Law School Lessons

[IBCoupe]

No prob. I'm going to try to keep this up as much as possible throughout the semester. Tonight I have Property law again, and hopefully I'll actually have something worthwhile to post this time.

[stebo0728]

Ok gonna try and keep the tangentiality to a minimal level. As I said I dont wanna bog down the thread so feel free to admonish me of such at any time.

For the most part, it's pollution control. In the few instances where it's not pollution control, it's an attempt to preserve come ecological characteristic. When we're proceeding on crafting environmental regulations, we usually focus on two big questions: (1) how much control do we want to impose, and (2) how do we go about imposing that control?

I would say first of all you need to reverse the 2 questions. Question 2 must be answered before question 1. I dont believe a tenable solution for question 2 exists, thereby negating question 1, BUT, for arguments sake, lets give it a shot. I would argue that the best answer for question 2, at least for our economy and society, is to impose control in the form of incentives rather than consequences. This way allows question 1 to be answer not by the imposing government, but by the market place itself.

Let’s focus a little bit on global warming. Whatever its political and popular implications may be, the vast majority of the science on global warming points in one direction. But that’s not particularly important for this portion of the discussion. The issue is: how might we impose control to reduce the emissions of CO2 and the other five major greenhouse gases [hereinafter CO2]? There are four (five, actually, but really only four) options.

We talk alot about sensationalism, CO2 is a perfect example. CO2 is one of the leastmost contributors to the greenhouse effect, and its actually a VITAL gas in our atmosphere. If plants dont breathe, we dont breathe. Water vapor is the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect, do we want to try and lower the levels of water vapor?

That may be a bit of a tangent.

The major issue that comes up with this approach is that it works really well for local pollution, but doesn’t really work nearly as well for a larger scale approach. It’s just a much more complicated endeavor.

Could this be because we are actually NOT having a global impact, but merely a local one? Im all for cleaning our act up, making our space healthier, but the thing is, our polluting and cleaning happens on the local level.

Second, we could try Cap & Trade

Opponents to capitalism quite often wear out the argument about over-reaching corporations and monopolies of goods and service providers. The Cap & Trade model perpetuates these ghosts of the free market.

The third option is to impose a tax on CO2 pollution.

Again this gets into punitive action on the issue, where the only incentive is to avoid the punitive action. And as you pointed out, corporations dont pay tax anyway, the end user pays the tax.

The fourth option is to not bother trying to determine what exactly the right level of pollution is. Similar to what we’ve done with the auto industry and fuel efficiency standards, we could say to polluters – you need to be as clean as is technologically feasible.

The industry’s first response (as it was with fuel efficiency standards back in the 1970’s) will be, “It can’t be done. You’ll never be able to get a cleaner level of pollution.” When that turns out to be wrong, the next response will be, “It can’t be done cheaply.” When that eventually turns out to be wrong, they’ll come up with something else to say.

This is where strong incentives come into play.

But the real problem with the fourth option is that it requires the regulators to examine the existing technology, determine a proper requirement, and then return for a periodic review of the available technologies. Regulators are notoriously bad in this country on that last part. Another issue is that we’re trying to make a regulatory-based market for new technologies.

Good argument for private sector regulation.

The fifth option is to do what we used to do a lot more, and still do in some cases (like BP): liability. The theory being that if a polluter knows that they will eventually be financially liable for the harms caused by their pollution, they’ll pollute less.

The flaw with that theory (and why it’s not really an option here) is that it was hard enough to show when it was a local factory polluting in a small, relatively closed system. There are too many polluters in this issue, and each one will point to another, and no one will be stuck with liability (unless we try market-share liability, which has its own issues because we’re dealing with numerous different markets and different methods of pollution output).

Yes its hard to pin things that show up 20 years later onto any particular organization or person.

I guess the crux of my argument is as presented before in other threads. There is a lack of conclusive evidence, empirical data, that proves that mankind is directly responsible for anything happening in or to our planet, and until some can be presented, we should stop hanging ourselves over it.

[IBCoupe]

Ok gonna try and keep the tangentiality to a minimal level. As I said I dont wanna bog down the thread so feel free to admonish me of such at any time.

I'll do my best to keep you in line.

I would say first of all you need to reverse the 2 questions. Question 2 must be answered before question 1. I dont believe a tenable solution for question 2 exists, thereby negating question 1, BUT, for arguments sake, lets give it a shot. I would argue that the best answer for question 2, at least for our economy and society, is to impose control in the form of incentives rather than consequences. This way allows question 1 to be answer not by the imposing government, but by the market place itself.

"How do we exert control" before "how much control we want to exert," you mean? Given that the answer to question one could possibly be "None," I think that reversing the order is less than prudent.

Now, allowing the market to sort it out is very much like option 5 below, which doesn't really work, especially in this kind of a situation. There's a theory that says that two entities will find out where their costs align best and will agree upon an optimal amount of pollution, and that theory works out great on its own assumptions. But when you start introducing transactional costs, multiple polluters, and multiple affected parties, we find that the theory starts to fall apart very quickly.

Not to mention the "tragedy of the commons," where an individual reaps all the benefits of abusing the system (like overfishing and selling his catch) and the costs are shared among all (no more fish eventually), the individual self-interests cannot properly contain the collective self-interests. Because pollution is, for all intents and purposes, always a byproduct of production, the market will never adequately self-regulate.

And that's where Cap & Trade comes in - it creates that collective control while allowing individual self-interest to flourish and develop.

We talk alot about sensationalism, CO2 is a perfect example. CO2 is one of the leastmost contributors to the greenhouse effect, and its actually a VITAL gas in our atmosphere. If plants dont breathe, we dont breathe. Water vapor is the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect, do we want to try and lower the levels of water vapor?

That may be a bit of a tangent.

It was a little bit, but I might not have been clear enough. The way I'm using "CO2" throughout this piece is as shorthand for "CO2 and the five other major greenhouse gases we're worried about." I tried to be clear with some legalese phrasing at the outset with that "[hereinafter CO2]" thing.

Could this be because we are actually NOT having a global impact, but merely a local one? Im all for cleaning our act up, making our space healthier, but the thing is, our polluting and cleaning happens on the local level.

It happens on a local level, but the thing about it is, while we have many countries, we only have one, large, complex atmosphere. This is the big thing about making sure that everybody participates, not just those rich enough to afford it (though, unfortunately, that ideal may be unreachable).

Opponents to capitalism quite often wear out the argument about over-reaching corporations and monopolies of goods and service providers. The Cap & Trade model perpetuates these ghosts of the free market.

How so?

Again this gets into punitive action on the issue, where the only incentive is to avoid the punitive action. And as you pointed out, corporations dont pay tax anyway, the end user pays the tax.

Right. I tried to point out that Cap & Trade incorporates that disincentive with the positive incentive made through the ability to profit off of your non-pollution.

This is where strong incentives come into play.

Hard to make those incentives, as I pointed out below and you responded to.

Good argument for private sector regulation.

Which, as I've stated outright in this post and alluded to in the previous post, isn't really feasible.

Yes its hard to pin things that show up 20 years later onto any particular organization or person.

I guess the crux of my argument is as presented before in other threads. There is a lack of conclusive evidence, empirical data, that proves that mankind is directly responsible for anything happening in or to our planet, and until some can be presented, we should stop hanging ourselves over it.

This argument rests on the theory that not being responsible for something that could drastically change the world is not a reason to avoid it. Hey, it's not our fault that there's an asteroid headed for Kansas City; no need to worry about it.

In other words, whether we're responsible for a thing happening isn't really all that relevant as to the determination as to whether or not it's in our interest to do something about it.

[stebo0728]

"How do we exert control" before "how much control we want to exert," you mean? Given that the answer to question one could possibly be "None," I think that reversing the order is less than prudent.

