Interesting argument about global warming

[Lothrian]

Technically it could. Say money was invested in blue chip research companies, which then turned out to be a waste of time, and said technologies were worthless. Those stocks would tumble, on a global scale, since each country would have invested money in their own. The tumble would then affect related companies along the line, including those providing resources, manufacturing, holding companies, customers of said company, and then it spreads out.
The tumble will generally mean that in a bid to keep shareholder happyish, costing cutting 9occurs, normally peoples jobs, reducing the spending power of the public, who spend less, equalling smaller profits, lowering stock values and the process repeats.

All markets are very fragile, and ok, that was a simplistic explanation, you kind of see the point.

[ArmedDrunk&Angry]

Umm Lotharian .....where does the government get the money to spend ?

[Lothrian]

Exactly my point. To make it simpler, you have 6 eggs, you put 5 on one basket, 1 in another, but you drop the basket with 5. How much are the broken eggs worth compared to when they were just plain old eggs?

Most things I talk about with general knowledge, but economies I can talk about with a deep understanding. I tend to keep explanations simple so everyone can join in the debate rather than just a few people.

[[R-CON]Wolfe]

Originally Posted by hoc_xfirestormx

in actuality, there is no way increased spending would result in economic crisis.

Seriously, I hope you're kidding. Right? Please say you're kidding.

Money spent by the government is obtained by the taxing of money as it moves from people to business and back again. Increased spending means increased taxes. Higher taxes means less money for the people. Less money for people means less personal income tax revenue and less money spent on business. Less money on business means less business income tax revenue and less money spent on people.

0% taxes = 0 money for the government
100% taxes = 0 money for the government

The ONLY way government can maintain a healthy tax income is either through socialism, or to ensure that as much money is given back to the people and business as possible so that they spend it in the free market. The more money people and business spend, the more money government makes in taxes. That's capitalism. Not the other way around. That's socialism.

It work exactly like a casino. You want as many people in your casino as possible, making as many bets as possible. More betting = more money for the casino. If you take too much money away from the people, they'll stop betting and leave. It's that simple.

Personally, I'm for freezing, by way of a constitutional amendment, to limit tax to a fixed percentage for all citizens and business income so that the ONLY way government can make more money is by ensuring people have as much money to spend as possible. As it is now, lawmakers go to the office, vote higher taxes & ruin the economy, then get home in time for corn flakes.

[ArmedDrunk&Angry]

Most things I talk about with general knowledge, but economies I can talk about with a deep understanding. I tend to keep explanations simple so everyone can join in the debate rather than just a few people.
Maybe you need to change your methods because I see you in opposition to Wolfe's idea of gov and economy.
I am no expert but my understanding closely follows what he has said.
I dont' see what your 5/6 loss of eggs has to do with huge taxes and huge enforcement costs that would come with the top left box in the video.
You said the gov would pay.....but how i asked ?
You said the gov would have 6 eggs and break 5.
I didn't graduate from HBS so...to me ....losing most of what you have is a ..... loss.

[Lothrian]

The eggs were an analogy.
Ok, the government is publicly funded, raises private income and current assets. The funding comes mostly in the form of tax from the population, any business trading within the borders and sales of all goods.

Privately funded income includes businesses it owns, FDI rewards, inward FDI, profit through private business, sale of resources, loan repayments, loans (you get these from other countries), leasing land etc.

There is also asset valuation. A gold block was worth £100 in 1980, in 2000 it was worth £200. The government has 100 blocks, so the value just increased to £20,000 from £10,000. Same goes with buildings, land, currency, resources etc.

That's the broad view of where government finance comes from. The global economy is where the eggs make the difference. I will stop with the egg analogy since you didn't get it, but the eggs represented an economy, for example the US economy. Right, lets say BusinessX is a company that the US government invested in, which is developing the technology to reduce CO2 emissions.
The government has funded BusinessX after it won a government contract, but all of a sudden, it turns out that man is not doing anything wrong and its just the sun.

BusinessX has just spend many billions of US and private funding with nothing to show at the end. There is no way for BusinessX to recoup from that since the technology developed is worthless, and as such, the shares tumble. The share tumble wipes the value of that resource being held by trading companies and part time traders, which in turn wipes value from their shares, or if a person, wipes a hefty chunk out of their bank account when they sell up. Now this is going to go through the chain the market and at the bottom level, cost cutting comes into play resulting in loss of jobs. The less people earn, the less they are taxed since income is limited and as such, so is their expenses.

