4 ms·

I really wish we just tried to properly price externalities. Then we could end these moralizing crusades and it would no longer be a question of whether peeled

I really wish we just tried to properly price externalities. Then we could end these moralizing crusades and it would no longer be a question of whether peeled oranges could be sold, but a question of how much they cost. Sure, I might buy a peeled orange. Maybe that's wasteful, but maybe I make up for it by being less wasteful elsewhere. That should be a possibility, because it would be a big help for people like the OP for whom the product is much more valuable than normal. You get much better results when everyone's incentives are set up to be directly aligned with doing the right thing.

danharaj 11y ago
That's the dream of liberal economics, but it hasn't panned out over hundreds of years. If there are incentive structures that automatically align with "the right thing" (whatever that messy concept is), they aren't what we have today.
- SilasX 11y ago
  It only "didn't pan out" in the sense that people aren't aware of this approach or it's politically unpopular. Hence why we end up with ineffective billboards exhorting me to take shorter showers, even though it's a far more value-dense use of water than the marginal unit used for rice, which has zero economic disincentives to grow. True absurdity. If the farmer had to pay even an opportunity cost (like with David Zetland's all-in auctions[1]), then he would cut back his usage immediately and the crisis would be over. Does that platonically align with "the right thing"? No, but it reduces wasteful uses of water, effectively, without the moral crusade. [1] It wouldn't take away any water they have a right to, but would simply pay for any water usage rights they waive, meaning that growing $10 of rice would cost them $30 in potential payments for letting someone else use the water. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1658193 http://ssrn.com/abstract=1658193
  - danharaj 11y ago
    Maybe that's a good solution for the particular problem you mentioned, but the only way to banish "moral crusades" which seems in this thread of discussion to be an allusion to the political aspects of economic activity is to price everything correctly everywhere and reduce transaction costs to 0. Not convinced it would work, and if it could work, the only way we could approximate such a solution is by incrementally restructuring the economy as new solutions are developed in order to test them and keep the ones that work. This is a fundamentally political process. There's always an undertone of banishing the political from human activity leaving only economics in conversations like this one that doesn't sit right with me.
    - jbpetersen 11y ago
      Thankfully once you start considering costs of organization, economics leads you right back to politics.
    - slavik81 11y ago
      It will never be perfect, but I think you're better off getting the economic incentives roughly correct and then finessing it with social campaigns, rather than depending mainly on social campaigns to police good behaviour. As you mentioned, developing the incentive structures is definitely a political process. Consider this a political appeal to put more emphasis on finding solutions at that level.
sago 11y ago
Where 'doing the right thing' is synonymous with 'being abled bodied' in this case. Being disabled is expensive. Adding to that cost, because being disabled also has more 'externalities' is a pretty vindictive move. Not to mention the fact that it means rich folks get to do the 'wrong thing' more, and with less significant personal consequences. Sounds like a terrible system.
- slavik81 11y ago
  If the disabled suffer extra costs, I'd rather give them extra money and retain the right incentives. It's true the rich do get to waste more, but that's already the case. At least then they would pay for it. That's extra money that could go to help the poor.
  - sago 11y ago
    Lovely: make it clear that we're inherently immoral (not doing the 'right thing'), and increase our dependency on charity.
    - slavik81 11y ago
      It's not a matter of morality. It's a matter of environmental cost. All people put a burden on the environment. If disabled persons need more resources and therefore put a greater burden on the environment than others, that's simply how the world is. It doesn't make them bad people. I'm not talking about charity, either. I'd want the government to make up the difference.

danharaj 11y ago

That's the dream of liberal economics, but it hasn't panned out over hundreds of years. If there are incentive structures that automatically align with "the right thing" (whatever that messy concept is), they aren't what we have today.

SilasX 11y ago
It only "didn't pan out" in the sense that people aren't aware of this approach or it's politically unpopular. Hence why we end up with ineffective billboards exhorting me to take shorter showers, even though it's a far more value-dense use of water than the marginal unit used for rice, which has zero economic disincentives to grow. True absurdity. If the farmer had to pay even an opportunity cost (like with David Zetland's all-in auctions[1]), then he would cut back his usage immediately and the crisis would be over. Does that platonically align with "the right thing"? No, but it reduces wasteful uses of water, effectively, without the moral crusade. [1] It wouldn't take away any water they have a right to, but would simply pay for any water usage rights they waive, meaning that growing $10 of rice would cost them $30 in potential payments for letting someone else use the water. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1658193 http://ssrn.com/abstract=1658193
- danharaj 11y ago
  Maybe that's a good solution for the particular problem you mentioned, but the only way to banish "moral crusades" which seems in this thread of discussion to be an allusion to the political aspects of economic activity is to price everything correctly everywhere and reduce transaction costs to 0. Not convinced it would work, and if it could work, the only way we could approximate such a solution is by incrementally restructuring the economy as new solutions are developed in order to test them and keep the ones that work. This is a fundamentally political process. There's always an undertone of banishing the political from human activity leaving only economics in conversations like this one that doesn't sit right with me.
  - jbpetersen 11y ago
    Thankfully once you start considering costs of organization, economics leads you right back to politics.
  - slavik81 11y ago
    It will never be perfect, but I think you're better off getting the economic incentives roughly correct and then finessing it with social campaigns, rather than depending mainly on social campaigns to police good behaviour. As you mentioned, developing the incentive structures is definitely a political process. Consider this a political appeal to put more emphasis on finding solutions at that level.

sago 11y ago

Where 'doing the right thing' is synonymous with 'being abled bodied' in this case. Being disabled is expensive. Adding to that cost, because being disabled also has more 'externalities' is a pretty vindictive move. Not to mention the fact that it means rich folks get to do the 'wrong thing' more, and with less significant personal consequences. Sounds like a terrible system.

slavik81 11y ago
If the disabled suffer extra costs, I'd rather give them extra money and retain the right incentives. It's true the rich do get to waste more, but that's already the case. At least then they would pay for it. That's extra money that could go to help the poor.
- sago 11y ago
  Lovely: make it clear that we're inherently immoral (not doing the 'right thing'), and increase our dependency on charity.
  - slavik81 11y ago
    It's not a matter of morality. It's a matter of environmental cost. All people put a burden on the environment. If disabled persons need more resources and therefore put a greater burden on the environment than others, that's simply how the world is. It doesn't make them bad people. I'm not talking about charity, either. I'd want the government to make up the difference.