[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: The Limits To Growth
This is quite true -- the existance of unemployment results from a poorly
functioning labour market interacting with insufficient aggregate demand.
In the long run, any set of policies (except arguably those which disrupt
the functioning of the labour market) will not "cost jobs".
That is not to say that environmental regulations do not impose costs. If
compliance and enforcement use real resources (e.g. labour and/or capital)
then these resources will not be available for other uses. These costs
must be weighed against the benefits (e.g. clean water, better air quality
etc.) . In this respect, decisions about environmental matters do not
differ fundamentally from any cost/benefit decision.
A key issue is assessing environmental regulations is whether the
de-centralized market outcome is truly suboptimal. One reason why it may
be so is the existance of externalities. However, the existance of
externalities should not be assumed, but must be considered on a
case-by-case basis.
John Flanery <jflan@efn.org> wrote in article
<Pine.SUN.3.95.961210195247.724A-100000@garcia.efn.org>...
>
> There is no conflict between employment and the environment. Oh, certain
> jobs should be eliminated, but the overall employment level is controlled
> by the Federal Reserve, not by the amount of economic regulation.
>
References: