4 ms·
Yeah, wow. No mention of external costs makes this an incredibly naive analysis. What's the name for the fallacy of getting distracted by dollar signs to the po
by intrepidhero 5y ago
Yeah, wow. No mention of external costs makes this an incredibly naive analysis. What's the name for the fallacy of getting distracted by dollar signs to the point of ignoring downsides? "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch" is a truism for a reason.
- personjerry 5y agoWhat are the external costs?
- Hjfrf 5y agoHealthcare is the big one
- Iefthandrule 5y agoWho gets the profit vs who pays for the costs?
- missedthecue 5y agoSmokers pay more for healthcare, at least in the US. That's an internalized cost, not an externality.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- more_corn 5y agoYou misunderstand what externalized means. Externalized cost means external to the manufacturer. It is a phrase used to refer to a method os extracting profit while harming society/humanity/the world. It literally means a cost born by someone other than the one profiting. The health cost is externalized for the producer because it is shifted to the consumers.
- missedthecue 5y agoWhether someones profiting or not has nothing to do with it. A negative externality is simply any economic activity that imposes costs on an uninvolved party.
- lalaland1125 5y agoCigarettes actually are a net reduction in overall cost. They mostly kill people before they get old enough to have really expensive conditions. It also significantly reduces costs in terms of social security.
- more_corn 5y agoThis is obviously false. As people die of lung cancer and emphysema they generate astronomical costs on the healthcare system. Health insurance then spreads that burden widely so healthy Americans pick up the tab. (assuming of course that markets would accurately reduce the cost of health insurance if costs of healthcare were to drop)
- nemo44x 5y agoHealthy people that beat cancer 5 times and 20 other aliments and croak at 90 are really expensive. Not just in terms of healthcare they consume but social benefits like social security, assisted living, etc. An obese person dying of a heart attach in their mid-50’s is a net positive to society since they have consumed limited health resources, collected few social benefits, and have contributed many social dollars. Smokers die young before they collect most social benefits, plus they pay so many taxes. Smokers are a net benefit to society much like lotto players.
- Ma8ee 5y agoI suspect that is a myth. Treating lung cancer isn't cheap.
- nemo44x 5y agoBut dying before you collect social benefits is. Plus you have to consider the additional taxes smokers pay. In the end on average smokers are a net benefit to society financially.
- Ma8ee 5y agoBut you have to take into account lost productivity, not only from people who died, but also people with varying degrees of illness such as Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. So I’d like to see a source for the statement that smokers are a net benefit to society. To me it sounds too much like one of many myths the tobacco industry spread.
- jliptzin 5y agoWhy should a profitability analysis include external costs when no one in the cigarette supply chain cares about the external costs?
- loeg 5y agoIt sets out to address a very specific question, and does so relatively concisely. I like that it doesn't get distracted and try to address every possible question. It's worth understanding the incentives of the businesses profiting from tobacco to help understand how it is so pernicious to society. I don't think the author is wrong to highlight the profits to businesses.
- curmudgeon22 5y agoI think it's fine for the article to have a focus, profitability in this case. It's an interesting thought experiment after seeing how many people profit at each stage in the tobacco supply chain to then consider how pervasive tobacco was despite all the downsides.