You went down that path of limited partnerships to full gov’t ownership. That wasn’t what I was talking about, alright? They would stay charters with a need for renewal every 5 years. All the corporation would have to do was show they weren’t being greedy or mistreating their workers and showing a benefit to the society at large. But you had to mutate it in ways I don’t see happening. But even so gov’t must be limited as much as corporations.

As for the NJ law, what can you do, contest in court? And if the judge rules against you then pay the penalty fee and never look back.

The speculators got the money from us when the lending banks and the speculatory ones could merge after the last of the Great Depression limits were removed in the 1990’s. So it was tax payer money.  And they were paid back with our money to the tune of $4.74 trillion dollars (I was against) which made them solvent again and ready to speculate some more since we still have no laws to stop them. [They and their cronies in office made sure of that.]

Night-Gaunt

Do you understand what causes speculative bubbles in the first place? Where did all these “speculators” get the money to invest? Where did the mortgage backers get the money loan? The government, that’s where. Well, more accurately, the Federal Reserve. Does the Federal Reserve control the cost of money? Yes. It’s called the open market operations. Perhaps control was not the best word. Manipulated by the government is more accurate. Yes, Alexander Hamilton was a strong supporter of central banking, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were not. If you don’t want to listen to economists like Hayek and Mises because they are too far right for you, then listen to Hyman Minsky. He would tell you that speculative bubbles are formed by an infusion of cheap, easy money into the system. See: Minsky Moment, or Minsky Meltdown. He’s lefty, just like Pauly Krugnuts. Do a little research. Another big problem was that the FBI warned the Bush administration of widespread fraud in the mortgage industry in 2004, and they did nothing. When there’s fraud, it can not be business as usual for regulators. You don’t need new regulations, you need to enforce the regulations that are on the books, and put people in jail. That would have stopped it in its tracks. I do not know any economists, even the most hardcore Austrians, that do not believe that fraud should be prosecuted. And BTW, Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand were not Austrian economists. Ayn Rand wasn’t even an economist, she was a philosopher, and philosophy is one step behind religion, in my book. There’s a difference between Austrian economics and neo-liberal economics.

Corporations don’t have freedoms, only people do. Except you think they do. If they move they should pay the penalty. Why do you think that is wrong?

Are corporations made up of robots, or something? No, they are made up of people. People have rights.  What part of that don’t you understand? Just because you are not one of the people that makes the decisions of the corporation, it doesn’t give you, or anybody else the right to pass judgment, if, and only if, they are not violating the rights of others, anymore than you have the right to force your neighbor to do something that you, or the government, wants him to do. If you want to make the argument that GE is violating someone’s right(s) by moving a factory to China, I’d like to hear it.

Also, in the State of NJ, if you sell your house, and move to another state, you have to pay a special tax on the sale price of your home. Fair, or not fair?

Originally corporations were given a 5 year charter and at the end of that charter they came in to show they have benefited society and should be renewed. If they did not, their charter was dissolved.

Fine. Then all corporations will become limited partnerships or trusts. What’s the difference between a corporation and a limited partnership? The only difference between a corporate entity, and any other business entity, is that management, through private, voluntary contract, is allowed to make decisions without the shareholder’s consent. That’s it. That is the only difference. So, then we will extend charters to limited partnerships, right? Then all limited partnerships will become full partnerships. So, we’ll require charters for all full partnerships. Then all full partnerships will become sole proprietorships. Then we will require charters for all sole proprietorships. That will be the day that government can tell you, an individual, whether or not you have the right to go out and earn money on your own. Is that really a world you want to live in? Technically, the Federal Reserve is a charter. Fannie and Freddie and all the GSEs are chartered. Yes, that’s right, charters are a good thing. Please.

