On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Craig <[email protected]> wrote:
But all costs need to be included in the product. > If externalities were included in the price of things like petroleum use, I think you might see a dramatic change in consumer and industrial use of such resources. But companies, some of whom consciously rely upon important externalities being borne by society, and the individuals they hoodwink into believing them, will fight tooth and nail to prevent such pricing schemes. I am doubtful there will be the political will to set up a US carbon market anytime soon, for instance. People will argue that consumers cannot afford the additional hit to their pocket books. I think this misses the point, since they're already bearing the price in other, less obvious ways, including monetarily. Often I am not persuaded by arguments to the effect that if you enacted such and such legislation, it would exact a huge toll on average people. When WWII came along, and there was a huge industrial mobilization underway for the war effort, it placed a great burden on the US federal budget. But I believe that all of that expenditure, which was no doubt wildly inefficient and directed towards all kinds of silly things, ended up serving as a massive stimulus, and the US did quite well economically after that. Eric
