Can you afford to fart in NZ!

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Sn00py
btw what can you use methane for?

Terraforming Mars

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Agathon
There's nothing wrong with these sorts of taxes,

I'm suprised you can say that with a straight face. Taxing farts.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by JohnT
Didn't we have a big old flamewar about this 2 or 3 years ago? IIRC, MWHC was among the leaders for the "this tax is stupid" side. I can't recall who held the banner for "nothing is too stupid for the environment" side... Eroberor, perhaps?

Lincoln had a Sheep fart tax thread early to middle of last year.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Agathon
There's nothing wrong with these sorts of taxes, they are called Pigovian taxes. The whole point of them is to stop overuse based on externalities. The same goes for smoking.

Externality theory in practice is a crock of ****. Often, it's flatly impossible to valuate a given externality. Even when it is possible, people selectively include or exclude externalities depending on their position wrt the activity in question. If you don't like something, reach as far as you want in coming up with detrimental externalities, and deny that there are any beneficial externalities. If you do like it, do the opposite.

It's more an attempt to breed a cottage industry of "experts" to sponge off of everyone than it is a legitimate practice.

In one example I was involved in, we had to assess the economics of a coal fired power plant with a solar plant of equivalent capacity and hydroelectric of equivalent capacity. Never mind that there was no hydro resource available under any condition, or that no solar plant of that scale had ever been built. Never mind that this wan't to build new coal plants, it was to buy available output of existing plants.

Among externalities required to be assessed against coal were the "social costs" due to a theoretical X number of coal miners getting occupational injuries and respiratory problems, and if you used open pit mines to lower the value of the respiratory and occupational hazard, you had to assess the value of the ugliness factor of a strip mine and the affected acreage. Employment for coal miners or tax revenues for local government agencies at the mining sites need not be included though.

On the solar side, I pointed out that the basic options were either to have a few thousand acres of ugly mirrors marring the landscape, creating a potential avigation hazard and affecting the site ecosystem with radical temperature changes, or you had to go with photovoltaics, and account for the mining, manufacturing and waste disposal hazards involved with getting the toxic elements (Arsenic, Phosphorus and toxic heavy metals depending on your photovoltaic of choince.)

None of those were allowed to be included, even though they represented the same category of externality as the ones to be applied against the coal alternative.

A year of BS later, my client was able to get the evaluation process thrown out because of inconsistencies and biases in the allocation of externalities. Meantime, the opportunity for the contract disappeared, and the client and their customers ended up sucking up a few tens of millions of additional cost over a twenty year time frame.

In the case of fatty foods in places like Britain and NZ, we consume too much of them because we don't directly pay for health care, which encourages us to free ride.

That's a more clearcut situation, but you also have a big mess in fairly and consistently applying the tax. Say someone comes out with "fat free" (and sugar loaded) alternatives not subject to the tax, and one person sits on their ass gorging fat free snacks, while someone else who exercises and overall takes care of their health occasionally indulges in something fatty.

In theory, the point of externality theory is to arrive at a true assessment of costs or comparative costs of an activity. It's not (in theory) just an excuse to rationalize a targeted revenue grab.

Methane from cows is pollution just as smoke belching out of a chimney is. What's the problem?

There's no crediting mechanism for acreage of pasture land. CM'd cattle or sheep take up a tiny fraction of the space of pastured sheep or cattle, and consume almost the same amount of food. (Since they can't move, they're a little more efficient at piling calories into body weight.)

A CM farm can have have over a thousand animals per hectare, no grasslands, and the animals are fed grain/hormone feed mixtures that involve all sorts of nastiness.

A free range pastureland would have almost a hundred hectares to feed the same thousand animals, and the grasslands would be happily contributing to CO₂ absorption. Meanwhile, all the polluting chemical processes of fertilizing low yield soils to grow fast growing feed grain crops, etc., wouldn't occur.

Despite the differences in business operations, the head tax treats them the same. Meanwhile, ag practices elsewhere in the world aren't taxed, so you (a) favor the more animal and ecologically harmful CM practices, and (b) favor simply moving the methane producers to another location where bovine flatulence methane is untaxed, thus not altering the global methane production in the slightest.

If you want to be all eco-friendly and animal cuddly, you want an externality system that rewards positive behaviors and punishes negative ones, not just a simplistic head tax.

[FrostyBoy]

you write too much, I only got so many hrs in the day

so how about my suction idea?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Externality theory in practice is a crock of ****. Often, it's flatly impossible to valuate a given externality.

And often it isn't. They exist anyway, no matter what anyone says. Facts are like that.

Even when it is possible, people selectively include or exclude externalities depending on their position wrt the activity in question. If you don't like something, reach as far as you want in coming up with detrimental externalities, and deny that there are any beneficial externalities. If you do like it, do the opposite.

This seems to be a recurrring theme of yours. I don't see how people being bad or selfish alters the facts. Of course your solution is to do nothing, which is probably worse.

It's more an attempt to breed a cottage industry of "experts" to sponge off of everyone than it is a legitimate practice.

Not really, it's an attempt to correct for market failures.

None of those were allowed to be included, even though they represented the same category of externality as the ones to be applied against the coal alternative.

Oh dear, people are arsholes aren't they?

That's a more clearcut situation, but you also have a big mess in fairly and consistently applying the tax. Say someone comes out with "fat free" (and sugar loaded) alternatives not subject to the tax, and one person sits on their ass gorging fat free snacks, while someone else who exercises and overall takes care of their health occasionally indulges in something fatty.

So? Wouldn't it be great if everyone "ass-gorged" healthier foods? I mean, they'd be better off, we'd be better off, everyone wins. Presumably foods high in sugar could be taxed as well.

Your example will of course occur. But so what? The point of the tax is to lower the overall consumption of fattening foods by making it more expensive. People who eat a lot of **** will pay more tax, thus offsetting the burden they put on public health care.

Anti-tax nuts always moan about how hard it will be to apply the tax but in practice the wrinkles usually get ironed out. Governments have taxed smokes and alcohol for years - it's not hard.

In theory, the point of externality theory is to arrive at a true assessment of costs or comparative costs of an activity. It's not (in theory) just an excuse to rationalize a targeted revenue grab.

So?

If you want to be all eco-friendly and animal cuddly, you want an externality system that rewards positive behaviors and punishes negative ones, not just a simplistic head tax.

So don't have a head tax - do it some other way.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Agathon


And often it isn't. They exist anyway, no matter what anyone says. Facts are like that.

My, with the fiery power of the intellect behind that profound statement, we can illuminate the halls oh human knowledge.

Whether something exists, and whether something can be quantified in a precise, consistent and coherent way to form actual policies for dealing with it, are two different questions.

This seems to be a recurrring theme of yours. I don't see how people being bad or selfish alters the facts. Of course your solution is to do nothing, which is probably worse.

Some people enjoy ivory tower mental masturbation in a fantasy world of absolutes. The rest of us have to deal with a real world, as things actually occur in practice.

Not really, it's an attempt to correct for market failures.

Which is why failed scientists, lobbyists, lawyers, econometrics types are flocking to consultancy and expert work in this field at exorbitant billing rates - out of a noble and selfless desire to make things right.

Oh dear, people are arsholes aren't they?

Yes. These were ivory tower leftist types who'd never built a ****ing thing or done anything of significance in their lives.

So? Wouldn't it be great if everyone "ass-gorged" healthier foods? I mean, they'd be better off, we'd be better off, everyone wins. Presumably foods high in sugar could be taxed as well.

Then we **** around with whether corn and orange juice are high in sugar, or is it just added sugar? Then is maltodextrose taxable sugar? Or we just opt for fake sugar and bleached white flour. Then we tax those. Eventually the nonsense will reach a proportion to make most sane people puke, then you'll cure obesity that way.

Your example will of course occur. But so what? The point of the tax is to lower the overall consumption of fattening foods by making it more expensive. People who eat a lot of **** will pay more tax, thus offsetting the burden they put on public health care.

You'll simply have people gaming the taxes by delivering cheap crap food products that don't contain the offending amounts of the offending ingredients. So you'll end up with an absurd, useless one-off tax, or a policy of setting up a zillion different taxes on a zillion different food ingredients and additives.

Anti-tax nuts always moan about how hard it will be to apply the tax but in practice the wrinkles usually get ironed out. Governments have taxed smokes and alcohol for years - it's not hard.

Certainly. They've also taxed income for years. They've also taxed property for years. It's all easy, just set a number and go. Hey boys, it's ALL REALLY ****ING SIMPLE, let's let Mr. Philosopher run the world, he has all the answers. Sure, you can set some arbitrary tax on some arbitrary basis and collect some amount of revenue out of someone. Thank you for admitting that all this huffery and puffery about externalities is just a sham for generating more revenue, with no higher social goal, and no particular intelligence behind it.

So?

In practice, it's just a revenue grab with some attempt to pretend to have some profound social engineering intent behind it.

So don't have a head tax - do it some other way.

The dumbassed leftist advocates of the tax are too ignorant about how the real world works to design an intelligent and functional tax system that accomplishes the stated goal.

[chequita guevara]

Why shouldn't externalities be considered, as long as all of them are considered?

[Provost Harrison]

The major problem I have is that the gases that livestock produce are very much integrated into the carbon cycle anyway...they eat grass and other vegetation, produce carbon dioxide and methane (the latter will break down to carbon dioxide anyway over time) which are absorbed by plants. Our problem is the introduction of carbon into the biosphere which has previously left the cycle...this is not. Perhaps these people could do to learn a bit of biology...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

My, with the fiery power of the intellect behind that profound statement, we can illuminate the halls oh human knowledge.

Oh, whatever. You are just looking to score points after you got burned for quoting Sokal's book without having read it properly.

Whether something exists, and whether something can be quantified in a precise, consistent and coherent way to form actual policies for dealing with it, are two different questions.

How amazing?

Presumably, we should leave it up to the professionals to formulate policy then. It doesn't matter anyway, all I'm claiming is that there is a sound idea behind Pigovian taxes. Ridiculing them qua themselves or relying on unsupported generalisations is just silly.

Some people enjoy ivory tower mental masturbation in a fantasy world of absolutes. The rest of us have to deal with a real world, as things actually occur in practice.

And some people know that there is no practice without principle. Even pragmatism has principles (generally utilitarian ones).

Which is why failed scientists, lobbyists, lawyers, econometrics types are flocking to consultancy and expert work in this field at exorbitant billing rates - out of a noble and selfless desire to make things right.

I doubt it's that. It's more likely because people pay them to do it. Here we have one of my favourite stereotypes - the waffling consultant who does nothing and takes home a huge cheque. How absurdly ignorant must business owners and governments be to hire these people?

Yes. These were ivory tower leftist types who'd never built a ****ing thing or done anything of significance in their lives.

Oh yeah, now the rest of the boring old stereotypes come out. Here we have all the good honest Republican Joes who do everything and would get everything right and lead us to paradise if only it weren't for those meddling lefties. Give me a break -did you get this off the side of a cereal box?

People who complain about ivory towers have obviously never been involved in real academic life or are complaining because they were and didn't like it. Save your sour grapes for someone else.

Then we **** around with whether corn and orange juice are high in sugar, or is it just added sugar? Then is maltodextrose taxable sugar? Or we just opt for fake sugar and bleached white flour. Then we tax those. Eventually the nonsense will reach a proportion to make most sane people puke, then you'll cure obesity that way.

You know, every year I have to cure undergraduates of this fallacy which goes along the lines of "If you can't fix everything, do nothing".

You'll simply have people gaming the taxes by delivering cheap crap food products that don't contain the offending amounts of the offending ingredients. So you'll end up with an absurd, useless one-off tax, or a policy of setting up a zillion different taxes on a zillion different food ingredients and additives.

Or a pragmatic compromise, which is, of course, the reasonable solution.

Certainly. They've also taxed income for years. They've also taxed property for years. It's all easy, just set a number and go. Hey boys, it's ALL REALLY ****ING SIMPLE, let's let Mr. Philosopher run the world, he has all the answers. Sure, you can set some arbitrary tax on some arbitrary basis and collect some amount of revenue out of someone. Thank you for admitting that all this huffery and puffery about externalities is just a sham for generating more revenue, with no higher social goal, and no particular intelligence behind it.

Yawn....

I'm no fan of economists, but I'll give them their due over you.

In practice, it's just a revenue grab with some attempt to pretend to have some profound social engineering intent behind it.

What an overloaded bull**** generalisation.

The dumbassed leftist advocates of the tax are too ignorant about how the real world works to design an intelligent and functional tax system that accomplishes the stated goal.

One could just as easily say that the dumbass people on the job are too focused on their own projects to appreciate the larger issues.

And if the stated goal is poverty, crime, ignorance and misery we can always trust the Republicans to design an intelligent and functional tax system.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Why shouldn't externalities be considered, as long as all of them are considered?

Because then the government would have to expand regulation and as all good Republicans like Michael know, it's only a couple of weeks from that until we are all imprisoned in Stalinist Labour Camps.

[chequita guevara]

One could make the argument that the carbon would leave the cycle if we didn't have herds of animals eating all the grass and grain up. It would turn into soil, and continue to deposit. I don't know if it's a good argument, on the other hand, I've heard (from lousy sources) that the US MidWest has lost 33 feet of topsoil since we began farming (which sounds rather specious to me). That's a lot of carbon back in the system.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Why shouldn't externalities be considered, as long as all of them are considered?

There are a lot of areas where externalities have been considered in public policy and planning processes in the US.

NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) is one that's three decades old.

Property zoning laws in the US go back much further, and are primarily based on externalities, but in a very loose and subjective way.

IF (big IF), you clearly scope out the types of externalities that have to be considered, a minimum threshhold of impact (so you don't get forced into wasting inordinate time on stuff so small it fades into background noise), a maximum degree of indirectness (no flapping butterfly causing a hurricane debates), and agreed methods for modeling costs and consequences, then addressing externalities is sound practice.

The problem is that it's far more often than not done in a very slipshod way with no integrity or scientific validity, as a way of skewing policy decisions toward a favored alternative or against a disfavored alternative.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Agathon
...as all good Republicans like Michael ...

Uh-oh!

[Agathon]

Originally posted by JohnT

Uh-oh!

Well, I can't see him as a Democrat.