There seems to be no public support for cap and trade, or a carbon tax. Glad to see that many are coming to their senses. Of course, we didn’t really have a choice last year at the voting booth on this issue, because McCain is such an economic ignoramus.
Category Archives: Economics
Fascist Democrat Thuggery
Apparently, these people are impervious to irony:
We were outraged to read in today’s New York Times that you are actively opposing our efforts to achieve a diminuation in foreclosures by voluntary efforts… We have set a hearing for November 12, and we invite you now to testify. We believe it is essential for our policymaking function for you to appear at such a hearing, and if this cannot be arranged on a voluntary basis, then we will pursue further steps.
So let me get this straight. Barney Frank, Maxine Waters et al are trying to get banks to do something “voluntarily” by threatening them with “further steps.”
But we shouldn’t worry about threats of tax audits.
The Last GM Dealership
…in the birthplace of General Motors:
We remain the only GM dealership in the city limits of Flint. Isn’t it ironic that the birthplace of General Motors has only one dealership? The employees of the dealership for the most part felt confident that our performance and Mr. Applegate’s integrity and straight forward way of doing business would sustain the storm and survive the cut.
Some felt that our location would be a hindrance to our longevity….perhaps it worked in our favor…who really knows…it’s impossible to second guess or try to predict GM’s thinking. Remaining in business is not only a victory for Mr. Applegate and his employees but also a victory for Flint. I feel that is the untold story. How strange would it be for Flint not to have a GM dealership?
It would be surreal, like the empty field that I saw a couple weeks ago when I drove past where the old AC Spark Plug plant, near which I grew up, and where my father and brother worked for decades, used to be.
Parasites
Here’s another guest post, from “Douglas,” on the subject of carlessness.
Most of my oh-so-enlightened (all of them college drop outs like me) liberal-minded freaks of friends (no, they are freaks, social deviants) are in fact smart people, but they assume an intelligence that isn’t theirs based upon their defiance of social norms.
Most of them live in the Lincoln Park area of Chicago, and don’t own cars any more; they only update their driver’s licences so that they can defer portions of their taxes to Indiana rules rather than Illinois.
One of them, since he got rid of his car, hasn’t visited his mother once in almost ten years. Since then, he’s gotten married, had two kids, filed for bankruptcy, taken “loans” from his mother, who was there to visit her boy, but he has never found his way across the border for any reason other than pretending he’s an Indiana resident.
Same for some of the other friends, but to a lesser degree.
There is a selfishness to this “I don’t need to go anywhere I can’t walk” attitude. I lived in other countries, and was technically poor, but I still visited my mother, I still made my brother’s wedding, and if I was somewhere that there were roads that got me somewhere, I would get in my car and I would make it to important moments for my friends.
I drove from Chicago to Vegas for a one-night trip three times, so that I could be a part of my friends’ getting married. I got in my car and drove to Florida for the same reason, I made it to Kentucky twice for a cousin’s christening, and again for another cousin’s divorce. (the divorce one is a complicated story)
I drove from Chicago to Hammond, Louisiana four times, because I was the only one who could be counted on to help a friend move back to my area, in an escort, since my friend was so possessive of certain possessions, that he didn’t trust the mover.
It took four trips.
If I didn’t have a car, my friend in Louisiana would have been assed out, if I didn’t have a car, I wouldn’t have been able to be a part of those other very cherished (other than the divorce one, though there is a degree of satisfaction that I felt) events. If I hadn’t had a car.
If you don’t have a car, if you don’t have freedom of independent movement, you are a parasite, and must depend on people who DO have cars, or on people who are taxed to pay for inefficient buses and trains to get you where you need to go.
This “walking” society is a lie. They will walk a few blocks, they won’t walk the miles that the working class did at the turn of the century to get to where they needed to go, instead, they parasitically demand that they have a right to go from one place to another, and everyone else that is not them pay for it.
Shocking News
It’s cheaper to own a car than to use mass transit. When you take all the costs into account (and even ignoring the convenience factor) it’s not really surprising at all:
Anti-car people will argue that the high cost of living in New York City or San Francisco is some kind of anomaly, and that proper government action could magically create low cost of living dense urban areas. I am doubtful. Government regulations usually drive up costs rather than reduce costs (with the exception of regulations carefully thought out to prevent value transference). In fact, the rent control laws in New York City, which liberals think are making housing more affordable, are actually contributing to the high cost of living here. I’ve previously suggested two reasons why dense cities are so expensive: (1) dense cities create transportational and space inefficiencies; and (2) dense cities attract liberal voters who elect liberal politicians who enact dumb laws which increase the cost of living. Maybe there is some third or fourth reason as well. Until someone can demonstrate a place where it’s reasonable to be carless and it doesn’t cost a fortune to live there, one has to assume that such places are inherently economically inefficient.
