|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 02 2014 13:48 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2014 11:13 Nyxisto wrote:On March 02 2014 10:58 Danglars wrote:On March 02 2014 09:12 Nyxisto wrote:On March 02 2014 08:56 Wolfstan wrote:
TLDR; i still think positive reinforcement > punishment in achieving goals of an economy.
Yeah these envious leftist losers! Americans seem to have the tendency to drag the discussion of redistribution on this ridiculous pedagogic and moral level, when it's just a pragmatical decision. Countries with huge income&wealth inequality have worse social mobility, slower economic growth( due to the lack of consumption and purchasing power), more crime and what not. Redistribution isn't a good idea because it punishes someone, it's a good idea because economically it makes sense. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/03/01/readout-president-obama-s-call-president-putin(Also: Readout of the 90 min Obama - Putin phone call) The man spent a lot of time before the TLDR arguing his point. Ignoring what he said, ignoring his argument, and then rushing headlong into the blanket "it's a good idea" is infantile. Re-read why the stick doesn't work as well as the carrot (and heck taxation & fees vs taxation and subsidies both fit into your header of redistribution, so you might want to say which one you prefer and why) Germany is the prime example that subsidizing clean energy does hurt the consumer immensely. We have the so called 'EEG' law, which guarantees green energy producers stable prices, until 2020. Our energy cost now is twice as high as in France. (16 cent/kilowatt hour to 30 cent). It kills our domestic consumption and a panel of experts has come to the conclusion that the best thing would be to get completely rid of it. (http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/26/german-govt-report-get-rid-of-green-energy-subsidies/ only English source i could find) The only people that profit from this are energy producers. Someone living on the minimum wage in a rural area is now paying for the solar panels on a rich guys house. It's redistribution from bottom to top. I didn't respond to his complete post because he only tells what he believes. I don't need to believe anything because we have a giant experiment going on here that clearly shows that subsidizing green energy is a really bad idea. Seems like your citizens and government didn't take the "what do we want and how much are willing to pay for it" discourse very far. You didn't have enough right wing hawks telling you about unintended consequenses. We are dangerously close to replicating your giant experiment here in North America. The 10% of left leaning intellectuals battled the 10% of right leaning intellectuals on that policy and unfortunately articulated their point better and swayed the 80% to vote for their giant experiment.
I don't understand your response. First you said 'hey subsidies are way better than penalties or taxes". Then I give you an example how subsidizing the green energy market completely failed here, and your response is "hey you need more right wingers, and actually I agree with you and NA is going to do the same"...?
|
On March 02 2014 11:13 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2014 10:58 Danglars wrote:On March 02 2014 09:12 Nyxisto wrote:On March 02 2014 08:56 Wolfstan wrote:
TLDR; i still think positive reinforcement > punishment in achieving goals of an economy.
Yeah these envious leftist losers! Americans seem to have the tendency to drag the discussion of redistribution on this ridiculous pedagogic and moral level, when it's just a pragmatical decision. Countries with huge income&wealth inequality have worse social mobility, slower economic growth( due to the lack of consumption and purchasing power), more crime and what not. Redistribution isn't a good idea because it punishes someone, it's a good idea because economically it makes sense. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/03/01/readout-president-obama-s-call-president-putin(Also: Readout of the 90 min Obama - Putin phone call) The man spent a lot of time before the TLDR arguing his point. Ignoring what he said, ignoring his argument, and then rushing headlong into the blanket "it's a good idea" is infantile. Re-read why the stick doesn't work as well as the carrot (and heck taxation & fees vs taxation and subsidies both fit into your header of redistribution, so you might want to say which one you prefer and why) Germany is the prime example that subsidizing clean energy does hurt the consumer immensely. We have the so called 'EEG' law, which guarantees green energy producers stable prices, until 2020. Our energy cost now is twice as high as in France. (16 cent/kilowatt hour to 30 cent). It kills our domestic consumption and a panel of experts has come to the conclusion that the best thing would be to get completely rid of it. (http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/26/german-govt-report-get-rid-of-green-energy-subsidies/ only English source i could find) The only people that profit from this are energy producers. Someone living on the minimum wage in a rural area is now paying for the solar panels on a rich guys house. It's redistribution from bottom to top. I didn't respond to his complete post because he only tells what he believes. I don't need to believe anything because we have a giant experiment going on here that clearly shows that subsidizing green energy is a really bad idea.
imo should have just waited a few years for the technology to get cheaper.
|
On March 03 2014 02:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2014 11:13 Nyxisto wrote:On March 02 2014 10:58 Danglars wrote:On March 02 2014 09:12 Nyxisto wrote:On March 02 2014 08:56 Wolfstan wrote:
TLDR; i still think positive reinforcement > punishment in achieving goals of an economy.
Yeah these envious leftist losers! Americans seem to have the tendency to drag the discussion of redistribution on this ridiculous pedagogic and moral level, when it's just a pragmatical decision. Countries with huge income&wealth inequality have worse social mobility, slower economic growth( due to the lack of consumption and purchasing power), more crime and what not. Redistribution isn't a good idea because it punishes someone, it's a good idea because economically it makes sense. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/03/01/readout-president-obama-s-call-president-putin(Also: Readout of the 90 min Obama - Putin phone call) The man spent a lot of time before the TLDR arguing his point. Ignoring what he said, ignoring his argument, and then rushing headlong into the blanket "it's a good idea" is infantile. Re-read why the stick doesn't work as well as the carrot (and heck taxation & fees vs taxation and subsidies both fit into your header of redistribution, so you might want to say which one you prefer and why) Germany is the prime example that subsidizing clean energy does hurt the consumer immensely. We have the so called 'EEG' law, which guarantees green energy producers stable prices, until 2020. Our energy cost now is twice as high as in France. (16 cent/kilowatt hour to 30 cent). It kills our domestic consumption and a panel of experts has come to the conclusion that the best thing would be to get completely rid of it. (http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/26/german-govt-report-get-rid-of-green-energy-subsidies/ only English source i could find) The only people that profit from this are energy producers. Someone living on the minimum wage in a rural area is now paying for the solar panels on a rich guys house. It's redistribution from bottom to top. I didn't respond to his complete post because he only tells what he believes. I don't need to believe anything because we have a giant experiment going on here that clearly shows that subsidizing green energy is a really bad idea. imo should have just waited a few years for the technology to get cheaper.
Well technology doesn't get magically cheaper, it only does if someone builds green technology stuff and gets better at it. We have that advantage at least. The consensus(by people with knowledge in the field) over here seems to be that the so called 'Energiewende' could have been a lot cheaper and just as effective if incentives for green energy would've been done through regulation and limitations on traditional energy production instead of putting a burden onto the tax-payers shoulders through guaranteed prizes for the producers.
Another bad part of the subsidy system is that companies that can 'proof' that they're hugely energy dependent.(Which at that point are a few thousand including many companies that actually are not so energy dependent) don't need to pay the guaranteed prizes, which drives the energy costs for private customers even more up.
|
On March 03 2014 02:35 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 02:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 02 2014 11:13 Nyxisto wrote:On March 02 2014 10:58 Danglars wrote:On March 02 2014 09:12 Nyxisto wrote:On March 02 2014 08:56 Wolfstan wrote:
TLDR; i still think positive reinforcement > punishment in achieving goals of an economy.
Yeah these envious leftist losers! Americans seem to have the tendency to drag the discussion of redistribution on this ridiculous pedagogic and moral level, when it's just a pragmatical decision. Countries with huge income&wealth inequality have worse social mobility, slower economic growth( due to the lack of consumption and purchasing power), more crime and what not. Redistribution isn't a good idea because it punishes someone, it's a good idea because economically it makes sense. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/03/01/readout-president-obama-s-call-president-putin(Also: Readout of the 90 min Obama - Putin phone call) The man spent a lot of time before the TLDR arguing his point. Ignoring what he said, ignoring his argument, and then rushing headlong into the blanket "it's a good idea" is infantile. Re-read why the stick doesn't work as well as the carrot (and heck taxation & fees vs taxation and subsidies both fit into your header of redistribution, so you might want to say which one you prefer and why) Germany is the prime example that subsidizing clean energy does hurt the consumer immensely. We have the so called 'EEG' law, which guarantees green energy producers stable prices, until 2020. Our energy cost now is twice as high as in France. (16 cent/kilowatt hour to 30 cent). It kills our domestic consumption and a panel of experts has come to the conclusion that the best thing would be to get completely rid of it. (http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/26/german-govt-report-get-rid-of-green-energy-subsidies/ only English source i could find) The only people that profit from this are energy producers. Someone living on the minimum wage in a rural area is now paying for the solar panels on a rich guys house. It's redistribution from bottom to top. I didn't respond to his complete post because he only tells what he believes. I don't need to believe anything because we have a giant experiment going on here that clearly shows that subsidizing green energy is a really bad idea. imo should have just waited a few years for the technology to get cheaper. Well technology doesn't get magically cheaper, it only does if someone builds green technology stuff and get's better at it. We have that advantage at least. The consensus(by people with knowledge in the field) over here seems to be that the so called 'Energiewende' could have been a lot cheaper and just as effective if incentives for green energy would've been done through regulation and limitations on traditional energy production instead of putting a burden onto the tax-payers shoulders through guaranteed prizes for the producers. Another bad part of the subsidy system is that companies that can 'proof' that they're hugely energy dependent.(Which at that point are a few thousand including many companies that actually are not so energy dependent) don't need to pay the guaranteed prizes, which drives the energy costs for private customers even more up.
No, it doesn't get magically cheaper, but if you look at solar the cost has been going down quickly:
![[image loading]](http://dqbasmyouzti2.cloudfront.net/content/images/articles/Screen_Shot_2013-02-04_at_11.47.04_AM.png)
Edti: source
From what I've heard Germany built a lot of expensive green energy, and so now it's energy is... expensive. As long as you built that much expensive energy you'd have the same problem, it would just be a matter of who directly pays for it.
|
On March 03 2014 02:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
From what I've heard Germany built a lot of expensive green energy, and so now it's energy is... expensive. As long as you built that much expensive energy you'd have the same problem, it would just be a matter of who directly pays for it.
Yes, that was the topic of conversation, redistribution and who pays for what. And what I tried to show was, using Germany as an example, that a subsidy based system in the green energy market is indeed a very bad idea, because private consumers are paying all the costs of the switch from fossil to renewable, while companies and energy producers are excluded.
|
On March 03 2014 03:21 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 02:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
From what I've heard Germany built a lot of expensive green energy, and so now it's energy is... expensive. As long as you built that much expensive energy you'd have the same problem, it would just be a matter of who directly pays for it. Yes, that was the topic of conversation, redistribution and who pays for what. And what I tried to show was, using Germany as an example, that a subsidy based system in the green energy market is indeed a very bad idea, because private consumers are paying all the costs of the switch from fossil to renewable, while companies and energy producers are excluded.
