And if my neighbor fixes his broken down ugly fence with a hammer he bought I don't get the benefit of living in a prettier neighborhood?

 

-----signature-----

That's an externalized benefit (it'd be hard to put an economic value on it, though). You're getting a benefit for something two third parties did which you have nothing to do with.


The ambulance example is not. The ambulance carrying you to the hospital is not a third party. The ambulance provider buys the gas so it can provide that service to you and charge you for it (or charge the taxpayer, if it's publically funded). Either way it's not an externalized benefit. It's all worked into the gasoline transaction. The ambulance driver pays for the gasoline so he can go do a service. The recipient of that service isn't getting an externalized benefit from the gasoline producer any more than he's getting an externalized benefit from the ambulance itself.


The two examples are not alike. Your neighbor doesn't buy a hammer to fix his fence so he can get money from someone for the benefit he provided to you.


Your argument is like saying the cheaper prices you pay for eggs at the supermarket are an externalized benefit generated by gasoline producers.

So your wife and kids don't benefit if your life is saved?

Okay bad example. But imagine if your wife was married to someone who was wrong less often.

 

-----signature-----

Says the guy who just admitted his example wasn't an example of what he thought it was.


And now you are getting into third level + externalized benefits. The benefit to the wife of the guy who uses an ambulance that uses gasoline. When you get to that level of abstraction monetization is no longer economically efficient or even possible. And when you get to that level of abstraction there's a whole new set of externalized costs too. If you can find a way to do all that math at an economically efficient cost you'd get very rich.


To use your hammer example, you're now trying to assess the externalized benefit produced by a hamemr manufacturer on the mental well being of the out-of-state daughter of the guy who lives next to the neighbor who repairs his house because she hears less bitching from her dad on the phone.


On the other hand, the costs of pollution from burning gasoline are pretty easy to assess against the gasoline producer or retailer. It doesn't really matter which you choose. You could levy them against the consumer too but that'd be really inefficient. Levying these costs improves economic incentives because it includes a very real and direct cost of using gasoline.

You've already acknowledged that my hammer example had a valid externalized benefit. WTF are you talking about?




Why would I do that? I'm not the one arguing for forcing money to change hands for externalized costs/benefits.




Of course it doesn't matter. Neither of them are generating the pollution.




So you want to affect the market by adding in externalized costs but not benefits. And you think this will improve economic incentives? Seems to me it will just discourage the use of a product that has way way way more externalized benefits than externalized costs. Isn't that a net loss for society?

 

-----signature-----

You just admitted the only externalized benefits you can identify as so marginal they arn't capable of being calculated. How you think this incalculably remote externalized benefits outweight the very reasonably calculable and substantial externalized costs is a bit perplexing.


You also arn't considering possible remote externalized costs, which also exist and are not capable of real calculation, just like your supposedly huge remote externalized benefits.


You are basically saying we shouldn't attempt to monetize externalized costs we can easily monetize because there might be some unmonetizable externalized benefits (while ignoring similarly speculative costs). That's pretty silly.


The argument no externalities should be monetized because we can't monetize all of them is not very compelling to anyone with a brain. I think we have pretty much exhausted the possibilities of this discussion.

Wut? The benefits are so massive they can't be calculated in total because they are so pervasive. I can calculate plenty of them if you want. The ambulance scenario had the benefit of one husband and father still being alive. /calculated




I am including them. Look at the world before the internal combustion engine. Look at the world since. Which would you rather live in? If you are going to say the world before the internal combustion engine be sure to send your reply by pony express.




Why? You yourself made the argument about skewing economic incentives. You only want to influence one side of the equation. And it just so happens the side you want to favor is the side that has a small fraction as much externalized value. The situation is already skewed because neither externalized costs or benefits are included. You propose making things worse rather than better.

Sorry, your proposal is a net loser for society. The societal benefits outweigh the costs.

 

-----signature-----

http://editorial.autos.msn.com/blogs/autosblogpost-tru.aspx?post=5d1a82a3-4705-44eb-b12a-034d67d67113?icid=autos_2502

An unusually warm winter and expanded production have continued to drive down prices of natural gas, according to the Energy Information Administration. At the pump, compressed natural gas costs anywhere from $1 to $3 less than an equivalent gallon of regular gasoline. The fuel burns cleaner and emits less greenhouse gas than gasoline.


The Silverado and Sierra pickups will be available in mid-April; the Ram CNG will be ready in July. Both trucks will be available in all 50 states

The Ram CNG carries two enclosed steel tanks that take up nearly half of the 8-foot bed, which provide the equivalent of 18.2 gallons of gasoline. (For comparison, the Honda Civic Natural Gas can hold only about 8 gallons.) When the estimated 255-mile range evaporates, the Ram switches to a smaller, 8-gallon tank of gasoline without interruption.


The tanks, additional fuel lines and other modified engine components weren't hard to develop. Parent company Fiat sells 80 percent of all natural-gas-powered cars and 55 percent of all natural-gas-powered light commercial trucks in Europe.

Due to the additional weight of the natural-gas tanks, the Ram's payload and towing capacity ratings are down by about 800 and 3,000 pounds, respectively. There's also an $11,000 premium over the standard Ram 4x4 Crew Cab models; the CNG version is available in either ST or SLT trims.

GM would not release pricing but said it would offer the natural-gas option on any extended-cab trim level. The single tank adds 450 pounds and holds less than the Ram's dual tanks, with the equivalent of about 17 gallons of gasoline. GM says the tank, mounted behind the cab, will leave approximately 6 feet of bed space -- about 16 inches more than on the Ram. The GM pickups pack a larger gasoline tank for a total range of 650 miles. GM could not provide estimated payload and towing capacities.

Unlike the federal tax credits given to buyers of electric vehicles, no such incentives exist for natural gas-powered vehicles


the buzz is awalys GM or Chrysler ...becouse both are backed by federal tax money and obama butt smoochers

this is great 100% american fuel but wont be long befor democrats tax the holy crap out of the fuel destroying the whole market and kill all the manufacturing jobs

 

-----signature-----

Like all costs of production, the producer would roll those costs into the final price. This isnt that confusing.

The ambulance company pays for that gas becuase it gives them the ability to get to the scene faster. People already pay money for gasoline because it lets them do things easier/better. There are no price controls on gasoline, the producer can charge anything he wants. If he charges more than the value received by the ambulance company, no sale occurs. The benefit is already 'internalized' into the price people are willing to pay for gas. I dont think you understand the concept.