Rosser Jr, John Barkley wrote:
>
> Robin,
> Well, it is your judgment that all the other arguments
> besides the one you cite are "hot air." Maybe, maybe not.
Fair enough. That's why I gave the full reference for Oates' article so
people wouldn't have to take my word for it.
> Personally I am not all that against taxes. I just
> happen to think you have overstated the argument for their
> superiority over tradeable permits in general.
I have been campaigning on this theme recently because the mainstream of
the profession has generated an intellectual stampede in favor of
permits and has ignored taxes completely. I think the entire reason is
permits can be part of a massive corporate boondoggle -- and pollution
taxes cannot. As evidence of a stampede without real intellectual
content, witness the effects on Wally Oates and Max Sawicky! So, I have
been giving talks challening anyone to come up with a situation in which
permits are superior to taxes -- in an attempt to even the debating
playing field as much as one radical can. So far my I'm not getting very
bloodied in my version of a John L. Sullivan, challenge-all-comers in
boxing tour.
BTW I agree with your characterization of the history of policy:
Economists recommended pigouvian pollution taxes in the 60s and early
70s, and at least in the US they were rejected for regulations [I refuse
to use the reactionary label "command and control" for regulation, and
suggest that others thing about adopting this new piece of mainstream
semantic ideological hegemony!] My understanding is that in Europe
pollution taxes were and are still more prevalent. But just as the US is
pushing our more barbarian version of capitalism on Asia and Europe, it
looks to me like we are pushing on Europe to abandon pollution taxes for
permit programs as well. I think it's another case of: You can make book
on the fact that if Uncle Sam is pushing it, it ought to be illegal!
>All of
> these are within-system amelioriations anyway.
I agree completely -- and AT BEST they will only slightly slow the rape
of the environment.
> How would things work in a Hahnel-Albert society?
I don't have time to post an answer immediately, but there is a reason
left greens have been particularly interested in our version of
participatory planning. It was designed to generate full environmental
effect social cost price signals to any and all users. More on this when
time allows.
