Axel Gosseries wrote:
>
>The invisible foot idea as a reply to this 
>standard response: "in a dynamic perspective, 
>tradable permits generate an incentive to generate new negative externalities"
>
>Does this make sense?


Yes, imo. It certainly takes the edge off 
creating new externalities, at the very least. 
Instead of facing rage or regulation, the 
polluter just says, "Okay, just give us a right 
to do the damage we are doing, and we promise to do less of it."


>What are the references to the Hunt and the D'arge & M?daille papers?

E. K. Hunt and R. C. d'Arge, "On Lemmings and 
other Acquisitive Anamals: Propositions on 
Consumption," Journal of Economic Issues 7, no. 2 (June 1973): 337-53.

E. K. Hunt, History of Economic Thought: A 
Critical Perspective, (Armonk and London: M. E. Sharpe, 2002), 394-5.

M?daille has no papers on the subject.


John C. M?daille