Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
You likely didn’t realize that the First Rule for the Carbon Tax Club is … nobody talks about the Carbon Tax Club.
And not only that … it could cost the poor Aussies big bucks if they say what I just said about the Carbon Tax Club.
Gotta love totalitarianism in the service of national eco-themed suicide …
From Miranda Devine’s blog at the Australian Telegraph (emphasis mine):
THE whitewash begins. Now that the carbon tax has passed through federal parliament, the government’s clean-up brigade is getting into the swing by trying to erase any dissent against the jobs-destroying legislation.
On cue comes the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which this week issued warnings to businesses that they will face whopping fines of up to $1.1m if they blame the carbon tax for price rises.
It says it has been “directed by the Australian government to undertake a compliance and enforcement role in relation to claims made about the impact of a carbon price.”
Businesses are not even allowed to throw special carbon tax sales promotions before the tax arrives on July 1.
“Beat the Carbon Tax – Buy Now” or “Buy now before the carbon tax bites” are sales pitches that are verboten. Or at least, as the ACCC puts it, “you should be very cautious about making these types of claims”.
There will be 23 carbon cops roaming the streets doing snap audits of businesses that “choose to link your price increases to a carbon price”.
Instead, the ACCC suggests you tell customers you’ve raised prices because “the overall cost of running (your) business has increased”.
So if some Australian business prints up this post, and tapes it to his window … he can be fined up to one megabuck. A million dollar crime.
Eco-terrorism at its finest, where Australia now has criminalized free speech … carbon. A word to conjure with, the name that cannot be spoken.
w.
PS—I think we should have a contest for the best sign within the Aussie law. To open the bidding, I suggest that Australian businesses post a big sign inside their stores that says:
WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SAY THAT
THE CARBON TAX IS RESPONSIBLE
FOR OUR PRICE INCREASES.
Sincerely,
The Management
Bulldust says:
November 17, 2011 at 2:10 pm
If one visits the ACCC site one can see that Miranda Devine has grossly misrepresented the position of the organisation. The Chairman was quite clear about the organisations’s position in his presentation, which is no different than it has been in the past about any other misleading advertising:
http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/1017300/fromItemId/142
“Business costs increase all the time, and businesses are free to set their own prices. However, if a business chooses to raise their prices they should not misrepresent this as a result of the carbon price when it is not the case.”
“This is not new – the message is simple: if you are going to make a claim, you need to make sure it is right.”
I would suggest that Ms Devine has reading comprehension difficulties, or she is being deliberately misleading. The full guidance brochure can be found here, but the Chairman’s statements sum it up neatly:
http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/1017091
My BS meter went off immediately reading this story… always good to check the source first folks.
Thanks, Bulldust. While you are correct in theory, in reality there’s no way to do what the ACCC suggests. They say that if you want to say that the increase is due to increased carbon costs, you have to get a statement from your supplier that verifies that their increase is due to increased carbon costs.
However, a moment’s thought reveals the problem with that. If a man selling bread wants to make a statement about carbon, he has to get a statement from his baker. For his baker to make that statement, he has to get a statement from his miller, and his electricity supplier, and the man who sells petrol for his bread trucks, and the truck manufacturers where he buys the trucks, and for the increases in phone costs and every other cost.
And each of those, in an endless loop, all have to get statements from the other one. Try this on for size.
If I drive a Ford truck and I sell materials to Ford that they make cars with, they can’t make a statement about carbon without supporting carbon evidence from their suppliers … including me. But I can’t say how much my carbon costs have gone up without the carbon statement from Ford. Cute, huh?
The net results of this chilling regulation will be:
1. The actual costs due to the carbon tax will be underestimated at the business end. Since you can get fined up to a million dollars for exaggeration, every single estimate of the cost will be on the low side. This will no doubt be used to make the claim that the costs are minimal. They are not.
2. Many people will just say “sorry, I don’t have an estimate”, because a) it’s far too much work and hassle to contact every one of their suppliers and ask if they have an estimate, and b) you can get fined if you overestimate. Most folks will wisely say nothing … chilling. Unfortunately, when a supplier says that they have no estimate, what is the retailer to do? He is muzzled, he can’t say anything, because of another man’s inaction.
