If MSE ran G20, who would you invite?

mewbie_2

Kenny4315 wrote: »

19 girls with large baps plus 1 namely moi, is what I call a G20.

Oh, of course. Once baps was mentioned I clean forgot the point of this thread.

MrFonzerelli

An expert in Externality, to oversee the tax and regulatory system.

Thanks go to Generalli for pointing out the term.

Many negative externalities (also called "external costs" or "external diseconomies") are related to the environmental consequences of production and use. The article on environmental economics also addresses externalities and how they may be addressed in the context of environmental issues.

• Systemic risk describes the risks to the overall economy arising from the risks which the banking system takes. That the private costs of banking failure may be smaller than the social costs justifies banking regulations, although regulations could create a moral hazard.[1]

• Anthropogenic climate change is attributed to greenhouse gas emissions from burning oil, gas, and coal. Global warming has been ranked as the #1 externality of all economic activity, in the magnitude of potential harms and yet remains unmitigated.I][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"]citation needed[/URL][/I

• Water pollution by industries that adds poisons to the water, which harm plants, animals, and humans.

• Industrial farm animal production, on the rise in the 20th century, resulted in farms that were easier to run, with fewer and often less-highly-skilled employees, and a greater output of uniform animal products. However, the externalities with these farms include "contributing to the increase in the pool of antibiotic-resistant bacteria because of the overuse of antibiotics; air quality problems; the contamination of rivers, streams, and coastal waters with concentrated animal waste; animal welfare problems, mainly as a result of the extremely close quarters in which the animals are housed." [2][3]

• The harvesting by one fishing company in the ocean depletes the stock of available fish for the other companies and overfishing may be the result. This is an example of a common property resource, sometimes referred to as the Tragedy of the commons.

• When car owners use roads, they impose congestion costs on all other users.

• A business may purposely underfund one part of their business, such as their pension funds, in order to push the costs onto someone else, creating an externality. Here, the "cost" is that of providing minimum social welfare or retirement income; economists more frequently attribute this problem to the category of moral hazards.

• Consumption by one consumer causes prices to rise and therefore makes other consumers worse off, perhaps by reducing their consumption. These effects are sometimes called "pecuniary externalities". Many economists do not accept the concept of pecuniary externalities, attributing such problems to anti-competitive behavior, monopoly power, or other definitions of market failures.

• The consumption of alcohol by bar-goers in some cases leads to drinking and driving accidents which injure or kill pedestrians and other drivers.

• Commonized costs of declining health and vitality caused by smoking and/or alcohol abuse. Here, the "cost" is that of providing minimum social welfare. Economists more frequently attribute this problem to the category of moral hazards, the prospect that a party insulated from risk may behave differently from the way they would if they were fully exposed to the risk. For example, an individual with insurance against automobile theft may be less vigilant about locking his car, because the negative consequences of automobile theft are (partially) borne by the insurance company.

• The cost of storing nuclear waste from nuclear plants for more than 1,000 years (over 100,000 for some types of nuclear waste) is not included in the cost of the electricity the plant produces. The third party here is the next several hundred generations.

In these situations the marginal social benefit of consumption is less than the marginal private benefit of consumption. (i.e. SMB < PMB) This leads to the good or service being over-consumed relative to the social optimum. Without intervention the good or service will be under-priced and the negative externalities will not be taken into account.

Cleaver

elona wrote: »

I'd invite Taleb, Roubini and Mandelbrot.

I couldn't agree more. These three down the middle with Alidilio and Barreto tearing down the flanks would be one hell of an attacking option.

Cleaver

elona wrote: »

I'd invite Taleb, Roubini and Mandelbrot.

Actually, the name 'Elona' would make a good Brazilian attacker too. I might be thinking of Elano though who plays for Man City. Hey ho.

vivatifosi

pickles110564 wrote: »

Broder's you cant be vivatifosi as well?

Not unless he changes sex.

PasturesNew

Nobody wanted me then?
*needy bleat*

Another job I didn't get



You lot are barking ... you know that don't you.

vivatifosi

Actually Pastures, I'd vote for you. I think you'd be great, but would you mind refereeing the fight between my nominees - Keynes and Hayek? I'd buy a ticket if I could resurrect those two and see the face-off in the light of what has happened subsequently as a result of both of their economic theories.

Generali

Cleaver wrote: »

I couldn't agree more. These three down the middle with Alidilio and Barreto tearing down the flanks would be one hell of an attacking option.

I play in goal in a six-a-side team.

11-a-side I'm in more of a chopper role really at right back (and yeah, haha, not right back behind the goal, sheesh!). Basically if the ref doesn't see what I do then I'm ok. If he does then the only plan B I have is an early bath.

What do you reckon for an economists XI? JM Keynes in the centre (although nobody can understand why) and JK Galbraith out on the left wing. Adam Smith in goal.....

PasturesNew

vivatifosi wrote: »

Actually Pastures, I'd vote for you. I think you'd be great, but would you mind refereeing the fight between my nominees - Keynes and Hayek? I'd buy a ticket if I could resurrect those two and see the face-off in the light of what has happened subsequently as a result of both of their economic theories.

At first I thought "I've never heard of those posters", then at the end I realised that the Keynes bloke is some economist, so the other one must be too - never heard of him.

We didn't study subjects like that at my school, they didn't exist.

Generali

PasturesNew wrote: »

At first I thought "I've never heard of those posters", then at the end I realised that the Keynes bloke is some economist, so the other one must be too - never heard of him.

We didn't study subjects like that at my school, they didn't exist.

Keyenes was an Economist, Hayek was a philosopher.