Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gib Bogle who wrote (51829)	6/29/2009 11:58:12 AM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Respond to of 218156

Gib, why would you want to shift away from energy intensive processes which people seem to like? They crowd onto aircraft, turn on heaters and air conditioners, drive cars all over the place. Energy is what the energetic expend. <Putting up the prices of energy-intensive processes is a way to shift away from them, which certainly makes sense in the long term. > If you are worried about hydrocarbons running out, the price will go up if it runs out, without having a government department putting the price up by taxing it [and pouring the tax down the drain]. Mqurice

To: Gib Bogle who wrote (51829)	6/29/2009 1:51:09 PM
From: dvdw©	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218156

lol, gib is an enlistee to the process we know as contrivance..... whats your rank gib? hoping for a soft chair or in line for a hard one? The table of largesse is filling up fast, one must be there early to get a good seat, otherwise the fire marshall will begin tossing folks out for perfectly rational reasons.

To: Gib Bogle who wrote (51829)	7/1/2009 8:47:54 AM
From: Moominoid	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218156

The question is how much economic pain is needed to achieve a given size cut in emissions. Regulation is least efficient. A carbon tax is probably best in an uncertain world. Permits that are fully auctioned with the revenue used to reduce other taxes are almost as good. Permits that are largely given away are worse but better than regulation. The Waxman-Markey Bill gives away most permits and adds other distortions to keep down the prices of some commodities (like electricity to consumers) that is going to result in more economic pain somewhere else in the system. So it might not be a whole lot better than regulation in the short-term.... I was commenting that the public prefers regulation first and a carbon tax last which is the inverse of what is the cheapest way to do the job. It's also a good idea to support innovation in energy efficiency. That in combination with the carbon tax and cuts to labor or capital taxes is ideal.