> It's always interesting when an economic argument ignores either costs or benefits. While the clean air act provided benefits, that doesn't imply that we couldn't have gotten the benefits for less, let alone that every regulation in the face of claimed "market failure", or even actual externalities, is a good idea.
There are several studies showing the huge benefits of the CAA relative to its costs. Banning leaded gasoline alone was a net $16 billion/year benefit.
And no, there is no implication that we couldn't have achieved the benefits of the CAA for less. That's the reality of the world we live in. Neoclassical economics only guarantees us efficient market allocations in the face of demonstrably false assumptions about consumer behavior, transaction costs, lack of externalities, etc. The "laissez faire" touchstone is good and debunked. All we have left is empiricism. Use the tools we have to address perceived problems, then see if the benefits outweigh the costs. There will be no guarantees that you'll have chosen an efficient solution, but any regulation where the benefits outweigh the costs can be justified on its own merits.
> There are several studies showing the huge benefits of the CAA relative to its costs.
Yes, but that wasn't the question.
> Banning leaded gasoline alone was a net $16 billion/year benefit.
The last time this came up, someone cited a study claiming that the CAA was responsible for 1/6th of the US economy. While I agree that there were net benefits, the 1/6th claim is absurd.
While every one of these "studies" claims to be conservative, I've never seen one that actually is.
Moreover, as with the space program, we may have gone through a "golden age" wrt certain kinds of regulation, where the small things might work but the big ones are one disaster after another. (That's not unexpected - we started with the low-hanging fruit.) Note that the acid-rain regulation is one of the disasters. (Yes, there was a problem, but the regulation was overkill.)
There are several studies showing the huge benefits of the CAA relative to its costs. Banning leaded gasoline alone was a net $16 billion/year benefit.
And no, there is no implication that we couldn't have achieved the benefits of the CAA for less. That's the reality of the world we live in. Neoclassical economics only guarantees us efficient market allocations in the face of demonstrably false assumptions about consumer behavior, transaction costs, lack of externalities, etc. The "laissez faire" touchstone is good and debunked. All we have left is empiricism. Use the tools we have to address perceived problems, then see if the benefits outweigh the costs. There will be no guarantees that you'll have chosen an efficient solution, but any regulation where the benefits outweigh the costs can be justified on its own merits.