JayB

Possibly, but my unsubstantiated hunch is that the sum-total of the positives - eliminating baroque tax-shelters, compliance costs, market distortions, etc -from making these changes would be substantially greater than negatives and result in both a higher tax yield and favor economic growth.

Wow - when was that?

I'm beginning to think that this is a job requirement for leading a large evangelical congregation. Makes you wonder if some component of the zeal and drive necessary to fill that kind of a role comes from a vivid sense of one's own shortcomings in this regard. No one that I'm aware of lives in perfect accordance with the principles that they espouse - but the reality is is that if you hold yourself up as a model your own life had better be beyond reproach except for the occaisional speeding ticket or overdue tax return. If the allegations of getting cranked-out on meth before the trysts is true then this guy will succeed in reducing both Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Baker to bat-boys in the big-leagues of self-inflicted evangeloplosion.

If you are thinking it's composed of people who simplistically categorize others to make their worldviews easier to comprehend and manage I'm in total agreement! You certainly are.

Except that the part of the world that has the energy is not the part of the world that has either the will or the capacity to influence China in this way. Don't see Algeria telling China "Hey - we'd love to sell you this oil, and we appreciate the diplomatic cover for the genocide and all - but let's talk about those emissions first..." Ditto for all of the rest of Africa and the middle East, and I don't see Russia being all that interested in a showdown with China either. All of this just goes to show that small practical measures shaped by consumer sentiment and effective demand will probably be more effective in curtailing CO2 emissions than some kind of transnational econo-climato Politburo.

Weren't you the one expressing haughty disdain for those who consider the electorate stupid yesterday? You remind me of the comissars, or the liberal elite, dedicated to the idea of the common man, but loathing them entirely. Thankfully the electorate is composed elements other than fringe progressives/wingnuts.

Well when the isothermic effects of "GW" finally do take hold in the world oceans and the oceanic currents stop and what we call "weather" as we know it ceases to be, we will then be able to predict the future fairly accurately and it will look something like this.. "FORECAST FOR THE UPCOMING PERIOD; VALID JAN THRU MAR 2023... The stationary high pressure system that has parked itself over the eastern pacific will continue to produce extreme heat for the western 2/3'ds of the country with high temps for the next 3 months expected to diviate less than 2 degrees from 115 deg F. Lows are expected to remain in the mid 90's for that time period. Please check back in 3 months for the updated forecast.. Thank You" Yawn. Plug the maximum projected impact of full global accordance with Kyoto into those models and tell me how much that changes the forecast.

Maybe, maybe not. If these prognostications are true, and these are the only variables that will have any bearing on C02 emissions in the future - then we'll just have to learn to live with higher CO2 levels. Somehow I think that we'll manage, given the alternative. Good luck with that enforcement mechanism you're pondering there, kemosabe. That, if anything, takes the cake as a sentimental import from the land of wishful thinking. If the collective impotence that's been revealed by the world's efforts to get a third rate country like Iran to give up it's nukes, good luck forcibly compelling China to toe the line on emissions, amigo.

See above for the second point, and as far as the first point is concerned - for all we know, your children's children's children may very well have bigger fish to fry. Whenever the Romans who lived at the apex of their civilization were worrying about the future, I suspect that the Ostrogoths and Visigoths never figured highly in their collective imaginations. I personally think that we ourselves have bigger fish to fry, and solutions in hand for a number of them right now like AIDS, Malaria, unclean drinking water, education, trade barriers, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

It this was all happening in a void, maybe people would just stoke up the coal plants and call it good, but given the present level of concern about CO2 emissions, it seems like a given to me that at some point the collective schitzophrenia that seems to have overcome the green movement will abate somewhat, and people will come to recognize nuclear power as the lesser of the two evils. I'd say that conservation is the single most cost effective way to reduce CO2 emissions, followed shortly thereafter by investments in making nuclear power both less costly and safer. Alternative energy sources are an important but distant third IMO. Coal will never go away, but I expect to see a significant shift in the public's thinking about nuclear power as concern about CO2 emissions trends higher.

Matt - if you appeared to understand anything at all about economics I'd take the gibes more seriously, but I'm reasonably confident that even my half-assed, leisure time acquaintance with the subject makes you the guy arguing on behalf of the Creationist position in most of these arguments. There's help though. Start with this article by your boy Krugman: Read Me Matt and Jim! As for the second point, I agree, with the minor caveat that I think that ill-informed soak-the-rich populism is something that folks who call themselves progressives have an almost exclusive franchise on. Ditto for protectionism, though this often territory also occupied by nativist right-wing nutjobs. As far as solutions go, I like the staggered flat-tax as an idea that might not be optimal but might be an imrovement over the present megacluster. No tax on income below 20 thousand, X percent on 20-40 thousand, a bit more on 40-80 thousand, a bit more on 80-160 thousand, and so on. Deductibilty for health care expenses and retirement contributions - no deductions for anything else. Flat tax on capital gains from all asset classes and dividends.

I agree, but our current administration seems to lean a lot more heavily to the "do nothing" view than "paleo-eden". If you are a true economic scientist, AND you believe that our CO2 emissions are causing global warming, then you would agree with the following: (1) Global warming will cost us money in the form of lost land, lost farm productivity, displacements of population centers, etc. (2) Reducing CO2 emissions costs money. Spending money to reduce CO2 is partially offset by cost savings from decreased energy costs and health benefits (to the extent that toxics are reduced). (3) There is some optimum amount of money that we should be spending on CO2 reductions to maximize our long term economic welfare. If you believe those three statements, then it comes down to: A) who spends the money, and B) what is the right amount to "invest" in CO2 reduction. The problem of course is the old "tragedy of the commons". Everyone would benefit from CO2 reduction, but they would benefit MORE if it was someone else who spent the money. That's why we have the concept of a treaty like Kyoto. I partially agree with some of what you've written there, but one needs to be careful here. If someone had been able to accurately forecast the amount of goods that we'd need to move across the country in 1945 in the mid 18th century, the most likely solution would to have been converting the entire eastern seaboard to pasturage to feed and breed all of the horses that would be needed to move the goods overland in wagons. The advent of new technologies and effective demand, as opposed to predicted future demand, worked together - however imperfectly, and resulted in a much more efficient solution to this problem. Government played an important and constructive role in the construction of intercontinental railroads, but thankfully they didn't impose an 18th century solution on an a 20th century problem. If we accept that we can't predict the future perfectly, I think it makes sense to focus investments on things that will benefit humanity no matter what happens in the future. Increasing the output from a given input of energy in some form or another falls into this category, so it's hard to imagine a future in which we've made massive improvements in energy efficiency will hurt us. If it turns out that we can design electric cars or hybrids or whatever that result in energy savings that are greater than the extra costs associated with producing them, that will be part of this pattern. Ditto for alternative energies, etc. If we find ourselves in a situation where the demand for oil consistently outstrips the available supply, this will probably prove to be a far more powerful incentive for increasing fuel efficiency, and the development of alternative engergy sources than any amount of government spending, much less idle chanting of "Hey Hey! Ho Ho!" slogans could ever produce. I am personally not the least bit worried about global warming, and I think that once the long-awaited energy crunch begins to materialize in even a minor way, this will largely take care of itself. I think that I'd personally relegate 95% of the money that anyone is tempted to spend on this to improvements in public health, sustainable agricultural output, education, etc and spend whatevers left over on global warming.

I am left wondering whether a tax code that is not conceived in a manner thats in accordance with peoples abstract conceptions of what constitutes a "progressive" policy matter more than the outcomes that the said code produces. I can pretty much guarantee that I could go to a gathering of self-annointed progressives with a packet of statistics related to tax-free municipal bonds. "Overwhelmingly held by the wealthy...only produce a tax benefit for the people in the highest tax brackets...help them shield their unearned income from taxes that the rest of us have to pay...think of what we could do with the revenue - let's kill the tax exemption for dividends generated by municipal bonds!!" The odds that anyone in the audience would chime in and say, "Won't this make it more difficult and costly for municipalities to borrow the money they need to build hospitals and bridges and other infrastructure, and won't the additional costs be passed onto the people who depend on these services the most through higher sales taxes and other fees, which will affect the poor people who use them the most?" are slim indeed. The way things works doesn't always conform to abstract notions of what's fair, and this is especially true for what's economically optimal - that is what co-optimizes tax yields and long-term economic growth. If you are out to soak the rich, you need to be careful how you go about doing so most of these efforts end up being a nuisance for the wealthy and seldom end up benefitting the poor. Anyone remember the 10% luxury tax on goods over a certain threshold - I think it was $100,000? Did that hurt the rich folks? Not really - unless you consider postponing the yacht purchase a hardship. It did deliver a pretty big hit to the boatbuilders who made these crafts, and to the blue-collar guys who made them. If you want to be morally and intellectually consistent, you'll also have to add the mortgage tax deduction to the list of regressive tax breaks that needs to be substantially reformed.

