5 ms·

Even if you're right about the "massive negative externalities," what makes you think the government's Absolutely Non-Paternalistic Meddling here gets it right?

• YokoZar 13y ago
  Yes, economists will argue that gasoline taxes are a more efficient and effective way of getting what we want (an efficient amount of gasoline consumption that accounts for its external costs). Politicians will counter that gas taxes are unpalatable for political reasons, so we have to do something else that's kinda like an indirect gas tax (reduces consumption, makes using it more expensive). I'm open to arguments about us going too far here, but at the same time I don't think the perfect should be the enemy of the good.
  • seunosewa 13y ago
    >> Politicians will counter that gas taxes are unpalatable for political reasons What does that mean (in plain language)? Why should people accept it as an excuse for not choosing the more efficient solution?
    • repsilat 13y ago
      It isn't about what people should accept, it's about what they will accept. Voters aren't rational, and they're more likely to kick up a fuss about fuel taxes than vehicle taxes because it affects more of them in the short term. Maybe taxes on vehicles are more likely to be passed, and not much worse than taxes on fuel. In that case they may be worthwhile as a compromise solution. They're certainly not a better solution, though. Holding politicians to account for not being sensible is laudable, but more important is to make noise. Demonstrate that voters are rational in a way that they can recognise, and they might listen. Voting isn't enough, it just gets lost in the noise.
      • n09n 13y ago
        Voters also don't make laws directly, exactly for this reason.
      • declan 13y ago
        > Voters aren't rational Huh? Voters are quite rational. If you mean they don't pay attention to everything that's happening in Washington, D.C. or state capitols, that's perfectly rational. (Remember you're more likely to win the lottery than to have your vote changing the outcome of an election.) Economics call this, correctly, "rational ignorance" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_ignorance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_ignorance Politicians and bureaucrats are also rational. Unfortunately this rationality means they put their private interests above the public interest (whatever that means). The influence of special interest groups, the revolving door between .gov and lobbying, these are all elements of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice
        • chii 13y ago
          > > Voters aren't rational i think that's generally taken to mean that the voters do the most optimal thing for themselves, but the whole system ends up being sub-optimal. Some call it the tragedy of the commons.
        • repsilat 13y ago
          Ugh. It was clear when I said that "voters aren't rational" that I meant "Voters as a class do not vote in their own best interests." No reasonable person reading my post and trying to understand what I meant would have interpreted that statement to refer to the fashionable (and absurd) game-theoretic definition of "rationality". (Not to mention that "rational ignorance" doesn't explain current voting patterns. Nobody informs themselves politically according to a mixed strategy, and deliberately uninformed people do not abstain from the voting process.)
    • michaelt 13y ago
      Infrastructure and people's lives have been organised around today's tax regime. America's historically low gas prices mean houses, jobs and retail are spread out over more area, and public transport is comparatively poor. If gas prices trebled tomorrow, you'll find a lot of hard-working poor people who have to pay three times as much to get to their low-paying jobs. There will be sob stories on the news about regular people people who can't afford to move closer to work (houses there are expensive now due to high demand) and who can't afford a more efficient car (as they can't pay off the loan on their SUV which is now worth less than the loan value). Maybe some young people get fuel efficient motorbikes, like in the developing world. There's a rise in road deaths, of course; everyone knows motorbikes are dangerous. And it won't just be people commuting to work. It'll be more expensive to get to the shops for food - bicycling or walking isn't an option for the hard-working american mother who has to shop for the family, and who has a newborn baby to look after (which is what your political opponents' attack ads will show). And how do you think that food gets to the shop? On a gas-powered truck of course. And farm machines run on gas as well. Order everything online? The delivery truck runs on gas. You get your trash picked up? Someone's paying to gas up the truck. You're doing construction? Those backhoes and generators all run on gas. Tradespeople like plumbers and builders? Can't carry that roofing ladder on a bus you know. Fire trucks, police cars, ambulances? Gee, I guess they all run on gas. Buses and removal trucks? Same thing. It costs so much to get Jenny to soccer practice now, and how is little Jimmy supposed to get his double bass to after-school orchestra? Now everything is more expensive, and everyone has less disposable income. People have to get by with less, so they don't go to the restaurant, they make the old car last a few years longer, and the restaurant and car plant have to lay people off, and you've triggered another recession. Meanwhile, your busy job as a legislator means you still get driven everywhere, so you come across looking like a huge hypocrite. Now you've put a regressive tax on getting to work, you've caused a rise in traffic accidents, you're anti-family, you've raised the prices of everything, you've triggered a recession, and you're a hypocrite. In exchange you've got the support of the green lobby, but many of them are having second thoughts. Good luck with your re-election campaign.