4 ms·

> I would argue that corporations have zero carbon footprint and consumers have 100% of the carbon footprint. Nope, because they have no control over the produ

> I would argue that corporations have zero carbon footprint and consumers have 100% of the carbon footprint. Nope, because they have no control over the products that are available, how they are produced and most likely cannot afford to pay more. > Consumers have 100% of the power. No, 0%. They have _NO_ vote on how industry does what it does. Industry is not a democracy. They cannot just not buy food and electricity. That's stupid. They have to buy the things they can afford. The working class doesn't just have extra cash laying around, they buy what they can afford, unlike infinite growth corporations who are trying to avoid profit loss. Alas, I can see you've already made up your mind about this.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
>No, 0%. They have _NO_ vote on how industry does what it does. Industry is not a democracy. They cannot just not buy food and electricity. That's stupid. They have to buy the things they can afford. The working class doesn't just have extra cash laying around, they buy what they can afford.. There are options to buy low carbon, and nobody does. People can vote with their wallets or they can vote at the ballot box. They will pay the increased cost either way. I think you are in error if you think that somehow making the change with regulations means the cost wont be passed to consumers.
- guerrilla 4y ago
  > There are options to buy low carbon, and nobody does. People can vote with their wallets or they can vote at the ballot box. They will pay the increased cost either way. I already addressed this twice, but let's do it a third time. People don't "vote" with their wallets. That's nonsense and not democracy because the "votes" aren't distributed remotely equally. Most people don't have margins to make these choices easily, as I already said... and are also being fed manipulative advertisements and propaganda, as I already said. > I think you are in error if you think that somehow making the change with regulations means the cost wont be passed to consumers. Nope.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  > I think you are in error if you think that somehow making the change with regulations means the cost wont be passed to consumers. That's a misconception spread by the anti-tax crowd. The seller can take the increased cost out of their own profits or they can try to pass it along as an increased the price, but they can't just demand that people buy their product at the higher price. First, in this respect, there is no difference between regulatory costs and other costs (e.g., raw materials); it's just costs. Second, goods are generally already priced to maximize profit (profit each x items sold), and not based on cost (e.g., not 'cost + 50%'); increasing prices (the first factor) causes the quantity of sales (the second factor) to drop. The ability to increase prices without sacrificing profits depends on the price elasticity of the item: if you have the only well in a desert, you can charge what you want for water; if it is 100 yards from a clear, running river, your ability to increase prices is limited. For example, it might cost Coca-Cola to 2 cents to make a liter of Coke and they might charge $2. If regulations increase the cost to 10 cents, will they now charge $2.10? No, they chose $2 as the price that generates maximum revenue; that doesn't change with the increased cost. They likely eat the cost themselves.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    I agree that that phenomenon happens, but think it's the exception and not the rule. This is especially the case in energy markets which often have legally fixed profit margins. If you take something like electricity in California, profits are legally fixed and cost well assuredly be passed to the customer. It's also true in highly competitive markets like Airlines, the example I used earlier, where profit margins are low.

s1artibartfast 4y ago

>No, 0%. They have _NO_ vote on how industry does what it does. Industry is not a democracy. They cannot just not buy food and electricity. That's stupid. They have to buy the things they can afford. The working class doesn't just have extra cash laying around, they buy what they can afford.. There are options to buy low carbon, and nobody does. People can vote with their wallets or they can vote at the ballot box. They will pay the increased cost either way. I think you are in error if you think that somehow making the change with regulations means the cost wont be passed to consumers.

guerrilla 4y ago
> There are options to buy low carbon, and nobody does. People can vote with their wallets or they can vote at the ballot box. They will pay the increased cost either way. I already addressed this twice, but let's do it a third time. People don't "vote" with their wallets. That's nonsense and not democracy because the "votes" aren't distributed remotely equally. Most people don't have margins to make these choices easily, as I already said... and are also being fed manipulative advertisements and propaganda, as I already said. > I think you are in error if you think that somehow making the change with regulations means the cost wont be passed to consumers. Nope.
wolverine876 4y ago
> I think you are in error if you think that somehow making the change with regulations means the cost wont be passed to consumers. That's a misconception spread by the anti-tax crowd. The seller can take the increased cost out of their own profits or they can try to pass it along as an increased the price, but they can't just demand that people buy their product at the higher price. First, in this respect, there is no difference between regulatory costs and other costs (e.g., raw materials); it's just costs. Second, goods are generally already priced to maximize profit (profit each x items sold), and not based on cost (e.g., not 'cost + 50%'); increasing prices (the first factor) causes the quantity of sales (the second factor) to drop. The ability to increase prices without sacrificing profits depends on the price elasticity of the item: if you have the only well in a desert, you can charge what you want for water; if it is 100 yards from a clear, running river, your ability to increase prices is limited. For example, it might cost Coca-Cola to 2 cents to make a liter of Coke and they might charge $2. If regulations increase the cost to 10 cents, will they now charge $2.10? No, they chose $2 as the price that generates maximum revenue; that doesn't change with the increased cost. They likely eat the cost themselves.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  I agree that that phenomenon happens, but think it's the exception and not the rule. This is especially the case in energy markets which often have legally fixed profit margins. If you take something like electricity in California, profits are legally fixed and cost well assuredly be passed to the customer. It's also true in highly competitive markets like Airlines, the example I used earlier, where profit margins are low.