Never read any of his reviews or advice because he was so blindly biased. He mentions a failed Apple handheld device for its for AI innovation but then fails to mention all the original devices Apple stole their ideas from? iPod? Why not the Creative Nomad. Utterly biased until the end.
Taxation will never equate to a 1:1 reduction of the externality to imposing a penalty on Americans. There is an inherent dead weight loss to all taxation. Were we to assume that there is a immediate tangible negative externality, which is not the theory of anthropogenic climate change, then my solution would be a flat tax type situation because it has the least reliance on variance and avoidability. For there to be a negative eternality it has to be tangible, or if I were to agree that it could be intangible it would have to be happening soon. Were we to not impose your recommended carbon penalty then GDP would be higher and thus we'd have better technology tomorrow or more of our larger economy to invest in a new technology to circumvent disaster. But climate change is a natural occurrence and carbon is a positive part of vegetation growth so anthropogenic climate change is a disputed and unlikely theory.
Now you know why the Tea Party exists. The American populace grew tired of the government choosing winner and losers. The oil subsidies that are always harped about aren't truly subsidies anyway. They are tax credits and the tax credits, different from actual subsidies given to renewable energy, are to not tax oil companies on phantom revenue. Phantom revenue is when you earn a profit on paper but not actually earn it because of depleted oil fields.
You'd have to believe this article is true and not inventing false ideological choices to pose that question. Go ahead and figure out for yourself if there is a void between portions of the Republican party that believe in personal freedom, avoidance of government intervention, and autonomy. Or read my rebuttal of this fake article below in the comments.
That is uneducated, false, and inefficient answer. Very rarely are economists suggesting you manipulate the economy to impose intangible costs on a moderately-efficient market. No conservative economist and practically no moderate economist would ever suggest increasing the risk of ruining a market that is working for an unrealized gain. Carbon taxes affect the poor more than the rich because poor people pay a larger amount of their income to energy costs than the rich. And you want to increase their costs more with a carbon tax for an unproven hypothesis?
Take it this way mate: It's either you start thinking on implementing an efficient green economy or you will have to learn German and Chinese;)
This easy.
Big Oil? Well, our local Shell and BP are big players in the renewable game too. And recall that Germany is still Germany.
Or thinking better about it... I think I will support you teabaggers: At the end of the day it's cash for us;) We just need to be quicker than the Chinese.
I have no idea why you consider it a foregone conclusion that the United States will be forced into upending its energy economy to support solar.
But lets take your hypothesis that Germany and the Chinese force every other irrelevant country into solar energy, since you stated the Chinese and Germany are big solar players and you had no initial consideration that other renewable energies exist.That means the United States is the only country left demanding, and using cheap fossil fuels. That's great news for the U.S. because lowered demand for fossil fuels will reduce the cost and further increase the United States GDP relative to all the other countries forced to use less efficient solar. Re-purposing Malthus' theory that our increased GDP now will grow our economy and allow us to more easily research other renewables should we ever be forced to need them in the future. This will give us an additional edge compared to the stagnant economies forced into less efficient energy.
Propelled by growing strain of global warming denial within their party, Republicans in Congress have proposed to slash funding for renewable energy programs in half this year, and mocked the idea of a green economy as “groovy” liberal propaganda.
Actually its covered under the economist Bastiat's Broken Window Princicple. Essentially, the green economy was explained to create jobs and increase GDP. Since its actually just creating inefficient rebalancing of the economy its hurting the economy more than the most efficient distribution of labor.
Their argument, as laid out by House Republicans and libertarian organs like the Cato Institute and Reason magazine, is that the federal government shouldn't 'pick winners and losers' in the energy markets..... The assumption has always been that, without heavy government subsidies, renewable energy sources like solar and wind power would never be able to compete with fossil fuels. True, that is the policy of libertarians and the reason libertarians believe in this is because the people most affected by inefficient and expensive renewable energy are the poor. Whenever the costs of implementing expensive energy are put onto the power companies the cost is deferred to the users, mandated or not, this affects the poor with higher energy costs more than any other group.
The price of photovoltaic panels has fallen 62 percent since January 2011. Once considered a boutique energy source, solar power has become a cost-competitive alternative for many consumers, costing an average $143 per megawatt-hour, down from $236 in the beginning of 2011. Maybe math is hard but this is still more expensive than coal or natural gas (which market forces are decreasing the cost of sans government interference) and consumers are going to have to pay for the difference. And where does this money go? To Non-American solar array producers instead of jobs in natural gas or coal in the United States, further reducing employment and skilled labor jobs for the poor or lower middle class.
Backed by powerful conservative groups, public utilities in several states are now pushing to curb the solar industry, and asking regulators to raise fees and impose new restrictions on solar customers.
Ok this is the statement that forced me to comment because it is so false and manipulative. The only way Public Utilities could curb solar companies is to ask them to compete equally in the market with other forms of energy. They are not moving to ban solar imports as this makes it sound, Republicans are simply trying to give consumers the lowest cost of basic energy. Consumers can decide for themselves if they want to purchase their own solar arrays for their homes. Additionally, its generally the rich who qualify for solar array subsidies on their homes and electric car credits at the expense of the middle class and the poor to fund rich people's energy savings.
And as more people turn to rooftop solar as a way to reduce energy costs—90,000 businesses and homeowners installed panels last year, up 46 percent from 2011—the issue is pitting pro-utilities Republicans against this fledgling movement of libertarian-minded activists who see independent power generation as an individual right. In other words, the fight over solar power is raging within the GOP itself." Otherwise known as Republicans who are under the sway of Environmental lobbyists at the expense of the poor or Libertarians who want the free market to compete for the lowest cost energy for consumers. I agree a natural monopoly occurs with something like a utlity company and therefore some government regulation and oversight is neccesary. But the government oversight committees should be working in the best interest of their customers, the taxpayers, to provide the lowest cost energy to them. They are not supposed to be activists raising the cost of energy for the poor to further lobbyists and the rich's goals of providing cheap energy to the rich on the back of the poor.
As an accountant I disagree with everything you said. We use more powerful tax software that does very little other than simple mathematical calculations, collate data, and file in the correct IRS format. We are not using Turbotax or any Turbotax equivalent. In actuality we appreciate simple tax software for consumers because they have to come to us when something is wrong like the example before. Spending one day to learn what I spend my whole year doing will not minimize your tax liability. If so I have a one day crash course to become a modern artist or a lawyer.
A part of me is dying to learn why the heck you know that. Another part really, really, really does not want to know.
The strain on our Federal budget and perpetual deficit due to things like duck penii studies? Or the duck penii shape in general? I read about the shape of their penii from the Daily Beast and I care about how much was spent on researching them because I get the impression from this anecdote and many others how bad we are at controlling waste, pork, and fraud.
This is for just the one study. There were others in the same field. And yes I read and linked to a Daily Beast article to explode your brain about people who care enough to look into the Federal Budget.
They are corkscrewed. Taxpayers paid millions of dollars to study them. Luckily I think the United States government has a national interest in their study because we got screwed.
I can attest that a 3 to a 4.4 is a sleep-through earthquake. On the other hand fracking is bring down the price of natural gas and helping poor people so the cost to benefit ratio is in fracking's favor.
RE:RE:(e) I take a cross-philosophy point of view. Nature is free market. The invisible hand is cruel but balanced and nuanced in ways we cannot completely measure and understand. One of my favorite economists is Bastiat and I refer to him constantly on this website for government solution answers. Other than Bastiat's broken window hypothesis he also supposed that there are immeasurable reactions to any government imposed alterations to the free market. One time on this website I mentioned Newton's Law of Equal and Opposite Reaction but people got mad at that. But I digress, any short term or measurable benefit from government interventions or distortions of the free market can be just as beneficial from not ruining the perfect balance.
Confession: Dependent on criteria I don't think anyone should receive redistributive income based on relative wealth. I think there are cases necessary based on a minimal level of criteria of disability. There are companies such as Skilcraft that work with a significant amount of people with disabilities to improve their confidence and provide them with earned income. Social Security and Unemployment are forms of insurance and retirement funds that are paid into. Incentivizing work and allowing government provided Federal benefits is a minimal evil. Yes, we are on tangents and I will try and answer/respond to your other points later.
First I'd like to thank you for logical and level-headed arguments against my arguments. I will try and treat you with the same level of respect. I think your tactic of questioning is adding to the discourse instead of the normal taking away that happens here.
(a)If your active goal is to help the poor receive medical care, which is a moral goal, than knowingly reducing the effectiveness of your solution to supplant your goal with one of single-payer healthcare hurts your solution. Its immoral to knowingly hurt the poor's healthcare to offer universal coverage. Omnipresent bureaucracy inherent in a single-payer system allows those who dictate the rules to unilaterally subvert them. This favors the rich over the poor.
(b)Universality in a single payer system means you're only adding those who had previously afforded healthcare on their own to the previously poor-only government run healthcare. Sure there is a middle class. But they had previously had the earnings to pay for their healthcare.
(c) Single-Payer systems reduce costs two ways, through rationing or raising taxes. Raising taxes has the detrimental effect on the economy and employment. Rationing cares seems to always happen to the poor and never the rich, hence why its immoral. But since you've incentived the overuse of healthcare with below equilibrium expenses to patients you will always have cost overruns. Additionally, bureaucracies are horrible at placing blame so if there is mistakes, cost overruns, of inefficiencies there is no incentive to fix them.
(d) You are mixing two economic principles. Rationing is created through government interference in a market for political reasons. Rationing never happens in a market based economy because the marginal unit price can always be changed. If one unit of healthcare is available then people will bid for that last unit. Everyone who is willing to pay it will pay it. So in a free-market that is shifting equilibrium and will be temporary because the higher price paid will increase the amount of trained medical professionals. In a single-payer system there is no incentive to educate additional people because that increases costs and the cost might be more than the intangible cost of just rationing care. Regardless it refutes your point (c) because you can't increase supply to meet below market price demand. You will never reach equilibrium.
(e) I agree that the free market works for the betterment of humans. Single-Payer systems are the exact opposite because you are taking away the freedom of the individual and bestowing those freedoms and responsibilities on the government. Governments are inherently corrupt because you are centralizing power. If only one man in a village has a death ray then that man is the ruler.
No, your claim that administrative costs are orders of magnitude less than the U.S. . I want to see that. Billing is done through the Tax Collection department regardless.
I thought I just did? Adding rich people to the queue dilutes the quality of care for seniors, disabled, poor, and children. Singe-Payer systems rely on giving care at below market rates, incentivizing use. Rationing care comes into play. Do you think rich people won't find a way to receive more of that rationed healthcare than they need? If you want to help the poor, help the poor. But roping in the other 80% of people to help the poor fails to meet any efficiency test.
Would you say the "Management" Costs of Great Britain's Single-Payer System are: a) Minimal and fair b)More than they probably should be compensated for a fair and equitable system
If you answered b than you are correct. Wait? Doesn't that mean that it doesn't matter which economic system we use cronies will find a way to pay themselves too much? Gee, that sounds like an inherent problem anthropologically not economically.
Yeah, Because their GDP is #1? Part of the reason our economy is double that of other countries is because of the 50 years we did not have a single-payer system while other countries did. During that time we invented CAT Scans, artifical hearts, DNA sequencing. Single-Payer systems have so much cost overruns they have to ration healthcare while we invest more in medical research. Our medical research would stagnate if the government would nationalize medicine. Our military? That'd have to go too to shoulder the new cost of a single payer system. Why do you think all our allies count on us for military defense and research?
And the amount of people on SNAP is increasing, therefore inflating faster above the cost of other important government programs. Don't state the solution without the problem.
Single-payer is immoral simply from a realistic point of view. Medicare is bad but increasing the size of the cattle yard with richer people reduces the quality of care for poor people. Under single-payer systems the cost of healthcare is below market equilibrium so people use it more than they truly need. If you truly want poor people to receive medical services for cheap or free reduce the quantity that receive it to just those who need it.
Slashdot Mirror
Never read any of his reviews or advice because he was so blindly biased. He mentions a failed Apple handheld device for its for AI innovation but then fails to mention all the original devices Apple stole their ideas from? iPod? Why not the Creative Nomad. Utterly biased until the end.
