4 ms·

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

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.
- SantalBlush 5y ago
  >Okay, why hasn't a carbon tax, the most basic example of an applied cost externality been applied yet? Greed. Politicians are afraid to try it. But you knew that already and you're grasping at straws. Pretending that the majority of economists are against externality taxes like the carbon tax is a lie, and you've already been corrected for it. Not much more to say, but keep trying.
  - AtlasBarfed 5y ago
    Here's a fun exercise: type "scientists sign global warming declaration" in google. Boom: https://abcnews.go.com/International/11000-scientists-sign-declaration-global-climate-emergency/story?id=66774137 https://abcnews.go.com/International/11000-scientists-sign-d... This is what I got when I type in the equivalent for "economists": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economists%27_Statement_on_Climate_Change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economists%27_Statement_on_Cli... Do you see the difference? Do you see the collective shrug? Do you see the eye rolling, the cultural alignment with entrenched industrial interests? Do you see how they position themselves as the science -> policy gateway, and basically only offer "weak sauce" solutions? Ones that anyone with any superficial awareness of politics, globalization, undermining regulation, and bending the law would recognize that those "market based solutions" were designed to fail? Can you see that, or are you blind? That statement is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. Worship of markets above all else. Contempt of regulation. Ok sure, it was 1997. ... why isn't there anything more recent? STRONG statements by the critical economic think tanks and departments of the land, those critical policy translators providing guidance to politicians... why isn't there a statement on par with the scientific community? WHY? One other thing... are you an adjunct professor or a TA? Even if you are chaired, you know about adjuncts and TAs. The slave labor class of higher education, part of the disenfranchisement of the current generation. The result of market forces to undermine the entrenched rent-seeking behavior of chaired tenured professorships. Does anyone in your economics department care? I doubt it. Economics in action.

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.

SantalBlush 5y ago
>Okay, why hasn't a carbon tax, the most basic example of an applied cost externality been applied yet? Greed. Politicians are afraid to try it. But you knew that already and you're grasping at straws. Pretending that the majority of economists are against externality taxes like the carbon tax is a lie, and you've already been corrected for it. Not much more to say, but keep trying.
- AtlasBarfed 5y ago
  Here's a fun exercise: type "scientists sign global warming declaration" in google. Boom: https://abcnews.go.com/International/11000-scientists-sign-declaration-global-climate-emergency/story?id=66774137 https://abcnews.go.com/International/11000-scientists-sign-d... This is what I got when I type in the equivalent for "economists": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economists%27_Statement_on_Climate_Change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economists%27_Statement_on_Cli... Do you see the difference? Do you see the collective shrug? Do you see the eye rolling, the cultural alignment with entrenched industrial interests? Do you see how they position themselves as the science -> policy gateway, and basically only offer "weak sauce" solutions? Ones that anyone with any superficial awareness of politics, globalization, undermining regulation, and bending the law would recognize that those "market based solutions" were designed to fail? Can you see that, or are you blind? That statement is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. Worship of markets above all else. Contempt of regulation. Ok sure, it was 1997. ... why isn't there anything more recent? STRONG statements by the critical economic think tanks and departments of the land, those critical policy translators providing guidance to politicians... why isn't there a statement on par with the scientific community? WHY? One other thing... are you an adjunct professor or a TA? Even if you are chaired, you know about adjuncts and TAs. The slave labor class of higher education, part of the disenfranchisement of the current generation. The result of market forces to undermine the entrenched rent-seeking behavior of chaired tenured professorships. Does anyone in your economics department care? I doubt it. Economics in action.