4 ms·

Often the choices made by "the individual" don't account for externalities that aren't built into the price. Viz landfills, climate change, effect on those with

Often the choices made by "the individual" don't account for externalities that aren't built into the price. Viz landfills, climate change, effect on those with less economic resources.

seibelj 8y ago
Are you suggesting it's better to ban individual choice because of the existence of landfills and climate change? The market could effectively and efficiently price those into products, if society would pass a law.
- cheerlessbog 8y ago
  No. Did I say that? I like living in a predominantly capitalist society. I would like us to pay more attention to the consequences of consumption. One way to do that is to build it into prices (such as a carbon tax, or upstreaming disposal cost) or by regulation. Building cost into price is actually a very capitalist and arguably libertarian approach as it enables the market to reallocate resources to minimize what would otherwise be an externality.
  - ericd 8y ago
    So you're not disagreeing with the parent. Yes, a carbon tax would be the way to account for that externality while maintaining individual choice.
    - cheerlessbog 8y ago
      That part yes, but not this, "Are you suggesting it's better to ban individual choice ...". That's not a fair characterization.
      - ericd 8y ago
        Ah I see, looks like you guys cleared it up/agreed in a sibling post.
  - seibelj 8y ago
    Great, so we are in agreement. I was confused because: > Often the choices made by "the individual" don't account for externalities that aren't built into the price... You put "the individual" in quotes as if to critique some sort of free-market system based on individuals, and I wanted to emphasize that the system we have can solve those problems.
    - cheerlessbog 8y ago
      Ah I see - that wasn't my intent.
  - zdragnar 8y ago
    Disposal already costs; either you pay directly, through taxes if your local municipality organizes it, or your rent if your property owner organizes it. The cost of disposal varies by where it is disposed, not where it is purchased or made. It makes no sense to add an arbitrary cost to a product when the receiver of that money is not the one dealing with the externality in the first place. The same goes for carbon emissions; a properly managed landfill that captures released methane is in fact a method of carbon sequestration. Adding a carbon tax would merely create a new slush fund or dump into an existing one.
    - teucris 8y ago
      Except that disposal costs are highly distorted - depending on where you are, it’s much cheaper than it should be because of cheap land for landfills, cheap shipping to shift the problem away, etc. Proposals to add cost to disposal are meant to correct for these distortions - to really represent the collective cost to the world. This absolutely should not be done arbitrarily - massive, ongoing research should be done to ensure its correcting for these distortions appropriately. Rinse and repeat for fossil fuels. BTW, a methane-capturing landfill is, at best, carbon neutral, not sequestering.
      - ehmish 8y ago
        Depends what you burying, if it's paper and food waste, it is sequestering. Paper and food contain carbon pulled from the atmosphere, and by preventing it from decomposing by excluding oxygen (e.g most landfills) you get carbon sequestration
        teucris 8y ago
        That causes anerobic composting which turns the carbon into methane. This is either recaptured and burned or goes into the atmosphere.
        zdragnar 8y ago
        Only small amounts of the carbon are converted to methane... enough that capture is worthwhile, but there is certainly a significant portion remaining below ground.
- AlexCoventry 8y ago
  No, only to reduce individual choice when it's clearly pushing away from significantly better global optima than individual choice can achieve.
  - Drakim 8y ago
    For example, while an individual might benefit from stealing, but hurts overall more than it helps, so we try to block that individual choice despite the fact that we might be hurting somebody who is really good at stealing.
- gcb0 8y ago
  yes. ands this already happens everywhere around you. you can't import cars from one place to another, because of emissions. you do not have the rigth to roam on most of the world like you have still in some very select places (e.g. scotland), because of property rights and national security. You can't market any food becuase of public health. Etc. so your capricious question is already done and answered for. individual choice is already banned in many aspects. and you are still choosing to not see it. including in your arguments for buying a smart fridge. you never had the choice either way.
AnthonyMouse 8y ago
In principle the market has answers for these. Landfills are a problem because they're subsidized, because we'd rather provide free/cheap garbage pickup than have people throwing their trash in the street or the ocean. The alternative would be to not subsidize it and then penalize throwing trash on someone else's property with 500 hours of picking up trash. Then there isn't trash in the streets because either people don't put it there or there are plenty of people to pick it back up, and trash collection service costs enough that the plastic junk your plastic junk comes in makes it cost more than the alternative that produces less garbage. Climate change is the same thing. You're releasing CO2 into somebody else's property, which should require their permission. Good luck getting permission from literally everyone in the entire world; might be easier to buy an electric car. These problems were created by making concessions from the principle that interactions should be voluntary. If you're creating an externality then whoever is paying for that externality should have to agree to it before you can do it, and they're not going to agree to that without being appropriately compensated.

Often the choices made by "the individual" don't account for externalities that aren't built into the price. Viz landfills, climate change, effect on those with less economic resources.

seibelj 8y ago

Are you suggesting it's better to ban individual choice because of the existence of landfills and climate change? The market could effectively and efficiently price those into products, if society would pass a law.

cheerlessbog 8y ago
No. Did I say that? I like living in a predominantly capitalist society. I would like us to pay more attention to the consequences of consumption. One way to do that is to build it into prices (such as a carbon tax, or upstreaming disposal cost) or by regulation. Building cost into price is actually a very capitalist and arguably libertarian approach as it enables the market to reallocate resources to minimize what would otherwise be an externality.
- ericd 8y ago
  So you're not disagreeing with the parent. Yes, a carbon tax would be the way to account for that externality while maintaining individual choice.
  - cheerlessbog 8y ago
    That part yes, but not this, "Are you suggesting it's better to ban individual choice ...". That's not a fair characterization.
    - ericd 8y ago
      Ah I see, looks like you guys cleared it up/agreed in a sibling post.
- seibelj 8y ago
  Great, so we are in agreement. I was confused because: > Often the choices made by "the individual" don't account for externalities that aren't built into the price... You put "the individual" in quotes as if to critique some sort of free-market system based on individuals, and I wanted to emphasize that the system we have can solve those problems.
  - cheerlessbog 8y ago
    Ah I see - that wasn't my intent.
- zdragnar 8y ago
  Disposal already costs; either you pay directly, through taxes if your local municipality organizes it, or your rent if your property owner organizes it. The cost of disposal varies by where it is disposed, not where it is purchased or made. It makes no sense to add an arbitrary cost to a product when the receiver of that money is not the one dealing with the externality in the first place. The same goes for carbon emissions; a properly managed landfill that captures released methane is in fact a method of carbon sequestration. Adding a carbon tax would merely create a new slush fund or dump into an existing one.
  - teucris 8y ago
    Except that disposal costs are highly distorted - depending on where you are, it’s much cheaper than it should be because of cheap land for landfills, cheap shipping to shift the problem away, etc. Proposals to add cost to disposal are meant to correct for these distortions - to really represent the collective cost to the world. This absolutely should not be done arbitrarily - massive, ongoing research should be done to ensure its correcting for these distortions appropriately. Rinse and repeat for fossil fuels. BTW, a methane-capturing landfill is, at best, carbon neutral, not sequestering.
    - ehmish 8y ago
      Depends what you burying, if it's paper and food waste, it is sequestering. Paper and food contain carbon pulled from the atmosphere, and by preventing it from decomposing by excluding oxygen (e.g most landfills) you get carbon sequestration
      - teucris 8y ago
        That causes anerobic composting which turns the carbon into methane. This is either recaptured and burned or goes into the atmosphere.
        zdragnar 8y ago
        Only small amounts of the carbon are converted to methane... enough that capture is worthwhile, but there is certainly a significant portion remaining below ground.
AlexCoventry 8y ago
No, only to reduce individual choice when it's clearly pushing away from significantly better global optima than individual choice can achieve.
- Drakim 8y ago
  For example, while an individual might benefit from stealing, but hurts overall more than it helps, so we try to block that individual choice despite the fact that we might be hurting somebody who is really good at stealing.
gcb0 8y ago
yes. ands this already happens everywhere around you. you can't import cars from one place to another, because of emissions. you do not have the rigth to roam on most of the world like you have still in some very select places (e.g. scotland), because of property rights and national security. You can't market any food becuase of public health. Etc. so your capricious question is already done and answered for. individual choice is already banned in many aspects. and you are still choosing to not see it. including in your arguments for buying a smart fridge. you never had the choice either way.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago

In principle the market has answers for these. Landfills are a problem because they're subsidized, because we'd rather provide free/cheap garbage pickup than have people throwing their trash in the street or the ocean. The alternative would be to not subsidize it and then penalize throwing trash on someone else's property with 500 hours of picking up trash. Then there isn't trash in the streets because either people don't put it there or there are plenty of people to pick it back up, and trash collection service costs enough that the plastic junk your plastic junk comes in makes it cost more than the alternative that produces less garbage. Climate change is the same thing. You're releasing CO2 into somebody else's property, which should require their permission. Good luck getting permission from literally everyone in the entire world; might be easier to buy an electric car. These problems were created by making concessions from the principle that interactions should be voluntary. If you're creating an externality then whoever is paying for that externality should have to agree to it before you can do it, and they're not going to agree to that without being appropriately compensated.