OK you convinced me, now what?

Nope. Every discipline. Crikey, as mentioned, even the neoclassical lot had to steal from them.

Nope, to understand empirical phenomena. Look at efficiency wage analysis and the similarity between Marxist and Neoclassical analysis.

Is this as radical as your use of Pigovian tax?

HAHAHA! Their land analysis became irrelevant very quickly.

 

No, only "humanities" where empirical validation and falsification is not possible, and only for the worse.

And we know how well that turned out.

Nope. They don't understand empirical phenomena, as proved by their inability to make accurate empirical predictions more complex than, "The recent trend will continue."

Both of which are total failures at empirical prediction.

Far more radical.

<yawn> I guess that must explain the astronomical cost of an ordinary building lot, combined with stagnant real wages...

 

You're right, @bringiton, taxing space, land/homes/etc, actually makes more of the more desirable space available, available to the wealthy by driving out the less wealthy.

To often property values are not assessed on the the property's productivity but on merely others desire to own the property. This arbitrary perception increases taxes and drives the less wealthy off of their land and out of their homes. It also increases the cost of rent, landlords must charge more to pay their property taxes.

To be honest, I dont exactly understand what you are advocating, but much of what you have posted seems not very well thought out and naive. Or maybe you have an unexpessed motive.

 

Don't be a fool. Increase taxes on property to reduce (or change) the development and use of property.

 

there would be more poor in America if not for drilling for oil and causing pollution

canada's poor don't have the opportunity for good paying jobs to buy cars or single family homes, only welfare.

 

Already demonstrated that is nonsense. Marxist applications in labour theory was all about explaining empirical phenomena.

An ignorant effort. The problem, prior to the financial crisis, was macroeconomic modelling that ignored labour economics and maintained the assumption of perfectly competitive labour markets.

It is also factor to note that, compared to all other schools of thought, Marxists have the most advanced analysis into crisis theory. Others have had to borrow from their analysis (e.g. post Keynesian analysis into phenomena such as stagflation).

Wrong again. See, for example, the empirical analysis into LVT. Your efforts are strikingly ignorant as, just like those macroeconomists, you have naff all understanding of labour and therefore no sound economic approach.

You again advertise your lack of knowledge of labour markets. Efficiency wage analysis has been tested empirically extensively. The approach is confirmed.

Perhaps for the Georgist. In reality, nationalisation would be much more radical. It's amusing that bought away from that, given how much effort you put into ranting over land owners being evil.

Take London and the empirical analysis into ripple effects. No reference to Georgism at all, unsurprisingly.

 

It's about social engineering and is a common tool of the left.

 

You can eliminate people's ability to own it

 

There is no politically possible way to reduce CO2 emissions to significantly reduce the rate of global warming. Therefore the best policies will promote economic growth thus increasing the capability to adapt to any negative effects of the warming.

 

The only politically possible policies are those that maximize the adaptability of humans to cope with the warming.

 

Ok, not that you are "convinced" we need get our electric grid to be 100% sustainable energy, and phase out gas-powered cars. We will need to give a lot more funding to research on alternative energy. We need to implement a carbon tax so that the cost of carbon better reflects its cost to society. We need deeper tax cuts to businesses that do sustainable energy. We are also going to have to work on a global scale to reduce the human population by making birth control and abortion cheap and readily available everywhere. We need to increase the size of our forests which soak up CO2 and get developing countries to regrow forests they are chopping.

 

None of the above is politically possible.

 

That is what should happen. Republicans will run out of voters as their older base dies off and the US becomes less and less white. Democrats will take control eventually.

 

None of this is politically possible regardless of which party is in control.

 

You didn't answer my question. Now that I'm a believer what am I supposed to do?

 

I'm just curious, what is "sustainable energy"? Also, what is sustainable about your prescriptions? Seems that you're inviting massive unemployment, massive economic upheavals. That seems better than a degree or two warmer weather, huh?

So, mr Malthusian economist... you want massive population reductions. Ok, how? You going to set up camps and stuff? You want to eliminate most driving, cause, well, you know all the folks will be camps, so they won't drive.. right? You want folks to be taxed on their carbon... So just living is taxable, and of course, that's okie dokie with you, right? I mean, what with all the camps, and the massive governmental authoritarianism that will be needed to ensure the massive population culling your asking for. Perhaps you should change your name to "uncle joe"... Even he'd be impressed with your vision.

 

The horrifying vision of what the left actually want. Thanks for the insight.

 

I think the answer was already provided. Like the invading creatures from outer space in "Independence Day", they just want us to die. The assumption being that liberal folks won't be required to adhere to their draconian population or energy or economic controls because they'll be the elite, exempted class...

 

Why isn't it possible if the democrats are in control?

 

Why do you feel that this would be true? The tragedy of the commons has been successfully addressed in the past. What about this particular situation makes it impossible to address?

 

I can't imagine why anyone would even attempt a response to this since you already admitted that this thread was just a trolling. But I'll say it again, now that you have accepted the science the expectation would be that you would either lead, follow, or get out of the way. As a denier and contrarian the only thing we get is obstructionism and misinformation. Just stop doing that, and the world would be a better place.

 

I don't lead or follow and I'm not in your way so try again. Once I'm a believer what am I supposed to do? You desperately want everyone to believe so surly there is something we are supposed to do after we believe. It's a simple question. I believe, I'm converted. What now?

 

No. Your basic problem here (There are many), is that you are wrongly attempting to conflate two issues here.

1. Is AGW actual?
2. What should we do about it?

The answer to #1 is "The best science we have and virtually all the experts in the field say yes". The answer to #2 is political and depends very much on who and where you are. These are two separate questions. Please acknowledge that you get this. You can accept the science and the opinion of the scientists and yet have an entire range of opinions about what we should do about it. There is no "I accept the science so therefore I must have political opinion 'x' about it or take action 'y'.

 

As soon as they pass any carbon tax which could significantly reduce CO2 emissions they would be voted out of office in the next election.

 

Economic pain.