From the outside, this is great, because the whole country has now been affected in some way, and the value of the $ just fell by 50% to the £. This means that the US has to spend more to get the same amount from the global market. The country still needs the same resources because the population hasn't changed in size. The US is the worlds largest economy, so other countries will be affected. BusinessC in China may have a large portfolio of shares in a number of US companies that have subsequently fallen. BusinessD in China also sells toys to the US for $5 each, but now that $5 is worth less, once the currency is converted, that equates to smaller profits and the cycle of companies losing value and spreading out starts in China. UK businesses also invested in China and US, and the cycle repeats. This cycle is a depression, and on the global scale that I just mentioned, is exactly the same phenomena that occurred in the great depression of the 1930/40's.

Looking at my list of financial sources, you can also see how government income is massively reduced. Taxes are down, import costs are up, export profits are down, FDI is losing value etc.


Hope that makes it clearer.

[[R-MOD]Saobh]

Originally Posted by Lothrian

The eggs were an analogy.
Ok, the government is publicly funded, raises private income and current assets. The funding comes mostly in the form of tax from the population, any business trading within the borders and sales of all goods.


...


Hope that makes it clearer.

Weird I crave for an omelet now

[ArmedDrunk&Angry]

OK
That is perfectly clear.
It was firestorm that made the comment: in actuality, there is no way increased spending would result in economic crisis
And somehow I got you confused with that statement.
But since you explained the market we can see why the above statement is not really true and spending lots of money to create a 0 emission society could in fact bring the society to it's knees.
Global warming is a complex problem regardless of what caused it and the simplistic video does not really aid in understanding since he leaves out the cost and shortchanges the possible reaction to the cost.
I think there is a very real possibility that the ChiComs, when told by the UN global warming committee that they must shut down all their cola fired plants, might just cash in all those T - bills and hasten the depression for their own reasons.

[ArmedDrunk&Angry]

Off topic as far as GW is concerned but just a little, real world, small problem example of what happens when you give power to small people.


Dog's owner snippy
Demands shelter not neuter his beloved mastiff
BY LISA L. COLANGELO and TRACY CONNOR
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS
Thursday, June 14th 2007, 4:00 AM

New Jersey contractor Pete Georgoutsos holds a picture of himself with
his Mastiff Spartacus, which is being held at the Center for Animal Care &
Control on Linden Blvd. in Brooklyn.

A dog owner is waging a court battle to get his beloved mastiff out of
a city shelter without the dog being neutered.
The Center for Animal Care & Control refuses to release 5-year-old
Spartacus without a quick fix, in accordance with local law.
But contractor Pete Georgoutsos wants all of his pooch back - and he's
filed suit to get it.
"This is a bureaucratic meat grinder," fumed Georgoutsos, who lives on
a New Jersey farm with the 110-pound cane corso.
He took the dog to Forest Hills, Queens, to visit friends on May 27 and
left him in his truck. When he got ready to head home, he found someone had tampered with the vehicle and the dog had escaped.
Georgoutsos went to the police, who told him a dog fitting Spartacus'
description had just been tranquilized and taken away by animal control
officers.
Hours later, Georgoutsos was at a shelter on Linden Blvd. in Brooklyn,
where he got a nasty surprise. Shelter officials wouldn't turn over the dog until he consented to have it neutered.
They followed up with a letter threatening to euthanize Spartacus or
put the dog up for adoption if Georgoutsos didn't agree.
Georgoutsos said he felt "shock and disbelief."
He argued that neutering would hurt Spartacus' health, sap him of
stamina needed to keep up with the horses and steer on the farm, and prevent him from breeding.
After being barred from visiting the dog at the shelter, he got a
lawyer and filed papers in Brooklyn Supreme Court. A judge is slated to hear the case tomorrow.
But the city isn't budging.
The Law Department said one of the few exceptions to the neutering law
passed in 2000 involves dogs whose health makes the procedure risky - but
insisted Spartacus doesn't fit that bill.
"As soon as the owner consents - and the procedure is completed - the
dog can go home," said Senior Counsel Paula Van Meter.
"This offer has been made repeatedly to the owner since the day
Spartacus was captured." Georgoutsos, who was allowed to visit Spartacus by court order yesterday, said it pains him to think he might lose.
"I'm appalled at the draconian measures my dog has been subjected to,"
he said.

[[R-MOD]Saobh]

Originally Posted by ArmedDrunk&Angry

He argued that neutering would hurt Spartacus' health, sap him of stamina needed to keep up with the horses and steer on the farm, and prevent him from breeding.

Humm, I wonder if that argument might sway them to his side on the issue as they probably didn't think about that outcome.


Btw why does this rule exist in the first place ? against wild dog proliferation ?