Yes I was advocating asking "how to" before "how much". This was assuming that the answer to "how much" being "none" was already off the table, given our governments track record that seems not a very plausible answer, even if it is the correct answer.

Now, allowing the market to sort it out is very much like option 5 below, which doesn't really work, especially in this kind of a situation.

This is probably true of our current economic/legislative climate. But my theory is that if the free market were allowed to function properly these sorts of issues would not be issues. Its like having the winning race horse in the race, but leaving the blinders on out the gate.

It was a little bit, but I might not have been clear enough. The way I'm using "CO2" throughout this piece is as shorthand for "CO2 and the five other major greenhouse gases we're worried about." I tried to be clear with some legalese phrasing at the outset with that "[hereinafter CO2]" thing.

Ya I understood your shorthand, and realize you were lumping, but my point was that the mass media uses CO2 as the poster child of global warming, and that makes no sense.

It happens on a local level, but the thing about it is, while we have many countries, we only have one, large, complex atmosphere. This is the big thing about making sure that everybody participates, not just those rich enough to afford it (though, unfortunately, that ideal may be unreachable).

And to what extent do we "make sure" everyone participates? To the point of using the governments ability to hold someone at gunpoint to persuade an issue? Do we use military action to sway another nation to participate if all other efforts fail?

Opponents to capitalism quite often wear out the argument about over-reaching corporations and monopolies of goods and service providers. The Cap & Trade model perpetuates these ghosts of the free market.

How so?

Small pick up businesses in an industry where Cap & Trade is applicable will have trouble maintaining positive cashflow with the overhead involved with these things, which means they will have no choice but to buy credits, this pushing them further into the negative cashflow. Cap & Trade allows the big boys certain advantages over the small boys. The small boys are critical to supply and demand mechanics.

Further, Cap & Trade seems a bit hipocritical to me, its like saying "ok we have a major problem but rather than address it Im just gonna pay for some credits to keep making it worse". And do we take Cap & Trade to the individual level? How much power should someone be able to consume? Should a guy and his wife living in a mansion sapping Gigawatts of power for all their fountains and lightshows and whatnot have to purchase credits from people who are consuming under their alotted portion of power? Starting to sound like socialism, and redistribution of wealth to me. Again hidden under the guise of "environmentalism".

This argument rests on the theory that not being responsible for something that could drastically change the world is not a reason to avoid it. Hey, it's not our fault that there's an asteroid headed for Kansas City; no need to worry about it.

In other words, whether we're responsible for a thing happening isn't really all that relevant as to the determination as to whether or not it's in our interest to do something about it.

This is very interesting, so are we starting to form the position that humans are infact NOT behind climate change but we should somehow try to do something about it? That seems a bit humanistic to me, whos to say that what weve experienced as normal the past few centuries IS normal on the planetary level? Should we interfere with global climate processes in our own intrest, especially when we dont fully understand the processes, or the consequences to our involvement?

[IBCoupe]

Yes I was advocating asking "how to" before "how much". This was assuming that the answer to "how much" being "none" was already off the table, given our governments track record that seems not a very plausible answer, even if it is the correct answer.

In all reality, government doesn't have an interest in regulating for the sake of regulating. The government does best when the economy does best, and the economy does best (in theory, at least - there's some evidence that shows correspondence between a wealthy country and a clean country, though it may just be that a wealthy country can afford to be a clean country) when there's minimal regulation.

This is probably true of our current economic/legislative climate. But my theory is that if the free market were allowed to function properly these sorts of issues would not be issues. Its like having the winning race horse in the race, but leaving the blinders on out the gate.

And, again, I have to point to the tragedy of the commons. It's in no one's apparent self interest to take on the collective self-interest. That's why it takes regulation to create the incentives (avoiding taxation, avoiding fines, selling "carbon credits," etc.) that amount to market forces pushing in favor of collective interest.

Ya I understood your shorthand, and realize you were lumping, but my point was that the mass media uses CO2 as the poster child of global warming, and that makes no sense.

Media simplification doesn't help; you're right.

