• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

Carbon Tax

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bob Jane T-Mart

Smash Ace
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
886
Location
Somewhere
The Australian government has recently announced that it would implement a carbon tax (details here). The basics are: a $23/tonne price on carbon, increasing by 2.5% per year until 2015, at which point it morphs into an emissions trading scheme where the price is floated. The default emissions target is a 5% reduction of emissions by 2020 and an 80% reduction by 2050. There will be an independent body established to advise on all aspects of the scheme, especially targets. There will be significant compensation for households and businesses in the form of tax cuts and subsidies. Additionally, there will be significant investment in renewable energy in the form of funding and loans. (All figures are in Australian dollars)

This poses a number of questions.

Should the carbon tax in its current form have been implemented?

Should a carbon tax be implemented at all?

Should we take action on climate change?

Is climate change even real?
 

Alacion

Sunny skies
Premium
Joined
Oct 6, 2009
Messages
8,061
Location
Vancouver, BC
NNID
Alacion
3DS FC
0216-0918-5299
Where I'm from (Vancouver), the Carbon Tax is going out of control.

We got a Carbon Tax increase on July 1st. There's going to be another increase at the end of the year to help fund a new train line.

I feel like, at least in my area, that the Carbon Tax wasn't made with the environment in mind and is just another excuse to extort more money from the taxpayers.

I think the Carbon Tax can do good things, but the public should never expect the goverment to use the Carbon Tax for what it's actually supposed to be used for.

Global Warming is indisputable. We need to do something to at least slow down the effects.
 

Battlecow

Play to Win
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
8,740
Location
Chicago
Climate change is real, radical steps need to be taken to stop it, the Carbon Tax sounds like a good idea (although I dunno the specifics so maybe it sucks)
 

Bob Jane T-Mart

Smash Ace
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
886
Location
Somewhere
We got a Carbon Tax increase on July 1st. There's going to be another increase at the end of the year to help fund a new train line.

I feel like, at least in my area, that the Carbon Tax wasn't made with the environment in mind and is just another excuse to extort more money from the taxpayers.
Well, you could say that the train line is actually an environmental initiative as it would reduce car use.

I think the Carbon Tax can do good things, but the public should never expect the goverment to use the Carbon Tax for what it's actually supposed to be used for.
I don't really know about that. In this proposed carbon tax, there have two specific that are specifically related to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing the share of renewable energy in Australia:

Clean Energy Finance Corporation: to invest $10 billion over five years from 2013-14 in renewables and low emissions technologies (not Carbon Capture and Storage), run by an independent board

Australian Renewable Energy Agency: to oversee $3.2b in renewables funding, in addition to any dividends from Clean Energy Finance Corporation
Climate change is real, radical steps need to be taken to stop it, the Carbon Tax sounds like a good idea (although I dunno the specifics so maybe it sucks)
I've linked to the details in the OP.
 

blazedaces

Smash Lord
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
1,150
Location
philly, PA, aim: blazedaces, msg me and we'll play
Most people don't realize that people respond to incentives. On average as the carbon tax increases, fewer people will driver cars, more people will take public transportation or bike/car pool/find another way.

These are arguments written in economic proposals for a carbon tax. There's more negatives to driving a car than just environmental repercussions. Reducing the number of cars on the road leads to less congestion, fewer traffic accidents, and car companies making their vehicles more affordable and with higher miles/gallon ratings (they're trying to do this anyway these days as gas prices go up... but had they gone up sooner due to a tax instead of gas cost the same would occur).

I wish we could convince US politicians to also create a carbon tax, but my faith in the brain power of our politicians is simply way too low for me to imagine them doing something smart these days.

-blazed.
 

Battlecow

Play to Win
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
8,740
Location
Chicago
I wouldn't blame the politicians. The American people really really really don't want a carbon tax right now, and to implement one (which we should IMO) we can't rely on the politicians being smarter than the average voter; they're mouthpieces (or at least they should be). We need to change the minds of Americans.

For real, though, even if we get on the bandwagon, the real problem is china. They're putting out like 1/4 of the world's total, and that's only gonna go up. Something needs to be done about them, and we're in no position to do it until we do something ourselves.
 

blazedaces

Smash Lord
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
1,150
Location
philly, PA, aim: blazedaces, msg me and we'll play
I wouldn't blame the politicians. The American people really really really don't want a carbon tax right now, and to implement one (which we should IMO) we can't rely on the politicians being smarter than the average voter; they're mouthpieces (or at least they should be). We need to change the minds of Americans.

For real, though, even if we get on the bandwagon, the real problem is china. They're putting out like 1/4 of the world's total, and that's only gonna go up. Something needs to be done about them, and we're in no position to do it until we do something ourselves.
Very true... but I guess I just would like to hold my politicians up to a higher standard than I do the average american. And how exactly can we expect to make the average voter any smarter? For a politician the quick fix is electing a better one... for the average voter we're talking about fixing our education system perhaps... not going to happen anytime soon for a lot of reasons and then we have to wait for it to actually do the job of educating the younger generation...

-blazed
 

Alien Vision

Smash Ace
Joined
Apr 25, 2011
Messages
906
Before me fix the world, we need to fix the people in the world. Before we fix the people of this world, we need to fix ourselves.
 

-Jumpman-

Smash Champion
Joined
Nov 3, 2007
Messages
2,854
Location
Netherlands
Care to Elaborate? How? Why?

And @Alien Vision... would you like a cookie?

-blazed
An increase of taxes means that companies won't be able to invest as much, and therefore create less jobs. While the definition of economic growth debatable, this is what is comes down to.
 

Battlecow

Play to Win
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
8,740
Location
Chicago
Very true... but I guess I just would like to hold my politicians up to a higher standard than I do the average american. And how exactly can we expect to make the average voter any smarter? For a politician the quick fix is electing a better one... for the average voter we're talking about fixing our education system perhaps... not going to happen anytime soon for a lot of reasons and then we have to wait for it to actually do the job of educating the younger generation...

-blazed
We just have to make good arguments about how bad GW is and how much of our future **** carbon will wreck. People will change if they have it shoved in their faces enough. You can't hold the politicians to a higher standard because they should do what WE want, not what they think is right; otherwise, it's not really a representative democracy, is it?

And yeah, a Carbon tax hurts our economy short term, but you know what hurts it long-term? hurricanes and radical temperature changes ****ing with our farmland and New York City going underwater.
 

Alien Vision

Smash Ace
Joined
Apr 25, 2011
Messages
906
Care to Elaborate? How? Why?

And @Alien Vision... would you like a cookie?

-blazed
No. I want a giant army of people who already has confronted their shadow inside, that now can put all of their attention on the people around us, THEN the world!
 

Bob Jane T-Mart

Smash Ace
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
886
Location
Somewhere
An increase of taxes means that companies won't be able to invest as much, and therefore create less jobs. While the definition of economic growth debatable, this is what is comes down to.
But if you looked at the details of the carbon tax, you would know that the raised revenue will be reinvested back into the economy in the form of compensation for consumers and investments in renewable energy.
 

1048576

Smash Master
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
3,417
The idea is that producing carbon hurts some third party (people who like reasonable weather? idk why it's considered a pollutant) more than taxing it hurts the companies that produce it. The govt. is correcting a failure in the free market, because the free market does not account for externalities. Producing carbon (presumably) affects more than the producers and consumers of carbon.

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

Another strategy for curtailing the production of carbon is to print a fixed number of "carbon permits," and let companies trade them amongst themselves. This is theoretically equivalent to the tax (one fixes the price to find the quantity, the other fixes the quantity to find the price.)

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

Anyway, it doesn't hurt the economy as a whole, because the cost of production is misrepresented before the tax. In fact, before the tax is implemented, the economy is in disequilibrium with carbon-producing companies producing where the marginal revenue is less than the marginal cost. Pre-tax, they are "losing money" on the extra carbon, only it's not them, it's society.
 

blazedaces

Smash Lord
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
1,150
Location
philly, PA, aim: blazedaces, msg me and we'll play
An increase of taxes means that companies won't be able to invest as much, and therefore create less jobs. While the definition of economic growth debatable, this is what is comes down to.
Sorry, but that's just an ideal created by naive people trying to push talking points down our throats. I was hoping you would have proof for a blanket statement... but whatever. Here's a great article on tax history in the united states: http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates?op=1

Now, I'm not going to quote the whole article, but just the main headlines mentioned. But I HIGHLY RECOMMEND reading the article in its entirety. Most of it is graphs/charts/numbers showing interesting facts about tax history.

* Today's income tax rates are strikingly low relative to the rates of the past century, especially for rich people. For most of the century, including some boom times, top-bracket income tax rates were much higher than they are today.

* Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.

* Super-low tax rates on rich people also appear to be correlated with unsustainable sugar highs in the economy--brief, enjoyable booms followed by protracted busts. They also appear to be correlated with very high inequality. (For example, see the 1920s and now).

* Periods of very low tax rates have been followed by periods with very high tax rates, and vice versa. So history suggests that tax rates will soon start going up.

Let's begin with a look at the top income tax bracket since the federal income tax was started in 1913. As you can see, relative to history, it's currently VERY low.

And before you protest that INCOME taxes may be low, but the government is now gouging us a thousand new ways, note that total government tax revenue (federal, state, and local) is actually now lower than pretty much any time in the last 40 years. (Not as low as it was in the first half of the last century, though!)

The federal portion of that tax revenue--the blue part in the chart below--is in the same range as it has been in since 1950 (15%-20% of GDP). State (red) and local (green) tax revenues are in a similar long-term range. (State revenue has actually shrunk of late).

And in case you're curious about the composition of that tax revenue... About a third (blue) is income tax. Another third is "value added" tax--property taxes, sales taxes, and tariffs (green). And another third is business tax (yellow) and social taxes (red).

Here's another look at how consistent the federal "take" has been as a percentage of GDP, going all the way back to 1950. Federal revenues have been 15%-20% of GDP, like clockwork (blue line). Of course, spending has usually been higher than this revenue--20%-25% of GDP. We just can't seem to live within our means.

And here's another look at federal spending as a percent of GDP for the past century. It's not way out of whack these days, at least relative to the last 60 years. But, thanks to the stimulus, it's higher than it has been since World War 2. (And the Republicans are probably right--it's too high).

And now for a closer look at those income taxes--the ones everyone loves to fight about. First, a refresher course: Here are the current federal income tax rates. 10%-25% rates for most people, and 35% in the top bracket (over $379,000).

And now, finally, a reminder of where that top bracket (35%) sits in the history of top tax brackets. (It's very low). Let's take a closer look at that history...

Let's start in 1921, before the boom/bubble decade that became known as the "Roaring 20s." The income tax scale in 1921 was very broad, and the top rates were high. The top bracket, for those earning over $1 million (many millions in today's dollars) was 73%.

In 1924, tax rates were cut. The top rate was slashed from 73% to 46%. And the top bracket was reduced to $500,000 of income (again, many millions in today's dollars).

The next year--1925--the tax cuts continued. The top rate was slashed to 25%, down from 73% just two years earlier. The highest wage earners--those who made $100,000 and up--got to keep a vastly larger share of their income than they had only a few years previously.

And what happened to the economy? For a few years, from 1925-1929, the economy and stock market boomed. The decade became known as the "roaring 20s." Inequality--the difference in wealth between the top earners and everyone else--also soared to unprecedented levels. Then the bottom fell out.

By 1932, with the country's economy in a shambles, the tax code changed again. The high rates on top earners were reintroduced. Now, anyone who made over $100,000 was in a 56% bracket (versus 25% in the late 20s). And those earning over $1 million paid 63%.
By 1932, with the country's economy in a shambles, the tax code changed again. The high rates on top earners were reintroduced. Now, anyone who made over $100,000 was in a 56% bracket (versus 25% in the late 20s). And those earning over $1 million paid 63%.

Then, in 1936, with the economy still in horrible shape and the deficit soaring, the country really socked it to rich folks. Anyone making over $100,000 had to pay 62%. Anyone over $1 million, 72%. And the top rate--for incomes over $5 million--soared to 79%. (This would be the equivalent of having a tax bracket for those who made ~$20 million and up today). These tax hikes were later blamed for throwing the economy back into recession.

In 1941, income tax rates went even higher. The top bracket hit 81%.
In 1941, income tax rates went even higher. The top bracket hit 81%.

And then, in 1945, with the country loaded to the gills with war debts, the top bracket hit an all-time high: 94%. This was assessed on anyone making more than $200,000. (Next time you hear *****ing about how unfair it would be to raise our top bracket a few percentage points from 35%, remember that).

The following year, 1946, rates were trimmed a bit. The top rate was reduced to 91%.

And taxes stayed pretty much just that way for the next 15 years, until the early 1960s. Importantly, this was one of the most successful eras in US economic history. The middle class boomed, the economy boomed, and the stock market boomed. And all with the top marginal income tax rate over 90%. This suggests that the Republican mantra about high marginal tax rates killing the economy is, well, a bunch of crap.

