Is Obama poised to cede US Soveriegnty?

Originally posted by whodey
I found such a fool and liar for you. His name is Warren Buffett, you know, the guy who supported an Obama election. In fact, it was reported by the right winged New York Times.

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/buffett-cap-and-trade-is-a-regressive-tax/

Still not convinced? How about Peter Orszag, Obamas budget director. He estimated tha ...[text shortened]... ny equity in it whatsoever. Revenue is equivalent to crack cocaine to these people.

Originally posted by telerion
I'm glad you spent the time putting this together. Some of it deserves an examination of the links and a response. I'm halloweening with the kids today. Let me point out quickly though that I'm not of the position that C and T is the best solution. I'm arguing that C and T need not be regressionary.

Originally posted by kmax87
So you don't necesarily see C&T as the least cost option and that as long as they slowly withdraw the amount of credits released in subsequent years, they shore up the credit's value and thus they encourage environmental clean-up because its profitable to do so?

Originally posted by telerion
That said, C&T can be a simple, efficient system. It basically puts a limit on some socially undesirable activity, and then let's the market figure out how best to allocate allowances. It's a bit ironic to see the rightwing guys throwing such a fit over it.

Originally posted by kmax87
[b]My thoughts exactly! By the reaction against cap and trade you would have thought that Obama had proposed some anti-market solution, when in fact its probably the most pro-market strategy out there. As ever the reaction seems to be against the singer, and not necessarily against the song.[/

Originally posted by whodey
So the largest regressive tax in US history is not an anti-market soclution?

In case anyone would like to see some evidence of plagiarism, check out this link
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/930

Basically lifted the paragraphs word for word. People, cite your sources. It's not that hard, and nobody's going to think less of you for it. While you're highlighting, copying, and pasting the text on the screen, just go up the bar at the top of your browser and copy and paste the address of the page as well. Okay, enough said about that.

I found such a fool and liar for you. His name is Warren Buffett, you know, the guy who supported an Obama election. In fact, it was reported by the right winged New York Times.

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/buffett-cap-and-trade-is-a-regressive-tax/

Still not convinced?

Why would I be? If Buffett was giving me advice on how to best set up my investment portfolio, I'd accept his advice humbly and graciously. When he makes proclamations about economic policy, I don't give it much weight. If you read the link he doesn't make as strong a statement about C&T as you have been. He says it is "probably going to be pretty regressive."

The distributional effects of the C&T could be regressive under some setups and progressive under others. If, for instance, the government starts the process by giving the allowances away for free and makes no effort to compensate price increases, then the program should have a regressive effect on the population. The poor spend a greater fraction of their money period. Plus, according to the CBO, they also spend a greater fraction of their income on energy intensive goods. This would mean that the burden of higher prices would be greater as a fraction of income on the poor. This is probably the end of Buffett's thinking on the issue. The problem is that he doesn't consider a whole host of other options for the program.

If the government auctions the rights to pollute rather than just giving them away, then it will raise revenue which could be used to make (as an example) lump-sum rebates back to households. Even with the payment size being the same, the rebates would be a much larger fraction of the poor's income than the rich. This scenario, according to the CBO, would make the resulting effect progressive. It's more likely that the Congress would make the payment progressive so that the poor were more than evenly compensated. This would just make the result even more progressive.

BTW, everybody who has interest in this discussion owes it to themselves to read the CBO's report from March 2009 entitled, "The Distributional Consequences of a
Cap-and-Trade Program for CO2 Emissions." The references to the CBO above come from this pub.

Here's the link: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10018/03-12-ClimateChange_Testimony.pdf

How about Peter Orszag, Obamas budget director. He estimated that the price hikes from a 15% cut in emissions would cost the average household in the bottom income quintile (20% of the population) about 3.3% of its after tax income every year. That is about $680. The three middle quintiles would see their paychecks cut between $680 and $1,500 or 2.9 to 2.7% of their income. The richest Americans would pay 1.7%.

Because you didn't post a link for this, I've had to track down the source. I actually went through three rightwing sources who kept claiming that an earlier source cited Orzag. None of them did. So I just searched around some old CBO cap and trade pubs for conclusion you quote. Not surprisingly the above was cited without also mentioning the other parts of that publication which say basically what I already have been: depending upon how the government initializes the program and how it uses the proceeds of revenue, the distributional effects of C&T can be very different. Of course, the people who keep lifting this paragraph have no interest in a "fair and balanced" read of the issue. They just want to push their agenda.
Here's the link that none of these hacks had the integrity to provide. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8946/04-25-Cap_Trade.shtml

Still not convinced?

I'm becoming more and more convinced of certain things, but they likely aren't what you intended.

How about Dr. Sergey V. Mityakov, . . . the costs of the recession for the American households."

How about Sergey? I looked through the paper, and he's basically saying that there are large economic costs (in terms of consumption) from limiting greenhouse gases. This we know already, though his analysis is useful. Unfortunately, the rightwing have taken his paper and run with it. One big problem with this discussion is that many seem to be conflating to different questions. The first is "Should we restrict greenhouse gas emissions given the economic losses from doing so?" Mityakov's work lends to this by giving different cost estimates. According to the authors, they believe people should be more aware of the large economic costs of restricting greenhouse gases. The other question is "Given that we wish to restrict greenhouse gas emissions, how should this be accomplished?" It makes no sense to argue over the finer points of C&T if you really just reject any fiscal action to discourage reducing emissions. This is, I am almost certain, the true position of most of the sources that you listen to.

BTW, I should point out that in regards to the distributional effects of C&T. Sergey says again the same thing that I have been. He cites work on carbon taxes by Metcalf, Sokolov and Holak (MSH) at MIT to make speculations about the distributional effects of C&T because according to MSH, "the authors show that the
carbon tax is regressive, but a lump sum per capita return of tax revenues is progressive. Each proposal considered taxes only carbon, however, if the taxes are extended to cover all greenhouse gases (GHGs) there are significant reductions in the lost consumer welfare. The authors also make comparisons between the tax plans and comparable “cap and trade” proposals and find there is little difference."
Implying that Sergey believes that at least for distributional purposes we can infer the pre-redistribution consequences of cap and trade from those of carbon taxes.

Just before his Conclusion, Sergey writes about the carbon taxes (which again he's suggesting via MSH are basically similar in effect to C&T), "If the full amount of the tax is shifted onto the consumer, then the poorest 10% of the population faces a 3.7% reduction in income while the richest 10% faces a 0.8% reduction in income. However, a per capita lump sum return of the tax revenue would actually result in making the carbon tax plan progressive." (emphasis mine).

link to Sergey's paper: http://people.clemson.edu/~smityak/Mitigation.pdf

Still not convinced? How about the Congressional testimony given by Anne E. Smith Ph.D who is a nationally known expert in environmental policy assessment and corporate compliance strategy planning in 2007? She appeared before the Senates Committee on Evironmental and Public Works. The legislation would:
1. Decrease US average economic welfare by 1.1% to 1.7%.
2. The bill would cause real annual spending per household to be reduced by an average of $800 to $1,300 in 2015. j These spending impacts would increase to levels of $1,500 to over $2,500 by the end of our modeled time period, 2050.
3. There would be 1.2 million to 2.3 million net job losses by 2015. By 2020, it is projected that between 1.5 miliion and 3.4 million net job losses would occur.


Again, this does not address C&T or whether it would be regressive. It just points out that cutting back on emissions has consequences for production. You'll have to track down the source on this one. She speaks to the Congress quite a bit on energy legislation so I'm not going to dig through every one of her statements looking for these figures. Link me to the paper and I'll look it over. Just looking at her work though, I'm dubious it's going to actually say what you hope it does.

I don't think anyone with even half a brain would be supporting cap and trade on the basis of it being good for the eonomy. In fact, when Obama speaks of those who support it he praises them for their "courage". Translated, you are doing what needs to be done no matter the cost. In short, I much prefer the arugment that the sky is falling to that of economic prudence in the support of such legislative dribble. Then again, maybe it will spur those million plus "green jobs "that the stimulus package failed to create as promised?

Again, this contains the problem I just addressed. You need to sit down and figure out what you're really arguing against. Is it limiting emissions or is it using C&T to do so instead of an alternative arrangement (like a carbon tax)? I hope this makes you more aware of the dangers of just googling up politically biased sources and then taking their word for everything. I'd also suggest taking this lesson to heart before blithely judging who has "half a brain" and who does not.

I know it's long people, but then so was the post to which it responded.

Originally posted by whodey
So the largest regressive tax in US history is not an anti-market soclution?

Here is a novel idea, how about INVESTING in the US rather than taxing it blindly and with impunity? That means building carbon free nuclear power plants. That means fitting all government buildings with solar panels etc. That means turning to natty gas, which has recently been ...[text shortened]... r lies and pony up by paying these outrageous taxes than fight them for their economic survival.

Originally posted by telerion
Right . . . because outfitting every government building with solar panels would a big net economic gain . . .

sheesh.

Originally posted by telerion

Why would I be? If Buffett was giving me advice on how to best set up my investment portfolio, I'd accept his advice humbly and graciously. When he makes proclamations about economic policy, I don't give it much weight. If you read the link he doesn't make as strong a statement about C&T as you have been. He says it is "probably going to be pretty regressive."

Originally posted by kmax87
Its a brilliant system because in a sense the government creates a new market that can add value to a corporations balance sheet simply by that corp taking measures to make themselves run more efficiently. I think people need to think of Cap and Trade as an IPO where a bit like monopoly everyone gets dealt some 'money' by the bank at the start of the game. The stem in credit trade can actually become a very profitable side business for each company.[/b]

Originally posted by whodey
Just out of curiosity, who is the economic genius giving Obama advice? You know, the guy who told him that his stimulus package was going to create all those jobs?

As for Warren Buffett, I would agree he is no political or economic genius. After all, he voted for Obama so he should just pony up and partake of all that he should have known was coming. Maybe he can make some money off the Chinese markets after Obama is done with the US markets?

Originally posted by whodey
Initially it would not be cost effective, but over the long term it would be. Don't you agree, or is solar power economically unrealistic? Should it be abandoned altogether?

Originally posted by telerion
Worst of all for the politician, you leave yourself open to criticism from the opposition that you are inactive, callous, unconcerned, and generally out of touch with "the American people." So even if ex post it appears that the stimulus should not have been enacted (and that is still unclear right now), the administration may have been just acting like any politician would.[/b]