Bachmann Can't Keep Her Erroneous Cap-And-Trade Numbers Straight
Recess is a time when members of Congress go home and say the darndest things to their constituents. Take Michelle Bachmann. Please.
"The concern is that this energy tax will hike up the cost, not only of our energy bills by an average of more than $2,500 for the typical family of four in minnesota according to one study, but of everything else that we buy."
This is peculiar. First of all, there's no study that says anything like this. Second of all, there is a study that Republicans are citing as a source for their claim that a cap and trade bill will cost the average household $3,128 a year--but the study doesn't say that either. It says that a cap-and-trade program will raise a certain amount of revenue (over $350 billion at the outset) and Republicans have divided that by the number of households they claim are in America. Of course, the authors of the study say this is all terribly, terribly wrong.
But back to Bachmann. In their "analysis", Republicans assumed that the average household has 2.56 people in it. Not four. Four average people use more energy than 2.56 average people. Using this ridiculous construction, one would assume that a family of four would pay more, not less, than the mean $3,128 they cite.
In fairness to Bachmann, though, she did say "more than $2,500" and $3,128 is more than $2,500. But if she's going to recite this talking point, why not do it right? Perhaps it's part of a greater trend of toned down Bachmann rhetoric.
In introducing the event's main speaker, climate-change skeptic Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Bachmann described how wowed she was by a speech that Horner gave in Washington: "And before he even finished his speech, I went up to him, tugged on his sleeve and said: 'I want the people in Minnesota to be better-educated on this issue than anyone else in the country. Would you please come to Minnesota at your earliest convenience?'"
This is rather more mild than language Bachmann used weeks ago to promote this event, when she said: "I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax, because we need to fight back."
Josh
Matt
Eric
Meh. All her numbers are BS, so what's the difference if she's using the wrong wrong numbers?
April 10, 2009 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a sludgy TPM article. :(
Look, if you want to report a debunking of a claim, do it right.
"Of course, the authors of the study say this is all terribly, terribly wrong. "
That is not a refutation at all. If a plan raises $X billion dollars in REVENUE, that revenue comes from somewhere and that somewhere gets passed on to consumers one way or another. And since producer costs generally get inflated by a multiplier before consumers pay the bill, you'd except the out of pocket energy costs to be even MORE. If the plan doesn't raise REVENUE, then say what it does do and how that does and does not impact consumer families.
$300B / 300M people = $1000 per person. Quibbling over whether this comes to $2500 or $31xx is stupidity in reporting.
If that is revenue to the government, it's an emissions tax which drives up the cost of energy by $1000 per person. If that revenue doesn't go to the government, where does it go and should be buying into the "revenue" meme they way you two authors (and others it seems) do?
Snarky stenography may be the rage in the MSM. Can't you guys criticize that without merely doing it yourselves?
April 10, 2009 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi eds.
We've reported on this extensively. I forgot to include the link to my interview with the scientist who said the GOP numbers are very wrong and why.
It's updated now, but here's the URL: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/mit-scientists-republicans-misusing-my-climate-change-paper.php
There's much, much more on this in our archives.
Cheers.
April 10, 2009 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I had a number of similar questions and issues there too.
If you are only here to snark and execute stenography, fine. But how about adding a dash of meaningful journalism, too?
What's wrong with the simple analysis I outlined?
Is it "revenue" or something else, and if so, to whom does the proposed revenue flow, the government (thus emissions tax) or private parties (thus not really "revenue")?
Simple questions an informed journalist should be able to answer in less time than it took you to post your reply (I do appreciate that you replied, btw!). My first comment from that thread:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/mit-scientists-republicans-misusing-my-climate-change-paper.php#comment-3427992
and this excert from another comment in that thread:
Reilly's letters (as pictured at TPM) dispute both claims, the low ($30-75) and the high ($3000). It looks like a middle figure of $340 applies, but again it's not at all clear on a quick read just what even THAT is supposed to represent. I just don't have what it takes to make sense of this number salad business being thrown out by ALL SIDES.
It's sickening that abusive spin is so prevalent these days. My comment was not a defense of the Repo lies, it was a challenge against lying by those who attack the Repo lies. Let's have more truth telling!
April 10, 2009 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey eds.
