[stanlas]

(Original post by internetguru)
It would only increase the price on our exports if internal productivity did not increase. But that would not happen as demand grows so does production.

The price of our exports would go up with protectionist policies. Minor improvements in productivity would not outweigh the damage done to our competivity from increasing the cost of imported materials.

Just read the OECD 'Trade Policy And the Economic crisis' report; one dollar in tarrifs leads to a 66 cents fall in GDP. Or if you don't like the OECD, read some WTO reports on the subject. Or in fact, any decent economic report on it.

Care to cite any evidence which shows that protectionism has a positive economic impact?

[internetguru]

(Original post by stanlas)
The price of our exports would go up with protectionist policies. Minor improvements in productivity would not outweigh the damage done to our competivity from increasing the cost of imported materials.

Just read the OECD 'Trade Policy And the Economic crisis' report; one dollar in tarrifs leads to a 66 cents fall in GDP. Or if you don't like the OECD, read some WTO reports on the subject. Or in fact, any decent economic report on it.

Care to cite any evidence which shows that protectionism has a positive economic impact?

Exactly interfering in free markets always leads to negative outcomes. This is why we should not do this it artificially increases demand for nuclear power who no doubt would be lobbying for carbon emission taxes like crazy.

[stanlas]

(Original post by internetguru)
Exactly interfering in free markets always leads to negative outcomes. This is why we should not do this it artificially increases demand for nuclear power who no doubt would be lobbying for carbon emission taxes like crazy.

Not every intervention has the same scale. The carbon tax intervention would be relatively mild intervention, as the net revenue is just over 2 billion. A tax on foreign goods, as you suggested earlier, would be a disastrous one.

The two cases are also different in their effects. The carbon tax would damage internal competivity a bit on the one hand, but on the other it would also help the environment and help shape our economy for future years (as fossil fuels will eventually run out; we should start making the transition now, before its too late); it also makes sense from an international perspective, as our emissions per capita are high. The tax on foreign goods on the other hand, just harms competivity; there are no associated benefits from it.

[internetguru]

(Original post by stanlas)
Not every intervention has the same scale. The carbon tax intervention would be relatively mild intervention, as the net revenue is just over 2 billion. A tax on foreign goods, as you suggested earlier, would be a disastrous one.

The two cases are also different in their effects. The carbon tax would damage internal competivity a bit on the one hand, but on the other it would also help the environment and help shape our economy for future years (as fossil fuels will eventually run out; we should start making the transition now, before its too late); it also makes sense from an international perspective, as our emissions per capita are high. The tax on foreign goods on the other hand, just harms competivity; there are no associated benefits from it.

This is just completely stupid we will move to non fossil fuels when it becomes more cost efficient to not use them. So the idea that we will suddenly be thrown in at the deep end without fuel is ridiculous and shows how out of touch you are with reality. You and the green lobbyists are as bad as the war lobbyists always talking about how the world will end unless you do this. Let consumers decide the path of our economy not suits in a room.

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by internetguru)
This is just completely stupid we will move to non fossil fuels when it becomes more cost efficient to not use them. So the idea that we will suddenly be thrown in at the deep end without fuel is ridiculous and shows how out of touch you are with reality. You and the green lobbyists are as bad as the war lobbyists always talking about how the world will end unless you do this. Let consumers decide the path of our economy not suits in a room.

Yes, we'll move to them when it's cost efficient, but should the true cost (societal and beneficial) not be included in that cost? Carbon emission impose a cost on everyone else, and that cost should be included in the price when individuals are making decisions. No?

[internetguru]

(Original post by jesusandtequila)
Yes, we'll move to them when it's cost efficient, but should the true cost (societal and beneficial) not be included in that cost? Carbon emission impose a cost on everyone else, and that cost should be included in the price when individuals are making decisions. No?

The idea that carbon taxes in the UK will prevent worldwide global warming is laughable.

[stanlas]

(Original post by internetguru)
This is just completely stupid we will move to non fossil fuels when it becomes more cost efficient to not use them. So the idea that we will suddenly be thrown in at the deep end without fuel is ridiculous and shows how out of touch you are with reality. You and the green lobbyists are as bad as the war lobbyists always talking about how the world will end unless you do this. Let consumers decide the path of our economy not suits in a room.

You make a completely reasonable argument here. However, from my point of few there are a couple of flaws in it. The first is about consumers always knowing 'what is best.' They know what is best for them individually in the short term; unfortunately, that is not always the same as as knowing what is best for humanity in general in the long term. At the moment, polluting energy is cheaper; if we let consumers chose and have no interference in it, then they will chose to continue using polluting energy. Unfortunately, in the long term the accumulated effects of CO2 pollution will have a devestating impact on the environment, and consequently on the economy. We have to think beyond what is good for the next couple of years; think about what the world will be like in 2050, or even 2100 if we continue like the present.

Secondly, I never said that fossil fuels would suddenly disappear, only that they would. And while they will disappear over a long period of time, don't forget this: building a green economy also takes time, perhaps even decades. We will need renewable energy generation capacity, well insulated homes, smart grids and so on. That takes time, and we should start building these today, not in the distant future when it will be too late.

[internetguru]

(Original post by stanlas)
You make a completely reasonable argument here. However, from my point of few there are a couple of flaws in it. The first is about consumers always knowing 'what is best.' They know what is best for them individually in the short term; unfortunately, that is not always the same as as knowing what is best for humanity in general in the long term. At the moment, polluting energy is cheaper; if we let consumers chose and have no interference in it, then they will chose to continue using polluting energy. Unfortunately, in the long term the accumulated effects of CO2 pollution will have a devestating impact on the environment, and consequently on the economy. We have to think beyond what is good for the next couple of years; think about what the world will be like in 2050, or even 2100 if we continue like the present.

Secondly, I never said that fossil fuels would suddenly disapear, only that they would. And while they will disapear over a long period of time, don't forget this: building a green economy also takes time, perhaps even decades. We will need renewable energy generation capacity, well insulated homes, smart grids and so on. That takes time, and we should start building these today, not in the distant future when it will be too late.

Or we could do nothing and see what happens. Who wants a boring world of peace and nothing changing when we can have one of excitement and unpredictability.

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by internetguru)
The idea that carbon taxes in the UK will prevent worldwide global warming is laughable.

So you don't disagree? Good. I think it's better to be taxing a bad in the UK to raise revenue rather than a good (value added). You disagree? Of course this would be better if implemented everywhere - but for the UK alone it is a positive thing.

[internetguru]

(Original post by jesusandtequila)
So you don't disagree? Good. I think it's better to be taxing a bad in the UK to raise revenue rather than a good (value added). You disagree? Of course this would be better if implemented everywhere - but for the UK alone it is a positive thing.

I would prefer to just cut spending. Unfortunately on MHoC there is no sort of budget or anything to go by so we actually have historically low taxes and massive spending. If this was real life we would have defaulted by now.

[stanlas]

(Original post by internetguru)
Or we could do nothing and see what happens. Who wants a boring world of peace and nothing changing when we can have one of excitement and unpredictability.

Excitement? Seriously?

If you want to see more tropical storms and hurricanes, then by all means vote against this Bill and await the 'excitement'. If you find the looming extinction of between 15 to 37 percent of known plant and animal species ‘exciting,’ then again I urge you to vote against this Bill. If you see melting ice caps and rising sea levels as ‘exciting,’ then a vote against this Bill would be sensible.

Global warming is a serious issue. It is one that will affect each and every one of us, no matter which country or continent we live on. It is a collective threat to humanity, one we must try and deal with. And therefore I urge all those who do not find any of the aforementioned scenarios ‘exciting’ to vote for this Bill, and work towards a more stable future.

[internetguru]

(Original post by stanlas)
Excitement? Seriously?

If you want to see more tropical storms and hurricanes, then by all means vote against this Bill and await the 'excitement'. If you find the looming extinction of between 15 to 37 percent of known plant and animal species ‘exciting,’ then again I urge you to vote against this Bill. If you see melting ice caps and rising sea levels as ‘exciting,’ then a vote against this Bill would be sensible.

Global warming is a serious issue. It is one that will affect each and every one of us, no matter which country or continent we live on. It is a collective threat to humanity, one we must try and deal with. And therefore I urge all those who do not find any of the aforementioned scenarios ‘exciting’ to vote for this Bill, and work towards a more stable future.

You are as bad as the crazy religious people saying the rapture is coming. Come back with some evidence that human carbon emissions are to blame rather than reduction in tree and plant life. Then show me the figures that show that this tax in the UK will prevent global warming.

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by internetguru)
I would prefer to just cut spending. Unfortunately on MHoC there is no sort of budget or anything to go by so we actually have historically low taxes and massive spending. If this was real life we would have defaulted by now.

Is that so? Actually - in the MHoC we provide detailed costings and indeed they are demanded by the House in order to avoid specifically this. I think a tax on a negative externality is a positively good thing - those that impose costs on others should pay for that imposed cost. Sure, much of it can be sorted out with property rights - but not where the losers are dispersed in such a manner.

If I calculate correctly, we're actually in a healthier fiscal position than RL UK. We just heavily tax land (thank you, Libertarians) instead of other things.

[internetguru]

(Original post by jesusandtequila)
Is that so? Actually - in the MHoC we provide detailed costings and indeed they are demanded by the House in order to avoid specifically this. I think a tax on a negative externality is a positively good thing - those that impose costs on others should pay for that imposed cost. Sure, much of it can be sorted out with property rights - but not where the losers are dispersed in such a manner.

If I calculate correctly, we're actually in a healthier fiscal position than RL UK. We just heavily tax land (thank you, Libertarians) instead of other things.

Unfortunately any calculations on here are incorrect. We do not have a changing economy so unlike real life where land prices would go down thus reducing the tax income from it this is not on MHoC.

[stanlas]

(Original post by internetguru)
You are as bad as the crazy religious people saying the rapture is coming.

I understand your sentiment, as my last post may seem excessively serious to some. However, as I also mentioned, this is a very serious matter, and should not be dealt with lightly

(Original post by internetguru)
Come back with some evidence that human carbon emissions are to blame rather than reduction in tree and plant life.

The link between rising CO2 levels and rising global temperatures has already been established; for example, the Club of Rome think tank estimates that temperatures will rise by 2 degrees by 2053 due to CO2 increases. And it is sufficient to look at any grapth measuring CO2 levels to see that there has been a huge increase since the industrial revolution began.

(Original post by internetguru)
Then show me the figures that show that this tax in the UK will prevent global warming.

We are in the top 15 polluters in the world by total emissions, and also near the top when measured in per capita terms. So you' are right, this Bill would not prevent global warming per se. However, that does not mean that it is not a step in the right direction. Given our levels of CO2 emissions, the UK should be showing an example to the rest of the world. We cannot call for greater action on pollution from other countries if our own track record is bad.

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by internetguru)
Unfortunately any calculations on here are incorrect. We do not have a changing economy so unlike real life where land prices would go down thus reducing the tax income from it this is not on MHoC.

Except it's not based on the capital value - but the rental value, and if people read our Bills they would see that. Of course the sale value would go down but we're not so stupid to design a tax like that.

Furthermore - since it's a neutral tax (as compared to the others), you'd actually see land values shooting up (along with revenue) as we see in the places where it's been done IRL. We consistently base our calculations on the lower end of any estimate.

[internetguru]

(Original post by stanlas)

We are in the top 15 polluters in the world by total emissions, and also near the top when measured in per capita terms. So you' are right, this Bill would not prevent global warming per se. However, that does not mean that it is not a step in the right direction. Given our levels of CO2 emissions, the UK should be showing an example to the rest of the world. We cannot call for greater action on pollution from other countries if our own track record is bad.

So you are honestly saying the Americans and Chinese see the lowly UK doing this and they will be so touched that they will change their own policies? Don't be ridiculous that isn't how the world works.

[stanlas]

(Original post by internetguru)
So you are honestly saying the Americans and Chinese see the lowly UK doing this and they will be so touched that they will change their own policies? Don't be ridiculous that isn't how the world works.

There has been an increase in global co-operation over the past decades (such as the Kyoto Protocol), and I for one believe that further co-operation can be reached. Besides, we can we really afford not to at least try?

[Metrobeans]

This is in cessation.

[Metrobeans]

This has gone to a third reading.