(OOC: Could you explain why?)
Advertisement
by Kenmoria » Tue Aug 20, 2019 2:48 am
by Dirty Americans » Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:52 am
Youssath wrote:"Oh, it's a fine proposal alright, ambassador. If you look closely enough, you can find some glaring issues that need to be tackled appropriately, especially since we are establishing the precedent here."
by Imperium Anglorum » Tue Aug 20, 2019 9:55 am
by Araraukar » Tue Aug 20, 2019 4:32 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Non-negligible transaction costs also exist for all low-value opaque products
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Shaktirajya » Tue Aug 20, 2019 7:37 pm
by Youssath » Tue Aug 20, 2019 7:51 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:@Youssath
1. Spoilage is a thing; production functions without any recourse to reality are bad economics.
2. Externalities: leftovers can probably be put to better use than disposed, which is probably profit maximising for firms. Non-negligible transaction costs also exist for all low-value opaque products, which are assumed out in "basic" economic models.
Before pulling basic economics on someone, learn some. It's just in the later chapters of the book.
Dirty Americans wrote:"I've looked at your note. I think it is reasonable to suggest that we will agree to disagree. The economics of non durable goods bakes into the equation a factor known as 'spoilage.' In theory in a true free market, oversupply would be handled profitably, but with the addition of non free market food safety laws - which I don't think should be abolished - that ability is significantly decreased. Did you know that the Middle Ages, the nobility dined on plates made with bread and those plates with all the drippings from the meats and sauces would be collected and distributed to the poor? Try to do that in our modern society."
"Yes, there are some minor mistakes here. To quote that old saying the perfect is the enemy of the good and I see no reason to reject the good because it is not perfect. I see far too many resolutions passed here that are outright harmful. Seeing one slightly flawed doesn't concern me in the slightest."
Shaktirajya wrote:We, the People's Hindu Matriarchy of Shaktirajya, believe the Earth is a manifestation of the Goddess Herself and as such, We vote FOR this resolution. There is no sacrifice too great to preserve this, Our only planet. Anything else is folly.
Vaktaha Samajavadinaha Matatantrasya Shaktirajyasya
by Imperium Anglorum » Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:07 pm
Youssath wrote:1. The resolution assumes that food production is in excess here since it far exceeds the consumption levels. I'm not too sure what you are trying to get at here.
Youssath wrote:2. Erm, no. An externality is a cost or benefit that is suffered by the third party due to the economic transaction. Cigarettes have a negative externality because of the benefits of consuming tobacco products is greater for the consumer than for society (when I smoke, the people around me incur secondhand smoking even though they have not consumed the economic good, that's a negative externality). Throwing the concepts of "externalities" is inappropriate at this instance here, although I do get that the consumption of food waste products can be a positive externality for the third party (but really, you are just mentioning how industries benefit from this, not the third party aka society). Plus, wasted goods are an allocative inefficiency within the system, and what you are simply saying is to increase the overall demand for food products (be it fresh or wasted), and like what I said, externalities cannot apply on another type of product when they are literally the same thing (fresh and wasted food is still food, just that wasted food is an allocative inefficiency in the market). Those are two different concepts you are playing here, so try not to mix them up.
Araraukar wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote:Non-negligible transaction costs also exist for all low-value opaque products
OOC: Yes and Son of Sevenless and KRAS may actually be related because of the auto-inhibited conformation dependent on multiple domain-to-domain interactions that cooperate to block access of the SOS1 catalytic core to its targets, but I wouldn't use any of those terms on here just to show that I've read a big thick book full of specialist information...
by Youssath » Wed Aug 21, 2019 11:06 am
And where exactly did you pull that figure out from? Just a heads up, we don't recognize any factual figures here thrown from real-life examples here.Imperium Anglorum wrote:And we consume 30 per cent more than the food we purchase. Are you arguing that the spoilage that is associated with the food waste is in fact optimal because overproduction is the most efficient mechanism by which to combat the spoilage? If so, make that argument. Then you'll have to bite the harms associated with increased agricultural production on the environment relative to waste avoidance mechanisms, but that's a separate question.
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Externalities include any time that social benefits exceed private benefits. Vaccinations are the classical example. It must be strange that literature has in fact got published on this exact topic, with these kinds of terms. Also, to be clear, I'm talking about the disposal mechanism for food waste, which doesn't align incentives on the benefits side.The theory unravels the interrelation between social food insecurity and external environmental costs, which is not generally considered by households when they waste food. (Abstract from Bhagyashree Katare, Dmytro Serebrennikov, H. Holly Wang, Michael Wetzstein, "Social-Optimal Household Food Waste: Taxes and Government Incentives", 99 American J Agricultural Economics 499 (2017).)
The costs which are imposed do not have to be localised to a specific actor. They can be society writ large, they can be specific people who suffer from second-hand smoke, they can be the people who have higher food prices due to the inefficient allocation of nutritional resources. You concede this when saying "I do get that the consumption of food waste products can be a positive externality for the third party", which you then use in an attempt to argue there isn't a positive externality ... in the same sentence. Get it straight.
But even if the specific term isn't "externality", you also straight up just concede that current food distribution mechanisms are allocatively inefficient. That knifes your argument that there isn't any significance . There's no inherency in Kenmoria's argumentation, food waste exists in the status quo. Do you think it's the solvency that is the problem? The disadvantages of the plan?
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Before pulling basic economics on someone, learn some. It's just in the later chapters of the book.
by Imperium Anglorum » Wed Aug 21, 2019 1:32 pm
by Mockia » Wed Aug 21, 2019 9:12 pm
by New Franklin » Wed Aug 21, 2019 9:26 pm
by Kenmoria » Thu Aug 22, 2019 1:00 am
New Franklin wrote:how exactly will this proposal be enforced? I'm new to Nation States so I honestly don't know how this works. (I voted against)
by Kenmoria » Thu Aug 22, 2019 5:15 am
Reducing Food Waste was passed 11,161 votes to 1,902.
by Marxist Germany » Thu Aug 22, 2019 5:18 am
by Youssath » Fri Aug 23, 2019 4:48 am
by Australian rePublic » Sat Aug 24, 2019 1:16 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement