There's the problem. How did A get to own the credits in the first place? Was there some insider allocation where they were passed out at less than their market value, like a standard Wall Street IPO?
Like this: Countries agree on some distrubtion first, and then each country has an auction in which firms will bid for co2-units. That would be market value.
Some firms that have co2-units won't need it all, or co2-unit prise will suddenly go up etc., which creates opportunities for buy\selling with extra profit for all.
Creating opportunities for rents will create rent-seeking behavior as opposed to creative behavior, which is bad.
Any firm that has a scary resource will want to sell it for a good price, nothing wrong with that (especially if it's bought in an auction). Further, as mentioned, both firms will have incentives to try creative new solutions because both firms will profit on it.
If the co2-units are auctioned away, the income can be considered tax. And the market price will probably be global, since there is a global market for selling\buying it. So there is tax, but it's a more dynamic system underneath that creates less suboptimalisation.
Nevermind my last example, it was based on an early misunderstanding anyway.
We are both under the assumption that some firm is given co2-units. I havn't read the kyoto closely, so I don't know if thats really the case or if it's an auction to begin with. Anyway:
Your example:
Lets assume co2-units = 100 (owned by A).
For A: 1 co2-unit is worth $2.
For B: 1 co2-unit is worth £2,66 (2/0,75)
NO trade:
A produces 100 and has profit = 200.
B = 0 profit.
Trade:
1 co2-unit is worth 2 to a and 2,66 for B. They agree to split the "profit" and a sells 100 units for 2,33.
A produces 0. Profit $233.
B produces 100. Profit $33.
Overall profit is 266 which is $66 more than in the no trade scenario.
Also, the trade-scenario creates just as big incentives as yours when it comes to reducing the co2 with innovative technology. That's because both firms will profit more from doing so.
Try changing my example, but use gold as resource and rings as the product. The result will be the same. It will also work with cross-country trading, between industries and examples with many competitors.
It's not like that I'm saying that a co2-tax won't work, I'm saying that the overall created value is lower.
You have a point when it comes to the initial distribution of the co2-units, but hey: You can't give every industry excately the same industri-terms anyway. It's not like that now, it won't be in the future. The most important is to negotiate with all parts, and secure an agreement that everybody can accept. That would be a good start for kyoto.
Perhaps the most fair way would be:
1. Countries agree on some distribution of co2-units.
2. Authorities in each country auction away the co2-units granted at 1.
If we choose tax as the tool: How are you going to tax all producers in all countries just the same? That can't be fair, because it's going to for example bankrupt all the cement-producers in bangladesh. That's not politically acceptable either.
PS: What I meant about more pollution is this: Since not competitors = no market share takeover. And since profit > cost then probably production will be higher than 100 units. But that depends on the overall cost structure of firm, which is not defined (too complex).
You forgot the unearned $300 paid to the Japanese firm. Situation with $3/unit carbon tax:
Japanese firm's profit goes to -1$/product, and goes out of business.
American firm picks up the Japanese firm's market share, making $7/product over greater volume. Total economic output increases by $8 times the Japanese firm's former market size.
Wrong. Japeneese firm won't produce with loss. The two firms are not competitors. We are talking marginal cost here, not a full-year of production.
Elimintation of the least-efficient is no beauty, when is means elimination of the most-earning.
And by the way: It can't be monopoly because all the countries within the agreement are given co2-units. Monopoly = one country given all.
And do I even need to mention that in your example the co2-pollution is far greater? The kyoto-agreement is supposed to bring it down.
How does this excuse the creation of an international regime which has the direct consequence of paying them (more) to do it?
The initial argument was that USA shouldn't join the kyoto agreement because the system would support dictators. So there are two alternatives: 1. Support kyoto and support dictators. 2. Do not support kyoto and risk the whole world.
If you use the "expected value"-term (but about damage to world population) I think that alternative 2 way outperforms alternative 1. Alt 1 is best.
A CO2-market will make sure that the company that can make most of a co2-unit, buys it. A uniform carbon tax does that too. What is the trans-national subsidy good for?
Well, in economical theory a free market will ensure that the company/person that the co2-unit is most valuable for, get's it. This is one of the BASICS in economical theory. A tax will not have the same effect because there are no selling or buying, it's just tax.
It's the best way for the world as a whole.
Wrong. Overall consumption is higher with my alternative. You should realize that selling or buying actually creates value.
US-company "A" has spent all it's co2-units. One co2-unit can produce 1 product with a profit of 10$. Japaneese firm has 100 co2-units left, and use one unit of co2 per product, but only earns 2$ per sold product.