The arguments against cars and sprawl are aesthetic (and elitist), not economic.
[Saturday update]
Randall Parker has further observations.
[Bumped]
Why Did The Tea Partiers Complain About Obama’s Debt?
…but not Bush’s? Well, actually, they complained about both. But here’s a nice description of why it reached a tipping point:
[Update late afternoon]
Again, it illustrates the point that I’ve made in the past on this subject, that quantity has a quality all its own.
“Revenue Neutral”
Sorry, there’s no such thing as a “revenue neutral carbon tax.” Or if there is, you’d stumble on it by pure luck:
The most important point is that revenue neutrality is most likely a mirage. We would have to maintain the carbon tax for decades in order to generate the consumption reductions that advocates argue will occur, but FICA rates aren’t static over decades. In 1950 the FICA rate was 1.5%; by 1970 it was 4.8%; by 1990 it had risen to its current rate of 7.65%. It has been stable for about two decades, but meanwhile the programs that it (in theory) funds are in crisis.
Over the next few decades, we should expect to be in bitter political fights over changing retirement ages, benefit levels, access to publicly-funded medical care, tax rates, and other measures designed to make these programs financially stable. The FICA rate will not be insulated from this process. Who could possibly say that when it has increased in irregular and unpredictable steps to, say, 15.3 percent between now and 2028 in response to various political crises, that, but for the carbon tax, it would otherwise have been 16.5 percent?
I’ve previously discussed this conceit of politicians that they can predict the economic effects of their nostrums:
When a politician says that he’s going to either cut or increase your taxes, he is engaging, wittingly or not, in a conceit and a deceit. He says it as though he has the power to do any such thing, when in fact he does not. He has no power except to reduce or increase the rate at which you pay taxes, whether on property, income, or whatever.
Think of it as the difference between a joystick and a mouse. With a computer mouse, you can point directly to the place that you want to be on a screen. With a joystick, you can only control the rate at which you move toward it, and in so doing, the target may move, and it may move faster or in a different direction than you can keep up with using your rate control. Politicians talk about tax cuts as though they have a computer mouse that allows them to pass a law and a specified amount of revenue will roll in, but the reality is that they have a slow joystick, with a nebulous relationship to the eventual goal.
As Manzi says, TANSTAAFL. I think that dropping both sides of the payroll tax until the economy recovered would have been a hell of an instant stimulus, but eventually, that money’s got to be put back into the system.
Bad Policy Advice
Not surprising, of course, considering that it’s coming from Paul Krugman:
In other words, we should start a trade war with China (and India, Brazil, and the entire rest of the developing world) to force their compliance with an economically destructive program of global emissions mitigation. Excellent.
It’s almost like they want to ruin the world economy.
College Is For Suckers
In many cases, it is. I’m glad I made it through without any student loans, though I was paid fairly well upon graduation as an engineer in the early eighties. But it’s really crazy to spend as much money as a degree costs when the degree has no marketable value.
I think that overrated higher education is the next government-financed bubble to pop.
[Update mid afternoon]
Derb has some more reader emails:
I made the same mistake myself: a BS in Geography is worth nothing on the job market. If I had it to do over again, I’d have taken shop classes in high school (assuming that they existed) and gotten a 2-year blue-collar technical degree. Other than engineering and business degrees, most college BSs and BAs are worthless.
and this:
Higher education is the biggest scam going. I don’t think that’s news to you (or Charles Murray). What’s really disheartening is that the business world plays along — demanding four-year degrees for positions that shouldn’t require them. It’s just a lazy way for them to make their “first cut.”
That is the problem. As Derb says, an aptitude test would do a better job, but it might not provide enough “diversity,” so the degree has become a poor surrogate. And it reminds me of NASA’s astronaut selection policy. It likes to select PhDs, or at least grad degrees, not because they are necessary for the job, but because they have so many more applicants than positions, it makes a handy filter.
But if I were a businessman, and I was just looking for a degree as evidence that the holder at least had the stick-to-it-iveness to get a degree, I’d be just as happy, and perhaps happier, with a technical associates degree than a bachelor’s in French Lit. Or even English.
The Audacity Of Audacity
The biggest borrower in the history of the known universe lectures college students not to live on credit. Of course, to be fair, they can’t print their own money.