Bart Campolo comes out in favor of Higher Gas Taxes

[Da Lone-Warrior]

It's all part of getting serious on the war on Terrorism and the problem of carbon dioxide emissions....

http://bartcampolo.blogspot.com/2006...-gas-hogs.html

[SteveF]

I have no idea who Bart Campolo is, but I come out in favour of higher petrol prices too.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

I have no idea who Bart Campolo is, but I come out in favour of higher petrol prices too.

Bart Campolo is the son of the (in)famous Italian-American Christian Sociologist and Speaker and author, Tony Campolo.

Bart is also a well known speaker, who has recently moved to Ohio to be involved with inner city ministry and political activism there.

dlw

[sc_q_jayce]

Bart Campolo is the son of the (in)famous Italian-American Christian Sociologist and Speaker and author, Tony Campolo.

Bart is also a well known speaker, who has recently moved to Ohio to be involved with inner city ministry and political activism there.

dlw

Indeed he is a well known speaker! He spoke at our fellowship once. A very strong message (which focused on getting people intererested in MissionYear). He was the founder of MissionYear, as well.

Anyway, the message is interesting and worthy of consideration at the very least. Though I am no expert in economics, I'd like to see more about this.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

I'm guessing it's going to come into play in the coming election...

Bart was a guest speaker at a weekend retreat I went to when I was in high school. I got to know him personally and have been interested/influenced by his family ever since...
dlw

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Reed Hundt from TPM Cafe has clipped out for us the most important part of a column by NYTIMES editorial writer, Tom Friedman.

"I call it the "First Law of Petropolitics," and it posits the following: The price of oil and the pace of freedom always move in opposite directions in petro-ist states."

Now, if we tax oil then the Elasticity of Demand will go up, since E=dQ/dP*P/Q and a higher P and lower Q will tend outweight any change in dQ/dP. As such, the profit-maximizing price of oil, after taking into account the impact of the tax on the quantity demanded into account, will be lower
prices for producers and therein a higher pace of liberalization, meaning the gov't will tend to serve more people's interests....

dlw

[micah4]

Now, if we tax oil then the Elasticity of Demand will go up, since E=dQ/dP*P/Q and a higher P and lower Q will tend outweight any change in dQ/dP. As such, the profit-maximizing price of oil, after taking into account the impact of the tax on the quantity demanded into account, will be lower
prices for producers and therein a higher pace of liberalization, meaning the gov't will tend to serve more people's interests....

Just out of curiosity, how many years of schooling did it take for you to learn that the government serves more people's interests by forcing them to do things they wouldn't do voluntarily?

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Just out of curiosity, how many years of schooling did it take for you to learn that the government serves more people's interests by forcing them to do things they wouldn't do voluntarily?

when I was 17, I took my first course in Economics and learned the above formula and the concept of externality.

Unfortunately, there have long been negative externalities from oil that we have been ignoring out of greed and what I like to call hyper-individualism.

Heck, if we'd not been so preoccupied with keeping oil prices down, we wouldn't have regime-changed Iran back in 1953, when the Nationalist Mossadegh wanted to charge more for oil and share the wealth in a more egalitarian manner than the Shah we propped up ever did....
dlw

[micah4]

when I was 17, I took my first course in Economics and learned the above formula and the concept of externality.

So, at a time when virtually the whole country is making a big stink about gas prices being too high, DLW comes along and says the government will serve more people's interests by taking even more of their money every time they go to the pumps.

So, I guess the vast majority of people who feel that their interests would be better served by lower gas prices just don't have a handle on what their interests really are.

Somehow a 17 year old DLW gained an insight from an introductory economics course which gives him amazing powers to judge for other people what their interests are better than they themselves can, and now he's on a crusade to get the government to make them act in their own best interests, whether they see it that way or not.

I would have thought that by this time the dramatic failure of the Soviet Union's experiment in central planning would have served as at least some warning that a bunch of egg headed economists trying to use the arm of government to coerce markets actually don't do a better job of serving people's interests than do people who are simply able to act on their interests in a free manner; but apparently this hasn't made much of an impression on academia.

[Conductor42]

This reminds me of a Winston Churchill quote...


We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.--Winston Churchill

[micah4]

This reminds me of a Winston Churchill quote...


We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.--Winston Churchill

I guess Churchill didn't realize that when there are negative externalities, the elasticity of demand changes with the ratio of P/Q*dq/dp, which demonstrates that it's in the man's best interest to pull much harder on the bucket's handle.

I don't mean to disparage the value of economic theory and analysis; I'm sure it's a useful science when employed to the right ends. And I'm sure DLW that you're a very intelligent person who has a motivation to do right, and I appreciate the awareness and concern you demonstrate, certainly much above the average american, and even the average christian.

But when somebody tells me that it serves everyone's interests better that they not be free, I'm doubtful that their analysis is on spot.

