Timber, your shrimp example does not apply to this case, and I'll do you the favor of explaining why.
It is quite simple actually -- the shrimpers are able to externalize their costs by shrimping in "public" waters. If that water were privately owned, assuming the owners valued turtles, they could implement whatever means of turtle protection they liked, ranging from TEDs to no shrimping at all, to turtle repellants or attractants, to... heck, whatever the boy geniuses could come up with. At this point, TEDs are the norm, I guess, and as with all command and control type regulation where the means to an end is specified, it has absolutely squashed any commercial incentive to research other means, since they would not be marketable without the proper lobbying/bribing of the appropriate officials.
What kinds of examples
would apply? Well, how about building codes. These costs are entirely passed onto the homeowner, and things like accessibility codes add several thousand dollars, tens of thousands to larger homes, all to accomodate a person who may never set foot in the door.
How about the aforementioned automobile? I don't believe there is a single person who would deny that driver side airbags increased the cost and the price of a vehicle by approx $2,000, or, $40 per month (assuming 5 year loan) depending on your credit rating. This one mandate has priced out anyone who could not scratch up the extra $40 per month, and has unquestionably resulted in people retaining their old junkers longer than they would have otherwise. Now when you add in passenger-side airbag, anti-lock brakes and the plethora of well-intentioned but expensive mandates, you end up pricing significant fractions of the working poor out of the market entirely. They would unquestionably be safer in a vehicle with all those bells and whistles if they could afford them, but unquestionably less safe since their economic circumstances force them to drive their old, worn-out cars instead.
Quote:
|
pritchke: Is it possible that some of these things are being forced on us because people many abuse what they have by turning on an air conditioner when simply opening a window may be sufficient. Or turning up the heat when a sweater will do and the person is still wearing a short sleeve shirt. People in North American tend to have the attitude that I own (can afford it) so why not use it and that is why we as North Americans are notorious consumers of energy in the world. I even catch myself in this from time to time and I probaly do it more than I am aware.
|
All due respect, but so what? What is it to you if I choose to turn on my A/C when it is only 72 degrees? (Cheap bastard that I am, I don't, but let's run with it for a sec.) Why should anyone have the right to tell me the temperature at which my thermostat should be set, any more than they have the right to tell me whether I can have only one spoonful of jam on my toast? Tell you what. If you don't try to boss me around, I'll return the favor.
[ 04-23-2003, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: Thorfinn ]