Then, in the early 1960s, rates began to drop. Slowly, at first...

Then in bigger increments...

By 1965, the top bracket was down to 70%.
And there rates stayed, right through the early 1980s. The economy of the 1970s, of course, was horrendous--a condition that was later often blamed on high marginal tax rates. Based on the history of the 1950s, however, which had higher marginal tax rates, the cause of the 1970s misery was more likely stagflation.
In any event, in the early 1980s, Ronald Reagan came along. And he started cutting taxes. In 1982, the top marginal rate dropped to 50%.

Five years later, Reagan slashed taxes again, cutting the new top rate to 38.5%. (Note that this rate is still higher than today's.)

And then, in 1988, Reagan finished the job, whacking the top rate to 28%.

But suddenly we had a huge deficit to worry about. So George Bush 1 raised rates a bit. The top marginal rate bumped up to 31%.
Of course, George Bush had broken a campaign promise by raising rates ("Read my lips: No new taxes"), so he was dismissed. And Bill Clinton came in and jacked the top bracket back up to 39.6%. And, lo and behold, the economy boomed! And the deficit shrank! And eventually, we even had a surplus.

But taxes were too high for George Bush 2, so he cut them. Just marginally, at first.

Then more significantly. In 2003, the top bracket dropped to 35%. The deficit reappeared--and then soared. And, interestingly, we saw a repeat of the 1920s: An unsustainable economic boom that ultimately collapsed, followed by a massive recession and huge deficits. And soaring inequality, which still plagues us today.

In 2010, with the economy still struggling, Barack Obama extended the Bush tax cuts for another two years. So here we are today.

So, what does the future hold? Good question! Obviously, no one likes tax increases, but the similarities between the 1920s-1930s and the 2000s-2010s seem hard to ignore. Today, after an era of very low taxes, we have enormous inequality and a huge deficit. Last time that happened, the top tax rate soared (and, it should be noted, the economy boomed--even with the top rate high). And we certainly wouldn't be surprised to see history repeat itself again...
So what's the point I'm trying to make by all this? That blanket statements like "taxes always hurt the economy" are very easy to dispute when you look at the facts. Not all taxes are equal. If you want to prove that a carbon tax specifically hurts the economy it would be better to compare nations that commenced a carbon tax and perhaps show how it hurt the economy... but I doubt that's the case personally.

-blazed
 

ballin4life

Smash Hero
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
5,534
Location
disproving determinism
An increase of taxes means that companies won't be able to invest as much, and therefore create less jobs. While the definition of economic growth debatable, this is what is comes down to.
The goal of the economy is not to create jobs.

But if you looked at the details of the carbon tax, you would know that the raised revenue will be reinvested back into the economy in the form of compensation for consumers and investments in renewable energy.
Ugh. This is true of any tax or any transfer of wealth. The problem is that the government sucks at investing and spending the money efficiently - that's why taxes are bad for the economy. The money is spent in a way that doesn't satisfy consumer preferences (demand).

The idea is that producing carbon hurts some third party (people who like reasonable weather? idk why it's considered a pollutant) more than taxing it hurts the companies that produce it. The govt. is correcting a failure in the free market, because the free market does not account for externalities. Producing carbon (presumably) affects more than the producers and consumers of carbon.
This is true except for the free market part. It's not a free market right now at all.

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

Another strategy for curtailing the production of carbon is to print a fixed number of "carbon permits," and let companies trade them amongst themselves. This is theoretically equivalent to the tax (one fixes the price to find the quantity, the other fixes the quantity to find the price.)
I think this is a better option because the price can change based on different factors - e.g. suppose I invent a machine that is going to emit lots of carbon, but makes everyone 1 million times happier. Then it might be worth it for me to pay a lot for carbon, and the price would increase. Quantity on the other hand is more fixed, since presumably there is a given quantity that will be "healthy" for the environment. My problem as always is that the government won't implement this efficiently and has no idea what the correct price level is.

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

Anyway, it doesn't hurt the economy as a whole, because the cost of production is misrepresented before the tax. In fact, before the tax is implemented, the economy is in disequilibrium with carbon-producing companies producing where the marginal revenue is less than the marginal cost. Pre-tax, they are "losing money" on the extra carbon, only it's not them, it's society.
The issue is that the government is extremely unlikely to set the price at the "correct" level.

Sorry, but that's just an ideal created by naive people trying to push talking points down our throats. I was hoping you would have proof for a blanket statement... but whatever. Here's a great article on tax history in the united states: http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates?op=1

Now, I'm not going to quote the whole article, but just the main headlines mentioned. But I HIGHLY RECOMMEND reading the article in its entirety. Most of it is graphs/charts/numbers showing interesting facts about tax history.

So what's the point I'm trying to make by all this? That blanket statements like "taxes always hurt the economy" are very easy to dispute when you look at the facts. Not all taxes are equal. If you want to prove that a carbon tax specifically hurts the economy it would be better to compare nations that commenced a carbon tax and perhaps show how it hurt the economy... but I doubt that's the case personally.

-blazed
"taxes hurt the economy" is true from basic economics except possibly in these cases of externalities (which don't apply 99.9% of the time).

The quote portion of your post contains a lot of correlation-causation fallacies. One thing that wasn't emphasized enough was that the top top bracket back then applied only at an income level of millions of today's dollars. Also, I've heard that there were lots of loopholes back then. I'm pretty sure no one was paying 70% income tax - that just wouldn't make sense financially for anyone. Finally, it doesn't make sense to look at tax revenue as a % of GDP to gauge whether overall taxes are low or high. I'd bet this is a function of the fact that lots of people pay no taxes at all - it doesn't have an impact on an individual's situation (which is what people care about)
 

eschemat

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
241
Sorry, I totally mistook carbon taxes for cap and trade. At the same time, I think that investing into clean coal and such is a smarter choice....

Especially when you consider the fact that these companies will eventually switch over to renewable energy, it's in their best interests in the long run.
 

blazedaces

Smash Lord
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
1,150
Location
philly, PA, aim: blazedaces, msg me and we'll play
"taxes hurt the economy" is true from basic economics except possibly in these cases of externalities (which don't apply 99.9% of the time).

The quote portion of your post contains a lot of correlation-causation fallacies. One thing that wasn't emphasized enough was that the top top bracket back then applied only at an income level of millions of today's dollars. Also, I've heard that there were lots of loopholes back then. I'm pretty sure no one was paying 70% income tax - that just wouldn't make sense financially for anyone. Finally, it doesn't make sense to look at tax revenue as a % of GDP to gauge whether overall taxes are low or high. I'd bet this is a function of the fact that lots of people pay no taxes at all - it doesn't have an impact on an individual's situation (which is what people care about)
... Please provide a better way of doing so then. You can scream this mantra of "taxes always hurt the economy" as often as you like, but that's not going to convince me of anything. It's too much of a blanket statement. Not all taxes are equal. Not all taxes hurt the economy in the same exact way. Also, tax increase/decrease's effect on the economy is obviously not linear either. It's a complicated function of many things and most probably either way we go we get diminishing returns if we take it too far. If you take it to the extreme either way it's not good, but these naive republican ideals aren't going to fix anything in our economy.

-blazed
 

ballin4life

Smash Hero
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
5,534
Location
disproving determinism
... Please provide a better way of doing so then. You can scream this mantra of "taxes always hurt the economy" as often as you like, but that's not going to convince me of anything. It's too much of a blanket statement. Not all taxes are equal. Not all taxes hurt the economy in the same exact way. Also, tax increase/decrease's effect on the economy is obviously not linear either. It's a complicated function of many things and most probably either way we go we get diminishing returns if we take it too far. If you take it to the extreme either way it's not good, but these naive republican ideals aren't going to fix anything in our economy.

-blazed
1) lol at calling this "republican ideals"

2) You don't really offer any evidence that "if you take it to the extreme either way it's not good". We haven't had low taxes in the US for about 100 years, and there was significant economic growth at that time. It's really hard to make a comparison like "well Clinton's taxes were higher than Bush's, and the economy was better" because the overall difference between the two was small. Taxes were high in both cases.
 

1048576

Smash Master
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
3,417
I think this is a better option because the price can change based on different factors - e.g. suppose I invent a machine that is going to emit lots of carbon, but makes everyone 1 million times happier. Then it might be worth it for me to pay a lot for carbon, and the price would increase. Quantity on the other hand is more fixed, since presumably there is a given quantity that will be "healthy" for the environment. My problem as always is that the government won't implement this efficiently and has no idea what the correct price level is.



