Green Fascism: Part 67,808,123

Figures it's in California.

good.

On Tuesday, executives and consultants for the Arlington, Va., trade group asked members of the California Energy Commission to instead let consumers use their wallets to decide whether they want to buy the most energy-saving new models of liquid-crystal display and plasma high-definition TVs.

ahhh yes, let the consumers decide, because after all this is really just a consumer issue. rational actors, microeconomics, blah blah blah. and manufacturers and providers do a very fair job of incorporating external costs into their goods and services as well. really, they do. that's why all we really need to do is just trust the market.

Yes, because government regulation is ssoooooooooo much better. It never artificially inflates prices, or anything like that.


Government regulations=good


Consumer choice=bad

Facism is always nice when you agree with the laws being passed.

are you suggesting free markets and consumers do a fair job accounting for and factoring in external costs? so government regulation of the market is not only undesirable, but unnecessary as well?

absolutes, black and white. cute. but that's not my position at all.

this is fascism? you must be really outraged over things like CAFE standards, emissions testing, burn laws, clean water act, etc etc etc.....

are you suggesting free markets and consumers do a fair job accounting for and factoring in external costs? so government regulation of the market is not only undesirable, but unnecessary as well?

absolutes, black and white. cute. but that's not my position at all.

Are you suggesting that government regulation never artificially inflates prices, creates price floors or price ceilings, artificially increases or reduces demand, thereby influencing businesses to either over or under produce items?

If so, you are proving that you have no economic sense whatsoever.


But then you have already demonstrated that quite effectively.


Carry on.


And no, I did NOT say that government regulation is totally undesirable or unnecessary. I do, however, contend that we have too much government regulation in many areas of our lives, including your pet area of healthcare.


But keep trying to put forth positions I never stated, as strawman arguments that you can swoop in and knock down , thereby claiming victory on an internet message board.

no, i'm not suggesting government regulation NEVER does any of that. that'd be stupid considering those outcomes are often intended. i'm saying flat out that they don't always do that, that those outcomes are not inevitable. and i'm also saying that deregulated or unregulated markets are ill equipped to address negative externalities, making regulation necessary. whether that regulation should take the form of efficiency standards, pollution standards, pigovian taxes, or some other measure can be determined on a case by case basis. but the FACT remains that such measures are necessary, given the systems we have in place.

and, the quote i responded to from the article about letting consumers decide with their wallets what is best is just damn stupid. it shows ZERO understanding of the issue here.

interesting that your first response to me was TEXTBOOK straw man. blatant and dim.

now, as for my "straw man".....say, did you happen to notice the phrase "are you suggesting" followed by a question mark in my post? apparently, to you, asking actual questions of someone that help clarify a position is using straw man arguments to swoop in and knock down,,,victory,,,message board.

well done, half-wit.

no, i'm not suggesting government regulation NEVER does any of that. that'd be stupid considering those outcomes are often intended. i'm saying flat out that they don't always do that, that those outcomes are not inevitable. and i'm also saying that deregulated or unregulated markets are ill equipped to address negative externalities, making regulation necessary. whether that regulation should take the form of efficiency standards, pollution standards, pigovian taxes, or some other measure can be determined on a case by case basis. but the FACT remains that such measures are necessary, given the systems we have in place.

and, the quote i responded to from the article about letting consumers decide with their wallets what is best is just damn stupid. it shows ZERO understanding of the issue here.

interesting that your first response to me was TEXTBOOK straw man. blatant and dim.

now, as for my "straw man".....say, did you happen to notice the phrase "are you suggesting" followed by a question mark in my post? apparently, to you, asking actual questions of someone that help clarify a position is using straw man arguments to swoop in and knock down,,,victory,,,message board.

well done, half-wit.

You are so full of shit I can see the brown oozing onto your response.


You are for government regulation of everything, a position you have made abundantly clear.

As for letting the consumers decide, It is a rational argument because when the government does NOT overregulate, the consumers will purchase what is in their best interest and eventually the manufacturer will respond by eliminating those items that do not sell enough to justify their continued production.


Again, you have clearly shown that you have zero economic understanding.



Oh, and just because you "cleverly" couch your strawman wiith a "question mark" doesn't change the fact that it is a strawman. Only idiots would think it does.

Congrats.


Carry on, moron.

because you do what they told you...

good song...

yes.

absolutes, black and white. cute. but that's not my position at all.

well then quit posting as such...

i wasn't impressed by this consultant's adherence to neoclassical economic theory in this case, so what makes you think i'd be even remotely moved by your regurgitation of it?

"over regulate"...."eventually"....pretty arbitrary and vague wording. what is over regulation, according to who? when is eventually?

or, i DO understand classical/neoclassical economic theory and i reject several aspects of it, and the consultant's application of it as well. i also raised an objection citing negative externalities to support my position which you have yet to address because you're either ignorant, a coward, or both.

absolutes, black and white. cute. but that's not my position at all.

well then quit posting as such...

i never said or suggested gov't regulation = good, consumer choice = bad. they are neither good nor bad on their own and both have their place, don't blame your failure to comprehend on me.

consumer choice is often an inadequate and inefficient means to achieving desirable and necessary outcomes, particularly on issues where the true cost of a thing is not accounted for. like this case here, where "just leaving it up to the wallet of the consumers" was advocated. narrow. and disingenuous as well.

There are 8 instances of the word "you" in that ignorant simpleminded meltdown... I'd suggest you take a breather, but I'm partly afraid you might go beat up some ugly chick you met on the street who also happens to temporarily refer to you as her "boyfriend"

By the way, this was my favorite part.

Because its immediately preceeded by some seriously dumb shit...

This post has been edited by no one in particular on Oct 21 2009, 12:18 AM