3. Any tax on energy, direct or indirect, is a much larger drag on the economy than a tax on a finished product. Simple economics, taxing the inputs to a manufacturing process is a greater burden on the economy than the same tax on a finished product. See my discussion in “Firing up the economy, literally“.
So while you are correct in saying this is framed by the Govt as a “truth in advertising” issue, Bulldust, in reality it is nothing of the sort. It is designed specifically to make it very hard to say anything about carbon, with draconian fines. The net result is guaranteed to be a suppression of comment on the carbon issue. I see no reason to conclude that it is accidental that the regulations will have a chilling effect. The regulations have made it a practical impossibility for a businessman to determine the effect of CO2 on the business.
w.
PS—Beyond that, what kind of nanny state is it that tries to keep shopkeepers from making ludicrous claims? Why can’t they say what they want about carbon? At the end of the day the market rules, if they jack their prices too far they’ll lose customers. Who is hurt if they say “20% price rise due to carbon” instead of “20% price rise due to our kids going to college” or “20% price rise due to general business conditions” or “20% price rise due astrological influences”?
Me, I think the Australian consumers are smart enough to look at a sign saying “20% price increase due to carbon tax” and say “I’ll shop next door, they raised their prices 3%”.
So truly … what is the harm to the consumer? For me, that’s government gone mad.
I’ve stumbed across this and I’m “gobsmacked”. I thought Oz, NZ and Canada were the last bastions of commonsense. Clearly, I’m wrong. So sorry for you, people: you have succumbed to the insanity afflicting the rest of the “developed world” and I fear there is no way back. Give it a couple of years and your country will be a hellhole like the UK.
Wil says:
November 18, 2011 at 1:18 pm
Warning to customers – prices will increase. You get what YOU voted for.
Except – this is not exactly the case !
Julia Gillard announced in the week before the 2010 election that there would be “NO CARBON TAX UNDER A GOVERNMENT I LEAD”. And her party only received around 37% of the primary vote in a hung parliament where she did deals with minor parties to form government.
Aussies who lose their jobs due to the economic impact of the tax, and who are forced to live in dark cold homes (unable to pay the massive energy bills) will ‘NOT BE HAPPY’ !.
This is the kind of legislation that could force Australians to seriously consider voting at a state level to succeed from the Commonwealth and form separate countries.
Olen said:
“. . . whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that, whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them right.”
Why everybody’s grumbling!
See what Olen is saying…
You are just writing, I…same as you all DON”T LIKE TAX!! Did you get rid of it? No need to ask Harry Potter, it’s OKAY!?
But………!!!
If you decided to pay any TAX by chance!, please after taking care of your VOTE, pay it for CARBON EMISSION/O2/Ozone layer above your BLUE SKY, not for your roads around you to be ASPHALTED.
Who is J.Gillard? one politician among thousands, you don’t like her, kick her off. EASY.
Now is there anybody to give me one small chance to see calculations how much is this tax increase influence on one small simple SAMPLE.
Please don’t grumble, just give everybody figures.
Wil says:
November 18, 2011 at 1:18 pm
“Warning to customers – prices will increase. You get what YOU voted for.”
My Comment:
How is it possible to know who is thinking ” WHAT”?
What! here means “about the country and the policies, and/or the subjects almost everybody here is talking about”.
Is it “OUR VOTES?
Very YES for WARNING, you must accept your responsibility about your VOTES given to your wanted things not to J.Gillard. Of course you must get what YOU voted for, if not,
Olen said:”whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them right.”
You voted to what you wanted to have, now you cannot get it, kick them off.
Now I give my vote to you. What is your plan? This is extra ordinary time, before I know anything about your plan I give my vote to you as a gift. Do you think we you need extra ordinary measures?
I have found you eligible to be the PM. Your plan is no more TAX on whatever you think. My demand is “MIND my O2/Ozone Layer/Carbon Emission/Energy Savings/….”. What do you do, and from where you get the required money make your JOB? Don’t forget you are J.WILLARD!
What is the difference here to be Gillard or Willard? What is your plan? You are free to tell the customers: WARNING! – Prices will decrease, you get what you voted for.
Hello my PM, you promised to do it…You are our GOVERNMENT.
Check your pocket for the money you want to spend…Gillard didn’t do it? You do it.
You should have a plan for the years you are the PM, all risks must be included in your plan.
There is one more thing to know:
When you get your driving license it doesn’t mean you never have any accident. When you VoTe to somebody it doesn’t mean you are FREE and you get what you want, you should always think about what OLEN said, you can ask for your VoTe back , KICK OFF, and give your VOTE to your desired plan.
“Our prices have gone up, but not because of a Carbon Tax. Yeah Right!”
When I entered here in this room, I said my idea about EXTRA TAX FEE on the way how to spend and why we need it.
At once, I faced with a big RUSH!
Angry people on board about an increase on TAXATION on something.
1st of all I found myself involved in HOT issue without any reason!
Now I would be appreciated to get a permission to say my idea,
it was “CARBON EMISSION FEE for man-made CO2/O2 FEE for no more FREE OXYGEN/DECREASING FUEL RATE CONSUMPTION/all ECONOMICAL issues for improving our LIVING STYLES).
Who is not ready to have such healthy stuffs? It would be cheaper than ever!
If;
FC.today x FR.today>= FC.tomorrow x FR.tomorrow;
then;
“we have decreased the prices”;
in this formula:
FC.today is today Fuel Consumption/ unit of work;
FR.today is today Fuel Rate/unit;
and
FC.tomorrow is tomorrow Fuel Consumption/ unit of work;
FR.tomorrow is tomorrow Fuel Rate/unit;
independent from any X.XXXlard.
The Prime Minister Has said there will be No Carbon Tax.
Our Price rises are not due to Carbon Tax.
ACCKKII @9.20pm
Here is a sample, weights but not figures so much
Tim Wilson of the IPA (no not the beer) Institute of Public Affairs had a thing or two to say about carbon accounting in his effort to bake a birthday cake.
“…..All the ingredients for our birthday cake — 225g of White Wings plain flour, 125ml of Crisco vegetable oil, 85g of Cadbury cocoa powder, 250ml of Pauls milk, 350g of CSR caster sugar — will include the direct cost of a carbon tax because they’re manufactured by a big polluter.
As will the 220g of Plaistowe cooking chocolate and 200ml of Pura double cream for the icing.
And assuming the cake is being made in my kitchen in Melbourne’s South Yarra, there’ll be a carbon tax directly on the 250ml of water from big polluter South East Water I need to boil as well….”
See IPA What Did I Miss? 21 April 2011 (scroll down page)
http://hey.ipa.org.au/2011/04/
Direct link
http://ipa.org.au/news/2336/totting-up-carbon-tax-is-anything-but-a-piece-of-cake-
Henry Ergas had something to say about need for a Code of Conduct to govern situations (of regulators) where the outgoing Chairman of the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) joined a boutique investment banking firm.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/accc-chiefs-new-job-draws-flak-20110729-1i368.html
I now note various comments on propaganda (social marketing and communication):-
bubbagyro@12.36pm; PeterGeorge@8.07pm and the ongoing discussion between ACCKKII & G. Karst + Les of Silverdale commenting on Devine’s article posted by Willis E.
Even The Weekend Australian begins to smell a rat, for the first time, ??????????
“THERE has always been something peculiar about the UN climate change process, in which the world’s top scientists investigate an issue but must negotiate the wording of their public findings with governments to ensure they pass the political test.”
You’ll have to log in or read the hard copy for the rest of the story.http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/test-of-climate-politics/story-e6frg6xf-1226199441010
Here in Australia is it that the southerner’s use of propaganda or omissions in the grand narrative, and in some cases that narrative from the north, they have suddenly decided that there IS something amiss?
I thought this a reasonable summation of the divide given the consensus developing by bloggers about propaganda.
3rd June 2010 (13 mins) Defectors throw light on harsh realities of life in North Korea
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8720870.stm
If the legal restriction is based on truth, and if businesses can tell the truth as long as they can prove it, then easy:
“Portions of our price increase that went into effect with the carbon tax are attributable to that tax. Due to government regulation (cite regulation identifier here), we are not permitted to identify the specific amount of the increase without information that is unavailable from our suppliers. In the event the carbon tax is repealed, we promise to reduce our prices again by the amount our costs decline.”
