Re: Has anyone calculated...

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:00:28 +0100, Nick Atty
<1-nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 19:25:51 +0100, Adrian Stott <adrian@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:

(a) If something costs more to produce than its market price, none
will be produced.

Rubbish. None will be produced for financial gain. There really is
more to existence than that. And a good thing too.

I assume, then, that you are going to start providing moorings at less
than the cost of producing them?

You didn't say moorings. You said "something". You proclaim
generalities like this to be true, and then argue down to specifics for
waterways. I was pointing out that the generalities are wrong in the
first place. That it may (or may not) be true for moorings is
irrelevant to your claim that "if *something* costs more" (my emphasis).

As I believe in the generality, I can logically apply it to any
example.

However, you disagree with the generality (you said "None will be
produced", a general statement), so therefore you must be disagreeing
with all examples. To show a general point is false, I need only
provide one counter-example. I chose moorings in this case, because
discussion about them is in the history of this topic. I believe it
is a valid counter-example.

e.g. The fumes emitted by cars are damaging, so there should be an
additional charge added to the price of each litre of fuel equivalent
to the value of the damage caused by burning it. If this charge is
set correctly, fuel demand, and thus consumption, will drop to a level
that the atmosphere can handle without warming. (Hmm. Sounds a bit
like a carbon tax, doesn't it?

There's nothing "market" about sticking an arbitrary tax on one
thing - to explicitly distort the market in other words - to change behaviour.

I agree, which is why I am not proposing "sticking an arbitrary tax"
on anything (note that I said "sounds a bit like", not "is the same
as"). I am suggesting that if something is consumed (such as some of
the absorption capacity of the atmosphere), the consumption should be
paid for. I would, of course, want the level of that payment to be
determined by the market, and to be at the market-clearing level.

Note that the market approach to global warming is leading to some
reckless experimentation in dumping iron in the sea off the Galapogos,
with no idea of what the result will be - because the company that is
doing it is claiming that it will remove carbon from the atmosphere and
has bought the rights to do that in the market.

What entity did it buy the rights from? How did that entity obtain
those rights?

OTOH it is possible that counter-acting the effects of release of too
much carbon, as opposed to preventing that release, may be the only
solution that can feasibly be applied in time. I have grave doubts
about the iron approach - a better one may be to increase the amount
of water in the upper atmosphere, although that still worries me.
Certainly, though, before any such approach were implemented at a
global scale, it must be tested through pilot applications.

And yet - just up there - you are asking the Government to save the
planet by interfering with the market.

Not so. At present we have an example of market failure, i.e. it is
possible to consume atmospheric absorption capacity without paying for
it. I think it is unreasonable to describe remedying that failure as
"interfering with the market", in the same way that one would not
describe repairing a non-running car as "interfering with the engine".

And somehow seem to believe
that the market won't work - as it always does - by just moving the
production to areas where the local Government doesn't adjust it.

Clearly, pollution of the ocean is a global issue, and permitting it
should not be a local capability. Subsidiarity works both ways.

You do seem to be casting me as some sort of communist for mildly
suggesting that there is more to life than money, and not everyone is a
ruthless ***.

I agree there is more to life than money. However, money is IMHO the
best medium of exchange we have, and its use in a market is the best
means we have come up with for achieving (or approximating) optimal
resource allocation. Certainly a lot better than fiat.

It appears as if - inter alia - I have nicer friends than you.

I'm less worried about the activities of my friends than those of the
more ruthless and irresponsible actors I know to be out there.

Adrian


Adrian Stott
07956-299966
.

Loading