It is the relationship between the government and big corporations and banks, that is evil. And you want the government to control even more. Great, look where government control has gotten us so far. Fat Freddy

What control? It was the speculators and their supporters that freed them to put us in this shit we are in. It has been staunched but we are still in the ICU with a great chance of having another one just like in 2008. Nothing has been allowed that would restrain them from creating another speculative bubble. Every time some legislation would keep it from happening again it is either weakened to uselessness, allowed to die slowly, or voted down. So its the too free market that led us down that garden path to the brink of hell. Even so we are still in a Depression since 2001. No overall job growth since 1990. The economy is shrinking for most of us. You can’t have much of a country if it is a service one.

How do you do that? What other freedoms would you like to ban?

Corporations don’t have freedoms, only people do. Except you think they do. If they move they should pay the penalty. Why do you think that is wrong?

I forgot it said “We the people/Corporations…” way back at our founding. My copy says nothing about equal rights for corporations.

Slave labor by whose standards? Yours? What did the Chinese people have before we had a liberal trade policy with China? Dirt? Perhaps you should ask the Chinese people if they are better, or worse than they were in 1978.

Depends on who you ask there. In the North it is still the old ways—gray but they have food and a place to live. In the South they have a few millionaires or most are thrown into the street with no food and no place to live. Plus a small growing middle class. So it depends on who you ask and where they live in China.

The move from authoritarian Communism to authoritarian Capitalism is bumpy but doable as we see there. The leaders are still doing well in their own special class as they always do.

Of course not. Putting words in my mouth, again. Nobody ever argued for “unregulated Capitalism”. What is evil, is coercion. Restricting people’s freedom is evil. Perhaps the government should restrict your freedom. It sounds like you need to be controlled.

There are different ways of saying things, the clear direct way, and the more hidden obscurantist way.

Who said it’s just about wages? There’s taxes, regulations, construction costs, etc.

So we lose manufacturing because the cost of living is too high here? That they don’t want to pay? So we should have no protection from sinking wages here? Nonsense. Even Alexander Hamilton, that ardent Federalist, understood you can’t sell out you society for a little more money for the owners. That is bad in the long run, as we see amply demonstrated here in the USA.

Originally corporations were given a 5 year charter and at the end of that charter they came in to show they have benefited society and should be renewed. If they did not, their charter was dissolved. Of course this hasn’t been done in 100 years. The experiences of our founders under the British chartered corporations schooled them in what a bad idea it was to give such entities so much freedom and power. We need to reinstate it and fast. Don’t you agree Fat Freddy?

Perhaps, we could also limit the rights of Muslim organizations. We could prevent them from building a community center 2 blocks from “ground zero”. Muslims are evil, and want to kill us, right?

An individual right to religion exists, this isn’t a corporation demanding rights is it Fat Freddy? That example doesn’t fit, a poor analogy. There are those racists?Islamaphobes want the local gov’t to invoke “imminent domain” to take it away from them. Now that is a gov’t power much abused to benefit certain elements of the business establishment. Corruption that needs to be ended.

I am sorry but not suprised to hear that Freddy.

This IS now a Plutocracy, full blown.
Us citizens need to quit looking at this as a
liberal vs conservative fight…..and find some way
to stick together and beat these bastards.
FOR OUR CHILDREN ...we are responsible for making this
mess….we should at least try to come up with a fix..

Any fix is going to be a long struggle,  not overnight,
and require hands on by everyone.

ofersince72

Those of you that still believe that this mess can be straightened out by just pulling a voting lever are as foolish as those that deny Climate Change.

We can’t even do that, anymore. Look at what happened in Pennsylvania. Three third party candidates (Libertarian, Green, and Tea Parties) were forced off the ballot for Governor.

http://dailyme.com/story/2010081800002098/york-libertarian-drops-race-governor-marakay.html

Where’s the outrage over this? Yeah, we live in a Democracy. The Powers that be know what is best for us.

If you don’t know who Marakay Rogers is, look at this:

http://www.outrightusa.org/officers/12-officers/4-marakay-rogers.html

I don’t think corporations should have any freedoms. They are tools for all our benefit, not just the owners to squeeze whatever they want and leave the rest of us destitute. You bet I have no problem restricting their “rights.”

Corporations are not tools for our benefit. They are private entities, owned by a group of individuals. When you limit the rights of a corporation, you are limiting the rights of the individuals that own them. Of course, we should have reasonable regulations with real enforcement, the same way we have them on individuals. So, what makes a group of individuals different from an individual? Profit? Yes, profit is a motivating factor. A very good one. However, it must be balanced with the fear of bankruptcy. Do you wish to increase your profits? Would you like to be able to get a raise at your job? Suppose the government said no, “you are not allowed to get a raise, go back to work, and do what we tell you. We know what’s best. We represent the people”.

Perhaps, we could also limit the rights of Muslim organizations. We could prevent them from building a community center 2 blocks from “ground zero”. Muslims are evil, and want to kill us, right?

So you like Ayn Rand & Milton Freidman on unlimited, unregulated Capitalism

Of course not. Putting words in my mouth, again. Nobody ever argued for “unregulated Capitalism”. What is evil, is coercion. Restricting people’s freedom is evil. Perhaps the government should restrict your freedom. It sounds like you need to be controlled.

You are very good at avoiding the issue at hand. Why didn’t you answer any of my questions? Perhaps, we should force GE to manufacture more wind turbines. Maybe we could just give them more subsidies. Yes, yes. It will be just like ADM. We can place tariffs on sugar, subsidize corn, and then complain about all of the high fructose corn syrup in our food, and how evil ADM is. You are a fool.

The government has been controlling our economy for the past 100 years. They have completely ignored basic principles of law, such as fraud, robbery, trespass and misrepresentation. But, you blame “capitalism” and the “market”. Get a clue. It’s the government that is evil. No, correct that. It is the relationship between the government and big corporations and banks, that is evil. And you want the government to control even more. Great, look where government control has gotten us so far.

Just as I was scoffed at back in the eighties for

trying to make people aware of the C02ppm crisis,

the very same thing is happening today concerning the

political process that is left to citizens in America.

Those of you that still believe that this mess can be

straightened out by just pulling a voting lever are as

foolish as those that deny Climate Change.

By the way,  Climate Collapse is the more proper term
than Global Warming.

Since no one really wants to understand the C02ppm
crisis, I won’t go through what I have gone through a
million times on TD, except that I first became aware of
this problem in the early eighties and by 1986 was writing
and calling public officials to get them to see the
severity of the problem, of course, I was laughed at,
even by family and friends.

Any cap and trade or carbon selling is not even an answer.
It indeed is the answer for industry.  James Hanson has
been covering up for industry for many decades, he is not
a friend.  He is the one who steered the climate change
models in favor of industry since the seventies.  He,
using his position, made sure no other models got funded
except industry models.  Al Gores presentation was an
industry model and also deceptive, and funded by the
the nuclear power industry and other polluting industries.

The truth is,  man cannot bring the C02ppm down one ppm
even if all emissions were to be shut down this second.
The truth is that they don’t even tell the public what
the real C02ppm is anymore. During the later part of the
ninties, NOAA would periodically call me and tell me after
they took a reading.
  This does not mean that i don’t advocate responsible
stewardshiip of the ecology. I support McKibbon even though I understand what he is doing is for naught.
The Cap & Trade idea has been beat around since the seventies, it was wrong then and wrong now and favors
industry.  No one wanted to interrupt our consumer lifestyle and of course, modeled all fixes that would
accomodate this wasteful and destructive economic system.

dbtodd, how in the name of all that’s logical and reasonable can you say this article is not about climate change? That is complete nonsense. Of course it’s about climate change. And it’s also about the determination of the first world to blame the third world for a problem they have created and, so far, apart from in countries like Germany, Spain and China, have all but refused to address. It will cost a lot of money to fix it but however much it costs it has to be faced and addressed and the best brains, scientific and economic in the world have said that creating a market which will work as a tax on carbon is the best, most efficient and most timely way to go. It’s vital that the third world doesn’t make the mistakes of the past (the mistakes we made) and moves to renewable energy as soon as possible. It’s only fair that the polluters who have made so much money out of fossil fuels should help to solve the problem that fossil fuels have created, instead of doing what Exxon Mobil has done and setting up websites and propaganda groups to lie about climate change and claim it doesn’t exist.

