5 ms·

Take my intro micro class, or literally any intro micro class, and you will be treated to a chapter on externalities the leading example of which is unpriced ca

Take my intro micro class, or literally any intro micro class, and you will be treated to a chapter on externalities the leading example of which is unpriced carbon emissions which cause global warming. If you can find me an intro micro class at any university in the United States which doesn’t cover externalities and use global warming as an example I’ll give you a dollar. This is literally the fourth or fifth thing we teach students in their first class in the field. Your comment is uninformed.

AtlasBarfed 5y ago
Okay, how about a central banker or think tank economist mentioning global warming at all? THOSE are the economists that matter, the ones that make policy. But they don't want to ruffle the feathers of the masters, they want the gravy train of getting paid to rubberstamp right wing laissez faire U of Chicago cult dogma. Here's another fun one. Let's look at the not-really-a-Nobel-prize winners in Economics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_Memorial_Prize_laureates_in_Economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_Memorial_Prize_l... Hmmmmmmmmmm. Any mention of environmentalism or issues with economic models resulting in exigent danger to the human race? Nope, just a bunch of rich old white guys rewarding price theory and trade models. Your "science" is corrupt to the foundations. I hope I am wrong, because your "science" has been used to marginalize the findings of REAL science for 50 years now.
- SantalBlush 5y ago
  The economic models already describe the harms of pollution, and they have for a long time. The negative externalities of pollution are taught in an intro microecon class, so I'm really not sure why you would expect someone to receive a Nobel for discussing it. You're pretending that laissez-faire economists represent the majority in the field, but that simply isn't true and hasn't been for quite a while. Your rants are about 30 years too late to be relevant.
  - AtlasBarfed 5y ago
    And the reform of economics is 50 years too late to save us from the worst of global warming. I'll give you a pat on the head for trying your best, but your "science" has wrecked the world, and still can't see three months into the future. Externalities can't be accurately quantified by the dismal science. What is the value of a swampland drained? Of an extinction of a species? Please tell me what economics has magically awoken to value these travesties. The endgame of labor in pure economics is still serfdom at best. Globalization, championed by armies of economists for decades, has not just been a disaster but doomed the world by arbitraging what little environmental regulation existed into oblivion. Even the most BASIC externality policy, the carbon tax on gasoline even for just the 20 pounds of CO2 created by currently burning gas, hasn't been instituted in 30 years. In the 30 years of economics magically modernizing, workers have become, what 10x more productive and saw, at best wage stagnation. The rich have become ultra rich, and the governments of the world nakedly bow to their every whim. And the "financialization" of the world. Oh please tell me that isn't the fault of economics. It has completely ruined higher education, housing, was responsible for the second-worst recession in American history, has ruined dozens of corporations such as Intel and GE. Congratulations.
    - SantalBlush 5y ago
      Laying many of these things at the feet of economics is laughably dishonest. You're throwing crap at the wall and hoping something sticks. The only legitimate point you've made here is about globalization, which has actually been part of prevalent theory. The rest is an irrelevant, sanctimonious rant that I don't care about.
      - AtlasBarfed 5y ago
        "Externalities have been a part of economics for years" Okay, why hasn't a carbon tax, the most basic example of an applied cost externality been applied yet? 1 gallon of combusted gasoline is 20 pounds of carbon dioxide. It costs about 100$ to sequester a ton of CO2. It is chemistry 101. Show me you can do the math. At a MINIMUM for the offset of JUST THAT GALLON OF GAS, how much should the carbon tax be? "I've had it with your irrelevant sanctimonious rant" Okay, bury your head in sand, professor. It's not your fault. It's not the fault of your, ah, "field of study", you guys were just publishing papers about meaningless game theory and "ideal conditions" equations that had no applicability to the real world. A bunch of right wing zealots took your little brain teasers and overapplied them to the world to justify their positions. Milton Friedman got a little full of himself and overstepped his bounds and had fun yukking it up with the fat cats. Your central bankers just throw darts at the wall, print some fiat currency, and cross their fingers, and enjoy a nice pension. Keep handing out your "in memory of Alfred B. Nobel" prizes. Meanwhile, real science and technology marches on, and actually improves people's lives.

AtlasBarfed 5y ago

Okay, how about a central banker or think tank economist mentioning global warming at all? THOSE are the economists that matter, the ones that make policy. But they don't want to ruffle the feathers of the masters, they want the gravy train of getting paid to rubberstamp right wing laissez faire U of Chicago cult dogma. Here's another fun one. Let's look at the not-really-a-Nobel-prize winners in Economics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_Memorial_Prize_laureates_in_Economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_Memorial_Prize_l... Hmmmmmmmmmm. Any mention of environmentalism or issues with economic models resulting in exigent danger to the human race? Nope, just a bunch of rich old white guys rewarding price theory and trade models. Your "science" is corrupt to the foundations. I hope I am wrong, because your "science" has been used to marginalize the findings of REAL science for 50 years now.

SantalBlush 5y ago
The economic models already describe the harms of pollution, and they have for a long time. The negative externalities of pollution are taught in an intro microecon class, so I'm really not sure why you would expect someone to receive a Nobel for discussing it. You're pretending that laissez-faire economists represent the majority in the field, but that simply isn't true and hasn't been for quite a while. Your rants are about 30 years too late to be relevant.
- AtlasBarfed 5y ago
  And the reform of economics is 50 years too late to save us from the worst of global warming. I'll give you a pat on the head for trying your best, but your "science" has wrecked the world, and still can't see three months into the future. Externalities can't be accurately quantified by the dismal science. What is the value of a swampland drained? Of an extinction of a species? Please tell me what economics has magically awoken to value these travesties. The endgame of labor in pure economics is still serfdom at best. Globalization, championed by armies of economists for decades, has not just been a disaster but doomed the world by arbitraging what little environmental regulation existed into oblivion. Even the most BASIC externality policy, the carbon tax on gasoline even for just the 20 pounds of CO2 created by currently burning gas, hasn't been instituted in 30 years. In the 30 years of economics magically modernizing, workers have become, what 10x more productive and saw, at best wage stagnation. The rich have become ultra rich, and the governments of the world nakedly bow to their every whim. And the "financialization" of the world. Oh please tell me that isn't the fault of economics. It has completely ruined higher education, housing, was responsible for the second-worst recession in American history, has ruined dozens of corporations such as Intel and GE. Congratulations.
  - SantalBlush 5y ago
    Laying many of these things at the feet of economics is laughably dishonest. You're throwing crap at the wall and hoping something sticks. The only legitimate point you've made here is about globalization, which has actually been part of prevalent theory. The rest is an irrelevant, sanctimonious rant that I don't care about.
    - AtlasBarfed 5y ago
      "Externalities have been a part of economics for years" Okay, why hasn't a carbon tax, the most basic example of an applied cost externality been applied yet? 1 gallon of combusted gasoline is 20 pounds of carbon dioxide. It costs about 100$ to sequester a ton of CO2. It is chemistry 101. Show me you can do the math. At a MINIMUM for the offset of JUST THAT GALLON OF GAS, how much should the carbon tax be? "I've had it with your irrelevant sanctimonious rant" Okay, bury your head in sand, professor. It's not your fault. It's not the fault of your, ah, "field of study", you guys were just publishing papers about meaningless game theory and "ideal conditions" equations that had no applicability to the real world. A bunch of right wing zealots took your little brain teasers and overapplied them to the world to justify their positions. Milton Friedman got a little full of himself and overstepped his bounds and had fun yukking it up with the fat cats. Your central bankers just throw darts at the wall, print some fiat currency, and cross their fingers, and enjoy a nice pension. Keep handing out your "in memory of Alfred B. Nobel" prizes. Meanwhile, real science and technology marches on, and actually improves people's lives.