Yeah I won't doubt that Germany could have done better. Though at the end of the day, if you're building expensive energy sources your energy is going to be more expensive. The idea behind subsidies is that they mitigate that effect but your real world results my vary 
|
On March 03 2014 02:35 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 02:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 02 2014 11:13 Nyxisto wrote:On March 02 2014 10:58 Danglars wrote:On March 02 2014 09:12 Nyxisto wrote:On March 02 2014 08:56 Wolfstan wrote:
TLDR; i still think positive reinforcement > punishment in achieving goals of an economy.
Yeah these envious leftist losers! Americans seem to have the tendency to drag the discussion of redistribution on this ridiculous pedagogic and moral level, when it's just a pragmatical decision. Countries with huge income&wealth inequality have worse social mobility, slower economic growth( due to the lack of consumption and purchasing power), more crime and what not. Redistribution isn't a good idea because it punishes someone, it's a good idea because economically it makes sense. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/03/01/readout-president-obama-s-call-president-putin(Also: Readout of the 90 min Obama - Putin phone call) The man spent a lot of time before the TLDR arguing his point. Ignoring what he said, ignoring his argument, and then rushing headlong into the blanket "it's a good idea" is infantile. Re-read why the stick doesn't work as well as the carrot (and heck taxation & fees vs taxation and subsidies both fit into your header of redistribution, so you might want to say which one you prefer and why) Germany is the prime example that subsidizing clean energy does hurt the consumer immensely. We have the so called 'EEG' law, which guarantees green energy producers stable prices, until 2020. Our energy cost now is twice as high as in France. (16 cent/kilowatt hour to 30 cent). It kills our domestic consumption and a panel of experts has come to the conclusion that the best thing would be to get completely rid of it. (http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/26/german-govt-report-get-rid-of-green-energy-subsidies/ only English source i could find) The only people that profit from this are energy producers. Someone living on the minimum wage in a rural area is now paying for the solar panels on a rich guys house. It's redistribution from bottom to top. I didn't respond to his complete post because he only tells what he believes. I don't need to believe anything because we have a giant experiment going on here that clearly shows that subsidizing green energy is a really bad idea. imo should have just waited a few years for the technology to get cheaper. Well technology doesn't get magically cheaper, it only does if someone builds green technology stuff and gets better at it. We have that advantage at least. The consensus(by people with knowledge in the field) over here seems to be that the so called 'Energiewende' could have been a lot cheaper and just as effective if incentives for green energy would've been done through regulation and limitations on traditional energy production instead of putting a burden onto the tax-payers shoulders through guaranteed prizes for the producers. Another bad part of the subsidy system is that companies that can 'proof' that they're hugely energy dependent.(Which at that point are a few thousand including many companies that actually are not so energy dependent) don't need to pay the guaranteed prizes, which drives the energy costs for private customers even more up.
Maybe there could have been done much better but the main issue was closing nuclear power plants (amounting to almost 30% of electricity production in 2005 while simultaneously committing to decreasing CO2 emissions). If you tried to do that through market based mechanisms the shock would have been immediate and probably killed the policy immediately.
One of the issues is the high prices solar producers were paid for the electricity they feed back to the grid. However if you think about it it's just a form of loan by the government. That new generating capacity would have had to be paid for anyway. High feed in tariffs meant it made sense for individuals to pay for that new capacity. An investment that would be paid back by electricity consumers in the long term.
|
On March 03 2014 04:26 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 02:35 Nyxisto wrote:On March 03 2014 02:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 02 2014 11:13 Nyxisto wrote:On March 02 2014 10:58 Danglars wrote:On March 02 2014 09:12 Nyxisto wrote:On March 02 2014 08:56 Wolfstan wrote:
TLDR; i still think positive reinforcement > punishment in achieving goals of an economy.
Yeah these envious leftist losers! Americans seem to have the tendency to drag the discussion of redistribution on this ridiculous pedagogic and moral level, when it's just a pragmatical decision. Countries with huge income&wealth inequality have worse social mobility, slower economic growth( due to the lack of consumption and purchasing power), more crime and what not. Redistribution isn't a good idea because it punishes someone, it's a good idea because economically it makes sense. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/03/01/readout-president-obama-s-call-president-putin(Also: Readout of the 90 min Obama - Putin phone call) The man spent a lot of time before the TLDR arguing his point. Ignoring what he said, ignoring his argument, and then rushing headlong into the blanket "it's a good idea" is infantile. Re-read why the stick doesn't work as well as the carrot (and heck taxation & fees vs taxation and subsidies both fit into your header of redistribution, so you might want to say which one you prefer and why) Germany is the prime example that subsidizing clean energy does hurt the consumer immensely. We have the so called 'EEG' law, which guarantees green energy producers stable prices, until 2020. Our energy cost now is twice as high as in France. (16 cent/kilowatt hour to 30 cent). It kills our domestic consumption and a panel of experts has come to the conclusion that the best thing would be to get completely rid of it. (http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/26/german-govt-report-get-rid-of-green-energy-subsidies/ only English source i could find) The only people that profit from this are energy producers. Someone living on the minimum wage in a rural area is now paying for the solar panels on a rich guys house. It's redistribution from bottom to top. I didn't respond to his complete post because he only tells what he believes. I don't need to believe anything because we have a giant experiment going on here that clearly shows that subsidizing green energy is a really bad idea. imo should have just waited a few years for the technology to get cheaper. Well technology doesn't get magically cheaper, it only does if someone builds green technology stuff and gets better at it. We have that advantage at least. The consensus(by people with knowledge in the field) over here seems to be that the so called 'Energiewende' could have been a lot cheaper and just as effective if incentives for green energy would've been done through regulation and limitations on traditional energy production instead of putting a burden onto the tax-payers shoulders through guaranteed prizes for the producers. Another bad part of the subsidy system is that companies that can 'proof' that they're hugely energy dependent.(Which at that point are a few thousand including many companies that actually are not so energy dependent) don't need to pay the guaranteed prizes, which drives the energy costs for private customers even more up. Maybe there could have been done much better but the main issue was closing nuclear power plants (amounting to almost 30% of electricity production in 2005 while simultaneously committing to decreasing CO2 emissions). If you tried to do that through market based mechanisms the shock would have been immediate and probably killed the policy immediately. One of the issues is the high prices solar producers were paid for the electricity they feed back to the grid. However if you think about it it's just a form of loan by the government. That new generating capacity would have had to be paid for anyway. High feed in tariffs meant it made sense for individuals to pay for that new capacity. An investment that would be paid back by electricity consumers in the long term.
