When you ride alone you ride with Bin Ladin

[Imran Siddiqui]

Don't be dense (or a wiseass).

The benefits that come from oil outweigh the costs of terrorism and pollution.

[DuncanK]

Imran,

Your cost\benefit analysis is seriously in error. What exactly is the basis of you economic theory?

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Don't be dense (or a wiseass).

The benefits that come from oil outweigh the costs of terrorism and pollution.

Why do you think that?

[DuncanK]

Imran,

The only way that the benefits of oil would equal the cost of producing the oil and the cost of terrorism and polution is if the producers paid for the entire cost, but they don't. They transfer that cost to others.

[Imran Siddiqui]

What is yours?

Oil and all the comes from oil (namely plastics) are a great benefit to society. Can you deny that they are? The benefits from oil outweigh the costs of oil.

You say that they don't and therefore we need to tax it to oblivion. Therefore the onus of burden is upon you.

I don't mind minor taxes to pay for things, but taxes designed to ween us off something is a little much. Social engineering is all fine and well, just keep me out of it and do it somewhere else.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
What is yours?

Oil and all the comes from oil (namely plastics) are a great benefit to society. Can you deny that they are? The benefits from oil outweigh the costs of oil.

You say that they don't and therefore we need to tax it to oblivion. Therefore the onus of burden is upon you.

I don't mind minor taxes to pay for things, but taxes designed to ween us off something is a little much. Social engineering is all fine and well, just keep me out of it and do it somewhere else.

I'n talking about neo-classical economics. Cost equals benefit and you have optimal production and consumption. Sound familiar? I don't believe any of this crap. It's suppose to be what you and LoA believe, but obviously you guys only believe it when it's convenient.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Cost equals benefit and you have optimal production and consumption. Sound familiar? I don't believe any of this crap. It's suppose to be what you and LoA believe, but obviously you guys only believe it when it's convenient.

Drag up any quote or time where I've said I an a neo-classical economist. Go ahead, I'll wait. Does this mean I can call you a Stalinist since we are deciding what the other is?

All I simply said is that I support supply and demand over social engineering in the case of oil.

[DuncanK]

Let me spell it out to you Imran. The cost that the producers and consumers of the oil is equal to the benefits that each on recieves. According to neo-classical economics this is a fair trade because each one recieves equal benefit to their cost. But they aren't the only ones who pay a cost. Everyone pays a cost whether they buy oil or not. Therefore cost is greater than benefit and the there is over production.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I agree with LoA. Let supply and demand tell us the price.

What is your justification for this if cost is greater than benefit?

[Imran Siddiqui]

The cost ISN'T greater than the benefit! You look at negative externalities ONLY! What about the positive externalities? Plastics come from oil, and plastics have been necessary in many advances, such as space travel. Also oil has lead to faster modes of transport allowing speedy deliveries and the ability to send things such as fruit across the country quickly.

By focusing on the negative externalities and ignoring the positive ones, you limit your own understanding.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The cost ISN'T greater than the benefit! You look at negative externalities ONLY! What about the positive externalities? Plastics come from oil, and plastics have been necessary in many advances, such as space travel. Also oil has lead to faster modes of transport allowing speedy deliveries and the ability to send things such as fruit across the country quickly.

By focusing on the negative externalities and ignoring the positive ones, you limit your own understanding.

What does that have to do with optimal production? How do you determine optimal production?

[DuncanK]

Imran,

If you want to subsidize R&D I don't have a problem with that, but that is another issue.

[DuncanK]

I think R&D is subsidized anyway. It would be nice if the oil companies would develope and implement technologies that would substitute for oil, but that's not going to happen because there is no benefit for their cost.

[DuncanK]

Anyway, we have thoroughly established how the free market does not determine the outcome most beneficial to society. That's why it's not my theory. I was just trying to present an argument that LoA would understand.

[DuncanK]

btw, a possitive externality is a market failure. It means that production is less than optimal. Production is only optimal when social cost equals social benefit.