I can't help but think that those who feel the need to force others to "act in their own best interests" are demonstrating a sort of intellectual arrogance, perhaps not consciously; but how should one feel when they are approached with restraints, with somebody telling them that it's for their own good? This is the position of a mother or father to a child, to tell them that they must be forced to do X, Y, or Z for their own good. You must be forced to pay an extra $2 per gallon, for your own good. We must take 15% of your earnings, because we're able to take care for your retirement better than you are able to. This we accept with children because we know that the a parent has wisdom that small children lack.

But for an adult to approach another this way- much less to approach the vast majority of society- and tell them that they must be restrained from doing x, or forced to do x, y, or z "for their own good"- what kind of claim is this? Is this not setting one's self up in a "father knows best" role? Intelligent people do not have to be forced to do things for their own good. How is it that politicians or economists (or hollywood actors, for that matter) conclude that they have a special gift of knowing what is good for John Smith better than John Smith himself knows? That John Smith, like a small child, shouldn't be allowed to decide for himself what's in his best interest?

Perhaps this is true in the case of psychopaths or the mentally handicapped, but to make this sort of claim against the vast majority of society seems to me to put an awful lot of confidence that your own opinion of what is good for people is superior to their own analysis of what is good for themselves. And to merely hold such a high estimation of one's knowledge is one thing, but then to assert that one's opinion ought to be enforced on those who disagree for their own good- well, yeah that certainly seems a bit arrogant to me.

I would think that there must be better ways to use the science of economics to benefit people than deciding what they ought to be forced to do "for their own good".

[Da Lone-Warrior]

This reminds me of a Winston Churchill quote...


We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.--Winston Churchill

And what is the context of that Quote?

The issue isn't prosperity, but discipline and stewardship of the natural resources, as well as protections against the corruption caused in oil producing areas from great wealth....

Prosperity ultimately comes from God and is rightly shared with others who are less fortunate. Taxes are a policy instrument by which this can be done.
dlw

[Da Lone-Warrior]

So, at a time when virtually the whole country is making a big stink about gas prices being too high, DLW comes along and says the government will serve more people's interests by taking even more of their money every time they go to the pumps.

So, I guess the vast majority of people who feel that their interests would be better served by lower gas prices just don't have a handle on what their interests really are.

Or they may be too preoccupied with the short-run and have a blind faith that technology will get us out of the mess caused by the finite amount of oil resources that our planet has...

Somehow a 17 year old DLW gained an insight from an introductory economics course which gives him amazing powers to judge for other people what their interests are better than they themselves can, and now he's on a crusade to get the government to make them act in their own best interests, whether they see it that way or not.

I can't make the gov't do anything on my own. I can only appeal to people's reason and care for the future to make them realize that just demanding lower gas/oil prices in the short term isn't going to deal with the real problem...

I would have thought that by this time the dramatic failure of the Soviet Union's experiment in central planning would have served as at least some warning that a bunch of egg headed economists trying to use the arm of government to coerce markets actually don't do a better job of serving people's interests than do people who are simply able to act on their interests in a free manner; but apparently this hasn't made much of an impression on academia.

What is the connection between changing the rules of the game so as to restrain our gas/oil consumption and the short and longterm harms caused therein with the command and control of the economy in the USSR?

I'm not going to dialogue with you, if you just spout wild associations...

dlw

[micah4]

Or they may be too preoccupied with the short-run and have a blind faith that technology will get us out of the mess caused by the finite amount of oil resources that our planet has...

Or they may disagree with your analysis, which I'm inclined to believe is less certain than you feel it is. And then you're the one appealing to the use of force to interfere in otherwise free markets, so it would be silly to not consider the uncertainty of the scenario motivating your appeal to government intervention.

I can't make the gov't do anything on my own.

The way you speak, it's obvious that you wish you could, and that you most likely would if you had the power to. Every post I see of yours is an appeal for a government tax on this or that, or an appeal for a government wealth or income redistribution program. Don't kid me that you're not on here advocating for government intervention.

I can only appeal to people's reason and care for the future to make them realize that just demanding lower gas/oil prices in the short term isn't going to deal with the real problem...

If your appeal to peoples reason is solid and convincing, then they'll do the things you advocate voluntarily because they're convinced of the same things you are. In truth; anybody, anywhere, can pay more for gasoline anytime they like. If your reasoning is sound and you're only appealing to people's reason, then what's the need for government intervention you keep appealing to? This would only be necessary if people find your appeal to reason unconvincing. Do you just believe that you're smarter than everybody else, and they should do made to do what you believe is right whether they agree with you or not?

