undefined | Better HN

0 pointsAnthonyMouse5y ago0 comments

> "The correct allocation of energy should be based on the price people are willing to pay for the energy. Like any other commodity."

This is in no way inconsistent with the need to price externalities, which is the default assumption in free market theories. (Otherwise you have obvious problems with people dumping industrial waste into rivers etc.)

> It's not the only way, it's not even the only way that's employed right now in a lot of places, for instance we don't apply sales tax to items we deem 'essential' here in the UK, have a 5% rate for some things and 20% for 'luxuries'.

Just because somebody does something doesn't make it a good idea.

Things like that have counterintuitive economic consequences. See what subsidized student loans do to education prices. Is this what we want for "essential" goods?

If we do that, the tax rate has to be higher for non-"essential" goods in order to generate a given amount of revenue. Now you're into central planning to determine what's "essential" and what isn't. Is a laptop a luxury good? A poor person might need one. What about an electric car? Meanwhile every such decision of what to tax more is subject to lobbying and corruption.

If you want to help the poor, give them money. They know what's "essential" to them better than the bureaucracy does.

0 comments

4 comments · 1 top-level

Nursie5y ago· 3 in thread

> This is in no way inconsistent with the need to price externalities, which is the default assumption in free market theories.

There's nothing in free markets that will make this happen without regulation, as evidenced by the fact that it so far hasn't happened.

> Just because somebody does something doesn't make it a good idea.

No, but it also doesn't make it impossible or something which can just be dismissed. There blatantly are mechanisms that can be used other than the ones you mentioned. You don't like them, that's not the same as them not existing.

However ridiculous you want to make the results - oh my god now you're into planning! - this already happens in quite a number of pretty successful countries, so it's clearly not some bizarre fantasy.

AnthonyMouseOP5y ago

> There's nothing in free markets that will make this happen without regulation, as evidenced by the fact that it so far hasn't happened.

According to hardcore libertarian free market theory, polluting someone else's property without their permission is a violation of their property rights. In principle this would make it impractical to burn anything at all, because the combustion products go out into the air and spread to someone else's property without their permission. You would need the permission of everybody everywhere, for which they would want to extract payment.

Obviously that isn't how it's implemented in the US, but that's what the theory says should happen.

A carbon tax + dividend is a pragmatic alternative. The criticism of it is actually that it gives the polluters too much -- maybe someone thinks the tax isn't high enough and wants to demand more of the carbon emitters. By implementing the tax you're taking away their right to refuse to have their air polluted and hold out for higher payment from the carbon emitters.

> You don't like them, that's not the same as them not existing.

Nobody was claiming that implementations of bad ideas don't exist.

Nursie5y ago

> Nobody was claiming that implementations of bad ideas don't exist.

Actually it sounded a lot like you were saying that the only way to do this was pricing.

Either way, you'd have to go a long way to convince me that the free market ideology principles are always better than what we can see working in a number of wealthy, successful countries already.

A carbon tax and dividend is certainly one way that such things could be achieved, though it's not the only way and it is a blunt instrument. It's not the only way or necessarily the best, and it doesn't allow a society to make choices with much granularity.

Your argument is basically that it is wrong to do so - I think that's a pseudo-religious belief.

chii5y ago

> it doesn't allow a society to make choices with much granularity.

i argue that pricing carbon is the only way to allow everyone in society to make their own choice with the granularity that you propose.

After all, when has central planning ever taken everyone into account properly? How will i know that policy makers will take my interests into account when they plan policies?

And in this specific case, what about the people who _do_ want to mine crypto? Why do they get the bad end of the stick, just because some authority says so?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse