@feld You're addressing to different, though real and relevant problems.
One is under-pricing of fossil carbon fuels. Another is general inequality and inequity, as well as the age-old conflict between _rents_ incomes vs. _wages_ incomes. The rentiers generally win, the wage-earners generally lose.
There are additional taxes you want to impose on the 1%, but you _still_ have to make fossil fuels pay full freight.
@feld ... and public goods (an economic term, not just "government-supplied stuff" but "zero marginal cost" or "nonexcludable consumption") also tend to below-cost values.
Then there's a whole slew of stuff that has wonky informational dynamics -- full costs aren't properly realised, and such. Pollution, basically. Those tend to be sold _below_ actual impact costs, and overconsumed.
Extractive resources (fossil fuels included) also get under-priced.
And yes, "the rich" benefit.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!