So you're saying it's not strictly a negative externality. The moral content or intent of a policy is completely irrelevant to whether it creates an externality or not.
No I am not saying it's not strictly a negative externality. I'm saying it's not an externality at all.
It's incurred without choice by the employer, that's what makes it an externality.
Completely wrong again. It's not without choice. The employer has the choice in hiring employees or not. If he does, however, he has to take the whole package, which means, among others, paying a salary. Being forced to pay a salary is not a negative externality to the employer. It's part of the cost of a trade he agrees with (otherwise, he's free not doing that trade). The same goes with filling tax forms. It's part of the costs of operating a business. It's not an externality as you have the choice to operate or not your business.
Funny, doesn't look like that from my end. While I grant someone seems to have a problem understanding what an externality is, I find it more interesting that merely characterizing this massive synergy of fossil fuels, energy, and transportation with the entirety of an economy, as not an externality is sufficient to dismiss it.
I haven't dismissed the advantages of oil. They are very important. However they aren't externalities. I am sure there are positives externalities from the consumption of oil. You just didn't find any yet.
This strikes me as comparable to the argument from authority fallacy you presented earlier, created by presenting "credible, peer-reviewed", but highly biased predictions as if they were the best possible guesses out there.
You are confusing expert opinion with argument from authority.
Sure, if we ignore contrary evidence, like what I've remarked on (such as ignoring the positive externalities of fossil fuel use, proper time value of money, or the oter systematic biases contributing to portraying radical carbon dioxide emission reduction as something with low costs and large benefits)
You wish that evidence existed, but you haven't presented any. No example of any positive externality for oil, no evidence about what would be the "proper" time value of money, and no evidence of other systematic biases.
You already included a number of externalities. The retailer's accountant, for example, often is employed to insure compliance with tax codes and employment regulation. The marginal cost of the labor required to deal with that is an externality.
There you go again. No it isn't. It's required by law to pay taxes just as it is required to pay your employees and not kill them at the end of the day. Just because it would be cheaper if this law didn't exist doesn't make it an externality. I don't think you will ever understand what an externality is. There isn't much more I can do here. I understand that you will never want to lower CO2 emissions if you don't get what an externality is.
The cost of all goods include the cost of transportation. When you pay for an apple, you pay for pesticide, oil, transport, the retailer's accountant and a whole bunch of stuff whether you like it or not and these are not externalities, these are part of the voluntary trade, no matter if you are aware of the details or not.
Negative externalities of the apple include pollution that the rest of the world incurs because of the burning of oil for the transportation of that apple. Positives externalities include the beautiful views of an orchard.
Externalities are not related to price. Cheap oil has the same externalities as expensive oil. Externalities are related to its production and burning in your car. Not to the price you pay at the pump.
Making a trade doesn't imply that I'm part of some larger, nebulous "deal" and hence have agreed to whatever externalities I'm exposed to.
It's not nebulous. Just because you are ignorant doesn't make it an externality. So whether you agree or not to the pollution of your own car, it is par of the deal, or the trade (between you and the gas company) if you prefer. What is not part of the deal is the pollution that you force to others while driving your car.
Externality means you didn't make a choice to incur the cost or benefit.
Yes. And when you buy gas, or buy service from a delivery company, you make the choice to add more CO2 to the atmosphere. A small part of that cost will be assumed by you. But a much larger amount will be assumed by the rest of the world, and this is what we call an externality.
It's the impact on those not part of the deal which is an externality. You and the delivery company are both part of the deal. Any impact on any of you is NOT an externality. Any impact on someone else is an externality, no matter if they personally use oil or not, as if they do it's not related to this deal.
So are any negative externalities from fossil fuel use that drive up the price of the service. For example, if I buy an agricultural product which is made cheaper due to the use of cheap oil, then sure, that's part of the deal, a part which I didn't choose.
You don't choose the price in a competitive market.
