5 ms·
My take is that everybody wants to institute measures that benefit them and hinder others Maybe I'm not living in the real world, but I sincerely doubt that mo
by dec0dedab0de 11y ago
My take is that everybody wants to institute measures that benefit them and hinder others
Maybe I'm not living in the real world, but I sincerely doubt that most people would like to hinder others.
- michaelt 11y agoMost people probably don't think of the things they support as "hindering others" - they think of it as "making the market take externalities into account" or "preserving the character of the neighbourhood" or "ensuring safety for customers of our industry" or "bringing our short-term incentives in line with our long-term incentives"
- evanpw 11y ago"protecting American jobs"
- anigbrowl 11y agoTaking externalities into account isn't hindering others, since the externality is by definition an unwanted imposition pf costs on a third party that didn't exist prior to the economic activity that generated it. I fail to see how this is different from an unpaid bill, and Nobel laureate Ronald Coase has rather convincingly argued* that the costs of mitigation in advance or in arrears ends up being the same, but that the transaction costs of enforcing property rights against externalities are a sufficient barrier to many pollutees that polluters are often willing to gamble on others' inability to adequately enforce their rights and pocket the resulting savings. * in The Problem of Social Cost, an unusually readable essay for the field of economics.
- bduerst 11y agoIt's rational when the hindrance means fulfilling self interests. I've been in competitive workplaces where people would try to get your project shot down because it could compete for resources with their own.
- tomp 11y agoMeasures that benefit a group of people implicitly hinder all the rest.