3 ms·
>Preliminarily, note that whether you characterize an externality as negative or positive is a value-laden judgment. Not at all, it's an economic issue. Pollut
by bobcostas55 12y ago
>Preliminarily, note that whether you characterize an externality as negative or positive is a value-laden judgment.
Not at all, it's an economic issue. Pollution imposes clear, observable, quantifiable costs. That's the externality; no moralizing necessary.
You seem to be very confused about the rest of the stuff so I'm not going to bother addressing it.
- pdabbadabba 12y ago> You seem to be very confused about the rest of the stuff so I'm not going to bother addressing it. I really wish you would, since that's the substance of the comment, and I'm pretty sure I'm not actually confused -- though perhaps you disagree. (Note that your disagreeing, and my being "very confused" are not actually the same thing.) And you should do a little more thinking about what constitutes a "negative" externality -- sometimes it is clear that it constitutes a cognizable economic "cost," but other cases are no so clear cut. Here is some recommended reading: http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=reviews http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=... Especially page 911. The point is not just that a value judgment is necessary to determine whether something is a cost or benefit (though sometimes it is) but also that a value judgment is needed to determine whether a would-be externality is the sort of thing that a person or entity should be expected to internalize.