Tell me, are you paying extra for gas right now? If you're convinced it's a great idea- when you go put a gallon of gas in your tank, do you take an extra two or three dollars for each gallon, and set it aside to send in to uncle sam? No? Why not? if you think this is such a wise thing to do, what's stopping you from doing it right now? You and all the people whose reason you've appealed to are free to pay as much tax on gas as you want to at any time you feel the need to. No federal, state, or local government is going to refuse your money.

What is the connection between changing the rules of the game so as to restrain our gas/oil consumption and the short and longterm harms caused therein with the command and control of the economy in the USSR?

The connection is that you put your personal analysis of the scenario above the analysis of everybody else in the market and advocate that people should be commanded and controlled to behave in the way you've concluded they ought to, and not in the way they've concluded they ought to. They must be manipulated or restrained from engaging in free trade. Using a different phraseology- "Changing the Rules of the Game" vs. "Command and Control of the Economy" doesn't mean you're talking about anything different, or distinguish the essential similarity of the underlying motives and mechanisms- the use of government force to interfere with men's economic activity, and impose the view of whatever group has political power of what the "right way" for them to act is over and above every individual's personal analysis of how they should rightly act.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Or they may disagree with your analysis, which I'm inclined to believe is less certain than you feel it is. And then you're the one appealing to the use of force to interfere in otherwise free markets, so it would be silly to not consider the uncertainty of the scenario motivating your appeal to government intervention.

Right, the problem of peak oil, oil money going to states that support radical forms of Islam/terrorism, corruption caused by oil wealth concentration, and excessive carbon-dioxide emissions are all things I'm just spinning towards the most worstest possible case scenario possible.

Markets are not ever free. Fallen human nature always requires that there be legal institutions that help us to resolve the conflicts that inevitably come up in the course of exchange.

These regulations require gov't finances, which require taxes of some sort and so the question is what sorts of taxes will be most effective for the problems that we face as a nation.

The way you speak, it's obvious that you wish you could, and that you most likely would if you had the power to. Every post I see of yours is an appeal for a government tax on this or that, or an appeal for a government wealth or income redistribution program. Don't kid me that you're not on here advocating for government intervention.

I'm advocating for reforms of the existing "interventions" by the gov't in the markets that govern our economic relations.

And, yes, I'd like a different system. One that encouraged us all to be better stewards of our resources and reduced the ability of advertising to get us to buy stuff. I'd like to see us do more to help people in the 2/3rds world.

If your appeal to peoples reason is solid and convincing, then they'll do the things you advocate voluntarily because they're convinced of the same things you are.

In truth, we all fall short and so does voluntarism for dealing with serious problems like addiction to foreign oil.

There is a free-rider problem that requires gov't action to force everyone to seek to alter their consumption patterns or seek more oil/gas efficiency.

In truth; anybody, anywhere, can pay more for gasoline anytime they like. If your reasoning is sound and you're only appealing to people's reason, then what's the need for government intervention you keep appealing to? This would only be necessary if people find your appeal to reason unconvincing. Do you just believe that you're smarter than everybody else, and they should do made to do what you believe is right whether they agree with you or not?

It's not a matter of me being smarter, but rather a matter of training, and the fact that our tendency to focus on short run difficulties caused by higher gas prices makes us lose sight of the bigger picture and problems at stake in the matter.

Tell me, are you paying extra for gas right now? If you're convinced it's a great idea- when you go put a gallon of gas in your tank, do you take an extra two or three dollars for each gallon, and set it aside to send in to uncle sam? No? Why not? if you think this is such a wise thing to do, what's stopping you from doing it right now? You and all the people whose reason you've appealed to are free to pay as much tax on gas as you want to at any time you feel the need to. No federal, state, or local government is going to refuse your money.

This is an inane line of reasoning. One person doing that is not going to accomplish anything significant. It only puts a dent on the problem when everyone has to do it.

The connection is that you put your personal analysis of the scenario above the analysis of everybody else in the market and advocate that people should be commanded and controlled to behave in the way you've concluded they ought to, and not in the way they've concluded they ought to.

Your free market dogmatism does not deserve the label analysis.

Everyone will need to pay more for the gas they use, but they'll have the freedom to decide how much gas they use and to seek ways to avoid having to use it so much.

All economic systems require some social control from the state. Capitalism has a less is more approach that focuses on the rules of the game, not trying to guarantee certain economic outcomes.

The rules of the game include the system of finance.

They must be manipulated or restrained from engaging in free trade. Using a different phraseology- "Changing the Rules of the Game" vs. "Command and Control of the Economy" doesn't mean you're talking about anything different, or distinguish the essential similarity of the underlying motives and mechanisms- the use of government force to interfere with men's economic activity, and impose the view of whatever group has political power of what the "right way" for them to act is over and above every individual's personal analysis of how they should rightly act.

You are an idiot if you think that a dollar or two more in taxes on gas/oil is tantamount to returning to a Soviet Union style Communist economic system.

Talk to the hand, if you're that deluded.

dlw