This is provably true as long as ANY portion of their cost can be shown to have gone up due to the carbon tax. That should be pretty easy.
quote
from: twobob
“The Prime Minister Has said there will be No Carbon Tax.
Our Price rises are not due to Carbon Tax.”
unquote.
I refer you to Olen please see the recent comments and ask to get your VoTe back,
and NOW to Jessie,
Your comment was excellent, at least somebody came and gave us some figures, GREAT!
Now I am sure I never VOTE you at all if you candidate yourself to be the PM. J.Gillard is wiser and much better than you. Maybe I ask Hilton Hotel somewhere in Africa to give you a job and as a door keeper in a kitchen.
Hey Jessie!
We are not arguing, do we?
You don’t have even a simple study about anything around you. How is that? How are you criticizing? I want to be with you but how can you convince me and the others, just because you wish not to pay TAX or whatever without any reason? I said I don’t like any TAX, but how can I be against that? As Olen said (final meaning of the quote: KICK OFF), I don’t need this kind of PM.
You see how many of the oppositions here are saying the same thing as you (NO more TAX) but nobody tried to extract any figures out of a kitchen.
Now get back to work, say something powerful because J.Gillard is doing well, although we are not with her.
acckkii says:
November 17, 2011 at 10:26 pm
No TAX means NEVER GREEN.
Australians should not forget they are living under no OZONE curtain.
This TAX increasing the first step towards the reality of OXYGEN that as a must should have a RATE, now its rate is ZERO. There are no more FREE OXYGEN.
http://acckkii.wordpress.com/2011/09/15/is-atmosphere-above-countries-national-or-global-resource/
__________________________________
Oh, good grief!
First there is and never has been “Free Oxygen” “free” Oxygen gloms onto other atoms so we get O2, O3, CO2, H2O… Ever heard of “Oxidation” as in rusting or FIRE?? Free oxygen is VERY reactive.
Second the more CO2 the more O2 is release it is called the carbon cycle. San José State University: http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/CO2plants.htm
The distribution of CO2 between atmosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere…. The Report of the European Science and Environment Forum http://www.co2web.info/ESEFVO1.pdf
Carbon cycle modeling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2… http://www.co2web.info/ESEF3VO2.pdf
quote.
EdH says:
November 19, 2011 at 6:09 am
If the legal restriction is based on truth, and if businesses can tell the truth as long as they can prove it, then easy:
“Portions of our price increase that went into effect with the carbon tax are attributable to that tax. Due to government regulation (cite regulation identifier here), we are not permitted to identify the specific amount of the increase without information that is unavailable from our suppliers. In the event the carbon tax is repealed, we promise to reduce our prices again by the amount our costs decline.”
This is provably true as long as ANY portion of their cost can be shown to have gone up due to the carbon tax. That should be pretty easy.
unquote.
My Comment:
Thank you EdH.
And to be more specific, could you please give us an example. This is very important, because your above helpful quote can be completed exactly the way there may be less problem.
Your quote is clear of course, but for such official text an example would clarify covered angles of the issue.
Appreciate.
Jessie says:
November 18, 2011 at 1:59 am
Further to note
If the everyday person in the street was to ask ‘hey why has the 250g brand of generic butter increased in price by XXX (30%) since week?’ …..
they could rest assured that a plethora of experts had investigated their health attitudes and status
http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/bispartners/foresight/docs/mental-capital/final_project_report_part6.pdf…..
______________________
Thanks for the pointer. So that is what is happening to all the DNA taken from babies in the UK. (and elsewhere)…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/7756320/DNA-database-created-from-babies-blood-samples.html
I wonder what the next step will be???
ACCKKII says:
November 18, 2011 at 8:19 am
If you get back and see what is the meaning of 50 to 100 years ago value of $1.00 , you’ll find out the financial system output is inflation, that of course can be controlled but never can be deleted….
________________________
That is not correct . I suggest you read Mises on Money: http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/mom.html
And the fight in the USA to keep out the Central Bankers. We lost and they have raped our country just like Canada, Australia and others. Iceland got wise and made an effort to kicked the SOB’s.
THE HISTORY OF MONEY PART 2 (USA) http://www.xat.org/xat/usury.html
ICELAND
Financial collapse: http://useconomy.about.com/od/worldeconomy/p/Iceland_economy.htm
The IMF did get its claws in Iceland for a short while: http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2011/08/28/iceland-and-imf-part-company/
To: Oh, good grief!
No More Free Oxygen here is the price of O2 not free O that doesn’t have any meaning in the atmosphere.
Ever heard that we are breathing Oxygen and without that we are not ALIVE?
Do you know %16, ONLY %16 of the atmosphere is OXYGEN?
I am sorry, but when you think you are the only one that knows OXIDATION, I should reply to you here just don’t breath for 3 minutes to understand what is O2 and if you go to a hospital ask for OXYGEN, but please know that it’s not Free you should pay for that. Have you ever had McDonald for Free?
Maybe it has been my fault that I could not clearly specify FREE O2 means Zero rate for O2.
And for this, please accept my apologies.
There is a big difference between man-made CO2 and other resources of this gas.
The history of industries is showing us that efficient fuel consumption has been a big issue. Because economically, the fuel rate is important.
Regardless CO2 problems, should we have more and more efficient fuel consumption? Would you like to have Chevy Blazer for 30 liters/100 km fuel consumption? That’s the problem. Now in addition to have the economical advantages of new technology, are you happy about not using more O2 for such a disastrous consumption?
Today $110 a barrel oil, tomorrow, $200 a barrel, and so on…who knows…
China and India the people there, they want to drive. Have you ever been in a city with dark grey sky? You cannot even breath normally.
Look around you, the cities like what I said are growing and growing up.
You, of course, should know solar activities and the reactions are beyond what we are discussing here.
Man-made CO2 is discussed because it comes with economical aspects and realities. It’s not only CO2.
The discussion here is not specifically scientific, it has been brought to us because of J.Gillard as an IDEA not as J.Gillard herself.
Your references and links were perfect. Thank you.
Gail Combs says:
“November 19, 2011 at 8:38 am
ACCKKII says:
November 18, 2011 at 8:19 am
If you get back and see what is the meaning of 50 to 100 years ago value of $1.00 , you’ll find out the financial system output is inflation, that of course can be controlled but never can be deleted….
________________________
That is not correct . I suggest you read Mises on Money:…..”
Gail,
I read all your links. I was briefed in many historical issues. I found lots of useful things. There are values that make you reading the pages several times. I recommend your documents to other persons here in this room to read.
You said that’s not correct. Pointing out to part of what I wrote earlier, I showed that part above here.
Finally, should I assume 50- 100 years ago the value of $1.00 has the same value now?
I fly over 100 years and land at the time being. Neglecting the reasons that are bringing us the changes to $1.00 value, we know these $s are not the same.
When we want to discuss about history, sometimes we may forget we cannot change it. We have lessons from the history, if we can do so that nothing wrong happens again like what in the history why not. This is our TODAY situation, what do you recommend us to do. Bankers, their history, and many other issues still are present and have their own performance.
I asked EdH to have more about the following comment of (EdH), what is your idea?:
“If the legal restriction is based on truth, and if businesses can tell the truth as long as they can prove it, then easy:
“Portions of our price increase that went into effect with the carbon tax are attributable to that tax. Due to government regulation (cite regulation identifier here), we are not permitted to identify the specific amount of the increase without information that is unavailable from our suppliers. In the event the carbon tax is repealed, we promise to reduce our prices again by the amount our costs decline.”
This is provably true as long as ANY portion of their cost can be shown to have gone up due to the carbon tax. That should be pretty easy.”
Do you think it’s J.Gillard idea, and it’s what she she wants to do?
thanks.
ACCKKII says:
November 18, 2011 at 8:44 am
Can you please give us a simple example/ model effects by the recently increased tax?
________________________
Sure the effect of Green type Idiocy funded by taxes is very apparent here in the USA in the used to be great state of California.
Has the Golden State gone bust? ~ Leaders raise the question as financial woes deepen.
http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-02-22/news/17950763_1_bankruptcy-treasurer-bill-lockyer-golden-state
Businesses flee California in droves: http://www.calwatchdog.com/2011/01/27/business-flee-state-in-droves/
Taxes pay for more bureaucrats and bureaucrats write more and more idiotic regulations egged on by the Green NGOs and NIMBYs. Taxes are bad enough but the regulatory red tape they spawn is the real killer.
