Quote:The net effect of Smoot-Hawley, however small its macroeconomic effect, was to worsen an already weak economy and depress the GDP.In other words, Smoot-Hawley isn't like these other things in any real sense at all, but it makes a neat boogeyman to compare to things you think are bad ideas.
Quote:The worlds demands for goods and services are like one big pie. With the US self selecting to curb its economic power by siphoning off productivity and diverting capital to projects with no profitable impact. I mean seriously, what do you think the net effect will be of suddenly reducing energy consumption in the US to 80% of the 1990 level (as promised by Obama)? Yes, a cleaner environment and less CO2 emissions until people start burning their trees for heat and cooking.Sounds long overdue.
However, you're being quite misleading about what Obama has promised. First, the 80% figure refers to carbon emissions, not energy consumption. This means switching to nuclear, solar, wind, and other low-carbon technology, *not* reducing energy consumption to 4/5ths. Second, this target is for 2050. You have forty-one years to get there; for now, the best that can be hoped for, even under the most optimistic plans, is to stabilize carbon emissions levels. I suspect the US (nor any major industrial power) is not going to meet even that target. But to not even try would be environmentally suicidal.
Quote:By these types of actions (socialist neo-Luddite pipe dreams), we are in essence choosing to be less competitive. This is economic carnage to quickly implement what some people believe to be an environmental nirvana. Who will pick up the productivity slack? China?By these types of actions, you would be joining the rest of the modern world in facing the concerns of the future: rising inequality and global climate change. Nobody serious is talking about "environmental nirvana". Just something a little more sane than "drill, baby, drill."
Quote:It's ok, I've lived off the land before in my life, so me and mine will survive this. But, I fear for the millions who will die due to lack of heat and food. In the world food chain, this has typically been Africa and South Asia, but who knows.Sometimes I seriously wonder how you come up with these things. Live off the land? In the United States? How bad to expect this to get, exactly? Even in the case of a cataclysmic 90% drop in GDP, you could still do better than retreating to the hills to hunt and forage.
Quote:What is the "Cap in Trade" plan of the EU and how well does it work?You'd rather not do cap and trade, and do something more rigorous instead? Sounds great to me. You think cap and trade, weak as it is, is already too much? Sounds like the ostrich approach to climate change.
-Jester