The answer to your first question is in our reporting, too. In numerous posts I've noted that Democrats broadly support the idea of a rebate of revenue to consumers. The devil will obviously be in the details of that rebate, of course, but even a plan that rebates 60 percent of revenues to low- and middle-income consumers would drastically reduce the impact of the "tax".
Your second question we have not addressed, partly because it's complex, but mainly because there's not really a contradiction. Reilly's paper suggests a likely price increase to consumers starting at ~30 a person (~70 per household) and increasing over time to ~85 per person (~200 per household)
I italicize household because it's the metric Republicans use, and they estimate a household to have 2.56 people. Reilly uses family size as his metric, and from that arrives at the number 340.
In my first piece I used numbers as I read them in his paper (31 and 85 IIRC) and translated them to household numbers. In subsequent pieces, I used the number he cites in his letter (340). They're all "accurate" (though based on heavy estimates)--it's just that Reilly's metric isn't apples to apples with Republicans'. But once his letter came out I stuck with the $340 figure because a). it's his paper, and b). in an order-of-magnitude sense it doesn't change much and doesn't change the story.
If anything, the $340 figure is "more fair" to the people distorting the story. Not that they deserve to be treated "more fairly" than anybody else--but that my reporting probably shouldn't divert and become about a controversy between a reporter and a scientist--it should be about a controversy between a scientist and politicians.
So there you have it. Hope that explains things for you.
April 10, 2009 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, you're mostly blowing me off with rehashed stuff which is already obviously on the table. Try answering the questions asked, as asked.
"Is it "revenue" or something else, and if so, to whom does the proposed revenue flow, the government (thus emissions tax) or private parties (thus not really "revenue")?"
If the idea is an emissions tax (government revenue) combined with consumer rebates, then we have $3000 in increased costs (per family) minus something like $2700 in rebates to get something like $300 net cost per family. That's insane.
But was that included in the Reilly report? If so, he should have figures on rebates etc. which are easy to reference. If not, then rebates cannot account for the figures he comes up with given the $300B or so figure as revenue to the government.
Let's have some truth, please.
You mentioned a lack of contradiction as a rationale for not reporting carefully. But my question didn't pose a contradictions, it posed two plausible scenarios of how some version of cap and trade might work.
April 11, 2009 3:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is really not so fucking hard.
The revenue referred to is the revenue (to the government) from auctioning allowances. It is in the second paragraph of the letter (although it may be too charitable to assume you read that far, let alone the study itself).
Perhaps you ought to, say, read the Wikipedia page on what "cap and trade" means?
It is possible to disagree with the calculations and analysis, although I think it is within an order of magnitude if we assume continuing conditions that allow cap-and-trade, but the Republicans' calculations are so hilariously incorrect it looks like they got their numbers by throwing darts at the Bible and used rock-paper-scissors to decide between addition and subtraction.
Republicans are the anti-science party because they are deathly afraid everyone will notice they are idiots if they need to perform kindergarten arithmetic.
April 11, 2009 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I take speaking truth to power seriously.
The $3000 figure is not a result of dart throwing nor has it been factually refuted yet nor does it reference the Bible. It is simplistic, but blowing smoke doesn't answer it. I guess you get off on mindless regurgitations from your own handbook.
April 11, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
John Reilly produced a study that you can read to see exactly where the $340 per year figure came from. The Republicans pulled the $3000 figure out of their collective ass.
In order for Bachmann's, and your, response to Reilly to have any merit, you need to point out how Reilly is wrong. Failing that, the only smoke being blown is coming from you and Bachmann.
"Republicans make a simple, even simplistic model, and then people like you blather about how it's so very wrong, without ever getting down to showing how it's necessarily way off."
Yes, simple, simplistic, no math. How could anyone possibly get down to showing how it's off when you don't provide anything concrete to support your case.
Yes, I realize it's awfully frustrating when people expect you to use factual data and real life examples to lend credence to your preconceived notions. You shoot from the hip and then get pissed off when people ask you for some rationale besides your gut instincts. You're exactly what's wrong with the Republican party today. Something isn't true just because you really really want it to be true. There's objective truth that is verifiable and logically deduced. Your arguments rely on logical fallacies and bluster.
April 11, 2009 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
no, it has math.
Your inability to refute it remains obvious.
I'm not responding to Reilly. I'm looking for a good simple argument to refute the model. That is, blowing smoke is not refutation.
