5 ms·

> “Populist anger” might be justified if people have a hard time paying their bills. If the costs of current living standard wasn't externalized to future gene

> “Populist anger” might be justified if people have a hard time paying their bills. If the costs of current living standard wasn't externalized to future generations (to the detriment of the environment), they couldn't afford those bills to begin with. Unfortunately, it's very hard to reduce people's living standards once they got used to it. So yes, the end result is what you're saying - however, I think it's a very important nuance. It was always a card house; we just chose to ignore the issue and continued to build on top of it.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
"externalized to future generations" Exactly. Too few people understand economics, that current costs are being brought down by offsetting future costs. The same with any pollution in any industry. If the industry is allowed to follow bad practices, and cause pollution but not deal with it, then they are not bearing the brunt of the full costs of generating that pollution. Someone has to clean it all up eventually, typically the government, then people complain about taxes. You can complain about taxes, but you just voted for someone to cut regulations on industry which then causes the pollution which needs tax dollars to clean it up. (I know CO2 is not a 'pollutant' technically, it is just another example of the 'cost' to the environment is not being allocated correctly to the producer. I feel need to be correct since even using the word 'pollutant' is a right wing argument point on why climate change advocates don't know what they are talking about.).
- silverquiet 3y ago
  I guess the great thing about putting the problems off into the future is that I/we'll be dead by then (though I suppose it depends on how fast moving the whole thing is). What confuses me about that whole thing is that most people seem to want to have children and want a better future for them.
I-M-S 3y ago
It's not even externalized to future generations, just to other continents whose inhabitants produce crap for the West

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

"externalized to future generations" Exactly. Too few people understand economics, that current costs are being brought down by offsetting future costs. The same with any pollution in any industry. If the industry is allowed to follow bad practices, and cause pollution but not deal with it, then they are not bearing the brunt of the full costs of generating that pollution. Someone has to clean it all up eventually, typically the government, then people complain about taxes. You can complain about taxes, but you just voted for someone to cut regulations on industry which then causes the pollution which needs tax dollars to clean it up. (I know CO2 is not a 'pollutant' technically, it is just another example of the 'cost' to the environment is not being allocated correctly to the producer. I feel need to be correct since even using the word 'pollutant' is a right wing argument point on why climate change advocates don't know what they are talking about.).

silverquiet 3y ago
I guess the great thing about putting the problems off into the future is that I/we'll be dead by then (though I suppose it depends on how fast moving the whole thing is). What confuses me about that whole thing is that most people seem to want to have children and want a better future for them.

I-M-S 3y ago

It's not even externalized to future generations, just to other continents whose inhabitants produce crap for the West