An obvious case of a negative externality

By -
Every morning, when I go to work, I see a fellow tossing advertising circulars at the brownstones in the neighborhood. In our lobby we often find 30 or 40 of them stacked up in the foyer. Almost every one of those gets thrown away. I have no doubt that the people advertising in the circular Would not do so unless they found it profitable for them to do so. However, this profit calculation takes no account of the time it takes for the residents to throw out all this rubbish, or the environmental cost in terms of carbon footprint for these things to be created.

Wouldn't banning this practice be an obvious gain for everyone?

Comments

  1. Bob Murphy8:57 PM

    Wouldn't banning this practice be an obvious gain for everyone?

    You mean if you compensated the advertisers? Otherwise it might be a net gain but not a gain for everyone, even in mainstream terms.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah8:59 AM

      Well, Bob, "everyone" can have several uses, right? "Everyone would be better off if we could get these child molesters off the street" usually doesn't include the child molesters, right?

      But it COULD, if we gives up recognizes the subjective theory of value is just a postulate and not a reality: yes, even the child molesters would be better off, since they would cease sinning.

      The same for the advertisers here: they would cease littering my neighborhood every morning, and might not feel so yucky when they wake up.

      Delete
    2. Bob Murphy2:39 PM

      Wow I'm actually surprised at the certainty of your stance. How do we determine when the situation flips from being analogous to child molesters and is more akin to emitting carbon? I'm assuming you don't want to ban all carbon emissions but instead think a tax or some other solution might be appropriate to internalize the externality.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous7:06 PM

      Oh boy, here we go ...

      Delete
  2. Anonymous10:00 AM

    I actually get more of these than actual mail. Luckily my landlord is nice enough to leave a trashcan right next to the mailboxes so that we can more conveniently throw these away.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more