Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Gingrich Goes Green and Commissar

Newt Gingrich may well be an "ideas" guy. But then, if you don't like his ideas, you'll have to just suck it up and comply:

Rather than debate Kerry on the science of global warming, Gingrich put that issue to the side, acknowledging that the threat is urgent enough to warrant a serious discussion about solutions to the carbon emissions problem. He suggested that the government offer tax credits for the market to develop new technologies, and prizes for the invention of new technologies such as a hydrogen car.

And if you ever wondered why the 'consumption tax' or 'flat tax' never seemed to get off the ground, think of the implications in this 'graf:

...For instance, he said his proposals wouldn't really be as voluntary as Kerry portrayed them. Gingrich suggested that the government go to GE and utility companies and ask them how much they would need in tax credits to make use of new technologies. After the discussion, I asked Gingrich whether basing a system on tax credits would create lobbying and bureaucracy, just as a system based on regulation. "It will. I just think it's better for the economy to have tax credits than regulation. If you're trying to shape behavior, I'm a Hamiltonian in that I think economic shaping works better than bureaucratic shaping. But it’s clear that it's an interventionist model. It's not a neutral model."

Right-o, folks.

Now Newtie portrays this complexification scheme as "Hamiltonian/Rooseveltian"-free-market. In other words, he's trying to put lipstick on a pig.

And here's another indication that Newt's not necessarily on the same planet as most folks:

Furthermore, it would be impossible to make India and China comply with such standards, whereas if American industry could develop new environmentally-friendly technologies to export, convincing those nations that there is such a thing as "green prosperity," they would hop onboard.


1 comment:

Headless Blogger said...

This "debate" was a hoax. Science is not debated, it is evaluated.

The proper means to evaluate scientific theories is deemed the "scientific method" - see Wikipedia for a good discussion. It is easy to see several falacies in the Gore arguments when evaluated using this method.