Nice post - but you have clearly been turned into an uncomprehending tool of the establishment by the corrupt media who is trying to divert your attention from the real issues while the country and the world plunge headlong into irreversible ruin.

Who is the one doing the oversimplfying here? There was no variation in the climate before the industrial age? Even within the consensus view in which the position that CO2 emissions are contributing to an increasing global temperature has been established beyond all dispute, there still seems to be room to discuss how much of the change is due to higher C02 levels and how much is due to the natural variation of the Earths climate. Even people who are in complete agreement about these things will probably still have different ideas about the optimal policy response to them. There's quite a bit of room for discussion between doing nothing on one hand, and pretending that we can return to some kind of pre-industrial paleo-eden on the other.

Before this goes any further I should chime in and say that AviTripp contacted me about this a long time ago. I never responded simply because my spray to correspondence ratio is out of whack most of the time, and I just forgot. Someone wrote me an e-mail about this, and I never got around to registering at SuperTaco to chime in over there and say the same thing that I'll say here. He contacted me, I wouldn't have cared if he hadn't, but it was nice of him to do so - and while you are free to think whatever you want about the guy, there's no need to go after the guy or be offended on my behalf. If the day ever comes when I feel as though I've written anything that warrants copyright protection, I'll be sure to let everyone know. Feel free to post these commments at SuperTaco without formally attributing them to me.

No, but if I were you the odds are good that I'd either be running for a tall bridge to leap from or a therapists couch to recline on.

The percentage of people whose beliefs on free trade are pretty accurately summed up by this passage from Paul Krugman: "The idea of comparative advantage -- with its implication that trade between two nations normally raises the real incomes of both -- is, like evolution via natural selection, a concept that seems simple and compelling to those who understand it. Yet anyone who becomes involved in discussions of international trade beyond the narrow circle of academic economists quickly realizes that it must be, in some sense, a very difficult concept indeed. I am not talking here about the problem of communicating the case for free trade to crudely anti-intellectual opponents, people who simply dislike the idea of ideas. The persistence of that sort of opposition, like the persistence of creationism, is a different sort of question, and requires a different sort of discussion. What I am concerned with here are the views of intellectuals, people who do value ideas, but somehow find this particular idea impossible to grasp." Is probably pretty high. The odds are pretty good that most of them probably consider themselves both highly intelligent and impeccably informed on this issue, yet their beliefs are completely at odds with the best scholarly consensus. The world is full of lots of smart people who believe things that are at odds with the best evidence and understanding, but the odds that they are uniformly wrong or massively misinformed about everything of any consequence is pretty low. I have met chemical engineers who are obviously incredibly intelligent, yet reject evolution out of hand. I think that asking a single question and using the response to gauge how well informed or intelligent a single person - much less an entire population is - is problematic at best. Even if you conclude that the entire population outside of yourself is a bunch of deluded, passive rubes - well - that's the raw material that anyone who wants to change things is going to have to deal with.

Actually, I don't think that we are on a "disastrous course towards economic ruin," actually - and really don't think that starting with today's economic metrics and scrolling backwards in time, or contrasting them with any other society in the world at any time in history would support such a view, either. I don't think that the consensus amongst professional economists, much less economic historians, would support that contention either. There are some key problems that they would agree on, like the national debt, funding social security, etc - but I don't think that many would agree that they are to the point where the challenges presented by either can't be addressed by policy changes. I don't think you'll find many people that disagree with the notion that we should have an informed electorate and a that a good education system and an impartial press are critical for bringing that about, but again - what are you comparing the current state of affairs to? We have access to more information from more sources than ever before, so if the electorate isn't informed it certainly isn't the media's fault. "The Economist" and "The New York Times, " and "The Wall Street Journal," and "Foreign Affairs," etc, etc, etc, etc don't concern themselves with substantive issues? The average person can't get their hands on these with a mouse-click or a trip to the news-stand? Do you really believe that your opinion about what constitutes a real discussion of the real issues constitutes some kind of platonic uber-truth, and any reporter or editor or citizen who has a set of concerns and opinions about what's significant that differs from your own is hopelessly deluded? I think that what really bothers you here is that there are people in the world who have beliefs or ideas about policy that are inconsistent with your own view, and the only way that this could possibly come about is through a corrupt media, supine populace, etc, etc, etc.

That's an conglomeration of sentiments that you've commingled there, Matt. A hefty dose fatalism, wrapped in paranoia, inside a veneer of contempt. Sounds like Paul Ehrlich rocking back and forth in his nursing home bed after the meds have worn off. The Republicans are leading the country to an unambiguous ruin in every regard, a Democratic congress won't substantially improve things, and the press is universally corrupted by nefarious powers who are out to decieve the public for their own advantage then the message is...we're all doomed? Sounds like an ethos that belongs on wild-eyed, heavily-bearded street prophet's sandwich-board than an agenda. Compared to what time in history? Compared to what country? If the Democrats do take over, I will no doubt be relieved to find that most of them who succeed in winning office will for the most part be people who, despite all of the faults and shortcomings that they share with the rest of humanity, people who are prepared to engage the world and the people that inhabit it as they are and work within that context to make some constructive changes - rather than pining for some utopian netherworld where political corruption doesn't exist, etc.

"In 2000, tax returns with an adjusted gross income over $200,000 earned 26.7 percent of all income, and they paid 47.3 percent of all income taxes. That’s a tax-to-income share ratio of 1.79. Four years later in 2004, their share of income had fallen from 26.7 to 25.5 percent, but their share of taxes had risen to 50.0 percent. That brought the ratio up from 1.79 to 1.96 in 2004. The biggest winners were in the $25,000-to-$30,000 range. If the Bush tax cuts are the determining factor, then the logical conclusion is that the new 10-percent bracket and the doubled child credit caused dramatic reductions in tax payment. As a result, the ratio of tax share to income share was cut in half. Two other income groups stand out. People in the $75,000-to-$100,000 group benefited more than the group below earning between $50,000 and $75,000. Most likely, they earned enough to benefit from elimination of the marriage penalty and from cutting the 28-percent rate to 25 percent, but they didn’t make so much that they lost the benefit of the doubled child credit or the new 10-percent bracket. Their share of the nation’s income grew substantially, and their tax share grew by an infinitesimal amount. People making between $200,000 and $500,000 saw their tax share increase even more than the groups above them. That is the effect of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which takes away many of the Bush tax cuts for people in this range. Above $500,000 tax filers don’t “fall into” the AMT because they already owe more under the regular income tax code. " Link Other Interesting Tidbits I know that I'd personally rather get all of my compensation in the form of salary, and have the freedom to choose how much coverage I get, have the ability to choose coverage from any insurer in the country without being trapped in a market where the state makes coverage for things like psychiatric care mandatory for all provides, and get a personal tax deduction for my health-insurance premiums instead of the deduction being granted to my employers. This especially sucks for two income couples. Most couples only need to buy coverage through one employer, and most employers are unwilling to increase your base salary in exchange for forgoing coverage through them.

Season pass and a modern playboat to replace the wretched old-school excuse for the same is more accurate. Speaking of kayaking, here's another a link to kayaking podcast site with some interesting content: http://shwagger.typepad.com/kayak_journal_podcast/

How about contributing a good freaking podcast instead of the thumb icon you nob.

Here's a few: http://www.podclimber.com/ "RadioLab" - Kind of Combo of "This American Life" and "Science Friday." Haven't listened to many episodes, but what I've heard has been pretty interesting so far. I have actually stayed at work longer to hear the end of the episodes.... http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/ Another good resource http://www.radioeconomics.com/ Not someone I always agree with, but he's smart and intellectually serious, so I always enjoy listening to his commentary. http://robertreich.blogspot.com

NYT Article Link FOR years, Sheri Langham looked at the Republican politics of her parents as a tolerable quirk, one she could roll her eyes at and turn away from when the disagreements grew a bit deep. But earlier this year, Ms. Langham, 37, an ardent Democrat, found herself suddenly unable even to speak to her 65-year-old mother, a retiree in Arizona who, as an enthusiastic supporter of President Bush, “became the face of the enemy,” she said. “Things were getting to me, and it became such a moral litmus test that all I could think about was, ‘How can she support these people?’ ” said Ms. Langham, a stay-at-home mother in suburban Virginia. The mother and daughter had been close, but suddenly they stopped talking and exchanging e-mail messages. The freeze lasted almost a month...." I personally can't even begin to fathom breaking off communications with your parents over differences in your political outlooks, much less looking at them as "faces of the enemy," but then again I did pretty well in the sperm lottery and have always been on very good terms with my folks. Sad.