Bungee Jumper Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 What in the hell does your example of wood pricing based on its scarcity have on its impact on pollution? It's statistics. He read it on a Stanford web site. You just don't understand it.
GG Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 Rachel Carson's Silent Spring was published in 1962. We've had the last 45 years to realize pollution is a problem, and to deal effectively with it. We haven't done so yet, and I don't expect things to change anytime soon. Sure, it's possible that a combination of new technology and higher oil prices will force us to be somewhat less irresponsible about vehicles in the future than we are today. But a per-unit pollution tax is absolutely essential in order to force polluters to internalize the costs they impose; and I don't see that happening anytime soon. As for the wood pricing example I mentioned, that was merely to illustrate how, in general, the free market's pricing mechanism produces economically optimal outcomes. Negative externality behaviors such as pollution are an exception to that general rule. Another swing and a miss. Pollution controls have been in place for decades. I don't think that we need to continue the debate on whether science has had the final word of the impact of human generated pollution on the environment. But, in any event, it's a good idea to reduce pollutants. Just like it was probably a good idea to stop killing whales to get their oil (but particularly better once oil was discovered as a wonder fuel). Notice that people weren't as concerned about the externalities of whale extinction, until whales were on the verge of extinction. Hence you can quantify the actual cost of that externality. I also noticed that you're totally ignoring the cap & trade proposals that utilities and other industries are talking about. You must have some bug with the auto industry. ps - If she could, Rachel Carson may want to ask people in the third world whether they prefer DDT spraying to malaria.
Orton's Arm Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 It's statistics. He read it on a Stanford web site. You just don't understand it. Should they ever remove your gallbladder, there'd be nothing left of you. You're 50% gall, and 50% bladder. I described the regression effect (a.k.a regression toward the mean), which you ridiculed. I found a Hyperstats article to support what I was saying, which you ridiculed because it was named Hyperstats. Then I found articles from Stanford, the University of Chicago, Duke, and other credible sources; all of which supported what I'd been saying for the last 50 pages. You bringing up regression toward the mean is like Kevin Gilbride bringing up the Comeback Win.
Bungee Jumper Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 Should they ever remove your gallbladder, there'd be nothing left of you. You're 50% gall, and 50% bladder. I described the regression effect (a.k.a regression toward the mean), which you ridiculed. I found a Hyperstats article to support what I was saying, which you ridiculed because it was named Hyperstats. Then I found articles from Stanford, the University of Chicago, Duke, and other credible sources; all of which supported what I'd been saying for the last 50 pages. You bringing up regression toward the mean is like Kevin Gilbride bringing up the Comeback Win. And if you'd ever understood any of the math, you'd know you were completely and utterly and hilariously wrong.
Bungee Jumper Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 ps - If she could, Rachel Carson may want to ask people in the third world whether they prefer DDT spraying to malaria. There's valid public health reasons for preferring malaria over DDT (namely: DDT has a track record of making malaria epidemics worse in the long run). But Rachel Carson has gone on record as disagreeing with the direction the environmental movement has taken, regardless of how much they worship her and her book.
Orton's Arm Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 Another swing and a miss. Pollution controls have been in place for decades. I don't think that we need to continue the debate on whether science has had the final word of the impact of human generated pollution on the environment. But, in any event, it's a good idea to reduce pollutants. Just like it was probably a good idea to stop killing whales to get their oil (but particularly better once oil was discovered as a wonder fuel). Notice that people weren't as concerned about the externalities of whale extinction, until whales were on the verge of extinction. Hence you can quantify the actual cost of that externality. I also noticed that you're totally ignoring the cap & trade proposals that utilities and other industries are talking about. You must have some bug with the auto industry. ps - If she could, Rachel Carson may want to ask people in the third world whether they prefer DDT spraying to malaria. Yes, pollution controls have been in place for decades. But the proliferation of SUVs and light pickup trucks shows that our pollution-related behavior is very far from being economically optimal. A per-unit pollution tax has the potential to fix this problem; but won't be implemented anytime soon due to political pressure from the automakers and oil companies. Yes, I do have "some bug" with the auto industry, because SUVs and light trucks are an obvious example of corporate lobbying and other factors resulting in pollution that's very clearly unnecessary. Coal power plants already trade pollution allowance certificates. The problem is there are too many such certificates, which means their price is too low. It's better than nothing, but not economically optimal.
Orton's Arm Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 And if you'd ever understood any of the math, you'd know you were completely and utterly and hilariously wrong. On the contrary, had you understood the statistical concept that I and other sources had presented, you wouldn't have disputed it. We could have moved on. Instead, your ignorance and incomprehension resulted in over 50 pages of debate.
Bungee Jumper Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 On the contrary, had you understood the statistical concept that I and other sources had presented, you wouldn't have disputed it. We could have moved on. Instead, your ignorance and incomprehension resulted in over 50 pages of debate. Let me shout it for the cheap seats: MATH Had you understood the math, you wouldn't have butchered the concepts, you idiot.
GG Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 Yes, pollution controls have been in place for decades. But the proliferation of SUVs and light pickup trucks shows that our pollution-related behavior is very far from being economically optimal. A per-unit pollution tax has the potential to fix this problem; but won't be implemented anytime soon due to political pressure from the automakers and oil companies. Yes, I do have "some bug" with the auto industry, because it's an obvious example of corporate lobbying and other factors resulting in pollution that's very clearly unnecessary. Coal power plants already trade pollution allowance certificates. The problem is there are too many such certificates, which means their price is too low. It's better than nothing, but not economically optimal. So now, lobbyists are responsible for consumer behavior? Are you saying that the only thing that prevents a better system to control pollution is the lobbyist/politician tango?
Bungee Jumper Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 So now, lobbyists are responsible for consumer behavior? Are you saying that the only thing that prevents a better system to control pollution is the lobbyist/politician tango? Wouldn't that mean that lobbyists and politicians are responsible for consumer behavior? It seems to be the prevalent belief, at any rate. The environmental laws in Maryland, at least, seem to be predicated on the idea that the state can legislate how the consumer will and will not spend their money... ...which I'm sure in some weird TPS/Holcomb's Arm/molson_golden world makes perfect sense. Too bad this is Earth.
Orton's Arm Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 Let me shout it for the cheap seats: MATH Had you understood the math, you wouldn't have butchered the concepts, you idiot. My conceptual explanation was the same as Stanford's. The fact that you chose to ridicule said explanation demonstrated only your own inability to intelligently discuss statistics.
Bungee Jumper Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 My conceptual explanation was the same as Stanford's. The fact that you chose to ridicule said explanation demonstrated only your own inability to intelligently discuss statistics. No, it demonstrated your inability to understand math. Your conceptual explanation showed that you didn't understand the concepts, else you wouldn't have needed to parrot other people's colloquial explanations to justify your own ignorance. Which is a common theme in your posts, come to think of it. When is the last time you had an original thought?
Orton's Arm Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 So now, lobbyists are responsible for consumer behavior? Are you saying that the only thing that prevents a better system to control pollution is the lobbyist/politician tango? I'm saying that the best response to the negative externality is a per-unit pollution tax. In the absence of such a tax, it's impossible for the free market to respond to pollution in anything close to an economically efficient manner. The reason such a tax doesn't exist for SUVs is because of corporate lobbying efforts. The way the problem should be addressed is for new vehicle sales to be taxed on the basis of how much pollution the vehicle produces on a per-mile basis. Such a tax would create an economic incentive for companies to create the cleanest vehicles they can. The tax would force those who buy SUVs to internalize the costs of their own conspicuous consumption.
Orton's Arm Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 No, it demonstrated your inability to understand math. Your conceptual explanation showed that you didn't understand the concepts, else you wouldn't have needed to parrot other people's colloquial explanations to justify your own ignorance. Which is a common theme in your posts, come to think of it. When is the last time you had an original thought? When was the last time you had any sort of thought, original or otherwise? As for the parallel examples: I'd been giving my own I.Q. test example for some time before I came across Stanford's (nearly identical) example. To suggest I was "parroting" Stanford is almost as stupid as the other things you've written about regression toward the mean.
Bungee Jumper Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 When was the last time you had any sort of thought, original or otherwise? As for the parallel examples: I'd been giving my own I.Q. test example for some time before I came across Stanford's (nearly identical) example. To suggest I was "parroting" Stanford is almost as stupid as the other things you've written about regression toward the mean. You mean those other stupid things I've written like...the mathematical concept of variance? Again, we keep running up against your bullheaded refusal to discuss or even understand the actual concepts at issue. Your stubborn insistence on repeating the same incorrect nonsense doesn't begin to make it correct, whether it's math or genetics or economics or psychology or football or just about anything else you've ever discussed on the boards. The only reason we indulge it is because...frankly, it's just so damned funny. Like watching a four-year old try to play basketball with adults.
GG Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 I'm saying that the best response to the negative externality is a per-unit pollution tax. In the absence of such a tax, it's impossible for the free market to respond to pollution in anything close to an economically efficient manner. The reason such a tax doesn't exist for SUVs is because of corporate lobbying efforts. Then it's not a free market, is it?
Bungee Jumper Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 Then it's not a free market, is it? There's that, too. Although I was too busy focusing on how taxing the consumer would force the manufacturers to build cleaner cars. And that's just two of the fallacies I found in his post.
GG Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 There's that, too. Although I was too busy focusing on how taxing the consumer would force the manufacturers to build cleaner cars. And that's just two of the fallacies I found in his post. I'm guessing by reducing demand for gas guzzlers. Of course the marginal impact would be relatively marginal, because the absolute pollution emitted by a Hummer relative to a four cylinder Accord is not that great. A far greater effect would be to hike the tax on gas by a $1 or $2.
Bungee Jumper Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 I'm guessing by reducing demand for gas guzzlers. Of course the marginal impact would be relatively marginal, because the absolute pollution emitted by a Hummer relative to a four cylinder Accord is not that great. A far greater effect would be to hike the tax on gas by a $1 or $2. Wouldn't that encourage oil companies to produce cleaner gas?
GG Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 Wouldn't that encourage oil companies to produce cleaner gas? It could, it would also make other technologies more economically viable, without Big Brother dictating the winners & losers (other than petro's)
Recommended Posts