You see, Horace, the above is nothing more than a false, ad hominem attack. It seems to me that you’re not trying to have a discussion, that instead you’re trying to abuse people under the guise of having a discussion. But you’re directing this nonsense at people who have seen it before, and have no patience with it. It’s not wit you’re engaging in; it’s sophomoric point-scoring.
Because we’re not that stupid though I’m sure it hurts your narrative. Taxes need to be finely tuned and not thrown about willy nilly. We can’t and do not want regressive taxes that hog tie the poor. The kind of taxation we want/need is getting corporate and private funds out of off-shore accounts. Have those companies with the greatest profits actually pay their damn taxes, instead of me, a person on disability, having to pay more than they do which is the case many times.
We’re headed into a terrible oligarchy and it’s because Republicans don’t want to pay taxes, nor their fair share. So get with the program dude and realize there’s nuance.
If there are any studies done by experts that show the likely effect on the global economy of a massive tax on carbon, could you point me to them? I don’t disagree global warming is a problem. I was remarking that I have not seen such studies ever cited. So when we see revolts like this one, it should not surprise us.
Noted far left organization Citi Group.
https://ir.citi.com/hsq32Jl1m4aIzicMqH8sBkPnbsqfnwy4Jgb1J2kIPYWIw5eM8yD3FY9VbGpK%2Baax
No, Horace, I won’t play that stupid game. If you’re ignorant of the state of affairs with respect to economic analyses of carbon taxes of various size, then you should stop making ignorant pronouncements about them until you actually bother to learn something about them.
This report does mention that the coal industry would be devastated, but doesn’t go into the economic effects of that. Do those jobs just go away happily? Does the economy crash, does unemployment soar? Where? I don’t dispute the report’s findings that action should be taken, although this report is from 2015 and the IPCC’s most recent urgent recommendations are from 2018. Citi is outstripped because the experts are now calling for more urgent action than what appears in this report from 2015.
These are important questions unless you want what is happening in Paris to happen here.
Oh god no, please don’t put those coal miners out of work! I mean what’s next, buggy whip makers out of business?! WON’T SOMEONE THINK OF THE BUGGY WHIP MAKERS?!
I think if you are going to do it, you need to consider the economic effects of doing it or you end up with riots like Paris and a breakdown of social order.
If we are scared to enact laws that would result in riots in Paris, then we will enact no laws at all.
Which of these is true?
- That you have already read this report before, and are familiar with all 132 of its pages, so that you are able to comment with authority and accuracy about what it does and does not say; or
- You have never seen it before, and in the 11 minutes between when it was posted and you made this reply, you read all 132 pages so that you could comment with authority and accuracy about what it does and does not say; or
- You are full of shit?
Are there any bettors?
A strange response, since by not answering my objection to the report, you reveal that I’m either correct, or that you are the one who has no idea what’s in the report. I am familiar with other Citi reports on global warming and their interests in cornering some related investment markets, and looked through this one and found only a fleeting reference to impact on coal workers.
I gotta say, it’s mildly entertaining that this douchenozzle likes to style himself as a departed philosopher. Hegelian no more, the internet births HoraceMann(225) anew.
I like that you resort to grade-school level taunts and are presumably a grown adult. Pathetic.
Again you are talking to the wrong person. I did not offer the report, and I make no claim to expertise about its content. I’m the one who thinks you’re playing a juvenile game here, and to the extent that I reply to you at all, it is with the intent of demonstrating that. Which page of the report did you read in your 11 minutes? I assume you clicked the link, went to the table of contents, flipped to one page, scanned it, and then started composing your learned response to it. Go you!
Impact assessment for revised EU emissions trading scheme.
Study of negative impacts of carbon pricing on food security
I mean, I could go on, there’s lots of this stuff.
Also, too: This has to be gman, right?
I mean, I spend some free time here to learn from my betters, and occasionally engage with them, but feel free to wait out your “quiet time-outs” and continue to spray shit all over the floor when you have the chance.
Food security is not what I’m talking about. Did you read these reports? Can you summarize their conclusions on the economic effects of tossing hundreds of thousands of jobs and upending an entire industry? Because these don’t appear to be about that at all.