[julianj]

I think the whole currency thing is important to localisation/powerdown.

here's my take on it:

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic8366.html

As far as TEQs go, I doubt that most people will frivolously sell their allowance. After all ordinary people manage their pensions and state benefits perfectly well. The occasional fool who does so will soon learn the error of his ways.

It may encourage a bit of conservation, as energy becomes a direct cost and/or a source of income, but it is a very regressive form of income transfer from poor who cannot buy extra units to rich who can. Versus fuel surcharges with tax rebates to the poorest,

Yes, if this happens, it is going to make things worse. I don't like regressive taxation. I must ask David about this.

[MrBill]

I think the whole currency thing is important to localisation/powerdown.

here's my take on it:

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic8366.html

As far as TEQs go, I doubt that most people will frivolously sell their allowance. After all ordinary people manage their pensions and state benefits perfectly well. The occasional fool who does so will soon learn the error of his ways.

It may encourage a bit of conservation, as energy becomes a direct cost and/or a source of income, but it is a very regressive form of income transfer from poor who cannot buy extra units to rich who can. Versus fuel surcharges with tax rebates to the poorest,

Yes, if this happens, it is going to make things worse. I don't like regressive taxation. I must ask David about this.

They may not frivolously sell them except in need, but they may not know their true value either. That is options pricing. You gotta know you delta, gamma & theta along with all the other Greeks and the math is one step short of nuclear physics

However, I bet if I open a bingo hall and players can only use their credits to play for large cash prizes that in a very short period of time I will own all the heating credits for entire neighborhoods?

After all ordinary people manage their pensions and state benefits perfectly well. The occasional fool who does so will soon learn the error of his ways.

You will notice that such 'benefits' are paid on a monthly basis and not generally in one lump sum. I don't think that is by accident?

Also, good point you make, those pensions and benefits are mostly on a pay as you go basis and wholely underfunded with generous future payouts which will become increasingly unaffordable. And the best minds who are tackling the problem do not yet know how to square that particular circle? Will they be any better at devising a politically acceptable solution to energy trading or will it be open to cyclical electioneering abuse and short sightedness like all other government programs and insurance schemes currently in deep arears but with no handy solutions and devoid of serious debate?

[donshan]

julianj and MrBill,

Thanks for picking up on the complications of how these DTQs (or whatever they get called) interact with the money economy. It is complicated.

Somewhere in one of the links I read, that to address just the global warming aspects of this issue, the use of carbon fuels needed to be reduced 1.x% per year or so. Also in the beginning stages of addressing the oil availability issue the objective is to slow this monster economy's GROWTH of the use of oil just back to zero growth. That alone will take some massive readjustments in attitudes and the economy.

My point being if the initial stages of oil decline are 2% for example, that could be accomplished with fairly high distributions of the rations. A large supply would mean they would have a very small money value each. Thus for all the small uses like a taxi ride, the taxi driver would quickly decide to include the cost of buying the DTQ in the price. It would be the same in a restaurant, The gas used in the kitchen would not be worth the trouble of swiping every customers carbon card. Thus the initial application would probably only apply to the larger direct uses of fuel and a few larger fuel use purchases like airline tickets.

As the oil shortage really starts to bite like the North Sea depletion is in the UK now, each ration unit becomes more and more valuable and the system expands deeper and deeper into the economy, but by then everyone knows how to use it.

In the later stages of oil shortage in the next century this could easily evolve into a new gold standard. The fixed amount of DTQs created each year are directly related to a commodity like gold was once. "Black Gold" takes on a whole new reality!

The gold prospectors, conquistadors, and miners got rich back in the days of the gold standard and their activities increased the money supply. In the case of this carbon allowance ration, anyone drilling for a small pocket of oil gets rich which is OK because society needs that oil. It could easily be good public policy to subsidize enhanced oil recovery with free carbon allowances, and direct payment in new carbon allowances to the oil company.

The oil business will live well into the future because it will be extremely profitable.

