We can only hope (however hopelessly) that Chandrama Pyakurail is a master of satire rather than a Person Really and Truly Concerned With the Environment — and likewise for the folks at Wallypop (here, and here).
Wipe that Smile Off of Your Face
Previous post: Humility, Schmumility
Next post: The Perfect Political Speech
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 22 comments }
I keep seeing a meme over the internet lately about "The real national debt is $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities". What does this mean? You can project out a 1000 years and come up with a much larger figure, but I don't think it means anything. What matters is the current debt and deficit.
Sadly, I don' think it's a joke.
Crusader I think you have to at least include promises made to people who are alive. Surely many of the figures supposedly representing the "real" debt are unfair, but the people currently alive probably rightly expect their entitlements. You could say that medicare consumers don't have a claim against the government in the way that bondholders do, but what do you think would happen to the bid for US paper if it started stiffing its own citizenry?
I'm no FairTax advocate [I prefer a tax scheme that keeps federalism in mind and promotes tax competition amoungst the states] but it would seem that the people that do advocate for a consumption-based tax could hook people like Chandrama Pyakurail through an environmental plea. Tell the religious Greens that a consumption-based tax on new products would create the incentive for revitalization of previously-owned products through repair/refurbishment, thus reducing manufacturing's carbon footprint. Those Green lemmings would sure eat that sh__ up.
Markets in everything?
[I prefer a tax scheme that keeps federalism in mind and promotes tax competition amoungst the states]
LCJ:
This sounds interesting. You know of any reading material I could peruse that goes over such a plan?
Umm, isn't paper renewable, or am I missing something? And wouldn't all the additional laundry detergent needed to clean the "family wipes" potentially be bad for the environment and use up probably more energy than is needed to produce tp in the first place?
LowCountryJoe,
I'm going to shamelessly steal that "green" idea next time I can't persuade someone that a consumption tax is the most efficient tax out there, at least at the state level.
I don't want to start a national sales tax though. I think that anyone who votes to trade the income tax for a sales tax will "surprisingly" get both in short order.
By the way, "saving trees" is a hopelessly bad idea. All paper today is effectively made from tree farms. Save trees and what you are really doing is causing forest land somewhere to be "paved over" since there isn't enough demand for it any more in forest form.
When the price of paper rises high enough due to "not enough supply", then two things will happen. First, people will suddenly start conserving, probably without even realizing it, they'll just want to save money. Second, recycling paper will become economically viable without government mandates.
"Save a tree farm, refuse to recycle paper" is a much more realistic slogan, but don't expect the envirohystericalists to buy into it though.
Is that a family wipe draped over your arm in the logo?
To save water, my family is going to start flushing the toilet just once a week.
I'll let you know how it works out.
Bidets, people! Or at least a hand-held wand! It's hardly a new technology, and beats cleaning s*^t stained rags every week.
I realize these people need to sacrifice for the cause, but good grief, use a bidet & go do some conspicuous recycling.
On the upside, fewer plumbing clogs. A few years ago, I agreed to have one of my friend's kids over for the morning. The youngest one, 4 at the time, went and did his business. I went in the bathroom an hour later and the smell was horrific. They had taught him to place his used TP in the trash can because he was constantly clogging up the toilet. Of course, they forgot to warn me about that. The moral of the story is that dogs are a lot easier.
Economists just want to destroy the environment!
LCJ:
This sounds interesting. You know of any reading material I could peruse that goes over such a plan?
Not from any think tank or pundit. The idea stuck me a few years back so I wrote about it at FreeRepubic. I once was a regular over there until I discovered I didn't belong (too many xenophobes and market disdaining ant-capitalists for my tastes).
I sent it to Dan Mitchell [then with the Heritage foundation], Jeb Bush's Chief Economist, Alan Reynolds, Don & Russ, and another whose name escapes me, but no one but Reynolds seemed to want to converse with me about it. And no one has taken it and run with the idea, expaning on it or trying to persuade with it.
I'm going to shamelessly steal that "green" idea next time I can't persuade someone that a consumption tax is the most efficient tax out there, at least at the state level.
Please do! Pass it off as your own for all I care.
How'd the discussion jump from shit to taxes immediately…….oh wait, never mind. Haven't had my coffee yet, still a little slow.
I am glad someone other than me is pointing out that paper is renewable and grown mostly in farms! Most of the pulp for paper products comes from south american tree farms because the trees grow faster there than just about anywhere else on Earth.
Most quality paper is made from extremely homogeneous wood pulp from one type of tree, not any random crap one would get from cutting down rain forrests. Of course, lefties think they know exactly how every industry works from top to bottom, and so are qualified to tell everyone how to run businesses, or not.
Mike Farmer wrote:
“Is that a family wipe draped over your arm in the logo?”
Now that’s funny. lol
Chris O'Leary wrote:
“To save water, my family is going to start flushing the toilet just once a week.
I'll let you know how it works out.”
another funny. lol bathroom humor…. never gets stale.
Regarding forests, Bjorn Lomborg reports that "The amount of new growth that occurs each year in forests exceeds by a factor of twenty the amount of wood and paper that is consumed by the world each year."
PERC has an excellent paper on the subject of recycling and that is where I found that quote. http://www.perc.org/pdf/ps28.pdf
Two words: Pee outside.
Reminding me of her much less privileged youth, my mom describes the sensation of a page from the Sears Roebuck catalog in the outhouse. She's completely serious. It's still paper, but at least it's recycled and a fitting end for junk mail.