Obama '08?

I may be mistaken, but didn't MN also elect Jesse Ventura as Gov a few years back? I could be wrong.

At least he's not a moral hypocrite! yet!

One is not a true liberal until one is a moral hypocrite.

I can't imagine thinking up an argument to contradict that.

New York Times Blog
Paul Krugman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 29, 2009, 9:07 am
Climate, trade, Obama
I think the president has this wrong:

President Obama on Sunday praised the energy bill passed by the House late last week as an “extraordinary first step,” but he spoke out against a provision that would impose trade penalties on countries that do not accept limits on global warming pollution.

And I also think the report gives a false impression of what this is about, making it seem as if it’s nothing but dirty politics:

The House bill contains a provision, inserted in the middle of the night before the vote Friday, that requires the president, starting in 2020, to impose a “border adjustment” " or tariff " on certain goods from countries that do not act to limit their global warming emissions. The president can waive the tariffs only if he receives explicit permission from Congress.

The provision was added to secure the votes of Rust Belt lawmakers who were wavering on the bill because of fears of job losses in heavy industry.

The truth is that there’s perfectly sound economics behind border adjustments related to cap-and-trade. The way to think about it is in terms of a well-established theory " the theory of non-economic objectives in trade policy " that owes its origins to Jagdish Bhagwati, who certainly can’t be accused of being a protectionist. The essential idea is that if you have a non-economic objective, such as self-sufficiency in food production, you should choose policy instruments to align incentives with that objective; in normal circumstances this leads to consumer or producer intervention, rarely to tariffs.

But in this case the non-economic objective is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, never mind their source. If you only impose restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions from domestic sources, you give consumers no incentive to avoid purchasing products that cause emissions in other countries; as a result, you have an inefficient outcome even from a world point of view. So border adjustments here are entirely legitimate in terms of basic economics.

And they’re also probably OK under trade law. The WTO has looked at the issue, and suggests that carbon tariffs may be viewed the same way as border adjustments associated with value-added taxes. It has long been accepted that a VAT is essentially a sales tax " a tax on consumers " which for administrative reasons is collected from producers. Because it’s essentially a tax on consumers, it’s legal, and also economically efficient, to collect it on imported goods as well as domestic production; it’s a matter of leveling the playing field, not protectionism.

And the same would be true of carbon tariffs.

What’s happening here, I think, is that people are relying on what Paul Samuelson called an economic “shibboleth” " they’re relying on some slogan rather than thinking through the underlying economics. In this case the shibboleth is “free trade good, protection bad”, when what the economics really says is that incentives should reflect the marginal cost of greenhouse gases in all goods, wherever produced " which in this case happens to imply border adjustments


And I was under the impression that Obama was all about the creation of jobs. Perhaps he meant for our foreign competitors

Very good point by Krugman; penalizing only US companies to reduce carbon is a very bad idea both in econ0mic and environment-wise.

Obama seems to be piling up a whole lot'sa negatives in his first six months. Not a good sign.

Wobbling jelly.

Obamanomics Renders Economy Inefficient
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/29/opinion/main5122778.shtml?tag=cbsnewsSectionContent.6

Yep, the only positive thing attached to Obama is the new regulations that will soon be imposed
on credit card companies... other than that, I can't think of a single positive action from Obama.

The reference from CI was, I suspect, about SC Gov Mark Sanford, who, in my mind, has been proven to be a true conservative and a moral hypocrite.
You tend to post one line barbs. I am wondering if you can put together a paragraph about Mr Sanford, from your neighboring state. Will he, should he, resign?

waterboy is a stalker who doesn't know how to put any ideas in written form, and only posts one-liners with no meaning in them except to himself and other conservatives/MACs.

Here's a whole slew of republicans charged with sex crimes: http://www.republicansexoffenders.com/

They're the same people who wanted to hang Clinton for his extra-marital sex offense with a consenting adult; all hypocrites!

ceci girl is experiencing voters remorse and is projecting right now.
It is advised that you back away for your own safety.

Did you have a point to make?

1) Is Gov Sanford a "moral hypocrite?"
2) Should he resign?
3) Will he resign?
A not too complicated series of questions.

1) I guess he has the morals of Bill Clinton.
2) That's up to the people of South Carolina.
3) Again, it's up to South Carolinian's and the Gov.

Earlier today you seemed to mock the folks in MN for electing Franken to the Senate. But now, you don't want to 2nd guess the good folk in SC?

Well really RJB, in fairness I don't think many, if any, SC voters knew that their governor was going to be an embarassment when they voted for him. Now if they re-elect him, they would be accepting his bizarre and/or unacceptable behavior.

The people of Minnesota though did know who they were voting for. . . .

No, I didn't mock them... I openly lambasted the liberal voters in MN.

Funny, I didn't vote for Stewart Smalley. Stewart Smalley is a character played by Franken. They are not the same thing.

Of course, you may have voted for this Fox

Did you Squirt? "Lambasted" is a pretty big word for a little squirt like you.