<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.1" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: When Snow Won&#8217;t Fall</title>
	<link>http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2007/02/21/when-snow-wont-fall-2/</link>
	<description>Pricing carbon efficiently and equitably</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 05:30:37 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Bob Arning</title>
		<link>http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2007/02/21/when-snow-wont-fall-2/#comment-5521</link>
		<author>Bob Arning</author>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Jul 2007 22:52:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2007/02/21/when-snow-wont-fall-2/#comment-5521</guid>
		<description>"Based on the high price-elasticities for many luxury goods, the tax might be expected to reduce sales of home snowmakers by around a third."

Just curious - is this estimate based on a single luxury good increasing in price and selling fewer units, or does it consider the many things that might be increasing in price simultaneously under a carbon tax? It seems that the latter case might result in even fewer sales as people need to pay for more pressing purchases.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Based on the high price-elasticities for many luxury goods, the tax might be expected to reduce sales of home snowmakers by around a third.&#8221;</p>
<p>Just curious - is this estimate based on a single luxury good increasing in price and selling fewer units, or does it consider the many things that might be increasing in price simultaneously under a carbon tax? It seems that the latter case might result in even fewer sales as people need to pay for more pressing purchases.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
