There’s a solution out there but it doesn’t employ Snippa

So, clearly, that’s not the right solution for Snippa, is it?

And this issue is vital: if we’re to have a sustainable future we must have accounting that integrates green issues within it.

Fair enough. So, accounts are at market prices. If market prices reflect the green issues then accounts will reflect green issues. We thus desire to adjust market prices to reflect green issues.

This is Pigou taxation. Sure, we want market prices to reflect full costs anyway, we agree that certain third party costs aren’t currently incorporated into prices. So, adjust to make markets reflect those costs. The solution – as every economist on the planet is screaming – is thus a carbon tax.

Snippa doesn’t support this. Presumably because a known and effective solution doesn’t provide research grants for Snippa.

I will; shortly be publishing a post on ways you can support the demand that the International Financial Reporting Standard change its approach to this issue. We need sustainability reporting, of course. But we must have that integrated within the financial statements of a company. Nothing less will do.

We already have the correct way to do this – Pigou taxation.

10 thoughts on “There’s a solution out there but it doesn’t employ Snippa”

  1. “I will; shortly be publishing a post on ways you can support the demand that the International Financial Reporting Standard change its approach to this issue.”

    I wonder if it will involve people sending him money.

  2. I’m not willing to accept that the negative externalities are calculated by a believer and participant in the scam whereas the positive are ignored.

    So you can stick your pigou tax.

  3. His problem is he can’t seem to decide whether to make the company account for its direct contribution to global warming or its indirect contribution.

    If it’s direct contribution, then the numbers across the economy will add up. But you’ll get stuff like airports saying they don’t contribute very much (because the airlines account for it).

    If it’s indirect contribution, then you’re likely to get massive double-counting. The oil company and the airport and the airline and the company purchasing the flight (etc etc) will all account for the same emissions. With everybody counting the same thing, it’ll be unclear whose responsibility it is to actually fix it. And, with nobody believing such utterly batshit numbers, nobody will do a damn thing.

    Given how daft indirect contribution is, I guess it’s no surprise Ritchie has seemed to indicate it’s his preference.

  4. ‘Sustainable’ is an appeal to purity. CM creates an icon; all are demanded to worship it.

    It is silly, though, because it demands we do today for the good of others tomorrow. While we actually have no knowledge of tomorrow.

  5. 3a: Given how daft indirect contribution is, I guess it’s no surprise Ritchie has seemed to indicate it’s his preference.

    I haven’t for some time bothered to read let alone tried to decipher the lengthier tuberisms that Timmy treats us to but the one constant outstanding feature is Captain Potato’s love of complexity – the more convoluted his ‘solutions’ the more he loves them.

  6. I had a discussion about direct and indirect and he just couldn’t seem to grasp that it meant double counting, even suggesting a VAT type approach where you show inputs/outputs and net off to show your share of the total to that point in the process went past him as it was hiding stuff

  7. Any update on his theory/concept of ‘Sustainable Cost Accounting’, his ‘guides to economics’ videos or the ‘Fair Tax Mark’ readily available to share? He’s a real grifter isn’t he?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *