4 ms·
The problem with the externalities argument is that nobody really knows what they cost. A market solution would be based upon true supply and demand and agreeme
by ams6110 8y ago
The problem with the externalities argument is that nobody really knows what they cost. A market solution would be based upon true supply and demand and agreement on price in buy / sell transactions. A tax representing the "externality" is just a politically made-up number. So it's sort of free market but not really.
- Gibbon1 8y ago> The problem with the externalities argument is that nobody really knows what they cost. One asks to what degree do we not know the costs? And these costs aren't ketchup economic prices but actual primary environmental effects. You can't buy your way out of those by having the central bank provide more liquidity. > A market solution would be based upon true supply and demand and agreement on price in buy / sell transactions. This is worse because the market not only has no way to price these cost but it is _blind_ to them. That you don't realize this means you think 'free markets' are 'magical' > A tax representing the "externality" is just a politically made-up number. So it's sort of free market but not really. FTI: Your free markets don't exist without politics.
- zorga 8y ago> This is worse because the market not only has no way to price these cost but it is _blind_ to them. That you don't realize this means you think 'free markets' are 'magical' Not the guy you're replying to, but you're wrong. This isn't a debate about effectiveness, it's about whether the tax is a free market solution or not. No one is arguing that the market isn't blind to it; this very well could be a case of a market failure and a tax may very well be the correct solution, it is not however a free market solution. A tax is government interference in the market and is by definition not a free market solution.