Why the Pope is Wrong on Markets

On a recent speaking engagement in Germany I ran into Prof. John Schellnhuber, who was pope francison his way to the Vatican to present Pope Francis’ major coming out document on climate change. After I got over feeling oh so cool for being one degree of Kevin Bacon removed from one of the most powerful figures in the world, I did my homework and read the Laudato Si, which carries the subtitle “On care for our common home”. This is a well researched position paper which touches on a variety of topics and makes it very clear that the pope cares much more about distributional issues than the average economist. This is not difficult as we are too often obsessed with efficiency (maximizing the size of the pie) rather than equity (who gets what size slice). Even though I am a Bavarian protestant married to a lovely South African Jewish lady, I have been a big fan of Pope Francis until I got to point 190 in the Laudato Si:

“it should always be kept in mind that “environmental protection cannot be assured solely on the basis of financial calculations of costs and benefits. The environment is one of those goods that cannot be adequately safeguarded or promoted by market forces”. […] Once more, we need to reject a magical conception of the market, which would suggest that problems can be solved simply by an increase in the profits of companies or individuals. Is it realistic to hope that those who are obsessed with maximizing profits will stop to reflect on the environmental damage which they will leave behind for future generations?”

I went and sat in front of a wall and meditated on this statement for a little while (yes, my mom tried to make a Zen monk out of me). I agree with some of this sentiment. It is clear that profit/utility maximization has led to much of the environmental conundrum we find ourselves in. In a perfect world, firms pay for the full costs of their activities (which we call social cost of production). Consumers then only buy the product if these costs are at most as large as their willingness to pay for the good. If firms don’t have to pay for the full cost of their production (e.g. they get to use the atmosphere as a free dumping ground for greenhouse gases) the cost of production is artificially low and consumers buy more than they should at artificially low prices. Does this happen? Well yes! Most places in the world do not charge firms for their carbon emissions. California, Europe, parts of Canada are some noteworthy exceptions, though even in these places the price is well below the environmental cost of the emissions. Most Chinese firms, for example do not currently pay for their use of the atmosphere. Neither do India’s, Japan’s, Australia’s…. This leads to an overproduction of greenhouse gases.


Is the optimal level of greenhouse gas emissions zero? The economist’s answer is a clear no. We derive great benefits from the combustion of fossil fuels. Light to read, heat to cook, gasoline combustion for transport. But is the price of fossil fuels too low? Nearly everywhere, the answer is yes.

The clear answer to fix this is to put a price on carbon, which makes producers (and in turn consumers) pay for the full cost of their use of the atmosphere. This ain’t rocket science. My undergrads get this. President Obama gets this. In fact, Michael Greenstone – one of the most prominent environmental economists in the world and frequent EI visitor – led a federal working group to determine what the social cost of carbon is. The answer he and his coauthors came up with is approximately $40. What this means is that we should be adding approximately $40 to each ton of CO2 produced. This would raise the price of gas by roughly 40 cents per gallon.

The two ways economists argue one does this is by either charging a carbon tax or putting in place a cap and trade system. The word tax is political suicide, so we are most optimistic about the prospects of cap and trade. What you do is you issue a permit for each ton of CO2 and let firms trade these permits. This has been shown to be quite effective at reaching a prescribed amount of pollution reduction. At least cost. The trick is to issue just enough permits, so the price in the market reflects the social cost of carbon. Most economists are on board with this. It’s a Nobel worthy idea.

Well, the Pope does not agree.

“The strategy of buying and selling “carbon credits” can lead to a new form of speculation which would not help reduce the emission of polluting gases worldwide. This system seems to provide a quick and easy solution under the guise of a certain commitment to the environment, but in no way does it allow for the radical change which present circumstances require. Rather, it may simply become a ploy which permits maintaining the excessive consumption of some countries and sectors.”

And I just don’t agree with Pope Francis. I think this hostility towards market-based instruments comes from three possible lines of thought:

  1. Imperfect markets are the source of the current dire state of the environment, hence why would we use markets as a fix?
  2. There was evidence of some fraud in the ETS, showing that these markets are subject to manipulation.
  3. There is no way a cap and trade market will get us to 80% emissions reductions by 2050. You just have to tell people what to do. Command and control is better at that.

My response to 1) is simple. The reason the environment is in such bad shape is that some markets fail. We teach this to undergraduates as they walk through the door. You can use cap and trade markets to fix market failures! This is what they are designed to do. Markets to fix markets! We sometimes use dynamite to extinguish bad fires! The response to 2) is simple. Yes. Markets can be manipulated. But we learn and design better more foolproof instruments over time. No regulation is perfect. My response to 3) is that standards are expensive, provide little incentive for technological innovation and are a pain to enforce. Don’t get me wrong. Emissions trading is not the only policy we should engage in. I am strongly in favor of significantly subsidizing R&D for example.

What I wish the pope would have said is that market failures are the source of environmental degradation and we need to do everything we can to fix this. Our own governor Jerry Brown, who left a catholic seminary after three years to study classics at Berkeley is a staunch supporter of cap and trade.

So I would humbly ask Pope Francis to leave it up to science not faith to help us figure out how to fix the biggest environmental market failure mankind has faced in its history.

About Maximilian Auffhammer

Maximilian Auffhammer is the George Pardee Professor of International Sustainable Development at the University of California Berkeley. His fields of expertise are environmental and energy economics, with a specific focus on the impacts and regulation of climate change and air pollution.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Why the Pope is Wrong on Markets

  1. Karen says:

    Very nicely done Max. Loved 99% of the article and have a couple of tiny comments on the other 1% :

    1. I am curious about your statement “standards are expensive.” Having recently read the CPUC’s evaluation of EE programs in California, I believe codes and standards were the cheapest program in the portfolio. But perhaps EE is an exception.

    2. I am a strong believer in using science to help fix the world’s problems, but I think there’s also a place for faith – not in my life, but for those who don’t believe in science. Using both science and faith might get us further along, and at this point we need all the help we can get.

  2. pasadenapdx says:

    Also, command and control can “get it wrong”, either requiring too much or too little GHG reduction relative to the amounts that reflect full social cost. We live in a second-best (or third-best) world, and look for improvements, not perfection.

  3. Is your message is basically “Trust me I know what I’m doing.”?
    Who is the “ME” who knows what he is doing, you personally or some other entity?
    What if it is you and you are wrong?

  4. Paco D'Exponere says:

    Assume for a moment that it is possible to convince the Pope that a well designed market can provide an efficient method of allocating resources. (A truly heroic and unrealistic assumption) It seems that the challenge here is, as you indicate, fully developing the cost function. Simple in concept, very difficult in application.

    Assume that insofar as climate change is concerned, this is done. Are there remaining market failures, again in reference to climate change? If so, they are worthy of discussion. If not, why the claim that markets alone won’t work? What else are you trying to accomplish?

    The reason I ask is as follows: There are some people who will never support the role of markets in environmental policy short of the markets being perfect. Thus, from an advocacy perspective unless we are willing to support markets as stand alone policy tools, we can’t ever hope to have a meaningful discussion with those who don’t support markets. They will always see a hole in the market, thus they will always see a role for direct measures. If there is a role for direct measures, there are too many people who will look first at direct measures and then once all direct measures are exhausted, toward markets.

    This is precisely what has happened in California. We can laud California for its market policy, but this is false praise. The cap and trade market in California is a distant residual policy tool, one that was only developed after the Air Resources Board exhausted all possible direct measures. Only if the direct measures are removed from California’s suite of climate policies can anyone honestly and with a straight face claim that California is promoting a market based solution for climate policy. And only if the direct measures are removed will California policy makers be able to honestly claim that the State has developed an efficient climate policy structure.

    Unfortunately also an unrealistic scenario.

  5. Mike King says:

    Thanks for the thoughtful post. I do have a couple of comments:

    1. Another issue with command and control is not only the issue of innovation, but also of efficiency (of course the two are linked). It is unlikely that the regulator or policy maker has perfect information to identify the strategy that achieves environmental protection with the minimal use of resources and disruption to the economy. A market-based approach (economic instruments) is more likely to do so.

    2. I wouldn’t rule out a carbon tax entirely. A fair number of conservative pundits are warming to the idea.

    Mike King

  6. I’m going to humbly submit that I think you are missing the point. You wish the pope had said that market failures are the problem, not the concept of the market itself. I think the point is that while markets “in theory” could achieve some desired goal of environmental protection, “in practice” they don’t. That is, in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is.

    I’d also take you to task on the idea that the environment is in bad shape simply because “some markets fail.” Really? Hundreds to thousands of years of civilization’s emergence and slow disconnection from the intrinsic value of nature has nothing to do with it? Did market mechanisms fix slavery? Another example of our willingness to pervert our basic respect for living breathing, spiritual beings. You wouldn’t argue that market failures is the reason we had, actually still have, slavery? There’s clearly something deeper going on here.

    The point is that there is an intrinsic sacredness to the complexity of life that can’t be reduced to numbers and equations. The point is, that replacing God, the Great Spirit, Gaia, (or insert your favorite here) with the god of economic theory is a reasonably disastrous unfolding. It’s not an easily solved situation. To pretend that the answer is “simple” is really unfortunate, if not painful, to witness.

  7. Edward Kokkelenberg says:

    Hi Max:

    Yes, people read what you write; even old colleagues.
    The problem is more than one of market failure; we simply have very few markets for all of the externalities including carbon and this lack of full cost benefit pricing is not going to be overcome by a carbon tax or cap and trade.
    Also if the Pope’s utility function is lexicographic and contains equity as a strong requirement, the carbon pricing schemes fail.
    Pollution, global warming or climate change, and inequality as well as globalization and the low economic benefit from far too much financial manipulation are all of a mix. Simple market failure cannot cure these, nor will a command and control economy of course.

    So the Pope calls for an attitude change, discourse, and perhaps moral reflection and considerations.
    In reality, I am not optimistic about any of this happening enough to make the difference we need.

    Best to you,

    Edward Kokkelenberg

  8. Dear Maximilian,
    I read with interest your entry here. I enjoy reading the newsletter from the Energy Institute at Haas.
    I am in the field and I disagree partly with your view, and tend to agree partly with the Pope’s, and here is why.

    The notion that internalisation of externalities effectively fixes the market relies on a particular assumption about the effectiveness of such economic signals to correctly incentivise choice by a myriad of agents, who actually, are very diverse and have different reasons to choose what they choose. There is no real way with which you can ensure to know what the effectiveness is of a carbon price at incentivising aggregate choice. The classical response requires assuming some optimal ‘rational’ response, along with identical agents (i.e. no income distribution), which really is something the classical economist uses that avoids looking into all the possible motives that agents, in his model, have that drive their decisions. (1) Agents are not identical and (2) the modeller doesn’t know all of these motives and constraints => a very heterogeneous response not without systematic bias.

    The result of this is that the effectiveness of a carbon price to incentivise choice always falls short of the classical result: i.e. the carbon price incentivises a lot less than you’d expect. You get a lot less emissions reductions than you should optimally get if agents were identical and ‘rational’. Sometimes, policies that are not market-based work better (e.g. technology standards, information, labelling, but also technology R&D strategy, see Grubb’s Planetary Economics book).

    I thus sort of agree with the Pope’s statement that “environmental protection cannot be assured solely on the basis of financial calculations of costs and benefits”, i.e. that market-based instruments will do something, but you cannot ensure what.

