Arguing with economics (economists)

Thread starter Posty McPostface
Start date Jan 8, 2018
Tags

climate change economics

AI Thread Summary

The discussion centers on the challenges of arguing against the economic rationale supporting fossil fuel production, particularly in light of its perceived cost-effectiveness and impact on GDP. Participants highlight the flawed logic of "common sense economics," which often overlooks negative externalities like climate change. There is a call for policy interventions, such as taxation on fossil fuels, to alter consumer behavior and address environmental concerns. The conversation also touches on the need for a nuanced understanding of economic theories, including behavioral economics, to better engage with traditional economic arguments. Ultimately, the dialogue emphasizes the importance of aligning economic policies with long-term sustainability goals.

Jan 16, 2018

russ_watters

Mentor

Insights Author

Posting after the lock, but...

Posty McPostface said:

Understood. I'll review the thread sometime and see if I can present a better economic argument for the need to account for negative externalities, which is the whole point in retrospect I was trying to make.

Put some real thought into that because I think what you should have discovered in this thread is that what you think are issues of economics are instead issues of personal choice/values (in particular, short term vs long term tradeoffs). Economics isn't math. It isn't possible to arrive at a single accepted/"right" answer.