4 ms·

>Who owns natural resources? Whoever legally owns them. >Is it a god-given freedom to pollute the environment and damage other people's lives? No, those peop

>Who owns natural resources? Whoever legally owns them. >Is it a god-given freedom to pollute the environment and damage other people's lives? No, those people should be taken to court or private arbitration for violating whoevers property or rights were violated. If I have land I dont want it poisoned because there is an opportunity cost; people dont poison their own land, they poison others if they can get away with it, which is why most environmental catastrophes (flint, derailed chemical trains, pipeline bombings, nuclear war) occur as a result of government action, they have immense protection from legal accountability. >This doesn't sound as if you believe in a non-dystopian free market. What makes you say that? The free market exists anywhere there isnt something to stop it. If someone needs a cheap couch, I can at once see that 2 things are possible simultaneously, that the cheap couch is their best available option and should be available, and that their buying decisions might have been different if they had a better vehicle for saving their wealth. The non-dystopian future is the one where the cheap couch is available, but people also have a reasonable ability to save for something nicer that might last longer. Where the free market isnt, is in sanctions, central banking, bailouts, taxation, and government regulation, hopefully that clarifies things. >In a way, yes! What use is a car without car infrastructure?... There were cars and roads before there were taxes and subsidies to support them, if there is a market demand for cars and infastructure then it will be built. Simple equation, will I pay for a car and roads, call it an investment, so that I can get to work, and make even more money? Yes, that would be a good way to spend the money I have. See, you can hold a vote and remove those from public spending, but I still have an incentive to pay for these items, in fact id prefer it that way. >Who decides if you are allowed to make goods and services by exploiting natural resources and polluting the environment? Yes, great question, in fact the same one I framed to you. Are you going to vote to stop me from using my own legally and freely traded property to produce something? What if we vote to take your stuff, not everybodies, just yours. What if we vote that you are inconvenient to the rest of us? I imagine that will not end well for minority populations, is there anything we cant do if we vote for it? >Honestly, "market failure" and "externalities" are well-known concepts to economists. Could you unpack the term marlet failure? I dont think you quite understand what that term means; setting a price floor for lizard tails with the intention of exterminating them from your city would (has) lead to a market failure, there would (are) be more lizards than ever as breeders harvest their tales, and government wearhouses would (did) overflow with useless lizard tails.

moritzwarhier 3y ago
Sorry, but your reply does not sound like you you want to engage in good faith argument. Market failure: has many forms, but physical damage or physical resources not represented by fiscal value are one example. Monopolies and naïve price policies are others. I am very well aware that this term covers a wide range of situations, including your example. You seem to insist on constraining it to your private definition. I feel you don't quite understand what that term encompasses. > > Who owns natural resources? > Whoever legally owns them. That is a non-answer. Frankly, I don't feel that you even try to understand what you are talking about. If you'd like to educate yourself, here's an explanation how externalities relate to market failure: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/Series/Back-to-Basics/Externalities https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/Series/Back... > Neoclassical economists long ago recognized that the inefficiencies associated with technical externalities constitute a form of “market failure.” Private market–based decision making fails to yield efficient outcomes from a general welfare perspective Happy Christmas.
- Geisterde 3y ago
  >Who owns natural resources? Whoever legally owns them, again. I buy a plot of land from someone else in a voluntary arrangement, its mine, because the ownership transferred from them to me with the agreement. >Private market–based decision making fails to yield efficient outcomes from a general welfare perspective I asked for an example. The IMF has no room to criticize private capital as having inefficient outcomes for the general welfare, considering how brutal the conditions are in countries that face restructuring, as opposed to the power of markets lifting a billion people out of poverty. Look at the time-price of goods, its very clear what affect government intervention has over your ability to aquire goods. "Externalities are among the main reasons governments intervene in the economic sphere." - IMF Absolutely true though, Ill give them that, government intervention is a function for externalizing the cost of buying votes with new spending plans.
  - moritzwarhier 3y ago
    > Absolutely true though, Ill give them that, government intervention is a function for externalizing the cost of buying votes with new spending plans. Again, that is not a logical argument, it is not even politics, it is dishonest propaganda. An insult to even economists. Merry Christmas

moritzwarhier 3y ago

Sorry, but your reply does not sound like you you want to engage in good faith argument. Market failure: has many forms, but physical damage or physical resources not represented by fiscal value are one example. Monopolies and naïve price policies are others. I am very well aware that this term covers a wide range of situations, including your example. You seem to insist on constraining it to your private definition. I feel you don't quite understand what that term encompasses. > > Who owns natural resources? > Whoever legally owns them. That is a non-answer. Frankly, I don't feel that you even try to understand what you are talking about. If you'd like to educate yourself, here's an explanation how externalities relate to market failure: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/Series/Back-to-Basics/Externalities https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/Series/Back... > Neoclassical economists long ago recognized that the inefficiencies associated with technical externalities constitute a form of “market failure.” Private market–based decision making fails to yield efficient outcomes from a general welfare perspective Happy Christmas.

Geisterde 3y ago
>Who owns natural resources? Whoever legally owns them, again. I buy a plot of land from someone else in a voluntary arrangement, its mine, because the ownership transferred from them to me with the agreement. >Private market–based decision making fails to yield efficient outcomes from a general welfare perspective I asked for an example. The IMF has no room to criticize private capital as having inefficient outcomes for the general welfare, considering how brutal the conditions are in countries that face restructuring, as opposed to the power of markets lifting a billion people out of poverty. Look at the time-price of goods, its very clear what affect government intervention has over your ability to aquire goods. "Externalities are among the main reasons governments intervene in the economic sphere." - IMF Absolutely true though, Ill give them that, government intervention is a function for externalizing the cost of buying votes with new spending plans.
- moritzwarhier 3y ago
  > Absolutely true though, Ill give them that, government intervention is a function for externalizing the cost of buying votes with new spending plans. Again, that is not a logical argument, it is not even politics, it is dishonest propaganda. An insult to even economists. Merry Christmas