This is the model:
More Tax => more bureaucracy => more regs => less business (esp small business) => less wealth creation => lower standard of living and eventual bankrupcy/revolts. It is probably the reason most countries crash and burn after about 200 years. The build up of laws and regulations strangles them to death.
EVIDENCE:
As regulations (and taxes) increase businesses flee to other states and/or countries. The World Trade Organization which opened borders and wiped out import taxes facilitated the flight of business in the USA.
WTO was ratified in the USA in 1995 the US balance of trade chart shows how open borders allowed business to flee the USA.
US balance of trade CHART: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/80/US_Trade_Balance_1980_2010.svg/500px-US_Trade_Balance_1980_2010.svg.png
Australia balance of trade CHART: http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/balance/1109-trade-balance.png
The World Trade Organization Agreement on Ag. and greens are already effecting agriculture.
In Australia: Farmers fighting for a fair go http://joannenova.com.au/2011/06/breaking-thompsons-lose-right-to-sue-dec-but-spencer-gets-a-green-light/
Elsewhere:
“EU carbon trading rocked by mass killings …murders of 23 local farmers who tried to recover land, which they say was illegally sold…. (not to mention a journalist and his partner) http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/carbon-trading-may-save-a-coal-deposit-but-farmers-die-rivers-run-dry-and-some-are-left-homeless-and-poor/
Once the Greens block most mining in Australia as they did in the USA, you can kiss that trade surplus good bye especially as farming becomes “Unsustainable” in the face of massive regulation.. Heck the “Carbon tax” may do it all by its lonesome.
CO2 is not and never has been a threat. It diverts attention from the real threat we are facing
Getting Use To A Life Without Food http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/william-engdahl/2011/06/29/getting-used-to-life-without-food-part-1
Farmland Grab:
http://www.businessinsider.com/barton-biggs-stock-a-safe-haven-with-food-and-firearms-to-protect-against-pillagers-2010-1
https://infocus.credit-suisse.com/app/article/index.cfm?fuseaction=OpenArticle&aoid=284894&coid=162&lang=EN
http://davidgarnerconsulting.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/rothschild-cashes-in-by-investing-in-farmland/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/08/us-universities-africa-land-grab
BOY was THAT ever an understatement!
Gail Combs says:
November 17, 2011 at 5:36 pm
In reply to James of the West.
James of the West says:
November 17, 2011 at 3:48 pm
……The real core reason the ACCC will have been given this power is to catch people who put up their price opportunisitically and claim the carbon tax was responsible. Of course as we make rules more complicated we will get loopholes and false positives due to the complexity – the carbon tax is a very bad idea.
______________________________________________________
You have a really weird idea of how pricing actually works.
The pricing continuum has the following points.
1. If you price below cost you lose money. (Loss leader)
2. Break even
3. Small profit – large volume
4. Large profit – small volume
5. Price too high – No sale.
Hi Gail,
If appears some people do not understand how capitalism works. Socialism works well until the government runs out of other people’s money to spend.
The following is an example of the problem.
There was an interesting article discussing some basic facts related the Greek railway system, in the Canadian Global and Mail newspaper. The average salary for the Greek government run railway system is US $70,000. Revenues are 1/7 of costs. The cost to transport people could be reduced by 2/3 by hiring taxis to transport everyone. That is ridiculous. There is obviously no discussion of facts and any understanding of specific limits as to how much a government can spend as well as the limits of taxation.
Those advocating spend trillions of dollars on so called “green” projects do not understand deficit spending is not sustainable. The proposed projects are ludicrous if one does even a basic estimate of the costs.
ACCKKII says:
November 18, 2011 at 12:04 pm
To solve a problem in extra ordinary times, we may need extra ordinary measures, even one makes simplest decisions.
An economical decision and the Policy behind it, considering many variables, is not easy to make. Trust between People and their Government is the main issue, this makes everything possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
WHAT TRUST?????
I call my government the District of Criminals because they have earned the title.
This is just the latest.
If you want you can go all the way back to 1913 when the [self-snip] in Congress sold the US out to the bankers. Or How about F. D. R who confiscated the very gold in American citizen’s pockets and handed it over to the international bankers???
Check out what FDR’s own Son-in-Law, Curtis B. Dall has to say: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/New_World_Order/FDR_ExploitedFather-In-Law.html
Or one of the few honest statesmen in the last hundred years. (Shot at twice then poisoned) http://www.bigeye.com/mcfadden.htm
Very Very few administrations of the USA and the rest of the world have not advanced the elites vision of a World Government run exclusively by them with the rest of us reduced to serfdom.
Communism was tried and failed so this time they are leaving us with the illusion of a “Democracy” and “Activism” aka NGOs, while stay solidly in control through their great wealth and iron grip on politicians, the media, education and now science.
Finally I found something here and it’s just as a gentle reminder to others positive views.
For the kind attention of:
EdH, Gail Combs, Olen, Wil, Jessie, James of the West and other pointers:
Quote.
James of the West says:
November 17, 2011 at 3:48 pm
All good fun guys but one of the primary reasons the ACCC is there is to make sure business are not making false claims to consumers about their products. If you can truly show how the carbon tax was responsible for the price change then you would have nothing to fear. Mind you this is where it will get a little grey – because only the 500 largest emitters will actually pay the carbon tax, the rest of us will feel that impact indirectly through costs being passed on down the line so for 99.5% of businesses it will be very very difficult to actually know/prove that the carbon tax and not some other upstream price change was responsible. The real core reason the ACCC will have been given this power is to catch people who put up their price opportunistically and claim the carbon tax was responsible. Of course as we make rules more complicated we will get loopholes and false positives due to the complexity – the carbon tax is a very bad idea.
Unquote.
Here as we see, people performance and their real situation is very important because “The real core reason the ACCC will have been given this power is to catch people who put up their price opportunistically and claim the carbon tax was responsible.”
This quote is deeply searching the case when you start reading it, and at the end it stops and don’t let us to go further. Look here please:
” the carbon tax is a very bad idea”.
Execution of an idea is very important as well as the idea itself. There is no success without accountable, applicable and acceptable instrument to access and get any desired results.
I would like to ask “James of the West” to finish his writing here.
You have been so wise, very good points.
1. What are the Govt. purposes and the reasons for this TAX?
2. What are the possible obstacles in doing this let’s say LAW?
3. If possible to do it, do you think it’s not a bad idea, or do you say it’s a good idea?
Appreciate.
Jim G says:
November 18, 2011 at 12:09 pm
……Big cities are the bane of democracy, full of people wanting someone to protect them and take care of them. Is that the simple answer?
__________________________________
Actually yes.
‘ The Socialist Revolution in the US cannot take place because there are too many small independent farmers there. Those people are the stability factor. We here in Russia must hurry while our government is stupid enough to not encourage and support the independent farmership.’ V. Lenin, the founder of the Russian revolution
The original quote has long since disappeared from the internet (SURPRISE)
The demise of American farmers was carefully orchestrated by the Committee for Economic Development starting in the 1940s. See http://www.opednews.com/articles/History-HACCP-and-the-Foo-by-Nicole-Johnson-090906-229.html
The destruction of the farmers was also the destruction of Traditional American Culture and our self reliance. City dwellers are much more vulnerable because they have neither land nor a tight social network. This promotes reliance on “Big Government”
“….CED’s plans resulted in widespread social upheaval throughout rural America, ripping apart the fabric of its society destroying its local economies. They also resulted in a massive migration to larger cities…..”
The second method of destruction is immigration with an emphasis not on integration but multi-culturalism. We see it in the USA and Australia. Again this weakens the overall fabric of a society leaving it open to exploitation.
(Let me make it very clear, I think immigration is a great force for good IF the immigrants are willing to embrace their new country. Otherwise why don’t they just stay home.)
Hello Gail,
I am working on your comment.
Gail Combs says:
“November 19, 2011 at 10:40 am
ACCKKII says:
November 18, 2011 at 8:44 am
Can you please give us a simple example/ model effects by the recently increased tax?
________________________
Sure the effect of Green type Idiocy funded by taxes is very apparent here in the USA in the used to be great state of California….”
Good Job.