3 ms·

> Every time a hurricane knocks out a town's electric grid and federal funds are used to repair it, that's a subsidy. When government authority to exercise emin

by dv_dt 8y ago

> Every time a hurricane knocks out a town's electric grid and federal funds are used to repair it, that's a subsidy. When government authority to exercise eminent domain acquires easements or land to erect power distribution, that's a subsidy. This is anti-government fervor carried to absurdity. No man is an island. What is the point of government if not to provide care in disastrous situations? And yes this is the peoples self-interest in carrying on a stable society. I support this kind of "subsidy" 100%.

paulddraper 8y ago
I don't think linuxftw was necessarily saying that government intervention is inappropriate. They were saying that the nature of government intervention is to distort the underlying economics. It is therefore unsurprising when businesses grow up around these temporary distortions rather than long term business models. It's the "price" we pay for whatever upsides there are to the subsidy.
- dv_dt 8y ago
  Then I support this intervention. This idea that there is some "pure" form of undisturbed economics that is practiced outside the framework of achieving some larger social objective is also an absurd myth.
  - WillPostForFood 8y ago
    It is OK to support the intervention, but it's helpful to be honest about what it is (subsidy) so we can have an honest discussion the tradeoffs.
    - dv_dt 8y ago
      Oh then, is the subsidy for fossil fuels and roads driving increased intensity of hurricane storms? If you think so then what should we do with the increased destruction of property who at perhaps only peripherally participated in that subsidy?
  - linuxftw 8y ago
    > Oh then, is the subsidy for fossil fuels and roads driving increased intensity of hurricane storms? I am unable to reply to this directly due to comment depth. Public highways provide certain economic incentives. Land that would be of marginal utility due to transportation costs without public highways now has greater economic utility. This utility provides economic incentives to private automobiles to capitalize on that land. These public highways create traffic and pollution via suburban sprawl that would otherwise be much less. Public utilities also help subsidize suburban sprawl. Increased economic destruction by hurricanes (whether worsened by fossil fuels or not) is due to government providing economic incentives to construct in coastal areas subject to hurricane damage. The federal government subsidizes flood insurance for properties in these areas, make the actual cost of ownership lower for the developers and higher for others (tax payers). Perhaps it's cheaper to not erect suburban neighborhoods in areas prone to flooding in the first place. It's all interconnected. Government subsidies in their various forms impact economic decisions for better or for worse. > If you think so then what should we do with the increased destruction of property who at perhaps only peripherally participated in that subsidy? Don't subsidize the reconstruction of properties damaged by hurricanes and flooding. The market will equalize the situation by 1) Insurance will be more expensive 2) Property value will decrease due to increased insurance cost (total cost of ownership) 3) Builders will be highly incentivized to build more hurricane resistant buildings in order to obtain lower insurance rates 4) Hurricanes will have less economic impact due to the aforementioned facts
    - dv_dt 8y ago
      > Increased economic destruction by hurricanes (whether worsened by fossil fuels or not) is due to government providing economic incentives to construct in coastal areas subject to hurricane damage. No, infrastructure built to hurricane standards 50 years ago might be perfectly strong to stand against current storms of the time. If increased storm strength is cause by fossil fuels (and that likelyhood is strongly supported by scientific studies), then the fossil fuels (with or with subsidies) will have incurred costs to a lot of other externalized actors. Shouldn't that industry have to pay? > Don't subsidize the reconstruction of properties damaged by hurricanes and flooding. By leaving "the market" to contend with increased hurricane resistance alone you have just caused increased expenses for everyone building homes for ignoring fossil fuel externalities (some of which was encouraged by gov't subsisdy). And it's not just homes, it's maybe reworking entire metropolitan areas sewer or housing zones. All of this underlines that the practice of "economics" has no such neutral starting point. Any action, even the action of letting "the market" decide is a social and political decision of helping some parties over others (or, better, helping many parties together). And these decisions often can't be disaggregated into neat isolated and individualized transactions or responsibilities.
- linuxftw 8y ago
  Precisely. Government manipulation of the energy marketplace strongly impacts the economic viability of some energy sources over others. Current market conditions mean people will choose traditional grid-backed energy (most of the time) for economic self-interest reasons. Whether these subsidies are good or bad is up to the reader to decide. There are plenty of people on the internet that are willing to tell others 'what to think.' I just like to highlight what I believe to be the causation so we can achieve an optimal outcome instead of endlessly parroting dogmatic beliefs of any political party.

by dv_dt 8y ago

paulddraper 8y ago

I don't think linuxftw was necessarily saying that government intervention is inappropriate. They were saying that the nature of government intervention is to distort the underlying economics. It is therefore unsurprising when businesses grow up around these temporary distortions rather than long term business models. It's the "price" we pay for whatever upsides there are to the subsidy.

dv_dt 8y ago
Then I support this intervention. This idea that there is some "pure" form of undisturbed economics that is practiced outside the framework of achieving some larger social objective is also an absurd myth.
- WillPostForFood 8y ago
  It is OK to support the intervention, but it's helpful to be honest about what it is (subsidy) so we can have an honest discussion the tradeoffs.
  - dv_dt 8y ago
    Oh then, is the subsidy for fossil fuels and roads driving increased intensity of hurricane storms? If you think so then what should we do with the increased destruction of property who at perhaps only peripherally participated in that subsidy?
- linuxftw 8y ago
  > Oh then, is the subsidy for fossil fuels and roads driving increased intensity of hurricane storms? I am unable to reply to this directly due to comment depth. Public highways provide certain economic incentives. Land that would be of marginal utility due to transportation costs without public highways now has greater economic utility. This utility provides economic incentives to private automobiles to capitalize on that land. These public highways create traffic and pollution via suburban sprawl that would otherwise be much less. Public utilities also help subsidize suburban sprawl. Increased economic destruction by hurricanes (whether worsened by fossil fuels or not) is due to government providing economic incentives to construct in coastal areas subject to hurricane damage. The federal government subsidizes flood insurance for properties in these areas, make the actual cost of ownership lower for the developers and higher for others (tax payers). Perhaps it's cheaper to not erect suburban neighborhoods in areas prone to flooding in the first place. It's all interconnected. Government subsidies in their various forms impact economic decisions for better or for worse. > If you think so then what should we do with the increased destruction of property who at perhaps only peripherally participated in that subsidy? Don't subsidize the reconstruction of properties damaged by hurricanes and flooding. The market will equalize the situation by 1) Insurance will be more expensive 2) Property value will decrease due to increased insurance cost (total cost of ownership) 3) Builders will be highly incentivized to build more hurricane resistant buildings in order to obtain lower insurance rates 4) Hurricanes will have less economic impact due to the aforementioned facts
  - dv_dt 8y ago
    > Increased economic destruction by hurricanes (whether worsened by fossil fuels or not) is due to government providing economic incentives to construct in coastal areas subject to hurricane damage. No, infrastructure built to hurricane standards 50 years ago might be perfectly strong to stand against current storms of the time. If increased storm strength is cause by fossil fuels (and that likelyhood is strongly supported by scientific studies), then the fossil fuels (with or with subsidies) will have incurred costs to a lot of other externalized actors. Shouldn't that industry have to pay? > Don't subsidize the reconstruction of properties damaged by hurricanes and flooding. By leaving "the market" to contend with increased hurricane resistance alone you have just caused increased expenses for everyone building homes for ignoring fossil fuel externalities (some of which was encouraged by gov't subsisdy). And it's not just homes, it's maybe reworking entire metropolitan areas sewer or housing zones. All of this underlines that the practice of "economics" has no such neutral starting point. Any action, even the action of letting "the market" decide is a social and political decision of helping some parties over others (or, better, helping many parties together). And these decisions often can't be disaggregated into neat isolated and individualized transactions or responsibilities.
linuxftw 8y ago
Precisely. Government manipulation of the energy marketplace strongly impacts the economic viability of some energy sources over others. Current market conditions mean people will choose traditional grid-backed energy (most of the time) for economic self-interest reasons. Whether these subsidies are good or bad is up to the reader to decide. There are plenty of people on the internet that are willing to tell others 'what to think.' I just like to highlight what I believe to be the causation so we can achieve an optimal outcome instead of endlessly parroting dogmatic beliefs of any political party.