Proposition 23

[jstoesz]

I am just going to laugh here for a second…

[quote] people like you [/quote]

Now that is rich! I forgot to mention I also support murdering baby seals, and sometimes shoot marmots for fun, oh and I hate recycling to boot.

Do you know me? Do you know my positions on pollution?

Data to back up claims, eh.

CHINA!!!! is the antithesis to your argument. High growth rate little GHG control.

[quote] It is your and Prof’s responsibility to back up the claims that carbon emissions controls significantly add to unemployment.[/quote]

This argument does not require specific data. I can find studies that show this, but I am sure you can find an equal and opposite number of the same. This point is simply made through logic, it is econ 101. Let me break this down into small digestible chunks.

If you take capital from a productive industry (one that makes a profit) and give it to an unproductive industry (one that does not make a real, unsubsidized profit), you will have less profit! Less Profit means less jobs.

Just to hammer this home in another way. If you increase the expense of doing business, businesses have three options, 1. go bankrupt (fewer jobs in this industry directly), 2. Pass on the cost to consumers (every other industry gets less capital from consumers…fewer jobs) 3. Leave the state (kind of like the first).

I have not commented on the benefits of regulating pollution (ftr I am not convinced CO2 is a pollutant, but that is besides the point)…I have only spoken of the economic implications of doing so. To argue that AB32 will magically create unproductive jobs without costing productive jobs is to deny gravity. But with that said, I am a big proponent of environmental protection, and the fact that you automatically believe that I must want to rape and kill the environment is sadly unsurprising.

ftr germany 12% more energy from renewables than california.

[air_ogi]

[quote=jstoesz]
Just to hammer this home in another way. If you increase the expense of doing business, businesses have three options, 1. go bankrupt (fewer jobs in this industry directly), 2. Pass on the cost to consumers (every other industry gets less capital from consumers…fewer jobs) 3. Leave the state (kind of like the first).
[/quote]

or 4.) Adapt

I mean, using your argument I can show that we should not have law enforcement at all because it increases the cost of business.

[air_ogi]

[quote=jstoesz]
Just to hammer this home in another way. If you increase the expense of doing business, businesses have three options, 1. go bankrupt (fewer jobs in this industry directly), 2. Pass on the cost to consumers (every other industry gets less capital from consumers…fewer jobs) 3. Leave the state (kind of like the first).
[/quote]

or 4.) Adapt

I mean, using your argument I can show that we should not have law enforcement at all because it increases the cost of business.

[air_ogi]

[quote=jstoesz]
Just to hammer this home in another way. If you increase the expense of doing business, businesses have three options, 1. go bankrupt (fewer jobs in this industry directly), 2. Pass on the cost to consumers (every other industry gets less capital from consumers…fewer jobs) 3. Leave the state (kind of like the first).
[/quote]

or 4.) Adapt

I mean, using your argument I can show that we should not have law enforcement at all because it increases the cost of business.

[air_ogi]

[quote=jstoesz]
Just to hammer this home in another way. If you increase the expense of doing business, businesses have three options, 1. go bankrupt (fewer jobs in this industry directly), 2. Pass on the cost to consumers (every other industry gets less capital from consumers…fewer jobs) 3. Leave the state (kind of like the first).
[/quote]

or 4.) Adapt

I mean, using your argument I can show that we should not have law enforcement at all because it increases the cost of business.

[air_ogi]

[quote=jstoesz]
Just to hammer this home in another way. If you increase the expense of doing business, businesses have three options, 1. go bankrupt (fewer jobs in this industry directly), 2. Pass on the cost to consumers (every other industry gets less capital from consumers…fewer jobs) 3. Leave the state (kind of like the first).
[/quote]

or 4.) Adapt

I mean, using your argument I can show that we should not have law enforcement at all because it increases the cost of business.

[jstoesz]

I don’t follow your law enforcement analogy…please expound.

1-3 are adapting. There is no way for an oil refiner to pump out less CO2 and make a cheaper product (they would have done it if they could). There adaptation will cost more money. If you do not concede this, you are back to denying gravity. And there is no way to produce energy in mass and reliable quantities cheaper than fossil fuels. This will probably not always be true, but it is today (a la fewer jobs).

