11 ms·

When people look to solutions of the free market this is an interesting example. We knew lead from petrol was poisoning everything -- deformed babies, ruined e

by s_dev 4y ago

When people look to solutions of the free market this is an interesting example. We knew lead from petrol was poisoning everything -- deformed babies, ruined ecosystems etc. and yet the price incentive ensured it would never be dropped as a consumer product -- people kept buying leaded petrol as the cost would always be externalized somewhere else. The government had to step in and and ban the practice. Why didn't the free market solve this particular problem? Neil DeGrasse Tyson looked at Clare Patterson's work (the whistleblower of leaded petrol being harmful) in an episode of Cosmos. Highly recommend it -- very interesting episode.

rootusrootus 4y ago
> Why didn't the free market solve this particular problem? Information asymmetry & greed. And consumers who would fail the marshmallow test.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  I sense that you're using "marshmallow test" as shorthand or euphemism for essentially calling people stupid, or undisciplined. Basically saying that as long as people have some agency to avoid a consequence, experiencing that consequence is their choice and fault. Anyway these things and more are part of "the market" too. If a market framework can't find effective solutions in the presence of real people with human faults and weaknesses, then what value is it to us?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
whatshisface 4y ago
The free market obviously didn't work because it was a third party being harmed - unless you're in a capitalist anarchy like Snowcrash with gangs for hire there is no market-based mechanism for representing the interests of anyone not party to a sale. The real question is why the liability plus liability insurance system (the actual alternative to regulation) did not work. Why did those companies not fear litigation when it started becoming known that they could be subject to a class action with the size of the entire population? Who was protecting them, and how?
- indymike 4y ago
  The problem here was the regulator injected into the process has gone full snail speed on approving unleaded for aviation use. Oh, and as far a liability goes, that would be the FAA that held things up, not the engine manufacturers, gas producers or plane owners. So the regulator was the problem.
jandrese 4y ago
> Why didn't the free market solve this particular problem? The Free Market doesn't care about externalities. Whichever solution produces the desired results for the lowest amount of money wins. If it happens to destroy the environment in the process the market has no idea because the environment isn't on the market. This is the reason regulation exists, and why sometimes regulation causes companies to go out of business, because the regulation can't be applied globally and if there is somewhere else in the world where the environment can be destroyed to produce the product more cheaply then that is what will happen. It is a tragedy that we apply environmental regulation locally when the environment is a shared global resource.
- bombcar 4y ago
  It's not just the "free market" it's human nature; unless presented with an immediate pressing issue, people will not choose the "best option" in many cases. Smoking is a perfect example, and it goes downhill from there.
  - crowbahr 4y ago
    Yes but Ayn Randian free market capitalists insist that the only issue we face is regulation. The point is that no, you cannot live in a utopia and have an unregulated market. The market will greed itself into non-existence.
  - scythe 4y ago
    The international economy is a de facto "free" market, or at least freër on the whole than its constituent countries. This can lead to a "race to the bottom", with the most damaging activities concentrated in the most permissive jurisdictions. That's where we — qua humanity — run into trouble.
- Workaccount2 4y ago
  I think it is more timescales. The effects aren't externalized from the market, they are externalized to some point in the future. Eventually the market will collide with the massive pile of externalities laying in its future path. Lead gas would eventually reach the point of doing so much damage that people wouldn't want to use it anymore, even if it was cheaper. Even if it didn't get to this point, eventually it would be killing/debilitating so many people that it phases itself out.
photochemsyn 4y ago
Well, the solution proposed 100 years ago was to blend ethanol in with the gasoline. Ethanol has one oxygen atom leading to more even combustion (less explosive, less 'knock', more complete combusyion) in an ICE. You have to blend in ~10%. Tetra-ethyl-lead does the same thing but at a concentration of 1% or so IIRC, with lead serving the same role as oxygen. Later on, a compound called MTBE (methyl-tert-butyl-ether) which contains oxygen was used, but has been mostly phased out in the USA due to serious groundwater contamination issues related to leaking storage tanks. The basic market reason ethanol wasn't used originally is that it was produced by farmers not by oil distillers, so this meant taking profits away from the oil sector and giving them to the agricultural sector. There's some evidence that one reason the JD Rockefeller pushed Prohibition in the USA was to lock farmers out of the automobile fuel business. Since 2003 in California at least, ethanol is the major fuel additive that's replaced TEL and MTBE. Markets are not free in the energy sector, they're highly controlled and monopolized, and basically always have been. This is why many counties have chosen to essentially nationalize their energy production and distribution systems. All other market activity relies on a stable energy supply, it's similar to water in that respect.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  > Tetra-ethyl-lead does the same thing but at a concentration of 1% or so A gallon of gas weighs around 3.8kg. TEL concentrations for most of the period of auto use were 2-3g/gal (so under 0.1% by mass). The current spec of 100LL avgas has a maximum of 2.12g/gal (~0.056%)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
