7 ms·

I think that it's important for free market advocates, myself included, to understand something. Negative third party externalities, having direct impacts on in

I think that it's important for free market advocates, myself included, to understand something. Negative third party externalities, having direct impacts on individuals that did not consent to the responsible transaction(s), are fully within the responsibility of the government to regulate and/or tax. You are not violating your principles by backing state intervention for environmental issues.

IAmEveryone 7y ago
Indeed. It’s unfortunate that what was originally a belief in the superiority of capitalism to organize a society to everyone’s benefit has morphed into blind support for existing, large businesses. The best illustration in recent history are probably the attempts to insulate coal power from competition by renewables. Really makes you wonder if people don’t sometimes look in the mirror and wonder “wait, how did I end up here?”
kfk 7y ago
Advocates of real free markets want a carbon tax. Externalities are a real problem and there is a lot of economics research on how to deal with it. The issue is that “right wing” has passed to signify “liberal”. There is nothing less liberal, or capitalistic, than most of the current right wing parties in western countries.
- chewz 7y ago
  Carbon tax is terrible idea. We have a science proving that it won't work. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lucas_Jr https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lucas_Jr. Pseudo-market solutions do not work. They are quickly gamed by market players. It would be just a waste of precious time.
  - VorticesRcool 7y ago
    That link does not say anything about science or a carbon tax. What did that economist have to say about it?
    - chewz 7y ago
      Lucas got Noble prize for proving that market participants game new rules faster then regulators introduce them. Pseudo-market solutions in healtcare (pricing procedures with ICD and allowing market participants compete) are currently proved as inefficient. Net gain for market participants but net loss for people and goverment budgets. So my reservation is for carbon tax as gigantic wealth transfer without real benefits to climate. I am not against urgent action on climate.
      - graeme 7y ago
        Is a tax a regulation in that sense? I’m wary of non-tax responses to climate change for the reasons you suggest, I think they’re easy to game. But with a tax you can only evade. The income tax still raises revenue and discourages income, even though it can be evaded and often is. I think a carbon tax would similarly raise revenue and discourage carbon, while letting us cut worse taxes like the carbon tax.
  - llukas 7y ago
    > We have a science proving that it won't work. I think physicists can say they proven something but it is in principle debatable. Economy is just witchcraft in comparison - please do not give economy more credibility than it deserves.
    - TelmoMenezes 7y ago
      > I think physicists can say they proven something Not even them. It only makes sense to talk about proof in formal domains such as math and logic. Science proves nothing. It is impossible to prove that any given scientific theory will not be falsified in the future. In fact, physics was one of the main inspirations for the idea of "paradigm shift" by Thomas Kuhn in his famous work "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". Talking about proof in science is damaging, and it conveys the wrong idea about what science actually is.
  - belorn 7y ago
    Looking at (https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/2207/economics/carbon-tax-pros-and-cons/ https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/2207/economics/carbon-tax...) the primary argument against Carbon tax is that companies will somehow tax evade even more than in the past, and companies will move to more tax friendly companies than they already do. Is there an argument against carbon tax that can't be said by any other tax?
    - DennisP 7y ago
      The easy way to implement a carbon tax is to tax at major sources, like coal mines and oil wells, and let the producers pass on the cost to everyone else. It's not terribly difficult to assess the amount of coal produced by a mine. It's also fairly difficult to move a coal mine to another country. Of course, people could import their carbon-intensive goods, but most proposals include tariffs on countries without comparable carbon fees. Tariffs like these are explicitly allowed by trade agreements.
    - chewz 7y ago
      The objective of carbon tax is to give incentives to market participants and let the market to the job. In my opinion it will result in creating huge wealth transfers with much real benefit to the climate. I would rather side with Naomi Klein that capitalism proved ineffective in solving problems of this scale.
      - anonuser123456 7y ago
        So decide by fiat it doesn't work rather than run the experiment?
  - Scarblac 7y ago
    Rationing then. What else?
spodek 7y ago
Beyond not just "not violating your principles," it's necessary accounting. If the public pays for part of the costs of something -- say of cleaning up after extraction or pollution -- you haven't accounted for its costs. Without proper accounting, unprofitable businesses can thrive and would-be profitable businesses fail. No economic system can sustain itself without proper accounting.
kenpomeroy 7y ago
Even still, you're assuming the government has the ability to address climate change if given the chance. But, there would need to be global consensus and enforcement or government intervention could actually make the problem worse (e.g. heavy environmental regulatory burden means products get manufactured and shipped from Asia, and actually generate more carbon emissions). Perhaps, free market solutions a la Tesla are all we've got?
- mrpopo 7y ago
  > Perhaps, free market solutions a la Tesla are all we've got? Tesla is still promoting the idea of the individual car, and that electric cars could replace the ICE car for each and every travel that it is used currently. If Tesla is the free market solution, then be prepared to pay the bill for climate change.
  - anonuser123456 7y ago
    Maybe battery tech will continue to be exponential? Seems like there is still a lot of room at the bottom.
  - kenpomeroy 7y ago
    I said Tesla was perhaps "a" solution, not "the" solution. What alternative solutions do you propose?
    - mrpopo 7y ago
      Regarding transportation, it's in my comment. Put an end to the individual car and promote public transportation. Replacing ICE cars with electric cars looks like it's better than nothing, but it's only gonna promote the business-as-usual mindset. Today, even with limited electric car adoption, our energy consumption is growing faster than the production of electricity from renewables is growing. That means more energy from fossil fuels worldwide. We need to slow down until solutions are found.
- nwah1 7y ago
  Tesla has benefitted quite a lot from government subsidies and regulations specifically aimed at encouraging companies like Tesla.

IAmEveryone 7y ago

Indeed. It’s unfortunate that what was originally a belief in the superiority of capitalism to organize a society to everyone’s benefit has morphed into blind support for existing, large businesses. The best illustration in recent history are probably the attempts to insulate coal power from competition by renewables. Really makes you wonder if people don’t sometimes look in the mirror and wonder “wait, how did I end up here?”

kfk 7y ago

Advocates of real free markets want a carbon tax. Externalities are a real problem and there is a lot of economics research on how to deal with it. The issue is that “right wing” has passed to signify “liberal”. There is nothing less liberal, or capitalistic, than most of the current right wing parties in western countries.

chewz 7y ago
Carbon tax is terrible idea. We have a science proving that it won't work. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lucas_Jr https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lucas_Jr. Pseudo-market solutions do not work. They are quickly gamed by market players. It would be just a waste of precious time.
- VorticesRcool 7y ago
  That link does not say anything about science or a carbon tax. What did that economist have to say about it?
  - chewz 7y ago
    Lucas got Noble prize for proving that market participants game new rules faster then regulators introduce them. Pseudo-market solutions in healtcare (pricing procedures with ICD and allowing market participants compete) are currently proved as inefficient. Net gain for market participants but net loss for people and goverment budgets. So my reservation is for carbon tax as gigantic wealth transfer without real benefits to climate. I am not against urgent action on climate.
    - graeme 7y ago
      Is a tax a regulation in that sense? I’m wary of non-tax responses to climate change for the reasons you suggest, I think they’re easy to game. But with a tax you can only evade. The income tax still raises revenue and discourages income, even though it can be evaded and often is. I think a carbon tax would similarly raise revenue and discourage carbon, while letting us cut worse taxes like the carbon tax.
- llukas 7y ago
  > We have a science proving that it won't work. I think physicists can say they proven something but it is in principle debatable. Economy is just witchcraft in comparison - please do not give economy more credibility than it deserves.
  - TelmoMenezes 7y ago
    > I think physicists can say they proven something Not even them. It only makes sense to talk about proof in formal domains such as math and logic. Science proves nothing. It is impossible to prove that any given scientific theory will not be falsified in the future. In fact, physics was one of the main inspirations for the idea of "paradigm shift" by Thomas Kuhn in his famous work "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". Talking about proof in science is damaging, and it conveys the wrong idea about what science actually is.
- belorn 7y ago
  Looking at (https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/2207/economics/carbon-tax-pros-and-cons/ https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/2207/economics/carbon-tax...) the primary argument against Carbon tax is that companies will somehow tax evade even more than in the past, and companies will move to more tax friendly companies than they already do. Is there an argument against carbon tax that can't be said by any other tax?
  - DennisP 7y ago
    The easy way to implement a carbon tax is to tax at major sources, like coal mines and oil wells, and let the producers pass on the cost to everyone else. It's not terribly difficult to assess the amount of coal produced by a mine. It's also fairly difficult to move a coal mine to another country. Of course, people could import their carbon-intensive goods, but most proposals include tariffs on countries without comparable carbon fees. Tariffs like these are explicitly allowed by trade agreements.
  - chewz 7y ago
    The objective of carbon tax is to give incentives to market participants and let the market to the job. In my opinion it will result in creating huge wealth transfers with much real benefit to the climate. I would rather side with Naomi Klein that capitalism proved ineffective in solving problems of this scale.
    - anonuser123456 7y ago
      So decide by fiat it doesn't work rather than run the experiment?
- Scarblac 7y ago
  Rationing then. What else?

spodek 7y ago

Beyond not just "not violating your principles," it's necessary accounting. If the public pays for part of the costs of something -- say of cleaning up after extraction or pollution -- you haven't accounted for its costs. Without proper accounting, unprofitable businesses can thrive and would-be profitable businesses fail. No economic system can sustain itself without proper accounting.

kenpomeroy 7y ago

Even still, you're assuming the government has the ability to address climate change if given the chance. But, there would need to be global consensus and enforcement or government intervention could actually make the problem worse (e.g. heavy environmental regulatory burden means products get manufactured and shipped from Asia, and actually generate more carbon emissions). Perhaps, free market solutions a la Tesla are all we've got?

mrpopo 7y ago
> Perhaps, free market solutions a la Tesla are all we've got? Tesla is still promoting the idea of the individual car, and that electric cars could replace the ICE car for each and every travel that it is used currently. If Tesla is the free market solution, then be prepared to pay the bill for climate change.
- anonuser123456 7y ago
  Maybe battery tech will continue to be exponential? Seems like there is still a lot of room at the bottom.
- kenpomeroy 7y ago
  I said Tesla was perhaps "a" solution, not "the" solution. What alternative solutions do you propose?
  - mrpopo 7y ago
    Regarding transportation, it's in my comment. Put an end to the individual car and promote public transportation. Replacing ICE cars with electric cars looks like it's better than nothing, but it's only gonna promote the business-as-usual mindset. Today, even with limited electric car adoption, our energy consumption is growing faster than the production of electricity from renewables is growing. That means more energy from fossil fuels worldwide. We need to slow down until solutions are found.
nwah1 7y ago
Tesla has benefitted quite a lot from government subsidies and regulations specifically aimed at encouraging companies like Tesla.