and it's interesting in the case of carbon taxes in particular to see who pays (oil companies, retailers, consumers etc)
1
Distributional aspects can be corrected by other policies that change distribution. But don't know what you mean by "still paid".
1
using a carbon tax as an example, you could see the same arguments being made "oil companies will pay for their pollution: cont.
5
on the flip side if demand were perfectly inelastic and there were no suitable substitutes, consumers would bear the entire cost
1
Things about "who bears the cost" of a very specific policy aren't interesting since basically *all* policy effects distribution
1
I think that implies that you can't evaluate the effect of a single policy, which I think is untrue
1
Sure, evaluating effects of changes to policy is good. But I'd evaluate them against categories like income/wealth distribution...
1
... and not consider "oil companies" as entities deserving of fundamentals like food & housing in the way people are.
2
Sure, employees of oil companies are one of many parties affected by environmental policies, and should be considered.
Jan 27, 2017 · 2:59 AM UTC