JohnWhigham 4y ago
Why didn't the free market solve this particular problem? Because consumers don't give a shit. As long as they can still go to Walmart and buy their feed, they don't care.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Basically every consumer protection and environmental regulation fits this pattern. Why people would think these things don't need regulation is a better question. Upton Sinclair's the Jungle is one famous example: https://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-24-1-b-upton-sinclairs-the-jungle-muckraking-the-meat-packing-industry.html https://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-24-1-b... > Almost as an afterthought, Sinclair included a chapter on how diseased, rotten, and contaminated meat products were processed, doctored by chemicals, and mislabeled for sale to the public. He wrote that workers would process dead, injured, and diseased animals after regular hours when no meat inspectors were around. He explained how pork fat and beef scraps were canned and labeled as "potted chicken." > Sinclair wrote that meat for canning and sausage was piled on the floor before workers carried it off in carts holding sawdust, human spit and urine, rat dung, rat poison, and even dead rats. His most famous description of a meat-packing horror concerned men who fell into steaming lard vats: > . . . and when they were fished out, there was never enough of them left to be worth exhibiting, --sometimes they would be overlooked for days, till all but the bones of them had gone out to the world as Durham's Pure Leaf Lard!
the_optimist 4y ago
The actual, current discussions on regulation in the field make clear that the primary impediment to adoption is in fact government.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
kelseyfrog 4y ago
> Why didn't the free market solve this particular problem? What (categories of) problem(s) do folks generally think markets solve?
paxys 4y ago
Nothing "interesting" about it. Every free market system is a victim of the tragedy of the commons. This is exactly why regulation is needed.
- aeternum 4y ago
  In this case however the free market has solved the problem, Lycoming and the other mainstream aviation engine manufacturers have tested their engines with unleaded (G100UL) and are ready to go. It's the regulatory body, the FAA that makes it illegal to use G100UL for most aircraft.
godelski 4y ago
> When people look to solutions of the free market this is an interesting example. I think it is weird that people are still all for Laissez-Faire economics, considering we've tried it several times in history and it has always failed miserably (in before the ~~communists~~ say "but that wasn't _real_ Laissez-Faire). We literally saw it lead to quazi governments (meaning it literally destroys itself). I do believe capitalism has a lot of advantages, but no system is perfect. There probably is no global optima for the solution space. Worse, the solution space is dynamic! Good news is that we do know that multi-agent reinforcement games are pretty good at finding local optima (though they can often get trapped in local optima that we don't want). I think if you understand this it is clear that we need a body that can react to the dynamic nature of both the environment and desires (of the people) that can continually optimize and update the rules. I do think there's debate of how to do this, but I think it is very clear that too heavy of a hand isn't good and neither is too light of a hand. A pure competitive system can't account for externalizes or better yet, tragedy of the commons. As our world becomes even more complex and interconnected, and as we understand more about our environment and consequences of our actions, it is imperative that we think about these issues in a far more nuanced way and avoid thinking there are "correct" answers (as opposed to "good enough").
grammers 4y ago
It's often the case: Make profit, externalize the costs. Fracking is another very good example. Actually, the more you think about it many of very profitable companies do profit by externalizing the costs. That's also why they put so much money into lobbying: So no one will change the system.
para_parolu 4y ago
I think there is a way to solve it within market but without hard regulations. Everyone who lives near airport where leaded fuel is used should go to court and ask for large sum as compensation for possible health problem. And amount should be so bug that selling this fuel would become very unprofitable.
- blt 4y ago
  Airport approach paths are usually above lower income neighborhoods, where residents don't have the time, money, or energy to make this happen. Same pattern appears for other externalized environmental costs. Dump it in the poor neighborhood/city/state/country.

by s_dev 4y ago

rootusrootus 4y ago

> Why didn't the free market solve this particular problem? Information asymmetry & greed. And consumers who would fail the marshmallow test.

giraffe_lady 4y ago
I sense that you're using "marshmallow test" as shorthand or euphemism for essentially calling people stupid, or undisciplined. Basically saying that as long as people have some agency to avoid a consequence, experiencing that consequence is their choice and fault. Anyway these things and more are part of "the market" too. If a market framework can't find effective solutions in the presence of real people with human faults and weaknesses, then what value is it to us?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

whatshisface 4y ago

The free market obviously didn't work because it was a third party being harmed - unless you're in a capitalist anarchy like Snowcrash with gangs for hire there is no market-based mechanism for representing the interests of anyone not party to a sale. The real question is why the liability plus liability insurance system (the actual alternative to regulation) did not work. Why did those companies not fear litigation when it started becoming known that they could be subject to a class action with the size of the entire population? Who was protecting them, and how?

indymike 4y ago
The problem here was the regulator injected into the process has gone full snail speed on approving unleaded for aviation use. Oh, and as far a liability goes, that would be the FAA that held things up, not the engine manufacturers, gas producers or plane owners. So the regulator was the problem.

jandrese 4y ago

> Why didn't the free market solve this particular problem? The Free Market doesn't care about externalities. Whichever solution produces the desired results for the lowest amount of money wins. If it happens to destroy the environment in the process the market has no idea because the environment isn't on the market. This is the reason regulation exists, and why sometimes regulation causes companies to go out of business, because the regulation can't be applied globally and if there is somewhere else in the world where the environment can be destroyed to produce the product more cheaply then that is what will happen. It is a tragedy that we apply environmental regulation locally when the environment is a shared global resource.

bombcar 4y ago
It's not just the "free market" it's human nature; unless presented with an immediate pressing issue, people will not choose the "best option" in many cases. Smoking is a perfect example, and it goes downhill from there.
- crowbahr 4y ago
  Yes but Ayn Randian free market capitalists insist that the only issue we face is regulation. The point is that no, you cannot live in a utopia and have an unregulated market. The market will greed itself into non-existence.
- scythe 4y ago
  The international economy is a de facto "free" market, or at least freër on the whole than its constituent countries. This can lead to a "race to the bottom", with the most damaging activities concentrated in the most permissive jurisdictions. That's where we — qua humanity — run into trouble.
Workaccount2 4y ago
I think it is more timescales. The effects aren't externalized from the market, they are externalized to some point in the future. Eventually the market will collide with the massive pile of externalities laying in its future path. Lead gas would eventually reach the point of doing so much damage that people wouldn't want to use it anymore, even if it was cheaper. Even if it didn't get to this point, eventually it would be killing/debilitating so many people that it phases itself out.

photochemsyn 4y ago

Well, the solution proposed 100 years ago was to blend ethanol in with the gasoline. Ethanol has one oxygen atom leading to more even combustion (less explosive, less 'knock', more complete combusyion) in an ICE. You have to blend in ~10%. Tetra-ethyl-lead does the same thing but at a concentration of 1% or so IIRC, with lead serving the same role as oxygen. Later on, a compound called MTBE (methyl-tert-butyl-ether) which contains oxygen was used, but has been mostly phased out in the USA due to serious groundwater contamination issues related to leaking storage tanks. The basic market reason ethanol wasn't used originally is that it was produced by farmers not by oil distillers, so this meant taking profits away from the oil sector and giving them to the agricultural sector. There's some evidence that one reason the JD Rockefeller pushed Prohibition in the USA was to lock farmers out of the automobile fuel business. Since 2003 in California at least, ethanol is the major fuel additive that's replaced TEL and MTBE. Markets are not free in the energy sector, they're highly controlled and monopolized, and basically always have been. This is why many counties have chosen to essentially nationalize their energy production and distribution systems. All other market activity relies on a stable energy supply, it's similar to water in that respect.

sokoloff 4y ago
> Tetra-ethyl-lead does the same thing but at a concentration of 1% or so A gallon of gas weighs around 3.8kg. TEL concentrations for most of the period of auto use were 2-3g/gal (so under 0.1% by mass). The current spec of 100LL avgas has a maximum of 2.12g/gal (~0.056%)
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

JohnWhigham 4y ago

Why didn't the free market solve this particular problem? Because consumers don't give a shit. As long as they can still go to Walmart and buy their feed, they don't care.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

Basically every consumer protection and environmental regulation fits this pattern. Why people would think these things don't need regulation is a better question. Upton Sinclair's the Jungle is one famous example: https://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-24-1-b-upton-sinclairs-the-jungle-muckraking-the-meat-packing-industry.html https://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-24-1-b... > Almost as an afterthought, Sinclair included a chapter on how diseased, rotten, and contaminated meat products were processed, doctored by chemicals, and mislabeled for sale to the public. He wrote that workers would process dead, injured, and diseased animals after regular hours when no meat inspectors were around. He explained how pork fat and beef scraps were canned and labeled as "potted chicken." > Sinclair wrote that meat for canning and sausage was piled on the floor before workers carried it off in carts holding sawdust, human spit and urine, rat dung, rat poison, and even dead rats. His most famous description of a meat-packing horror concerned men who fell into steaming lard vats: > . . . and when they were fished out, there was never enough of them left to be worth exhibiting, --sometimes they would be overlooked for days, till all but the bones of them had gone out to the world as Durham's Pure Leaf Lard!

the_optimist 4y ago

The actual, current discussions on regulation in the field make clear that the primary impediment to adoption is in fact government.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

kelseyfrog 4y ago

> Why didn't the free market solve this particular problem? What (categories of) problem(s) do folks generally think markets solve?

paxys 4y ago

Nothing "interesting" about it. Every free market system is a victim of the tragedy of the commons. This is exactly why regulation is needed.

aeternum 4y ago
In this case however the free market has solved the problem, Lycoming and the other mainstream aviation engine manufacturers have tested their engines with unleaded (G100UL) and are ready to go. It's the regulatory body, the FAA that makes it illegal to use G100UL for most aircraft.

godelski 4y ago

> When people look to solutions of the free market this is an interesting example. I think it is weird that people are still all for Laissez-Faire economics, considering we've tried it several times in history and it has always failed miserably (in before the ~~communists~~ say "but that wasn't _real_ Laissez-Faire). We literally saw it lead to quazi governments (meaning it literally destroys itself). I do believe capitalism has a lot of advantages, but no system is perfect. There probably is no global optima for the solution space. Worse, the solution space is dynamic! Good news is that we do know that multi-agent reinforcement games are pretty good at finding local optima (though they can often get trapped in local optima that we don't want). I think if you understand this it is clear that we need a body that can react to the dynamic nature of both the environment and desires (of the people) that can continually optimize and update the rules. I do think there's debate of how to do this, but I think it is very clear that too heavy of a hand isn't good and neither is too light of a hand. A pure competitive system can't account for externalizes or better yet, tragedy of the commons. As our world becomes even more complex and interconnected, and as we understand more about our environment and consequences of our actions, it is imperative that we think about these issues in a far more nuanced way and avoid thinking there are "correct" answers (as opposed to "good enough").

grammers 4y ago

It's often the case: Make profit, externalize the costs. Fracking is another very good example. Actually, the more you think about it many of very profitable companies do profit by externalizing the costs. That's also why they put so much money into lobbying: So no one will change the system.

para_parolu 4y ago

I think there is a way to solve it within market but without hard regulations. Everyone who lives near airport where leaded fuel is used should go to court and ask for large sum as compensation for possible health problem. And amount should be so bug that selling this fuel would become very unprofitable.

blt 4y ago
Airport approach paths are usually above lower income neighborhoods, where residents don't have the time, money, or energy to make this happen. Same pattern appears for other externalized environmental costs. Dump it in the poor neighborhood/city/state/country.