In general I agree with you. Simply taxing things with negative externalities enough to cover the true cost would simply and conclusively fix a lot of things we struggle with, faster and without relying on politicians.
I think it's politically very unpopular, but the economic theory behind it is extremely sound.
If you priced everything according to the negative externalities they cause, you would have poor people unable to afford $10/gal milk and probably pay more than the dairy farmer subsidy in healthcare costs related to poor nutrition for this entire class of people. I think nuance is needed, but the danger is that this nuance is where industries see opportunities for regulatory capture. Sometimes I think the American political system is too brittle with too much of a focus on who has the most money in the room to perform needed change. Everything in recent decades seems to be a half measure that comes too little too late.
I think the problem of poor people not being able to afford adequate nutrition has to be tackled separately. You're right that there will be all kinds of unintended effects. You're also right (in my opinion) that the US political system seems incapable of solving those kinds of hard problems anyway.
Yuup. 80% of democrats (and a majority of Americans) support Medicare for All but the DNC rejected it from their 2020 platform. Sadly, lobbyists are running our party system to a much greater extent than the citizenry.
communism is a good idea, but it's unpopular, for a reason i say.
The reason for the idea of taxing externalities being unpopular isn't really proven yet - after all, it hasn't been instated, but just spoken about, and the silent majority don't have an opinion!
Communism is unpopular because it says people on average are unimportant and the "greater good" is more important. Most people aren't going to glom onto that when they realize that's the real result as easily demonstrated in any number of failed communist countries, even China gave it up and moved to a more totalitarian one party system that allows some free market ideas in. apparently they're even moving to a dictatorship steadily rather than communism.
> So whether communism is a good idea or not remains to be seen.
You are being too charitable. There is no shortage of data on communism after the last century. The results are so unequivocally bad across the board, you have to be ignorant of history or just ignorant in general to still think it's a good idea. As soon as someone tells me communism is a good thing, I realize I'm taking to someone who is not very intelligent and look for a way out of the conversation.
Edit: You can downvote, but you can't change history. There are levels of being wrong, but thinking communism is a good idea is just an extremely wrong opinion completely contradicted by history in over 40 countries (I counted) over a period of 100 years - with not a single example in favor.
On top of that, the evils perpetuated by communist countries upon their own citizens were not surpassed by any regime of the 20th century, not even the genocidal ones like Rwanda, or Nazi Germany. And yet some clueless class of people, largely located in academic institutions still somehow thinks it's a good idea. They are not only wrong, they are so wrong as to be stupid, and while I don't condone ad-hominen attacks generally, I feel it fits accurately here.
Nazi Germany and Rwanda weren't communist. What are you saying? It would help to have a grounding on what communism is before repeating tired talking points.
>with not a single example in favor.
Soviet Russia went from a couple of potato farmers to a global super power in the span of 30 years under communism before transitioning to totalitarian dictatorship. Likewise there was nothing inherent to communism and more the lack of a strong republic.
I down-voted your comment because of your superiority complex, the terms like communism are too generic and the reality is that most communist countries were "kicked" in the balls by the capitalist.
I seen a comment by a "intelligent dude" like you, in his intelligence he compared North and South Korea, ignored that sanctions for the North and the tons of money US dropped on south and he got the conclusion he wanted.
The truth is that there is not enough good data, I would like to see some examples of countries that were not under sanctions or under a cold war or had some insane dictator leading them.
Mostly because it makes the poors even more poor and when you live in a democracy that's a hard feat to overcome because they're going to vote for candidates who promise to make them not more poor.
> heavily taxing carbon emissions and having the market find the best solution?
Public perception may be one reason. If a carbon emissions tax directly leads to big increases in fuel costs, it can cause problems for drivers / vehicle users for whom fuel cost is a significant concern. The 2018 Gilet Jaune protests [0] in France were partly due to public dissatisfaction with fuel price rises. Regulatory instruments (such as fuel efficiency standards) are more opaque and may obfuscate the connection between between political decisions and the inevitable price rises.
If societies answer to climate change is "Don't punish/impact poor people who negatively effect the environment" Then we might as well just pack our bags for Mars now.
Over the next 100-200 years, every (poor) 3rd world country is going to continue to get more and more industrialized and impact the environment more and more. Maybe I'm 100% off here but i'd be surprised if we (rich countries) can lower our emissions enough to offset the increases elsewhere in the world. And limiting the increases of "their" impact will directly effect "their" quality of life improvements unless "we" step in and aid them with more complex (expensive?) solutions. Likely at the expense of any domestic improvements that could be done without added cost of that aid.
> If societies answer to climate change is "Don't punish/impact poor people who negatively effect the environment" Then we might as well just pack our bags for Mars now.
Dealing with climate change will include costs and sacrifices that affect individuals and societies. Politicians unwilling to deal with these costs, for ideological and / or electability reasons, will not in my opinion be likely to advocate for the measures necessary to address climate change.
(Also, I'm assuming that when the billionaires go to Mars they won't make the mistake that is common in Stephen Baxter's Scifi novels, where the colonisers always seem to include a subpopulation of disaffected criminals / lowlifes / etc who inevitably mutiny.)
There's an easy solution to that though. You redistribute all the money from a carbon tax back to the people, either equally to everyone, or better, based on income.
We already know that wealthy people generate the most carbon. If that activity was taxed and then the money was given to poorer people who can't afford to transition to clean energy, it would still be a net win, because it will reduce emissions while making sure it doesn't unfairly affect the poor.
People like to rip on the US war machine, but as far as percent of GDP, the US isn't even the biggest spender. Also, the entire world benefits from the US army, which helps protect global trade routes. For example the US patrols for pirates off the coast of Africa, protecting ships that are taking goods from one country to another in which the US has no involvement in any of it.
>but as far as percent of GDP, the US isn't even the biggest spender
The great thing about statistics is you can maneuver them to support your conclusion. Here's some that support mine: in real numbers, "The United States spends more on national defense than China, India, Russia, United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Germany, France, Japan, South Korea, Italy, and Australia — combined."
That sounds nice in theory, but it'll be years until it could pass through actual legislative channels in the US federal government. Neither side wants it, the GOP hates new taxes and loves fossil fuel companies; the Dems hate anything that looks regressive, which a gas tax would at first before the pay-back checks come (if it's a neutral scheme, who's to say how the carbon tax would be used).
I think it's politically very unpopular, but the economic theory behind it is extremely sound.