Taxation will never equate to a 1:1 reduction of the externality to imposing a penalty on Americans. There is an inherent dead weight loss to all taxation. Were we to assume that there is a immediate tangible negative externality, which is not the theory of anthropogenic climate change, then my solution would be a flat tax type situation because it has the least reliance on variance and avoidability.
For there to be a negative eternality it has to be tangible, or if I were to agree that it could be intangible it would have to be happening soon. Were we to not impose your recommended carbon penalty then GDP would be higher and thus we'd have better technology tomorrow or more of our larger economy to invest in a new technology to circumvent disaster. But climate change is a natural occurrence and carbon is a positive part of vegetation growth so anthropogenic climate change is a disputed and unlikely theory.
Now you know why the Tea Party exists. The American populace grew tired of the government choosing winner and losers. The oil subsidies that are always harped about aren't truly subsidies anyway. They are tax credits and the tax credits, different from actual subsidies given to renewable energy, are to not tax oil companies on phantom revenue. Phantom revenue is when you earn a profit on paper but not actually earn it because of depleted oil fields.
You'd have to believe this article is true and not inventing false ideological choices to pose that question. Go ahead and figure out for yourself if there is a void between portions of the Republican party that believe in personal freedom, avoidance of government intervention, and autonomy. Or read my rebuttal of this fake article below in the comments.
That is uneducated, false, and inefficient answer. Very rarely are economists suggesting you manipulate the economy to impose intangible costs on a moderately-efficient market. No conservative economist and practically no moderate economist would ever suggest increasing the risk of ruining a market that is working for an unrealized gain. Carbon taxes affect the poor more than the rich because poor people pay a larger amount of their income to energy costs than the rich. And you want to increase their costs more with a carbon tax for an unproven hypothesis?
Err, yes, nice.
But Angela Merkel doesn't seem to think the same.
Take it this way mate: It's either you start thinking on implementing an efficient green economy or you will have to learn German and Chinese ;)
This easy.
Big Oil? Well, our local Shell and BP are big players in the renewable game too. And recall that Germany is still Germany.
Or thinking better about it... I think I will support you teabaggers: At the end of the day it's cash for us ;) We just need to be quicker than the Chinese.
I have no idea why you consider it a foregone conclusion that the United States will be forced into upending its energy economy to support solar.
But lets take your hypothesis that Germany and the Chinese force every other irrelevant country into solar energy, since you stated the Chinese and Germany are big solar players and you had no initial consideration that other renewable energies exist.That means the United States is the only country left demanding, and using cheap fossil fuels. That's great news for the U.S. because lowered demand for fossil fuels will reduce the cost and further increase the United States GDP relative to all the other countries forced to use less efficient solar. Re-purposing Malthus' theory that our increased GDP now will grow our economy and allow us to more easily research other renewables should we ever be forced to need them in the future. This will give us an additional edge compared to the stagnant economies forced into less efficient energy.
Propelled by growing strain of global warming denial within their party, Republicans in Congress have proposed to slash funding for renewable energy programs in half this year, and mocked the idea of a green economy as “groovy” liberal propaganda.
..... The assumption has always been that, without heavy government subsidies, renewable energy sources like solar and wind power would never be able to compete with fossil fuels.
Actually its covered under the economist Bastiat's Broken Window Princicple. Essentially, the green economy was explained to create jobs and increase GDP. Since its actually just creating inefficient rebalancing of the economy its hurting the economy more than the most efficient distribution of labor.
Their argument, as laid out by House Republicans and libertarian organs like the Cato Institute and Reason magazine, is that the federal government shouldn't 'pick winners and losers' in the energy markets
True, that is the policy of libertarians and the reason libertarians believe in this is because the people most affected by inefficient and expensive renewable energy are the poor. Whenever the costs of implementing expensive energy are put onto the power companies the cost is deferred to the users, mandated or not, this affects the poor with higher energy costs more than any other group.
The price of photovoltaic panels has fallen 62 percent since January 2011. Once considered a boutique energy source, solar power has become a cost-competitive alternative for many consumers, costing an average $143 per megawatt-hour, down from $236 in the beginning of 2011.
Maybe math is hard but this is still more expensive than coal or natural gas (which market forces are decreasing the cost of sans government interference) and consumers are going to have to pay for the difference. And where does this money go? To Non-American solar array producers instead of jobs in natural gas or coal in the United States, further reducing employment and skilled labor jobs for the poor or lower middle class.
Backed by powerful conservative groups, public utilities in several states are now pushing to curb the solar industry, and asking regulators to raise fees and impose new restrictions on solar customers.
Ok this is the statement that forced me to comment because it is so false and manipulative. The only way Public Utilities could curb solar companies is to ask them to compete equally in the market with other forms of energy. They are not moving to ban solar imports as this makes it sound, Republicans are simply trying to give consumers the lowest cost of basic energy. Consumers can decide for themselves if they want to purchase their own solar arrays for their homes. Additionally, its generally the rich who qualify for solar array subsidies on their homes and electric car credits at the expense of the middle class and the poor to fund rich people's energy savings.
And as more people turn to rooftop solar as a way to reduce energy costs—90,000 businesses and homeowners installed panels last year, up 46 percent from 2011—the issue is pitting pro-utilities Republicans against this fledgling movement of libertarian-minded activists who see independent power generation as an individual right. In other words, the fight over solar power is raging within the GOP itself."
Otherwise known as Republicans who are under the sway of Environmental lobbyists at the expense of the poor or Libertarians who want the free market to compete for the lowest cost energy for consumers. I agree a natural monopoly occurs with something like a utlity company and therefore some government regulation and oversight is neccesary. But the government oversight committees should be working in the best interest of their customers, the taxpayers, to provide the lowest cost energy to them. They are not supposed to be activists raising the cost of energy for the poor to further lobbyists and the rich's goals of providing cheap energy to the rich on the back of the poor.
As an accountant I disagree with everything you said. We use more powerful tax software that does very little other than simple mathematical calculations, collate data, and file in the correct IRS format. We are not using Turbotax or any Turbotax equivalent. In actuality we appreciate simple tax software for consumers because they have to come to us when something is wrong like the example before. Spending one day to learn what I spend my whole year doing will not minimize your tax liability. If so I have a one day crash course to become a modern artist or a lawyer.
A part of me is dying to learn why the heck you know that. Another part really, really, really does not want to know.
The strain on our Federal budget and perpetual deficit due to things like duck penii studies? Or the duck penii shape in general? I read about the shape of their penii from the Daily Beast and I care about how much was spent on researching them because I get the impression from this anecdote and many others how bad we are at controlling waste, pork, and fraud.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/25/yes-we-should-study-duck-penises.html
This is for just the one study. There were others in the same field. And yes I read and linked to a Daily Beast article to explode your brain about people who care enough to look into the Federal Budget.
They are corkscrewed. Taxpayers paid millions of dollars to study them. Luckily I think the United States government has a national interest in their study because we got screwed.
John McAfee
I certainly want Elop in charge. It will bolster Linux development immensely.
I can attest that a 3 to a 4.4 is a sleep-through earthquake. On the other hand fracking is bring down the price of natural gas and helping poor people so the cost to benefit ratio is in fracking's favor.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/03/viasat-exede-review/
RE:RE:(e) I take a cross-philosophy point of view. Nature is free market. The invisible hand is cruel but balanced and nuanced in ways we cannot completely measure and understand. One of my favorite economists is Bastiat and I refer to him constantly on this website for government solution answers. Other than Bastiat's broken window hypothesis he also supposed that there are immeasurable reactions to any government imposed alterations to the free market. One time on this website I mentioned Newton's Law of Equal and Opposite Reaction but people got mad at that. But I digress, any short term or measurable benefit from government interventions or distortions of the free market can be just as beneficial from not ruining the perfect balance.
Confession: Dependent on criteria I don't think anyone should receive redistributive income based on relative wealth. I think there are cases necessary based on a minimal level of criteria of disability. There are companies such as Skilcraft that work with a significant amount of people with disabilities to improve their confidence and provide them with earned income. Social Security and Unemployment are forms of insurance and retirement funds that are paid into. Incentivizing work and allowing government provided Federal benefits is a minimal evil. Yes, we are on tangents and I will try and answer/respond to your other points later.
