“People rarely speak of the ‘right’ to own an automobile or home that they want … why then should we assume that the right to pristine air and water is inalienable?” Blinder’s economic arguments are simple and often quite convincing. The pollution section is no exception. However, the statement above shows ignorance of the difference between public and private goods. Cos’s theorem does a great job of assigning costs, but only if ownership is established. I see a disconnect between Cos and goods such as the environment which one person or company cannot possibly claim title to. Does a democratic society give the government a right to dole out pollution credits, showing ownership through a sale? Perhaps, but I haven’t yet seen the argument spelled out convincingly in either class or a text.
“Some people argue that putting price tags on clean air and water ‘cheapens’ these things, that is, makes people think them less valuable. I don’t suppose they apply the same reasoning to mink coats or Rolls Royces.” Once again, Blinder is throwing out a contrived analogy to try to reduce the environmentalist’s argument to the absurd. In doing so, however, he mixes too many ideas to put across a clear point. Is Blinder suggesting that mink coats and Rolls Royces are more highly coveted because they cost more money? If so, he is rejecting the simplistic (and powerful) economic framework the book is meant to operate on. Is he is bringing in the idea of Giffen Goods, is he suggesting that as we make the environment more valuable, people will actually consume (pollute) more of it? No, this is clearly against his claim. Blinder makes a strong point about how to most efficiently reducing pollution – I remember hearing about a recently implemented national pollution credit system. He should leave the moral decisions on which the economic framework should be built to the philosophers, or perhaps democracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment