Hacker News Reader

Comment by tsol | Hacker News Reader

These types of situations make me think some externalities should be priced in, perhaps through taxes. It's ridiculous that these devices make litter of rare metals that also have a risk of fires. If we're gonna allow it, it ought to include the cost of inevitably cleaning them up off the streets

View on HN

"These types of situations make me think some externalities should be priced in, perhaps through taxes. "

Why not all? Externalities are hard to determine but in general this should be a principle in a capitalist market economy.

The free market already accounts for externalities by making other people pay for them.

that's not how that works

In theory or in practice? How should/does it work?

By the literal definition of what an "externality" is.

A company cutting costs by dumping their PFAS into the local river isn't being "paid for" by anyone. Except with our health and all the dead insects and fish and compounding environmental effects brought with it

By definition an externality is a "market failure" because the market completely fails to account for this effect. There are "positive externalities" as well, but that's obviously not relevant here

That's literally true but that's inefficient. The question is whether it's more inefficient than whatever you try to do to solve it and the risk it does more harm than good.

Problem is if we started pricing in this stuff it would absolutely obliterate other, much more wasteful practices. If these were priced in, almost no one could afford to drive SUVs like they do now. Which is a good thing but isn't going to be accepted by the public.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com