And you are part of the trade when you get a service from company A which in turns gets another service from company B.
How? I benefit from the results of the trade, just as an asthmatic might suffer, but neither I or the asthmatic had a say in whether the trade happened or not. That makes me just another third party like everyone else who is not involved in the trade.
You don't get what an externality is.
An externality is a cost or benefit to any party which is not part of a trade. That's it.
AB 32 requires California to reduce its GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 â" a reduction of approximately 15 percent below emissions expected under a âoebusiness as usualâ scenario.
Pursuant to AB 32, ARB must adopt regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission reductions. The full implementation of AB 32 will help mitigate risks associated with climate change, while improving energy efficiency, expanding the use of renewable energy resources, cleaner transportation, and reducing waste.
It's not hippies smoking weed which makes California gasoline a third more expensive than Texas gasoline. Similarly, there are plenty of gotchas and liabilities for employers in California that just don't happen to employers in Texas.
l approve that Texas doesn't do the brutal economy-killing approach of California. I just don't think that marijuana consumption has anything to do with California's economic problems or growing inability to compete with Texas.
There's no "think" about it, the fact is that the economy in Colorado, California, and other liberal states has been getting worse and worse compared to Texas
Colorado's economy did a touch better than Texas's economy did in 2013 (though both states did much better than California did). That just doesn't seem to fit your narrative
These are not externalities. That's the benefit to the user/customer.
Externality is a benefit or cost to someone other than the user/customer. For example, a package delivery business can deliver packages cheaper with cheap oil. All of the customers of that business are third parties which can benefit from the cheaper costs of delivering packages. The customers of the customers in turn get cheaper services. In other words, cheap oil results in cheaper costs of doing anything in society even for parties which aren't directly directly consuming oil products for transportation.
That is the positive externality to oil.
That's your opinion. Thankfully no one will consider it. If you think your opinion/method is valuable, have the guts to publish it and get it peer reviewed.
A typical dishonest challenge. So it takes "guts" to publish something on your own dime contrary to the climate change group think? Sure. But what does it take to publish what your sugar daddy paying all your expenses wants you to publish? It's inevitable and easy like water flowing downhill.
The ones who pretend oil has no positive externalities are ones with political agendas. Namely, an agenda favoring oil. They'll pretend to be libertarians or fiscal conservatives, saying "nobody" should get subsidies. But they don't want the oil subsidies to be cut. So they pretend oil has no positive externalities thus aren't getting subsidies and thus there's nothing to cut from oil - only cut everybody else's subsidies!
That wouldn't make sense, since by granting such an argument, they would destroy the strongest argument for relatively unconstrained use of oil, namely, it's incredible usefulness for transportation. I could see the foolish or naive thinking that if they allow some point of debate, then their opponents will reciprocate by allowing some other point of debate of similar magnitude in the reverse direction, but that doesn't work in practice. An experienced debater wouldn't make such a mistake.
Further, my experience has been that everyone who insists that oil has huge negative externalities never mention the possibility that oil has positive externalities. And they don't favor oil.
They might exist but the negative ones far outweight the positives.
Show it then. Where is this evidence? I'll show as evidence of considerable positive externalities, the synergistic effects of cheaper energy and transportation on everything we do and make.
We were talking about credible, peer-reviewed reports.
And I was talking about a way to make those reports more accurate in fact than merely in appearance.
Perhaps that's applicable.
It is applicable. There's no "perhaps" to it. In a mostly free world people will act in ways that we won't approve of.
What we're discussing here is jobs and the economy in Texas.
And I get you think that legalized marijuana smoking is somehow worse economically than the current state of affairs with its destruction of people and the rule of law.
Similarly, maybe you think that "regulating" your employer to bankruptcy is more "fair".
OR MAYBE YOU DO. You're the one glossing over the destruction of a person's life just because they smoke or possess weed. Putting people out of business merely because they smoke something you don't approve of is pretty damned similar to the straw man you accuse me of above.
How is it more "liberal" to regulate a business to death rather than a person? Instead, I believe both are equally illiberal.
I request that you please do not run away from it's effects and bring it here. If you don't like the effects of your policies in California, change them, or come to Texas and become a Texan.
I in turn ask that instead of glibly saying that we'll never agree due to some mysterious quirk of philosophy or geography, look at the actual harm caused by the War on Drugs and then repudiate it. This is not a California thing. This is a moral thing.
As I noted earlier, the civil forfeiture of assets is the most unconstitutional thing the US and state governments do. There's also the militarization of law enforcement and the hijinks of unaccountable law enforcement, such as the Fast and Furious case where the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) ran some alleged stings that had the sole outcome of providing considerable material support for the Sinaloa Cartel to kill people (and perhaps do other things like money laundering) in a nasty and bloody war across the border in Mexico.
My honest assessment is as I hinted above - business is coming to Texas FROM the states that are making pot legal, increasing regulations, etc - liberal states. That suggests to me that while smoking pot might be fun, and these liberal policies may have some benefits, they are bad for an economy - bad for jobs. I get it - I used to be a member of NORML. So I understand that point of view - I wrote some of the literature they read. It just hasn't worked well for the jobs and cost of living situation.
Hasn't worked well compared to what? People are far less productive jobwise, when they're rotting in jail for committing a victimless crime like possession of marijuana than if they were casual marijuana users working some job within their abilities. And it costs a lot more to store those people in jail than it does to ignore their activities except in cases where they're doing something negligent, like operating heavy machinery while impaired.
And this War on Drugs (like marijuana), has resulted in the single largest current violation of the US Constitution, civil forfeiture of assets - the ability to seize assets of people without actually convicting anyone of a crime.
I voted for the Colorado marijuana legalization initiative in question because it was the right thing to do. I believe in time, Texas will follow the lead of Colorado.
As to your economic rationalizations, you can't study a problem like this by only considering one cost. Putting people in jail is a cost as well. So is creating a police state or spurring real shooting wars like the current cartel fighting in Mexico.
Impinging on other peoples' freedoms, even if you are of the opinion that the intervention is for their own good, has costs as well. My view is that we live in a free society. As a result, we have to expect and accept that people will on occasion act in ways that we don't like and perhaps even contrary to their own well-being.
Yes. Generally if we consider something has positive externalities we tend to subsidize it.
Unless it happens to be fossil fuel production and usage. Then we tend to pretend positive externality doesn't exist.
Oh really. Now you are taking numbers out of your ass. If you think you are right, publish it. I am sure your methodology will be laugh at.
So what? We were looking for something comprehensive that covers the whole issue and was more accurate than the Stern report and other such reports. I found one such.
Yeah. But with gasoline. You get...gasoline.
To the AC who missed this most important half of the gasoline "wealth redistribution program", you fail economics. To the moderator who modded Chas's post as "troll", get off my internet. This is a basic observation about the oil trade that everyone should acknowledge from the start.
And that's just where it sparks, if you could guess that the rise of Hitler would lead to the attack on Pearl Harbor your crystal ball is good.
The two weren't correlated so your crystal ball would be broken.
It's more complex than that. Of course your willingness to pay for them will be $0. And let say they are willing to reduce their CO2 emission to close to 0 because they don't want their country to disappear. It won't be enough. Their sea level will still rise because of you. Does it mean they should pay the cost (losing their island) because you emit CO2? Seems unfair to me. You should pay for your own negative externalities, and not push them to other people or other generations.
Well, how much is an island worth? Again, I don't see anyone paying very much to protect these things. If it's not valuable to anyone else, then it's not valuable to me.
And if we're paying for our own externalities, shouldn't we also get compensated for our own externalities with the opposite sign?
Alright, where can I read these reports? I want something comprehensive that covers the whole issue. So don't give me a source that covers only a specific country/region or a specific consequence.
How about the Stern report where you take the estimated cost of global warming and divide it by ten. Then take the estimated cost of carbon dioxide emission reductions and multiply them by ten? That's a report that probably has more accurate cost/benefit analysis than the original report.
To do nothing is to be nothing.
