Subject:
|
Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 18 May 2001 07:59:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
746 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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.
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.
> 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.
As the text I quoted states, the market can not be trusted to look after the
environment. Are you really saying you think it can?
Scott A
>
> ++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| (...) The text you quoted *claims* it cannot. It is an assertion by that author, not a fact, that it is impossible to do so. That is not a view I share. The point of this subthread is to explore further, with concrete ideas and proposals, whether it (...) (23 years ago, 18-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