The issue is that the government is extremely unlikely to set the price at the "correct" level.
They're the same thing though. 1.) The companies have to buy the permits from the govt. at the beginning, so it's not like the govt. doesn't get revenue from the transaction. (They could show favoritism by giving them away for free to the place with the best lobby or w/e, but the can also randomly return all of the tax money to the place with the best lobby or w/e.) 2.) Under/overestimating the amount of pollution to allow also sets the price at the "incorrect" level.

It's not as if we know what the right amount of pollution to allow is. It's not a fixed quantity. If the carbon-based products make people really happy then you want to allow more, and vice-versa. You need to find where MR = MSC + MC, and that is a function of both price and quantity.

Tangent: the reason we shouldn't print pollution permits in US is because GW Bush kept printing more every time he ran out, so it didn't do anything. Now there's no credibility that the govt. won't print more every time when pressured, so there's no incentive for polluters to auction amongst themselves.
 

ballin4life

Smash Hero
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
5,534
Location
disproving determinism
They're the same thing though. 1.) The companies have to buy the permits from the govt. at the beginning, so it's not like the govt. doesn't get revenue from the transaction. (They could show favoritism by giving them away for free to the place with the best lobby or w/e, but the can also randomly return all of the tax money to the place with the best lobby or w/e.) 2.) Under/overestimating the amount of pollution to allow also sets the price at the "incorrect" level.

It's not as if we know what the right amount of pollution to allow is. It's not a fixed quantity. If the carbon-based products make people really happy then you want to allow more, and vice-versa. You need to find where MR = MSC + MC, and that is a function of both price and quantity.
Uh, in the post you quoted I 100% acknowledged that this might be an issue; I just think that quantity is easier to estimate than price in this case.

Tangent: the reason we shouldn't print pollution permits in US is because GW Bush kept printing more every time he ran out, so it didn't do anything. Now there's no credibility that the govt. won't print more every time when pressured, so there's no incentive for polluters to auction amongst themselves.
Exact same thing could happen with tax. Any tax, in fact.

The real argument against is that it would probably be more difficult to manage.
 

blazedaces

Smash Lord
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
1,150
Location
philly, PA, aim: blazedaces, msg me and we'll play
1) lol at calling this "republican ideals"
Sorry for not being clear, but I was referring to removing taxes on the wealthiest americans, not on taxes = worse economy when I said "republican ideals"... I really don't believe this to be a misnomer, but if you disagree that's fine.

2) You don't really offer any evidence that "if you take it to the extreme either way it's not good". We haven't had low taxes in the US for about 100 years, and there was significant economic growth at that time. It's really hard to make a comparison like "well Clinton's taxes were higher than Bush's, and the economy was better" because the overall difference between the two was small. Taxes were high in both cases.
I think it's rather obvious if we have 0% taxed or if we have 100% taxes that this is too much... that's what I meant by extreme. Again, I was not clear, my apologies.

-blazed
 

-Jumpman-

Smash Champion
Joined
Nov 3, 2007
Messages
2,854
Location
Netherlands
The goal of the economy is not to create jobs.
I never claimed creating jobs was the goal of an economy. In fact, by definition there is no goal of an economy. You have the tendency of arguing against everything, even though what I stated was not an argument. I was simply giving an explanation.

Another thing I'd like to point out is that you have the tendency to quote every single aspect of posts and answer them this separately. It makes your posts and the discussion itself very confusing. I'd like to ask you to reply to posts by quoting the entire post and colouring the part you are referring to.
 

ballin4life

Smash Hero
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
5,534
Location
disproving determinism
Sorry for not being clear, but I was referring to removing taxes on the wealthiest americans, not on taxes = worse economy when I said "republican ideals"... I really don't believe this to be a misnomer, but if you disagree that's fine.


I think it's rather obvious if we have 0% taxed or if we have 100% taxes that this is too much... that's what I meant by extreme. Again, I was not clear, my apologies.

-blazed
My position isn't "republican". It's libertarian. I think we should have lower taxes on everyone, and that includes the payroll tax and inflation tax.

I never claimed creating jobs was the goal of an economy. In fact, by definition there is no goal of an economy. You have the tendency of arguing against everything, even though what I stated was not an argument. I was simply giving an explanation.
The goal of an economy is to create things that consumers desire.

Another thing I'd like to point out is that you have the tendency to quote every single aspect of posts and answer them this separately. It makes your posts and the discussion itself very confusing. I'd like to ask you to reply to posts by quoting the entire post and colouring the part you are referring to.
I fail to see how this makes any difference. I find my format (which, by the way, is widely used in this forum) much more readable, personally. You can see exactly what I am responding to easily.
 

blazedaces

Smash Lord
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
1,150
Location
philly, PA, aim: blazedaces, msg me and we'll play
My position isn't "republican". It's libertarian. I think we should have lower taxes on everyone, and that includes the payroll tax and inflation tax.
Again, that "ideal" wasn't referring to you in particular, but to the quoted source that discussed raising taxes on the rich or not. You're perfectly well in your rights to have whatever view you like. I just don't like it when people have "ideals" ... because instead of looking at facts and THEN coming to conclusions they start out with these "ideals", then look for evidence that supports their ideal. It's backwards thinking. It's also a logical fallacy. But it's obviously how most of the world goes about their daily life regardless.

The goal of an economy is to create things that consumers desire.
The economy in case you haven't noticed, is not an entity. It has no mind of its own and no goals whatsoever. It is simply a reaction to seemingly random events, but events that often have at least some kind of average path. Economics SHOULD be the study of that average path, and to an extent all other statistically relevant observations, like its spread (standard deviation), middle (median), mode, etc. (just to name the basic stuff)... but there's too many people who don't seem to understand this simple concept. This is why even the best economists can not always predict what will happen next... because all they have studied is the AVERAGE PATH... but guess what. When things move randomly, even if the average is the same, you can still have UPS and DOWNS. But even this average path is highly affected by a variety of factors and most economists do not always agree what factors affect what outcomes.

Another thing I'd like to point out is that you have the tendency to quote every single aspect of posts and answer them this separately. It makes your posts and the discussion itself very confusing. I'd like to ask you to reply to posts by quoting the entire post and colouring the part you are referring to.
I fail to see how this makes any difference. I find my format (which, by the way, is widely used in this forum) much more readable, personally. You can see exactly what I am responding to easily.
Yeah... I personally hate the whole color-coded response method. You also have very little way of keeping track of it yourself, since as you are writing the post, you are surrounding white text with color brackets... which doesn't stand out at all...
 

1048576

Smash Master
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
3,417
I always learned that economics is the study of the distribution of limited resources to satisfy unlimited wants. So by my textbook definition, the economy would be that distribution. Just my 0.02
 

ballin4life

Smash Hero
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
5,534
Location
disproving determinism
Again, that "ideal" wasn't referring to you in particular, but to the quoted source that discussed raising taxes on the rich or not. You're perfectly well in your rights to have whatever view you like. I just don't like it when people have "ideals" ... because instead of looking at facts and THEN coming to conclusions they start out with these "ideals", then look for evidence that supports their ideal. It's backwards thinking. It's also a logical fallacy. But it's obviously how most of the world goes about their daily life regardless.
It's hard to practice 100% evidence based economics because you don't have any counterfactuals. This leads to situations where one group claims that fiscal stimulus didn't work (OMG, unemployment is still over 9%!), while the other group still claims it worked (OMG, unemployment would have been even higher without it!)

The economy in case you haven't noticed, is not an entity. It has no mind of its own and no goals whatsoever.
Never said the economy has a mind of its own. But the economy is a collection of people trying to satisfy their desires. That's the reason why we trade with others.

It is simply a reaction to seemingly random events, but events that often have at least some kind of average path. Economics SHOULD be the study of that average path, and to an extent all other statistically relevant observations, like its spread (standard deviation), middle (median), mode, etc. (just to name the basic stuff)... but there's too many people who don't seem to understand this simple concept. This is why even the best economists can not always predict what will happen next... because all they have studied is the AVERAGE PATH... but guess what. When things move randomly, even if the average is the same, you can still have UPS and DOWNS. But even this average path is highly affected by a variety of factors and most economists do not always agree what factors affect what outcomes.
Yeah, and as I said above you can't really run "controlled experiments" very often in economics. So people rely a lot on theory.
 

-Jumpman-

Smash Champion
Joined
Nov 3, 2007
Messages
2,854
Location
Netherlands
The goal of an economy is to create things that consumers desire.

I fail to see how this makes any difference. I find my format (which, by the way, is widely used in this forum) much more readable, personally. You can see exactly what I am responding to easily.
Do you even read what I say? By DEFINITION there is no goal.

If arguments are seperated through the use of paragraphs there's no need for quoting every single aspect. Quoting only makes a coherent story impossible to read and derails a discussion, as it results in bull****ting over a single argument.
 

