4 ms·

Because it may cost a little money in the short term. Or it may mean admitting politicians from a different viewpoint might be right.

• nosianu 5y ago
  "Costs money" is not an argument that is of much use - for an economy. Cost is income. It's a circle. Only when you apply the mindset of an individual does that cost avoidance mindset make sense. Then "costs" represent something really gone and lost. On a bigger scale though, if you want more income for more people you don't want to reduce "costs", quite the opposite. The question for an economy is, does the flow of money lead to outcomes we want? I'd say if it flows through paths that lead to the growth of businesses that are good to reduce climate change impact that is something we want. On the other hand, if it flows through paths that lead to growth of purely financial constructs, wealth concentration (which also concentrates control, quite the opposite of the mantra of capitalism which is supposed to be freedom to do your own thing), or more unwanted telephone calls, or overpriced medicine, that's something where we would want to redirect some of the flow. For an economy, money is more about the flow, like blood. Where it passes things grow. So we want to look at the paths of the flows. "Cost" is of little use here. Of course, if you have a concrete thing you are looking at and want it to be more efficient cost again makes sense, but in this discussion here we are trying to make different kinds of decisions, where "cost" is less helpful, since we don't even have anything concrete that we want to make more efficient. DISCLAIMER - These are the thoughts of someone not trained in (apart from a few semesters on the side while studying something technical) or working anything related to economics.