externalities, is my understanding of the argument most people would prefer to live next to a forest than to development, so converting a forest into a development has negative externalities, so the tax code effectively subsidizes forests
5/ a $11 payment is sub optimal, but the mispricing is only $1 - far better than the uncompensated negative externality. a $12 payment is sub optimal, but the misprising is only $2 - still better than a $10 uncompensated negative externality. a $19.99 payment >>>
-
-
6/ is pretty bad - almost as bad in magnitude as the original mispricing. $0 and $20 are exactly equally bad - just in different direction
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.