Battlecow

Play to Win
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
8,740
Location
Chicago
^ He's like, a little bit right about the quoting. It does take some effort to keep the argument as a whole in mind when you're piece-by-piecing it.

Quoting's a little easier, though, and I spend too much time making long-*** posts that only ballin' reads anyways.
 

ballin4life

Smash Hero
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
5,534
Location
disproving determinism
Do you even read what I say? By DEFINITION there is no goal.
uh ok, you can say that, but that pretty much eliminates 99% of the statements people make about the economy. e.g. "The economy is bad right now". Are you going to come in and say "ZOMG ******* THE ECONOMY DOESN'T HAVE A PURPOSE BY DEFINITION YOU CAN'T SAY IF IT'S GOOD OR BAD"?

What I said is pretty standard.

If arguments are seperated through the use of paragraphs there's no need for quoting every single aspect. Quoting only makes a coherent story impossible to read and derails a discussion, as it results in bull****ting over a single argument.
Quoting keeps things coherent and focused. If we didn't quote then we would be less likely to actually read and respond to what the other person is saying, since it's easier to just repost your talking points.

And I'm still confused about how quoting makes it impossible to read ... the whole point is you have the quote something's responding to right next to it. Especially compared to colors which would make you scroll up and down repeatedly.

^ He's like, a little bit right about the quoting. It does take some effort to keep the argument as a whole in mind when you're piece-by-piecing it.

Quoting's a little easier, though, and I spend too much time making long-*** posts that only ballin' reads anyways.
lol. the great battlecow can't remember what he is arguing when he posts! it explains so much :laugh: ;)
 

-Jumpman-

Smash Champion
Joined
Nov 3, 2007
Messages
2,854
Location
Netherlands
I never even proposed using colours as an alternative. There's no reason for you to adress an argument I have never made. I'm not going to argue against this, as you're obviously not adressing my arguments.
 

1048576

Smash Master
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
3,417
You can make factual statements about the economy without assuming a goal. (Ex: Taxes do not create deadweight loss when used to make the new marginal private cost equal the old marginal private cost plus the marginal social cost.) (Ex2: The US consumes more than it produces.) Aside from that, if you're assuming a goal, such as maximize GDP, you should say that. Then all these arguments about feeding orphans and taxing carbon will simply vanish, you will be right, and all will be well. Except for everyone else who disagrees with your premise.
 

ballin4life

Smash Hero
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
5,534
Location
disproving determinism
Another thing I'd like to point out is that you have the tendency to quote every single aspect of posts and answer them this separately. It makes your posts and the discussion itself very confusing. I'd like to ask you to reply to posts by quoting the entire post and colouring the part you are referring to.
I never even proposed using colours as an alternative. There's no reason for you to adress an argument I have never made. I'm not going to argue against this, as you're obviously not adressing my arguments.
Does not compute
 

Bob Jane T-Mart

Smash Ace
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
886
Location
Somewhere
So how did this thread get so derailed?

Also Jumpman take a look at this. It says:

Replying / Quoting

The standard format used when arguing in the Debate Hall is the "point by point" post. Unfortunately, the forum’s quote button does not support this. Instead, just use the quote button like normal but also remember to insert an ending quote tag after each point you want to reply to, and a beginning quote tag before each point, so that your replies show up on the "root" level of your post. This allows people to follow the discussion easily, and also lets the person you’re arguing with use the quote button and pick up just your response.
And on the subject of economics, I think it is very far from an exact science. Many of its fundamental premises are unfalsifiable and as ballin pointed out, that you can't really perform proper macroeconomic experiments, considering that screwing the economy up can ruin people's lives. In the end it's rather unfortunate, because the theories, which have not really been tested in the real world very thoroughly, are all that we can rely on.
 

eschemat

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
241
So, what would be more expensive to produce: Energy from coal with a carbon tax or renewable energies? Just wondering.
 

ballin4life

Smash Hero
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
5,534
Location
disproving determinism
And on the subject of economics, I think it is very far from an exact science. Many of its fundamental premises are unfalsifiable and as ballin pointed out, that you can't really perform proper macroeconomic experiments, considering that screwing the economy up can ruin people's lives. In the end it's rather unfortunate, because the theories, which have not really been tested in the real world very thoroughly, are all that we can rely on.
What are the fundamental premises that are unfalsifiable? Just curious.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom