Roody

I don't think there's an economist in the world who would agree that the free market can effectively limit or curtail pollution or other externalities. In fact, the free market rewards those who pollute the most, and punishes those who voluntarily reduce emissions. Certainly, my local power company will not benefit from burning cleaner but more expensive fuel. Also, owners of gas guzzlers do not share in the expenses of caring for (or burying) a child with asthma induced by breathing polluted air.

And. since you want to extend the free market model to ridiculous extremes, why not charge people for using the highways and streets. Certainly, a big Navigator tears up the pavemnt more than a subcompact or a bike, so shouldn't they gladly pay more the use roads in a free market system?

Monoborracho

Ah, but people do pay for the use of the streets through several taxes already. Low mileage (i.e., heavy) vehicles pay more gas tax by more fuel use, more sales tax when purchased, and more property tax by virtue of value. All of these, particularly the fuel tax, pay for the roads. Some counties also have a bridge and highway tax as part of property taxes.

Taxes---> redistribution of wealth -----> another mild form of socialism

Roody

I noticed that you have no response to my main point. I indicated that the free market always encourages the cheapest (that is, "most productive" in the doublespeak of corporations) solution, with no consideration of the costs thrust onto others. Even conservative economists willingly concede this point.

You have to face it, there is no free market solution to pollution.

Monoborracho

Let me think on this Roody. You may have a small point on the pollution business, but I really didn't mean to avoid it.

However it is a fallacy of reasoning to broadbrush generalize that "all economists think thus or even conservative economicst concede........". I don't know what they think. And I possess a graduate degree in buiness.

Later........I'm off to the ballgame in my wife's SUV. I'll bet that will make some people in this forum grind their teeth.

Taxes ---->redistribution of wealth-----> a mild form of socialism?

Roughstuff

Well, I am a fre market conservative, but i don't really jump to extremes one way or the other on the issue of regulation/ability of markets to solve env. problems/need for taxes or subsidies. I prefer to be a careful pragmatist, starting out with modest programs and see if they work, in both the private and public sectors.

Those who claim the private sector can't solve environmental problems are talking smack. As a relevant example, it was the private sector that developed the automobile, since the environmentalist wackos of the era were all hung up on horse poop in urban areas.

It was the private sector, pushed by the threat of imports from Japan and Germany in the 1970s, that developed smaller cars: they had to overcome the protectionist democrats AND the unions to do so.

It is the PRIVATE sector that wants to put wind turbines off the coast of massachusetts to develop enough power for the homes on Cape Cod...it is the carping, pathetic Kennedys and Romneys who are forgetting it.

It is our system of private property rights that gives people the incentive, and the ability, to make sure that waste and trash is collected and disposed of.

The same sort of people who go ga-ga over railroads and mass transit NOW are the sort who wanted to break up the 'big bad railroad monopolies' in the 19th century.

roughstuff

Roughstuff

To me its not the redistribution of wealth which my primary, visceral opposition to taxes. Spending in the private sector is efficient: you have the incentive to REDUCE costs (look for the lowest cost producer) and MAXIMIZE satisfaction.

Spending in the public sector has neither of these. You are spending someone elses's money, so who cares about costs. And you are buying products for people who you never see...so whocares whether they are satisfied or not.

There ARE numerous examples of 'third party effects', 'free riders', 'externalities', and or 'market failure.' In these cases I have no problem with careful, narrowly focused regulations.

roughstuff

nova

More like base tax remains same and less efficiant vehicals get slamed at the pump for a much higher tax.
Corse whos going to say what is better a honda civic or my dads very fuel efficiant dodge stelth. (btw they are damn close to same gas milage)

merlin70

The private sector can certainly solve environmental problems, however the key point is they typically solve those problems as a side effect to the true maket forces.

For example, utilities don't like nuclear power because it has no air emissions. They like it because it supplies the lowest generation cost over the life of the plant--around a 1/2 to 1 cent per Kw hour reduction in generating costs. So, they won't replace a coal plant with nuclear beacuse it gives cleaner air, they will because nuke is cheaper and the fuel costs are more stable unlike natural gas.

The fact that nukes help air emissions is a nice side effect, not an example of the private sector helping the environment.

Likewise, GM won't stop making a Hummer because it has high emissions. They will stop when it becomes unprofitable to do so, and for only that reason.

Roody

Of course private corporations working in a free market economy CAN curtail pollution. It's just that they WON"T do it because there are few (if any) incentives. The basic law is that entities operating in a market will do that which benefits themselves. It's really as simple as that,an amoral thing.

Brian

Except that wet shoes are no fun. And that's what you get when you're pissin' into the wind...

I-Like-To-Bike

The same may be said for bicyclists and their choice of transportation. I'd suspect 99%+ of bicyclists do so for fun, exercise, practicality and/or economic necessity; the environmental benefit may be a positive effect, but is only a side effect.

"Cycling advocates" are fooling themselves if they think playing the environmental card or engaging in car culture bashing rhetoric will have any significant impact on people taking up bicycling.

Brian

Amen!

Roody

I do agree for the most part.

But there is a sizable minority of collegiate liberal ex-hippy types who do ride bikes and eat organic food from co-ops, etc., for the main reason that they want to be eco-responsible. Possibly there aren't many where you live, but they (we) do exist in pretty good numbers in many enclaves across the nation.

Also, have you ever considered that advocacy isn't an effort to get people to do what they already want to do? That's largely a waste of time. Most advocacy consists of getting people to try doing something they don't already want to do.

Another word for this is democracy.

I-Like-To-Bike

Any idea of the size of this "sizeable minority", percentage of cyclists, or numbers involved? Or wherabouts in "sizeable numbers", other than possibly/maybe near college campuses ?

EDIT: Also what makes you think this "sizeable minority" has an iota of influence on anyone else except possibly for parents worried about if/when their children will ever grow-up?