4 ms·
Not to disagree with your underlying point, but I think it might be more constructive to frame the problem as a failure to internalize the costs, rather than a
by darawk 5y ago
Not to disagree with your underlying point, but I think it might be more constructive to frame the problem as a failure to internalize the costs, rather than a focus on money. Ultimately we do need a fungible way to compare solutions, and money is the simplest way to do that. We just need to figure out how to effectively internalize those externalities to the price.
- wizzwizz4 5y agoCost functions have an implied ethical system behind them. Using money is just waving your hands over it and going “well, money is objective, so we don't need a value system” – but there's still a value system there. It's like “machine learning” in that regard; there's no magic.
- darawk 5y agoMoney is just a fungible unit of comparison for types of value, nothing more.
- Qwertious 5y agoIn that case, gas plants are the best peaker option in most places as in most place CO2 and methane emissions cost $0.
- 8note 5y agoIs that a meaningful statement? I can rephrase to say that the comparator function for money has an ideological bent. It rewards the externalization of costs
- darawk 5y agoMoney is a unit of measure. Any other unit of measure you choose will be fungible with it. Money is simply a way of unifying things we care about and translating them into the same space. In order to compare two actions, you need to normalize their consequences to make them comparable. This is a fundamental requirement of making decisions. 'Money' is simply the unit we choose to do that in our complex society. We can call it utility points or something else, if you want, but it's still the same abstract object.