[jstoesz]

I don’t follow your law enforcement analogy…please expound.

1-3 are adapting. There is no way for an oil refiner to pump out less CO2 and make a cheaper product (they would have done it if they could). There adaptation will cost more money. If you do not concede this, you are back to denying gravity. And there is no way to produce energy in mass and reliable quantities cheaper than fossil fuels. This will probably not always be true, but it is today (a la fewer jobs).

[jstoesz]

I don’t follow your law enforcement analogy…please expound.

1-3 are adapting. There is no way for an oil refiner to pump out less CO2 and make a cheaper product (they would have done it if they could). There adaptation will cost more money. If you do not concede this, you are back to denying gravity. And there is no way to produce energy in mass and reliable quantities cheaper than fossil fuels. This will probably not always be true, but it is today (a la fewer jobs).

[jstoesz]

I don’t follow your law enforcement analogy…please expound.

1-3 are adapting. There is no way for an oil refiner to pump out less CO2 and make a cheaper product (they would have done it if they could). There adaptation will cost more money. If you do not concede this, you are back to denying gravity. And there is no way to produce energy in mass and reliable quantities cheaper than fossil fuels. This will probably not always be true, but it is today (a la fewer jobs).

[jstoesz]

I don’t follow your law enforcement analogy…please expound.

1-3 are adapting. There is no way for an oil refiner to pump out less CO2 and make a cheaper product (they would have done it if they could). There adaptation will cost more money. If you do not concede this, you are back to denying gravity. And there is no way to produce energy in mass and reliable quantities cheaper than fossil fuels. This will probably not always be true, but it is today (a la fewer jobs).

[enron_by_the_sea]

Guys:

You are missing the points on prop.s

Most prop.s are trying to accomplish things and fighting battles that should be fought in the legislature. That is why we elect these people. If they are not doing those job, the right course of action is to pressure them to accomplish it and change them if needed.

To put some law on the ballot and have people who have less than 10 minutes to decide on issues is the worst way we can run this state. This leads to misleading prop.s, special interests pushing their agendas and 30-second soundbites on TV. This is lawmaking at its worst.

Prop.s should only serve as a check on legislature. Passing one should be a rarity.

Public, please leave legislating to the legislature!!! Your job is to shape the legislature, not to replace them!!!

[enron_by_the_sea]

Guys:

You are missing the points on prop.s

Most prop.s are trying to accomplish things and fighting battles that should be fought in the legislature. That is why we elect these people. If they are not doing those job, the right course of action is to pressure them to accomplish it and change them if needed.

To put some law on the ballot and have people who have less than 10 minutes to decide on issues is the worst way we can run this state. This leads to misleading prop.s, special interests pushing their agendas and 30-second soundbites on TV. This is lawmaking at its worst.

Prop.s should only serve as a check on legislature. Passing one should be a rarity.

Public, please leave legislating to the legislature!!! Your job is to shape the legislature, not to replace them!!!

[enron_by_the_sea]

Guys:

You are missing the points on prop.s

Most prop.s are trying to accomplish things and fighting battles that should be fought in the legislature. That is why we elect these people. If they are not doing those job, the right course of action is to pressure them to accomplish it and change them if needed.

To put some law on the ballot and have people who have less than 10 minutes to decide on issues is the worst way we can run this state. This leads to misleading prop.s, special interests pushing their agendas and 30-second soundbites on TV. This is lawmaking at its worst.

Prop.s should only serve as a check on legislature. Passing one should be a rarity.

Public, please leave legislating to the legislature!!! Your job is to shape the legislature, not to replace them!!!

[enron_by_the_sea]

Guys:

You are missing the points on prop.s

Most prop.s are trying to accomplish things and fighting battles that should be fought in the legislature. That is why we elect these people. If they are not doing those job, the right course of action is to pressure them to accomplish it and change them if needed.

To put some law on the ballot and have people who have less than 10 minutes to decide on issues is the worst way we can run this state. This leads to misleading prop.s, special interests pushing their agendas and 30-second soundbites on TV. This is lawmaking at its worst.

Prop.s should only serve as a check on legislature. Passing one should be a rarity.

Public, please leave legislating to the legislature!!! Your job is to shape the legislature, not to replace them!!!

[Author]

Posts