I think this paper can answer one of the questions Professor Casey asked us on Tuesday, "How can/does reduced carbon emissions via a carbon tax boost the economy?" On Tuesday we talked about revenue recycling and how the bottom percent of people will have significantly increased incomes via dividends and that the top 10% will lose only 1% of their already 120k+ incomes. This paper by the World Bank now shows us how important reduced emissions are for the world economy. Increasing global temperatures will make dry areas drier and wet areas more wet. This has profound effects on the agriculture systems, specifically in developing countries. Poorer crop yields will reduce food supplies and could potentially cause shortages. And this is only one of the many problems that will be/have been occurring worldwide. Regardless of whether or not a cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax will be more effective or beneficial, it is imperative that we implement one of those programs now so as to prevent any further economic degeneration. It's clear that the argument against reducing carbon emissions because it will hurt the economy is complete bullshit. Sure, it has the potential to harm the economy if it is done incorrectly. But if there is a carbon tax system that works, like the one described in Tuesday's paper, then not only our economy will improve but also the economies of developing nations. Jack Miller

Jack Miller^^^

In my intro to environmental studies class we had the debate on whether or not a carbon tax or a cap and trade system is better. It was definitely a difficult debate and there really was no clear answer. But for me, I felt that a carbon tax was better based off of simplicity. I have done some research and one paper I found cited the cap-and-trade proposal for the United States and it was well over 30 pages long. The leading carbon tax proposal in the United States doesn't exceed 3 pages. Not only is a carbon tax more simple in theory, but it sends a clear message that carbon emissions are bad. The cap-and-trade system sends the message that you can emit all you want, so long as you are willing to pay. In our current environmental state, this is not a good ideology to have, as time is of the essence. Lastly, I find it intriguing how the word "tax" has such a social stigma. The findings in the papers show that a carbon tax works and it works well. Maybe if more countries introduced an efficient carbon tax, public opinion would eventually begin to sway. In British Columbia, most people were generally against the tax but after some time that perception changed to one that is more positive.

Relating to Schrag’s talk, I found it very interesting the point he made about “global” climate change being a “global” problem. In the scenario that the United States becomes uber radical and stops all carbon emissions and becomes efficient in sequestration, if the world does nothing and continues along its same path, we are still in big trouble. I think this is a very important problem because it not only requires a societal change in a single country, but a worldwide change and collaboration across all nations. I think this is one of the biggest problems. There are obviously countries that are taking initiative in terms of becoming more energy efficient. But unless more of them do so, they might not have much more influence. If, for example, the United States took the lead on this, I feel like that would have a much larger international influence. Obviously China and India are a different story. But for the most part, if the United States became an environmental bulwark, a majority of the world would follow. Another thing that was touched upon in Schrag’s talk is the idea of humans being responsive, not preventative. He brought up natural disasters, etc that stemmed from global climate change, and only after the fact were we concerned with the matter because people actually had tangible evidence that made them realize, “Hey, this shouldn’t have happened.” I know a saying that goes along with the psychological issue of people not planning for the future. “If you procrastinate doing something to the last minute, it’ll only take you a minute.” Well unfortunately with all this new data and improved models coming out, that isn’t the case. If we don’t do something drastic within the next 40 years, human beings will be living a very uncomfortable lifestyle for at least a century to come. Jack Miller

This paper introduced a number of social, economic, and health issues related to the burning of coal for energy. I was honestly very surprised about the amount of health problems were related to coal mining. I knew of the risks associated with the workers in terms of deaths and black lung disease. But I did not take into account the effects on non-worker health as well including the contamination of public water, the release of carcinogenic substances into the air, damage to households caused by explosions. . What I think is the most surprising thing to me within this paper is that, even with ignoring environmental issues, why on earth are so many people so adamant about bringing back the coal industry when it is so dangerous and hazardous not only to the workers but also to local communities. Why a coal miner would want to reopen a mine to continue working rather than get retrained to do something else astounds me. If that worker has access to healthcare then his or her doctor surely must be providing health warnings relating to working in a mine. Obviously the demand for coal is high as it is one of the highest electricity and energy producers worldwide. But why has there not been a bigger push to create a substitute knowing that the coal industry is so damaging to people and the environment? Is powering our house really worth the social cost associated with coal mining? Is there a lack of information in regards to sharing with the public the negative effects of coal mining? Why are so many people supportive of Trump in this debate? Is it because they are blindly following him because of the fact that he wants to introduce jobs in general, or are they actually supportive of the specific introduction of coal jobs? Lastly, what can we do to incentivize people to demand for a substitute to coal? These are some of the questions I think would be interesting to explore in class. Jack Miller

I really liked the paragraph in the section “POC and Marine Protected Areas,” when it spoke of MPAs not having a universal blueprint but rather letting locals tailor their structure to the specific needs of the specific ecosystem. To me, this highlighted the importance of the phrase, “It depends.” In most cases it doesn’t really make sense to come up with a broad, blanket policy. The world is too complex for that. In the paper, the MPAs have objectives that cater to the specific ecological, socio-economic, and cultural problems and I think that on many levels this is an excellent solution. What has been proven to work one place may not work in another, no matter how similar they seem. Allowing local management to engineer their own strategies that are specific to their environmental dilemmas could definitely increase efficiency of their policy. Another aspect of this paper that stood out to me was the idea of isolating a marine ecosystem in order to protect it. While this is a good first step, it shouldn’t end there. Being left like this may create the idea that if the marine ecosystem itself is protected and no harmful anthropocentric activities are allowed within it, then the ecosystem will thrive. This is far from true and creates a detachment between the marine ecosystem and other ecosystems in the biosphere. As stated in the paper, there are many different exogenous anthropocentric activities that damage the ecosystem, like deforestation of watersheds. This has significant negative effects to the neighboring marine ecosystem. Just like how the different systems of the human body are all related, so too are the ecosystems on this earth. Therefore it is imperative that, in order to preserve the marine ecosystems in the Caribbean, humans recognize and fix the damaging environmental effects of the ecosystems that surround the reefs as well. Jack Miller

