What you say I would call "resolving prisoner's dilemma" whenever you identify one, and some environmental regulations are good example of such actions. That still doesn't explain why you need to focus on taxing "the rich".Cirion Spellbinder wrote: ↑Mon May 07, 2018 6:20 pm Also, what do you want to optimize with that money? Red’s administrating would probably be better at championing environmental causes, for example, compared to the owner of a logging corporation, but the logging corporation would be better at providing affordable wood and jobs (assuming it doesn’t have a monopoly).
That said, many "problems" could be resolved without interventions per se. In your example of logging company, if there are solid property laws and the company has a warranty that no one will take its land anytime soon, it can cultivate the land, rather than exploit it, as an investment. The funny fact is we are quite good at providing affordable wood right now. In Western countries forrest area generally is stable or increases, and it decreases in countries without the rule of law. Amazonian forrest is being exploited not because of greedy corporations (at least it's not the core of the problem*), but because it's no mans land and no one cares.
* You can expect corporations and people in general to be greedy, the solution should aknowledge that fact, not try to change human "nature".
Which is directly related with providing highest quality goods, that satisfy needs of customers, for the lowest possible price. Inability to satisfy consumers hurts their financial interests immediately.Cirion Spellbinder wrote: ↑Mon May 07, 2018 6:20 pm They are incentivized to spend their money efficiently for their financial interests.
The difference is that you are forced to pay taxes and then you wait in hope that policy makers will spend it reasonably. When you pay "the rich" for the product you more or less satisfy your need for the price you think is right, and may not even care what "the rich" will do with the money. It works quite well in most cases. On the other hand we saw a system, that tried to guess and satisfy almost all needs of the society, fail everytime. I don't think we should mimic such a system.Cirion Spellbinder wrote: ↑Mon May 07, 2018 6:20 pm Policy makers are incentivized to spend tax payer money to seem or be in favor of taxpayer interests.
I'm not sure that private roads would cost more than state roads, though the fact that there is no single country that has working network of private roads (AFAIK) leans me towards saying that roads should propably stay public, or at least some hybrid solution is better. It could be a good example of prisoner's dilemma that should be solved.Cirion Spellbinder wrote: ↑Mon May 07, 2018 6:20 pm In order for that to be problem the increased cost of X would have to be greater than the value of government programs to people. Would you agree that people benefit more from government roads than they would from only private roads even if goods may cost more? Why?
It's similar case with other areas, where the infrastructure is expensive or takes a lot space, and there is not much room (like literally - physically) for competition. Water supply, power supply, etc. But again, right now these things usually are public, or some hybrid solution is in place. We can discuss gray areas of policy making, just like discussion on veganism may hover around clams, roadkills, and grass fed long-lived happy meat and eggs from backyard hens. I don't think Red wants "the rich" to pay higher taxes to finance already existing solutions(?).