There is a current post over at The oil drum showing one barrel of oil is worth one manyear of very hard manual labor. As that truth soaks in even $1000/bbl oil may seem cheap. I learned that decades ago when I bought my first gas chain saw!
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2005/11/30/233433/82

[julianj]

Mr Bill:

TEQs from the website www.teqs.net:

At the start of the scheme, a full year's supply is placed on the market. Then, every week, the number of units in the market is topped up with a week's supply.

So after the initial tranche, the system does work in an incremental basis; and quite frankly, I've never been sure why there was the need to have a whole year in advance, given that wages, and many other things like pensions and benefits come on a weekly, fortnightly or monthly basis. I tend to agree with you there that individuals with poor forward planning might squander a year's credits, where they would be less inclined if they had a week or a month's supply.

Perhaps you have a more pessimistic view of humanity than me: I think most people will be able to manage their allowances. Though I do take your point about the Bingo Hall - a fool and his carbon credits being easily parted.

But in a way, I think our speculation is fruitless - the only way to find out the problems of this system is to have a pilot project - choose a town and institute the system and see what happens. I don't doubt that there will be unanticipated things going on, but then the method could be tweaked until it worked, or was discarded as unworkable.

Donshan,thanks for your kind words, but could you please call them TEQs from now on? Changing the name has caused enough confusion and I hope we can stick to the better name in future.

[donshan]

Donshan,thanks for your kind words, but could you please call them TEQs from now on? Changing the name has caused enough confusion and I hope we can stick to the better name in future.

Thanks, TEQs it is! However googling TEQ is not as informative as "carbon allowance". Googling TEQ brings up a lot of wrong stuff. However using the full words Tradable energy quotas does work.

[julianj]

I asked David about ID cards and this is his reply:

By the way, re ID cards, I think the need for those a condition for TEQs is exaggerated. All rationing systems have to have some way of identifying people, and I have no doubt that some contingency planning already exists for petrol rationing - probably a paper system. Censuses get at people's names, as do voting registers, National Insurance numbers and National Health numbers. None of these are ideal but they are a workable basis for a TEQs system, allowing it to be set up, and allowing the anomalies to be sorted out afterwards. ID cards would make it easy, but I don't think they are essential. Tyndall have given much more emphasis to ID cards than I have.

(Tyndall is theTyndall Centre for Climate Change Research )

[clv101]

Looking forward it is clear that the business-as-usual energy policy is “not fit for purpose”. The current system is proving itself inadequate when faced with twin challenges of fossil fuel depletion and climate change. The energy markets are likely to respond to future shortages with profiteering, grossly inequitable allocation and globally destabilising financial flows.

A rationing system is required which can both facilitate equitable allocation of the diminishing resource whilst simultaneously reducing the carbon dioxide released.

Formulated by Dr David Fleming and first published in 1996 as Domestic Tradable Quotas (DTQs), Tradable Energy Quotas known as TEQs (pronounced “tex”) are just such a system. TEQs are an electronic rationing system that includes everyone, bringing citizens, industry and Government together in a single scheme with a common purpose. The structure of this scheme is detailed in Fleming’s excellent short book (available at www.teqs.net).

Fleming has just written a short introduction to the scheme available here: http://uk.theoildrum.com/story/2006/8/4/163554/8625

[MrBill]

Looking forward it is clear that the business-as-usual energy policy is “not fit for purpose”. The current system is proving itself inadequate when faced with twin challenges of fossil fuel depletion and climate change. The energy markets are likely to respond to future shortages with profiteering, grossly inequitable allocation and globally destabilising financial flows.

A rationing system is required which can both facilitate equitable allocation of the diminishing resource whilst simultaneously reducing the carbon dioxide released.

Formulated by Dr David Fleming and first published in 1996 as Domestic Tradable Quotas (DTQs), Tradable Energy Quotas known as TEQs (pronounced “tex”) are just such a system. TEQs are an electronic rationing system that includes everyone, bringing citizens, industry and Government together in a single scheme with a common purpose. The structure of this scheme is detailed in Fleming’s excellent short book (available at www.teqs.net).