The model is based on givens (population and the $300B figure). Let me repeat from an earlier comment here:
"This is the problem. Republicans make a simple, even simplistic model, and then people like you blather about how it's so very wrong, without ever getting down to showing how it's necessarily way off. This is a disease in what passes for the progressive community, which disease is arguably as bad was what Bachmann has."
April 11, 2009 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I certainly admire your serious commitment to speaking truth to power. I only wish your commitment to actually knowing shit were as serious.
I notice you have no actual answer apart from, apparently, still refusing to read the letter. Allow me to help:
So, yeah, you are probably correct. Throwing darts would have produced a more accurate result.
April 11, 2009 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
"As far as I can tell ..." -Reilly
Oh, that's ever so compelling. Not.
So Reilly is clueless, and you mean that the $300B in some early year (2015 has been mentioned) is a total lie, that the early annual gross revenues will peak at about ten times less than that? What's your basis for that, where does Reilly state that projected early gross revenues will peak around $30B per year?
BTW, I had already read that part of the letter, and the letter is not the report itself, nevermind that Reilly isn't answering the challenge at all there.
Your ability to copy paste trash talk has been demonstrated. How about dealing with the point?
April 11, 2009 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this discourse has been sufficiently clear for all observers. You are doing all in your power to avoid facing the truth.
Have a blissful day.
April 11, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I'm simply not buying your line of bull, and doing so with good reason.
The model stands unrefuted.
April 11, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please present your "model" (thus far you have argued for some undefined hypothetical piecemeal construction.)
Just a short summary is sufficient, taking care to ensure that you do not accidentally commit the errors Mr. Reilly has kindly explained. You will make certain to identify all sources of income and expenses, and provide some context to their origins. You will explain how, for example, private corporations become involved with allowance revenues and their redistribution.
"The electric company will charge you 10x what it really should be!" is not a sufficient explanation without detail to explain why they are charging, where they are charging it and why it is of the factor you provide.
Feel free to post your "model" further down to avoid running too close to the margin.
April 12, 2009 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
$300B / 100M families = $3000.
Nobody denies $300B is an annual figure in the early days. QED
Nobody has shown figures on rebates from Reilly. But if the net is $300/family, then rebates must effectively add up to $2700. That strikes me as crazy. Some of that can be deducted for exports, but I've also dealt with that. Energy costs are ultimately born by consumers, whether as direct charges on a bill, increased consumer goods cost, etc. Talking about saving in 2020 after people start to change their spending habits does not refute the 2015 costs. And so on. One specious or idiotic gambit after another.
Really, it's not rocket science.
The question is, how much are we as a society willing to spend taxing ourselves (some energy sources) to make us stop using them so much? Some states let people choose their nominal electricity sources. Windpower can be very expensive these days, but some choose it. Will a plan give them more rebate? Will it give money directly or indirectly to the wind farm?
If a plan charges a carbon tax and gives the money to non-carbon energy sources, that's problematic but workable. Too much rebate would be a windfall for solar, hydro, etc. and should not happen.
Better to invest the revenues in R&D and small start-ups which have potential to become self-sustaining (profitable).
This thread isn't so much about the model or C&T. It, as far as my participation goes, was whether progressives can actually refute a simple model which reflects accurately the notions put out by leading idiotic Republicans. What I found was literally tons of virtual CO2 and carbon particles (smoke), and no refutations which stood up to examination.
Whatever.
April 12, 2009 4:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am sorry, but you are a fucking idiot.
The errors of your "model" have been pointed out, the correct way to calculate has been given to you, and you persist on inserting your baseless assertions about how the energy costs will be directly borne by customers (yeah, see, that is what the REBATES ARE FOR).
You do not seem to have the slightest idea about the problem domain, the mechanisms involved in cap-and-trade, nor the willingness to spend effort to educate yourself.
If you did actually do that, it would be possible to discuss the real failings of cap-and-trade programs instead of your synaptic failings.
April 12, 2009 6:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Back to ad hominem remarks, Karl?
Good for you, bad for rational discussion.
April 12, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are bad for rational discussion.
April 12, 2009 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Karl's "rational discussion" amounts to blowing smoke and spewing fallacies, when it's not just making stupid personal attacks.
Whatever.
April 13, 2009 3:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are a troll. This thread has recorded sufficient evidence thereof, and I may now commence to mostly ignore your baiting.
