<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.1" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Cost of Climate Change</title>
	<link>http://wheredidmycapitalismgo.com/2009/06/30/the-cost-of-climate-change/</link>
	<description>The Diatribes of a Laissez-Faire Individual</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:52:14 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Paul</title>
		<link>http://wheredidmycapitalismgo.com/2009/06/30/the-cost-of-climate-change/#comment-83</link>
		<author>Paul</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:50:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://wheredidmycapitalismgo.com/2009/06/30/the-cost-of-climate-change/#comment-83</guid>
		<description>"Pollution is just an example of a time when government intervention may be better than a purely free-market outcome."

Government intervention is generally bad. A perfectly viable free market outcome is to create, engineer, innovate, and produce a solution to help reduce pollutants and make things run more efficiently. If the government wants to help then help by creating money in the system, not through printing, by reducing costs to people and businesses. If a company can figure out how to create "green" technology without it costing a fortune to implement and eventually reduce the cost of the product, then companies will dive right in.

However, companies and people cannot be innovative if they do not have capital. They cannot generate capital if they have to pay lots of money for current energy use, health care, and higher taxes.

This bill is a perfect example into how people have changed in the new world of technology. Everyone wants things now. I want to check my email now, the girls I coached wanted to become good players now, we need to fix global warming now. Sadly, things do not happen now. Events like reducing pollution, becoming a master at painting, lacrosse, guitar, or Goldeneye on N64 takes time. A lot of it. Time and patience. Pushing a bill through the system to increase financial pressure on a group in hopes of resolving a situation as fast as possible is irresponsible.

Besides, financial and economic pressure is what the US and UN do to foreign nations who are doing things that they disagree with. Saddam will not let UN inspectors into his nation, stop importing and exporting. North Korea building missiles, place an embargo on military and technological materials, as well as luxury goods. Japan moves on French Indochina and the Dutch East Indies, place an embargo on oil.

We the people have not ourselves as individuals and as corporations been falling in line and doing as we are told, create more and raise taxes.

Economic sanctions for the win!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Pollution is just an example of a time when government intervention may be better than a purely free-market outcome.&#8221;</p>
<p>Government intervention is generally bad. A perfectly viable free market outcome is to create, engineer, innovate, and produce a solution to help reduce pollutants and make things run more efficiently. If the government wants to help then help by creating money in the system, not through printing, by reducing costs to people and businesses. If a company can figure out how to create &#8220;green&#8221; technology without it costing a fortune to implement and eventually reduce the cost of the product, then companies will dive right in.</p>
<p>However, companies and people cannot be innovative if they do not have capital. They cannot generate capital if they have to pay lots of money for current energy use, health care, and higher taxes.</p>
<p>This bill is a perfect example into how people have changed in the new world of technology. Everyone wants things now. I want to check my email now, the girls I coached wanted to become good players now, we need to fix global warming now. Sadly, things do not happen now. Events like reducing pollution, becoming a master at painting, lacrosse, guitar, or Goldeneye on N64 takes time. A lot of it. Time and patience. Pushing a bill through the system to increase financial pressure on a group in hopes of resolving a situation as fast as possible is irresponsible.</p>
<p>Besides, financial and economic pressure is what the US and UN do to foreign nations who are doing things that they disagree with. Saddam will not let UN inspectors into his nation, stop importing and exporting. North Korea building missiles, place an embargo on military and technological materials, as well as luxury goods. Japan moves on French Indochina and the Dutch East Indies, place an embargo on oil.</p>
<p>We the people have not ourselves as individuals and as corporations been falling in line and doing as we are told, create more and raise taxes.</p>
<p>Economic sanctions for the win!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Monica</title>
		<link>http://wheredidmycapitalismgo.com/2009/06/30/the-cost-of-climate-change/#comment-81</link>
		<author>Monica</author>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 02:22:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://wheredidmycapitalismgo.com/2009/06/30/the-cost-of-climate-change/#comment-81</guid>
		<description>I have a difficult time thinking that a huge bureaucracy can do anything efficiently.    Too many chiefs, too little accountability, too easy to "pass the buck" to another faceless department, too much oversight that can be abused.  And with a bill of this size, with late amendments that could not have been read or discussed, there is just too much unknown about the consequences of all that legal-ese.

I'm so concerned about this administration.  In my mind's eye I imagine energy prices going up because of legislation like this - legislation that is incomprehensible and full of "stuff" - then as prices go up, the powers that be  that caused the increase with new mandates and restrictions will demonize the power companies and nationalize.

It's much the same scenario as health care is currently suffering.  Insurance companies that have been forced to provide for an increasing number of "conditions" - toupees, breast augmentation, pre-existing conditions, counseling, etc. by constant mandates- are now called out because of the cost of insurance.  Hospitals that are required to accept all comers and that deal with reduced and underpriced reimbursements for costly procedures from the medicare and medicaid programs are criticized because of their increasing  costs.  Regardless of what the president says, any goverment takeover will continue to grow, because private health care and insurance providers will be competing with the rulemakers.  Can't compete with that.

Of course there are private devils, too. Usually they are easier to take down than the controllers in Washington.

Definitely concerned about where we are going.  

And another thing - enough already of MIchael Jackson, r.i.p.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have a difficult time thinking that a huge bureaucracy can do anything efficiently.    Too many chiefs, too little accountability, too easy to &#8220;pass the buck&#8221; to another faceless department, too much oversight that can be abused.  And with a bill of this size, with late amendments that could not have been read or discussed, there is just too much unknown about the consequences of all that legal-ese.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m so concerned about this administration.  In my mind&#8217;s eye I imagine energy prices going up because of legislation like this - legislation that is incomprehensible and full of &#8220;stuff&#8221; - then as prices go up, the powers that be  that caused the increase with new mandates and restrictions will demonize the power companies and nationalize.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s much the same scenario as health care is currently suffering.  Insurance companies that have been forced to provide for an increasing number of &#8220;conditions&#8221; - toupees, breast augmentation, pre-existing conditions, counseling, etc. by constant mandates- are now called out because of the cost of insurance.  Hospitals that are required to accept all comers and that deal with reduced and underpriced reimbursements for costly procedures from the medicare and medicaid programs are criticized because of their increasing  costs.  Regardless of what the president says, any goverment takeover will continue to grow, because private health care and insurance providers will be competing with the rulemakers.  Can&#8217;t compete with that.</p>
<p>Of course there are private devils, too. Usually they are easier to take down than the controllers in Washington.</p>
<p>Definitely concerned about where we are going.  </p>
<p>And another thing - enough already of MIchael Jackson, r.i.p.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Geoff</title>
		<link>http://wheredidmycapitalismgo.com/2009/06/30/the-cost-of-climate-change/#comment-79</link>
		<author>Geoff</author>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:45:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://wheredidmycapitalismgo.com/2009/06/30/the-cost-of-climate-change/#comment-79</guid>
		<description>Again, I'm not even really talking about this bill or instance in particular. Pollution is just an example of a time when government intervention may be better than a  purely free-market outcome.  Given the theme of the blog I think it is a relevant example.

I definitely don't know if that is the case with this specific legislation. It may be too far reaching, too complicated, or otherwise unnecessary. I'm not trying to talk politics here.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Again, I&#8217;m not even really talking about this bill or instance in particular. Pollution is just an example of a time when government intervention may be better than a  purely free-market outcome.  Given the theme of the blog I think it is a relevant example.</p>
<p>I definitely don&#8217;t know if that is the case with this specific legislation. It may be too far reaching, too complicated, or otherwise unnecessary. I&#8217;m not trying to talk politics here.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Erica</title>
		<link>http://wheredidmycapitalismgo.com/2009/06/30/the-cost-of-climate-change/#comment-78</link>
		<author>Erica</author>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:00:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://wheredidmycapitalismgo.com/2009/06/30/the-cost-of-climate-change/#comment-78</guid>
		<description>*hear

sorry for the long post!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>*hear</p>
<p>sorry for the long post!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Erica</title>
		<link>http://wheredidmycapitalismgo.com/2009/06/30/the-cost-of-climate-change/#comment-77</link>
		<author>Erica</author>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:56:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://wheredidmycapitalismgo.com/2009/06/30/the-cost-of-climate-change/#comment-77</guid>
		<description>I see your point, and that would be true if that were the case-if we are dealing with 100% fact that company pollution causes health affecting damage for those with no association to the firm-there should be 3rd party involvement to regulate      (even though I disagree that it should come from the legislative/executive branch, and on the federal level-should technically be the state).  

But for this instance, the truth is there is not enough evidence to prove this is true and happening to necessitate this particular bill.  This bill is coming from faulty support, no matter how inflated the campaign is for being "green".  This will create not just an economic shake up affecting everyone in America, but is totally and ridiculously unconstitutional.  

This passed in the house with 8 votes.  If it were overwhemingly obvious that something of this magnitude was needed to be done because of drastic and imminent danger to our well-being as a nation, that majority vote would have been much, much higher.  this is a huge bill with a huge cost (largest tax in American history to be exact), and quite frankly theories that are made to protect social welfare won't (and shouldn't) cut it when you are talking this much money and the expense this will cause to everyone-esp when its just a theory.  it should be straight up facts with no question and 100% support.

I am not anti-environment- I love the planet, and I think we need to take care of it, but this bill I think has very little to do with the environmental benefits and more to do with forced legislation that has personal interests and investments from GM/GE/politicians and other companies with their hands deep in Washington where politicians and big businessmen can make money off of this. This is fact- they are and they will...boat loads of money.  Kermit said it best - it aint easy being green- it is less efficient and way more expensive kind of energy-and without the cooperation of China and India- our efforts will have little impact at all on the planet.  This will cut out small businesses trying to operate, this creates a dependance on federal buracracy, and is ultimatley devistating to American freedom, standard of living, and way of life.  

Even now i read that all states will have to adhere to California's building codes and emissions standards.  And we look at CA and they are literally sending out physical IOU's to people, their finances are pathetic...and we want to follow in their footsteps??  They have the higest taxes in the nation and still have no money.  This makes no sense...there is too much conflicting evidence against man affecting global warming and I personally think this is a rushed bill with no thought and a travisty to America.  

If this passes I recomend investing in a dependable wood stove...all the while we pay for medicare/Medicade/Universal Health Care/ poor people's mortgages and company bailouts (did I miss anything? probably)  All the baby boomers are retiring, they either wont retire, or our generation will have to foot the bill for all their energy and health needs which I can safely guess those industries make up at least 50% of the economy..so govt will own half of our economy in a matter of 6-8 months this year...this is frightening.  especially when i here nanci Peolsi talk.  good god WHY

f this s

sorry- rant there, got a little emotional, im back on track ...what a beautiful day!....ok Im done.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I see your point, and that would be true if that were the case-if we are dealing with 100% fact that company pollution causes health affecting damage for those with no association to the firm-there should be 3rd party involvement to regulate      (even though I disagree that it should come from the legislative/executive branch, and on the federal level-should technically be the state).  </p>
<p>But for this instance, the truth is there is not enough evidence to prove this is true and happening to necessitate this particular bill.  This bill is coming from faulty support, no matter how inflated the campaign is for being &#8220;green&#8221;.  This will create not just an economic shake up affecting everyone in America, but is totally and ridiculously unconstitutional.  </p>
<p>This passed in the house with 8 votes.  If it were overwhemingly obvious that something of this magnitude was needed to be done because of drastic and imminent danger to our well-being as a nation, that majority vote would have been much, much higher.  this is a huge bill with a huge cost (largest tax in American history to be exact), and quite frankly theories that are made to protect social welfare won&#8217;t (and shouldn&#8217;t) cut it when you are talking this much money and the expense this will cause to everyone-esp when its just a theory.  it should be straight up facts with no question and 100% support.</p>
<p>I am not anti-environment- I love the planet, and I think we need to take care of it, but this bill I think has very little to do with the environmental benefits and more to do with forced legislation that has personal interests and investments from GM/GE/politicians and other companies with their hands deep in Washington where politicians and big businessmen can make money off of this. This is fact- they are and they will&#8230;boat loads of money.  Kermit said it best - it aint easy being green- it is less efficient and way more expensive kind of energy-and without the cooperation of China and India- our efforts will have little impact at all on the planet.  This will cut out small businesses trying to operate, this creates a dependance on federal buracracy, and is ultimatley devistating to American freedom, standard of living, and way of life.  </p>
<p>Even now i read that all states will have to adhere to California&#8217;s building codes and emissions standards.  And we look at CA and they are literally sending out physical IOU&#8217;s to people, their finances are pathetic&#8230;and we want to follow in their footsteps??  They have the higest taxes in the nation and still have no money.  This makes no sense&#8230;there is too much conflicting evidence against man affecting global warming and I personally think this is a rushed bill with no thought and a travisty to America.  </p>
<p>If this passes I recomend investing in a dependable wood stove&#8230;all the while we pay for medicare/Medicade/Universal Health Care/ poor people&#8217;s mortgages and company bailouts (did I miss anything? probably)  All the baby boomers are retiring, they either wont retire, or our generation will have to foot the bill for all their energy and health needs which I can safely guess those industries make up at least 50% of the economy..so govt will own half of our economy in a matter of 6-8 months this year&#8230;this is frightening.  especially when i here nanci Peolsi talk.  good god WHY</p>
<p>f this s</p>
<p>sorry- rant there, got a little emotional, im back on track &#8230;what a beautiful day!&#8230;.ok Im done.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

