Comments on: Too Tricky? http://www.frumforum.com/too-tricky Building a conservatism that can win again Tue, 16 Mar 2010 00:42:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: joemarier http://www.frumforum.com/too-tricky/comment-page-1#comment-40993 joemarier Thu, 26 Feb 2009 23:26:26 +0000 #comment-40993 **The Rate Commission will decide how much profit (sales price - cost) the utility is allowed to make in any given year.** Sinz, allow me to introduce you to my friend "regulatory capture." **The Rate Commission will decide how much profit (sales price – cost) the utility is allowed to make in any given year.** Sinz, allow me to introduce you to my friend “regulatory capture.”

]]> By: sinz54 http://www.frumforum.com/too-tricky/comment-page-1#comment-43764 sinz54 Thu, 26 Feb 2009 22:52:15 +0000 #comment-43764 gblittle: "In business anything that has a cost associated with it is PASSED ON to the buyer, in this case the electrical consumer." But a regulated utility, like a power company or water utility, isn't always allowed to do that on its own. It has to appeal to the local or state Rate Commission. The Rate Commission will decide how much profit (sales price - cost) the utility is allowed to make in any given year. gblittle: “In business anything that has a cost associated with it is PASSED ON to the buyer, in this case the electrical consumer.” But a regulated utility, like a power company or water utility, isn’t always allowed to do that on its own. It has to appeal to the local or state Rate Commission. The Rate Commission will decide how much profit (sales price – cost) the utility is allowed to make in any given year.

]]> By: sinz54 http://www.frumforum.com/too-tricky/comment-page-1#comment-49092 sinz54 Thu, 26 Feb 2009 22:47:00 +0000 #comment-49092 fact based: There is a big difference here: If an American company dumps waste into the Hudson River, they are hurting mostly AMERICANS. So that's a national problem for our fellow citizens. Whereas if an American company dumps carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, it is primarily the undeveloped world that will be hurt by it. Unlike America, nearly all of Bangladesh (population 200 million) will be flooded out when the north polar ice cap melts. So we Americans are essentially restricting our economy, and impoverishing our own people, to keep the undeveloped world safe from global warming. Why are we doing them this multi-trillion-dollar favor without them paying us for it? The world cannot control global warming without U.S. cooperation. We should strike a very hard bargain for that cooperation. For example, I would insist that Bangladesh clean up its act and kick *ALL* radical Islamists out of their country before we do anything to keep their country from being flooded. We've got the political leverage. Let's use it! fact based: There is a big difference here: If an American company dumps waste into the Hudson River, they are hurting mostly AMERICANS. So that’s a national problem for our fellow citizens. Whereas if an American company dumps carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, it is primarily the undeveloped world that will be hurt by it. Unlike America, nearly all of Bangladesh (population 200 million) will be flooded out when the north polar ice cap melts. So we Americans are essentially restricting our economy, and impoverishing our own people, to keep the undeveloped world safe from global warming. Why are we doing them this multi-trillion-dollar favor without them paying us for it? The world cannot control global warming without U.S. cooperation. We should strike a very hard bargain for that cooperation. For example, I would insist that Bangladesh clean up its act and kick *ALL* radical Islamists out of their country before we do anything to keep their country from being flooded. We’ve got the political leverage. Let’s use it!

]]> By: fact based http://www.frumforum.com/too-tricky/comment-page-1#comment-41155 fact based Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:24:48 +0000 #comment-41155 Mr, Frum: Go to wikipedia and look up the term externalities. Your argument presupposes that our current use of energy is cost free. In your world the following argument would have been made 30 or so years ago : "to force corporations not to dump raw chemical waste into the great lakes and the hudson river imposes a cost on businesses that they will pass onto consumers thus harming our economy and society". Which of course would be true....if there was no cost to society. And the David Frum of that era would have told the advocate of clean rivers and clean chemical production "that's environmental fantasy, not economic policy" Mr, Frum:

Go to wikipedia and look up the term externalities. Your argument presupposes that our current use of energy is cost free. In your world the following argument would have been made 30 or so years ago : “to force corporations not to dump raw chemical waste into the great lakes and the hudson river imposes a cost on businesses that they will pass onto consumers thus harming our economy and society”. Which of course would be true….if there was no cost to society. And the David Frum of that era would have told the advocate of clean rivers and clean chemical production “that’s environmental fantasy, not economic policy”

]]> By: gblittle http://www.frumforum.com/too-tricky/comment-page-1#comment-44583 gblittle Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:10:31 +0000 #comment-44583 This has to be the dumbet comment I've heard in some time: Finally, Ezra argues that taxes on carbon "fall on users of electricity [only] if the corporation passes them on to the users of electricity. They will do this to some degree. Probably not 100 percent, as that would be a fairly sharp price increase. But it's important to remember that the tax only falls on users of electricity insofar as people use electricity." In business anything that has a cost associated with it is PASSED ON to the buyer, in this case the electrical consumer. The real money shot however is the last sentence of Ezra's comment, "in so far as people use electricity". Tip for everyone -- buy candles and load up on blankets. This has to be the dumbet comment I’ve heard in some time: Finally, Ezra argues that taxes on carbon “fall on users of electricity [only] if the corporation passes them on to the users of electricity. They will do this to some degree. Probably not 100 percent, as that would be a fairly sharp price increase. But it’s important to remember that the tax only falls on users of electricity insofar as people use electricity.” In business anything that has a cost associated with it is PASSED ON to the buyer, in this case the electrical consumer. The real money shot however is the last sentence of Ezra’s comment, “in so far as people use electricity”. Tip for everyone — buy candles and load up on blankets.

]]>