A right to consume?
I wonder WHEN it is acceptable for a government to ration a resource?
Our "Capitalistic model" says that everything has a price: "If you can pay, you're ok."
It's a good working solution, but there are limitations.
One limitation is on the side of the seller. If the seller stolen the good being sold, or in some way harmed someone else in the process of bringing something to market, then the good have an unseen cost. Ideally the seller is still responsible for that cost but power in the world isn't necessarily held honestly so the seller may never be held accountable. Because of this limitation, it is reasonable for the buyer to be held responsible as well. If you buy something stolen, and it can be proved, your purchase can be lawfully taken away from you, or perhaps a fine could be given to you. Not that this makes it any easier for the buyer to detect honest trade, but it gives an incentive to pay attention and ask questions.
The second limitation is on inequality of buyers. It is possible to judge that some uses for a resource or produce are more important than others, and upon such a collective judgement, some sort of limitation may be required on some buyers - either to pay a higher tax or to be limited in quantity of consumption.
Clear examples may be difficult in times of surplus when sellers will be trying to widen their market, and it doesn't matter how wasteful consumption is, since it'll be wasted anyway.
Surplus can have a funny quality in that there may be times where supply far exceeds demand and so sellers will feel forced to sell a product much more cheaply than times when supply was limited. Specifically, when a product is LIMITED, its value is generally equal to the next best alternative. When a produce is in EXCESS, its value is limited by the ability of the seller to hold back inventory.
Back to consumers, in a blind system with a short memory, price is everything, and so consumption can continue and expand as long as price allows it.
Well, given this blindness, I see it is right for a government to make judgements upon consumption of resources and make decisions that raise the cost of products that are limited, or threaten to be limited in the future. It's always risky business, to "prejudge" value and future scarcity, or future costs, but even if its hard it ought to be done.
Fossil fuels stand as the greatest example of this. We don't know the future, but we know there's costs now (pollution), risks now (unfriendly sellers), that the costs and risks are increasing in the future, even if any specific crisis can't be predicted.
Well, all of that is in justification on why we NEED higher fuel prices NOW, to raise the costs of fossil fuels until more sustainable alternatives are competitive. In the process we need to reduce our over all demand, and we need to do it in a way that allows prices to change slow enough that people cand adjust and make decisions.
We should have started 30 years ago, and perhaps its too late. Maybe we're all on our own. But I hope the government can challenge the market a little more, to reduce our consumption.
If we don't it can't end well. We've got too much debt, and no combination of alternatives can replace the lifestyles we know, supported by cheap fossil fuels.
We can talk of "Carbon taxes" and I don't mind that. We can increase gas taxes, and I don't mind that. But the "most fair" approach is to simply ration consumption. Let the low consumers hold on a while longer, and let the high consumers be the engines of change, or pay enough into the system so the government can lead the changes that reduce consumption.
Probably too late, yes, but just thought I'd try my late defense for the obvious.
Our "Capitalistic model" says that everything has a price: "If you can pay, you're ok."
It's a good working solution, but there are limitations.
One limitation is on the side of the seller. If the seller stolen the good being sold, or in some way harmed someone else in the process of bringing something to market, then the good have an unseen cost. Ideally the seller is still responsible for that cost but power in the world isn't necessarily held honestly so the seller may never be held accountable. Because of this limitation, it is reasonable for the buyer to be held responsible as well. If you buy something stolen, and it can be proved, your purchase can be lawfully taken away from you, or perhaps a fine could be given to you. Not that this makes it any easier for the buyer to detect honest trade, but it gives an incentive to pay attention and ask questions.
The second limitation is on inequality of buyers. It is possible to judge that some uses for a resource or produce are more important than others, and upon such a collective judgement, some sort of limitation may be required on some buyers - either to pay a higher tax or to be limited in quantity of consumption.
Clear examples may be difficult in times of surplus when sellers will be trying to widen their market, and it doesn't matter how wasteful consumption is, since it'll be wasted anyway.
Surplus can have a funny quality in that there may be times where supply far exceeds demand and so sellers will feel forced to sell a product much more cheaply than times when supply was limited. Specifically, when a product is LIMITED, its value is generally equal to the next best alternative. When a produce is in EXCESS, its value is limited by the ability of the seller to hold back inventory.
Back to consumers, in a blind system with a short memory, price is everything, and so consumption can continue and expand as long as price allows it.
Well, given this blindness, I see it is right for a government to make judgements upon consumption of resources and make decisions that raise the cost of products that are limited, or threaten to be limited in the future. It's always risky business, to "prejudge" value and future scarcity, or future costs, but even if its hard it ought to be done.
Fossil fuels stand as the greatest example of this. We don't know the future, but we know there's costs now (pollution), risks now (unfriendly sellers), that the costs and risks are increasing in the future, even if any specific crisis can't be predicted.
Well, all of that is in justification on why we NEED higher fuel prices NOW, to raise the costs of fossil fuels until more sustainable alternatives are competitive. In the process we need to reduce our over all demand, and we need to do it in a way that allows prices to change slow enough that people cand adjust and make decisions.
We should have started 30 years ago, and perhaps its too late. Maybe we're all on our own. But I hope the government can challenge the market a little more, to reduce our consumption.
If we don't it can't end well. We've got too much debt, and no combination of alternatives can replace the lifestyles we know, supported by cheap fossil fuels.
We can talk of "Carbon taxes" and I don't mind that. We can increase gas taxes, and I don't mind that. But the "most fair" approach is to simply ration consumption. Let the low consumers hold on a while longer, and let the high consumers be the engines of change, or pay enough into the system so the government can lead the changes that reduce consumption.
Probably too late, yes, but just thought I'd try my late defense for the obvious.
posted by Ares Olympus at 8:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home