4 ms·

> Another interesting statement, should it not make sense for a government to do what it's citizens want? Nope, not always, and this is why direct democracy is

by sofixa 3y ago

> Another interesting statement, should it not make sense for a government to do what it's citizens want? Nope, not always, and this is why direct democracy is pretty inefficient. People aren't experts, are often shortsighted and thinking at the micro level: many government policies and choices need long term thinking and expertise at the macro level. Take a look at Switzerland - "green" measures such as a carbon tax, which is considered by many experts as one of the best policies to reduce CO2 emissions, was refused by voters, because they're thinking about the impact it will have on them personally, now, and not about all the negative things which will be reduced with such a tax.

fwungy 3y ago
It would cost them a lot of money and have no impact on CO2 levels. Chinese and Indians will not magnanimously sacrifice their money to lower their CO2, and if they don't then it doesn't matter.
- dubcanada 3y ago
  With that attitude, nobody is going to do anything.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  The rest of the world can encourage China and India with economic sanctions if they won’t come along for the renewables and EV ride. With that said, China at least is an example of moving to EVs and renewables rapidly.
  - fwungy 3y ago
    China is the world's manufacturing powerhouse. It's very difficult to get the economic leverage to sanction China, and convincing developing nations to go along would be virtually impossible.
    - toomuchtodo 3y ago
      > China is the world's manufacturing powerhouse. It's very difficult to get the economic leverage to sanction China, and convincing developing nations to go along would be virtually impossible. You don't buy from them. This is already happening [1] [2] [3]. Developing nations have no purchasing power compared to the developed world. They'll kowtow to developed world hegemony if push comes to shove (at least within the scope of US foreign aid [~$40B/year] and dollar dominance). [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=manufacturing+moving+away+from+china https://www.google.com/search?q=manufacturing+moving+away+fr... [2] https://www.freightwaves.com/news/manufacturers-move-away-from-china-in-light-of-supply-issues-cost-increases https://www.freightwaves.com/news/manufacturers-move-away-fr... [3] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/20/china-factory-of-the-world-is-losing-its-manufacturing-dominance.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/20/china-factory-of-the-world-i...
- belorn 3y ago
  Could we explore a bit in how it would cost them money. Taxes in general get back into the economy unless the government stockpile the revenue or invest them over sea. It would increase costs for companies doing exports, raising costs on mining (29.9% of total exports), and maybe organic chemicals exports. Switzerland second largest export is Pharmaceuticals, but I am unsure how much a carbon tax would impact that industry. If they also applied it to imports then countries with high CO2 would have a harder time to export to Switzerland. Having less access to cheap products with high carbon footprint would add a costs to citizens, as alternative products will likely cost more, but then it would also encourage industries in China/India to produce products with lower footprint in order to compete on markets with carbon taxes/tariffs based on carbon footprint. It might even encourage local productions which can be a boon for the economy.
  - fwungy 3y ago
    Poor countries have no incentive to pay carbon fees. Then have rich countries pay their carbon fees? So then tax payers of developed nations take the hit and have their own economic output lowered while countries ignoring carbon fees move ahead. It's a death spiral. Have a look at Steven Koonin's "Unsettled". He was an Obama DOE appointee and Provost of Caltech (he's a physicist). He makes convincing arguments that the climate change models are highly unreliable. It's not Fox News garbage, he's legit. The US and EU are making very large policy moves based on models that are not necessarily accurate.
    - api 3y ago
      But if the models are inaccurate, what if they are inaccurate in the optimistic direction? That’s how error bars work and why they are indicated as +/-
      - fwungy 3y ago
        Because the evidence doesn't point that way, and it's very expensive to make such an assumption, especially when much of the rest of the world doesn't follow.
pydry 3y ago
>Nope, not always, and this is why direct democracy is pretty inefficient. People aren't experts This was also the Monarchist argument for not even allowing representative democracy (rule by "rabble"). Swiss laws are actually fairly decent while your American representative democracy proves that representative democracy really is rule-by-experts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes
- sofixa 3y ago
  > This was also the Monarchist argument for not even allowing representative democracy (rule by "rabble"). And their premise was stupid because rule by inheritance has zero guarantees. A representative democracy can more easily have a meritocratic aspect to it. > your American representative democracy I'm not american, and they literally have one of the worst possible "democratic" systems, so shouldn't be used for anything else other than an example on what not to do.

by sofixa 3y ago

fwungy 3y ago

It would cost them a lot of money and have no impact on CO2 levels. Chinese and Indians will not magnanimously sacrifice their money to lower their CO2, and if they don't then it doesn't matter.

dubcanada 3y ago
With that attitude, nobody is going to do anything.
toomuchtodo 3y ago
The rest of the world can encourage China and India with economic sanctions if they won’t come along for the renewables and EV ride. With that said, China at least is an example of moving to EVs and renewables rapidly.
- fwungy 3y ago
  China is the world's manufacturing powerhouse. It's very difficult to get the economic leverage to sanction China, and convincing developing nations to go along would be virtually impossible.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    > China is the world's manufacturing powerhouse. It's very difficult to get the economic leverage to sanction China, and convincing developing nations to go along would be virtually impossible. You don't buy from them. This is already happening [1] [2] [3]. Developing nations have no purchasing power compared to the developed world. They'll kowtow to developed world hegemony if push comes to shove (at least within the scope of US foreign aid [~$40B/year] and dollar dominance). [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=manufacturing+moving+away+from+china https://www.google.com/search?q=manufacturing+moving+away+fr... [2] https://www.freightwaves.com/news/manufacturers-move-away-from-china-in-light-of-supply-issues-cost-increases https://www.freightwaves.com/news/manufacturers-move-away-fr... [3] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/20/china-factory-of-the-world-is-losing-its-manufacturing-dominance.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/20/china-factory-of-the-world-i...
belorn 3y ago
Could we explore a bit in how it would cost them money. Taxes in general get back into the economy unless the government stockpile the revenue or invest them over sea. It would increase costs for companies doing exports, raising costs on mining (29.9% of total exports), and maybe organic chemicals exports. Switzerland second largest export is Pharmaceuticals, but I am unsure how much a carbon tax would impact that industry. If they also applied it to imports then countries with high CO2 would have a harder time to export to Switzerland. Having less access to cheap products with high carbon footprint would add a costs to citizens, as alternative products will likely cost more, but then it would also encourage industries in China/India to produce products with lower footprint in order to compete on markets with carbon taxes/tariffs based on carbon footprint. It might even encourage local productions which can be a boon for the economy.
- fwungy 3y ago
  Poor countries have no incentive to pay carbon fees. Then have rich countries pay their carbon fees? So then tax payers of developed nations take the hit and have their own economic output lowered while countries ignoring carbon fees move ahead. It's a death spiral. Have a look at Steven Koonin's "Unsettled". He was an Obama DOE appointee and Provost of Caltech (he's a physicist). He makes convincing arguments that the climate change models are highly unreliable. It's not Fox News garbage, he's legit. The US and EU are making very large policy moves based on models that are not necessarily accurate.
  - api 3y ago
    But if the models are inaccurate, what if they are inaccurate in the optimistic direction? That’s how error bars work and why they are indicated as +/-
    - fwungy 3y ago
      Because the evidence doesn't point that way, and it's very expensive to make such an assumption, especially when much of the rest of the world doesn't follow.

pydry 3y ago

>Nope, not always, and this is why direct democracy is pretty inefficient. People aren't experts This was also the Monarchist argument for not even allowing representative democracy (rule by "rabble"). Swiss laws are actually fairly decent while your American representative democracy proves that representative democracy really is rule-by-experts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes

sofixa 3y ago
> This was also the Monarchist argument for not even allowing representative democracy (rule by "rabble"). And their premise was stupid because rule by inheritance has zero guarantees. A representative democracy can more easily have a meritocratic aspect to it. > your American representative democracy I'm not american, and they literally have one of the worst possible "democratic" systems, so shouldn't be used for anything else other than an example on what not to do.