Alt 1: No trade. US = no profit. Japan = 2 x 100 = 200$. Alt 2: Trade. US buys 100 co2-unit for 300$. Japaneese earns 300$. US-firm earns (100 x 10) - (300) = 700$. Overall: 1000$.
dictators in impovershed nations (with little carbon emission) would have one more way to collect fees from rest of the world and continue oppressing their people. Well, it's better to be suppressed than dead, is it not?
But seriously: It's a really lousy argument. The dictators will suppress their people anyway. Also, the income from co2-sales will be like 0,002 percent of the dictatorships income. It aint gonna matter.
A CO2-market will make sure that the company that can make most of a co2-unit, buys it. It's the best way for the world as a whole.
I'm no expert, but less pollution costs. You must develop new ways to produce the same goods in order to decrease the pollution. Development costs. Bying new hardware costs.
No one gets laid off because a company can't meet some polution reg.
Well, if the enviromental-department says it's gonna cost 100 million dollars to install new filters, the net present value of a company may become below zero. Thus, everybody is fired.
Cleaning technology is like any other technology, it costs money. The problem is that a company must pay for the cleaning-solution, but the "profit" from fresh air etc. is enjoyed by everybody.
I totally agree that the world should decrease the pollution, but saying that it's not going to cost money (and thus jobs) is false.
I'm telling ya: I really dig that politics were introduced to slashdot. The last few weeks I've had only like 1 hour a day to surf (much work), and I'm spending the time HERE, at slash-dot-com-politics!
The above post is one of many posts that keep me coming here.:-)
BTW: Electing Bush is like telling your allies to go f... themselves. I think Bush was, is and will be wrong for USA.
Also, I would like to point out that Bush is getting elected in spite of so many errors because your media fails to educate large groups of the population. Kinda hard to question your president, because it means fewer listeners\viewers, which means less profit. Accusations of being unpatriotic etc. etc.
I'd like to note that in a news-program, it was noted that norwegian soldiers (my homecountry) in afghanistan not even carries their rifles in a "ready-to-shoot"-state. Rather, the carry their weapons on their back when talking to and\or making contact to civilians.
It was stated that this was due to a difference in mentality, which were meant to not frighten civilians, and make "normal contact" easier. Thus, increasing the security for the norwegian troops.
Think about it: Would you make contact to a foregin soldier with a big gun ready to shoot at you in the blink of an eye?
But with all the delays, problems, false promises of release-date, I cannot conclude otherwise than some aspects of the development have been extremely poorly dealt with.
ou have many good points, but I don't think it is fair to make an issue of the civilian casualties of this war. The armies of Saddam intentionally hid behind and emulated the look of civilians, and use suicide bombs without regard to killing their own people.
This is a KNOWN tactic, which the US army MUST have know would occur. Civilans casualties are expected in a war. The whole point is that they wouldn't been killed if there were no war.
Futher, guerilla-tactic is normal in an invaded country. Civilan casualties should be minimized, but thats very hard.
Firstly, I would just like to point out that not even the USA has the full overview over their "banned" weapons.
>None the less, they are technically WMD. Newsflash: YOU DON'T INVADE AND KILL OTHER PEOPLE OVER TECHNICALITIES!!!!
>Third, there wasn't merely "errors" in their
>documents, but in fact a deliberate attempt to
>mislead and hide the truth.
Sure, I agree. So, since the Bush-government lied about the reasones behind international warfare, I can invade USA?
>By going to war against Iraq, the US stopped
>Saddam's ongoing war on the people of Iraq.
THAT'S NOT WHY YOU WENT TO WAR! Thats what you say now, when you have nothing else to say, because the situation is TERRIBLE.
Next time listen to your allies. We support USA, and we hope you solve your problems in Iraq, but do not try to lie for us. Enough lies.
Stop saying 88 millions are spent. IT IS AN INVESTMENT that almost for sure WILL PAY OFF.
Remember that space-research result in many kinds of knowledge because so many different problems must be solved. Some of that knowlegde turns into products that aren't used in space. Those products are sold for profit. The rest you can figure out for yourself!
And I haven't even mentioned the motivation effect in the Indian population...
I bet I could find many examples from NASA, but I'm too tired...:-/
It's just amazing that you americans, that claime to have the best democratic system in the world, aren't able to find a good and trustworthy way of counting votes!
All the western countries in Europe have no problem counting the votes. Can't you guys just adopt our system? We get the results within a day, (usually within 8-12 hours), and that should be sufficient.
It has been said that people who live below the fabled 'poverty level' in the US live at a higher standard of living than most middle class folks in Europe.
To advance in this discussion one of us need to cough up some numbers of purchase parity power (PPP).
So, those gangbangers killing other gangbangers are going home to their subsidized houses, eating subsidized food, wearing $150 shoes and driving pimped out vehicles worth more than I make in a year, own cell phones and video cameras; in short, these people are not living in poverty with no hope for getting out but for stealing from the 'ultra rich' (they usually steal from their neighbors, anyway).
Wonder what level of income people that are sentenced for killing another person have, compared to the national average (or middle value). Again we need numbers. (I'm sorry, but I really don't have time to find any numbers in the next few days because of workload.)
It's absolutely not your fault, but it's kinda sad that you live in a country\area where you feel forced to carry a gun all the time in order to protect yourself.:-/
If you'd carry around those guns in Norway, you'd be sent to the nuthouse.
that gun control has no effect on general homicide rates.
You havn't taken into account that there is a difference in what kinds of weapons that are sold. A semi-automatic uzi is not for hunting, it's for defense or attack on another human beeing.
Also:
Scenario 1: Easy gun-access. Criminal has gun, homeowner has gun. The criminal is "caught" when breaking in. Result: Criminal runs away or "a shootout".
Scenario 1: No gun-access. Criminal has no gun, homeowner has no gun. The criminal is "caught" when breaking in. Result: Criminal runs away.
A criminal breaking in will very seldom kill a person in the nordic countries because our extremely high rate of catching murders. So if you are discovered you will flee the crimesite in stead of attacking the homeowner.
I would, however, ascribe Europe's lower crime rate to factors other than its socialism.
If our socialism results in less poverty (and less people being super-rich) I am absolutely sure that it leads to less crime. After all, crime is an act of desperation.
Slashdot Mirror
Some of those things should be called:
:-D
Things you do right before you die.
There's the problem. How did A get to own the credits in the first place? Was there some insider allocation where they were passed out at less than their market value, like a standard Wall Street IPO?
Like this: Countries agree on some distrubtion first, and then each country has an auction in which firms will bid for co2-units.
That would be market value.
Some firms that have co2-units won't need it all, or co2-unit prise will suddenly go up etc., which creates opportunities for buy\selling with extra profit for all.
Creating opportunities for rents will create rent-seeking behavior as opposed to creative behavior, which is bad.
Any firm that has a scary resource will want to sell it for a good price, nothing wrong with that (especially if it's bought in an auction). Further, as mentioned, both firms will have incentives to try creative new solutions because both firms will profit on it.
If the co2-units are auctioned away, the income can be considered tax. And the market price will probably be global, since there is a global market for selling\buying it. So there is tax, but it's a more dynamic system underneath that creates less suboptimalisation.
Nevermind my last example, it was based on an early misunderstanding anyway.
The more I think of it, the better I think it is.
We are both under the assumption that some firm is given co2-units. I havn't read the kyoto closely, so I don't know if thats really the case or if it's an auction to begin with. Anyway:
Your example:
Lets assume co2-units = 100 (owned by A).
For A: 1 co2-unit is worth $2.
For B: 1 co2-unit is worth £2,66 (2/0,75)
NO trade:
A produces 100 and has profit = 200.
B = 0 profit.
Trade: 1 co2-unit is worth 2 to a and 2,66 for B. They agree to split the "profit" and a sells 100 units for 2,33.
A produces 0. Profit $233.
B produces 100. Profit $33.
Overall profit is 266 which is $66 more than in the no trade scenario.
Also, the trade-scenario creates just as big incentives as yours when it comes to reducing the co2 with innovative technology. That's because both firms will profit more from doing so.
Try changing my example, but use gold as resource and rings as the product. The result will be the same. It will also work with cross-country trading, between industries and examples with many competitors.
It's not like that I'm saying that a co2-tax won't work, I'm saying that the overall created value is lower.
You have a point when it comes to the initial distribution of the co2-units, but hey: You can't give every industry excately the same industri-terms anyway. It's not like that now, it won't be in the future. The most important is to negotiate with all parts, and secure an agreement that everybody can accept. That would be a good start for kyoto.
Perhaps the most fair way would be:
1. Countries agree on some distribution of co2-units.
2. Authorities in each country auction away the co2-units granted at 1.
If we choose tax as the tool: How are you going to tax all producers in all countries just the same? That can't be fair, because it's going to for example bankrupt all the cement-producers in bangladesh. That's not politically acceptable either.
PS: What I meant about more pollution is this:
Since not competitors = no market share takeover. And since profit > cost then probably production will be higher than 100 units. But that depends on the overall cost structure of firm, which is not defined (too complex).
