Joseph Green <[email protected]> wrote: > The question you raised remains. It surprised you that the neo-liberal > s.o.b. Mankiw wrote what you seemed to you a half-decent view about what > should be done about the environment. My point is that his views on the > carbon tax and cap and trade aren't really so surprising -- what he is > advocating is a neoliberal solution; it won't work for the environment, but > it will work for the capitalists.
yup. But he showed unusual intelligence and integrity compared to his normal standards. That was my only point in the original missive in this thread. Joseph, earlier: >> > * It won't sufficiently affect carbon emissions. me: >> can't it be increased in magnitude? > I dealt with this question in my article on the carbon tax. But, for > one thing, there is every reason to believe that by the time the carbon tax > got high enough to eliminate certain sources of carbon emissions, it would > have dramatically upset the economy. Look at the results from a short stint > at $4 gallon gas in the US -- major pain while the effect on carbon emissions > was minor. well, don't you think that bringing in socialism would also "upset the economy"? Which is more likely to happen before global warming hits in a big way, socialism or a carbon tax? that said, I'd guess that a successful carbon tax under capitalism would have to be instituted by a social-democratic government. (Capitalists are really poor at regulating themselves.) Of course, we don't have anything close to social democracy at this time. The best way to get that would be to push for socialism. So the socialism vs. carbon tax opposition disappears. > Aside from that, the carbon tax > > -- doesn't in itself provide for alternatives to dirty products; yes: government-financed research is needed. The carbon tax cannot be enough. > -- its impact on the major corporations most responsible for devastating > the environment is ambiguous; yes, they would pass the cost on to us, encouraging us to cut back our demand for carbon-intensive products. By the way, I think the emphasis on "major corporations" is misplaced. Instead, the problem is the profit motive inherent in the nature of capitalist society. > -- it may have unexpected effects that themselves hurt the environment > (such as promoting the razing of every last available tree -- or remember > that during $4 gallon gas public transit declined in some areas because the > high gas price made it too expensive to run) good point. > No doubt there will be some economists that can be found that will > assure us that -- in the long run -- the invisible hand of proper market > incentives will solve all these problems. If only we could put off eating > until that time, and the atmosphere could put off reacting to greenhouse > gases until that time... I don't believe that the Invisible Hand works all the time, but if the government has the power and willingness to tax something, it almost always discourages its purchase and/or it manufacture. Look at the taxing of cigarettes, for example. It's true that its encouraged the nicotine purveyors to go global, but it has encouraged young people in the US to avoid getting addicted. By making others more sensitive to the smell of the smoke (as smoking became rarer), it's helped build up political support for stronger strictures, at least here in California. That reminds me: I would never see a "carbon tax" as the _only_ solution. >> > * It will fall with greatest weight on the workers and the poor. >> >> in theory, the revenues could be used to compensate them. > At a time when the capitalists are cutting wages, cutting social > benefits, and displaying the utmost callousness to the masses, do you really > expect that they will ensure that the workers and the poor are compensated? No I don't. But my point was that the Pigou tax on carbon _doesn't have to be_ regressive. If the working-class movement were stronger, then a Carbon tax would be a better program, since the movement would make sure that the program isn't as regressive as it would be in 2009. (That's part of the social democracy referred to earlier.) > Or even "half-decently" ensure this? This is aside from the fact that it is > actually much harder to do this then one might imagine. Oh, I get it. You thought I meant "half-decent" in the moral sense (as in "humanitarian"). In context, however, it's more a matter of decent in terms of intellectual standards. > More likely, in the name of compensating the people, there will be > increased tax cuts directed disproprortionately at the better-off. Meanwhile > some sections of the population, such as undocumented workers, will get > nothing at all as compensation -- as that would presently be politically > impossible. That's quite likely, given the balance of political power. But it's hard to blame the carbon tax for that. I'd blame the long one-sided class war by the capitalists and the weakness of the working-class response. > The left should be debunking the fairytales of the neo-liberals such > as Mankiw about how the masses will be shielded from the effects of neo- > liberal measures, not contributing to these myths. If we don't debunk the > neo-liberal myths, then how do we expect to have any credibility when the > masses see what the actual carbon tax does to them? yes, but that wasn't the purpose of my missive. I feel it's good to have a mere conversation about stuff now and then rather than simply pumping out propaganda. >> the tax is simpler, but you're right that it's complex (especially >> given the political interests pushing for exemptions, etc.) > Ah, a point of some agreement!!! I knew there was some reason why I > paid attention to your writings! <g> And I have paid attention to them and > looked at them as one way of checking out the various serious views on > various subects. thanks. > But don't you think it's possible that the carbon tax only looks > simpler because it isn't here yet? Cap and trade was pretty simple too -- so > long as it was just a gleam in the eye of a free-market economist. Maybe. But the administration costs of the tax seem much lower than for cap'n trade. (related to Cap'n Crunch?) We'll see. >> > * The belief in the wonder-working effects of Pigovian taxes is just >> > another version of the belief in the benevolent effects of the "invisible >> > hand" of market forces. >> I don't remember using the word "wonder." > That's true, you didn't. Too bad. The pretensions with which > marketplace solutions and privatization are promoted *should* be ridiculed. yes, but some ideas (almost never those of Mankiw) which come from conservatives deserve some respect because we can learn from them. For example, consider the works of Keynes or Schumpeter. -- Jim Devine / "All science would be superfluous if the form of appearance of things directly coincided with their essence." -- KM _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
