tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27938567.post7841442202751482333..comments2023-05-25T11:05:10.365-02:00Comments on Political Scientist: Political Scientisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00763391741375972410noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27938567.post-27925145451814538442009-06-05T07:31:14.719-02:002009-06-05T07:31:14.719-02:00Hello LemmusLemmus - thanks, I thought I might hav...Hello LemmusLemmus - thanks, I thought I might have gone mad for a bit there.<br /><br />I rather like Tim Worstall who wrote this - I link to him on my blogroll - but I see from <a href="http://www.adamsmith.org/asi-fellows/" rel="nofollow">this source</a> he's been made an "Environment fellow" at the Adam Smith Institute. Deary deary me.Political Scientisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763391741375972410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27938567.post-56104360567248364022009-06-02T16:49:45.418-02:002009-06-02T16:49:45.418-02:00The writer is confused, as evidenced by this passa...The writer is confused, as evidenced by this passage:<br /><br />"That was that we could sort this all out for the remarkably low price of 1-2% of GDP, spent year by year over the next few decades. Given the size of the UK economy this means some £14 billion to £28 billion a year. And we're also told that this amount should be used to correct the price system, so that matters currently external to the markets become internal to the pricing system. This so called Pigou taxation."<br /><br />The idea of a <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigouvian_tax" REL="nofollow">Pigouvian tax</A> is to reduce the demand for a good that has negative externalities by raising its price by putting a tax on it. It hence could be argued that existing taxes on fuels are already Pigouvian taxes. (Whether they're high enough, or maybe too high, to be called true Pigouvian taxes would have to be decided on the basis of an economic analysis.) What the money raised through Pigouvian taxes is spent on is at best an afterthought in this framework (as far as I am aware, that is. I'm not an economist and haven't read Pigou's work.)<br /><br />The author's reasoning must have gone roughly like this: Money is supposed to be spent > Has gotta come from somewhere > Tax on fuel and the like > Fancy econ concept to reduce pollution I once heard about > but we already pay taxes on pollutants > environmentalists have nothing to criticize<br /><br />Or in other words, you're absolutely right.LemmusLemmushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00917054221547240969noreply@blogger.com