blackshoe, on 2012-September-27, 21:12, said:
Personally, I'd rather figure out what's causing the economy to be "slow".
At this point it seems like the main problem is that people who would spend money don't have money to spend. This perpetuates a lack of demand, which keep unemployment high. Because of the low demand, businesses look to make money by cutting costs rather than expanding; they are able to reduce employee salaries and benefits (even if the company is highly profitable -- see verizon and caterpillar for examples) because the high unemployment rate makes it unappealing for workers to quit (as they may not find another job, and the company can always hire an unemployed person at the minimum wage). State governments are also cutting lots of jobs, basically because they can't run a deficit (many states have the balanced budget amendment) and because the combination of unemployment, reducing salaries, and lack of economic activity reduces tax revenue. This makes the unemployment situation worse, and perpetuates the lack of money in the hands of people who would spend it.
We basically need to figure a way to get money into the hands of poor/middle class people who will spend it. Note that big corporations have lots of money (record profits, trillions sitting on the sideline) as do wealthy individuals (CEO salaries keep increasing by large amounts every year, for example); getting more money to these people isn't the answer.
At this point there are several possible solutions. The direct ones involve the government either using deficit spending to employ people, or redistributing wealth by raising taxes on those who won't spend the wealth and using it to subsidize (either through jobs or welfare) people who will spend it. This evidently goes against your political leanings. An alternative approach would involve passing measures like raising the minimum wage or mandating paid time off (which would basically force wealth redistribution from businesses to employees without the government as a direct intermediary) or strengthening unions (which might allow employees to negotiate better deals for themselves despite the downward wage pressure from the high unemployment rate) but again these measures are opposed by those with "fiscal conservative" leanings. The economy will probably become "unstuck" in the long run anyway, but basically all the measures that will speed up the process do require government intervention of one form or another.
Anyway, as far as a carbon tax goes, the main purpose of this type of tax is to encourage good behavior. It's compatible with a free market system -- one legitimate role of government in a free market is to make sure people pay for externalities. If I can just pollute your air and water without paying for it, the free market system breaks down into anarchy and militarism -- it's easier for me to just take your stuff than follow contracts. Of course the revenue raised in this way can be used for something, but I think most proponents of a carbon tax would say the ideal situation is that no one pays it (i.e. everyone is carbon-neutral)!
Adam W. Meyerson
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit