Not to consort with the assholes but their argument could simply be: "sure, our exceptional economic system is ordained to produce more each year. The regulations have lowered the rate of increase!!!"
Of course, the problem isn't the numerical value of the slope of the GDP v. time chart but that it is foolishly required always to be a positive value ... in a finite system.
In fact, it's just the opposite, because fossil fuels, especially coal, have huge costly negative externalities. The EPA says the Clean Air Act has saved $22 trillion in health care costs:
Well there has been no growth in middle class real income in more than 10 yrs.
Yes, growth in crony capitalism but not the middle class.
No one believes the externalities. How much of that is co2 related? No one is proposing government health benefits can be cut if enviro regs are tightened.
Still, John and his ilk (The regulations have lowered the rate of increase!!) are anti growth thus they see CAGW evidence as suffienct to act. That is my point.
Your first two points are essentially anti-growth arguments.
Externalities are official, if officially ignored, factors of the economic system you seem to treat as religion.
If, as you claim, "no one believes the externalities," then, why do you ask what portion of said externalities are CO2 related?
There are no "government health benefits." There is government-coordinated health care insurance, Medicare, that costs 10% as much to run as does private insurance.
(The ACA is corporate welfare ... government created, mandated and subsidized increase in the market for private insurers.)
There need be no proposed cut in government health insurance expenditures. Cut the externalities, less illness will be caused, so fewer claims will be made on insurance coverage and then falling premiums will automatically follow ... IF you believe in the basic tenets of capitalism.
So far my hypothetical explanation on regulation is the best pro-growth argument you have. Don't let me catch you using it elsewhere without my express permission.
What is your evidence that environmental regulations are responsoble for the lack of growth in middle class real icncome?
As opposed to changes in tax rates, the offshoring of American manufacturing, the run up of stock prices, etc.?
When I look at the graph I posted, the regulations seem to have little-to-no effect on real GDP.
"No one believes the externalities."
That's a ridiculous statement that doesn't deserve a response.
"No one is proposing government health benefits can be cut if enviro regs are tightened."
Environmental regulations are only one variable in heath care costs, among many many others.
"Still, John and his ilk (The regulations have lowered the rate of increase!!) are anti growth thus they see CAGW evidence as suffienct to act. That is my point."
I think it's you who is anti-growth. Pollution does damage that costs money (& lives). Krugman: "In the case of the new ozone plan, the E.P.A.’s analysis suggests that, for the average American, the benefits would be more than twice the costs." http://www.epa.gov/glo/pdfs/20141125fs-overview.pdf
Not to consort with the assholes but their argument could simply be: "sure, our exceptional economic system is ordained to produce more each year. The regulations have lowered the rate of increase!!!"
ReplyDeleteOf course, the problem isn't the numerical value of the slope of the GDP v. time chart but that it is foolishly required always to be a positive value ... in a finite system.
John Puma
We see from John here the agenda of many CAGWers. The agenda is antigrowth and CAGW is just the hammer to use.
ReplyDeleteIf you have an anti growth agenda the the CAGW evidence is strong enough. If you have a growth agenda then the same CAGW evidence is too weak.
Charles:
ReplyDeleteWhere is the "antigrowth" in the graph I posted?
In fact, it's just the opposite, because fossil fuels, especially coal, have huge costly negative externalities. The EPA says the Clean Air Act has saved $22 trillion in health care costs:
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/09/how-the-clean-air-act-has-saved-22-trillion-in-health-care-costs/262071/
David,
ReplyDeleteWell there has been no growth in middle class real income in more than 10 yrs.
Yes, growth in crony capitalism but not the middle class.
No one believes the externalities. How much of that is co2 related? No one is proposing government health benefits can be cut if enviro regs are tightened.
Still, John and his ilk (The regulations have lowered the rate of increase!!) are anti growth thus they see CAGW evidence as suffienct to act. That is my point.
To Charles:
ReplyDeleteYour first two points are essentially anti-growth arguments.
Externalities are official, if officially ignored, factors of the economic system you seem to treat as religion.
If, as you claim, "no one believes the externalities," then, why do you ask what portion of said externalities are CO2 related?
There are no "government health benefits." There is government-coordinated health care insurance, Medicare, that costs 10% as much to run as does private insurance.
(The ACA is corporate welfare ... government created, mandated and subsidized increase in the market for private insurers.)
There need be no proposed cut in government health insurance expenditures. Cut the externalities, less illness will be caused, so fewer claims will be made on insurance coverage and then falling premiums will automatically follow ... IF you believe in the basic tenets of capitalism.
So far my hypothetical explanation on regulation is the best pro-growth argument you have. Don't let me catch you using it elsewhere without my express permission.
John Puma
Charles,
ReplyDeleteWhat is your evidence that environmental regulations are responsoble for the lack
of growth in middle class real icncome?
As opposed to changes in tax rates, the offshoring of American manufacturing, the run up of stock prices, etc.?
When I look at the graph I posted, the regulations seem to have little-to-no effect on real GDP.
"No one believes the externalities."
That's a ridiculous statement that doesn't deserve a response.
"No one is proposing government health benefits can be cut if enviro regs are tightened."
Environmental regulations are only one variable in heath care costs, among many many others.
"Still, John and his ilk (The regulations have lowered the rate of increase!!) are anti growth thus they see CAGW evidence as suffienct to act. That is my point."
I think it's you who is anti-growth. Pollution does damage that costs money (& lives). Krugman: "In the case of the new ozone plan, the E.P.A.’s analysis suggests that, for the average American, the benefits would be more than twice the costs."
http://www.epa.gov/glo/pdfs/20141125fs-overview.pdf