Subject:
|
Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 17 May 2001 22:52:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
728 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> After I typed by above text this morning, I found this interesting item by
> Paul Krugman. It is a little dated now, but it is still very relavant to
> this debate. Two key passages:
>
> "...every economics textbook I know of has argued that the government should
> intervene in the market to discourage activities that damage the environment."
>
> "These days, however, the main problem comes from the right--from
> conservatives who, unlike most economists, really do think that the free
> market is always right--to such an extent that they refuse to believe even
> the most overwhelming scientific evidence if it seems to suggest a
> justification for government action."
>
> The whole item can be read here:
> http://slate.msn.com/Dismal/97-04-17/Dismal.asp
Interesting cite. But I think you'd have better served the readership if you
quoted this passage instead.
"True, economists generally believe that a system of free markets is a
pretty efficient way to run an economy, as long as the prices are right--as
long, in particular, as people pay the true social cost of their actions.
Environmental issues, however, more or less by definition involve situations
in which the price is wrong--in which the private costs of an activity fail
to reflect its true social costs."
which gets at the crux of the debate... IS there a way to get the market to
work to protect the environment (in this case, migratory birds)? Or,
restated, is there a way to require more stringent consequence facing? Under
the current system polluters get away with pollution as long as they stay
within certain limits. I'd rather see them get away with none. Under the
current system, despoilers get away with despoiling public lands and unowned
animals as long as they have greased the appropriate campaign chests. I'd
rather see them get away with none.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| (...) The market will *not* provide that... read the text I quoted. Consumers are too focussed on the low price of oil and the Big Macs. (...) As the text I quoted states, the market can not be trusted to look after the environment. Are you really (...) (23 years ago, 18-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| (...) Watch it. I don't want another dull evolution debate to start again. After I typed by above text this morning, I found this interesting item by Paul Krugman. It is a little dated now, but it is still very relavant to this debate. Two key (...) (23 years ago, 17-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
246 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
