Michael Tobis wrote:
> Otherwise what you are saying is that our current policy is so
> suboptimal that an additional constraint will miraculously guide us to
> a better policy. That is conceivable but very unlikely.
Michael,
I'm surprised by your apparent faith in the perfection of the market. It
is reminiscent of the "optimally adapted" conversations. I see no
evidence for either claim unless one tautologously defines optimal to be
that state currently achieved.
> Why would
> adding another layer of complication make us smarter?
If one accepts that the market is not actually perfect, then a priori,
one might expect a nudge in a random direction to have an even chance of
making things better or worse. But if one thinks that current behaviour
is waasteful, then it seems reasonable to also think that a push towards
greater efficiency would be beneficial.
James
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
