Talk:Theory of the second best

message: I am wondering: 
In this sentence of the article: "it may be better to let two market imperfections cancel each other out rather than making an effort to fix either one. Thus, it may be optimal for the government to intervene in a way that is contrary to laissez faire policy.",
shouldn't it mean: a way that is conformed to laissez-faire policy?. Wouldn't it make more sense?
(MIKO)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.74.50.57 (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening heading 

message: Dr. Schubert has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
We believe Dr. Schubert has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:
*Reference : Antoine d'Autume & Katheline Schubert & Cees Withagen, 2011. "Should the carbon price be the same in all countries?," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 11076, Universite Pantheon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Schubert's comment on this article 

message: Redacted from article here for discussion: 
For example, consider a mining monopoly that is also a polluter: mining leads to tailings being dumped in the river and deadly dust in the workers' lungs. Suppose in addition that there is nothing at all that can be done about the pollution without also reducing production. However, the government is able to break up the monopoly.
The problem here is that increasing competition in this market is likely to increase production (since monopolists restrict production). Because pollution is highly associated with production, pollution will most likely increase. Thus, it is not clear that eliminating the monopoly increases overall welfare. Gains from trade in the mined mineral will increase, but externalities from pollution will increase as well, possibly outweighing the gains from trade.
First of all, many jobs have a negative aspect, often involving risk or health. To some degree this is priced into the job market, but governments also manage these sectors by edict, especially where medicine is a common good, because such a government holds the bag on that externality. 
Beyond that starting point, the rest of this is right out of Yes Minister.
If health and safety standards really are being violated, why doesn't the government drop the ban hammer? 
For some reason they won't drop the ban hammer, but nevertheless they concern themselves with the positive margin (expansion of what they won't ban outright). 
And if the Department of Trade wants to enforce consistent rules concerning monopoly powers, should this kind of calculation get out in front of the train? 
In addition to the minty OR flavour, it all sounds like a giant hairball of perverse justifications for rampant dysfunction. — MaxEnt 02:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR example with too many weird assumptions