When you ride alone you ride with Bin Ladin

[DuncanK]

There is a social cost when oil is traded, because some of the proceeds will go to fund terrorists. Whenever there is a social cost and society as a whole does not benefit from the cost there is market failure and a correction is in order (according to neo-classical economics). The oil producers and consumers both recieve the benefit from the trade, but all of us incur the cost. A tax would transfer the cost over to the producers and consumers and take it off of society as a whole.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ah well, some people think things are bad enough to start a war that will cost hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives, but not bad enough to raise taxes.

Only people who are so deluded to think that this war is about oil.

Whenever there is a social cost and society as a whole does not benefit from the cost there is market failure and a correction is in order

You are quite fond of throwing around the term 'market failure' without knowledge of its meaning. Externalities are not market failures.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Ah well, some people think things are bad enough to start a war that will cost hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives, but not bad enough to raise taxes.

Only people who are so deluded to think that this war is about oil.

We're talking about terrorism. Bush says the war is about terrorism and justifies the cost of war because of this.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Whenever there is a social cost and society as a whole does not benefit from the cost there is market failure and a correction is in order

You are quite fond of throwing around the term 'market failure' without knowledge of its meaning. Externalities are not market failures.

The hell the're not.

[cia]

The US at least could restrict the flow of external oil to certain foriegn markets and start pumping our own oil, legislating the wacko environmentalists out of the picture. VOILA, no money for terrorists.

[Imran Siddiqui]

We're talking about terrorism. Bush says the war is about terrorism and justifies the cost of war because of this.

And you take politicans at their word?!

Bush has wanted to take out Saddam since he took office.

The hell the're not.

The HELL they are! Just about every transaction has an externality. No one has, until you just did, claimed that externalities mean market failure. Which market failed and how did it fail?

An example of a positive externality is when you build a mansion it increases the property values of the property around you. Are you SERIOUSLY claiming this externality is a market failure?!

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The hell the're not.

The HELL they are! Just about every transaction has an externality. No one has, until you just did, claimed that externalities mean market failure. Which market failed and how did it fail?

The whole justification for capitalism is based on the theory that trade is fair. If someone else pays the cost for someone elses benefit that is market failure, because the trade is not fair and society suffers.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by cia
The US at least could restrict the flow of external oil to certain foriegn markets and start pumping our own oil, legislating the wacko environmentalists out of the picture. VOILA, no money for terrorists.

This would only raise the price of Arab oil and that's the oil that funds terrorism.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You said it was a market FAILURE. The market hasn't failed.. someone else is either gaining or benefiting from the transaction. How is that failure of the market in any way?

How does society suffer from a positive externality, btw?

The whole justification for capitalism is based on the theory that trade is fair.

No, the justificiation is that trade is voluntary, and voluntary trade improves the economy. If people don't agree with the burden being placed on them by a voluntary deal, then they can sue to prevent that burden from being placed on them (and plenty of people have sued because of excessive pollution, and recovered). Then the costs are increased upon those inducing the burdens. This view is backed by free marketers (they always backed people being able to assert their property rights in court).

[Imran Siddiqui]

This would only raise the price of Arab oil and that's the oil that funds terrorism.

Jeez, you are just as bad as those commericals that blame those that buy drugs are backing the killing in Columbia.

[cia]

Fine. Just bomb the oil fields in the ME and then pump domestically. Geez

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The whole justification for capitalism is based on the theory that trade is fair.

No, the justificiation is that trade is voluntary, and voluntary trade improves the economy. If people don't agree with the burden being placed on them by a voluntary deal, then they can sue to prevent that burden from being placed on them (and plenty of people have sued because of excessive pollution, and recovered). Then the costs are increased upon those inducing the burdens. This view is backed by free marketers (they always backed people being able to assert their property rights in court).

That is only part of it, although its bull****. In order for a trade to be justified (according to neo-classical economics) the cost of the trade to society or to other individuals who do not agree to the trade must be equal to the benefit that society or the individuals who pays the costs recieves.

edit: change the last word to recieves

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by cia
Fine. Just bomb the oil fields in the ME and then pump domestically. Geez

I hope you aren't seriously proposing this.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

This would only raise the price of Arab oil and that's the oil that funds terrorism.

Jeez, you are just as bad as those commericals that blame those that buy drugs are backing the killing in Columbia.

You are just as bad as the OTHER people who don't believe this

[Imran Siddiqui]

In order for a trade to be justified (according to neo-classical economics) the cost of the trade to society or to other individuals who do not agree to the trade must be equal to the benefit that society or the individuals who pays the costs pay.

Fine... the benefit to society is MUCH higher than the costs. Did that make you happy?

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

In order for a trade to be justified (according to neo-classical economics) the cost of the trade to society or to other individuals who do not agree to the trade must be equal to the benefit that society or the individuals who pays the costs pay.

Fine... the benefit to society is MUCH higher than the costs. Did that make you happy?

I made an error in that quote. The last word should be recieve not pay.

Are you saying that terrorism is a benefit to society?