Why did German close all of its nuclear plants, was it because of Fukoshima?
|
On March 03 2014 04:31 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 04:26 hypercube wrote:On March 03 2014 02:35 Nyxisto wrote:On March 03 2014 02:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 02 2014 11:13 Nyxisto wrote:On March 02 2014 10:58 Danglars wrote:On March 02 2014 09:12 Nyxisto wrote:On March 02 2014 08:56 Wolfstan wrote:
TLDR; i still think positive reinforcement > punishment in achieving goals of an economy.
Yeah these envious leftist losers! Americans seem to have the tendency to drag the discussion of redistribution on this ridiculous pedagogic and moral level, when it's just a pragmatical decision. Countries with huge income&wealth inequality have worse social mobility, slower economic growth( due to the lack of consumption and purchasing power), more crime and what not. Redistribution isn't a good idea because it punishes someone, it's a good idea because economically it makes sense. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/03/01/readout-president-obama-s-call-president-putin(Also: Readout of the 90 min Obama - Putin phone call) The man spent a lot of time before the TLDR arguing his point. Ignoring what he said, ignoring his argument, and then rushing headlong into the blanket "it's a good idea" is infantile. Re-read why the stick doesn't work as well as the carrot (and heck taxation & fees vs taxation and subsidies both fit into your header of redistribution, so you might want to say which one you prefer and why) Germany is the prime example that subsidizing clean energy does hurt the consumer immensely. We have the so called 'EEG' law, which guarantees green energy producers stable prices, until 2020. Our energy cost now is twice as high as in France. (16 cent/kilowatt hour to 30 cent). It kills our domestic consumption and a panel of experts has come to the conclusion that the best thing would be to get completely rid of it. (http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/26/german-govt-report-get-rid-of-green-energy-subsidies/ only English source i could find) The only people that profit from this are energy producers. Someone living on the minimum wage in a rural area is now paying for the solar panels on a rich guys house. It's redistribution from bottom to top. I didn't respond to his complete post because he only tells what he believes. I don't need to believe anything because we have a giant experiment going on here that clearly shows that subsidizing green energy is a really bad idea. imo should have just waited a few years for the technology to get cheaper. Well technology doesn't get magically cheaper, it only does if someone builds green technology stuff and gets better at it. We have that advantage at least. The consensus(by people with knowledge in the field) over here seems to be that the so called 'Energiewende' could have been a lot cheaper and just as effective if incentives for green energy would've been done through regulation and limitations on traditional energy production instead of putting a burden onto the tax-payers shoulders through guaranteed prizes for the producers. Another bad part of the subsidy system is that companies that can 'proof' that they're hugely energy dependent.(Which at that point are a few thousand including many companies that actually are not so energy dependent) don't need to pay the guaranteed prizes, which drives the energy costs for private customers even more up. Maybe there could have been done much better but the main issue was closing nuclear power plants (amounting to almost 30% of electricity production in 2005 while simultaneously committing to decreasing CO2 emissions). If you tried to do that through market based mechanisms the shock would have been immediate and probably killed the policy immediately. One of the issues is the high prices solar producers were paid for the electricity they feed back to the grid. However if you think about it it's just a form of loan by the government. That new generating capacity would have had to be paid for anyway. High feed in tariffs meant it made sense for individuals to pay for that new capacity. An investment that would be paid back by electricity consumers in the long term. Why did German close all of its nuclear plants, was it because of Fukoshima?
It the early 90's we basically decided that we should opt out of nuclear energy until 2020. After the accident in Japan their was a massive public outcry, and many nuclear plants were closed immediately.
However if you think about it it's just a form of loan by the government.
No, it's actually the exact opposite. The cost for the rising percentage of renewable energy is paid by the consumers right now via their electricity bills. Paying for the energy transition trough loans and debt is actually being discussed right now.
|
On March 03 2014 04:49 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 04:31 Sub40APM wrote:On March 03 2014 04:26 hypercube wrote:On March 03 2014 02:35 Nyxisto wrote:On March 03 2014 02:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 02 2014 11:13 Nyxisto wrote:On March 02 2014 10:58 Danglars wrote:On March 02 2014 09:12 Nyxisto wrote:On March 02 2014 08:56 Wolfstan wrote:
TLDR; i still think positive reinforcement > punishment in achieving goals of an economy.
Yeah these envious leftist losers! Americans seem to have the tendency to drag the discussion of redistribution on this ridiculous pedagogic and moral level, when it's just a pragmatical decision. Countries with huge income&wealth inequality have worse social mobility, slower economic growth( due to the lack of consumption and purchasing power), more crime and what not. Redistribution isn't a good idea because it punishes someone, it's a good idea because economically it makes sense. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/03/01/readout-president-obama-s-call-president-putin(Also: Readout of the 90 min Obama - Putin phone call) The man spent a lot of time before the TLDR arguing his point. Ignoring what he said, ignoring his argument, and then rushing headlong into the blanket "it's a good idea" is infantile. Re-read why the stick doesn't work as well as the carrot (and heck taxation & fees vs taxation and subsidies both fit into your header of redistribution, so you might want to say which one you prefer and why) Germany is the prime example that subsidizing clean energy does hurt the consumer immensely. We have the so called 'EEG' law, which guarantees green energy producers stable prices, until 2020. Our energy cost now is twice as high as in France. (16 cent/kilowatt hour to 30 cent). It kills our domestic consumption and a panel of experts has come to the conclusion that the best thing would be to get completely rid of it. (http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/26/german-govt-report-get-rid-of-green-energy-subsidies/ only English source i could find) The only people that profit from this are energy producers. Someone living on the minimum wage in a rural area is now paying for the solar panels on a rich guys house. It's redistribution from bottom to top. I didn't respond to his complete post because he only tells what he believes. I don't need to believe anything because we have a giant experiment going on here that clearly shows that subsidizing green energy is a really bad idea. imo should have just waited a few years for the technology to get cheaper. Well technology doesn't get magically cheaper, it only does if someone builds green technology stuff and gets better at it. We have that advantage at least. The consensus(by people with knowledge in the field) over here seems to be that the so called 'Energiewende' could have been a lot cheaper and just as effective if incentives for green energy would've been done through regulation and limitations on traditional energy production instead of putting a burden onto the tax-payers shoulders through guaranteed prizes for the producers. Another bad part of the subsidy system is that companies that can 'proof' that they're hugely energy dependent.(Which at that point are a few thousand including many companies that actually are not so energy dependent) don't need to pay the guaranteed prizes, which drives the energy costs for private customers even more up. Maybe there could have been done much better but the main issue was closing nuclear power plants (amounting to almost 30% of electricity production in 2005 while simultaneously committing to decreasing CO2 emissions). If you tried to do that through market based mechanisms the shock would have been immediate and probably killed the policy immediately. One of the issues is the high prices solar producers were paid for the electricity they feed back to the grid. However if you think about it it's just a form of loan by the government. That new generating capacity would have had to be paid for anyway. High feed in tariffs meant it made sense for individuals to pay for that new capacity. An investment that would be paid back by electricity consumers in the long term. Why did German close all of its nuclear plants, was it because of Fukoshima? It the early 90's we basically decided that we should opt out of nuclear energy until 2020. After the accident in Japan their was a massive public outcry, and many nuclear plants were closed immediately. No, it's actually the exact opposite. The cost for the rising percentage of renewable energy is paid by the consumers right now via their electricity bills. Paying for the energy transition trough loans and debt is actually being discussed right now.
Maybe I was misunderstood. I meant that it's as if the government took out a loan from those who installed solar panels. The high feed in tariffs these people get is a form of interest payment.
There's a question of whether these payments are fair or more than they should be. There's also a question whether just actually taking out a loan would have been cheaper. It probably would have been but it would have made the politics more difficult by making the massive costs more obvious.
|
No, it's actually the exact opposite. The cost for the rising percentage of renewable energy is paid by the consumers right now via their electricity bills. Paying for the energy transition trough loans and debt is actually being discussed right now.
So a new type of subsidy?
|
On March 02 2014 23:22 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2014 19:47 Wolfstan wrote:
No, I think uneducated people shouldn't wade into capital markets for their own good. Educated people should be able to purchase regulated capital investments with minimal leverage. The smart money should be able to make unregulated capital investments with greater leverage. This is much how it is in today's society with SEC oversight and accredited investor status. As I said, get yourself educated, as participating in the capital markets can be one of the easiest ways to be upwardly mobile on the social ladder.
Of course the entire investments in capital market should not be liquidated for consumer purchases.
A) it's impossible to liquidate all the capital because the value on paper isn't there yet
B) the massive injection of money would inflate the cost of consumer goods to unsustainable levels
C) the ideas and governments that need the capital markets would be left without funding for growth.
That is why money that tries to leave the capital markets for consumer goods is very regulated and taxed. That is why those with more net worth than is possible to spend in a lifetime draw just enough to sustain their lifestyle and keep most of their wealth in appreciating assets. What are you talking about ? I want to know, to understand in which world your comment make sense ? "Uneducated people" never explored the "capital market"... Do you actually think the sub prime crisis was caused because poor people used internet or their bankers to find out good loan ? Do you even know what you are talking ? It's the "educated" people in banks who made bad bets... Credit comes with risks, for the creditor and the credited. What was badly assessed was the risk for the creditor. It's the bank who proposed a risky service. What is in question is also how the risk was assessed, and transfered to specific organisations that were specialized in taking risk (with credit default swap), and how, because of that structural nonsense, the risk were completly neglected. Now you are making it seems like it was the "poor uneducated people" who are responsible of the crisis. When the world is flowing with capital, it is perfectly normal for bankers to use this relatively cheap ressource to maximize their gain. So the core of the problem is all those things, and not the fact that the capital was used to build houses for "poor uneducated people" - which is rather secondary, if it was not that, it could have been a thousand of other kind of things.To say it bluntly, it is the "smart" and "educated" people who were stupid, and not the poor guy who took a loan to buy himself a house. If you want to limit some risky transactions or limit them, sure go ahead, but don't make it seems like it's the fault of the guy who wants to buy himself a house.