Fleming has just written a short introduction to the scheme available here: http://uk.theoildrum.com/story/2006/8/4/163554/8625

So in other words, in a completely fair world, the developing world teeming with its billions would get 5/6th of the world's energy credits for free, which they then could sell to the 1/6th of developed world, in proportion to their overall populations, regardless of where energy is found or who pays to extract and refine it? And the more children they have the higher their yearly quota relative to others, although strictly speaking we are talking about finite fossil fuels? Sounds like child inflation to me?

[Liamj]

So in other words, in a completely fair world, the developing world teeming with its billions would get 5/6th of the world's energy credits for free

No, they'd still have to pay cash money for the energy too (but cash prices should be lower than they would be in speculator-dominated markets).

which they then could sell to the 1/6th of developed world,

International trading is neither required nor demanded by what is proposed. If practiced, it seems you are presuming that a) mega-nations of the majority world don't continue their spectacular and carbon-heavy growth, & b) that individual citizens in the minority/'developed' world are incapable of pursuing their own self interest by reducing their energy consumption. I think you're wrong on both.

in proportion to their overall populations, regardless of where energy is found

Neoliberalism insists we sell all assets and resources into global markets, regardless of where they are found or their strategic importance, what is different?

or who pays to extract and refine it?

Whoever pays to extract and refine does so to make a profit, why should they have further special rights? (apart from externalising most of the ecological, social, and political costs of their resource extraction).

And the more children they have the higher their yearly quota relative to others, although strictly speaking we are talking about finite fossil fuels? Sounds like child inflation to me?

Mr Fleming suggests that children and infants receive much less than adults, so you'd have to be sharp to make a profit there. By the time they hit driving age, if you can get their finally full quota off them, you deserve it!
You coulda spared yourself these needless fears by reading it first.

[MrBill]

So in other words, in a completely fair world, the developing world teeming with its billions would get 5/6th of the world's energy credits for free

No, they'd still have to pay cash money for the energy too (but cash prices should be lower than they would be in speculator-dominated markets).

which they then could sell to the 1/6th of developed world,

International trading is neither required nor demanded by what is proposed. If practiced, it seems you are presuming that a) mega-nations of the majority world don't continue their spectacular and carbon-heavy growth, & b) that individual citizens in the minority/'developed' world are incapable of pursuing their own self interest by reducing their energy consumption. I think you're wrong on both.

in proportion to their overall populations, regardless of where energy is found

Neoliberalism insists we sell all assets and resources into global markets, regardless of where they are found or their strategic importance, what is different?

or who pays to extract and refine it?

Whoever pays to extract and refine does so to make a profit, why should they have further special rights? (apart from externalising most of the ecological, social, and political costs of their resource extraction).

And the more children they have the higher their yearly quota relative to others, although strictly speaking we are talking about finite fossil fuels? Sounds like child inflation to me?

Mr Fleming suggests that children and infants receive much less than adults, so you'd have to be sharp to make a profit there. By the time they hit driving age, if you can get their finally full quota off them, you deserve it!
You coulda spared yourself these needless fears by reading it first.

I certainly did read it, and carefully, and your points do not make sense. any carbon trading system as suggested means that 'energy is allocated per person' and then either individuals can choose to use the energy by buying it or sell the permits to someone else. You may not understand this, but I do. Mine are never needless fears. It took me less than the time to read the article to see the underlying problems with this scheme. Maybe you should read my previous points where I went into all the other problems with this scheme? Then you could spare yourself needless posts until you have done your homework! Thanks.

[Liamj]

I certainly did read it, and carefully, and your points do not make sense. any carbon trading system as suggested means that 'energy is allocated per person' and then either individuals can choose to use the energy by buying it or sell the permits to someone else. You may not understand this, but I do.

An energy quota, not energy itself, is allocated per person. Is having a permit to fish the same as having fish? No. If have no cash you could sell half (w.a.g) your quota and have cash to buy energy with the rest of your quota, how will that a problem?

Mine are never needless fears. It took me less than the time to read the article to see the underlying problems with this scheme. Maybe you should read my previous points where I went into all the other problems with this scheme? Then you could spare yourself needless posts until you have done your homework! Thanks.

Your 'other points' (what was the first one?) all seem to be variations on your fear of 'teeming millions', which is a straw man as international trade is not required. Maybe i'm simple, could you lay out the problems you saw before finishing reading the article? Feel free to respond to my points too.
ps. the booklet contains information not in the article, thats why i linked it.

[MrBill]

An energy quota, not energy itself, is allocated per person. Is having a permit to fish the same as having fish? No. If have no cash you could sell half (w.a.g) your quota and have cash to buy energy with the rest of your quota, how will that a problem?

Sorry, I only read the article, not the booklet.

A quota as you mentioned is a right or a permission to fish or to sell energy. Anytime a quota is issued it has an intrinsic value, like a dairy quota or a taxi quota to a busy airport. The price of the quota represents the economic rent it brings to the seller by those who are willing to buy it. Those willing to buy these certificates think they can get more economic value out of the quota than those willing to sell.

If it is allocated for free to those that do nothing then it is simply a gift. Like diary or taxi quotas the intrinsic value of the quota quickly get capitalized. For example, the quota value of one dairy cow may be worth $25.000 the quota value of one taxi might also be worth $25.000. My energy quota allocation might be like getting a cheque for $1000 each year. It is simply unearned income.

If it is not a universal scheme then it is not worth doing. Most of the world's remaining petroleum in any case belong to governments, not private companies. Whether the government decides to extract that petroleum themselves through a national oil company or decides to sell the rights to explore, drill and extract in exchange for royalties, basically all the oil & gas that we use going forward comes from the public domaine. TEQ's therefore will not make energy cheaper. The cost of petroleum reflects its scarcity, the cost to find it and to extract it and then distribute it. And governments find it an attractive target for extra taxes as its demand is very inelastic. So the argument that TEQs will make energy cheaper simply does not hold water.

As it is a gift it brings unearned economic benefit to those who have not produced anything of value to trade for that petroleum. So like the share trading privatization scandal in the Czech Republic the government/UN or whomever distributes energy quotas which individuals would have the right to exchange for energy or sell.

Except the energy is already owned by nations who want to sell it. Therefore, due to infrastructure problems in sub-sahara Africa they may not have anything to trade to buy the imported energy in any case, and as the countries are so corrupt and many uneducated people live in poverty, I will explain to you exactly what will happen.

Criminal gangs will go up and down the countryside buying certificates at a steep discount from those who do not know their true value, cannot read, or are too poor and need pennies on the dollar to buy food instead of petroluem. Then these gangs will aggregate these certificates and sell them on the black market at a profit to those who need energy and can afford to buy it.

As I said, it is not dissimilar to the Czech privatization scheme where every ciitzen was given shares in public companies, but then smart operators bought those shares up cheaply, and then used them to buy these newly privatized companies. One privatization share is not worth much, however, one million are enough to exercise management control over a company. In Africa, and other parts of the developing world, it will be worse, as at least the Czech's had a fairly developed country, laws, courts, and were relatively well educated at the time.

But in underdeveloped countries, where the poor are uneducated and the infrastructure poor, criminal gangs will get pocession of these certs and sell them at a profit. I fail to see how this is going to help anyone?

The certs are given away free, but they have value. Therefore, the biggest countries will get more energy allocation whether they need it or not, whether they deserve it or not, whether they can pay for it or not. So high birthrates definately play a role even if as you say the authors envision paying less for children. Well, children grow up, so there is still an incentive to produce them.

The petroleum already belongs to the public via national governments. They sell that oil via the competitive market or by allocation. Yes, OPEC decides to whom they sell at what price. They sometimes sell to Asia, Europe and N.AM at different prices at the sametime while allocating more supply where they see fit.

The certs that are allocated bring an unearned benefit to the recipient. That is a nice form of charity, but ultimately that cost has to be borne by the end user. Therefore, it cannot result in lower priced petroleum as you suggested. As the costs of extraction, refining, etc. already reflect their costs in terms of capital, manpower, infrastructure, risk, etc.

As petroleum is overwhelmingly found in a few inexcessible places, the import and export of energy is a fact that cannot be discounted away. Therefore any energy trading scheme has to be international as well.

Really, taking away ownership rights from national governments and handing them out to many individuals for free is just a sort of global communism.

Why oil? Why not water, food, land and the other means of production? A global government to make asset allocations. An all seeing, all knowing world government that can allocate resources more effectively than the market. An omnipotent government that can ensure that no one cheats, that energy certs go to everyone fairly. And that a blackmarket does not spring up for their trading. Much like cheap, subsidized energy gets smuggled out of a country and sold at a gain creating profits for the smugglers and shortages in the home market.

We already have a very simple, workable system for allocating energy based on price using freely traded currencies who's value goes up and down against other freely tradeable currencies based on supply & demand, interest rates, trade balances, etc. This does a remarkable effective job of allocating scarce resources to those who produce something else of value in order to trade for them. But instead of this simple, but effective system, you want to impose an unworkable system, full of imperfections, that can easily be manipulated. Added layers of complexity and bureaucrats instead of market mechanisms.

[MrBill]

Neoliberalism insists we sell all assets and resources into global markets, regardless of where they are found or their strategic importance, what is different?

If I look at this definition of neoliberalism....

Neoliberalism is a pejorative label[citation needed] for the economic liberalism which has became increasingly important in international economic policy discussions from the 1970s onwards.

In its dominant international use, neoliberalism refers to a political-economic philosophy that de-emphasizes or rejects government intervention in the domestic economy. It focuses on free-market methods, fewer restrictions on business operations, and property rights. In foreign policy, neoliberalism favors the opening of foreign markets by political means, using economic pressure, diplomacy, and/or military intervention. Opening of markets refers to free trade and an international division of labor. Neoliberalism generally favors multilateral political pressure through international organizations or treaty devices such as the WTO, World Bank and ADB. It promotes reducing the role of national governments to a minimum. Neoliberalism favors privatization over direct government intervention and production (such as Keynesianism), and measures success in overall economic gain. To improve corporate efficiency, it strives to reject or mitigate labor policies such as minimum wage, and collective bargaining rights. It opposes socialism, protectionism, environmentalism, fair trade, and critics say it impedes democratic rule. Likewise, these critics argue that labor rights and social justice should have a priority in international relations and economics.[citation needed]

What is Neoliberalism?
I fail to see how you can say allocating resources based on population size is no different than through market mechanisms?

If one takes the view that God decides where we are born and therefore it is just luck or fate that determines where one is born then I suppose it would be only fair to allocate resources by population.

However, that is not how it works. Each one of us is the product of a whole series of decisions, conscious and subconscious, made by ourselves and our forefathers. Where we are born is no accident in this sense of the word.

But in any case, I have no problem with neo-liberalism, democracy, market forces, free trade because I see the alternatives as worse. I have to disgree with wikopedia that this excludes environmentalism and fair trade as well. I am very pro- fair trade and sustainable development.

[Liamj]

..If it is allocated for free to those that do nothing then it is simply a gift. ... It is simply unearned income.

Only if you never buy energy. If you sell your TEQ as soon as it arrives, yes it will be instant unearned income then, but every time you buy energy you’ll need to purchase TEQs on the open market, will probably pay more than you got for selling all yours ASAP, and thus only those who use less every year will have any benefit.

If it is not a universal scheme then it is not worth doing.

Absolute nonsense. Health insurance, honesty, and hunting limits are not universally taken up, does that mean they're not worth doing?

Most of the world's remaining petroleum in any case belong to governments, not private companies. Whether the government decides to extract that petroleum themselves through a national oil company or decides to sell the rights to explore, drill and extract in exchange for royalties, basically all the oil & gas that we use going forward comes from the public domaine.

This is the oil-is-fungible argument, which the Coalition of the Willing has bet a few wars is not set in stone.

TEQ's therefore will not make energy cheaper. The cost of petroleum reflects its scarcity, the cost to find it and to extract it and then distribute it.

AND the speculators premium, which some soothing voices on MSM have put at $20 a barrel. I’m not saying energy will be cheaper in absolute terms, but it will have to be cheaper than in a market smothered in gamblers.

Your next x hundred words seem a mash of projected fears and simple misunderstanding of the proposal. Resource ownership rights will not be taken away from governments. An international scheme is not required.
Your incredible claim

We already have a very simple, workable system for allocating energy based on price ..

tells me only that the status quo is working fine for you. I'm sure you've heard it before but its so appropriate: It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it (Upton Sinclair).

[Liamj]

...But in any case, I have no problem with neo-liberalism, democracy, market forces, free trade because I see the alternatives as worse. I have to disgree with wikopedia that this excludes environmentalism and fair trade as well. I am very pro- fair trade and sustainable development.

Neoliberalism and the 'free market' (at gunpoint) are diametrically opposed to fair trade and anything resembling sustainability. That you can believe you support both is .. surreal.

[MrBill]

...But in any case, I have no problem with neo-liberalism, democracy, market forces, free trade because I see the alternatives as worse. I have to disgree with wikopedia that this excludes environmentalism and fair trade as well. I am very pro- fair trade and sustainable development.

Neoliberalism and the 'free market' (at gunpoint) are diametrically opposed to fair trade and anything resembling sustainability. That you can believe you support both is .. surreal.

Not being American, not being Republican or Democrat, being a fiscal conservative, social liberal, and capable of free thought not linked to party politics, I am able to look at the original meanings behind the neo-conservative and neo-liberal movements. I am not forced to accept the political baggage that dogs these terms nor am I responsible for them being hijacked by those who would discredit or bastardize them for political ends.

There is nothing in the neo-liberal doctrine about free trade at gun point. I argue the benefits of free trade based on trade distorting tariff and non-tariff barriers that usually benefit a special interest group at the expense of the many or the consumer. It is not a political stand on my part.

However, I recognize, quite rightly, that free trade without fair trade also cannot work properly. Players have to abide by the spirit as well as the word of the rules. Currency manipulations are not compatible to free trade that destroys jobs in one country for the benefit of another. Trade arbitration means just that. It is not to be ignored because the panel rules against your special interest group.

Any development that is not sustainable is just that. Unsustainable. There is really not much to debate or argue about. Either you choose policies that are sustainable in the long-term or your policies are short-sighted and bound to cause more problems than they solve.

Force should be sanctioned through the UN. But until the UN is reformed, completely, it is basically less than useless with some countries having a veto over any international issue for their own domestic agenda.

And your TEQ scheme has so many holes in it that I find it hard to take you seriously either. But after I have had a chance to study it and respond to it in detail, I will post it here for you to read. In the meantime, spare me the name calling. It really is the last resort of someone who has no further good arguments to share.

[Doly]

However, I recognize, quite rightly, that free trade without fair trade also cannot work properly. Players have to abide by the spirit as well as the word of the rules. Currency manipulations are not compatible to free trade that destroys jobs in one country for the benefit of another. Trade arbitration means just that. It is not to be ignored because the panel rules against your special interest group.

That is all well and good philosophically. But in the real world there are huge differences between countries. There are very rich and very poor countries, and with very different resource bases. On top of that, the cost of living is hugely different between countries. Determining what is fair is no easy task, and something like free trade is unlikely to achieve it.

[MrBill]

However, I recognize, quite rightly, that free trade without fair trade also cannot work properly. Players have to abide by the spirit as well as the word of the rules. Currency manipulations are not compatible to free trade that destroys jobs in one country for the benefit of another. Trade arbitration means just that. It is not to be ignored because the panel rules against your special interest group.

That is all well and good philosophically. But in the real world there are huge differences between countries. There are very rich and very poor countries, and with very different resource bases. On top of that, the cost of living is hugely different between countries. Determining what is fair is no easy task, and something like free trade is unlikely to achieve it.

