Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (72726)	6/17/2008 5:21:49 PM
From: spiral3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542181

But the lost freedom from the bans and hard limits should still be a concern IMO. Something that gets added to the balance when you are making decisions. Sure. Humbly I ask do you really feel that mandated fuel efficiency stds for cars for ex. have cramped your style, limited your choice to the extent that you suffer an affliction because of this. If you impose a cost to cover the externality but don't define specific ways to deal with the cost, you will tend to get more efficent responses to the cost than if you impose hard caps, and/or bans, and/or detailed requirements. If that makes my argument to be about defining specific ways to deal with the cost so be it. Welcome to the real world. In a narrowly bounded situation it's not that big of a deal. We have plenty experience to go on here. You suggest that we can't get anywhere unless we define specific ways to deal with the cost. Yet in your next breath you say we will get a more efficient response without detailed requirements. Sounds pretty dogmatic to me. Aren't the specific ways to deal with the costs, the detailed requirements. Arguing against yourself or did you have something else in mind.