user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Voted : No: Accounting should not include Externalized Costs
Only if we want numerical chaos to reign. I can see an entirely new level of creative bookkeeping springing forth from this.
TS: Point taken, but ... then do we just continue ignoring Externalized Costs?
How would you possibly put those in numbers? Isn't that entirely subjective?
herz: So you're saying that because they are difficult to quantify, it is OK to ignore them?
I'll put that up as a separate ballot question on ballot #101036.
Make that ballot #101037 -- sorry. Garbled the text in my first attempt.
Not difficult, impossible.
This would be the equivalent of taxing different companies based on how pretty their building is, who'd judge? How could you possibly be objective or quantify that measurement?
Voted : No: Accounting should not include Externalized Costs
It would cost more than it's worth.
herz & thc: Would you, then, suggest that externalizing costs is an acceptable practice?
Herzog
you're wrong Im afraid, theoretically there is no reason why these externalities cannot be calculated in cents and dollars, though in reality it would be extremely difficult to do it to a high degree of accuracy.
These externalities arise because of missing markets and exclusion from the pricing system.
A firms private marginal costs are lower than the social marginal cost on the last unit produced (when prfit maximising at marginal revenue=marginal cost), hence they have an incentive to produce MORE than is socially optimum.
One solution is for the government to intervene, like it should for any form of market failure. Even a capitalist should agree with that.
But dont worry Herz, I know that sounds FAR too much like the dreaded socialism you fear so. so Im pleased to tell you there is a way forward WITHOUT government intervention, though its only a theory.
Its called Choase Theorem (1965), and it concerns property rights. Look it up.
At the moment the market does not even aknowledge these costs, let alone deal with them. An example of market failure in a capitalist system.
Who would have thought an Economics degree would actually be useful eh?
Mr Goodness, Mr. Cathexis, are you trying to confuse me? What sort of ballot is this? What is it about, really? Does it have some meaning in most of our worlds? I think not. My head is still spinning.
cathexis
Not at all. If it can be proven that one entity has damaged the property of another, they should have to pay for it.
|
|
