Both Clinton and McCain endorsed a plan to get rid of federal tax on gasoline for the summer travel season, a move that doesn't make sense for ANY economist.
Why?
I cannot think of any reason other than getting people's vote. Yes cheaper gasoline will make people feeling better, during this summer anyway--it doesn't matter to reward those drive more and pollute more and cause our society bigger problems in the long run. No matter how appealing the policy is to people's sensibility; it is "nonsense"and even “ludicrous" .
A good policy should first make sense to the society as a whole; ideally it will also appealing to people's feeling (incentive matters as economists say), pay-as-you-drive insurance policy is such an example.
Update: Thomas Friedman nailed it, "The McCain-Clinton proposal is a reminder to me that the biggest energy crisis we have in our country today is the energy to be serious — the energy to do big things in a sustained, focused and intelligent way. We are in the midst of a national political brownout."
Update: 150 economists are against the policy!
Update: Mankiw has three hypotheses to answer my question of "why". "...which of these three hypotheses is right? I don't know, but whichever it is, it says a lot about the character of the candidates."
No comments:
Post a Comment