You forgot the unearned $300 paid to the Japanese firm. Situation with $3/unit carbon tax: Japanese firm's profit goes to -1$/product, and goes out of business. American firm picks up the Japanese firm's market share, making $7/product over greater volume. Total economic output increases by $8 times the Japanese firm's former market size.
Wrong. Japeneese firm won't produce with loss. The two firms are not competitors. We are talking marginal cost here, not a full-year of production.
Elimintation of the least-efficient is no beauty, when is means elimination of the most-earning.
And by the way: It can't be monopoly because all the countries within the agreement are given co2-units. Monopoly = one country given all.
And do I even need to mention that in your example the co2-pollution is far greater? The kyoto-agreement is supposed to bring it down.
I agree on some of your points. Some will create more efficient processes and earn on that.
But what if the investment was used to create at new product instead? That would earn more than the energy-saving.
We really need some numbers...
How does this excuse the creation of an international regime which has the direct consequence of paying them (more) to do it?
;-)
The initial argument was that USA shouldn't join the kyoto agreement because the system would support dictators. So there are two alternatives:
1. Support kyoto and support dictators.
2. Do not support kyoto and risk the whole world.
If you use the "expected value"-term (but about damage to world population) I think that alternative 2 way outperforms alternative 1. Alt 1 is best.
A CO2-market will make sure that the company that can make most of a co2-unit, buys it.
A uniform carbon tax does that too. What is the trans-national subsidy good for?
Well, in economical theory a free market will ensure that the company/person that the co2-unit is most valuable for, get's it. This is one of the BASICS in economical theory. A tax will not have the same effect because there are no selling or buying, it's just tax.
It's the best way for the world as a whole.
Wrong. Overall consumption is higher with my alternative. You should realize that selling or buying actually creates value.
US-company "A" has spent all it's co2-units. One co2-unit can produce 1 product with a profit of 10$.
Japaneese firm has 100 co2-units left, and use one unit of co2 per product, but only earns 2$ per sold product.
Alt 1: No trade. US = no profit. Japan = 2 x 100 = 200$.
Alt 2: Trade. US buys 100 co2-unit for 300$. Japaneese earns 300$. US-firm earns (100 x 10) - (300) = 700$. Overall: 1000$.
Trade = better than tax
dictators in impovershed nations (with little carbon emission) would have one more way to collect fees from rest of the world and continue oppressing their people.
Well, it's better to be suppressed than dead, is it not?
But seriously: It's a really lousy argument. The dictators will suppress their people anyway. Also, the income from co2-sales will be like 0,002 percent of the dictatorships income. It aint gonna matter.
A CO2-market will make sure that the company that can make most of a co2-unit, buys it. It's the best way for the world as a whole.
Sad. A typical american approach: threaten those who disagree, with your large army.
Stop it. You are better than that!
So THAT'S why the americans are so BIG AND FAT. They consume all the ENERGY!
I'm no expert, but less pollution costs. You must develop new ways to produce the same goods in order to decrease the pollution. Development costs. Bying new hardware costs.
No one gets laid off because a company can't meet some polution reg.
Well, if the enviromental-department says it's gonna cost 100 million dollars to install new filters, the net present value of a company may become below zero. Thus, everybody is fired.
Cleaning technology is like any other technology, it costs money. The problem is that a company must pay for the cleaning-solution, but the "profit" from fresh air etc. is enjoyed by everybody.
I totally agree that the world should decrease the pollution, but saying that it's not going to cost money (and thus jobs) is false.
Troll:
Giving Bush four more years isn't the end of the world. Oh, wait, IT IS!! Thanks for voting for Bush! THANKS A LOT, SUCKERS*!
Ok, I know most slashdotters didn't, but some of you...
I'm telling ya: I really dig that politics were introduced to slashdot. The last few weeks I've had only like 1 hour a day to surf (much work), and I'm spending the time HERE, at slash-dot-com-politics!
:-)
The above post is one of many posts that keep me coming here.
BTW: Electing Bush is like telling your allies to go f... themselves. I think Bush was, is and will be wrong for USA.
Also, I would like to point out that Bush is getting elected in spite of so many errors because your media fails to educate large groups of the population.
Kinda hard to question your president, because it means fewer listeners\viewers, which means less profit. Accusations of being unpatriotic etc. etc.
System failure? Perhaps...
Greeting from Norway.
Hehehe, that's really funny! Poor bastard! heheheh
I'd like to note that in a news-program, it was noted that norwegian soldiers (my homecountry) in afghanistan not even carries their rifles in a "ready-to-shoot"-state. Rather, the carry their weapons on their back when talking to and\or making contact to civilians.
It was stated that this was due to a difference in mentality, which were meant to not frighten civilians, and make "normal contact" easier. Thus, increasing the security for the norwegian troops.
Think about it: Would you make contact to a foregin soldier with a big gun ready to shoot at you in the blink of an eye?
FINALLY HL2 is gold!
But with all the delays, problems, false promises of release-date, I cannot conclude otherwise than some aspects of the development have been extremely poorly dealt with.
Someone should lose their job...
I would like to remind you that because of your sanctions agasint Iraq about 500.000 children died.
That's what happens when they don't get medicines.
You can always blame it on Iraq, but you are certainly also responsible.
ou have many good points, but I don't think it is fair to make an issue of the civilian casualties of this war. The armies of Saddam intentionally hid behind and emulated the look of civilians, and use suicide bombs without regard to killing their own people.
This is a KNOWN tactic, which the US army MUST have know would occur. Civilans casualties are expected in a war. The whole point is that they wouldn't been killed if there were no war.
Futher, guerilla-tactic is normal in an invaded country. Civilan casualties should be minimized, but thats very hard.
Firstly, I would just like to point out that not even the USA has the full overview over their "banned" weapons.
>None the less, they are technically WMD.
Newsflash: YOU DON'T INVADE AND KILL OTHER PEOPLE OVER TECHNICALITIES!!!!
>Third, there wasn't merely "errors" in their
>documents, but in fact a deliberate attempt to
>mislead and hide the truth.
Sure, I agree. So, since the Bush-government lied about the reasones behind international warfare, I can invade USA?
>By going to war against Iraq, the US stopped
>Saddam's ongoing war on the people of Iraq.
THAT'S NOT WHY YOU WENT TO WAR! Thats what you say now, when you have nothing else to say, because the situation is TERRIBLE.
Next time listen to your allies. We support USA, and we hope you solve your problems in Iraq, but do not try to lie for us. Enough lies.
Stop saying 88 millions are spent. IT IS AN INVESTMENT that almost for sure WILL PAY OFF.
:-/
Remember that space-research result in many kinds of knowledge because so many different problems must be solved. Some of that knowlegde turns into products that aren't used in space. Those products are sold for profit. The rest you can figure out for yourself!
And I haven't even mentioned the motivation effect in the Indian population...
I bet I could find many examples from NASA, but I'm too tired...
It's just amazing that you americans, that claime to have the best democratic system in the world, aren't able to find a good and trustworthy way of counting votes!
All the western countries in Europe have no problem counting the votes. Can't you guys just adopt our system? We get the results within a day, (usually within 8-12 hours), and that should be sufficient.
Just the viewpoint of someone non-american...
They have already found oil in Norway! hehehehehehe and much of it!
It has been said that people who live below the fabled 'poverty level' in the US live at a higher standard of living than most middle class folks in Europe.
To advance in this discussion one of us need to cough up some numbers of purchase parity power (PPP).
So, those gangbangers killing other gangbangers are going home to their subsidized houses, eating subsidized food, wearing $150 shoes and driving pimped out vehicles worth more than I make in a year, own cell phones and video cameras; in short, these people are not living in poverty with no hope for getting out but for stealing from the 'ultra rich' (they usually steal from their neighbors, anyway).
Wonder what level of income people that are sentenced for killing another person have, compared to the national average (or middle value). Again we need numbers. (I'm sorry, but I really don't have time to find any numbers in the next few days because of workload.)
Have you heard about shooting people in the legs? With a shotgun you wouldn't have missed...
It's absolutely not your fault, but it's kinda sad that you live in a country\area where you feel forced to carry a gun all the time in order to protect yourself. :-/
If you'd carry around those guns in Norway, you'd be sent to the nuthouse.
that gun control has no effect on general homicide rates.
You havn't taken into account that there is a difference in what kinds of weapons that are sold. A semi-automatic uzi is not for hunting, it's for defense or attack on another human beeing.
Also: Scenario 1: Easy gun-access. Criminal has gun, homeowner has gun. The criminal is "caught" when breaking in. Result: Criminal runs away or "a shootout".
Scenario 1: No gun-access. Criminal has no gun, homeowner has no gun. The criminal is "caught" when breaking in. Result: Criminal runs away.
A criminal breaking in will very seldom kill a person in the nordic countries because our extremely high rate of catching murders. So if you are discovered you will flee the crimesite in stead of attacking the homeowner.
I would, however, ascribe Europe's lower crime rate to factors other than its socialism.
If our socialism results in less poverty (and less people being super-rich) I am absolutely sure that it leads to less crime. After all, crime is an act of desperation.