US dollar. Obama has little say so in wha ...[text shortened]... with it and he was for reappointing Bernanke. Obama and bush are both puppets.
End the Fed!
It seems that everyone is preaching to the other about fiscal responsibility, however, when it is their turn to act they do the opposite.
08 Jan 11
Originally posted by FreakyKBHCertainly there are short term fluctuations; nothing in my post suggests otherwise. But the long run situation is as I outlined; finite supply coupled with increasing demand. That must result in an inevitable tendency for higher prices absent changes in consumption patterns.
I don't know that your analysis of the situation could be more off the mark. Barrel pricing fluctuates based on a broad range of economic indicators, certainly not the simple 'supply and demand' scenario you depict.
08 Jan 11
Originally posted by whodeyYeah, that is funny.
Well its a funny thing. You have Ben Barnanke get up before Congress and give dire warnings to the Federal government about spending, but then he turns around and monitizes the debt.
It seems that everyone is preaching to the other about fiscal responsibility, however, when it is their turn to act they do the opposite.
I'm sure people will look back and say " Bernanke warned congress to be fiscally responsible so he would not have to create inflation but they wouldn't and so let it happen".
Funny but no one is laughing.