“Global Warming” has long been a shibboleth of social engineers and public-sector parasites who work ceaselessly to infest and take over our homes, our wallets and our freedom. The redoubtable Michelle Malkin has documented how “energy” has become…

On February 19th, 2009 at 1:59 pm, bluesoc said:

Again, not a fun argument.

Actually, I would LOVE it. But I understand your point.

You seem very reasonable. You might want to keep an open mind on this one. The tide of opinion really is turning on this. It will probably never be “settled,” but I honestly think that the voices of AGW will be reduced to a whisper.

I disagree with the CO2 charge, but bluesoc has tabled that argument (the better argument) and decided to focus on arguing externalities with a few of you (the weaker argument).

Let’s not allow bluesoc to chose the argument here. Let’s chose it ourselves.

Coming to my defense two days in a row! Thanks.

The reason I table the CO2 argument is that both of us will simply be deferring to experts. There’s not much fun in an argument of that sort.

Even if you were knowledgeable enough in the field to form an opinion without the assistance of experts (which may be the case, I honestly don’t know), I most certainly am not. It would basically be your opinion vs. my opinion of expert opinion. Again, not a fun argument.

On February 19th, 2009 at 9:50 am, conservativesRus said:

My argument is why you think government is smart enough to completely understand and “fix” externalities.

I don’t think bluesoc is claiming that the government is always smart enough to “fix” externality problems correctly.

In fact, I bet bluesoc would admit that the government has made may mistakes attempting to “fix” externality problems.

This doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t try. Would you completely abolish FCC licensing of the EM spectrum? Would you completely abolish the entire pollution credit system?

Further – I think it rather naive of you to conclude that those with a financial stake completely ignore the external effects of their decisions – both “good” and “bad”.

I don’t think bluesoc is concluding that. I think bluesoc would agree that many people are cognizant of the external effects of their decisions. In fact, those people are probably the ones in favor of making everyone play by the same rules.

If you were owned a factory that decided (because you were a good citizen) to pay 15% of your sales to cleanly dispose of your waste, then you wouldn’t want one of your competitors to gain a cost advantage by dumping their waste into a nearby river for free.

Again, I think you’re making the wrong argument with bluesoc. bluesoc is trying to argue that grid electricity power is artificially cheap because producers are not being charged for releasing CO2. I disagree with the CO2 charge, but bluesoc has tabled that argument (the better argument) and decided to focus on arguing externalities with a few of you (the weaker argument).

Let’s not allow bluesoc to chose the argument here. Let’s chose it ourselves.

On February 19th, 2009 at 7:46 am, bluesoc said:

My argument is why you think government is smart enough to completely understand and “fix” externalities.
Further – I think it rather naive of you to conclude that those with a financial stake completely ignore the external effects of their decisions – both “good” and “bad”.

BTW, I thought I’d get a little more credit for helping you out against the mob.

It was much appreciated. However, it appears they’re back…

It seems to me there is a logic problem concluding that externalities are known by regulators but not by investors.

Investors may be aware of externalities, they simply do not factor them into their decisions. Remember, externalities affect third parties not subject to the transaction. Consider a chocolate factory that’s right next to a city. It produces pleasant aromas (positive externality) that the entire city enjoys. However, when the factory is making business decisions, it does not take this into account (because no one is paying them for the aroma). They may be aware of the externality, but that doesn’t mean that it is reflected in the price.

As I’ve said before, just because something is taught in a classroom – even by highly regarded professors, DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUTH.

Externalities are EVERYWHERE. If you’ve ever put up Christmas lights, you’ve created externalities.

• All major decisions would be made by consensus of all company employees.

I may have to look back through my weel worn and dog-eared copy of Atlas Shrugged, but I distinctly remeber a certain company that employed a Mr. J. Galt trying this very thing and it not working out for them. I realize that was just a piece of fiction, but we seem to be following the storyline more and more on a daily basis, except that the real producers don’t have a Galt’s Gulch to run away and hide in. I for one will be standing by with a ready paint supply at the end.

On February 18th, 2009 at 3:06 pm, bluesoc said:
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of externalities. By definition they are not accounted for in the price.

I don’t think we can have a conversation about externalities if you don’t know what they are.

You have no idea what I understand or do not understand.
Why do you believe government understands the true cost of something when buyers and sellers of that very same thing do not? I would argue that those invested financially have far more knowledge about something than those who do no have an investment. You seem to believe otherwise.
It seems to me there is a logic problem concluding that externalities are known by regulators but not by investors.
As I’ve said before, just because something is taught in a classroom – even by highly regarded professors, DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUTH.

On February 18th, 2009 at 7:42 pm, chapoutier said:

Corkie, you are nothing if not intellectually honest, if not always correct and always fair.

Awwww. Shucks.

BTW, I thought I’d get a little more credit for helping you out against the mob.

Corkie, you are nothing if not intellectually honest, if not always correct and always fair.

On February 18th, 2009 at 6:25 pm, bluesoc said:

Given that other countries choose to buy weapons from us based on their performance in combat, I’d say that’s a market.

The weapons and the military are not the same.

So how do you prove your weapons are battle ready without a military?

Also, how many countries have allowed us to open bases in their countries so we can defend them? They provide incentives for us to do so and we get a strategic location.

“We’re just one small business, creating one to two dozen jobs,” Jones said. “The point that I want to stress is that there are thousands of businesses just like ours that will be doing the same thing.”

Thousands of small businesses that could hire more people if they wee not paying outrageous taxes and dealing with nanny-state regulations.

On both National and State levels, there are programs in place to help “level the economic playing field” between green, renewable energy sources (like solar electricity) and polluting, finite energy sources (such as fossil fuels and nuclear energy).

Yeah, that nuke energy fuel is pretty finite.

OVERVIEW:

It’s too bad these lib nitwits never thought they could do better without such a tangled web of regulations, and less taxes.

If Boulder libs were serious, why not eliminate all taxes on this form of “energy”?