EU's 'carbon fat cats' get rich off trading scheme: study

[blueblood]

That's not democratic...not when the corporation is affecting national and international political policy. Shareholders aren't elected by the people either.

Shareholders are people, that's the thing. They own a part of the company and exercise their rights. So if a corporation is "affecting" policy, that's in essense the shareholders influencing policy, the shareholders who happen to be voters in gov't elections.

[eyeball]

They shouldn't acquire political power but if they did that would be a fault of politics and government. We understand that corporations and capital enterprise is not averse to seeking market advantage or a competitive edge so they would only be too willing to take advantage of political or governmental privilege and favour if it were extended in any respect. It is only natural. So it behooves government not to provide political opportunity.

They do acquire influence and governments do provide opportunity. Yes it's only natural, that a corporation would lobby the government to give it whatever it can get its hand's on.

The democratic impulse is to vote for government largesse unless one understands thoroughly that it is not in his best interests to have government provide for him.

The thing that scares me is how many people likely do have a fawning naive faith in the idea that corporations naturally eschew and deny any sort of government lolly, welfare or advantage for the sake of such high falutin' fine sounding principles. Especially politicians. When I hear Morris gushing about the integrity of corporations I'm reminded of the way Mr Canada reminds us to look up to our PM as a child gazes upon his father. I don't know whether to barf, laugh or cry.

The faith that people place in our system of government is similarly disturbing.

[bloodyminded]

Shareholders are people, that's the thing. They own a part of the company and exercise their rights. So if a corporation is "affecting" policy, that's in essense the shareholders influencing policy, the shareholders who happen to be voters in gov't elections.

But, as you know, shareholder influence is not one-for-one in the democratic sense, but is deemed by number of shares held. Large shareholders, obviously, have more influence than smaller ones. So we can have a very small number of shareholders having a disproportionate affect on domestic and even international policy.

Whatever else that may be, it is NOT democratic.

When a relativley small number of people get to determine, based on principles of wealth retention and/or expansion, the lives of untold numbers of people, we have a problem. Those people do not have a say.

Edited March 20, 2010 by bloodyminded

[blueblood]

But, as you know, shareholder influence is not one-for-one in the democratic sense, but is deemed by number of shares held. Large shareholders, obviously, have more influence than smaller ones. So we can have a very small number of shareholders having a disproportionate affect on domestic and even international policy.

Whatever else that may be, it is NOT democratic.

When a relativley small number of people get to determine, based on principles of wealth retention and/or expansion, the lives of untold numbers of people, we have a problem. Those people do not have a say.

That cuts the other way as well, if we punish those who have wealth. There is also a problem.

Those who have wealth already affect lives of untold numbers of people. They do so through tax contributions, where they spend their money, their investments in others, and whether or not they decide to employ others in order to gain more wealth.

It is democratic (just not the way you like it), it is fair, but it is not equal.

[bloodyminded]

That cuts the other way as well, if we punish those who have wealth. There is also a problem.

Those who have wealth already affect lives of untold numbers of people. They do so through tax contributions, where they spend their money, their investments in others, and whether or not they decide to employ others in order to gain more wealth.

Sure, but I"m not suggesting we punish wealthy people.

It is democratic (just not the way you like it), it is fair, but it is not equal.

It is not democratic, not as the word is understood (by everybody). If we say, "only the wealthy get a vote"--in the political arena, not the corporate-in-a-vacuum arena--that is not properly democracy in any meaningful sense.

[Oleg Bach]

Carbon tax is like the crazy rich having a shit and we clean it up at our expense and thank them for the trickle down effect.

[Pliny]

"Taxed more" and "shouldn't exist" are not precisely the same thing; certainly, Warren Buffet, who has stated that wealthy people AND wealthy entities are not taxed enough, is not jealous, nor has a distaste for capitalism or free enterprise.

Obviously, Warren buffet has something in common with JD Rockefeller then. Who stated "Competition is the greatest sin."

Warren Buffet can afford to pay any tax increase imposed upon him or afford accountants to skirt them. Some of his competition couldn't afford greater taxes. It works in his favour so he is for it.

I'm not even saying such criticisms are correct. I'm saying that they have nothing to do with jealousy.

I will just say again that some criticsm is deserved but some has it's roots in envy and jealousy or an ideological concept of equality among all and "social justice".

Calling "jealousy" is mostly laziness, for people who don't wish to argue the merits or demerits of a given criticism.

I admit I am lazy. But I will argue the purposes of criticisms. Is social justice about equality for all or is it about taking the rich down a peg? For some it is equality for others it about taking the rich down a peg.

NO ONE is "jealous" of corporations...except (like I said) people invested in less successful corporations.

Ok. But that's not NO ONE. Besides what person will argue his point from taking the rich down a peg when it makes him look jealous and vindictive. Best to argue it from the point of view of "caring and sharing". NO ONE likes to look like a cad.

I agree about the government. But there is more than one agent involved in such an equation. People are personally responsible for their personal choices. So if you CHOOSE to attain power over policy, which you know damn well is going to affect human beings who have no say in it...then you share direct responsibility for that. There's no way around it.

Right! Exactly why I am here reasoning with people to vote for limited government not bigger government.

[Pliny]

Carbon tax is like the crazy rich having a shit and we clean it up at our expense and thank them for the trickle down effect.

We do have some responsibility for the amount of shit. The crazy rich just want us to limit our use of their resources.

[Pliny]

They do acquire influence and governments do provide opportunity. Yes it's only natural, that a corporation would lobby the government to give it whatever it can get its hand's on.

Government should not make bargains with them then. That is the crime. Politicians have a trust to the public interest not corporate interest. While they justify that all is in the public interest, favours and privilege granted to corporations in the public interest make them unable to make future fair and just decisions.

The thing that scares me is how many people likely do have a fawning naive faith in the idea that corporations naturally eschew and deny any sort of government lolly, welfare or advantage for the sake of such high falutin' fine sounding principles. Especially politicians. When I hear Morris gushing about the integrity of corporations I'm reminded of the way Mr Canada reminds us to look up to our PM as a child gazes upon his father. I don't know whether to barf, laugh or cry.

The faith that people place in our system of government is similarly disturbing.

Like Americans, we should keep a wary eye on government and limit it's size and mandate before it becomes like a wildfire; out of control and leaving us powerless to influence it. We have about as much socialism as I can tolerate. We need to downsize a bit.

Corporations, will do what they will but they are always subject to the popularity o the public unless they hold some government privilege or monopoly then they don't care much what people think but will make banal claims of giving back to the community.

[jbg]

Ain't this a bitch.

The details are at… http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.6a237570be4660439e371341ae8452d5.a41&show_article=1

Among the top ten beneficiaries, steelmaker ArcelorMittal collected more than 40 percent of the 2008 excess permits, reported Sandbag.

French cement giant Lafarge got about 12 percent, with Tata steel group subsidiary Corus and Swedish steel maker SSAB-Svenskt Stal each claiming about 10 percent.

Even if the permits are not directly resold for profit, the value will still remain on the companies' books, rising or falling with the market.

Most of the permits were generated simply because the companies were allocated more free permits than they wound up using, according to the report.

"Little or no actual 'effort' toward emissions reductions need have taken place, yet these companies will be able to literally bank the profits," it said.This is the kind of trading scheme that is the model Obama is trying to impose on America, and hence, intro which we will follow. The idea is that each state, then industry, then individual plant each divide an allocation of permissible pollution (called the Annual Absolution), and can sell what it doesn't use. There are known as Indulgences, and their price reached a peak at 30 euros, about $40 a tonne, before it turned out that there is no scientific basis for the policy.

Since the fraud was exposed, the price has collapsed to 13 euros a tonne, at present. Still, 13 euros x a gazillion tonnes ... it adds up.

Just so you know, steelmakers and cement plants are huge polluters.

I guess this means ... the critics were right.

What a sad end for so many well-meant hopes, those hopes taken and crushed by venal forces who care nothing in mankind survives or not ... it just shows you, good intentions are not enough.

Comments?

What a shock? Not.

Another trading firm that has enriched its principals have as owners Blood and his partner Al Gore. No joke.

[Wild Bill]

Somebody would point at the growing population of introduced bull frogs we have on the Island and that would be the end of that.

Now wait a minute! For years now I've been watching folks like David Suzuki on the Discovery Channel explain to me how frogs have been rapidly disappearing, going extinct because "human beings are BAD!"

Now you tell us they are all on the Island. They aren't going extinct at all! They've just migrated!

Thanks for clearing that up!