I think we are basically arguing the same thing whether the fault of the rich or the poor there should have been much better controls for the capital flowing from the capital markets into real economy. These unchecked flows inflated real estate in the real word and and their derivative paper within the capital markets. This asset appreciation was used for more consumer goods inflating them and the production to produce them even though the valuations were suspect. When the valuations were corrected, the damage to the real economy was severe because people had liquidated their capital gains and the subsequent losses to those gains caused people to be underwater and ruined lives. When the house of cards came down, the losses were in the real economy as well as the capital markets where they should have been contained.
Yes there are corrections and if it was one of a thousand other things it should have been contained in the markets where it would not harm "the poor uneducated people". The "smart" and "educated" should be allowed to stupid because their personal balance sheets can absorb valuation mistakes while the poor cannot.
Yes, I think the poor guy should not have been given capital to purchase a house.
Yes, I think the poor guy should not have been given capital when his house appreciated.
Yes, I think the government should not have torn down the barriers between the capital and real economies.
Yes, I think the government should not have allowed investment and retail banks to share a balance sheet.
Yes, I think banks should not have been overleveraged.
Yes, I think risk evaluation was almost non-existent.
No, I don't think accumulated wealth should be redistributed to the poor, whether through taxation or private wealth seeking gains at the poor's expense. We JUST saw what happens when the poor are given access to the values on the 1%'s balance sheets and the results are not good for anyone.
See we agree on what happened but for different reasons.
|
On March 03 2014 02:05 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2014 13:48 Wolfstan wrote:On March 02 2014 11:13 Nyxisto wrote:On March 02 2014 10:58 Danglars wrote:On March 02 2014 09:12 Nyxisto wrote:On March 02 2014 08:56 Wolfstan wrote:
TLDR; i still think positive reinforcement > punishment in achieving goals of an economy.
Yeah these envious leftist losers! Americans seem to have the tendency to drag the discussion of redistribution on this ridiculous pedagogic and moral level, when it's just a pragmatical decision. Countries with huge income&wealth inequality have worse social mobility, slower economic growth( due to the lack of consumption and purchasing power), more crime and what not. Redistribution isn't a good idea because it punishes someone, it's a good idea because economically it makes sense. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/03/01/readout-president-obama-s-call-president-putin(Also: Readout of the 90 min Obama - Putin phone call) The man spent a lot of time before the TLDR arguing his point. Ignoring what he said, ignoring his argument, and then rushing headlong into the blanket "it's a good idea" is infantile. Re-read why the stick doesn't work as well as the carrot (and heck taxation & fees vs taxation and subsidies both fit into your header of redistribution, so you might want to say which one you prefer and why) Germany is the prime example that subsidizing clean energy does hurt the consumer immensely. We have the so called 'EEG' law, which guarantees green energy producers stable prices, until 2020. Our energy cost now is twice as high as in France. (16 cent/kilowatt hour to 30 cent). It kills our domestic consumption and a panel of experts has come to the conclusion that the best thing would be to get completely rid of it. (http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/26/german-govt-report-get-rid-of-green-energy-subsidies/ only English source i could find) The only people that profit from this are energy producers. Someone living on the minimum wage in a rural area is now paying for the solar panels on a rich guys house. It's redistribution from bottom to top. I didn't respond to his complete post because he only tells what he believes. I don't need to believe anything because we have a giant experiment going on here that clearly shows that subsidizing green energy is a really bad idea. Seems like your citizens and government didn't take the "what do we want and how much are willing to pay for it" discourse very far. You didn't have enough right wing hawks telling you about unintended consequenses. We are dangerously close to replicating your giant experiment here in North America. The 10% of left leaning intellectuals battled the 10% of right leaning intellectuals on that policy and unfortunately articulated their point better and swayed the 80% to vote for their giant experiment. I don't understand your response. First you said 'hey subsidies are way better than penalties or taxes". Then I give you an example how subsidizing the green energy market completely failed here, and your response is "hey you need more right wingers, and actually I agree with you and NA is going to do the same"...?
Penalties and taxes would double your energy bill just the same, only now you have to trust your government to actually build solar infrastructure instead of funneling those general revenues into entitlements, pork or bailing out Greece. The minimum wage rural dude would still be hurting and the green infrastructure is not guaranteed.
Right now America's energy debate is centered around the unproductive ideological one-liners like; "you are a denier, climate change is irrefutable science and we have to act NOW!"
When the discussion should be on whether carbon tax, or cap-and-trade or green subsidies will achieve the goal of affordable, sustainable energy. We need to make the electorate realize that energy prices could double and it could adversely affect the minimum wage, rural dude in North Carolina. If the constituents are informed of what the goals are going to cost, then we can then decide whether and when to follow European leadership on this file or legislate another program with our own geography and variable in mind. We need to point to programs like the European Union Emissions Trading System and the German Renewable Energy Act so see what was successful and what the unintended consequences are.
|
Since some people seem confused about what Germany actually did with solar power:
1. They set a price that anyone who produced solar power would be paid.
2. Required utilities to buy all solar power at said price from anyone who produced.
The set price allowed individuals to get private loans from banks (they like guaranteed income) to instal solar panels and a LOT of people did this. I think the pay off for them was something around 5 years with a 10+ year life on the panels, so it is a nice investment.
