|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 23 2013 04:22 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 03:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 03:09 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 03:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 02:42 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 02:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 02:39 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 02:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 02:29 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 02:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Prove that a polluting power plant receives excess profit directly related to the social cost of its pollution.
Let's reverse the issue. Let's internalize the external cost of carbon by instituting a carbon tax. That tax would be borne by the producers and consumers of carbon. Pretty easy, if the market were perfects, their profit would be less since they would be forced to pay the polluted to pollute them (if the externality was internalized in the market, which is exactly the goal of a carbon tax). That's the only difference, and profits would remain lower over the long run as well? Prices wouldn't change at all? I don't think that's correct... And ? If prices change, they would sell less, unless all competitor exactly pollute the same - which doesn't seems reasonnable, since any company who would innovate their production process toward a better environmental efficiency would instantly gain a competitive advantage over their competitors. Higher prices would impact more than just the producer. No since the consumer would gain more money through the taxation. A circuit, a circuit. It's all theory anyway. Consumers wouldn't gain through taxation. They'd gain if the government redistributed the tax revenue (I'm admittedly being picky here), but that ignores the higher prices due to less supply. You can certainly make an argument that consumers, on net, would benefit from higher prices and less pollution, but that's more of an allocation story than a rent seeking one. You're being picky yeah. If we talked about reality, it is absolutly wrong on my part : we would consume part of the revenue of the taxation just to collect the revenue, information would be imperfect, etc. But it has no interest for me in this argument : I was just comparing our world with a perfect one to show up that, in a perfect one, the externality would pass through the market, a fact that would instantly push the price up of all the productions responsible of pollutions, and that would give advantage to less polluting compagnies. It was just a mean to show that there is indeed an excess profit made by the industrial compagnies. Well we should be allocated more into less polluting industries. To me that's more of a society has an allocation issue than a private profit / public loss issue. Polluting firms should be more into less polluting production than they are now (but just as profitable) rather than polluting firms operating at a market loss and being bailed out by society. This will never happen without government involvement. People will buy their electricity from the cheapest possible source. If that is fucking filthy coal plants, they will buy it there. Industry will maximize short-term profit, which is in those very same filthy coal plants. Very few people will calculate the ACTUAL cost (whatever that is... but taking into account the pollutants being belched into the air), realize that it is higher than some cleaner energy source and use that instead. This has two reasons: 1. People optimize short-term, not long-term... so if something has immediate costs RIGHT NOW, and the other has (higher) costs far away, but the costs right now are lower, they will almost certainly choose the latter option. There are numerous experiments from behavioural game theory backing this up. 2. If scientists and governments cannot reach a consensus on the price of pollution, how can you expect individual actors in the market to? The best option is thus for the government to interfere and (somehow) tax pollution at a value that incentivizes industry to invest in cleaner technologies. Yes, that will make everything more expensive, and thus indirectly taxes the consumers. However, the government could invest that money in R&D of greener technology as well, thus giving a double-sided boost to green energy, and hopefully bringing the price down again.
I'm not arguing against a carbon tax. I'm arguing that the phrase "privatize the profits, socialize the losses" isn't appropriate.
To your point in "1", optimizing to the short-term is often an underappreciated method for optimizing to the long-term in real world scenarios. I'm not overly familiar with behavioral economics studies on it so I don't want to disagree completely, but optimizing for the long-run is extremely difficult.
|
On November 23 2013 05:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 04:22 Acrofales wrote:On November 23 2013 03:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 03:09 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 03:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 02:42 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 02:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 02:39 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 02:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 02:29 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
Pretty easy, if the market were perfects, their profit would be less since they would be forced to pay the polluted to pollute them (if the externality was internalized in the market, which is exactly the goal of a carbon tax). That's the only difference, and profits would remain lower over the long run as well? Prices wouldn't change at all? I don't think that's correct... And ? If prices change, they would sell less, unless all competitor exactly pollute the same - which doesn't seems reasonnable, since any company who would innovate their production process toward a better environmental efficiency would instantly gain a competitive advantage over their competitors. Higher prices would impact more than just the producer. No since the consumer would gain more money through the taxation. A circuit, a circuit. It's all theory anyway. Consumers wouldn't gain through taxation. They'd gain if the government redistributed the tax revenue (I'm admittedly being picky here), but that ignores the higher prices due to less supply. You can certainly make an argument that consumers, on net, would benefit from higher prices and less pollution, but that's more of an allocation story than a rent seeking one. You're being picky yeah. If we talked about reality, it is absolutly wrong on my part : we would consume part of the revenue of the taxation just to collect the revenue, information would be imperfect, etc. But it has no interest for me in this argument : I was just comparing our world with a perfect one to show up that, in a perfect one, the externality would pass through the market, a fact that would instantly push the price up of all the productions responsible of pollutions, and that would give advantage to less polluting compagnies. It was just a mean to show that there is indeed an excess profit made by the industrial compagnies. Well we should be allocated more into less polluting industries. To me that's more of a society has an allocation issue than a private profit / public loss issue. Polluting firms should be more into less polluting production than they are now (but just as profitable) rather than polluting firms operating at a market loss and being bailed out by society. This will never happen without government involvement. People will buy their electricity from the cheapest possible source. If that is fucking filthy coal plants, they will buy it there. Industry will maximize short-term profit, which is in those very same filthy coal plants. Very few people will calculate the ACTUAL cost (whatever that is... but taking into account the pollutants being belched into the air), realize that it is higher than some cleaner energy source and use that instead. This has two reasons: 1. People optimize short-term, not long-term... so if something has immediate costs RIGHT NOW, and the other has (higher) costs far away, but the costs right now are lower, they will almost certainly choose the latter option. There are numerous experiments from behavioural game theory backing this up. 2. If scientists and governments cannot reach a consensus on the price of pollution, how can you expect individual actors in the market to? The best option is thus for the government to interfere and (somehow) tax pollution at a value that incentivizes industry to invest in cleaner technologies. Yes, that will make everything more expensive, and thus indirectly taxes the consumers. However, the government could invest that money in R&D of greener technology as well, thus giving a double-sided boost to green energy, and hopefully bringing the price down again. I'm not arguing against a carbon tax. I'm arguing that the phrase "privatize the profits, socialize the losses" isn't appropriate. To your point in "1", optimizing to the short-term is often an underappreciated method for optimizing to the long-term in real world scenarios. I'm not overly familiar with behavioral economics studies on it so I don't want to disagree completely, but optimizing for the long-run is extremely difficult.
Speaking in the abstract here is rather silly: it's quite clear that short-term optimization in this case is going to be digging as much coal as possible and burning it all without any carbon-capture techniques. In fact, might as well belch all the sulfuric compounds into the atmosphere as well, and other pollutants, like soot and other particulates: it's cheap to mine, there's lots of it, and the plants are quick and cheap to build.
Environmental costs are pretty much the poster boy for long-term costs... and industry will happily ignore them if government gives them a chance to do so. Do you think the step away from CFKs was voluntary? They were cheap, and easy to produce (short-term optimization). However, governments around the world banned their use, in order to protect the ozone layer (long-term cost). A similar solution is needed for carbon usage, and many other forms of pollution.
|
On November 23 2013 05:20 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 05:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 04:22 Acrofales wrote:On November 23 2013 03:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 03:09 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 03:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 02:42 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 02:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 02:39 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 02:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
That's the only difference, and profits would remain lower over the long run as well? Prices wouldn't change at all? I don't think that's correct... And ? If prices change, they would sell less, unless all competitor exactly pollute the same - which doesn't seems reasonnable, since any company who would innovate their production process toward a better environmental efficiency would instantly gain a competitive advantage over their competitors. Higher prices would impact more than just the producer. No since the consumer would gain more money through the taxation. A circuit, a circuit. It's all theory anyway. Consumers wouldn't gain through taxation. They'd gain if the government redistributed the tax revenue (I'm admittedly being picky here), but that ignores the higher prices due to less supply. You can certainly make an argument that consumers, on net, would benefit from higher prices and less pollution, but that's more of an allocation story than a rent seeking one. You're being picky yeah. If we talked about reality, it is absolutly wrong on my part : we would consume part of the revenue of the taxation just to collect the revenue, information would be imperfect, etc. But it has no interest for me in this argument : I was just comparing our world with a perfect one to show up that, in a perfect one, the externality would pass through the market, a fact that would instantly push the price up of all the productions responsible of pollutions, and that would give advantage to less polluting compagnies. It was just a mean to show that there is indeed an excess profit made by the industrial compagnies. Well we should be allocated more into less polluting industries. To me that's more of a society has an allocation issue than a private profit / public loss issue. Polluting firms should be more into less polluting production than they are now (but just as profitable) rather than polluting firms operating at a market loss and being bailed out by society. This will never happen without government involvement. People will buy their electricity from the cheapest possible source. If that is fucking filthy coal plants, they will buy it there. Industry will maximize short-term profit, which is in those very same filthy coal plants. Very few people will calculate the ACTUAL cost (whatever that is... but taking into account the pollutants being belched into the air), realize that it is higher than some cleaner energy source and use that instead. This has two reasons: 1. People optimize short-term, not long-term... so if something has immediate costs RIGHT NOW, and the other has (higher) costs far away, but the costs right now are lower, they will almost certainly choose the latter option. There are numerous experiments from behavioural game theory backing this up. 2. If scientists and governments cannot reach a consensus on the price of pollution, how can you expect individual actors in the market to? The best option is thus for the government to interfere and (somehow) tax pollution at a value that incentivizes industry to invest in cleaner technologies. Yes, that will make everything more expensive, and thus indirectly taxes the consumers. However, the government could invest that money in R&D of greener technology as well, thus giving a double-sided boost to green energy, and hopefully bringing the price down again. I'm not arguing against a carbon tax. I'm arguing that the phrase "privatize the profits, socialize the losses" isn't appropriate. To your point in "1", optimizing to the short-term is often an underappreciated method for optimizing to the long-term in real world scenarios. I'm not overly familiar with behavioral economics studies on it so I don't want to disagree completely, but optimizing for the long-run is extremely difficult. Speaking in the abstract here is rather silly: it's quite clear that short-term optimization in this case is going to be digging as much coal as possible and burning it all without any carbon-capture techniques. In fact, might as well belch all the sulfuric compounds into the atmosphere as well, and other pollutants, like soot and other particulates: it's cheap to mine, there's lots of it, and the plants are quick and cheap to build. Environmental costs are pretty much the poster boy for long-term costs... and industry will happily ignore them if government gives them a chance to do so. Do you think the step away from CFKs was voluntary? They were cheap, and easy to produce (short-term optimization). However, governments around the world banned their use, in order to protect the ozone layer (long-term cost). A similar solution is needed for carbon usage, and many other forms of pollution.
Pollution isn't so much a short vs long term issue as its an external cost issue. Pollution isn't costed into a either long term or short term optimizations.
Do you think that banning fossil fuel use tomorrow is an optimal long term solution?
|
On November 23 2013 01:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 01:52 WhiteDog wrote:On November 22 2013 16:35 Danglars wrote:On November 22 2013 15:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 22 2013 15:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 22 2013 15:15 Livelovedie wrote:On November 22 2013 15:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 22 2013 14:53 zlefin wrote:
you overstate the case xdaunt, not that more is expected of you. The safety of fracking done properly, and in proper places, seems fine; but there are too many places where they shouldn't be doing it and are doing so. What exactly am I overstating? The incidence of mishap with fracking is incredibly low. Not that you'd know it looking at looking at eco-hippy websites, but there still hasn't been one case where it's been proven that fracking has contaminated ground water. Shit happens in every industry. The fact remains that oil and gas companies have done a pretty good job when it comes to fracking. Don't they call this privatizing the gains, socializing the losses? I don't see why you would call it that. Because it's hip to say shit that you don't understand. I've found that I am a much happier poster in this thread when I ignore the one-liner trolls. Gotta include enough buzzwords to give all your friends the idea that they know what it is and agree with you, and all your enemies no idea of what you're actually meaning. Or maybe you're all just a little too limited in your views to understands what he means. All environmental effect of economic activities are case of "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses", just think about the effect of industrial pollutions on health (like athma) and how it impact on social security costs. There are external costs associated with pollution, but I don't think that phrase works. Some of the gains are privatized, but some are socialized as well.
Essentially what you have argued is that no gains are 100 percent privatized; that business exist to provide a product instead of to make a profit. The lower prices of fossil fuels is what is being "socialized" in your view. Then you went into some argument about how their should be a carbon tax instead to remove the externalities that they cause. Well there isn't, so I guess the losses are being socialized so that part isn't up for debate. So at best we have reached the conclusion that the companies are privatizing and socializing the gains and socializing the losses. I'm saddened that you view that as an acceptable tradeoff.
|
On November 23 2013 05:53 Livelovedie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 01:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 01:52 WhiteDog wrote:On November 22 2013 16:35 Danglars wrote:On November 22 2013 15:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 22 2013 15:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 22 2013 15:15 Livelovedie wrote:On November 22 2013 15:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 22 2013 14:53 zlefin wrote:
you overstate the case xdaunt, not that more is expected of you. The safety of fracking done properly, and in proper places, seems fine; but there are too many places where they shouldn't be doing it and are doing so. What exactly am I overstating? The incidence of mishap with fracking is incredibly low. Not that you'd know it looking at looking at eco-hippy websites, but there still hasn't been one case where it's been proven that fracking has contaminated ground water. Shit happens in every industry. The fact remains that oil and gas companies have done a pretty good job when it comes to fracking. Don't they call this privatizing the gains, socializing the losses? I don't see why you would call it that. Because it's hip to say shit that you don't understand. I've found that I am a much happier poster in this thread when I ignore the one-liner trolls. Gotta include enough buzzwords to give all your friends the idea that they know what it is and agree with you, and all your enemies no idea of what you're actually meaning. Or maybe you're all just a little too limited in your views to understands what he means. All environmental effect of economic activities are case of "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses", just think about the effect of industrial pollutions on health (like athma) and how it impact on social security costs. There are external costs associated with pollution, but I don't think that phrase works. Some of the gains are privatized, but some are socialized as well. Essentially what you have argued is that no gains are 100 percent privatized; that business exist to provide a product instead of to make a profit. The lower prices of fossil fuels is what is being "socialized" in your view. Then you went into some argument about how their should be a carbon tax instead to remove the externalities that they cause. Well there isn't, so I guess the losses are being socialized so that part isn't up for debate. So at best we have reached the conclusion that the companies are privatizing and socializing the gains and socializing the losses. I'm saddened that you view that as an acceptable tradeoff.
Why in the world would you presume that the losses aren't privatized to some extent as well?
|
Care to explain how they are?
|
On November 23 2013 05:57 Livelovedie wrote:
Care to explain how they are?
Executives lay off workers sometimes so that their bonuses can stay the same size in face of management failure, if that's what you mean.
|
On November 23 2013 05:57 Livelovedie wrote:
Care to explain how they are?
If the business is unprofitable, then the owners will get a poor return -- or even a negative return -- on their investment. Are you guys really so divorced from reality than you'd miss something so fundamental?
|
On November 23 2013 06:14 xDaunt wrote:If the business is unprofitable, then the owners will get a poor return -- or even a negative return -- on their investment. Are you guys really so divorced from reality than you'd miss something so fundamental?
How would you describe bank executive pay after the bail out?
|
On November 23 2013 05:53 Livelovedie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 01:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 01:52 WhiteDog wrote:On November 22 2013 16:35 Danglars wrote:On November 22 2013 15:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 22 2013 15:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 22 2013 15:15 Livelovedie wrote:On November 22 2013 15:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 22 2013 14:53 zlefin wrote:
you overstate the case xdaunt, not that more is expected of you. The safety of fracking done properly, and in proper places, seems fine; but there are too many places where they shouldn't be doing it and are doing so. What exactly am I overstating? The incidence of mishap with fracking is incredibly low. Not that you'd know it looking at looking at eco-hippy websites, but there still hasn't been one case where it's been proven that fracking has contaminated ground water. Shit happens in every industry. The fact remains that oil and gas companies have done a pretty good job when it comes to fracking. Don't they call this privatizing the gains, socializing the losses? I don't see why you would call it that. Because it's hip to say shit that you don't understand. I've found that I am a much happier poster in this thread when I ignore the one-liner trolls. Gotta include enough buzzwords to give all your friends the idea that they know what it is and agree with you, and all your enemies no idea of what you're actually meaning. Or maybe you're all just a little too limited in your views to understands what he means. All environmental effect of economic activities are case of "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses", just think about the effect of industrial pollutions on health (like athma) and how it impact on social security costs. There are external costs associated with pollution, but I don't think that phrase works. Some of the gains are privatized, but some are socialized as well. Essentially what you have argued is that no gains are 100 percent privatized; that business exist to provide a product instead of to make a profit. The lower prices of fossil fuels is what is being "socialized" in your view. Then you went into some argument about how their should be a carbon tax instead to remove the externalities that they cause. Well there isn't, so I guess the losses are being socialized so that part isn't up for debate. So at best we have reached the conclusion that the companies are privatizing and socializing the gains and socializing the losses. I'm saddened that you view that as an acceptable tradeoff.
Pollution affects everyone, polluter included. If you work at a coal plant, your health and productivity will be affected by the pollution.
|
On November 23 2013 06:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 05:53 Livelovedie wrote:On November 23 2013 01:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 01:52 WhiteDog wrote:On November 22 2013 16:35 Danglars wrote:On November 22 2013 15:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 22 2013 15:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 22 2013 15:15 Livelovedie wrote:On November 22 2013 15:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 22 2013 14:53 zlefin wrote:
you overstate the case xdaunt, not that more is expected of you. The safety of fracking done properly, and in proper places, seems fine; but there are too many places where they shouldn't be doing it and are doing so. What exactly am I overstating? The incidence of mishap with fracking is incredibly low. Not that you'd know it looking at looking at eco-hippy websites, but there still hasn't been one case where it's been proven that fracking has contaminated ground water. Shit happens in every industry. The fact remains that oil and gas companies have done a pretty good job when it comes to fracking. Don't they call this privatizing the gains, socializing the losses? I don't see why you would call it that. Because it's hip to say shit that you don't understand. I've found that I am a much happier poster in this thread when I ignore the one-liner trolls. Gotta include enough buzzwords to give all your friends the idea that they know what it is and agree with you, and all your enemies no idea of what you're actually meaning. Or maybe you're all just a little too limited in your views to understands what he means. All environmental effect of economic activities are case of "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses", just think about the effect of industrial pollutions on health (like athma) and how it impact on social security costs. There are external costs associated with pollution, but I don't think that phrase works. Some of the gains are privatized, but some are socialized as well. Essentially what you have argued is that no gains are 100 percent privatized; that business exist to provide a product instead of to make a profit. The lower prices of fossil fuels is what is being "socialized" in your view. Then you went into some argument about how their should be a carbon tax instead to remove the externalities that they cause. Well there isn't, so I guess the losses are being socialized so that part isn't up for debate. So at best we have reached the conclusion that the companies are privatizing and socializing the gains and socializing the losses. I'm saddened that you view that as an acceptable tradeoff. Pollution affects everyone, polluter included. If you work at a coal plant, your health and productivity will be affected by the pollution.
A lot of things like coal plants and the like are owned an operated by bigger entities that may not even have a presence in the state besides the plant. Take logging for example, where a bigger company will buy out a smaller one in another state, unsustainably deforest the area, then close down shop.
|
On November 23 2013 06:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 05:53 Livelovedie wrote:On November 23 2013 01:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 01:52 WhiteDog wrote:On November 22 2013 16:35 Danglars wrote:On November 22 2013 15:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 22 2013 15:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 22 2013 15:15 Livelovedie wrote:On November 22 2013 15:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 22 2013 14:53 zlefin wrote:
you overstate the case xdaunt, not that more is expected of you. The safety of fracking done properly, and in proper places, seems fine; but there are too many places where they shouldn't be doing it and are doing so. What exactly am I overstating? The incidence of mishap with fracking is incredibly low. Not that you'd know it looking at looking at eco-hippy websites, but there still hasn't been one case where it's been proven that fracking has contaminated ground water. Shit happens in every industry. The fact remains that oil and gas companies have done a pretty good job when it comes to fracking. Don't they call this privatizing the gains, socializing the losses? I don't see why you would call it that. Because it's hip to say shit that you don't understand. I've found that I am a much happier poster in this thread when I ignore the one-liner trolls. Gotta include enough buzzwords to give all your friends the idea that they know what it is and agree with you, and all your enemies no idea of what you're actually meaning. Or maybe you're all just a little too limited in your views to understands what he means. All environmental effect of economic activities are case of "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses", just think about the effect of industrial pollutions on health (like athma) and how it impact on social security costs. There are external costs associated with pollution, but I don't think that phrase works. Some of the gains are privatized, but some are socialized as well. Essentially what you have argued is that no gains are 100 percent privatized; that business exist to provide a product instead of to make a profit. The lower prices of fossil fuels is what is being "socialized" in your view. Then you went into some argument about how their should be a carbon tax instead to remove the externalities that they cause. Well there isn't, so I guess the losses are being socialized so that part isn't up for debate. So at best we have reached the conclusion that the companies are privatizing and socializing the gains and socializing the losses. I'm saddened that you view that as an acceptable tradeoff. Pollution affects everyone, polluter included. If you work at a coal plant, your health and productivity will be affected by the pollution.
That's not privatizing the losses though is it?
|
On November 23 2013 06:20 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 06:14 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 05:57 Livelovedie wrote:
Care to explain how they are? If the business is unprofitable, then the owners will get a poor return -- or even a negative return -- on their investment. Are you guys really so divorced from reality than you'd miss something so fundamental? How would you describe bank executive pay after the bail out?
