Gid, Neph: Luke Skywalker Must Die
DS, did you listen to the Planet Money podcast about carbon taxes? The claim was that you could halve the Global-Warming trend with a tax of (initially) only about 400$ per person, which would then be reimbursed in the form of income tax reductions. I was particularly enthusiastic about the idea because it only makes products more expensive relative to others, but does not necessarily reduce the income of any specific household. (This by way of eco-friendly products becoming objectively cheaper, which is not actually discussed in the episode.)
This is definitely a redistribution of wealth from polluting industries to the rest, but it is too long that they have been riding on our backs and expecting the rest of the world to bear the costs of their pollution. Is internalizing negative externalities something that laissez faire schools of thought can get behind?
My biggest concern was that they ignored the extra costs imposed on food production. The carbon tax on shipping was declared to be "almost insignificant," but they didn't talk about the cost of carbon involved in growing the food in the first place.
(I am starting to have opinions about my major which I am confident enough to defend! It's nice to feel competent in a real-world subject that isn't philosophy or math.)
DS, did you listen to the Planet Money podcast about carbon taxes? The claim was that you could halve the Global-Warming trend with a tax of (initially) only about 400$ per person, which would then be reimbursed in the form of income tax reductions. I was particularly enthusiastic about the idea because it only makes products more expensive relative to others, but does not necessarily reduce the income of any specific household. (This by way of eco-friendly products becoming objectively cheaper, which is not actually discussed in the episode.)
This is definitely a redistribution of wealth from polluting industries to the rest, but it is too long that they have been riding on our backs and expecting the rest of the world to bear the costs of their pollution. Is internalizing negative externalities something that laissez faire schools of thought can get behind?
My biggest concern was that they ignored the extra costs imposed on food production. The carbon tax on shipping was declared to be "almost insignificant," but they didn't talk about the cost of carbon involved in growing the food in the first place.
(I am starting to have opinions about my major which I am confident enough to defend! It's nice to feel competent in a real-world subject that isn't philosophy or math.) [/B]Congratulations, now we can slowly start discussing these matters. I still would like to hear the podcast in its entirety or at the very least, this portion of the podcast.
Originally posted by DudleyMoo23
I did not and that is a particularly bold claim to make. I'd like a link to the podcast.
While it is not a main tenet of laissez fare, it can be logically deduced as being consistent with many principles of laissez fare.Why did they ignore the food production costs?
Congratulations, now we can slowly start discussing these matters. I still would like to hear the podcast in its entirety or at the very least, this portion of the podcast.
Originally posted by Zampanó
Gid, Neph: Luke Skywalker Must Die
Luke should have died against Abeloth. As lame as she was, she was suitably powerful enough to be Luke's final battle. They're not going to be able to top her so now whatever does kill him is going to be wildly anti-climatic and/or stupid.
Give him a Ganner Rhysode death and be done with it. He's holding back the series. Have Han and Leia bugger off and leave things to the younger people so they can die peacefully off-screen.
Originally posted by Zampanó
Gid, Neph: Luke Skywalker Must Die
That was a good read, a while back.