It's diverse

Biodegradable

and best of all, not racist

Yay!

>Also I often see the externalities argument fall apart when examples are given. What would be your real-world scenario,

climate change obviously. *When externalities are included, as in a 2015 study by the International Monetary Fund, the unpaid costs of fossil fuels are upward of $5.3 trillion annually – which works out to a staggering $10 million per minute.* Do you think this is baked into the price of oil? Of course not, even if you discount the subsidies given to fossil fuel companies, *the vast majority of people would buy and use fossil fuels without regard to the damage it is causing, hence the externality cost wouldn't be baked in to the price if the government wasn't involved*

>They tried a closed market system.

who is "they"? you mean the soviets? you know a closed market just means *not being open to business with other countries*. how is that relevant to me advocating for *not having a free market*? These are almost completely separate issues

@DJ_Anuz to be fair, im an imperialist in a certain sense. i think america should invade and expropriate the capital in tax havens using the military -> legal routes would be too cumbersome and probably fail. If you're going to engage in corruption, don't be surprised if the people's representatives justify taking your wealth away. Also, we should be using economic sanctions/embargoes against countries with poor climate protections, and if they're being egregious enough, military intervention could be justified too. the problem isnt interventionism, the problem is *what interventionism is typically used for*, and most of the time interventionism doesn't serve the interests of the general american populace at all.

@Green Syndicalism I can agree with that.

>climate change obviously
Where are the innovations in green tech coming from?

Hell, where are many of the roadblocks? To nuclear, to getting off coal in general, etc

>Where are the innovations in green tech coming from?

to get innovation, you need investment. theres many ways this can be encouraged to *specifically go into green tech*. You can subsidise green tech investments/businesses, or you can create a national equity fund and use government funds to directly invest in green tech yourself. The slowness of the green tech industry to react to the obvious climate problem we have is proof the market isnt a sufficient media alone through which to tackle climate change. Don't get me wrong, governments subsidising fossil fuels has been bad too, but the government can also fix this lack of responsiveness in the market through the measures i mentioned above, and i think we can all agree it would give better outcomes to our society as a whole, than if we left the market as is (as we have mostly done for green tech)

your argument is tantamount to "BUT DA GOVERNMENT ALWAYS DOOO BAD"

they do bad because they have backwards incentive structures. if we take out citizens united and pressure the government to use their powers to do the right thing ala climate change, theres no reason it would be worse than a "market solution"

The government has disincentivized nuclear, which you've seemingly been sidestepping to talk about lack of progress in areas the government has heavily subsidized, that are simply engineering problems

Or, in worst case scenarios, genuine dead ends, depending on your use case

yea , this isnt a good thing to disincentivise. like i said, you need to change the incentive structures in governments to achieve the good results that governments can achieve over "the market"

the government is an entity that isnt looking to maximise its own profits. i dont know how you *cant* see its potential for providing its people with a better outcome than the market *when it isnt bound by the same profit incentives*

Wait. So the solution to government fucking with the market is more fucking with the market? How is an entity driven by public alarmism and the corporate dollar meant to make an informed, unbiased decision about the market?

thats an extremely dense take dude

im a bit disappointed in you lmao

Why is nuclear disincentivized?

the solution to government fucking with the market is to take out the government's *ridiculous* incentive structure

abolish citizens united

get money the fuck out of politics

and make politicians accountable to *the people* again

Okay, so you take out the incentive structure of nuclear being fucked because the public is afraid of Chernobyl and Fukushima too, no?

>get money out of politics

So we abolish government salaries and pensions too yeah?

another extremely dense take

no u

how can you say these things without giggling to yourself

"If I say ur dum that makes me right"
Why is nuclear disincentivized and how do we remove that incentive structure

but no, the government can do things that the people dont want them to do and this happens ALL THE TIME

How can you say 'take money out of politics' without realizing all dimensions of so-called money in politics

It happens when they can get away with it

I really don't know

the difference is what types of things the government does against the people's wishes

If they don't cowtow on certain issues, people will vote in someone else

Right

And it only matters when you don't like it

Yes?

Which is still a perverse incentive structure

Can you see how utterly authoritarian your take is?