Skip to main content

Benjamin Franklin was right

When representing American commercial interests in London during the 1760s, various English politicians and merchants approached Franklin to ask him how they could more effectively tax the colonial sugar/molasses and rum trade.  Franklin would chuckle and explain to them that what they were asking was essentially impossible, because every penny they succeeded in extracting in taxes from American shippers, merchants, and distillers would be taken back from them in the form of higher prices charged to English buyers.

Franklin's logic is apropos to the concept of taxation removing surplus energy from a system.  (I first encountered this concept in the work on Manuel de Landa, but I do not know if it is original to him or not.)  Essentially, if a large non-linear system (like the Atlantic trade in the 18th century) is producing a large enough energy surplus (which means that the level of profit is such that it does not distort the system's balance), governments can successfully "bleed off" some of that energy via taxation.

Franklin was effectively arguing that the colonial/imperial trade in slave, molasses, and rum only generated enough surplus energy to support the one-cent-per-barrel "tax" that Americans were willing to pay in bribes to avoid British customs agents, but not enough to pay the three-cents-per-barrel tax the British wanted to collect.

This is a pretty good analogy to the push for "green energy" in the United States, because we far too often fail to acknowledge that we exist in a global economy, and that changes we make are then reflected (often in counter-intuitive ways) in the rest of the world.

Case in point:  as the push toward "clean" or "green" energy reduces US consumption of coal, guess what's happening?  Rather than roll over and die as our progressive friends no doubt expected, the coal companies have simply found new markets:

Ready for some good news about the environment? Emissions of carbon dioxide in the United States are declining. But don't celebrate just yet. A major side effect of that cleaner air in the U.S. has been the further darkening of skies over Europe and Asia. 
The United States essentially is exporting a share of its greenhouse gas emissions in the form of coal, data show. If the trend continues, the dramatic changes in energy use in the United States—in particular, the switch from coal to newly abundant natural gas for generating electricity—will have only a modest impact on global warming, observers warn. The Earth's atmosphere will continue to absorb heat-trapping CO2, with a similar contribution from U.S. coal. It will simply be burned overseas instead of at home. 
"Switching from coal to gas only saves carbon if the coal stays in the ground," said John Broderick, lead author of a study on the issue by the Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research at England's Manchester University.
Read the whole thing and discover an important truth:  predictable cause-and-effect does not work in the top-down management of non-linear systems.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Comment Rescue (?) and child-related gun violence in Delaware

In my post about the idiotic over-reaction to a New Jersey 10-year-old posing with his new squirrel rifle , Dana Garrett left me this response: One waits, apparently in vain, for you to post the annual rates of children who either shoot themselves or someone else with a gun. But then you Libertarians are notoriously ambivalent to and silent about data and facts and would rather talk abstract principles and fear monger (like the government will confiscate your guns). It doesn't require any degree of subtlety to see why you are data and fact adverse. The facts indicate we have a crisis with gun violence and accidents in the USA, and Libertarians offer nothing credible to address it. Lives, even the lives of children, get sacrificed to the fetishism of liberty. That's intellectual cowardice. OK, Dana, let's talk facts. According to the Children's Defense Fund , which is itself only querying the CDCP data base, fewer than 10 children/teens were killed per year in Delaw

With apologies to Hube: dopey WNJ comments of the week

(Well, Hube, at least I'm pulling out Facebook comments and not poaching on your preserve in the Letters.) You will all remember the case this week of the photo of the young man posing with the .22LR squirrel rifle that his Dad got him for his birthday with resulted in Family Services and the local police attempting to search his house.  The story itself is a travesty since neither the father nor the boy had done anything remotely illegal (and check out the picture for how careful the son is being not to have his finger inside the trigger guard when the photo was taken). But the incident is chiefly important for revealing in the Comments Section--within Delaware--the fact that many backers of "common sense gun laws" really do have the elimination of 2nd Amendment rights and eventual outright confiscation of all privately held firearms as their objective: Let's run that by again: Elliot Jacobson says, This instance is not a case of a father bonding with h

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?