Comments on: Carbon Taxes of the world

By: Terje Petersen

Terje Petersen — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 10:06:58 +0000

This has moved way off topic. I apologise for my part in that process. Discussion is now closed.

By: Terje (say tay-a)

Terje (say tay-a) — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 10:02:54 +0000

JC – I am not getting stuck into you even if I am critical of you. In fact I vacated a discussion because I wasn’t interested in a game of endlessly snarking with you. I have been entirely honest about the reasons that I vacated that discussion. There is no deceit on my part.

I have no problem with you being critical of Lamberts ideas positions or logic. I am not defending his views. However it is really hard for me or anybody else to form an opinion of people like Lambert when all I read is reams of derogatory remarks spewing forth from you. I find that annoying and distracting. So I moved on. Or at least I tried to. If I had been wiser I would not have expressed my view here that Catallaxy is routinely feral. I regret encouraging any spill over from Catallaxy. But what is said is done. You make your choices, I’ll make mine.

By: Mark Hill

Mark Hill — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:50:58 +0000

Wind isn’t free, it is abundant on Antarctica, but legally you cannot set up wind farms there. The transmission losses would be awful as well. Plus the cost of actually setting up the necessary capital.

No one knows what energy source is best. The Government shouldn’t support one fetish over another.

We already have a carbon tax. All we need do to mitigate AGW is to broaden the base and lower the rate.

By: JC

JC — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:57:37 +0000

Gerry’s comment that Lambert referred wasn’t great, but notice how Lambert was trying to head kick another free market guy.

He’s run that bog of a site for over 7 years now and nearly every one of those threads is a hate thread against someone.

He ignored Jackson’s economics discussion while focusing on some side issue trying to sully a reputation.

Matter of fact I agree with John’s argument about carbon taxes. Not because I think it’s superior but it’s like choosing between Fascism or communism when it comes to AGW and taxes.

However I actually think Gerry presented a pretty decent case to debate about the effectof carbon taxes on capital accumulation. It has merit and its worth investigating.

The poison little cherub- Lambert- only knows to attack people in dishonest ways. I’d behave the same way anytime a venomous creep goes after one of our own in a dishonest way- even you of John believe or not.

I might add that the one time I have ever seen Lambert discuss quasi economic issues about AGW was when he suggested wind is superior because its “free”. After 7 years that’s all he knows about the subject. He’s a fake.

By: JC

JC — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:33:32 +0000

Terje:

Why are you getting stuck into me about things said on another site and being dishonest about the reasons?

The big argument I have is with lambert primarily because he’s quite possibly the most dishonest, fraudulent, nasty and mean spirited blogger on the web. Quite telling how you bat for him.

The flow of the thread was about carbon taxes mostly, at least that’s what most poeople focused on. Lambert had no interest in adding to that other than trying to kick another head.

As I said, crubs like Lambert will nver vote for you, Terje.

Next time I would appreciate it if you’re going to broadside me inform me or do so on the thread that offends you.

Don’t give me pointers on behaviour.

By: nicholas gray

nicholas gray — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 05:47:39 +0000

Sukrit, why don’t you repeat Graeme’s comments here, but without the nasty bits?

By: Sukrit Sabhlok

Sukrit Sabhlok — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 04:59:15 +0000

P.S. I should mention that I agree with Graeme on the undesirability of a pigouvian tax. So it’s not that his views are being censored, as he repeatedly claims.

By: Sukrit Sabhlok

Sukrit Sabhlok — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 04:42:08 +0000

The comments of Graeme Bird I’m letting through are actually the cream of the crop (the least abusive, least repetitive). The other dozen have been deleted.

By: nicholas gray

nicholas gray — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 04:22:06 +0000

You should always be civilised in communication with fellow libertarians, except for GraemeBird, whom it is fair to hate on contact, because you know he can’t write without a swearword appearing.
As for Scandinavia, I would include Russia in this observation- cold climates make people more inclined towards statism and groupism, because of all the communal activities to stay warm in the snow in winter. It’s just a general observation, not a rule, but I think it would add an extra push to communality.

By: Terje (say tay-a)

Terje (say tay-a) — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 03:57:30 +0000

Jason – I’ve said maybe you are right about Sweden. I’m not refuting the notion that the heritage index has problems. And all I said in the first place was that Denmark and Sweden don’t have a minimum wage. I never said that Denmark and Sweden were the benchmark for labour laws. You stretch a long bow accusing me of intellectual dishonesty. You only achieve the claim by infering that I defend things which I have not defended. In fact your opening comment on this issue is deliberately misleading because it claims (entirely falsely) that I promote Sweden and Denmark as deregulated labour market paradises. A strawman arguement. Just as you used a strawman argument about the EU in which you accuse me of regarding it as a free market paradise. I know that blowing down strawmen is pretty easy but it doesn’t prove anything.

For clarity my comment at 35 was being drafted whilst you posted 31-34.

And there is nothing insincere about my views on civility. I do believe that Catallaxy allows a rude and abusive culture that detracts from otherwise good content. I’m not pretending to think civility is a good thing, I actual do think it is a good thing.