The interesting thing is that IRC plenty of economists think negative externalities (costs imposed on third parties) should be factored into price. That way the market would actually be fairer, more free, and more efficient.
For example, often the price of a product doesn’t include the environmental cost. So for example product A is cheaper to make than product B when you include the environmental cost. But manufacturer B is able to pass the environmental cost on to the tax payer, so the sale price of product B is cheaper in shops, and manufacturer A can’t compete. It’s effectively a subsidy of inefficient and unethical companies. The product which in total costs less to make has a higher sale price than the more expensive product, because we as tax payers and a society are effectively subsidizing the less efficient and more polluting manufacturer. That’s the opposite of a free market.
This happens all the time, even if you ignore direct subsidies. Whether it’s meat, oil products, stuff made in countries with lax regulation (and even more negative externalities), stuff made by underpaying workers and forcing them to rely on the government(and tax payer) aid, etc. etc.
Obviously, this is the kind of wealth distribution and inequality society and the media rarely see as problematic, because it is so deeply ingrained. But never let the right tell you wealth distribution is a taboo. They’re quite happy with wealth distribution when it suits them or their masters.
Have this saved in a folder for years
The interesting thing is that IRC plenty of economists think negative externalities (costs imposed on third parties) should be factored into price. That way the market would actually be fairer, more free, and more efficient.
For example, often the price of a product doesn’t include the environmental cost. So for example product A is cheaper to make than product B when you include the environmental cost. But manufacturer B is able to pass the environmental cost on to the tax payer, so the sale price of product B is cheaper in shops, and manufacturer A can’t compete. It’s effectively a subsidy of inefficient and unethical companies. The product which in total costs less to make has a higher sale price than the more expensive product, because we as tax payers and a society are effectively subsidizing the less efficient and more polluting manufacturer. That’s the opposite of a free market.
This happens all the time, even if you ignore direct subsidies. Whether it’s meat, oil products, stuff made in countries with lax regulation (and even more negative externalities), stuff made by underpaying workers and forcing them to rely on the government(and tax payer) aid, etc. etc.
Obviously, this is the kind of wealth distribution and inequality society and the media rarely see as problematic, because it is so deeply ingrained. But never let the right tell you wealth distribution is a taboo. They’re quite happy with wealth distribution when it suits them or their masters.