    For example: take the private transport sector, a typically consumer-based sector, difficult to decarbonise. You put a carbon price as a tax on fuels, and the effectiveness of that to incentivise consumer choice of vehicles at the time of purchase will depend on their valuation of future fuel costs (the literature has no consensus on discount rates: 4 to 20-40%), and because fuel is not the largest component of costs (if they value it at all at the time of purchase), it contributes a minimal amount of incentive. If instead you set up a registration tax based on the price of carbon (and expected lifetime emissions), then you get that wealthy people, who typically buy $100k cars, can readily afford it (the price of cars goes up exponentially with linearly increasing emissions) while the less wealthy who buy $20k cars suffer because they can’t afford either the tax or a 30-40k Prius (that’s an income distribution problem — see our 2015 paper in ERL on this). The incentive given by a unique price on carbon decreases with the price of the car: some people just won’t care. The equitable policy in this case would be a non-linear function of emissions that maintains the incentive at high prices, meaning not a unique carbon price. Or industry standards to drastically reduce emissions of all vehicles without relying on optimal choice by people (e.g. Japan’s top runner program).

    Another example: you give subsidies/rebates to green house appliances (e.g. fridges) and you find that people use it to upgrade size (http://www.nber.org/papers/w20541), thus not reducing energy consumption. How well do we understand consumer-based markets? We should look into marketing research (e.g. McShane, Bradlow & Berger 2012 for cars), where money is made out of knowing the differences between market segments and the details of ‘irrational’ consumer behaviour.

    My personal view is that we need much more elaborate policies than just pure market, i.e. internalising the externality, (see our Energy Policy 2014 paper, sorry to self-cite) and that we need to fully integrate behavioural economics as well as evolutionary economics to our analysis (see Grubb’s Planetary Economics book). On this, I think that the pope wants to bring forth a vision of a different future, that doesn’t rely uniquely on a carbon price (because that would be a lot of eggs in the classical economist’s basket).

    Many thanks for your entry. Happy to debate! All the best!
    J-F Mercure, U. Cambridge, jm801@cam.ac.uk

  9. Scott Sklar says:

    Well, I think I am half way between The Pope and Professor Auffhammer. But as an Adjunct professor who teaches two interdisciplinary courses on sustainable energy at The George Washington University — I see some misunderstandings by both gentlemen. The Pope in Laudato Si was vividly pointing out that using markets to let some pollute more is not the appropriate response to the Lord’s creation. Prof Auffhammer responds , that markets are imperfect, and maybe we can use other market mechanisms to correct, or not. But Prof Auffhamer is correct, and I believe the Pope would agree, that placing a market “fee” on carbon for everyone (no exemption or exceptions) would then NOT allow anyone to escape paying to pollute more, and I bet the markets would respond quickly and efficiently to switch to lower or non-carbon alternatives. What the Pope did, was jettison the conversation from government gobbledygook which most experts agree would not be as fast or as much reductions of greenhouse gases needed, to what we ethically need to address as being transient residents of this planet. Markets can only be valuable if the right signals and the right enforcement mechanism are applied. I am a businessman as well and see the strength or markets, but the Pope is dubious, and I have to say, at the momemnt so am I. – Scott Sklar (solarsklar@aol.com)

  10. Azmat Malik says:

    Using CO2 as the ‘bad guy’ is part of the problem. There are many more types of emissions that are just as, perhaps even more, harmful.
    I propose that the ‘tax’ or ‘regulation’ of industry be on the USE, ie intake, of oxygen. Users buy oxygen intake permits; O2 is the resource being ‘used’ so should be paid for.

  11. policywonk says:

    (1) Doggone it, Max, stop calling it a tax! No-one thinks it’s a tax to pay the supermarket for the right to take food home and eat it; it’s not only politically incompetent, it’s just wrong. What you’re talking about is charging people to use the atmosphere’s limited GHG processing capacity. People who take that scarce resource without paying for it are takers/no-good goniff thieves, no different from shoplifters, and it’s the duty of government to protect us from being bad people.
    (2) You let the command and control advocates off too easily on the effectiveness criterion. On what planet does “telling people what to do” magically cause them all to do it? Personally, I know a lot more people who run stop signs and speed than don’t pay their taxes.

    • Paco D'Exponere says:

      Hard to disagree with this point. It is difficult to read some of the posts addressing cultural biases, pricing responses, etc.

