Green Fascism: Part 67,808,123

There are 8 instances of the word "you" in that ignorant simpleminded meltdown... I'd suggest you take a breather, but I'm partly afraid you might go beat up some ugly chick you met on the street who also happens to temporarily refer to you as her "boyfriend"

By the way, this was my favorite part.


Because its immediately followed by some seriously dumb shit...

Oh look.

Captain anonymous posts again, thinking he is still anonymous.



How is your wife's new girlfriend, fuckface?





Have you gotten any readers for that fabulous "blog" you "write"?



You know, the one that never has any comments, unless you comment on your own shit and drivel?

he said it

There are 4 "instances" of the word "you" in this short paragraph.

You've gotten apathetic as of late, not to mention lazy.

i wasn't impressed by this consultant's adherence to neoclassical economic theory in this case, so what makes you think i'd be even remotely moved by your regurgitation of it?

"over regulate"...."eventually"....pretty arbitrary and vague wording. what is over regulation, according to who? when is eventually?



or, i DO understand classical/neoclassical economic theory and i reject several aspects of it, and the consultant's application of it as well. i also raised an objection citing negative externalities to support my position which you have yet to address because you're either ignorant, a coward, or both.

In the first place, your postings on this message board overwhelmingly support increased government regulation on a myriad of topics. Until you can provide documented evidence that shows you advocating for reduction or elimination of government regulation, my point stands that you are for government regulation in all aspects of life.

Second, you show how little you understand economics by your question about “free markets and consumers do[ing] a fair job accounting for and factoring in external costs.” You have never lived under a free market in your life, because there are no free markets in the world (unless you want to call a tribal bazaar in Africa a free market). However, if you want an example of the consumer and “free markets” accounting for external costs, simply look at the PC market. In the ‘80s you could buy a 10 MB hard drive to add to your 8086 computer for about $1200.00. It weighed about 30 pounds and used a lot of electricity. Today you can buy a 1 TB hard drive that will run off your USB port (indicating minimal electrical consumption) for about $150.00. Show me where the government regulated that improvement. That is entirely consumer driven, as is the switch to LCD monitors and rejection of CRT monitors.

Third, a prime example of a “negative externality” is pollution in California. The government has regulated the shit out of the auto industry in California with the end result being their pollution is marginally better than pollution in other major cities in the nation. This overregulation of the industry has resulted in increased costs to the producer which passed those costs on to the consumer, resulting in reduced choices for many consumers based on the increased costs.

Fourth, another example of a negative externality from government overregulation would be the story of the makers of Wonder Bread. The parent company will shut down its bakeries, distribution centers and stores in California, in part because of the new bill AB32 that requires a 25% reduction in CO2 emissions. In case you don’t have a clue why this affects the bakeries, (which you likely don’t) CO2 is a major byproduct of bread making. This is going to ship another 1200 jobs, or so, out of California, and reduce the consumer’s ability to choose.

So yes, the consumer generally does a pretty good job of accounting for and factoring in external costs. Not all cases move at the same speed, but they do eventually get there. If you have a problem with the speed of the change, that is another argument. However, government regulation nearly always introduces inefficiency into the market which usually results in a slower rate of change.

As far as your disagreement with and rejection of several aspects of classical/neoclassical economics, that’s wonderful. Now show me your Ph.D. in economics and I will give you the appropriate respect. Until then, your “economics Word of the Day” delivery to your email inbox doesn’t really cut it.

Sorry, but you just don’t rate.

absolutes, black and white. cute. but that's not my position at all.

well then quit posting as such...

i never said or suggested gov't regulation = good, consumer choice = bad. they are neither good nor bad on their own and both have their place, don't blame your failure to comprehend on me.

consumer choice is often an inadequate and inefficient means to achieving desirable and necessary outcomes, particularly on issues where the true cost of a thing is not accounted for. like this case here, where "just leaving it up to the wallet of the consumers" was advocated. narrow. and disingenuous as well.

yes you did.

= blah blah blah...

Oh, and here is a HUUUGGEEE negative externality to government over regulation.


Increased taxes to pay for the bloated bureacracy that is necessary to maintain and expand those stupid regulations. You can see it in California's budget crisis and in the Federal deficit as well.

Those taxes reduce the consumer's ability to choose as well.


But you keep on preaching more government regulation, sadus. It's ingrained into your very fiber. You just can't help it. It's who, and what, you are.

all aspects of life? that’s just hyperbolic. i am for government regulation in many aspects of life under our current socioeconomic conditions. it’s necessary. and as i said, what form that regulation takes depends on the issue. efficiency standards, safety standards, pollution standards, pigovian taxes….all must be in play.

a drop in internal costs that results in a drop in sale prices on PCs? that has next to nothing to do with external costs. that’s internal cost related.

yeah, exactly. that’s what happens when external costs get factored in. the true cost of production is realized, and the market price increases. duh.

if an entity is unable to compete when its true costs are realized, then this is EXACTLY what should happen.

of course i have a problem with the speed of the change, among other issues. that's fundamental to the argument. it's why i used the words inefficient and inadequate to describe reliance on insufficiently regulated markets.

at any rate, yes, regulation often introduces cost increases to producers, which are then passed on to consumers. again, as it should be.

externalities (both negative AND positive) are a recognized flaw of insufficiently regulated markets. that you don’t know this is unsurprising given the content of your response.

you should read more. it’s good for you. start here.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=negat...1US311&ie=UTF-8

1) So you admit that you can’t provide any documentation that proves you are not for regulation in all aspects of life. Great. Glad that is settled. I also notice you are studiously avoiding the smackdown the Dr gave you regarding your bullshit claim that you never said that government regulation was good and consumer choice was bad. Good move on your part. I’d suggest you avoid that lost cause at all costs.

2) Wow, you have zero reading comprehension. I give you an example of the consumers driving the market without significant government regulation and you claim it is only internal costs. I’m sure every computer part manufacturer in the world has zero external costs that have been reduced due to technological advances and have been passed on to the consumer. You’re a real dumbshit.

3) Again, you have zero economic understanding. A significant portion of the increase in costs is due government overregulation. No surprise that you can’t see that through your fog of stupidity.

4) Again, with the zero comprehension. You wanted examples of negative externalities, due to government overregulation. Again no surprise that you don’t understand. I can’t fix your stupid, and I am unwilling to try any more.

5) Again, just because you don’t like the rate of change, doesn’t mean shit, and it certainly doesn’t mean you understand a fucking thing about economics (as you continually demonstrate on this board.

I would suggest you read more, but it is obviously a lost cause with you.

Enjoy your stupid.

documentation? i'm telling you here and now that i am not advocating regulation in all aspects of life. THAT'S my documentation. what i'm saying is that economic regulation occurs for reasons. and on this board, economic regulations derived from environmental considerations are like pinatas to 5 year olds. i challenge that and will do so at every turn. and i'm also saying that this "consultant" is a liar for saying letting consumer wallets decide would be better in this case.

and i didn't avoid anything. i responded to his post very clearly.

reduction of sale prices and increases in availability are not proof that external costs are adequately acknowledged and balanced in a consumer driven market. for your example to be even relevant, external costs would had to have been accounted for in the first place, and their consideration a major factor in why prices were higher to begin with. THEN their reduction or elimination would have reduced the market price. that was not the case at all.

yeah, that's the whole point. regulatory forces challenge and guide costs and prices.

funny to see more "over regulation" from you, as though you've even sniffed at a working definition of that. i have a feeling it sounds something like....."any regulation beyond what i deem appropriate regulation is advocacy of regulation in all aspects of life."

i did? where? this should be very easy for you, so a decisive response is due, though not at all expected.

well no, it does mean something. do you even know what a pigovian tax is? more importantly, do you know WHY a pigovian is? ask that question honestly. go ahead, look it up if you have to. and when you or the Dr or whoever agrees with you is ready to talk about THAT, then we can move forward.

yeah, didn't think so.

Again, with the zero reading comprehension.

When, (and if) you ever actually learn how to read and understand what other posters post, perhaps we can try again.

Until then, you go on believing that you actually know something, and I will go on knowing that you are perennially stupid, and we'll both be just fine.






Well, at least I will be just fine. You, not so much........

yeah yeah yeah, i read your regurgitation of macro 101.....rational actors, self interest, consumers and producers generally do a good job of factoring in external costs, and "over regulation" is bad.

reality has proven rational actors and self interest are fallacies, consumers and producers do a piss fucking poor job of factoring in external costs if and when they're even aware of them, and "over regulation" is a subjective arbitrary cover your ass term.

fucking simpleton.

Yeah, you are a fucking simpleton. However, admission is the first step to a cure. Keep plugging away. There might be a small glimmer of hope for you sometime, somewhere.



Not bloody likely, but there is always hope.