7 ms·

Private profit, socialized losses. Now I understand what you meant. I believe the government enables these actors, not prevents them. Finance sector is the rece

Private profit, socialized losses. Now I understand what you meant. I believe the government enables these actors, not prevents them. Finance sector is the recent example. Polluters are protected from being sued (and damages are capped) by the government. I think there is room for well defined externalities to be captured in transactions, but handing out subsidies to special interest in the name of technology progress is ridiculous. Who picks the winners and losers? How long do you subsidize? Who pays when the costs of the new tech do not come down? Will you raise the cost of transportation so I can develop teleportation technology? I think Spain is going to provide a painful lesson in what happens when you subsidize green tech, and unfortunately the people who pay for it are already impoverished.

Benjo 16y ago
The finance sector is a perfect example of how an industry influences the government for profit, to the detriment of the greater goals of a society. I don't think lawsuits are a suitable way to deal with the energy problem, but I could be convinced. Lawsuits as they exist today give too much power to those with more legal resources. The government already provides incentives to individuals who don't murder people, and businesses who don't hire child workers. There's lots of profit to be made in building an army and stealing from others, but we discourage it as a society because it doesn't result in a net benefit. There are plenty of fines for fraud and other transactions that are deemed to be not in the best interest of society, no matter how much profit they generate for the actor. Where is the break-even point on this spectrum as far as you are concerned? The winners are still picked by market forces. The losers are picked by the scientific evidence and the decision making processes of our democracy. The market is set up to penalize actors who take from the common good. "Subsidy" is a misnomer, think of it as a sumptuary tax or a fine. These taxes can be left in place indefinitely, since the goal is to discourage use.
VladRussian 16y ago
>I believe the government enables these actors, not prevents them. some governments, some actions. Some governments kill their people, some - protect, though still killing a bit. >I think there is room for well defined externalities to be captured in transactions, but handing out subsidies to special interest in the name of technology progress is ridiculous. yep, that is the point- minimizing the subsidies. 200-50 years ago we didn't know these externalities - they weren't included. Once they recognized - they need to be included. That really means removing [recognized] subsidy. No new subsidies should be created. Any subsidies, even for green tech, limit the market forces and create tumor of special interest on the body of the economy. >I think Spain is going to provide a painful lesson in what happens when you subsidize green tech no arguing here. Have you heard about Russian cars? It is the most heavily subsidized and protected industries in Russia. Such ugly and low-tech (and overpriced) cars can't be found anywhere.

Benjo 16y ago

The finance sector is a perfect example of how an industry influences the government for profit, to the detriment of the greater goals of a society. I don't think lawsuits are a suitable way to deal with the energy problem, but I could be convinced. Lawsuits as they exist today give too much power to those with more legal resources. The government already provides incentives to individuals who don't murder people, and businesses who don't hire child workers. There's lots of profit to be made in building an army and stealing from others, but we discourage it as a society because it doesn't result in a net benefit. There are plenty of fines for fraud and other transactions that are deemed to be not in the best interest of society, no matter how much profit they generate for the actor. Where is the break-even point on this spectrum as far as you are concerned? The winners are still picked by market forces. The losers are picked by the scientific evidence and the decision making processes of our democracy. The market is set up to penalize actors who take from the common good. "Subsidy" is a misnomer, think of it as a sumptuary tax or a fine. These taxes can be left in place indefinitely, since the goal is to discourage use.

VladRussian 16y ago

>I believe the government enables these actors, not prevents them. some governments, some actions. Some governments kill their people, some - protect, though still killing a bit. >I think there is room for well defined externalities to be captured in transactions, but handing out subsidies to special interest in the name of technology progress is ridiculous. yep, that is the point- minimizing the subsidies. 200-50 years ago we didn't know these externalities - they weren't included. Once they recognized - they need to be included. That really means removing [recognized] subsidy. No new subsidies should be created. Any subsidies, even for green tech, limit the market forces and create tumor of special interest on the body of the economy. >I think Spain is going to provide a painful lesson in what happens when you subsidize green tech no arguing here. Have you heard about Russian cars? It is the most heavily subsidized and protected industries in Russia. Such ugly and low-tech (and overpriced) cars can't be found anywhere.