April 13, 2009 6:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I look forward to your reasoned on point rejoinders instead of your distractions with what you falsely call my "baiting".
What exactly is wrong with the model? Not the marginal issues, we agree that it's simplistic etc.
And no, Mr. Pot, I'm no more a troll than you are.
April 13, 2009 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you're going to try to skewer someone's argument, you might want to sharpen that stick a little bit.
"If a plan raises $X billion dollars in REVENUE, that revenue comes from somewhere..."
Okay, where? Tell us where. If you can't, then the rest of your argument falls on its face.
"...and that somewhere gets passed on to consumers one way or another."
And that's quite a detailed analysis. You put a lot of time into that, did you?
"And since producer costs generally get inflated by a multiplier before consumers pay the bill..."
Is that from the Book of Common Wisdom? What's the multiplier? 3? 2? 1.01? .00001? How about some substance?
"...you'd except the out of pocket energy costs to be even MORE."
Yes, we would, if we were to accept all of your self-serving assumptions and disregard the faulty premise.
All you've done is repeat what Bachmann said. She and the other Republicans who've been pushing this argument felt compelled to borrow an MIT study ("...according to one study...") to bolster it. But, not only did they tack a baseless conclusion onto the end of it, but they've continue to ignore the study's author who has been telling them that they're wrong.
How about if the Republicans conduct a study of their own, with actual numbers and math, and citing real examples to demonstrate the relationships they claim to exist between the cost of an emissions allowance and the energy cost to the consumer. Cap-and-trade has been used before. Cite an example that shows that it put a burden on consumers. Show some evidence that only the cost of the allowance gets passed on to consumers and not the amount credited to the companies who sell the allowances, as well. And then publish that study so that real economists can take a look at it and see if there's any more substance to it than what we're hearing from the GOP now.
But, let's cut to the chase. Bachmann isn't concerned with economics or consumer costs. She's totally consumed by ideology, and hers happens to be one in which any demonstration of concern for the climate and the environment are deemed "leftist," and therefore the 'right' thing to do is to oppose them. And, rather than make a cogent argument to support her position, she resorts to a phony appeal to middle-class Americans' pocketbooks.
In truth, she doesn't give a rat's ass. She thinks it's neat that her constituents have to work more than one job to make ends meet: "I am so proud to be from the state of Minnesota. We’re the workingest state in the country, and the reason why we are, we have more people that are working longer hours, we have people that are working two jobs." (Bachmann press conference, 1/16/2008)
Why should she care if the average family of four has a higher fuel bill? They can all just put in another shift to pay for it.
April 10, 2009 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trash talk is not compelling, nor is informative except if learning what a trashy style you have is informative.
"Okay, where? Tell us where. If you can't, then the rest of your argument falls on its face."
It comes from the taxed power companies, silly.
Since your opening salvo fails, the rest of your comment is hereby dismissed.
Making stupid jokes at my expense only makes you look stupidly unable to explain how the simplistic model is an absolute failure. So the model stands despite your whinging.
April 11, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is that the revenue is over a ten year period and is an average of those ten years, but even that number is misleading because of inflation. The number also excludes any benefits for the extra costs.
April 10, 2009 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
$300B is over ten years? What's your source for this? I've seen it said that is an annual figure part way into the proposed program. "(over $350 billion at the outset)" from this very article in the context of annual costs.
April 10, 2009 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I heard about this "study" on KO's show about a month ago. Poor loons!! They are tryin, aren't they?
April 10, 2009 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
eds.
This biggest problem with Ms. Bachmann simplified analysis is that it assumes a 100% pass through of corporate costs. A basic understanding of market economics would tell you that few corporations would be able to pass along 100% of the additional costs while the majority would elect to accept reduced profits in order to maintain market share!
Given that we are STILL seeing record corporate profits its logical to assume that even the energy companies would elect to absorb a fair share of the costs of C & T least they drive their customers to self generation and or alternative sources of energy!
So even if $300 billion was a accurate reflection of the cost to implement C & T the net realized household expense would be significantly less. Additionally there would be regional differences and individual household differences that make the "average" number meaningless to a majority of Americans
Lastly why shouldn't "dirty" energy providers and consumers pay a for the "indirect" costs? Isn't it about time to end corporate welfare too? Ms. Bachmann seems to be complaing about the end of the free lunch the coal industry has enjoyed. If she were a social worker complaining about the reductions in social services the right wing would carve her up and serve her on the "you have to pay your own way" platter!
