Comments for Progressive Turmoil

Comment on Sane Voices on ETS by Hone

Hone — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:11:28 +0000

It seems likely that more consumers will want lower emission products. Is commercial opportunity a reason to regulate though? Plus, even if an ETS lowers ag emissions, how well would that be recorded or reflected in consumer labelling. Just curious.
Beyond that, it is hard to disagree. The ETS as now written seems a waste of time. Or, is something better than nothing?

Comment on Sane Voices on ETS by jps

jps — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:06:37 +0000

Yes I do expect that agricultural exports will face market signals that discriminate against emission-intensive activity at some future time. We already see some quantity signals (certain groups of people prefering locally produced food) and labelling decisions by eg Tesco that will encourage (and possibly) suppliers to put a carbon-sized footprint on their pacakaging to support informed consumer choice.

So I guess the point is that consumers and firms can and are doing things, even if governments are/do not.

However I also wonder whether, even if your (a) and (b) remain true, Europe might still price agricultural emissions. I was intrigued to learn recently that although the Swiss pay their farmers handsomely, they think of it as buying “public goods” from farmers. In that category they include nice landscapes, good animal welfare practices, soil conservation etc. Since they have this pricing view of what some might call farmer subsidies, its not beyond imagination that they might also decide to price agricultural emissions.

Comment on Sane Voices on ETS by Matthew

Matthew — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:03:34 +0000

Given that

a) Europe doesn’t look likely to ever stop subsidising its agricultural sector,

b) Europe is likely to remain the leader on climate change for the forseeable future

Do you really think that ‘…that world…’ is likely to include agricultural emmisions?

Comment on Embarrassing roundup by jps

jps — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:15:15 +0000

Nice sign idea Eric – I may just find a use for that!

I totally agree that the law was already capable of dealing with child abuse and that its full force should be used with vigour. The anti-smacking law was in that sense imposing a non-binding constraint. Which makes those getting frothed up about it all the more nutty.

Comment on Embarrassing roundup by Eric Crampton

Eric Crampton — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:27:30 +0000

Just put a sign outside your office saying “Welcome to the outside of the asylum”.

Surely the law ex ante would have allowed prosecution of parents beating their children with hoses, no? I can understand the merits of a bright line rule where some communities have a very difficult time understanding a less clear rule, but I also worry that such communities are sufficiently inelastic in response to any rule, bright line or otherwise, that the gains there from the rule are outweighed by losses elsewhere. If the sentencing judge says that hose beatings are a daily occurrence despite the current law, the reversion to the law ex ante wouldn’t change much for those communities, no? Solution I’d expect has to come more through a whole lot of prosecutions leading to expectations of severe punishment for real child abuse rather than waffly legislation that doesn’t do much to target the folks causing harm. It’s like knocking back the drink driving limit from .08 to .05 when the folks causing most harm are up beyond .12 anyway.

Comment on Pies, cutting etc by Did you see the one about . . . « Homepaddock

Did you see the one about . . . « Homepaddock — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:58:49 +0000

[...] Pies, cutting etc – Progressive Turmoil compares the market performance of comapnies in Australia & New Zealand. [...]

Comment on Motorcycle accidents by Nighthawk

Nighthawk — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 23:30:50 +0000

Oh and since they can not calulate the fuel levy, it is thought that on average every bike pays $90 per year in ACC levies via fuel which is around 8 million dollars

Comment on Motorcycle accidents by Nighthawk

Nighthawk — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 23:24:31 +0000

The thride char (Loss of control) also needs to be explained in more detail as if I biker hits grit mid corner, or un marked road works, a pot hole melting alsphalte, dodging a ball or free stock & a list of many other reasons including just speed and no other vehicle is involved it is still class as loss of control.

So many of these accidents could quiet simply be put down to some other reason and not just the rider…

Comment on my ACC submission by Eric Crampton

Eric Crampton — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 08:42:44 +0000

@Thornton: No fault does NOT mean no differential rates. ACC charges a higher levy of mining companies than of marketing firms, as they happily point out in their documentation. It just means that we’re trading off the costs of moral hazard for the transactions costs of establishing fault.

Comment on my ACC submission by Thornton

Thornton — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 06:21:30 +0000

The comment from Peter S seems to indicate he (and apparently it’s the same for ACC) doesn’t get that ACC is meant to be a no fault scheme where everyone chips in a bit to pay for cover for all, not one where some pay more than others just because they choose to take a higher risk.
If (as National are clearly angling towards) NZ had private insurance then yes motorcyclists would no doubt pay exorbitant fees, but that is not how ACC works, or at least is not how it’s meant to work.
If Peter S feels that motorcyclists should pay a higher levy does he also think that older people should pay more as they are more likely to fall and injure themselves and the costs to rehabilitate them would be much higher than compared with a young person? What about rugby players, or cyclists, etc, etc. Cyclists have nearly as many accidents with nearly as many serious injuries and fatalities as motorcyclists, yet they pay no extra ACC levy at all.
I recommend Peter S goes to http://www.bikersagainstacc.org.nz or http://www.ACCworks.org.nz (try to forget political leanings and just read the facts page).