From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Gore's environmental ideas
Date: 7 Nov 92 14:47:14 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Nov06.184335.19963@cpqhou.compaq.com> thomasr@cpqhou.compaq.com (Thomas Rush) writes:

>In article <1992Nov3.191657.3495@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>In <1992Nov02.214743.3842@cpqhou.compaq.com> thomasr@cpqhou.compaq.com (Thomas Rush) writes:
>>
>>>In article <4720@d75.UUCP> curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch/131072) writes:
>>>>
>>>>Fleet efficiency standards for auto manufacturers are not the best way
>>>>for the government to reduce auto fuel consumption in the US.  Raising
>>>>gas taxes is the best way.  General fossil fuel consumption is what we
>>>>really want to reduce though, right?  The best way to do that is to tax
>>>>fossil fuels.  The Europeans instituted a Carbon tax to accomplish
>>>>this.  Coal is taxed more than oil, which is taxed more than Natural
>>>>gas, etc.  The tax is based on carbon production during burning.
>>
>>>This is great.  Glad to see someone admit it.
>>
>>Admit WHAT?  
>>
>>>"General incomes are what we want to really reduce, though, right?  
>>>The best way to do that is to tax incomes."
>>
>>Sorry, Tom, but it just ain't the same thing.  It is, however, the
>>sort of gamesmanship that turns people off to libertarians and their
>>ideas. 

>"Thomas," if you will.

Hey, I'll even call you "Mr. Rush" if that is your preference. :-)

>I've enjoyed the opportunity to put forth some of my views in 
>this forum.  I am not disappointed with most of the interplay.

>There does seem to ba a pattern, though, Fred, that disturbs 
>me: some rather large part of your responses of late have
>been like the above: disagreement without content.  Attacking
>the ideas without being willing to provide alternatives.  

Well, that last got 'disagreement without content' since it seemed to
be a concerted effort to put words in someone's mouth.  I just get
tired of trying to hold discussion with people who are 'reinventing
the language' as they go.  Taxes are not theft.  Abortion is not
murder.  I sometimes feel like I've wandered into 1984 or something. 

>Would you please let me know just what you base your belief on?
>Am I correct in assuming that you believe taxing cigarettes 
>decreases cigarette consumption?  Does taxing real estate sales
>tend to decrease the frequency that people sell real estate?
>Why then do you not believe that taxing incomes removes some
>of the incentive for producing more income, and therefore
>reduces incomes?

Incomes are not a good.  Those other things are.

>In fact, Fred, please let us know your feelings/beliefs about
>the following:

>Do you support US Export subsidies?  

On which goods and to which countries?  There isn't a good yes/no
answer here because it depends on what the other people are doing.

Farm subsidies?  

On which crops, in what areas, and of what nature?  Once again, the
world just isn't cooperatively simple enough to say yes or no.

>The
>$4.1 Trillion Federal debt?  

I don't have any choice but to 'support' it -- I pay taxes like
everyone else.  Of course, that's not what you meant, but I'm afraid I
find this question a little silly.  After all, NO ONE 'supports'
having a $4.1 trillion debt; not even the people who put it in place. 

Deficit financing?  

Under some circumstances, yes.  I'm assuming you mean financing things
through deficit spending here and not some particular means of
financing the current deficit.

>Sematech?

I frankly don't know enough about it to have an opinion.

>What US troop levels in Europe do you feel are justified?

Easy answer:  The number it takes to do the job.  The harder answer
involves a lot of analysis of interests, capabilities, and liklihoods,
some of which I no longer have access to.  Let's just say that I'm not
particularly a fan of isolationism.

>Should Japan pay for its own defense?  

In general, yes, but this is one of those situations where the fact
that we want to protect our own interests winds up profiding Japan
with some defense as well.  There is also the problem of the
constitution that WE forced on them at gunpoint at the end of WWII.
They constitutionally aren't allowed to have 'major' military forces.
Since we created that situation, we bear some responsibility for its
results. 

>What about Saudi Arabia?

What about it?  :-)

Presumably you mean to apply the 'pay for their own defense' here.
The quick answer is 'yes'.  Of course, Saudi Arabia spends twice the
percentage of their GNP that we do on defense, so it would seem that
they are making a significant effort in that regard.  There is also
the question of their importance (because of oil) to the United States
and just how much in our interest the maintenance of a friendly
government there is.  In general, I don't have any problems with the
current situation vis a vis Saudi Arabia.

>What do you see the future of the Social Security program to be
>in 2032?  

It will have been bankrupt for approximately 6 years at this point. 

2052?  

It will have been bankrupt for approximately 26 years at this point. 

>How should the Federal gov't decide how much
>to spend on AIDS research?  

Look at the number of people affected, the severity of that effect,
the cost to the economy in health care and lost output, the amount of
money available, the amount currently being spent elsewhere, anything
else that is germane that I haven't thought of, and then make the
decision. 

>On breast cancer research?  

See preceding, re: AIDS research.

>Why
>do you believe that research can't be privately funded?

Who said I did?  Now, if your question had been along the lines of
"why do you feel that the amount of research that would be privately
funded would not be the pareto-optimal amount from a societal
standpoint" I would have had a somewhat different answer, which would
have led back to my reluctance to type in a book to try and explain
how markets fail to people whose political ideology has it as an
article of faith that they do not.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.