The downside they ran into was that with so much solar at a high price, plus associated issues like utilities needing to keep compacity around for off hours and solar compacity was concentrated in a few areas, prices are like 40-50% or more higher than the rest of Europe and 2-3 times higher than the US.
|
On March 02 2014 15:48 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2014 14:06 oneofthem wrote:
^wolfstan we were talking about the portion of total wealth generated captured by capital. this is different from asset appreciation The idea is still the same as I thought it best to explain how extracting money from the capital refuted his point better as he referenced the value of capital(capital markets) as % of income(the real economy metric that best supports his argument) and his argument that the solution is to somehow shift more value into the real economy from the capital economy. You are more concerned about the flow from the real economy into the capital markets it seems, I agree with you but probably for different reasons. I'm more concerned about uneducated Joe Blow using his after tax income that should be spent on consumer purchase stepping into the capital markets for that 40k equity in our previous example and getting eaten alive by the smart money. Both that is also one of the best ways to achieve the goal of social mobility so I am also advocate of it. You seem more interested in the 2k earnings made from the company? The short answer is it's not usually a problem as that money usually stays in the real economy through capital allocation, whether its spent to grow the company, or released as a dividend. The 2k earnings have already been taxed at 15%(35% at the richest, most unequal companies) and the government taxes again for cash dividend at 20% for the richest, most unholy assholes among us. Say Mr. Owner wants a lavish lifestyle, so the company declares a 1000 dollar dividend, he takes his 500 bucks pays the government their 100 bucks and the 400 stays in the real economy buying goods that the 99% produce. So congratulations, Mr owner still has 40000 net worth only paid taxes on the lifestyle he wanted, and people are still upset with him for having more net worth than he can spend in a lifetime. In a perfect world rates for income tax = interest tax = dividend tax + corporate tax = capital gains tax + corporate tax. But hey inequality would still exist eh? Or were you talking about wealth generated as in capital turning a company with 3000 in assets and 1000 in earnings into a 11000 asset/2000 earnings company when you feel labor should have grown the company?
Just nitpicking about your perfect world tax rates. Corporations enjoy limited liability meaning that shareholders cannot be targeted to cover the liabilities of a corporation. Partnership owners and small business owners can be prosecuted for their business liabilities up to the point of declaring bankruptcy. Clearly, since you're insinuating that it's unfair for corporations to be double taxed, how do you propose their inequality of liabilities be covered? Should all present shareholders be identified so that their wealth can be sought after to cover corporate liabilities?
|
On March 03 2014 09:36 DetriusXii wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2014 15:48 Wolfstan wrote:On March 02 2014 14:06 oneofthem wrote:
^wolfstan we were talking about the portion of total wealth generated captured by capital. this is different from asset appreciation The idea is still the same as I thought it best to explain how extracting money from the capital refuted his point better as he referenced the value of capital(capital markets) as % of income(the real economy metric that best supports his argument) and his argument that the solution is to somehow shift more value into the real economy from the capital economy. You are more concerned about the flow from the real economy into the capital markets it seems, I agree with you but probably for different reasons. I'm more concerned about uneducated Joe Blow using his after tax income that should be spent on consumer purchase stepping into the capital markets for that 40k equity in our previous example and getting eaten alive by the smart money. Both that is also one of the best ways to achieve the goal of social mobility so I am also advocate of it. You seem more interested in the 2k earnings made from the company? The short answer is it's not usually a problem as that money usually stays in the real economy through capital allocation, whether its spent to grow the company, or released as a dividend. The 2k earnings have already been taxed at 15%(35% at the richest, most unequal companies) and the government taxes again for cash dividend at 20% for the richest, most unholy assholes among us. Say Mr. Owner wants a lavish lifestyle, so the company declares a 1000 dollar dividend, he takes his 500 bucks pays the government their 100 bucks and the 400 stays in the real economy buying goods that the 99% produce. So congratulations, Mr owner still has 40000 net worth only paid taxes on the lifestyle he wanted, and people are still upset with him for having more net worth than he can spend in a lifetime. In a perfect world rates for income tax = interest tax = dividend tax + corporate tax = capital gains tax + corporate tax. But hey inequality would still exist eh? Or were you talking about wealth generated as in capital turning a company with 3000 in assets and 1000 in earnings into a 11000 asset/2000 earnings company when you feel labor should have grown the company? Just nitpicking about your perfect world tax rates. Corporations enjoy limited liability meaning that shareholders cannot be targeted to cover the liabilities of a corporation. Partnership owners and small business owners can be prosecuted for their business liabilities up to the point of declaring bankruptcy. Clearly, since you're insinuating that it's unfair for corporations to be double taxed, how do you propose their inequality of liabilities be covered? Should all present shareholders be identified so that their wealth can be sought after to cover corporate liabilities?
Not sure about Canada, but in the US small businesses and partnerships have ownership forms that offer limited liability too. I'm not going to say that those forms are *always* accessible, but they are accessible.
