Kate Lundy is my new best friend ...

Sometimes the simpler explanation makes more sense than the conspiracy theory

No man. I wasn’t suggesting a conspiracy theory. However, it wouldn’t be the first time RA has been hijacked by, well, let’s say, ‘people with an agenda’, both from the left and the right (probably more from the left, but I couldn’t be sure on that score).

Well no conspiracy here 🙂 (although I suppose I would say that, wouldn’t I? :P)

Skidbladnir said :

p5235 said :

…basic economics…

That’s now the second time you’ve said that.

You’re claiming to know the microeconomic effect of, and the market dynamic of, an entirely new macro-level policy.
And you’re claiming to know it in advance.

You haven’t provided _any_ empirical data, haven’t provided caveats for _any_ of your assumptions, haven’t provided context for _any_ of your givens, and stated _all_ of your conclusions as fact.
That’s neither simple nor basic, and it doesn’t really resemble an economic theory .

Thumper and I are fairly cynical people with large internet calluses, but I’ll go so far as to call your reasoning an advanced ideological belief until you clarify some things.

I think you’ve got the wrong idea about the scope of what I was saying. I wasn’t making any predictions about the carbon tax in general. I don’t know what the impact of the tax will be overall, and I wasn’t pretending to. All I was saying was that overcompensation doesn’t mean that there aren’t incentives to change behaviour. It’s a small point and – yes – a basic one.

If we want to debate the carbon tax (which I don’t particularly, as productive as internet forum debates usually are) we should debate the carbon tax, not split hairs over what is really a very minor aspect of it… 🙂

After all, it’s not as if you are a regular commenter on RA which would suggest that the only interest you have here is trying to debunk any negative posts about the carbon tax.

Of course, I may be wrong.

I could just be new to Canberra… Sometimes the simpler explanation makes more sense than the conspiracy theory… Apologies for insulting your intelligence, though, it was a low blow (although, for the record, definitely not the sort of thing a paid ALP goon would do! 😉 )

Kate Lundy was a total babe in her day.

p5235 said :

…basic economics…

That’s now the second time you’ve said that.

You’re claiming to know the microeconomic effect of, and the market dynamic of, an entirely new macro-level policy.
And you’re claiming to know it in advance.

You haven’t provided _any_ empirical data, haven’t provided caveats for _any_ of your assumptions, haven’t provided context for _any_ of your givens, and stated _all_ of your conclusions as fact.
That’s neither simple nor basic, and it doesn’t really resemble an economic theory .

Thumper and I are fairly cynical people with large internet calluses, but I’ll go so far as to call your reasoning an advanced ideological belief until you clarify some things.

@I-filed:
Re: Labor Party ‘inactive’ mailing lists:
You wouldn’t believe what they keep on file in Eleczilla.

It still sounds as if it is a form letter written by an ALP lackey.

Hahaha… I assure you that I am no one’s lackey, just someone that understands a little bit of economic theory. If you think using a bit of basic economics makes me sound like a lefty (unlike a supporter of markets and competition, which I am), I really worry about the intellectual basis for whatever wing of the conservative movement you come from…

I am personally against any new taxes, especially the Carbon Tax!!!

looking outside the box and always after a positive, the extra jobs for the ACT Pubes in managing the cash and distributing government revenue and then the allocation of compensation. Surely that must be an extra 200+ highly prodictive jobs for canberra. 🙂

Compensation would only have an impact on incentives to change consumption if the compensation was on a per unit of carbon, rather than per person or household, basis. Even overcompensated households are still going to face the same incentives (higher prices for carbon-intensive goods and services) that everyone else does. They’ll have the same incentives to switch their consumption from highly carbon intensive to lower carbon intensive products. They’ll just have more money with which to do it. Basic economics.

One could almost think that this is a paid political announcement.

Unlike all the crap headlining Murdoch’s News Ltd papers? Every peak body and lobby group supporting the top 500 polluters get a go in the advertorials on page 1 in the Telegraph and Herald Sun as if their ‘research’ on the impacts of a carbon price are news.

“but not keen on overcompensation that will mean low-income-earners aren’t encouraged to change their carbon consumption behaviours” –> unfortunately this belies your ignorance. Compensation will have no impact on whether householders are encouraged to change their carbon consumption behaviours.

Compensation would only have an impact on incentives to change consumption if the compensation was on a per unit of carbon, rather than per person or household, basis. Even overcompensated households are still going to face the same incentives (higher prices for carbon-intensive goods and services) that everyone else does. They’ll have the same incentives to switch their consumption from highly carbon intensive to lower carbon intensive products. They’ll just have more money with which to do it. Basic economics.

Regards, Pete