In regards to carbon taxes, it’s often true that policies sound like the “obvious” thing to do, but actually have major implementation flaws upon closer examination.
Tbc, I’m pretty sympathetic to this response to the general class of arguments that “society is incompetent because they don’t do X” (and it is the response I would usually make).
You can make price estimates based on how people hypothetically judge the harm to themselves, but there’s always going to be huge disagreements.
Yeah, I agree that in theory this could be a reason not to do it (though similar arguments also apply to other methods, e.g. in a budgeting system, people with remote jobs can push for a lower budget).
My real question though is: did people actually do this? Did they consider the possibility of a tax, discuss it, realize they couldn’t come to an agreement on price, and then implement something else? If so, that would answer my question, but I don’t think this is what happened.
My real question though is: did people actually do this? Did they consider the possibility of a tax, discuss it, realize they couldn’t come to an agreement on price, and then implement something else?
Probably not, although they lived in a society in which the response “just use Pigouvian taxes” was not as salient as it otherwise could have been in their minds. This reduced saliency was, I believe, at least partly due to fact that Pigouvian taxes have standard implementation issues. I meant to contribute one of these issues as a partial explanation, rather than respond to your question more directly.
Makes sense, thanks. I still feel confused about why they weren’t salient to EAs / rationalists, but I agree that the fact they aren’t salient more broadly is something-like-a-partial-explanation.
Tbc, I’m pretty sympathetic to this response to the general class of arguments that “society is incompetent because they don’t do X” (and it is the response I would usually make).
Yeah, I agree that in theory this could be a reason not to do it (though similar arguments also apply to other methods, e.g. in a budgeting system, people with remote jobs can push for a lower budget).
My real question though is: did people actually do this? Did they consider the possibility of a tax, discuss it, realize they couldn’t come to an agreement on price, and then implement something else? If so, that would answer my question, but I don’t think this is what happened.
Probably not, although they lived in a society in which the response “just use Pigouvian taxes” was not as salient as it otherwise could have been in their minds. This reduced saliency was, I believe, at least partly due to fact that Pigouvian taxes have standard implementation issues. I meant to contribute one of these issues as a partial explanation, rather than respond to your question more directly.
Makes sense, thanks. I still feel confused about why they weren’t salient to EAs / rationalists, but I agree that the fact they aren’t salient more broadly is something-like-a-partial-explanation.