text stringlengths 0 9.69k |
|---|
We noted that there are politically affluent constituencies that when you satisfy enough people with this money, then afterwards you're going to allocate that funding to politically affluent groups. On our side of the house, the difference is very simple: the money comes through the term and dividends and also in terms... |
Three issues to talk about: first, was it reasonable for companies to make these profits? Second, who distributes this money better? Lastly, on Russia: first, it wasn't reasonable. The first thing I want to begin with is just explaining why this case is not profit-hungry. In case closing, government stands up and tries... |
Now, in terms of this observation, what this then means is that these companies have done nothing malicious in making these profits. It is just incidental that they made more profits because of these circumstances. We told you about the enterprise risk, and crucially, what is more arbitrary: living in a country that ha... |
But Research has two different responses. First of all, is this a reason to not increase corporate tax? The difference is this U.S. specifically being targeted when tech companies during COVID did well that had supernormal profits—they weren't targeted. The problem is the inconsistency on how you treat the property rat... |
No thanks. What did we tell you here as a secondary implication? We told you about monopolies; we told you about decreasing prices in the long run. We can see maybe prices will be slightly shorter in the short or higher in the short run. We think the long term of 15 to 20 years matters more. We told you about energy se... |
On the second argument about whether or not money gets distributed better, as I've already noted, yes, some of the money is going towards a cost of living crisis. The question here is the relative distribution and whether or not this is an optimal distribution given the comparative that I've already outlined. What we t... |
No thanks. The next thing that comes from this, given that the money gets distributed better, is how this affects green energy because I think part of this question of distribution is the long-term benefit here on green energy. Yes, these companies are mega-rich, but Naomi herself tells you how risky it is to enter int... |
What they say is that they more crucially alter the incentive because windfall taxes will not apply to green energy. First of all, think about the justification of this policy. Do you know what politicians are going to say? There's a cost of living crisis; they've been profiteering off the citizens. The almost explicit... |
<poi> |
They don't need to believe all the money is used for good rather than going to, at the very best, the middle class or rich investors are going to domestically a good amount of the reasons we told you about the salience of energy prices will be spent on these positive gains, which still win you political support, it is ... |
</poi> |
Yes, I agree, the problem is the comparative. We say better, money, or more of the money is spent well on our side of the house, so it's directly redistributed to citizens through dividends and through green energy investments by the companies. I don't contest your claim; I outwit. |
So the crucial reason why this green energy argument matters so much is that the harms of oil are not just on oil prices but those who have been displaced from the extraction of oil, and their policy only disproportionately benefits a small subsection of people—most of them could actually benefit from oils being so hig... |
In contrast, on our side of the house, we get more energy independence, and of course, there might be an environmental harm in the short run. More oil fields really investigated, but green energy needs to be developed and ready first so we can stop that dependency. But in the short to medium term, before that happens, ... |
</dlo> |
<mg> |
I'll discuss three things in this speech. One, I'm going to talk about why governments are going to be great at spending this money, which I think sort of breaks the clash between OG and OO about where this money is going, where this will be well spent. The second thing I want to talk about is instead of renewable inve... |
Or there is the second alternative, which is either you raise taxes on other industries or you raise direct taxes on consumers, which I would suggest either makes the lives of the consumers much worse. But I would also posit that we are in a period of recession, so it probably is the debt of lots of industries or lower... |
Our leader suggests that oil and gas companies have massive lobbies, and they also have things like, you know, right-wing think tanks who publish papers, who show up on news shows or talk shows. They have politicians who lay back, who oftentimes come out against these taxes. There is going to be a lot of pushback at th... |
I would suggest that this raises levels of, you know, just expectations about what standards of life are going to look like once this money does come in. So it raises expectations of the citizenry as well. But I would also note, in terms of framing this point, that the money that we are talking about, you know, money t... |
This is not the same situation. Governments are on the brink of recession, and if they want to keep their power, they have additional incentives to keep this going on. Now, I would also just add in, like, stuff that comes up with and OG responses here. Now, oh says governments are going to be really sure to spend this ... |
In terms of impact, we, at the very least, impact very vulnerable stakeholders that their policy can never, ever impact and probably make things worse, as I point out at the top of my speech. Other industries probably die out; they slash jobs, and so on and so forth. This is extremely important in that scenario. But th... |
But the third thing I would point out is that it just gives you room for policy experimentation. This is not—I know this is a one-time policy, but at the point at which another recession is about to hit, and I don't know, the tech industry is booming or other industries are booming, this allows you to, at the very leas... |
<poi> |
If it's true reason is more spending, and that one false tax disproportionately hurt some companies, public detriments. Why don't you just take out, bonds, and accept that slightly higher debt-to-GDP ratio? |
</poi> |
But because, because you could go into recession—like, why would you want to—why would you want to accept something that is going to lead you to, if they're taking, like, lead you to losing voters at some stage? I just don't know why that's something that governments want to do. But the second thing I want to talk abou... |
OG says, "Well, all companies will diversify," but I think OO is sort of fair in saying, "Well, they have a long-term incentive and diversification anyways; they get tax tax incentives right now, even apart from the windfall tax anyway." So they're probably already going into that, so it's unclear what the bigger margi... |
And I know that both OO and OG have sort of said that this is sort of a risky space to invest in. I don't know, like, I did use it; it's not risky. You get a lot of money if you come back into renewables anyway, so I would posit that this leaves you there. But why is the short-term investment crucially important? Becau... |
For all those reasons, very proud to oppose. |
</mg> |
<mo> |
I'm starting in three, two, one. Let's be very clear: all government benches, including OG, actually brings the case, and CG who most repeats the mechanization, regardless of Hamza backloads, and web speech is dependent on this tax outweighing the harm of the rising prices. We agree with the government better that the ... |
Firstly, the very reason closing government gives us is that there are politicians being lobbied by corporations. There are ideological differences between parliament people who want to advocate, like opening opposition does, for market freedom and letting the market solve. This proves to us it's a long and protracted ... |
So it's not just the price of heating that rises because energy is an intermediary good in any form of production because all forms of consumer goods and durable goods also rise, ranging from food to everyday appliances for anything you can buy in a supermarket. Which means that even if the average distribution opening... |
Because there is nothing preventing these corporations from utilizing the current market situation to try the market price, because the market price is nothing else than an implicit consensus between corporations on the market. It's not externally set. But thirdly, windfall taxes are limited on the corporation, not in ... |
I have proven, firstly, that even in the best government scenario, the harm will exist and the policy is bad. But I've also proven that the policy directly makes the harms worse, going a step further than opening opposition.Now Secondly, let me make very clear what our path to victory is in this debate. We are going to... |
What is the most likely reasonable alternative? Simply empirically based on the facts, that's going to happen if we don't have a windfall tax. It seems like price caps and profit caps have been empirically set up all over the European Union by countries like Germany. Why is this the case? Well, for reasons that both go... |
We win this debate. Why is it a better alternative? Firstly, because it provides benefits directly to citizens, i.e., I directly pay less for energy, regardless of how good the government isn't redistributing money. Secondly, in April, it stops the inflation spiral because it caps the price at a certain level, which me... |
Before moving to a bunch more of responsive work of the Harish. |
<poi> |
Opening opposition, tell us, the market is sufficiently competitive, then prices will not rise as everyone knows the cost of a barrel of oil. You tell us prices will rise significantly. Who's wrong and why? |
</poi> |
No, I'm telling you opening government runs a very opening opposition runs a very good case. This should probably win over both government teams. I'm also telling you that assuming that you win the battling opposition I can run that ground as well. I'm perfectly allowed to do that. I'm sure you, Harish, know that. Cool... |
And nobody cares about the Balkans. There has not been a war on the European Union's borders. Countries like the Baltic states, Poland, Moldova, etc. have a history of being occupied by Russia. The alternative is potentially dying if Ukraine has a frontier fall, and if people are willing to accept that cost. But second... |
At the end of the day, you have to be able to say we were able to bankrupt Russia's war machine; we were able to attrition them into losing. At the point where we impose those thoughts, that's when you're not going to go back on them, even if the people don't support it. So I'm not sure why you lose support for the war... |
I.e., you can either diversify your sources by buying gas from Iran or Azerbaijan or Qatar or any other actor who has the intended to ramp up the price because they know you have no alternative, or you have the incentive to become self-sustainable by shifting to renewables through things like subsidies for green energy... |
To the length that it's a geopolitical tool against Russia, we have all the political capital we need, and government wants to impose a policy that's going to accomplish artificially high profit margins on the other side of the debate, and we're not going to use this particular junction we have now. Note how slow the ... |
</mo> |
<gw> |
Is a great auditor, Tin was able to kiss Harish's ass and test Taha in the same sentence, so I'm going to show you the legitimate things that Taha did say because this happens quite a lot. Number one, Taha is the first person to break the clash on this money being used responsibly. Because of the opening government pus... |
Number one, you have lots of Astro turf organizations set up by these oil companies—Americans against oil taxes, all of that stuff you have—right-wing politicians, you have right-wing op-eds, you have right-wing think tanks which are going after this government as silly and ineffective, but most of all pointing out tha... |
Secondly, I think it does a great job of also responding implicitly to Tin's point about this idea of you could have regulated them instead or you could have done something else. One fairly World School's understanding of how political capital works, right? Like, you know there's a box of political capital—it's 100 pol... |
Lots of people start saying, "Why are these people making 40 billion dollars a year? Why is ExxonMobil nearly 300 billion dollars of revenue?" More and more and more people start coming out against it. This is why historically legislation gets more and more intense once you start going after a target because it becomes... |
Second, I think it's important to understand that diversification incentives exist on both sides. I think the opposition bench has done a great job of being like, "Here are the ten reasons why diversification would happen opening government side," but there's a couple more, and I'm like, fair enough. I think the way th... |
What this means then is that the signaling to the market shifts capital away from things like this the lithium-ion and iron batteries and different things, which helps the renewable push. Again, a very crucial mechanism in terms of proving the product push renewable energy. I think that's super, super important. The th... |
In fact, we compound the benefits on opening government. We say the next time debt arbitrarily makes money because you're sitting at home because of a pandemic, again, we should windfall tax them, and we should take that gain and distribute it equitably and fairly. And finally, just on this Ukraine point, I think it's ... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.