3 ms·

The question was which industries with such negative externalities get tolerated. So: * 1.2 million people die every year in car accidents * 200k children di

The question was which industries with such negative externalities get tolerated. So: * 1.2 million people die every year in car accidents * 200k children die every year * pollution, air pollution, but also noise pollution * people sitting in traffic for hours every day, effectively doing nothing productive * decade long destruction of communities to build roads. * additionally and especially in the US these have been used to target communities of minorities * Etc. It does have also positive externalities, but the rare communities worldwide that decided to promote other means of transport in every day life have found they are better off. Thus in a lot of cases the negatives outweigh the positives. Is this an excuse for gambling? No, but there are many of these around us in every day life, we just don't notice them. So I was merely answering a question asked.

Jean-Papoulos 2y ago
I'd like to see those communities surviving to the same standards of living without having motor vehicles around them either. You want to build walls out of concrete ? Or wood even ? Well, have fun transporting all that in a cart. Those communities have phones. Manufactured goods. They're watching Game of Thrones. If you remove motor vehicles all of that simply isn't possible due to the loss of productivity. While I agree that preventing the intrusion of motor vehicle in residential areas would be good (ie have main roads where they're allowed, and small residential streets where they aren't. Lots of cities in Europe shifting to this currently), saying that the negatives outweigh the positives "in a lot of cases" I think is completely incorrect.
Retric 2y ago
You misunderstand the term. Negative externalities implies the net externalities are negative for some 3rd party, not just that there’s any negatives. Economists don’t want to discourage net positive activities like exercise because they have some downsides. ‘People get hurt at the gym and occasionally miss work!’ isn’t a compelling argument. Frankly it’s meaningless to look at downsides in isolation, all that tells you is what scale it’s operating at. Suppose smoking retained the unpleasant odor, but the health effects where reversed so smokers and people breathing second hand smoke lived significantly longer and healthier lives. Would economists suggest taxing it more to limit how many people smoked or limit where they could smoke? Of course not even though it had some downsides in terms of odor the benefits would hypothetically outweigh them.

Jean-Papoulos 2y ago

I'd like to see those communities surviving to the same standards of living without having motor vehicles around them either. You want to build walls out of concrete ? Or wood even ? Well, have fun transporting all that in a cart. Those communities have phones. Manufactured goods. They're watching Game of Thrones. If you remove motor vehicles all of that simply isn't possible due to the loss of productivity. While I agree that preventing the intrusion of motor vehicle in residential areas would be good (ie have main roads where they're allowed, and small residential streets where they aren't. Lots of cities in Europe shifting to this currently), saying that the negatives outweigh the positives "in a lot of cases" I think is completely incorrect.

Retric 2y ago

You misunderstand the term. Negative externalities implies the net externalities are negative for some 3rd party, not just that there’s any negatives. Economists don’t want to discourage net positive activities like exercise because they have some downsides. ‘People get hurt at the gym and occasionally miss work!’ isn’t a compelling argument. Frankly it’s meaningless to look at downsides in isolation, all that tells you is what scale it’s operating at. Suppose smoking retained the unpleasant odor, but the health effects where reversed so smokers and people breathing second hand smoke lived significantly longer and healthier lives. Would economists suggest taxing it more to limit how many people smoked or limit where they could smoke? Of course not even though it had some downsides in terms of odor the benefits would hypothetically outweigh them.