Edit: Also, if you aren't a corp, you pay personal tax rates, which are different.
|
On March 03 2014 09:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 09:36 DetriusXii wrote:On March 02 2014 15:48 Wolfstan wrote:On March 02 2014 14:06 oneofthem wrote:
^wolfstan we were talking about the portion of total wealth generated captured by capital. this is different from asset appreciation The idea is still the same as I thought it best to explain how extracting money from the capital refuted his point better as he referenced the value of capital(capital markets) as % of income(the real economy metric that best supports his argument) and his argument that the solution is to somehow shift more value into the real economy from the capital economy. You are more concerned about the flow from the real economy into the capital markets it seems, I agree with you but probably for different reasons. I'm more concerned about uneducated Joe Blow using his after tax income that should be spent on consumer purchase stepping into the capital markets for that 40k equity in our previous example and getting eaten alive by the smart money. Both that is also one of the best ways to achieve the goal of social mobility so I am also advocate of it. You seem more interested in the 2k earnings made from the company? The short answer is it's not usually a problem as that money usually stays in the real economy through capital allocation, whether its spent to grow the company, or released as a dividend. The 2k earnings have already been taxed at 15%(35% at the richest, most unequal companies) and the government taxes again for cash dividend at 20% for the richest, most unholy assholes among us. Say Mr. Owner wants a lavish lifestyle, so the company declares a 1000 dollar dividend, he takes his 500 bucks pays the government their 100 bucks and the 400 stays in the real economy buying goods that the 99% produce. So congratulations, Mr owner still has 40000 net worth only paid taxes on the lifestyle he wanted, and people are still upset with him for having more net worth than he can spend in a lifetime. In a perfect world rates for income tax = interest tax = dividend tax + corporate tax = capital gains tax + corporate tax. But hey inequality would still exist eh? Or were you talking about wealth generated as in capital turning a company with 3000 in assets and 1000 in earnings into a 11000 asset/2000 earnings company when you feel labor should have grown the company? Just nitpicking about your perfect world tax rates. Corporations enjoy limited liability meaning that shareholders cannot be targeted to cover the liabilities of a corporation. Partnership owners and small business owners can be prosecuted for their business liabilities up to the point of declaring bankruptcy. Clearly, since you're insinuating that it's unfair for corporations to be double taxed, how do you propose their inequality of liabilities be covered? Should all present shareholders be identified so that their wealth can be sought after to cover corporate liabilities? Not sure about Canada, but in the US small businesses and partnerships have ownership forms that offer limited liability too. I'm not going to say that those forms are *always* accessible, but they are accessible.
Can you link to an example? It still doesn't address the fact that corporations are not the equal creature in income as the owners of a corporation get to absolve themselves of the responsibility for the financial responsibilities of the corporation. Corporations aren't equal, so double taxation shouldn't be bloody murder when applied to them.
|
In the situation where a company becomes insolvent, the holders of the uncollectable assets that the company owes will write the assets down to what ever can be collected in liquidation of the failed venture. Double taxation would do nothing to allow the asset holder to be made whole, the "inequality of assets" does not have to be covered by anybody, it simply shows as a correction in the asset holders balance sheet for improper valuation and risk management.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
taxing a firm is decision distorting, and is inferior to taxing the investor's cap gains which is not that decision distorting. in fact the disparity between wage and capital tax is pretty bad and you can close it better with a lower corporate tax
|
On March 03 2014 10:06 DetriusXii wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 09:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 03 2014 09:36 DetriusXii wrote:On March 02 2014 15:48 Wolfstan wrote:On March 02 2014 14:06 oneofthem wrote:
^wolfstan we were talking about the portion of total wealth generated captured by capital. this is different from asset appreciation The idea is still the same as I thought it best to explain how extracting money from the capital refuted his point better as he referenced the value of capital(capital markets) as % of income(the real economy metric that best supports his argument) and his argument that the solution is to somehow shift more value into the real economy from the capital economy. You are more concerned about the flow from the real economy into the capital markets it seems, I agree with you but probably for different reasons. I'm more concerned about uneducated Joe Blow using his after tax income that should be spent on consumer purchase stepping into the capital markets for that 40k equity in our previous example and getting eaten alive by the smart money. Both that is also one of the best ways to achieve the goal of social mobility so I am also advocate of it. You seem more interested in the 2k earnings made from the company? The short answer is it's not usually a problem as that money usually stays in the real economy through capital allocation, whether its spent to grow the company, or released as a dividend. The 2k earnings have already been taxed at 15%(35% at the richest, most unequal companies) and the government taxes again for cash dividend at 20% for the richest, most unholy assholes among us. Say Mr. Owner wants a lavish lifestyle, so the company declares a 1000 dollar dividend, he takes his 500 bucks pays the government their 100 bucks and the 400 stays in the real economy buying goods that the 99% produce. So congratulations, Mr owner still has 40000 net worth only paid taxes on the lifestyle he wanted, and people are still upset with him for having more net worth than he can spend in a lifetime. In a perfect world rates for income tax = interest tax = dividend tax + corporate tax = capital gains tax + corporate tax. But hey inequality would still exist eh? Or were you talking about wealth generated as in capital turning a company with 3000 in assets and 1000 in earnings into a 11000 asset/2000 earnings company when you feel labor should have grown the company? Just nitpicking about your perfect world tax rates. Corporations enjoy limited liability meaning that shareholders cannot be targeted to cover the liabilities of a corporation. Partnership owners and small business owners can be prosecuted for their business liabilities up to the point of declaring bankruptcy. Clearly, since you're insinuating that it's unfair for corporations to be double taxed, how do you propose their inequality of liabilities be covered? Should all present shareholders be identified so that their wealth can be sought after to cover corporate liabilities? Not sure about Canada, but in the US small businesses and partnerships have ownership forms that offer limited liability too. I'm not going to say that those forms are *always* accessible, but they are accessible. Can you link to an example? It still doesn't address the fact that corporations are not the equal creature in income as the owners of a corporation get to absolve themselves of the responsibility for the financial responsibilities of the corporation. Corporations aren't equal, so double taxation shouldn't be bloody murder when applied to them.
Corporate taxation is completely unrelated to the issue of shareholder liability for corporate debt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
