new.morning wrote: > --- In [email protected], Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> shempmcgurk wrote: >> >>> But, Barfitu, you and the Global Warming crowd are AGAINST wanton >>> gasoline consumption. The higher the price of gas, the lower the >>> consumption and the less emission of the evil carbon into the >>> atmosphere. >>> >>> You should be cheering Bush. >>> >> The higher the price of gas the more other things like bread, plastics, >> milk, cheese, veggies, lentils, rice and on and on cost. It sets >> > off an > >> inflationary spiral. It also effects the price of services. Your >> dentist and doctor charges more. The movie theater you go to want Juno >> (over and over) starts charging more. And of course you charge your >> clients more. Up and up it goes and when it stops nobody knows? Then >> it all comes tumbling down like a wall of bricks. >> > > Yes. This is what happens as things are priced more appropriately > (even if the price change is for wrong / structural reasons). Then > everything that has an energy component changes in price sending out a > far more efficient price signal -- allowing people to change behavior > to accomodate real costs and prices. > > If the price of gas doubles (even for artificial reasons), it better > reflects the true societal cost of gas. Things that use gas become > more expensive and less attractctive. Things that use less gas become > cheaper, in relative terms, and consumers buy of it. More bicycles, > less SUVs. More fitness, less pollution and GHG. Whats not to love > with this "silent" administration. > Oh gawd, you're not one of these strident cherry bowl heads that clog the street every end of the month on Friday in SF? :D Or the ones that can't seem to stay in the bicycle lanes we local taxpayers have provided for them. How about more electric cars and ones that can go at least up to 45 mph? A local dealer sells the Gem car but those can only go up to 25 mph and folks who have them have long stopped driving them on local streets because they don't quite go fast enough. Of course if you've seen "Who Killed the Electric Car" you know the crimes behind that. > > Yea, whats not to love are all the other incorrectly priced things -- > that do not reflect full social cost -- often because of deficient, > inefficient, incomplete, or dumb regulations. > > The market does not create good price signals when there are > significant non-montetized externalities like pollution. Thus, as I > think you agree, purely free markets suck. But efficient market and > consumer response to correct prices, through regulation WHEN (and only > when) needed, is the very positive, though incomplete part of market > exonomies. > > Though Nab wants to ban this incredibly powerful silent administration > for some sort of fiat economy. Been there, done that. A room full of > of often corrupt bureaucrats setting prices across the board will > always be far inferior in terms of level and equity of economic output. > > So gas prices above $4 is GREAT NEWS. it should be $10. And instead of > filling ME and oil co coffers, a $10 price should be driven by a > income-neutral energy / carbon tax. $50/ton carbon from ALL > producers,and the revunues go to lower payroll and income taxes across > the board. > > Surely we can agree on this! :) > > You must have stopped short then of reading my next paragraph: > > >> It would be one thing if the increased price of gas was due to more >> taxes being added so more mass transit could be built and better >> highways and streets. Europeans pay more for gas because of that. But >> no this is all going into the pockets of the filthy rich. Yes, it >> Understand I give this administration no pass. A good government assists its citizens in their survival not just the corporations and the filthy rich. So the government has some accounting to do for not moving its citizens into alternative energy and a lifestyle more energy efficient. These people have failed us and need to pay the price. There is no chance of the Republicans electing a President this round. In fact I doubt if they want to. Instead they want to dump the mess they've made on a Democrat's desk. However they may run the risk of creating a new FDR in that case (which is what will probably happen).
Your economic logic sounds like that of the Austrian economist whose philosophy is almost 150 years out of date.