Philosophically, that is all well and fine, Doly, so what do you suggest? High import barriers? Protected domestic industries? Government instigated quotas? Domestic subsidies to domestic producers? Great, you just made the developing world poorer, not wealthier!

Along with rich countries, poor countries, there are well managed economies and economies rife with corruption. There are also mainly Asian countries who are getting wealthier through trade. And there are poorer countries, getting poorer, who cling to outmoded socialist command and control models, as well as those slipping down the slippery slope of resource nationalism that will ultimately end in less investment and, yes, more corruption by a small elite to the detriment of the many.

Fair trade versus free trade and the role of currency manipulation.

But RMB appreciation still matters.

If the RMB stays where it is, more electronics parts production will be shifted to China. And shifting parts assembly from say Korea – where per capita incomes are high enough to afford more US and European goods – to China. That probably indirectly lowers US exports.

And if the RMB stays where it is, the odds are that China will continue to move up-market and into areas – furniture, auto parts come to mind – where Chinese production would compete with US and European production.

In my view, higher prices on existing Chinese assembly are the price the US (and Europe) will have to pay to slow the shift in production of other goods toward China. And to give China the purchasing power needed to afford more imports from the US.


The World Bank'sBeijing office isn't interested in the modalities of global adjustment. They are increased in China. And they correctly note that RMB appreciation offers China a policy tool that could help cool an over-heated Chinese economy without generating more trade tension with the rest of the world. Right now, RMB appreciation is in China’s own interest.

The World Bank Beijing office now estimates that China’s 2006 current account surplus will top $200b




I live in the real world. Which one are you referring to?

[Liamj]

Not being American, not being Republican or Democrat, being a fiscal conservative, social liberal, and capable of free thought not linked to party politics, I am able to ...
And your TEQ scheme has so many holes in it that I find it hard to take you seriously either. But after I have had a chance to study it and respond to it in detail, I will post it here for you to read. In the meantime, spare me the name calling. It really is the last resort of someone who has no further good arguments to share.

It is not my TEQ scheme, i've only read more about it and thought your misunderstandings worth informing. I'm also not american nor politically aligned, and don't recall calling you any names.
Free trade is a lovely fairy story that pretends thousands of years of protectionism was merely an oversight. The 'collapse' of the corpse of the WTO Doha Round proves that the US & EU never intended to significantly open their markets, twenty years after many poorer nations were forced to walk the plank the rich nations now refuse. That you continue to push the free trade lie and claim superior knowledge of 'the real world' makes me glad to bow out.
(edit for diplomacy)

[MrBill]

Not being American, not being Republican or Democrat, being a fiscal conservative, social liberal, and capable of free thought not linked to party politics, I am able to ...
And your TEQ scheme has so many holes in it that I find it hard to take you seriously either. But after I have had a chance to study it and respond to it in detail, I will post it here for you to read. In the meantime, spare me the name calling. It really is the last resort of someone who has no further good arguments to share.

It is not my TEQ scheme, i've only read more about it and thought your misunderstandings worth informing. I'm also not american nor politically aligned, and don't recall calling you any names.
Free trade is a lovely fairy story that pretends thousands of years of protectionism was merely an oversight. The 'collapse' of the corpse of the WTO Doha Round proves that the US & EU never intended to significantly open their markets, twenty years after many poorer nations were forced to walk the plank the rich nations now refuse. That you continue to push the free trade lie and claim superior knowledge of 'the real world' inclines me to derision.

Well, with the collapse of DOHA you certainly have your wish. Now let us see what the fall-out is? More bilateral deals? Or more protectionism? Both? It certainly weakens the WTO's trade arbitration authority in case nations do disagree.

Of course, the highest barriers are between poorer countries themselves. Let us see if they all of a sudden get richer now that their domestic markets are sealed from US and EU competition or whether the EU and US move on and they simply get left behind?

I would say the collapse of DOHA and expanding a rules based WTO as well as rising protectionism and energy nationalism does not bode very well for your TEQ system being implemented anytime soon.

Score one for the anti-globalists! ; - )