Economics

ehhh, what? You don't think economics deals with the environment?

Protip:
all people start using oil and gases out of their ass until there is very little left, this results in a jack up of prices which makes people make different buying decision and increase in productivity of particular markets e.g. effecient cars, public transport, solar panels, nuclear energy and even electric cars, this greater purchasing of energy effecient cars creates a competitive market where different companies start competing to create the cheapest and most effecient car, yielding more societal benefits and results

now lets look at a regulated market:

people forced to pay exuberant taxes which decrease the amount they can spend and keeps oil company monopolies in business, hurting the working class who are already paying low wages, this serves to keep the status quo

KILL YOURSELF COMMUNIST

Except that if you'd taken an Econ class, you'd know that it really works out more like this:

Laissez Faire system:
Oil Monopolies rise and then create cartels and barriers to entry, and drive any competitors out of business.

Regulated market economy:
After the monopolies initially rise, regulators intervene with anti-trust litigation and break them up, allowing healthy competition to resume.

Calm down

Environmental economics is a large branch of economics

Friendly reminder

I think some of Taleb's ideas are worth discussing here, namely those in antifragile.

Personally what bothers me is how much we waste. Could the concepts of via negativa and via positiva apply to that? The way I see it, waste is a result of wealth (addition). To use an analogy from his book: there is no fasting that eats the body. I am not saying there needs to be poverty (not at all) but some kind of negative feedback loop.

In other words: something that forces the system (the economy) to use the most of the resources available.

I need to think this more clearly because I am doubtful if I understood negative feedback loops correctly in this way. It is most likely incorrect.

As for the environment, I think it can be both robust and fragile but nature on the other hand antifragile.

It is the concentration and scale of impacts on the environment that matter. It should be distributed better. Nature actually likes some disturbance as this offers other species niches.

But as I said I need to think about this because I have a feeling what I wrote - if only parts - was incorrect.

haha yeah, because oil companies lobbying governments and congressmen to stop competitors with regulation is any different to a cartel LMAO

>LTV
>God tier

Bait

I'm also skeptical of any economical school that doesn't use empirical mathematical models and is just a pointless verbal wank. Marx and Austroshits are both guilty of that.

What's where green regulations and environmental laws come in(inb4 some austrian fag throws a fit because he's triggered by the word regulations)
>_monetary_ economics
And what do you propose it be replaced by?

it will always be cheaper to burn coals and oil, or at least for decades to come.

Anti-intellectualism is a cancer.

>Marxist economics
>don't take human nature into account

Wew

Yes, as the now more than a century long existence of the standard oil company clearly demonstrates, government intervention cannot possible break up a monopoly.

????
I call it bullshit. The problem with Marxist economics, if we are talking of a planned economy is not taking complexity science into account.

That and what Friederich Hayek argued.

How do we turn economics into a proper science?

I'm tired of these political fucking shits.

Ecological economics

Thank me later

>Marxist economics
>Thinks all value derives from labor
>thinks capitol is valueless
>thinks workers will be worked to death
>the opposite happens

>Homo economicus is a rational actor
wew
>who exists
Wew
>the environment is a rational actor
WEW

economics does take into account the environment
proof: tragedy of the commons
proof: environmental/ecological economics

Economics never said that humans are 100% rational. Risk assessment, statistics, psychology and other smart ideas are elements of economics used to help determine where people behave rationally and irrationally.

proof: the invisible hand theory which presents market rationality as a guiding force trying to direct the unruly apes that we are towards civility

>Economics never said that humans are 100% rational. Risk assessment, statistics, psychology and other smart ideas are elements of economics used to help determine where people behave rationally and irrationally.

I know, mate. I was just memeing.

I just hate environmental economics. You cannot put Mother Nature to the negotiating table and expect her to keep her part of the deal.

When you have two parties that harm the environment, they do it because it is in their own benefit.

Nature does not have an own voice. Everyone who speaks for her is a proxy with an own agenda and motives and ultimately not nature herself. So, it's like putting words in her mouth to say what's good for nature and what not. What she'll survive and what not (kek).

It's like Greenpeas claiming to be the last authority on animal and plant matters. Then you have a country that institutes some Green policies that inflict with Greenpeas.

In the end you don't save mother nature, you just create another stage for power politics fucking up the "free" market, or natural undisturbed way of business.

>muh green energy
>muh heavily subsidized biofood
>muh clean environment that I visit so often

OP never tabulated depreciation on a mining operation before lol