Whoa there diamond, this article is not about climate change and was not placing blame on third world countries. “Putting a price on carbon pollution” as you stated would be a way to reduce pollution, and that is what the false promise of cap & trade is about. Polluters can buy their way to polluting more by purchasing credits from non-polluters. In this case, the people of Nepal could make some coin by being non-polluters. However, as we see this doesn’t work because of the onerous cost and dependency built into the system for them to participate. In addition, the cost of purchasing credits would need to be very high to really force polluters into change. Otherwise they just past the cost along to to customers (eventually you, me and the rest of the sleeping citizenry).

A strong cap (financially expensive and legally enforceable) could work if the cost of polluting is too great to pass down to customers, forcing customers to go elsewhere for lower prices (like a competitor who pollutes less and therefore has lower costs). Theoretically this is what cap & trade would also do, but because it is a “market” it can then be manipulated by the players and the traders make money along the way. A straight cap could only be manipulated by the government (cynically referring to lobbyists which are more expensive) and leaves a market out of the picture. Why should Wall Street benefit so directly from this (us)?

Save the climate change stuff for another post.
in the morning

This entire article is based on a lie. 75% of the carbon that goes into the atmosphere comes from industrialized first world nations. So why are you pottering around in a country that is not the problem instead of looking at America, which is the biggest part of the problem, as is the entire industrialized world? Putting a price on carbon pollution is the only thing that will stop the polluters from polluting. It’s also the only thing that will force them to move to alternative energy but instead of admitting that any attempt to deal with carbon pollution must happen where the problem is vast you go to where the problem barely exists, as if this is where the world has to start. Misleading doesn’t cover it: more like propaganda for conservatives who will fight dealing with this problem until Manhattan is under water.

Some facts:

1.75% of carbon emissions come from the industrialized world, not the developing world, and it will be many years before the developing world achieves anything like the levels of carbon pollution that the developed world has.

2.“The Bureau of Meteorology reported (in 2005-2006) a 40 year decline in rainfall across southern Australia, with precipitation declining by 25% in some areas. Many dams supplying cities and towns around the country remained at record low levels. Munich Re, one of the world’s largest insurance companies announced…that economic losses due to weather-related natural disasters set a new record in 2005, reaching more than $200 billion (P. 18, ‘Scorcher’, Clive Hamilton).

3.Scientists have observed that the Arctic Sea ice has been receding in summer more than usual:
“The exposure of dark seawater means that more of the sun’s heat is absorbed, making it harder for the sea to freeze over again when winter arrives. Thus in 2005 there was 20% less ice cover than over the period 1979-2000, exposing an area the size of France, Germany and the United Kingdom combined” (P. 180, ‘Scorcher’, Clive Hamilton).

If greenhouse gases are not reduced there could eventually be no Arctic ice cap. This “dark North Pole” (ibid.) would have a huge impact on global wind patterns, “including the jet stream with profound implications for weather patterns everywhere” (ibid.).

4.What Hamilton calls a second tipping point is the possibility of the melting of the Greenland ice sheet:
“Although it might take centuries, this would raise sea levels by seven metres. All indications are that Greenland is indeed melting” (P. 181, op. cit.).

And the melting of the Greenland ice sheet leads to a third tipping point:

“The melting of the Greenland ice sheet could pour masses of fresh water into the North Atlantic. This could prevent cold water salt from sinking and thereby close down the thermohaline circulation. Although the shutting down of the Gulf Stream…in Northern Europe is often overstated, the stalling of these great currents would have a dramatic effect on rainfall patterns in the Asian tropics with far reaching effects on food supply” (ibid.).

