Which of you Nutz agree with agree with this Milo dude?
- Thread starter Original Mountaineer1
- Start date
"Any provider of any product or service produced by any manufacturer or seller of that product or service pays the full costs of producing it."
Really? Do you want to think about that for a minute? Do you really not see any cases that contradict that?
In the macro economic analysis, no Op2. If we're not talking about artificial subsidies (which I'm against) or set asides, or Government distortions of a truly free market...I can't think of any instance where producers of any product, or good, or service doesn't first pay the costs.
I've explained how they eventually attempt to recover those costs and hopefully at a profit.
The one thing I will support with you is that our current market is not free. Not in the traditional sense Op2. It is controlled, distorted, manipulated, and otherwise interfered with by Big Government bureaucrats, lobbyists, environmental activists, the tax code, and even gamers of this backwards system that simply rewards those who have enough power or influence to fix advantages for themselves.
But under a true free market, free enterprise system minus all of the distortions I just laid out to you, I'd stand by my explanation of who initially pays the true costs of any product or service offered.
Freely, I might add.
You set me up as "Lord of the board" or some other such gobbledygook boom. I like you (sometimes), people like me. I express my opinions and argue for my positions and other folks either agree or disagree with me. Cool.
Why are you only upset with me, or the ones who choose to like or agree with what I say? Are they all wrong too like you accuse me of being?
So you're the only one who knows which posts should be liked, or who's correct?
OK.
Okay then, say we live in a town with a big river and the town gets its drinking water from the river. And then I open a big factory right next to the river and make stuff in my factory and in the process I dump pollutants into the river that are a byproduct of making my stuff. And as a result the river is polluted and everybody in the town has to pay more for their water bill to clean up the water that I've polluted. The way I read it you're just fine with that arrangement.
Nope...because you're automatically assuming that the polluter escapes all culpability for the damages they've caused. Just as I would not "force" consumers of that manufacturer's product to offset their costs for cleaning up or their polluting, I would not excuse that manufacturer or company from their responsibility for cleaning up or paying for their mess. However, that is a separate issue from them paying for the costs of initially producing their products. The cleanup payment costs would come after the fact, not as a forced control to prevent them from polluting.
Suppose they are behaving responsibily and helping through their manufacturing processes to offset the town's costs for keeping the drinking water supply clean? Should they then receive a tax credit? It can work both ways you know.
You are suggesting the people automatically assume the full costs of clean up for the company's mess, and giving them a free pass under the scenario you present here. Not me. If health and safety inspectors trace the damages caused in that drinking water to the company, they should pay the full costs for the environmental harm they caused...directly.
If they cannot, they should just go out of business because consumers should not be forced to offset the costs for the cleanup. The only problem I can see in your scenario is what if they simply refuse to clean up their mess or pay for it?
The answer then would indeed be to either fine them (not tax them) freeze their assets to pay for the mess, force them to take remedial actions and pay for it, and absent all of that jail the company Officials, seize their assets, shut the company down, and sell off it's assets to defray or pay for costs of cleaning up the mess. But those are all direct actions that could be taken absent the company's willingness to be environmentally responsible.
But everything else short of forced compliance is volitional under my scenario to address your example. Under the "carbon tax" proposal, everything is by brute Government force or interference into otherwise free market choices. There is no "free choice" involved with the carbon tax model, even if there is no pollution.
As we've argued over this particular issue (Global warming) we are not certain Man is causing it.
Tax credit for not polluting? There's that sound logic that circles everything back round to......atl being right.
I was suggesting that in comparison boom, to Op2 claiming that Carbon taxes are imposed as a disincentive for folks to not use fossil fuels or not pollute. I don't favor it, I was simply trying to compare the absurdity (in my opinion) of either tax.
That's patently ridiculous. You're just dancing around the issues because you don't want to say I've made a valid point. As if it matters in spirit exactly how it's done. Okay then, don't have a carbon tax, let fossil fuel companies sell whatever they want, and then go to them afterwards and present them with a giant bill for the damage their product has caused and if they can pay it and stay in business then they stay in business. Other than that being massively less efficient than just having the extra cost included at the point of sale so the customer can make an informed decision, what's the difference?
No he was asking if you would be fine with a company dumping pollutants into a river in which the town gets its drinking water and everyone in the town had to pay more for their water bill in order to clean up the pollution. And you countered by asking should we give them a tax credit for NOT polluting the river.
Jumping in late but the federal government offers incentives through tax advantages and direct subsidies in some cases (milk is an example that comes to mind). State and local governments often incent firms to move in or stay by offering low cost leases and other tax reductions or abatements as well as often training workers for specific plants in state run community colleges.
Biff is creating faux outrage simply to elevate the Breitbart dude. Protests occur at campuses when lunatic fringe types show up. Same happened to David Duke. Not surprising and certainly not POTUS newsworthy, unless Biff wants to use it for his cause. And he pathetically is.
Last edited:
We're building that wall to protect ourselves Coop, and I believe Trump will find a way to make Mexico pay for it. Even if he didn't, Trump was elected in part to seal that border and stop the influx of illegals into this country. If Mexico doesn't pay for, I'm sure if asked to Americans would. But why should we if we can force them to pay for it?
And you Sir are illlogically unserious. Most readers of this forum delight in deconstructing your unserious illlogical posts . Successfully doing so almost every time, while you myopically project having "destroyed" them. I've seen live comedy stand up acts who aren't as funny as the way you get "owned" on this board on a daily basis.
Sit down.
The difference is you haven't proved fossil fuel companies are solely liable for any damages. We do not know if burning fossil fuels causes global warming, yet you're still forcing consumers of their product to pay costs for producing it whether they're polluting or not.
You also still do not show how that tax either cleans up whatever pollution is caused, or returns value either to the consumer or the producer.
You're assuming the tax limits production of the offending pollutant, but how do you know what the costs for cleanup of whatever damage it (pollution) caused would be? You're making assumptions about the effects without fully understanding the impacts of the cause. Quantifying costs that don't exist because the damage is not isolated to uses specifically and directly related to that product. (fossil fuel)
It's bassakwards, and it's not Science. It is as I've said before, simply an income redistribution scheme.
Last edited:
We can't make them pay for it. We won't make them pay for it. The American consumer will pay for it. That seems to fly in the face of the argument you are making in this thread.
You didn't read the whole thing boom. The "tax free credit" I suggested for not polluting or helping to keep the water clean is just as ridiculous in my opinion as "charging" a tax to the company to allegedly dissuade them from polluting or forcing them to pay for future costs to the town of cleaning up their mess. I said make the company clean up their mess when/if they make it. Not force them to pay for something if they haven't done anything, or in case they do make a mess.
What's free or fair about that?
Sooner or later they'll figure it out. Biff will have to figure out how to spin it so it sounds like Mexico is paying for it.
Other people believe otherwise. We'll see. As I said, we'd pay for it anyway. It's a big reason Trump was elected.
Most people with at least an average IQ recognized the very first time the idiot made the statement during the campaign that he was full of ****. The rubes ate it up and are still hanging on to the dream.
Most Trump haters didn't think he'd even build it, or get a chance to. You probably just need to stop predicting what he will or will not do, or what he can or cannot do, because most of your (Leftist) predictions about any of it have been wrong.
He's schooling you people, while you all are still calling him just a Carnival barker.
Last edited:
And when Mexico pays for it, you folks on the Left will be trying to spin it pretending they haven't paid for it.
Just like you all tried to prove he was elected fraudulently, or couldn't win Blue states, or he didn't know how to act "Presidential" or was too stupid to pick smart people for his cabinet, or too dense put together an effective Legislative agenda, or too naive to keep companies from moving jobs overseas.
You've been wrong about every prediction you've made about his competence, effectiveness, or abilities.
You're predictions of him and the Wall have no track record backing them up, in fact it's the exact opposite.
Correct OM, and I'm against all of them (subsidies). While I do favor certain tax abatements or reduced obligations, I mentioned to him earlier in the thread that you have to eliminate all artificial favors, set asides, or other crony capitalism perks in order to balance all cost advantages set up under the current system for some companies. So you are correct as things are operated today, which is not a truly free market.
Oh he'll build a wall, make us pay for it and it will long stand as a symbol. What is missing is the fact that benefit analysis should have been done to really see how to use that 60-80 billion to better secure our border. Biff said he was going to build a wall with lots of tunnels running under it.
I say let's just enforce our existing immigration Laws, deport criminal illegals, and secure that border...none of which your guy who was in there the last 8 years appeared willing or able to do.
We can call the Wall insurance after doing all the rest.
How about we better enforce our laws, deport illegals, and better secure our borders. F#ck the bloody wall.
I actually think that Wall gets built faster and cheaper than anybody thinks right now. I'll even suggest not only Mexico helps us pay for it too. Other countries interested in clearing up the drug running, human trafficking, bribery from Drug Lords and others will help pay for it in exchange for our helping them regain control of their countrysides and Governments.
Watch.
You're dreaming. The wall itself is nothing more than a kneejerk promise that had no functional purpose other than to be a symbol that Trump built.
Then why are you guys on the Left having such a hissy fit over it? If it's just a kneejerk promise or a worthless symbol you should be egging Trump on to make a further fool of himself trying to either build it or force Mexico to pay for it.
You want him to make a fool of himself over it right? So stop complaining about it and just let him do what you're all predicting...making a fool out of himself over it. Then once he fails to build it or and gets Mexico to pay for it, you can all can just thump your chests and say "see, told ya".
You might even get Hillary back into the White House in 2020, to restore order to your fractured little egos.
I think the best we can hope for right now is just to as I said, secure that border, aggressively enforce the immigration laws on the books, round up and send all the illegal criminals back, and then see what that border looks like.
Put the wall up if we're still being invaded, and make Mexico pay for it if they're not doing all they can or at least nothing more on their side to help us maintain control over who comes across that border illegally or otherwise.
How much do you think those illegals are costing this country in health care, lost jobs to Americans and lost money sent back to Mexico and not spent in our economy.
Further up you'll see my views on Biff's wall. I think the cart is way ahead of the horse with this wall and how smart an investment it is. I think it's a kneejerk reaction that if built, will have tunnels under it. Let's do a benefit analysis first and see if that 60-80 billion would be better used on another approach
People can only go thru single file in tunnels. If laws were enforced, we wouldn't ahve the problems that we do, at least, to the scale we have now. I thought the cost was about 12 billion but illegals are costing a lot .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on Thursday that Congress was moving ahead with a plan to build a wall on the southern border of the US. He estimated the cost to be between $12 billion and $15 billion.