      Establish a cap and trade system and stick to it. The cap is established pursuant to the number of allowances (permission slips) that are distributed. Now it does not matter how people or institutions respond to pricing incentives, they are mandated to turn in the allowances at the end of an established time period, much like a tax bill. Enforce the obligation. There you have it.

      And since the basis of the system is an actual emissions cap and not a tax per ton, the influence of carbon pricing on behavior is irrelevant.

      To draconian, some may say! As the author points out, this is simply the process of requiring producers and consumers to pay the cost of their behavior. To do anything less would be tantamount to theft.

  12. Felix Kramer says:

    The pope and his advisors may view buying and selling “rights to pollute” as similar to the church’s history of papal dispensations. In critiquing “market forces,” they may not be rejecting all ways to price emissions. I think it’s wrong for you to dismiss all creative solutions as political suicide. Approaches like “Fee & Dividend” from Citizens Climate Lobby, with small but significant conservative support, are gaining traction.

    • Jan Dietrick says:

      As a Citizens’ Climate Lobbyist, I learned in June in DC that the vast majority of Republicans in the US Congress listen to proposals to put a price on carbon when the proposal is revenue neutral. Our proposal, the “George Schulz Carbon Fee and Dividend”, returns all of the fees to American households. These aren’t new taxes or new government. These are essentially permit fees to pollute the atmosphere paid by the companies that extract or import oil, gas and coal administered by existing agencies. The majority of Republican voters increasingly want Congress to act on climate. The political challenge is not really the electorate, it’s really the candidates with unlimited fossil fuel funding who threaten to run principled Republicans out of office by twisting truth and other deceitful campaign tactics. With a bipartisan solution like ours, along with our grassroots advocacy more than doubling every year, there will soon be enough principled Republicans with enough cover to sponsor a bill that is clearly the most fair and effective way to put a price on carbon and in alignment with the Pope’s concerns. A third of Congress is Catholic. I invite you and the commenters to join me in a vision of Pope Francis being greeted by Congress on Sept 24 with the introduction of a bill to price carbon that everyone CAN like and will do the job (and supported by enough Democrats willing to stop eyeing the revenue for their favorite programs.)

  13. rjplevin says:

    “The trick is to issue just enough permits, so the price in the market reflects the social cost of carbon.”

    If we knew the true social cost of carbon–and much less than a habitable climate were at stake–then a market approach might be adequate. By what method do we assign a cost to climate catastrophe given the enormous uncertainties involved? The models used to estimate SCC are subjective, cartoon representations of only a portion of the problem. Treating these estimates as representative of the true social cost requires a huge leap of faith. And as you note, we would still have global distributional and intergenerational inequities related to fossil fuel cost and benefits. Do we just explain to the millions displaced (not to mention dead) that the outcome is Kaldor-Hicks efficient? How about the market failure of imperfect information? Consumers can’t be expected to make the “right” choices after being subject to decades of disinformation from fossil fuel companies, Fox News, and others. What is the right price for carbon in this context?

    Perhaps as Stephen DeCanio suggests, economics is not the right language for addressing climate change, which is primarily a moral issue. We don’t use cost-benefit analysis to decide how to raise our children or whether to go to war, end slavery, or allow all couples to marry. If we agree that there are some issues for which economics should not be the final arbiter, shouldn’t society’s response to an existential crisis be among those?

  14. Pingback: Why the Pope is wrong on markets « The Berkeley Blog

  15. Juan Pablo Carvallo says:

    There are two statements in Max’s comment that I’d like to highlight:

    “So I would humbly ask Pope Francis to leave it up to science not faith to help us figure out how to fix the biggest environmental market failure mankind has faced in its history”.

    It may not be surprising that economists think climate change is a market failure, but I believe the Pope’s point is precisely that climate change is much more than that and therefore markets won’t solve the problem. The encyclical is much closer to the concepts of deep ecology enumerated by Arne Naess and others in the seventies. Following Polanyi, markets are embedded in a larger social context and is this social context of consumerism, materialism, lack of justice and collaboration that seems to be at the crux of the issue, according to the encyclical. Markets will be created reflecting these underlying causes and it seems this supports the Pope’s rejection to them as a solution. From point 202 in the encyclical: “Many things have to change course, but it is we human beings above all who need to change.”

    A more technical comment is related to “Is the optimal level of greenhouse gas emissions zero?”

    I feel Max’s straightforward answer, “a clear no” reflects that the question is incomplete. I believe the right statement would be “Is the optimal level of greenhouse gas emissions zero given the current stocks?”. There are many analyses that suggest that we indeed need to achieve zero or even negative emissions in the second half of this century to prevent temperature increases higher than 2 or 3 C. Even if we allow for some emissions, allocating them, again according to the encyclical, is a matter of justice, not efficiency. It seems the Pope doesn’t believe markets can produce just solutions, simply because they cannot be set up in a “neutral” way but will be influenced by the existing power balance.

  16. James Roumasset says:

    The encyclical is an ecumenical document signalling a reconciliation between Vatican and the Latin American brand of liberation theology. The latter is hostile to markets because they are thought to inevitably exploit the poor. God knows, even if the Pope doesn’t, that exploitation, when it occurs, is a joint product of markets and rent-seeking. It is not inevitable.

  17. mcubedecon says:

    I think that the responses to Max’s post are confusing two matters: 1) whether markets are moral means of achieving environmental goals (which may be the Pope’s prime objection) and 2) whether markets are the most effective means of achieving emission reductions. I won’t comment on the first, but on the second, we have rarely tried to explicitly achieve such large societal transformations. Restricting GHG, unlike any other environmental regulation, will touch virtually every aspect of our economic activity. So we can’t look to standard environmental regulatory success as a metric for what might be achieved. The only previous efforts on a similar scale are the wholesale changes made in the Communist countries after World Wars I and II. And we can see that relying on central planning schemes were an abject failure. (https://mcubedecon.wordpress.com/2014/07/06/how-do-we-best-induce-technological-innovation-weve-already-run-that-experiment/) The problem is that anyone who believes that we can rely on coming up with such a comprehensive regulatory scheme is simply underestimating the complexity of trying to coordinate and monitor so many decisions. So markets may not achieve the results that we want, but they are still much more likely to achieve better results than any scheme that tries to dictate the choices of 7 billion individuals.

    Paco D’Exponere is right that California truly has not implemented a market-based approach (a point we made in comments we submitted in 2008 on the Scoping Plan.) But we also don’t know if this approach will be successful. In answer to Karen, there is significant controversy about whether the CPUC’s EE evaluation is unbiased. Would you as a regulatory agency like to publish a study that says that for the last three decades that you’ve wasted ratepayer money? We don’t yet have an unbiased assessment.

  18. Eugene Coyle says:

    Professor Auffhammer: First I thank you for reading the entire Papal encyclical, Laudato Si. I doubt that many economists have.

    You take issue with the Pope’s comments on the market and on trading carbon credits. I’m conversant with the familiar arguments and won’t get into that here.

    What I hope you will consider as you go forward with your work as an economist is the rest of what the Pope gets into. To put it into the current vernacular, Francis is recommending System Change, Not Climate Change. His comment on Cap and Trade is almost an aside.

    Francis recommends System Change rather than relying on technological change. The latter, in the end, is what Cap and Trade is hoped to bring about.

    Francis wants a massive redistribution of income, World GDP, from the wealthy to the poor. And that is not only from the North to the South but within the North and the South. That redistribution of income will, he expects, reduce consumption. Francis puts the blame for environmental degradation, the mistreatment of the world, on consumption and consumerism. More, Francis asserts that the present path of income distribution leads to “… social breakdown, increased violence and a rise in new forms of social aggression, drug trafficking, growing drug use by young people, and the loss of identity.” [page 32]

    On page 22 the Pope asserts that “We all know that it is not possible to sustain the present level of consumption in developed countries and wealthier sectors of society, where the habit of wasting and discarding has reached unprecedented levels.” I am guessing you know he is correct about that. If you disagree, why not take the assertion to task, as you have with your dispute on Cap and Trade?

    Francis recommends specifics as well. For example he mentions better mass transit (and offers an example from a successful change in a city in Brazil) rather than a market solution of more expensive gasoline.

    There is much, much more in Laudato Si, as you know. Don’t limit your writing about it to the bit about Cap and Trade.

    Gene Coyle

    • pasadenapdx says:

      If the Pope wants to reduce consumption by redistributing income, he’s got the economics wrong, because the marginal propensity to consume (rather than save) is inversely related to income: higher income households tend to save more as a percentage of their income than low income households. This is just Econ 101. Redistributing income may well lead to a reduction in the social problems cited in the encyclical, but it won’t clearly reduce consumption. In any event, consumption, per se, isn’t clearly the problem. Rather, we are consuming too much of some things (coal) and too little of others (education and health care).

      • Eugene Coyle says:

        I think the Pope, rather than getting Econ 101 wrong, is teaching Econ 401. Let’s accept for the sake of argument that it is correct that higher income households save more out of marginal income than do lower income households. So far you are on safe ground. But now we have to think about what they do with the rest of their income — with what they are “saving.” Most will accept that they will be seeking good places to earn a return on the savings, hence they will be plowing it into what they hope will be profitable and growing businesses. It is spent on adding to the means of production, followed, they hope, by more consumption by people buying the output. In other words, the wealthy are causing things to be bought with 100% of their income, partly as consumption, partly as investment. So if their income is reduced, that total buying will be reduced.

        At the next level, maybe over in Finance 201, you could learn, as I’m guessing Pope Francis already knows, that redistributing income as he recommends is going to lower expectations of future earnings for business. (See the work of Myron Gordon — Google the Gordon Growth Model). Thus the businesses will be worth less, i.e. a drop in wealth for the higher income brackets, and the wealthy in general. So both the wealth and income effects are going to bang consumption by the affluent.

        Your final sentence asserts, furthermore, that the market isn’t working with respect to the choices consumers make. WHY are we consuming the wrong things and not the others? I’m not sure what level course, in what discipline, to recommend on that one.

    • mcubedecon says:

      The point of markets is not that they predict with accuracy the future cost; it’s that markets are the most effective means of aggregating the collective knowledge of everyone participating in the market. Relying on a few bureaucrats to make a single centralize decision is more likely to lead us down blind alleys and increases the risk from any single decision. We need to be thinking about risk management from all sides, not solely from the climate (even if that is the paramount risk.)

    • mcubedecon says:

      Gene, I expect that income redistribution will lead to increased consumption, not less. A single wealthy individual has only so much consumptive capacity. This is why Keynes promoted the idea of economic stimulus. As for transit systems, we can build the most effective ones is the system, but it cars are still cheaper (in both monetary, and time and convenience terms), consumers will continue to use them. The income elasticity of demand for auto travel is remarkable and can easily overwhelm price responsiveness.

  19. Only a market economist would suggest that we know the future cost of something like polluting the atmosphere. There are no perfect markets. Period. Look at what this thinking has done to us over the years. Robber Barons, governments bought by big corporations, the most recent recession. $40 per ton is a joke, and a bad one. Who is getting the $40 per ton — what are they doing with it? Is it going into a trust fund invested in “What oil?” to pay for the future costs. We need to sequester the carbon right where it is. In the ground. Don’t take it out!!

  20. Jan Dietrick says:

    How about taxing what we want people to use less of, gradually, steadily, and put all that revenue into the economy to drive a substantial transition to alternatives? I don’t see how it matters how much people consume of socially beneficial (as opposed to socially costly) products. We wouldn’t stop at the fairly arbitrary $40 per ton. We would add around $10 per ton per year for 10 years, a rate that has been forecast to bring emissions down to where scientists have said it needs to be. We would include a border adjustment to level the playing field and drive the price globally. Let’s ask Pope Francis.

  21. mcubedecon says:

    Gene, I disagree with your “Econ 401” discussion as it has been shown empirically that redistributing wealth increases, not decreases, growth. And the same might be said about business valuation. These are not theoretical results. This is why the Pope is wrong about economics.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s