As typical, Warmists don’t seem to understand how this whole capitalism and free market thing works. Well, maybe that’s not fair: they understand, and they want to destroy them in favor of government running everything. While failing to understand that when government is picking winners and losers, we all end up losers in the end
WSW: Climate Change, Capitalism And The Government’s Role
Journalist and author Christian Parenti says what American capitalism needs is a new round of “creative destruction†and investment. He says making those investments in renewable energy would help the economy and mitigate the impact of climate change.
Parenti, who also teaches in the Economics Department for John Jay College at City University of New York will speak at Western Michigan University on Thursday November 2nd at 7:00 in Knauss Hall.
Parenti says the high rates of economic growth in the 1950’s were largely caused by post World War II rebuilding. He says now the government needs to replace the fossil fuel industry with a clean energy infrastructure.
Well, that’s interesting. He wants to do away with the very thing that allows him to go to Michigan from New York. Does anyone remotely think he’s planning on walking or riding a bicycle?
Despite talk of a “free marketâ€, Parenti says in reality the U.S. has developed a mixed economy with government influence in many sectors. He says the federal government could end drilling for oil and coal mining on public land, and subsidies for fossil fuels. Parenti says the government also has influence by what it purchases. He says a carbon tax would help, and while Congress isn’t likely to enact one anytime soon, Parentis says a de facto carbon tax could be enacted now through the federal Clean Air Act. He says fines on businesses for burning fossil fuels would serve as an incentive to develop sustainable energy.
There it is in a nutshell: Government control. Warmists love this stuff.
Interestingly, another article that I ran across discusses how Congress should be passing this stuff, rather than regulations that often really aren’t authorized by legislation, like the CAA.
With major global implications at stake, shouldn’t our nation’s climate policy be discussed, debated and acted upon in Congress, as opposed to being left to an unelected bureaucracy to apply an outdated law? While climate change itself is considered a settled matter, how our nation responds is anything but settled.
It’s settled, you guys! If that was the case, why are we still discussing it decades later?
What has become abundantly clear is that there is widespread disagreement in Congress, the Supreme Court and now two successive administrations in how to address climate change. Given its global impact, these types of monumental decisions need to be made in the halls of Congress as the elected body to identify, discuss and act as representatives of the people.
Guess it’s not settled. Anyhow, as you can guess, this piece is also about enabling Government to take control. Funny how it always comes down to this from Warmists, eh?
The goal of every company or corporation is not to have competition but to create a monopoly if possible. Competition, while great for consumers, is bad for businesses.
Fossil fuels receive billions of dollars in direct subsidies and incalculable indirect subsidies each year. Are the so-called “free-market” folks in favor removing all subsidies for fossil fuels AND have them pay for the “negative externalities” associated with coal, oil and gas burning? (Asthma, lung cancer, COPD, global warming, previous lead poisoning… ).
Unless you bizarrely believe that all taxes are socialist, communist or otherwise evil your rant makes little sense. Is a tax on fossil fuels anathema to capitalism and emblematic of a government takeover??
The scientific argument, i.e., “has fossil fuel burning caused global warming” is largely settled – the political argument is ongoing and the good guys are losing.
Lies by a fool.
So where’s your evidence, loser?
Nice try, J, but you know the drill. Fossil fuels received
Sorry-Nice try J, but you know the drill. Fossil fuels receive mostly tax breaks like other companies. Tax breaks aren’t subsidies. But you knew that.
So tax breaks for wind, solar, electric vehicles are also not subsidies? Good to know. By the way, actual economists disagree with your claim.
How about well below market value federal land leases for extracting coal, gas and oil?
Should the cost of fossil fuels include the costs of negative externalities associated with their use? If not, why not?
Should the cost of [strike]fossil fuels[/strike]wind, solar, electric vehicles, biofuels include the costs of negative externalities associated with their use? If not, why not?
j,
If two men each have a $60,000 annual salary, one man is a pharmaceutical sales rep and the other a teacher. If Congress passed a law eliminating income taxes for teachers would you consider that to be a government subsidy for teachers?
Or is it only a subsidy if the sales rep and the teacher are both taxed identically, but the government then rebates the taxes to the teacher?
Isn’t that just one of those distracting semantic arguments you prefer to make?
Your argument seems to assume that the govt owns all citizens money and that they just let you keep some of it.
boB,
Nice diversion. Our argument assumes the realities of modern life. As much as we recognize the fantasy world that conservatives imagine, the fact is that civilized nations depend on taxes paid by citizens to fund the common necessities, e.g., defense, courts, police, roads, schools, airports, fire fighters, old age pensions, etc… How do you suggest we pay for these functions?
We have laws, written by elected representatives, approved by a President, “allowed” by the courts, that instruct our tax policies.
Our argument is that refusing to recognize tax breaks as subsidies advantaging one person or group over another is semantic jiu-jitsu and nothing more.
https://mises.org/library/no-tax-breaks-are-not-subsidies
Read and learn, little dumbass.
The scientific argument is not settled at all, as these 400 papers for 2017 alone can attest. http://notrickszone.com/2017/10/23/400-scientific-papers-published-in-2017-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/#sthash.LBxRoUTI.dpbs
J-this isn’t that hard, except maybe for you. Look up the definition of subsidy-“money given by the government…..â€. With a tax break, nobody is giving you anything. Keeping your own money isn’t a subsidy. Take it up with Webster’s Dictionary. And as far as your analogy, it makes no sense. The media in this country bunches susbsidies (giving money to renewable energy companies) and tax breaks (keeping money you already made, as in fossil fuels) together, erroneously, under one term.
Here’s the analogy that shows what’s actually happening- You’re walking down the street, see a homeless guy and give him 20 dollars. That’s a subsidy. You’re walking down the street again and this time someone tries to rob you of the 2 ten dollar bills in your pocket. Instead of taking both, he only takes 1. That’s a tax break-no one gave you anything, rather you kept more of what was yours to begin with. There is no way those two incidents are the same thing. Even this shouldn’t be over your head, J.