vladykins @ 23/12/2016 6:43

Lurchy @ 22/12/2016 20:11 vladykins @ 22/12/2016 13:14 But anyway, the fishing thing is the joy of distributing limited licenses. There is hardly a "fair" way to do it when some get a little and some get nothing. What probably happened is they put the licenses out for bid and highest bidders got the licenses, regardless of country. In other words, they let the market decide. (It's how cap and trade works too). Cap & Trade doesn't work like that at all. Simply put, in C&T, the govt sets targets for maximum levels of pollution. The owners/managers then plan for some combination of improvements vs purchase (or sale) of credits. The credits can be used to offset pollution levels that are above the cap, or the credits can be sold to others if a company is already below the cap. It's the difference between the govt picking winners and losers, or the market picking winners and losers. Substantial difference actually. Actually it is exactly how cap and trade works. 1) Set level. 2) Create permits allowing said level. 3) Distribute permits (often through an auction system). What you have described with cap and trade is the secondary market reaction to the Cap and Trade system- if you can't bring your pollution levels down via improvements, then you purchase from those who have permits they aren't going to use because they can make more selling them to you. In neither case is the government deciding winners and losers, they are just setting the maximum level and issuing permits to match that level, using a market mechanism to decide. Again- if the French fisherman can do things more efficiently and thus get the permits, then the Brits can't bitch if they are all for "capitalism".

There is no such thing as "secondary market reaction". It's a built-in benefit of C&T; the owners/managers get to choose how, when, and where rather than the politicians. Again, the market decides rather than the politicians.

Ex.

Regulatory system method (as you described): large player in the market suddenly faces hostile takeover and dumps cash/takes on debt as poison pill to fend off hostile takeover, then politicians determine that only x number of licenses will be sold in six months. Large player is tapped and can't compete to buy license. Market didn't decide, politicians did.

C&T system: large player takes on poison pill but because it's a C&T system the targets are set over a series of years so the managers of large firm can use this year's earnings to either offset quota with investment, credits, or a combination thereof. Maybe two years down the road they know they will be stronger and determine that's the year they will invest in new tech/systems. IF they choose wisely, they win. If not, they lose. Thing is, it's their decisions that make or break their business, not the decisions of politicians who don't know shit about their business.

lolno

No one wants to talk about me screwing the world?

foresnaffle @ 23/12/2016 10:36

Don't be a sore loser dave that's not how democracy works

this is your first time in a democracy, isn't it?

Lurchy @ 26/12/2016 13:20

foresnaffle @ 23/12/2016 10:36 Don't be a sore loser dave that's not how democracy works this is your first time in a democracy, isn't it?

Darren, stop

Dave @ 25/12/2016 1:57

No one wants to talk about me screwing the world?

I don't think anyone wants to talk about you full stop

Obama gettin' in the sanctions so Putin's puppet has to remove them himself.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/311911-sanctions-against-russia-over-election-hacking-forthcoming-report

It's actually a Federalist system, not a true democracy. And the EC wasn't put in place to prevent people like Trump from winning, it was put in place as a protection mechanism for the individual states.

Timmah @ 28/12/2016 7:48

It's actually a Federalist system, not a true democracy. And the EC wasn't put in place to prevent people like Trump from winning, it was put in place as a protection mechanism for the individual states.

If it was just a protection mechanism for the individual states then it wouldn't need to have actual electors that are puppeteered by their political parties.

It's a 200+ year old nod to the patricians giving them the final say over the plebs.

Mercator @ 28/12/2016 12:09

Timmah @ 28/12/2016 7:48 It's actually a Federalist system, not a true democracy. And the EC wasn't put in place to prevent people like Trump from winning, it was put in place as a protection mechanism for the individual states. If it was just a protection mechanism for the individual states then it wouldn't need to have actual electors that are puppeteered by their political parties. It's a 200+ year old nod to the patricians giving them the final say over the plebs.

For the most part the electorates vote the way their state voted. There are exceptions where states have adopted legislation allowing the electorates to vote the way their particular district voted. The system was put in place as a check against having the more densely populated areas control the system over the say of the rest of the country. It's designed to provide a proportionate voice in the process to each of the states. And it is why the narrative has become "coastal elites" or whatever versus "rural America". Afterall, it is the United STATES of America.

Electoral College was put in place so more than a few states decided the fate of the election.

They didn't want Virginia/Pennsylvania picking the presidents every year after the ratification of the constitution.

Timmah @ 28/12/2016 9:24

Mercator @ 28/12/2016 12:09 Timmah @ 28/12/2016 7:48 It's actually a Federalist system, not a true democracy. And the EC wasn't put in place to prevent people like Trump from winning, it was put in place as a protection mechanism for the individual states. If it was just a protection mechanism for the individual states then it wouldn't need to have actual electors that are puppeteered by their political parties. It's a 200+ year old nod to the patricians giving them the final say over the plebs. For the most part the electorates vote the way their state voted. There are exceptions where states have adopted legislation allowing the electorates to vote the way their particular district voted. The system was put in place as a check against having the more densely populated areas control the system over the say of the rest of the country. It's designed to provide a proportionate voice in the process to each of the states. And it is why the narrative has become "coastal elites" or whatever versus "rural America". Afterall, it is the United STATES of America.

Well it wouldn't have to be actual people to do that is what I'm saying.

Timmah @ 28/12/2016 12:24

Mercator @ 28/12/2016 12:09 Timmah @ 28/12/2016 7:48 It's actually a Federalist system, not a true democracy. And the EC wasn't put in place to prevent people like Trump from winning, it was put in place as a protection mechanism for the individual states. If it was just a protection mechanism for the individual states then it wouldn't need to have actual electors that are puppeteered by their political parties. It's a 200+ year old nod to the patricians giving them the final say over the plebs. For the most part the electorates vote the way their state voted. There are exceptions where states have adopted legislation allowing the electorates to vote the way their particular district voted. The system was put in place as a check against having the more densely populated areas control the system over the say of the rest of the country. It's designed to provide a proportionate voice in the process to each of the states. And it is why the narrative has become "coastal elites" or whatever versus "rural America". Afterall, it is the United STATES of America.

Let me explain why the electoral college system is fucking retarded and anyone that defends it is as well.

You make the claim that it provides a proportionate voice to everyone in the country. THATS BULLSHIT.

If you are a democrat in Alabama YOU DONT HAVE A VOICE FOR PRESIDENT.

If you're a republican in Oregon YOU DONT HAVE A VOICE FOR PRESIDENT.

Our boy Igor is from Indiana and he didn't vote because Indiana was going to go Trump regardless.

If we had a FAIR system in place that guaranteed 1 person = 1 vote then it would not only be a more representative voice for everyone in the country, I believe that it would increase the number of people that actually vote in the presidential election because everyone's vote means the same thing and people wouldnt be all "ehh, i live in fucking redneck central so my vote doesnt matter"

I dont understand how you can call this shit a democracy when I live in Ohio and my vote means substantially more than like Maddie that lives in California. ITS FUCKING CRAZY.


This shit needs to stop ASAP

Someone is quite angry

Chris25 @ 28/12/2016 15:54

I dont understand how you can call this shit a democracy when I live in Ohio and my vote means substantially more than like Maddie that lives in California. ITS FUCKING CRAZY. This shit needs to stop ASAP

It's those fuckers in Wyoming who really piss me off.