Global confusionism!

Sir Philip Stephens in “Globalisation and new nationalism collide” October 24, tells us that the summit of world leaders announced by Bush in order to “advance common understanding of the crisis” would be a success “if the leaders did no more than reach the beginning of understanding”, which presumably means admitting, like Greenspan, that they never understood much of the boom either.

But the summit could also be helped by each party bringing forward mutually helpful proposals. For instance China had a business model based on lending the US money so that it could buy from them which thereby creates jobs the Chinese. And, as so many business models do, it did fine until, in this case until the US could not afford to take on much more debt. What now? If they do not lend the US more money, Chinese could lose their jobs and China could lose a lot on their actual dollar loans to the US.

It might therefore be time for a US public-debt to Chinese jobs conversion plan. In it millions of Chinese workers would pay 10% of their gross Chinese salaries to the US in order to retain an access to the US markets. At a Chinese salary of 500 dollar per month, to repay this way the current 1 trillion dollars of outstanding US debts to China (no interests), that should take only about 10 year, for only about 167 millions of Chinese.

A hidden tax is neither acceptable nor efficient

Kyoto with its system of selling indulgences for undefined carbon-sins and invest the proceeds in equally undefined carbon-good-deeds, while capping carbon emissions at a globally unsustainable level, is something like building a labyrinth in order to make the search for the exit door for our environmental emergency more interesting.

Sir, Clive Crook in his “Bush may be on to something…” June 7, presents the alternative of another labyrinth, in this case a national one, that would make it possible to “simulate a carbon tax . . . avoiding the word tax”. Forget it! If we are to find our way out of the very difficult environmental hardships transparency is a must and we have to be able to call a spade a spade. If what we need is a direct carbon tax let us work on that and shame governments into action.

Crook also mentions that the sale of “perpetual permits” would create a constituency with a vested interest in enforcement of carbon caps as that would make the value of the permissions go up. Forget it! If we are to find our way out of our global and public predicaments we cannot afford having the income to ex ante deviate into private rents when so much investment is needed, just as we also must be extremely wary of any signalling risk. Place these “perpetual permits” investors in front of a forest and ask yourselves whether their profit motives would induce them to reach for water to put out a fire… or for the matches.