And to what extent do we "make sure" everyone participates? To the point of using the governments ability to hold someone at gunpoint to persuade an issue? Do we use military action to sway another nation to participate if all other efforts fail?

Through skilled negotiations, hopefully. At the international level, we see the same "tragedy of the commons" issue: it's in no country's self-interest to unilaterally take on all of the world's problems.

That said, someone has to step up, and I think that we're even talking about it in this country is a good sign.

Small pick up businesses in an industry where Cap & Trade is applicable will have trouble maintaining positive cashflow with the overhead involved with these things, which means they will have no choice but to buy credits, this pushing them further into the negative cashflow. Cap & Trade allows the big boys certain advantages over the small boys. The small boys are critical to supply and demand mechanics.

I see what you mean, and there are definitely complex issues at play. While cap & trade would advantage those with the means to reduce their pollution, is this necessarily a bad thing? As the big boys reduce their pollution through technological improvements, the costs of taking on those technological improvements will, over time, decrease (in theory). So the perpetuation of big over small needn't be seen as permanent, and a little sacrifice for a big improvement might be worth it.

And there's nothing saying we can't scale the credit amount granted on the basis of business size.

Further, Cap & Trade seems a bit hipocritical to me, its like saying "ok we have a major problem but rather than address it Im just gonna pay for some credits to keep making it worse". And do we take Cap & Trade to the individual level? How much power should someone be able to consume? Should a guy and his wife living in a mansion sapping Gigawatts of power for all their fountains and lightshows and whatnot have to purchase credits from people who are consuming under their alotted portion of power? Starting to sound like socialism, and redistribution of wealth to me. Again hidden under the guise of "environmentalism".

Much about free market economics plays out to a bit of hypocrisy. "I'm going to do what's best for me, but curse you for hurting me with what's best for you!"

And as to your question about taking Cap & Trade to the individual level: it didn't before, and there's no plan about taking it to the individual level now. That said, the same passing-down of costs as is found with taxation or fines will be found here. Customers who cause the creation of more pollution will invariably pay more for it, and customers who choose not to switch to less-polluting suppliers will, as well, pay for that decision.

This is very interesting, so are we starting to form the position that humans are infact NOT behind climate change but we should somehow try to do something about it? That seems a bit humanistic to me, whos to say that what weve experienced as normal the past few centuries IS normal on the planetary level? Should we interfere with global climate processes in our own intrest, especially when we dont fully understand the processes, or the consequences to our involvement?

I'm not anywhere near forming that position. I'm just saying that, projections for what global warming will mean for us show that the negatives will outweigh the positives (and yes, there will be positives - Canada and Russia will see a population and real estate boom), and that means that, regardless of whether or not we caused it, it's in our interest to minimize it. You can still debate whether you think it will work and whether the costs of trying to avert the damage will outweigh the costs imposed by the damage, but whether we caused it is not something we need to figure out.

[stebo0728]

In all reality, government doesn't have an interest in regulating for the sake of regulating. The government does best when the economy does best, and the economy does best

That sounds great, and unicorns are pretty as well. I guess you must first define "does well" for government. If you were to say government doing well means that the individual members of the government are doing well, then sure your statement is correct, but if you define it as the government being able to retain or further is authority on its people, then suddenly there is an inverse interest with the economy. I guess what Im saying, is YES today the government does seem to regulate just for the sake of regulating, whether the interest of such is real or imaginary doesnt seem to be part of the equation.

And, again, I have to point to the tragedy of the commons. It's in no one's apparent self interest to take on the collective self-interest. That's why it takes regulation to create the incentives (avoiding taxation, avoiding fines, selling "carbon credits," etc.) that amount to market forces pushing in favor of collective interest.

Is this tragedy of commons new to our technological age, or has it always existed? It does seem to have haunted our days when the free market functioned more purely in the past. Does the industrial revolution change this? It would seem the free market mechanics would be linearly related with progress, not inversely.

I see what you mean, and there are definitely complex issues at play. While cap & trade would advantage those with the means to reduce their pollution, is this necessarily a bad thing? As the big boys reduce their pollution through technological improvements, the costs of taking on those technological improvements will, over time, decrease (in theory). So the perpetuation of big over small needn't be seen as permanent, and a little sacrifice for a big improvement might be worth it.

Heres the thing about the free market. You are supposed to let it run functionally with as little intervention as ABSOLUTELY necessary. Once you begin to tinker with it, those minor changes become nearly IMPOSSIBLE to massage back out. In other words, once the big boys are given an advantage, its not so easy to remove that advantage at a later date.

And there's nothing saying we can't scale the credit amount granted on the basis of business size.

Now were getting complicated, do we need a new bureaucracy to keep up with this? Is this new government jobs? Some of the jobs were were promised? Just being coy.

but whether we cased it is not something we need to figure out.

Have to completely disagree here. Whether we are the cause is key. If we are, then we need to fix our goof up, if we arent then its just natural processes that we are possible exacerbating, and perhaps we should not meddle in the natural processes of the planet?

[IBCoupe]

That sounds great, and unicorns are pretty as well. I guess you must first define "does well" for government. If you were to say government doing well means that the individual members of the government are doing well, then sure your statement is correct, but if you define it as the government being able to retain or further is authority on its people, then suddenly there is an inverse interest with the economy. I guess what Im saying, is YES today the government does seem to regulate just for the sake of regulating, whether the interest of such is real or imaginary doesnt seem to be part of the equation.

I disagree.

Is this tragedy of commons new to our technological age, or has it always existed? It does seem to have haunted our days when the free market functioned more purely in the past. Does the industrial revolution change this? It would seem the free market mechanics would be linearly related with progress, not inversely.

It's an economic principle, and it has always existed, independent of technology. It's a fundamental part of the human psyche, not a function of our ability to mine the world. There are issues with caviar and sturgeon. There are issues with cod. The Dodo got wiped out because it was both tasty and stupid. I'm sure that the disappearance of the Dodo wasn't a surprise to those hunting it, but the individual incentive to sell and eat the Dodo meat was not outweighed by the risk that there would someday be no more Dodo meat to sell or eat for anyone. The gain was entirely internal, and the cost was shared.

The same thing is true for environmental pollution, because it is a byproduct of production, which is strongly associated with profit. Technology factors in to the extent that it enables this principle to affect the atmosphere, but it doesn't actually change the way people are.

Heres the thing about the free market. You are supposed to let it run functionally with as little intervention as ABSOLUTELY necessary. Once you begin to tinker with it, those minor changes become nearly IMPOSSIBLE to massage back out. In other words, once the big boys are given an advantage, its not so easy to remove that advantage at a later date.

Why? Once, say, the coal industry has sufficiently resourced the exploration of the technology required to clean their pollution so as to make the technology cheaper to acquire, why would it still be harder for upstarts? We're talking about an upstart now or an upstart later - I don't see that much of a difference.

Now were getting complicated, do we need a new bureaucracy to keep up with this? Is this new government jobs? Some of the jobs were were promised? Just being coy.

I know you're being coy, but we already have the EPA. Maybe they'll need more manpower, but not much more beaurocracy would exist.

Have to completely disagree here. Whether we are the cause is key. If we are, then we need to fix our goof up, if we arent then its just natural processes that we are possible exacerbating, and perhaps we should not meddle in the natural processes of the planet?

Again, whether or not it's our "goof" is irrelevant - responsibility is not what motivates us to protect ourselves as an intelligent society. We tell women, "You know, even though getting raped would be entirely the fault of the guy who rapes you, there are things you can and should do in order to avoid the situation altogether."

Your question about our understanding of the system we're in is better: if we don't know what doing a thing will cause, maybe we shouldn't do it. That said, I'm fair sure that we have an understanding of the system enough to start taking some action. You may disagree, and that's fine. This entire discussion about how to plan our action is premised on the condition that we have identified the proper action to take.

[C-Kwik]

We talk alot about sensationalism, CO2 is a perfect example. CO2 is one of the leastmost contributors to the greenhouse effect, and its actually a VITAL gas in our atmosphere. If plants dont breathe, we dont breathe. Water vapor is the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect, do we want to try and lower the levels of water vapor?

If you understood the science a little better, you would realize that your reasoning is actually sensational.

Water vapor is dependent primarily on temperature. It would be impractically absurd to try and control water vapor. We can remove as much as we want, but the oceans, rivers, and lakes would simply feed the system again. The only practical way to control it IS to control temperature. If CO2 is causing temperatures to rise (even a small amount), then more water will be absorbed by the atmosphere. That causes additional warming. This is what is called a feedback mechanism. I explained this the last time global warming came up.

So why focus on CO2? Because, of all the greenhouse gases, we emit CO2 in the greatest concentrations relative to other greenhouse gases. Consider the composition of a hydrocarbon (which is pretty much what most fuels are composed of). Hydrogen and Carbon atoms in the molecules split off in the oxidation process and both attach to oxygen to form CO2 and H2O. The more we burn, the more CO2 is released. The H2O can be ignored simply because the temperature of our atmosphere will self-regulate the amount of water vapor. If CO2 had a natural process that regulated the concentration rapidly as water vapor has, then this really wouldn't be a problem. But natural sinks for CO2 are not fast enough to keep up with CO2 output.

[IBCoupe]

So we talked about Oprah Winfrey tonight, and the "You Get a Car!" scandal. And we talked about how retarded people were for being in an uproar.

So she gave you a $30,000 car. You owe $10,000 in taxes on it. You could pay the $10,000, or you could sell the car. Then you owe tax on the sale, and look at that. Oprah's screwed you - she gave you $18,000! You should have never gone onto that show! Total mistake.

[stebo0728]

Ya I remember that whole thing, and I was saying the same thing. People were saying "she should have payed the tax for it too" but isnt that actually illegal? I know here in GA you cant make offers or promotions where you pay the tax for something for someone. Hell I remember having to pay 6 cents or so in tax when I turned in those "free 20oz dew" caps years ago.

[IBCoupe]

Not sure if it's illegal. I know when an employer pays your income tax for you, that's seen as additional income, and so you get taxed on that, too. Might have been higher if she'd paid for it herself, but I suppose that's not your (or their, rather) point.

[stebo0728]

Not sure if it's illegal. I know when an employer pays your income tax for you, that's seen as additional income, and so you get taxed on that, too. Might have been higher if she'd paid for it herself, but I suppose that's not your (or their, rather) point.

Wait what? When does an employer PAY your income tax for you? How can I get on this program?

[IBCoupe]

Well, they don't really pay it for you. I'm talking about the withholdings that employers do on your behalf every paycheck. Yes, they're just deducting from what you've been paid and sending it to the IRS in advance, but that service is seen as additional income, and you get taxed on it. I believe that's still the law, but I can't recall if it's been changed by statute.

Funny and slightly related comment the prof. made two weeks ago, "If you like getting a refund from the IRS, you like banking with zero-percent interest."

[stebo0728]

Paycheck withholding is not a service, its a requirement. And I hate the notion of imputed income, at least in most cases. Example - Mrs. Clinton was pushing a bill at one time that would impute an income to you if you owned your home free and clear. How so? Well because most of the rest of the neighborhood is paying either rent or mortgage, because you dont, you have an "unfair"(please impute a sneering tone to my voice) advantage and that must be rectified. Therefore, the amount you should be paying in rent or mortgage based on the value of your home is then imputed to you as income and you would then be taxed accordingly.

[IBCoupe]

Right, so it might have been changed by statute; I just couldn't remember it. Tax withholding was not always a requirement, and it did, at least at one point, incur additional taxes.

I'm having trouble locating an actual news source that explains the Clinton plan. I've only been able to find online blogs and forums that talk about what the plan was, and that Clinton was working out a plan to do so... smells a bit like conspiracy.