Accounting for externalities, ransforming schools
I think that the best answer to the question, "What is an efficient and fair policy for taking account of externalities?" is also an answer to the question, "How can we end poverty and promote sustainability?". What do you think?
I'd say, "Charge fees to industries proportional to natural resources extracted, pollution emitted or wildlife habitat destroyed, then share fee proceeds to all people". Why did you not say that? Did you not think of it? Does that answer fall short? Some other reason?
Considering the serious damage done every day that we delay making prices honest, I think the simple approach should be given priority. Comments about the importance of guarding against corruption or making the system transparent would pertain to any policy proposal, not just the challenge of making prices honest and sharing (a monetary representation of) natural wealth. I'm impatient. I've tried for about 30 years to bring these ideas into the public discourse. Google doesn't even show my blog in search results.
I'm trying to resist an impulse to give a sarcastic reply. It's not like I hadn't thought of using social media. (Tens of thousands of tweets over the past seven years or so would attest to that.) Something from the blog...(is it equally accessible to you if it is in the form of a screenshot / slide?):
From an essay: Global Governance without centralized control: If we agree that humans have a shared right to set limits to impacts of various kinds, then an economic actor who wants to extract carbon should be expected to determine whether the amount of carbon currently being extracted is or is not already at the limit defined as permissible by average opinion. Assume that, in the absence of any emission fee, the amount of carbon that the sum of all prospective users want to emit (extract) exceeds what a random poll indicates is a permissible amount for the year. Each prospective user of fossil carbon (each prospective extractor of the buried resource) could publish what they deem to be an appropriate fee per kg of carbon, given expected demand for the resource in relation to the supply that the people at large are willing to permit (as indicated by the random poll). This is a thought experiment: If all prospective users happen to guess (on average) that a $1/kg fee would result in overall demand that is sufficiently low so as to bring overall carbon extraction and emissions into line with what average opinion says is OK (according to the random polls of the population), then the community of users could publicly declare their intent regarding how much carbon extraction permits they intend to buy for the year at $1/kg. If all prospective extractors of fossil fuels indicate in a public ledger how many carbon extraction permits they expect to buy at the $1/kg price, this group of all prospective buyers of carbon-extraction permits may notice that the total number of permits that would be purchased at that price is still higher than what average opinion says is acceptable. A continued mismatch between supply and demand would indicate that the earlier guess (that a price of $1/kg would be sufficient) was not an accurate guess. The average estimate of the appropriate fee amount (the 'market-clearing' price) was too low. A reiteration of the process might have all prospective users (extractors) guessing (on average) that a rate of $1.50/kg would cause enough prospective users to leave the market or reduce their participation sufficient to bring overall demand into alignment with what average opinion deems as permissible. With further iterations, the projected auction price will approach the price that a conventional auction of permits would bring. This auction operates through an iterative process rather than by relying on an auctioneer. The process can be automated so that it is not labor-intensive.
It's worth mentioning that any survey process that aims to gauge the attitude of the populace re acceptable impacts would likely produce better results if time is available for survey respondents to consider their responses, and refer to expert opinion on the question(s) at hand. If a free society allows people to take surveys, many modes of survey-taking might be practiced. Meta-surveys could distinguish between those surveys that produce trustworthy vs. dubious results. A system of A/B testing of various survey types might show that surveys that are conducted in a way that invites survey respondents to gather in a comfortable venue to discuss with other survey respondents the questions under consideration might be consistently rated as being a better instrument for discerning the will of the people. If corporations subscribe to the more reliable survey-taking companies, they will be indemnified against any possible charges of illegitimate emissions or extraction (assuming they have documentation showing they paid appropriate fees or purchased necessary permits).
You mentioned earlier the need to respond to the needs of various communities, which will be impacted to differing degrees by resource extraction and other environmental impacts. If we take the idea of random polls and decentralized decision-making and apply it to decisions about how to spend public funds, we could ensure that communities that face particular burdens, through no fault of their own, can be assisted. I'm imagining that, in tandem with a survey process to rate how beneficial various spending programs are, we could allow any taxpayer to withhold funds from any use that they disagree with, for whatever reason, provided that they direct the money instead toward support of an alternative that they believe, and that is deemed by most people, to be a better use of the funds. No one would be forced to support something they disagree with. This could improve people's attitude about paying taxes generally. Paying taxes could become somewhat, even if not entirely, a voluntary act.
I could share an excerpt from a different essay from the blog: "In order to thrive, our society requires healthy institutions that have the people's trust. We need to be confident that governments and public officials are operating in the public interest. Would we be better-off with an alternative political paradigm that puts public funds directly into the hands of the people? Each of us might be asked to decide how to spend a small, equal fraction of the total public budget. We would spend in ways that we think will benefit society, with the condition that our choices must line up with the opinions of at least a significant portion of our fellow citizens. If I spend my share of public funds on things that, say, 50% of citizens feel promote the public interest... we could be pretty sure that my choices, whatever they are, will in fact promote the public interest at least somewhat and probably quite a bit. We can use public random surveys to know what people think regarding this or that public service (to find out to what extent people think particular services produce benefit for society and the larger environment). We can create a paradigm that, in its very operation, directs people's attention to the question of how public funds are being and should be used. Imagine surveys that ask where more public funds should be directed, and where we should reduce public spending. Imagine random polls that show examples of people performing actions that aim to promote public interests. Shown in pairs, one example might be thought by most survey respondents to show a greater benefit than the other. Spending can be directed primarily to providers of services that are most highly rated. If I put a large fraction (say 80%) of my share of public funds toward support of programs and projects that eight-out-of-ten citizens agree promote the public interest, I might be allowed more latitude in deciding how to use the remainder of 'my' share of these funds. I might be free to use the remaining (20%) fraction to support programs that, say, 20% of citizens agree promote the public interest. This question of what might benefit the community is a really big question, and one about which reasonable people will disagree. Within this paradigm, the most widely-supported programs would receive the bulk of the public dollars (or distributed-ledger crypto-currency), while other programs (more controversial or experimental programs, perhaps) would have access to reduced but still significant amounts of public funding. If this idea of dispersing public policy decisions to all people is adopted more generally, we could manage environmental impacts in ways that are in accord with what most people think is acceptable. If we take a survey and learn that most people think we would be better-off and that our children would be better-off if we were to reduce carbon emissions by, say, 40% over the next ten years and 40% more in the decade after that, then we should have a policy that would bring about that reduction (about 5.5% per year). We can assume that some people would want a greater-than-40% reduction, while others would want less-rapid reduction or no reduction. Forty percent in ten years might reflect the median or average opinion about what is acceptable. The amount endorsed by average opinion would be the amount appropriate for a democratic society."
Just as our conversation can follow any number of paths forward, a child might pursue one or another interest, develop this or that skill, to cause a specific adult to emerge from a wide range of possibilities. Imagine that we create a school system that provides students with a budget, with which they can 'buy' time spent engaged in various activities... We can assume that many people will see public education as a worthwhile use of public funds. Some or many of these people may want to allow children a range of options to choose from. Here's more from the essay quoted previously: "Imagine a public school system that allows students access to a budget that they can use to 'purchase' time at hands-on activities vs. lecture/discussion vs. art/music, gardening, etc. There is no reason why schools cannot create more than one environment for students to participate in that will nurture their development. We might have some students attending some lectures, engaging in some hands-on learning, some art, every day, while others participate mostly in (lower cost) lecture/discussion for three weeks straight in order to save up funds to be able to go on a spectacular field trip. One clear advantage of secular (non-religious) schools is that we would be less likely or not-at-all likely to find the teaching of an 'us-vs-them' mentality. We would be more likely to see expressions of the idea that we are all Earthlings. We must work together to make a healthy global community and to effectively meet the great challenges that confront us."
Due to physiological constraints, I may need to discontinue for some time, to complete a regeneration cycle, as Seven of Nine might say. But it is not because I find the discussion anything less than highly engaging. I trust that we can pick up again, if my window stays open, and it will be all the same to you. [You may have an even better idea now at my frustration that those blog excerpts are not accessible through relevant web searches. They don't yet allow you use of a hotel clerk's bell to alert the search engine design team to the omission...(?) The blog has been the target of anti-SEO activity. Not surprising, considering the threat to vested interests that such ideas pose.]
Comments
Post a Comment