grputland

Its merely an academic distinction to say that price is not subsidised and income is, because though technically true its ultimately purchasing power that we are talking about which is a function of both disposable income and price.

In your article, Andrew, probably the most ridiculous statement is; “By pricing carbon, we're encouraging a shift to a cleaner economy”

We are not pricing carbon, we are pricing Carbon Dioxide. Neither carbon dioxide, nor the economy, are dirty. Carbon dioxide is not pollution, it is an essential trace element in our atmosphere, essential to life on earth.

The tax does not place a burden on polluters, but on producers of essential energy and power. Taxing carbon dioxide, and calling it “carbon” is not taxing pollution. It is merely attempting to deceive the public.

Part of the money raised is to be used by this government to buy support from voters, not by subsidising essentials like power, but by paying money directly to the recipients.

This is not likely to work, blatant and rat cunning as it is. Dishonesty on this scale invariably becomes quite obvious and repellant, even to the apparent beneficiaries. I say "apparent" because in a sleazy exercise of this nature everyone ultimately loses.

The "Juliar" brand is obnoxious and noisome

I was just sent this and it so fits:

"Labor has convinced itself of a monumental fantasy - that if it just explained its carbon dioxide tax more often, or more simply or more vividly, more voters would change their minds."

Some of the posters and the author all seem to believe this as well .. one poster is convinced another poster has clearly explained the economics.

"It’s a bit disappointing, though, that he has limited his attack on carbon price detractors to the most economically illiterate and easily refutable end of the opinion spectrum"

That's 67% of the population, and growing, that does not seem to be convinced of this "easily refutable" truth. Another one who insults people, it's clever to sneer at people who disagree, the ALP way!

"Andrew has rebuffed one easily refutable argument against the carbon tax"

No he hasn't, simple fact, people do not believe the ALP or their rent seeking hangers on.

If it was so easy, why does the ALP coalition need to spend millions on advertising, have all the environmental groups chanting together, have their proxies run TV ads, run campaigns to deny media coverage to skeptics, the ABC has how many anti skeptic hate pieces today, has a climate team led by the Flannery, they feed favorite climate clubs choice titbits, have the Gilliar doing home visits to "ordinary" people (Well I'm sure some of the other posters believed it .. eh)

If it is so simple, why are we looking at the biggest marketing and sales campaign in Australia's history, and it is only being bought by the people who were already on board.

Daily, the ALP coalition loses more and more credibility and gets more desperate

Their desperation morphs into them insulting and lashing at at critics, the people they need to convince, so instead of convincing them, they put them further offside .. so clever.

Some humility and admitting they are liars will help them restart this process, but the big egos will never go there.

I agree with Leo Lane. Those who brand our PM as "Juliar" are generally obnoxious and noisome.

@Rhian: In February the price of bananas rose from about $6 a kilo to about $15.

I think the prize for the clearest summary of what Andrew Leigh was trying to say has to go to Rhian.

Yet some still profess to not understand the point being made. Given the quality of the efforts to explain it, this article looks to be shaping up as an excellent IQ test of some OLO posters. As the following link demonstrates the occasional person simply can't grasp the basic arithmetic, so people here not being able to grasp a more nuanced economic argument presented should not have been a complete surprise to me.

http://notalwaysright.com/unfortunately-your-iq-adds-up-to-zero/12457

I don't know whether this link describes a real event, but I have been associated with point of sale in my time and have had people say things to me that were actually worse, so real or not it reflects reality.

@Andrew Leigh: Since Tony Abbott has called economics 'boring', it's perhaps not surprising that he is in complete misinformation mode on this point, describing tax cuts to assist households as 'a con'.

This is the second economist here on OLO that has taken affront at Abbott's jibe at the profession. He knows how to make enemies.

Rpg

Andrew is right to argue that energy consumption will fall if energy prices rise relative to other goods and services, for the same reason banana consumption has fallen even though most people could easily afford to buy bananas at $15/kg if they really want.

My point was that there are stronger economic arguments against the tax which Andrew hasn’t addressed.

If you’re 67% number is right, it’s surely that 67% of people disagree with the tax or are worried about its effects, not that 67% of people think emissions will not be affected by the tax.