Obviously that's not what I described.
|
On November 23 2013 04:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 03:55 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 03:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 03:09 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 03:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 02:42 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 02:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 02:39 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 02:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 02:29 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
Pretty easy, if the market were perfects, their profit would be less since they would be forced to pay the polluted to pollute them (if the externality was internalized in the market, which is exactly the goal of a carbon tax). That's the only difference, and profits would remain lower over the long run as well? Prices wouldn't change at all? I don't think that's correct... And ? If prices change, they would sell less, unless all competitor exactly pollute the same - which doesn't seems reasonnable, since any company who would innovate their production process toward a better environmental efficiency would instantly gain a competitive advantage over their competitors. Higher prices would impact more than just the producer. No since the consumer would gain more money through the taxation. A circuit, a circuit. It's all theory anyway. Consumers wouldn't gain through taxation. They'd gain if the government redistributed the tax revenue (I'm admittedly being picky here), but that ignores the higher prices due to less supply. You can certainly make an argument that consumers, on net, would benefit from higher prices and less pollution, but that's more of an allocation story than a rent seeking one. You're being picky yeah. If we talked about reality, it is absolutly wrong on my part : we would consume part of the revenue of the taxation just to collect the revenue, information would be imperfect, etc. But it has no interest for me in this argument : I was just comparing our world with a perfect one to show up that, in a perfect one, the externality would pass through the market, a fact that would instantly push the price up of all the productions responsible of pollutions, and that would give advantage to less polluting compagnies. It was just a mean to show that there is indeed an excess profit made by the industrial compagnies. Well we should be allocated more into less polluting industries. To me that's more of a society has an allocation issue than a private profit / public loss issue. Polluting firms should be more into less polluting production than they are now (but just as profitable) rather than polluting firms operating at a market loss and being bailed out by society. Isn't that the same ? It's an allocation issue that result in a loss of well being for the consumer and an excess profit for the polluting industries and a loss for less polluting process. With "privatize the gains, socialize the losses" you are complaining about a head I win, tails you lose situation. If a TBTF bank does good they get to keep the profits. If a TBTF bank does bad they get bailed out. That's a bit different from pollution. If you raise pollution standards the polluter goes out of business or at least takes a loss on the polluting activity. Moreover, with pollution you are talking about a society changing its preference from industrial development to a cleaner environment. With TBTF society is complaining about a burden it never wanted.
You're just going away from the simple facts again.
Yes, it's not a privatize the gains, socialize the losses like in banks, but it's a fact that pollution has negative budgetary effect on welfare and overall well being, while the excess pollution is source of an excess in personal profit (since you don't need to innovate in less productive but more environmentally responsible process).
|
On November 23 2013 02:10 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 02:02 Roe wrote:
Your Pyrrhonic ignorance isn't endearing. The connection between industrial pollution and health should be fairly obvious by this point. See, this is where the eco-hippies go off the rails. Pollution obviously is a bad thing. However, it is absolutely pointless and idiotic from a policy perspective to look at it as a bad thing without considering the good things that come from activities that cause pollution. You have to look at both sides of the ledger. As it comes to fracking, my point is that the positive side of the ledger GREATLY outweighs the negative side. All that I am seeing in response to that point is a bunch of hypothetical bullshit that does nothing to rebut 70 years of historical reality.
you're missing the point of the whole "privatize the gains and socialize the losses" thing. Yeah I get that its basically a bunch of buzzwords, but the point is still legitimate. In the case of most industry all of the positive effects go to the benefit of the private company running it. New tech is awesome and they get to sell it. I don't think anyone is denying that good things come from industry, but that its important to point out that only very recently has industry begun to also feel the costs that come with pollution etc. For most of its history industry has ignored the fact that its processes have negative effects on the population, and its only with great reluctance that they have begun to chip in on the cost of such processes.
|
On November 23 2013 06:30 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 06:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 05:53 Livelovedie wrote:On November 23 2013 01:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 01:52 WhiteDog wrote:On November 22 2013 16:35 Danglars wrote:On November 22 2013 15:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 22 2013 15:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 22 2013 15:15 Livelovedie wrote:On November 22 2013 15:08 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
What exactly am I overstating? The incidence of mishap with fracking is incredibly low. Not that you'd know it looking at looking at eco-hippy websites, but there still hasn't been one case where it's been proven that fracking has contaminated ground water.
Shit happens in every industry. The fact remains that oil and gas companies have done a pretty good job when it comes to fracking. Don't they call this privatizing the gains, socializing the losses? I don't see why you would call it that. Because it's hip to say shit that you don't understand. I've found that I am a much happier poster in this thread when I ignore the one-liner trolls. Gotta include enough buzzwords to give all your friends the idea that they know what it is and agree with you, and all your enemies no idea of what you're actually meaning. Or maybe you're all just a little too limited in your views to understands what he means. All environmental effect of economic activities are case of "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses", just think about the effect of industrial pollutions on health (like athma) and how it impact on social security costs. There are external costs associated with pollution, but I don't think that phrase works. Some of the gains are privatized, but some are socialized as well. Essentially what you have argued is that no gains are 100 percent privatized; that business exist to provide a product instead of to make a profit. The lower prices of fossil fuels is what is being "socialized" in your view. Then you went into some argument about how their should be a carbon tax instead to remove the externalities that they cause. Well there isn't, so I guess the losses are being socialized so that part isn't up for debate. So at best we have reached the conclusion that the companies are privatizing and socializing the gains and socializing the losses. I'm saddened that you view that as an acceptable tradeoff. Pollution affects everyone, polluter included. If you work at a coal plant, your health and productivity will be affected by the pollution. That's not privatizing the losses though is it?
There are no "losses" to privatize or socialize. We're already stretching the phrase just to discuss it. The producer will be affected by the pollution, along with the rest of society. The producer will be affected by lower prices, along with the rest of society.
|
On November 23 2013 06:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 06:30 Roe wrote:On November 23 2013 06:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 05:53 Livelovedie wrote:On November 23 2013 01:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 01:52 WhiteDog wrote:On November 22 2013 16:35 Danglars wrote:On November 22 2013 15:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 22 2013 15:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 22 2013 15:15 Livelovedie wrote:
[quote]
Don't they call this privatizing the gains, socializing the losses? I don't see why you would call it that. Because it's hip to say shit that you don't understand. I've found that I am a much happier poster in this thread when I ignore the one-liner trolls. Gotta include enough buzzwords to give all your friends the idea that they know what it is and agree with you, and all your enemies no idea of what you're actually meaning. Or maybe you're all just a little too limited in your views to understands what he means. All environmental effect of economic activities are case of "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses", just think about the effect of industrial pollutions on health (like athma) and how it impact on social security costs. There are external costs associated with pollution, but I don't think that phrase works. Some of the gains are privatized, but some are socialized as well. Essentially what you have argued is that no gains are 100 percent privatized; that business exist to provide a product instead of to make a profit. The lower prices of fossil fuels is what is being "socialized" in your view. Then you went into some argument about how their should be a carbon tax instead to remove the externalities that they cause. Well there isn't, so I guess the losses are being socialized so that part isn't up for debate. So at best we have reached the conclusion that the companies are privatizing and socializing the gains and socializing the losses. I'm saddened that you view that as an acceptable tradeoff. Pollution affects everyone, polluter included. If you work at a coal plant, your health and productivity will be affected by the pollution. That's not privatizing the losses though is it? There are no "losses" to privatize or socialize. We're already stretching the phrase just to discuss it. The producer will be affected by the pollution, along with the rest of society. The producer will be affected by lower prices, along with the rest of society.
Why are there no losses from pollution and industry? Your use of "affected" is euphemistic.
|
On November 23 2013 06:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 06:30 Roe wrote:On November 23 2013 06:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 05:53 Livelovedie wrote:On November 23 2013 01:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 01:52 WhiteDog wrote:On November 22 2013 16:35 Danglars wrote:On November 22 2013 15:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 22 2013 15:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 22 2013 15:15 Livelovedie wrote:
[quote]
Don't they call this privatizing the gains, socializing the losses? I don't see why you would call it that. Because it's hip to say shit that you don't understand. I've found that I am a much happier poster in this thread when I ignore the one-liner trolls. Gotta include enough buzzwords to give all your friends the idea that they know what it is and agree with you, and all your enemies no idea of what you're actually meaning. Or maybe you're all just a little too limited in your views to understands what he means. All environmental effect of economic activities are case of "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses", just think about the effect of industrial pollutions on health (like athma) and how it impact on social security costs. There are external costs associated with pollution, but I don't think that phrase works. Some of the gains are privatized, but some are socialized as well. Essentially what you have argued is that no gains are 100 percent privatized; that business exist to provide a product instead of to make a profit. The lower prices of fossil fuels is what is being "socialized" in your view. Then you went into some argument about how their should be a carbon tax instead to remove the externalities that they cause. Well there isn't, so I guess the losses are being socialized so that part isn't up for debate. So at best we have reached the conclusion that the companies are privatizing and socializing the gains and socializing the losses. I'm saddened that you view that as an acceptable tradeoff. Pollution affects everyone, polluter included. If you work at a coal plant, your health and productivity will be affected by the pollution. That's not privatizing the losses though is it? There are no "losses" to privatize or socialize. We're already stretching the phrase just to discuss it. The producer will be affected by the pollution, along with the rest of society. The producer will be affected by lower prices, along with the rest of society.
What is a loss ? You think a lower life expectancy in specific cities because of the pollution is not a loss ? And the banks are not affected by the crisis like the rest of the society ? Your second point doesn't mean anything, what lower price ? You mean the lower price they gain through the gain of productivity they have because of the pollution ?
Your view of the word "socialize" and "privatize" doesn't seem right to me, you can use a sentence out of its context and still use it right.
|
On November 23 2013 06:43 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 02:10 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 02:02 Roe wrote:
Your Pyrrhonic ignorance isn't endearing. The connection between industrial pollution and health should be fairly obvious by this point. See, this is where the eco-hippies go off the rails. Pollution obviously is a bad thing. However, it is absolutely pointless and idiotic from a policy perspective to look at it as a bad thing without considering the good things that come from activities that cause pollution. You have to look at both sides of the ledger. As it comes to fracking, my point is that the positive side of the ledger GREATLY outweighs the negative side. All that I am seeing in response to that point is a bunch of hypothetical bullshit that does nothing to rebut 70 years of historical reality. you're missing the point of the whole "privatize the gains and socialize the losses" thing. Yeah I get that its basically a bunch of buzzwords, but the point is still legitimate. In the case of most industry all of the positive effects go to the benefit of the private company running it. New tech is awesome and they get to sell it. I don't think anyone is denying that good things come from industry, but that its important to point out that only very recently has industry begun to also feel the costs that come with pollution etc. For most of its history industry has ignored the fact that its processes have negative effects on the population, and its only with great reluctance that they have begun to chip in on the cost of such processes.
No, I'm not missing the point. All you guys are doing is pointing out the obvious: that there are some negative externalities associated with fracking, or industry, or whatever. Then, you're holding it up like you have stumbled onto some great truth proving why fracking (which is what we have been discussing) is bad, when in reality you have demonstrated and effectively argued nothing.
|
On November 23 2013 06:50 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 06:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 06:30 Roe wrote:On November 23 2013 06:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 05:53 Livelovedie wrote:On November 23 2013 01:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 01:52 WhiteDog wrote:On November 22 2013 16:35 Danglars wrote:On November 22 2013 15:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 22 2013 15:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
I don't see why you would call it that. Because it's hip to say shit that you don't understand. I've found that I am a much happier poster in this thread when I ignore the one-liner trolls. Gotta include enough buzzwords to give all your friends the idea that they know what it is and agree with you, and all your enemies no idea of what you're actually meaning. Or maybe you're all just a little too limited in your views to understands what he means. All environmental effect of economic activities are case of "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses", just think about the effect of industrial pollutions on health (like athma) and how it impact on social security costs. There are external costs associated with pollution, but I don't think that phrase works. Some of the gains are privatized, but some are socialized as well. Essentially what you have argued is that no gains are 100 percent privatized; that business exist to provide a product instead of to make a profit. The lower prices of fossil fuels is what is being "socialized" in your view. Then you went into some argument about how their should be a carbon tax instead to remove the externalities that they cause. Well there isn't, so I guess the losses are being socialized so that part isn't up for debate. So at best we have reached the conclusion that the companies are privatizing and socializing the gains and socializing the losses. I'm saddened that you view that as an acceptable tradeoff. Pollution affects everyone, polluter included. If you work at a coal plant, your health and productivity will be affected by the pollution. That's not privatizing the losses though is it? There are no "losses" to privatize or socialize. We're already stretching the phrase just to discuss it. The producer will be affected by the pollution, along with the rest of society. The producer will be affected by lower prices, along with the rest of society. Do you understand the word losses ? You think a lower life expectancy in specific city because of the pollution is not a loss ? And the banks are not affected by the crisis like the rest of the society ? Your second point doesn't mean anything.
Loss means net loss on a P&L statement. Loss =/= cost. "Privatize the gains / socialize the losses" means a private entity turning a profit, and keeping it, or running at a loss and being covered by the public. The phrase does not refer to a public subsidy.
Edit: In political discourse, the phrase "privatizing profits and socializing losses" refers to any instance of speculators benefitting (privately) from profits, but not taking losses, by pushing the losses onto society at large, particularly via the government.
Link
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