April 10, 2009 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Basically you're lying at every paragraph. Your spin stinks.
I already outlined the argument about costs, in practice costs get MUTLIPLIED before they get to the consumer, by middleman and retail markups. If you can show this general rule doesn't apply, please do. But let's say it's not 100%. So, what %? If it's 50-50, Bachmann et all still have a strong point, and don't forget what that 50% will do to the bottom line of the company.
False "given", let's talk reality.
Calling "average" meaningless is just stupid. "Average" is THE buzzword in statistics, used rightly or not.
"Lastly why shouldn't "dirty" energy providers and consumers pay a for the "indirect" costs?"
What? dirty consumers? What indirect costs? Is there a missing word in there?
How is taxing corporations, "ending corporate welfare"? If you advocate reducing subsidies, put your plan forward in clear unspun form and I'll support its rational aspects.
Why don't you post a fantasy blog casting Bachmann in that role? Maybe Jon Stewart will pick it up...
April 10, 2009 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Outlined the argument? You started with the premise that the revenue of $300 billion is coming from consumers. You provided nothing to support that. You've ignored everything that John Reilly said in explaining the MIT study and how it was misinterpreted and cherry-picked by the Republicans. You've ignored that the revenue is returned to the consumer in a variety of ways.
If you're going to prop up Bachmann, which means shooting down Reilly, the burden is on you to address the original study and show how $340 a year per family is wrong. Not by guessing that costs get "MULTIPLIED" by unknown factor and ignoring any and all offsets, technological advances, or household changes in energy consumption. If you're going to say Reilly's wrong, point out exactly where he's wrong.
April 10, 2009 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You started with the premise that the revenue of $300 billion is coming from consumers."
No. It's coming from energy producers and being passed on in very large part directly or indirectly to consumers. You're pretending that something like 90% of that given (for the sake of discussion we're using $300B) producer cost will vanish into thin air. Just saying "Reilly says otherwise" is insufficient here. Attributing it to rebates fails if Reilly didn't include data about rebates, and fails if he did but you cannot cite how he handled rebates to get the $340 figure.
This is the problem. Republicans make a simple, even simplistic model, and then people like you blather about how it's so very wrong, without ever getting down to showing how it's necessarily way off. This is a disease in what passes for the progressive community, which disease is arguably as bad was what Bachmann has.
April 11, 2009 3:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
C'mon give Bachmann a break, it's like asking Sarah Palin to keep her story straight about Russia.
April 10, 2009 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
There IS a point in this non-debate (non, because everybody is talking assumptions) that the Dems and alternative energy folks haven't addressed.
Leave the MIT study aside for a bit. It is one study and not a study that the congress or administration has endorsed.
The proponents of C&T need to get out front on this issue with a set (not just one) of fully fleshed out scenarios on the tax collections side and the rebate to consumers side. Bachman is filling a void that shouldn't exist. Congress has the majority is acting like this is something that they can work out in committees without persuasion of the public in advance. The Repubs are just doing what they do: lies, bad assumptions, hysterical rhetoric, no plan, no analysis).
I'd prefer a carbon tax to C&T, but that seems a lost cause. I'd support C&T (with no free authorizations). I'd vigorously resist giving the pollution makers from having a free pass to treat the costs of pollution as 'economic externalities' - which aren't considered in pricing. We need to remember the goal here: cut carbon emissions. Noone knows how to do that except with some fee/tax for the pollution that drives down usage of high pollution sources and gives non-polluting alternatives an economic chance to survive long enough to drive down costs of startup and early stage adoption.
But surely, nobody can defend Bachman's lies, distortions and fear mongering as reasoned debate or even acceptable political positioning.
April 11, 2009 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
The sad fact is Bachman's lies, distortions and fear mongering doesn't have to have an ounce of truth in order to be believed. She just needs an audience willing to accept what she says is the truth regardless what the facts, the experts, or even the original authors say otherwise. There are some people, namely repuglicans, who are willing to believe in anything that substantiates their belief Obama and the Democrats are the root cause for all the troubles we are facing today. Bachmann has found her niche and is exploiting it to its' fullest.