5.In 2007 Dr. James Hansen, director of the NASA Godard Institute for Science Studies and one of the world’s most respected climate scientists stated that we only have ten years to check carbon emissions, “Before global warming runs out of control and changes the world forever” (ibid.). Hansen notes that half the world’s population lives within 15 miles of the coast. “ The last time it was 3 degrees Centigrade warmer sea levels were 25 metres higher…once you get the process started and well on its way, it’s impossible to stop” (ibid.).

The time for debating is over. It’s time for real action and mulling over whether cap and trade is ABSOLUTELY PERFECT and trying to put the blame on third world countries is completely unhelpful.

Yes by mine and the UN & the Red Cross standards, even yours if you have any on this.

I don’t think corporations should have any freedoms. They are tools for all our benefit, not just the owners to squeeze whatever they want and leave the rest of us destitute. You bet I have no problem restricting their “rights.” None in the least.

So you like Ayn Rand & Milton Freidman on unlimited, unregulated Capitalism. Who only cowtows to the market? Not human life, or decency or even viability in our economy? They want profit and will go anywhere to get it. Work people to death to make their profit. That is evil.

Night-Gaunt

How about banning GE from moving to China?

How do you do that? What other freedoms would you like to ban?

Why can’t they pay a proper wage here?

Who said it’s just about wages? There’s taxes, regulations, construction costs, etc.

If we let them move to China then an import duty equal to what they would have paid in taxes and wages here.

Because protectionism has worked so well in the past. Besides, do you really want to get into a trade war with China? Trade wars often times turn into military wars.

That will end their use of slave labor

Slave labor by whose standards? Yours? What did the Chinese people have before we had a liberal trade policy with China? Dirt? Perhaps you should ask the Chinese people if they are better, or worse than they were in 1978.

Small, developing countries such as Nepal are penalized because they don’t produce much greenhouse gas in the first place.

Why aren’t they given some reward? Isn’t that the point—-to be zero in emissions? Just like people should be rewarded for not having kids, and paid for adoptions.

I was against Cap & Trade as a scam from the start, when a Carbon Tax from the rich will pay for the poor to be green first, then the richer countries next. Be able to save the forests from being cut down as in Haiti.

Waste isn’t a health hazard unless it is collected in to large quantities and not allowed to dry out to a white color. Our waste is essential to keep our ecologies going. Clean out the intestinal parasites then the fecal matter will be clean of them.

How about banning GE from moving to China? Why can’t they pay a proper wage here? If we let them move to China then an import duty equal to what they would have paid in taxes and wages here. That will end their use of slave labor, and helping to reduce wages all across the world.

This is a “voluntary” program run by the WWF. That’s the problem, they need to get the government involved and force people into the program. That will work for sure. :(

What do you think will happen if we legislate cap and trade in this country? What companies will “handle” the carbon offsets and distributions? JP Morgan? Goldman Sachs? Maybe Fannie and Freddie can do it. I can see it now. The cause of the next Great Recession - “The Carbon Bubble”.

No, I’ve got a better idea, let’s ban incandescent light bulbs so GE can shut down their Virginia plant and open one in China that manufactures CFLs. Nice.

On top of dbtodd’s brilliant assessment of the problems with cap and trade as it is now being used.. I’d say the WWF and their integration into the status-quo is itself troubling.

Adios.

Thank you for this article. It illustrates the prevalent and disturbing practice of rich countries extracting money from poor people, in this case using the cap and trade carbon scam. The brain washing of these peasants (collecting firewood has an environmental impact of corporate logging?), the onerous cost to them of saving the planet (expensive to install equipment), the ongoing need to inspect (and pay foreign companies), and the need for loans (smacks of economic hitman style) - it sets the peasants and the government to constantly pay and/or subsidize an industry that returns little benefit to them, and makes them dependent on the Europeans to keep the racket going.
By riding my bike to work, my carbon offset is calculated to be 356 lbs of CO2 over the last month. Maybe I could sell that to a polluter and make a little micomoney, but I would probably need to pay a couple inspectors to come watch me ride my bike.