[ExI] Richard Lindzen on climate hysteria

jameschoate at austin.rr.com jameschoate at austin.rr.com
Tue Aug 4 19:34:45 UTC 2009

That's funny, trying to play both sides of the fence by using 'pollution taxes' and 'market forces' in the same meme. The problem with all these 'tax them' is that the system can and does get gamed. The people making the rules are the same ones being taxed for these activities.

A free market isn't going to have taxes by definition, a laissez faire system will be regulated but only for fair and open behavior. The problem there is who guards the guards? And what does 'fair' and 'open' mean? Neither are definable in any economic or game theoretic system to sufficient rigor to be useful for any real world application. The other option of control economy is our current state.

I also like that spin doctorism of 'revenue neutral' with regard to the polluters paying the tax. You've got two options there, either they are printing funny money or they raise their prices to compensate for the taxes. Remember one rule....The consumer ALWAYS pays the bill!

---- Damien Sullivan <phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: 

> "Polluter pays" isn't a principle in your world, I guess.
> Pollution taxes could be redistributed per capita, so as to be
> revenue-neutral to the government and to the average consumer, but
> increasing incentives for savings (e.g. saving $6/gallon instead of
> $2).  Market forces at work.

 -- -- -- --
Venimus, Vidimus, Dolavimus

James Choate
jameschoate at austin.rr.com
james.choate at twcable.com

Adapt, Adopt, Improvise
 -- -- -- --

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list