Comments on: Sausage, Anyone?

By: More on Cap-and-Trade versus Pigou Taxation

More on Cap-and-Trade versus Pigou Taxation — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 23:38:04 +0000

[...] Will Wilkinson, who has a follow-up post [...]

By: Will Wilkinson

Will Wilkinson — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 22:08:50 +0000

Pithlord, "Baptists and Bootleggers" just is part of "crude" public choice lore. Morally-motivated regulation can be one of the most powerful sources of cover for those who profit from them. If public choice theory is the theory that no one is morally motivated, then not even the inventors of public choice theory believe in it.

By: Will Wilkinson

Will Wilkinson — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 22:08:00 +0000

By: Pithlord

Pithlord — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 21:50:32 +0000

I’d like to return the compliment. mk has a point. Anti-global warming legislation, no matter how misguided, is a bad case for crude public choice theory. We wouldn’t be discussing this issue if there weren’t a lot of people motivated by their view of the public interest and morality. It’s really hard to believe that the fuel cell lobby has more power than the oil and auto industries.

By: Pithlord

Pithlord — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 21:50:00 +0000

By: Intentions at All Three Rings

Intentions at All Three Rings — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:03:43 +0000

[...] posting any real content, and I’d intended to do it later rather than sooner, but this from Will Wilkinson was too good to pass up: Global warming is the sort of “crisis” that is useful as a [...]

By: mk

mk — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:29:04 +0000

It’s true, if you believe there is no proven AGW problem to solve then it must be a net loss for the government to move money around trying to solve it.

In my view the tax is partly idealism and partly rent-seeking. I don’t believe the rent-seeking coalition behind the bill is very strong (the net winners appear to be coastal states and renewable energy companies). So I think the main force here is idealism, or perhaps political posturing since the bill won’t pass.

By: mk

mk — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:29:00 +0000

It’s true, if you believe there is no proven AGW problem to solve then it must be a net loss for the government to move money around trying to solve it.

By: Will Wilkinson

Will Wilkinson — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:43:28 +0000

Well, I don’t think it has even been established that carbon emissions have a net negative external effect, so I don’t even buy the argument for the pigouvian tax. In that context, it’s hard to see this as anything other than a rent-seeking expedition.

By: Will Wilkinson

Will Wilkinson — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:43:00 +0000