3 ms·

> If all countries had robust carbon taxes or similar schemes, then you could possibly argue that the price of bitcoin reflects their true cost. Possibly. But d

by noch 6y ago

> If all countries had robust carbon taxes or similar schemes, then you could possibly argue that the price of bitcoin reflects their true cost. Possibly. But definitely not now. This contradicts your earlier point that markets can't resolve negative externalities. Presumably a tax will cause a marked market response. Further, Bitcoin's price is a reflection of demand, not cost. In the long run, however, the price of any currency will likely converge to its cost of production, which is also why fiat is fundamentally a poor store of value. > You really don't get the concept of "tragedy of the commons" do you? The tragedy of the commons is mostly in the word "commons", as opposed to "private property". I merely have a different opinion on how negative externalities should be resolved. [0] > We all pay because of the negative externalities involved with producing electricity [...] Such a statement is too nebulous to be useful. Consider that what "we" pay is entirely subjective based on what individuals value. I know people who care deeply about every part per millon of carbon emission while others don't. How then do you propose to determine what "we" pay? Who is this "we"? Are you going to somehow convince nonplussed people that they are paying for some particular externality that they don't care about? Suffering and loss are subjective. You want carbon taxes, enforced by some authority who can presumably accurately determine the correct price for such things. All I can say is good luck. And how many other externalities would you like taxed? At what granularity? Perhaps households or individuals should pay carbon taxes too? What about all that energy wasted on Christmas lights?[1] What's your preferred maximum level of elictricity production that will guarantee carbon neutrality? Is carbon neutrality the most important thing and everything else a distant second? However, for those who care deeply about the matter, they can make their preferences and values felt right now and every day in the market, which is especially easy to do in cryptocurrency markets. Organise a coalition to short Bitcoin to protect the environment. Surely there are many of you just on HN alone given that this article was on the front page. Shorting is a form of taxing. Drive the price to 0. Save the environment. If one is not willing to have skin in the game to stop Bitcoin's energy consumption, they are just larping as saviours of the environment. [0]: https://mises.org/library/austrian-theory-environmental-economics https://mises.org/library/austrian-theory-environmental-econ... [1] https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/features/christmas-lights-energy/ https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/features/christmas-lights-e...

Grustaf 6y ago
> This contradicts your earlier point that markets can't resolve negative externalities. Presumably a tax will cause a marked market response. Not at all. Things like carbon taxes internalise the externalities. It makes all electricity consumers pay the true cost of electricity, at least as far as can be determined. I know that libertarians are as dogmatic as any marxist, but it seems to me that you should be more interested than anyone else in internalising the true cost of things into their price? If you want to rely on the market as much as possible, then all the more reason to make sure that the cost of making things includes all the costs. Only then can consumers make a considered purchase. As the text in your link so eloquently puts it: "Social inefficiency arises when the social costs associated with external effects, such as air or water pollution, are not incorporated into the cost of producing the pollution generating product or its market price." Almost every single one of your statements here reflect a misunderstanding of my argument, basic economics and/or your own Austrian philosophy.
- noch 6y ago
  > Almost every single one of your statements here reflect a misunderstanding of my argument, basic economics and/or your own Austrian philosophy. You think I don't understand my own thoughts (which aren't Austrian but merely mine). Meanwhile I think you don't understand what I'm expressing. Thus, we agree to disagree. Thanks for the conversation. Bonne chance.
  - Grustaf 6y ago
    The link you posted to refute my points very clearly and eloquently repeated my point.

by noch 6y ago

Grustaf 6y ago

> This contradicts your earlier point that markets can't resolve negative externalities. Presumably a tax will cause a marked market response. Not at all. Things like carbon taxes internalise the externalities. It makes all electricity consumers pay the true cost of electricity, at least as far as can be determined. I know that libertarians are as dogmatic as any marxist, but it seems to me that you should be more interested than anyone else in internalising the true cost of things into their price? If you want to rely on the market as much as possible, then all the more reason to make sure that the cost of making things includes all the costs. Only then can consumers make a considered purchase. As the text in your link so eloquently puts it: "Social inefficiency arises when the social costs associated with external effects, such as air or water pollution, are not incorporated into the cost of producing the pollution generating product or its market price." Almost every single one of your statements here reflect a misunderstanding of my argument, basic economics and/or your own Austrian philosophy.

noch 6y ago
> Almost every single one of your statements here reflect a misunderstanding of my argument, basic economics and/or your own Austrian philosophy. You think I don't understand my own thoughts (which aren't Austrian but merely mine). Meanwhile I think you don't understand what I'm expressing. Thus, we agree to disagree. Thanks for the conversation. Bonne chance.
- Grustaf 6y ago
  The link you posted to refute my points very clearly and eloquently repeated my point.