April 11, 2009 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
"But surely, nobody can defend Bachman's lies, distortions and fear mongering as reasoned debate or even acceptable political positioning."
Fine. But as you said earlier, let's see some sound refutation of the model presented, not juvenile attempts at ridicule. I don't refer to your comment.
"The proponents of C&T need to get out front on this issue with a set (not just one) of fully fleshed out scenarios on the tax collections side and the rebate to consumers side."
That sounds good to me. So far the simplistic model stands at a cost of $3000, so if the net truly is about $300, then rebates come to $2700, unless somehow the Financial Sector is going to pay the bulk of the insane $2700. That would be a nice irony.
Either we export the costs or consumers in this country pay for them one way or another. But increasing export costs makes them even less competitive. So I don't see exporting C&T costs as a significant dent in the simplistic model.
April 11, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
"let's see some sound refutation of the model presented,"
Reading through this thread and the background information, I think that the rebate of a portion of the cap and trade revenue is a very easy to understand refutation of the simplistic model. There is also an unsupported assumption that none of the energy use in the US results in exported products, from wheat to 777's, that would pass along the energy tax to foreign consumers (just as Japan's energy taxes are passed along every time you buy a Sony or Honda). There is an implied assumption about the demand curve elasticity that has been proven false by rising costs (when your electric bill doubles, you throw some insulation in the attic, finally get around to weather stipping your windows, and pay the few extra bucks for the SEER 16 AC unit). There is no consideration of the external costs of carbon emissions or how the inevitable reduction in energy use may save consumers elsewhere (the same arguments were trotted out about the sulfur cap and trade program, since acid rain is 'free' right?). A final note is disregarding the time value of money shows a devestating ignorance of basic economics - revenues will be highest near the end of the program, post 2040, yet those dollars are presented as 2009 dollars.
Basically, your simple argument - thrown out with no supporting rationale - appears to prove the adage that every complex question has a simple, incorrect, answer. And more than enough primary sources of detailed information have been provided to figure that out.
April 11, 2009 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why did you waste your time posting that drivel?
I have dealt with exported costs. You ignored that point. I've dealt with fractional rebates. You ignored that. Apparently you've not read much of what I said on the topic.
But you cannot refute the model. Sometimes simple is true enough, and complications are merely folks blowing smoke so they cannot see the light.
April 12, 2009 3:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Why did you waste your time posting that drivel?"
Glad to see you're interested in rational discussion not just insults.
Reading both sides of the argument, your side has little support and appears extraordinarily lazy with no research or factual basis to your assertions.
"Either we export the costs or consumers in this country pay for them one way or another. But increasing export costs makes them even less competitive. So I don't see exporting C&T costs as a significant dent in the simplistic model."
Yeah, some compelling research and supporting evidence there... We've seen how Toyota passing along their energy tax (and high taxes to fund national healthcare) has made them sooo uncompetitive (see, that was a fact, albeit in a sarcastic manner).
April 12, 2009 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see you're a "pile on" type who likes jumping into quicksand after others have disappeared beneath the surface already. Good luck with that.
Try refuting my points, clarifying the truth of the matter, or answering the challenge instead of ankle biting.
April 13, 2009 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have refuted your points to my satisfaction and moved on. Thanks.
April 15, 2009 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Listen Asshole eds~ you need to cut down on coffee, you need to have sex more than once a month, you need to quit being condescending to people just as interested in the 'truth' as you are, you need to think of that 3K as about as much as a 'family' is going to spend on petfood in the same timeframe and understand that the future of life on Earth is worth more to people than feeding their dog wet animal parts on a daily basis. If the cost was double or triple that it would still be worth every dime. What are the god damned alternatives? What is the DO NOTHING scenario the conservative bitch would have us follow going to cost us in the long run? Don't give a fuck what the Earth is like after your sorry ass leaves for good? Well you are in a very very small and evil minority on that point and personally I think it would be good for the planet for you to chain smoke and drink heavily starting tonite. Peace.
April 11, 2009 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every nasty thing you said is probably true of you, esp. the coffee and asshole remarks.
"If the cost was double or triple that it would still be worth every dime. "
So, you accept Bachmann's model, but believe even 2-3x would be worth it. Fine, but not the point at all.
April 12, 2009 4:22 AM | Reply | Permalink