CO2, no. Are you able to identify any limited resources in this scenario? It's a negative sum game overall, and I'm confident that it's a negative sum game for you. But that's in terms of net profit, not in terms of trading increasing efficiencies in an economy. Again, if that's true then you should have no trouble identifying and giving an example of when implementing some emissions controls have significantly damaged an economy. Actually, of the two of us, you're the one who's asserting, without any evidence whatsoever and with only the wave of a hand, that it will place a burden. Yet you haven't given a single example. Nitrogen oxide markets exist today, and you haven't shown how they are a burden. CFC's were all but banned in North America, yet you can't give an example of how that caused significant economic damage. You just keep repeating your assertion. Well, frankly, until you're able to support it I'm going to dismiss it as someone ranting based on nothing.
CASH, earned through the hard work and self reliance of entrepreneurship. Preferably unencumbered by inept, intrusive and notoriously wasteful federal bureaucracy. NOT if it's associated with the obvious politically oriented Nobel Prize committee, which in recent years has ZERO credibility.
Well given a choice, I would rather trade. Well most of us on this forum are interested and support the notion of free market trading. Yes, that does involve some oversight, but generally that's a fair trade to make (no pun intended.) I understand you oppose trading and markets but you have to understand that they've been a somewhat reasonable method of rationing resources. And very profitable for some of us.
Well giving the prize to that POS political hack klugman didn't help your cause. If they wanted to award it for his work on trade his buffoonery as a political economist should have disqualified him. Fama & French's work is much more deserving in my opinion for illuminating and affecting investing for the masses (ie those small enough to fail).
No, it has zero credibility to you, because you don't agree with them. They've given out their awards for 108 years (except for the Sveriges Riksbank Prize) and are the most prestigious awards one can receive in the fields. Naturally rather than reevaluating your position when you disagree with them you are now convinced that they are "bad."
Let me help: you mean "Krugman." Secondly, if you don't like his prize because he's "political" then you'll be upset to know that the entire student body of economics has been indoctrinated by his textbook. Thirdly, it's not that you disagree with his paper which won the award, you (boringly) just disagree with him personally. Their work is too narrow in scope to win. Portfolio theory is unlikely to cause a major revolution in economics as did Krugman's integration of economies of scale into equilibrium models.
1)what inefficiency are you attempting to address? 2) You continually challenge me to prove a burden on the economy as if there will be none. Well let's just suppose that you are right just for kicks. Where does the incentive to reduce emissions come from? 3) Brag about your bullshit trading acumen elsewhere. Glad to see you admit that overall it increases costs though.
1) yeah, grubman that's the asshole. 2) I"m not in awe of tooth fairy economics which is what is in vogue today. 3) The man is an avid promoter of the largest fraudulent economic theory of the last century going forward. Plus it's fairly certain his shameless politicizing is what enamored him to the committee. Same for that big eared buffoon who won the peace price too.
Increasing market efficiencies does not mean the same as "addressing market inefficiencies." Good try, though. Yes. Stop waving your hand and just asking us to assume one. No, what you're doing is not supposing that I'm right, you're supposing that your unsupported assertion is wrong. If you say there's a burden you need to show some examples or evidence. The incentive to reduce emissions comes from the profit motive. Trading increases costs? Well, that's not necessarily true or false.
Of course. 108 year old Nobel prize committee is wrong in its economics prize because you say so. It doesn't matter which economic prize you pick, they all have disproved Randroid economic theory. The field has come a long way since Ayn Rand created her cartoon economics and then died penniless.