Anyway it's not the price of oil which has externalities. It's its use.
But if the farms which produce that agricultural product also are suffering from a drought directly caused by AGW and which drives up the cost of the product in question? Well, that's part of the deal too. And again, a part which I didn't choose.
That's not part of the deal. Amish farmers not using oil will suffer equally from AGW.
It's an externality when you are forcing it to others not part of the deal. When you buy service from a delivery company, the oil is part of the deal, even if the delivery company act as a middle man and do not extract, refine and transport the oil itself.
An example of a positive externality is when you buy a christmas tree and put it in front of your house. All your neighboors benefit from the view of the new tree even if they are not parties to the the deal. Some people might think it's ugly and to them the externality is negative. A positive externality from oil could be the Northwest passage. Even if you don't want to, when you burn gas in your car, you contribute to the navigation in northen Canada.
Externality is a benefit or cost to someone other than the user/customer. For example, a package delivery business can deliver packages cheaper with cheap oil. All of the customers of that business are third parties which can benefit from the cheaper costs of delivering packages. The customers of the customers in turn get cheaper services. In other words, cheap oil results in cheaper costs of doing anything in society even for parties which aren't directly directly consuming oil products for transportation.
You don't get what an externality is.
The delivery buisiness directly buy gas. The custommer of that buisness directly buy from that buisness. Therefore the cheap gas is not an externality. It doesn't benefit those not getting these services. Everybody suffers from lower air quality because of that gas, no matter if they use the delivery company or not. This is an externality.
A typical dishonest challenge. So it takes "guts" to publish something on your own dime contrary to the climate change group think? Sure. But what does it take to publish what your sugar daddy paying all your expenses wants you to publish? It's inevitable and easy like water flowing downhill.
No. It takes guts to publish, at all. You won't publish your method because you know it is flawed and would not be passing the peer review stage.
Show it then. Where is this evidence? I'll show as evidence of considerable positive externalities, the synergistic effects of cheaper energy and transportation on everything we do and make.
These are not externalities. That's the benefit to the user/customer.
The evidence of the negative externalities is global warming. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/...
An other one is lower air quality in cities.
And I was talking about a way to make those reports more accurate in fact than merely in appearance.
That's your opinion. Thankfully no one will consider it.
If you think your opinion/method is valuable, have the guts to publish it and get it peer reviewed.
Netflix says that you need a 5 Mbps connection for anything but Ultra HD (4k) streaming. They must already take overhead into account. Quality on Netflix is pretty low, you really don't need a fast connection, just a reliable one.
How would that achieve that goal? Instead of charging >50USD for 5 Mbps "broadband", they would be charging >50USD for 5 Mbps "high speed internet". Where is the difference for the user?
No, the main reason European countries have better Internet access is due to their small size and layout. Sweden is roughly the size of California. If the US was a country that small, it would be easy to get fiber to everywhere.
Bullshit. The US is denser than Sweden. Size doesn't matter. No company is forced to cover the whole US. They can choose to focus only on California if they think they won't make economies of scale by covering the whole country.
You can get an updated browser through Google Play store. Many are available. Using a browser that comes pre-loaded with the OS and to rely on your phone manufacturer/carrier to update it is security risk.
Slashdot Mirror
Why? I mean, is anyone forcing a US ISP to cover the whole country? They can limit themselves to an area smaller than Island if they want to.
The Dell 2015 XPS 13 uses machined aluminum and carbon fiber. How is this different in terms of build quality than a Macbook?
It isn't but people here equate "build quality" with "looks". Especially if it looks like an Apple product.
My view on this is that "expert opinion" and "peer reviewed and published" doesn't outweigh being deliberately wrong.
Of course. But you haven't made the demonstration that these reports are wrong. You just make unsubstantiated claims that they are wrong.
So you're saying it's not strictly a negative externality. The moral content or intent of a policy is completely irrelevant to whether it creates an externality or not.
No I am not saying it's not strictly a negative externality. I'm saying it's not an externality at all.
It's incurred without choice by the employer, that's what makes it an externality.
Completely wrong again. It's not without choice. The employer has the choice in hiring employees or not. If he does, however, he has to take the whole package, which means, among others, paying a salary. Being forced to pay a salary is not a negative externality to the employer. It's part of the cost of a trade he agrees with (otherwise, he's free not doing that trade). The same goes with filling tax forms. It's part of the costs of operating a business. It's not an externality as you have the choice to operate or not your business.
Funny, doesn't look like that from my end. While I grant someone seems to have a problem understanding what an externality is, I find it more interesting that merely characterizing this massive synergy of fossil fuels, energy, and transportation with the entirety of an economy, as not an externality is sufficient to dismiss it.
I haven't dismissed the advantages of oil. They are very important. However they aren't externalities. I am sure there are positives externalities from the consumption of oil. You just didn't find any yet.
This strikes me as comparable to the argument from authority fallacy you presented earlier, created by presenting "credible, peer-reviewed", but highly biased predictions as if they were the best possible guesses out there.
You are confusing expert opinion with argument from authority.
Sure, if we ignore contrary evidence, like what I've remarked on (such as ignoring the positive externalities of fossil fuel use, proper time value of money, or the oter systematic biases contributing to portraying radical carbon dioxide emission reduction as something with low costs and large benefits)
You wish that evidence existed, but you haven't presented any. No example of any positive externality for oil, no evidence about what would be the "proper" time value of money, and no evidence of other systematic biases.
You already included a number of externalities. The retailer's accountant, for example, often is employed to insure compliance with tax codes and employment regulation. The marginal cost of the labor required to deal with that is an externality.
There you go again. No it isn't. It's required by law to pay taxes just as it is required to pay your employees and not kill them at the end of the day. Just because it would be cheaper if this law didn't exist doesn't make it an externality. I don't think you will ever understand what an externality is. There isn't much more I can do here. I understand that you will never want to lower CO2 emissions if you don't get what an externality is.
The cost of all goods include the cost of transportation. When you pay for an apple, you pay for pesticide, oil, transport, the retailer's accountant and a whole bunch of stuff whether you like it or not and these are not externalities, these are part of the voluntary trade, no matter if you are aware of the details or not.
Negative externalities of the apple include pollution that the rest of the world incurs because of the burning of oil for the transportation of that apple. Positives externalities include the beautiful views of an orchard.
Externalities are not related to price. Cheap oil has the same externalities as expensive oil. Externalities are related to its production and burning in your car. Not to the price you pay at the pump.
Making a trade doesn't imply that I'm part of some larger, nebulous "deal" and hence have agreed to whatever externalities I'm exposed to.
It's not nebulous. Just because you are ignorant doesn't make it an externality. So whether you agree or not to the pollution of your own car, it is par of the deal, or the trade (between you and the gas company) if you prefer. What is not part of the deal is the pollution that you force to others while driving your car.
Externality means you didn't make a choice to incur the cost or benefit.
Yes. And when you buy gas, or buy service from a delivery company, you make the choice to add more CO2 to the atmosphere. A small part of that cost will be assumed by you. But a much larger amount will be assumed by the rest of the world, and this is what we call an externality.
Why? iPads aren't anymore powerful than smartphone. Why would you need to replace your phone after 2 years but not your tablet?
It's the impact on those not part of the deal which is an externality. You and the delivery company are both part of the deal. Any impact on any of you is NOT an externality. Any impact on someone else is an externality, no matter if they personally use oil or not, as if they do it's not related to this deal.
Many Android and WP phones are the same price.
Any many offers much more for the price. Just take the $350 Nexus 5. Still good value, more than 1 year after launch. The iPhone 5S is still $550.
So are any negative externalities from fossil fuel use that drive up the price of the service. For example, if I buy an agricultural product which is made cheaper due to the use of cheap oil, then sure, that's part of the deal, a part which I didn't choose.
You don't choose the price in a competitive market. Anyway it's not the price of oil which has externalities. It's its use.
But if the farms which produce that agricultural product also are suffering from a drought directly caused by AGW and which drives up the cost of the product in question? Well, that's part of the deal too. And again, a part which I didn't choose.
That's not part of the deal. Amish farmers not using oil will suffer equally from AGW.
It's an externality when you are forcing it to others not part of the deal. When you buy service from a delivery company, the oil is part of the deal, even if the delivery company act as a middle man and do not extract, refine and transport the oil itself. An example of a positive externality is when you buy a christmas tree and put it in front of your house. All your neighboors benefit from the view of the new tree even if they are not parties to the the deal. Some people might think it's ugly and to them the externality is negative. A positive externality from oil could be the Northwest passage. Even if you don't want to, when you burn gas in your car, you contribute to the navigation in northen Canada.
No. Just because you add a middle man in a trade doesn't make it an externality.
And you are part of the trade when you get a service from company A which in turns gets another service from company B.
Externality is a benefit or cost to someone other than the user/customer. For example, a package delivery business can deliver packages cheaper with cheap oil. All of the customers of that business are third parties which can benefit from the cheaper costs of delivering packages. The customers of the customers in turn get cheaper services. In other words, cheap oil results in cheaper costs of doing anything in society even for parties which aren't directly directly consuming oil products for transportation.
You don't get what an externality is. The delivery buisiness directly buy gas. The custommer of that buisness directly buy from that buisness. Therefore the cheap gas is not an externality. It doesn't benefit those not getting these services. Everybody suffers from lower air quality because of that gas, no matter if they use the delivery company or not. This is an externality.
A typical dishonest challenge. So it takes "guts" to publish something on your own dime contrary to the climate change group think? Sure. But what does it take to publish what your sugar daddy paying all your expenses wants you to publish? It's inevitable and easy like water flowing downhill.
No. It takes guts to publish, at all. You won't publish your method because you know it is flawed and would not be passing the peer review stage.
Show it then. Where is this evidence? I'll show as evidence of considerable positive externalities, the synergistic effects of cheaper energy and transportation on everything we do and make.
These are not externalities. That's the benefit to the user/customer. The evidence of the negative externalities is global warming. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/... An other one is lower air quality in cities.
And I was talking about a way to make those reports more accurate in fact than merely in appearance.
That's your opinion. Thankfully no one will consider it. If you think your opinion/method is valuable, have the guts to publish it and get it peer reviewed.
Netflix says that you need a 5 Mbps connection for anything but Ultra HD (4k) streaming. They must already take overhead into account. Quality on Netflix is pretty low, you really don't need a fast connection, just a reliable one.
How would that achieve that goal? Instead of charging >50USD for 5 Mbps "broadband", they would be charging >50USD for 5 Mbps "high speed internet". Where is the difference for the user?
Under 25 Mbps is little to no Internet?
According to Netflix you only need 5 Mbps for Super HD. Therefore 10 Mbps should be enough for 2 streams.
Good to know. One more reason for not tolerating adware.
No, the main reason European countries have better Internet access is due to their small size and layout. Sweden is roughly the size of California. If the US was a country that small, it would be easy to get fiber to everywhere.
Bullshit. The US is denser than Sweden. Size doesn't matter. No company is forced to cover the whole US. They can choose to focus only on California if they think they won't make economies of scale by covering the whole country.
You can get an updated browser through Google Play store. Many are available. Using a browser that comes pre-loaded with the OS and to rely on your phone manufacturer/carrier to update it is security risk.
There is no such thing as "broadband price". Raising the definition of broadband to 25 Mbps won't make these 4 Mbps connections any cheaper.
Super HD Netflix (1080p) works just fine with a 10 Mbps connection.