First I'd like to thank you for logical and level-headed arguments against my arguments. I will try and treat you with the same level of respect. I think your tactic of questioning is adding to the discourse instead of the normal taking away that happens here.
(a)If your active goal is to help the poor receive medical care, which is a moral goal, than knowingly reducing the effectiveness of your solution to supplant your goal with one of single-payer healthcare hurts your solution. Its immoral to knowingly hurt the poor's healthcare to offer universal coverage. Omnipresent bureaucracy inherent in a single-payer system allows those who dictate the rules to unilaterally subvert them. This favors the rich over the poor.
(b)Universality in a single payer system means you're only adding those who had previously afforded healthcare on their own to the previously poor-only government run healthcare. Sure there is a middle class. But they had previously had the earnings to pay for their healthcare.
(c) Single-Payer systems reduce costs two ways, through rationing or raising taxes. Raising taxes has the detrimental effect on the economy and employment. Rationing cares seems to always happen to the poor and never the rich, hence why its immoral. But since you've incentived the overuse of healthcare with below equilibrium expenses to patients you will always have cost overruns. Additionally, bureaucracies are horrible at placing blame so if there is mistakes, cost overruns, of inefficiencies there is no incentive to fix them.
(d) You are mixing two economic principles. Rationing is created through government interference in a market for political reasons. Rationing never happens in a market based economy because the marginal unit price can always be changed. If one unit of healthcare is available then people will bid for that last unit. Everyone who is willing to pay it will pay it. So in a free-market that is shifting equilibrium and will be temporary because the higher price paid will increase the amount of trained medical professionals. In a single-payer system there is no incentive to educate additional people because that increases costs and the cost might be more than the intangible cost of just rationing care. Regardless it refutes your point (c) because you can't increase supply to meet below market price demand. You will never reach equilibrium.
(e) I agree that the free market works for the betterment of humans. Single-Payer systems are the exact opposite because you are taking away the freedom of the individual and bestowing those freedoms and responsibilities on the government. Governments are inherently corrupt because you are centralizing power. If only one man in a village has a death ray then that man is the ruler.
No, your claim that administrative costs are orders of magnitude less than the U.S. . I want to see that. Billing is done through the Tax Collection department regardless.
Proof or didn't happen
I thought I just did? Adding rich people to the queue dilutes the quality of care for seniors, disabled, poor, and children. Singe-Payer systems rely on giving care at below market rates, incentivizing use. Rationing care comes into play. Do you think rich people won't find a way to receive more of that rationed healthcare than they need? If you want to help the poor, help the poor. But roping in the other 80% of people to help the poor fails to meet any efficiency test.
Would you say the "Management" Costs of Great Britain's Single-Payer System are:
a) Minimal and fair
b)More than they probably should be compensated for a fair and equitable system
If you answered b than you are correct. Wait? Doesn't that mean that it doesn't matter which economic system we use cronies will find a way to pay themselves too much? Gee, that sounds like an inherent problem anthropologically not economically.
Yeah, Because their GDP is #1? Part of the reason our economy is double that of other countries is because of the 50 years we did not have a single-payer system while other countries did. During that time we invented CAT Scans, artifical hearts, DNA sequencing. Single-Payer systems have so much cost overruns they have to ration healthcare while we invest more in medical research. Our medical research would stagnate if the government would nationalize medicine. Our military? That'd have to go too to shoulder the new cost of a single payer system. Why do you think all our allies count on us for military defense and research?
And the amount of people on SNAP is increasing, therefore inflating faster above the cost of other important government programs. Don't state the solution without the problem.
Single-payer is immoral simply from a realistic point of view. Medicare is bad but increasing the size of the cattle yard with richer people reduces the quality of care for poor people. Under single-payer systems the cost of healthcare is below market equilibrium so people use it more than they truly need. If you truly want poor people to receive medical services for cheap or free reduce the quantity that receive it to just those who need it.