Climate activists climb, superglue themselves to globe at Universal Studios

Yes there is.

 

Where? It's a nonsense argument. Even basic macroeconomics indicates it, as observed with the balanced budget multiplier

 

Since we haven't had a balanced budget since Coolidge even with a 90% tax rate, and at the time of the ninety percent tax rate the rest of the world was still rebuilding from WWII and we had less than 5% of bureaucratic overburden we do now the argument is absurd on its face.

 

You miss the point, again. A carbon tax, if the proceeds are then used in other expenditure (e.g. green technologies), will actually increase demand. The idea that Pigovian taxes 'flatline the economy' is quite silly and you've not presented one economic study which suggests otherwise...

 

I am talking about taxes in general and there is no evidence that the government is as skilled as even the worst wall street broker when it comes to picking winners and losers among several possible choices.

 

I'm talking taxes pertinent to the thread. Bit obvious really.

 

It occurs to me that you're shilling for a very old Goldman Sachs initiative. You probably didn't know that, but it seems ironic in any case.

You use the term Pigovian because you don't like punitive. You'd invoke your own paternalistic intent which we've discussed before. It clearly seems this is attractive to you because you want to direct the use of consumerism in a fashion you support, which seems to only then be beneficial to those who need legislative annuities to supplement their already immense wealth.

 

Your under lying assumption however is that the government knows when and where to put the money which is at best laughable since nine times in ten they will put the money where their bankrollers are without regard to the likelihood of economic success hence solyndra and about 75% of the rest of Obama era Green investments were bankrupt within a year after the investments were made. You can put out all the wonderful leftist theories you want but the fact of the matter is reality stomps a mud hole in them every time.

 

This just shows ignorance of the Pigovian tax (which I haven't supported I might add). All the government needs to know is the value of the marginal external cost. This is an empirical exercise and easily calculated. The difficulty really rests, given pollution will often go hand in hand with deaths, on the valuation of life. Cost-benefit analysis approaches are typically applied.

This produces a marginal change in price, with the 'post-tax' price supposedly ensuring the consumer/producer faces the true cost of their behaviour. How the tax revenues are used isn't particularly important for macroeconomic demand (making your original comment ridiculous). Even if its wasted (and any investment company collapses), its still going to provide a boost which outweighs the negative effects of the tax.

The interesting aspect for the US, mind you, is that its been reliant on government interference for innovation via military R&D. We know, however, that has become less and less effective over time. That increasingly reflects spin-in technologies, rather than spin-off (i.e. it is increasingly about finding military use for civilian technology). It is likely that green technologies will be less inefficient. Switching from military to green R&D is therefore offering growth opportunity.

 

Assuming of course again that government can actualy invest in something other than lining their cronies pockets

 

It can't be any worse than your military industrial complex

 

Why change the subject? Oh, I forgot... to run away from libertarian paternalism... got it...

 

I was informed this morning that environmental activist are a PC protective group.

These leftist activist used "Superglue" ?

Manufacturing superglue is politically incorrect because of the greenhouse gases emitted during the manufacturing process and the ethyl cyanoacetate and formaldehyde released into the atmosphere.

 

So really, they were ecoterrorists...

 

Natural climate change cannot be altered or stopped, it can only be adapted to, and if humanity is to do anything, it should be to prepare for any adaptations necessary. Supporting this global warming hoax will solve nothing, blaming humanity will solve nothing. I still don't see the problem, longer growing seasons, more arable land over time, why do these eco-morons hate greater food production?

 

You really need to catch up! The other fellow was talking about green investments. I was making the well-known comment that current investments, polluted by the military industrial complex, are particularly inefficient.

 

I've already acknowledged that right wingers are prone to denial. No need to say anything else to me. Thanks!

 

They are the idiot foot soldiers of the elitists who are using this as a power grab.

 

Are they? I rather like using jet airplanes... I particularly like computers.... Love the internet... The optics on my hunting rifles are particularly endearing to me, you have to love just how accurate military grade optics are at 1000m or so.. The list of technology or innovative invention etc is uncountable as a byproduct of our investments in defense in this nation. One of my new favorites is fabric that doesn't require a flame retardant or water proofing because of the way the fibers were manufactured. All thanks to a DARPA incubator project. Too many improvements, benefits of your modern life are directly derivative of these kinds of projects/efforts.

 

Because deep down, they are Malthusian elitists working to produce their plantation utopia...

 

Yep. From spin-off to spin-in, coupled with bloated costs created by reliance on big business (rather than innovative new company)

 

I'm still unconvinced you really know what Malthusian analysis entails. You throw it about without any thought after all. For example, to refer to utopianism makes no sense.

 

Non responsive and puerile.... But what else can we expect??

 

I know, big words... It's a failing of mine, not knowing the audience. Clearly this has been the case with you. I will ever endeavor to use smaller, more easily consumable words just for you.

 

A weird effort! Its actually to the heart of the evidence into the defence sector. We know that the US has been reliant on spin-off technologies from its military investments. It details how they've hid from market forces, requiring government interventionism to keep their economy going. However, we know that the military sector is known for its inefficiencies. It needs market concentration after all, given significant economies of scale (indeed, the US government led on the merger process). We also know that the speed of civilian innovation now makes military R&D more focused on spin-in effort, as they look for military application to civilian know-how.

Strange that you're not aware of government-led inefficiency!