4 ms·

> There is a big BUG in marketing economics that we do not have a price for external Junk/Waste. This is called a negative externality, and it's been understoo

> There is a big BUG in marketing economics that we do not have a price for external Junk/Waste. This is called a negative externality, and it's been understood by economists for about a century. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality#Negative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality#Negative One of the reasons negative externalities persist is that they're hard to put a price on. How would you calculate the economic cost of the marginal piece of space junk? In practice governments will have to do their best to impose reasonable frictions, by taxing launches or otherwise regulating them. But I think it's more correct to call this a genuinely hard problem in economics, as opposed to a bug.

walleeee 5y ago
I think what most warrants critique is the fact that despite a century of alleged awareness, no extant economic policy even begins to address the problem in its full scope We've been saying "in practice governments must impose reasonable frictions" since the 1970s at least, with the reentry of ecological concerns into public consciousness in the west, and still we've barely begun We barrel down this road under the guidance of a great many economists for a hundred years or more despite our "understanding" this genuinely hard problem? Are we mad? Suicidal?
- titzer 5y ago
  > We barrel down this road under the guidance of a great many economists Properly understood, economics has always been harnessed as a tool to maximize profit for the rich, a bit like shady "doctors" for elite athletes administering performance-enhancing drugs, optimizing their short-term gains at the expense of long-term consequences, completely unlike real doctors who look out for the general well-being of patients. There are few economists who care about long-term consequences that actually influence policymakers.
  - jdgoesmarching 5y ago
    This. Most of the field is centered around maximizing or defending the interests of billionaires. It’s one of my favorite disciplines, but after reviewing the curriculum of a major econ program nearby I decided not to pursue it for basically this reason.
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago
  If economists made the laws, our systems would look drastically different. Most of them love the idea of massive pigeuvian taxes to offset negative externalities, because it's the exact opposite of a distortionary tax: it corrects an existing problem rather than creating a new one. Unfortunately, our laws are made by politicians, who are beholden to the voters, who aren't tremendously well versed in theoretical tax policy, so we end up with silly things like corporate income taxes and rent control even though they're massively unpopular among almost all economists, regardless of political leaning. I think the real question is: Why have economists been so damn ineffective? What can they do differently to spread their ideas?
  - walleeee 5y ago
    I think your question is a good one but not so sure about chalking our woes up to ignorance in the voting booth If economics is like most academic disciplines it likely has its share of pathological incentive structures, genuflection to special interests, overpromising, for instance And not sure we should expect to find a comprehensive answer to a question like "why is our system the way it is" in a single unambiguous sentence or cause

walleeee 5y ago

I think what most warrants critique is the fact that despite a century of alleged awareness, no extant economic policy even begins to address the problem in its full scope We've been saying "in practice governments must impose reasonable frictions" since the 1970s at least, with the reentry of ecological concerns into public consciousness in the west, and still we've barely begun We barrel down this road under the guidance of a great many economists for a hundred years or more despite our "understanding" this genuinely hard problem? Are we mad? Suicidal?

titzer 5y ago
> We barrel down this road under the guidance of a great many economists Properly understood, economics has always been harnessed as a tool to maximize profit for the rich, a bit like shady "doctors" for elite athletes administering performance-enhancing drugs, optimizing their short-term gains at the expense of long-term consequences, completely unlike real doctors who look out for the general well-being of patients. There are few economists who care about long-term consequences that actually influence policymakers.
- jdgoesmarching 5y ago
  This. Most of the field is centered around maximizing or defending the interests of billionaires. It’s one of my favorite disciplines, but after reviewing the curriculum of a major econ program nearby I decided not to pursue it for basically this reason.
rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago
If economists made the laws, our systems would look drastically different. Most of them love the idea of massive pigeuvian taxes to offset negative externalities, because it's the exact opposite of a distortionary tax: it corrects an existing problem rather than creating a new one. Unfortunately, our laws are made by politicians, who are beholden to the voters, who aren't tremendously well versed in theoretical tax policy, so we end up with silly things like corporate income taxes and rent control even though they're massively unpopular among almost all economists, regardless of political leaning. I think the real question is: Why have economists been so damn ineffective? What can they do differently to spread their ideas?
- walleeee 5y ago
  I think your question is a good one but not so sure about chalking our woes up to ignorance in the voting booth If economics is like most academic disciplines it likely has its share of pathological incentive structures, genuflection to special interests, overpromising, for instance And not sure we should expect to find a comprehensive answer to a question like "why is our system the way it is" in a single unambiguous sentence or cause