From the comments ...
Posted by: Killian O'Brien | September 21, 2011 at 09:31 AM
Then, the economist, in typical fashion, also fails to address the real costs of this extraction. The economic cost to consumers of the high prices is huge and is reason why the housing crisis was focused first in the suburbs where gas prices matter most. The costs to the environment, global climate, etc., are ignored by economists who refuse to include these costs for fossil fuels which leaves prices for them artificially low compared to wind and solar, which would be more than competitive with fossil fuels if the accounting were accurate.
Posted by: PatrickW | September 28, 2011 at 09:46 AM
Am I the only one who thinks it is ironic that this guy criticizes economists for not accounting for externalities on a site that mostly focuses on the problem of externalities? Maybe I am just acting in typical fashion.
Posted by: John Whitehead | September 28, 2011 at 11:08 AM
Er, no.
I've grown weary of responding to these ignorant attacks on "economists who refuse".
Here is another one from "Killian O'Brien" (if that is really your name ... the Irish Samual Adams?*):
Since you call yourself an ecological economist, this is an astounding failure of analysis.
Er, no. We call ourselves "environmental economists." Ecological economists get things even more wrong than we do!
I also call myself "Superjohn" (one word).
Note: When your last name is a pimple, you feel like you can make fun of others' names.