I think the solution presented in this paper has the potential to work well in Barbados given the fact that tourism accounts for 15% of its GDP. Obviously, the coral reefs in Barbados have a large direct use value to the country. I believe that this would give the diving community significantly more political power in terms of influencing policy. Most divers in this survey stated that they would be willing to pay more for areas with higher coral quality, and I think that goes to show that the health of coral reefs in Barbados is extremely important, especially for economic stability. With that, by increasing the price of diving with the intention of taking a portion of those profits and reallocating them to conservation efforts, a stronger effort could be made in terms of slowing or preventing the degradation of coral reefs. If it were to be successful, Barbados would be a great example of a case study that succeeded in implementing environmental policy. But at the same time, this represents a small niche of environmental support. The data show that the divers were all very educated for the most part. But what about uneducated people? Most uneducated people have low incomes, and with that, their valuation of coral reefs probably differs greatly than that of a diver. How would we be able to share this information and generate legitimate concern to people who will probably never put on a scuba suit? Sure, some people will have existence value for coral reefs, but most will not have any direct use value attributed to coral reefs and that is the primary mode of valuation for consumers. I think this has been one of the biggest problems in terms of environmental support. Divers would love higher quality coral reefs because they are around them all the time. Hikers would love less air pollution or development so that they can continue to have awesome views at the peak of their hike. But for the people who don’t fit in those small niches, they probably don’t care at all. And I think that is the fault with the human mind. We can be extremely short sighted at times. Businesses want to develop land to get immediate benefits even though that land may have significantly larger long term benefits. I think that a large amount of people don’t realize that there is more to the preservation of ecosystems than simply aesthetics or recreation. The loss of healthy ecosystems and the continual use of unsustainable practices degrades human health, which most people aren’t directly aware of. I think that in order to make significant progress in the environmental field, there needs to be a greater effort in sharing information, such as that of this paper, so that more people are aware of the costs and benefits related to unhealthy and healthy ecosystems. Jack Miller

I will focus on Hardin's tragedy of the commons. Having spoken of this before in my environmental studies class, I found it very interesting to finally read it through. Obviously there is a population problem in the world. The world population has exploded tremendously in the past century. But I don't think that population control is necessarily the answer. Hardin spoke of the inability to solve a problem with a technical solution, but every day new technology is being made. Environmentalists sometimes come across as depressing because there are clearly so many problems with the way we treat the earth, but at the same time we must recognize the good that we have done to turn it around. For example, Elon Musk has now developed solar panels that look exactly like roof shingles that, once installed, can take a person's house completely off the grid. GMOs may be debated, but they are another efficient solution to the increasing demands for food. There is more information and research that is being used to help developing countries get out of their poverty trap, and studies have shown that as a country develops, birth rates tend to decrease. I think it is important to recognize the positive things we have done to combat environmental degradation, but at the same time it is clear that more must be done. I think we need to use these success stories as models for future endeavors, while also attempting to transform future endeavors to present endeavors. I think that the more environmentally sustainable technologies succeed, the easier it will become to change already established social ideologies that subconsciously coerce us into making irrational and unsustainable individual decisions. Jack Miller

After reading these articles it is interesting to see the misconceptions about economists views on the environment. I think what stood out to me the most was Krugman's three I's and Stavin's conclusion in that there has been an ineffective method of communication from the economic sphere to any disciplinary boundaries outside the field. Regarding the three I's, I feel that there has been a massive failure in communicating necessary information in addressing these three issues. For example, in terms of interests, Krugman states that it is difficult to get people to join the environmental band wagon when it means that coal jobs will gradually decrease. Sure that may be true, but there has been much talk about gradually relocating those jobs to renewable energy sectors. Also, there seems to be a disconnect between what is called a "social cost" of pollution and the actual detrimental health effects of pollution on humans. Last semester we discussed research that was done where they looked at the exposure to particulate matter released from truck exhaust and the effect it had on childhood development and health in the Bronx area. The results of the research showed that they could accurately predict what a child's SAT scores will be in high school, along with a number of other surprising predictions relating to childhood development and health, all of which were less than ideal as exposure increased. I feel that if this was communicated more clearly and in mass, then that would combat the issue with the three I's. I feel that there would be more demand for sustainable practices if people truly understood the adverse effects of pollution and other social costs. As of right now, it seems that all of our decisions and policies regarding environmental sustainability are focused more on the short term rather than the long term. In the end, I think if comes down to effectively communicating sufficient information regarding what economists truly think about issues and I feel as if that is an area with much room for improvement. Jack Miller

I think this article was very interesting as I am currently in Environmental Studies and we just had a discussion on carbon emissions. There are two things that stick out to me most about this paper. The first is that I find it astounding that with all of this evidence supporting/proving global climate change, a majority of Republicans refuse it’s existence without providing any sort of scientific evidence. I think that is a huge problem in the United States in terms of environmental policy. Even if people don’t want to look at scientific evidence, just walk outside in the summer or listen to the weather channel. I do not remember Charlotte ever being as hot as it was this past summer, and I say that every single year. Second, in our class discussion today we debated Cap and Trade policy vs. a Carbon Tax. This is something I would like to talk about in class. Cap and trade is already implemented in the United States but I personally don’t think it is enough. In theory cap and trade makes great sense. But I am not quite sure if the fines for not reaching sustainability caps are high enough. I feel as if there are many firms that have so much revenue that it is simply easier for them to ignore sustainability goals and to simply pay the fine. Obviously I would have to find data to see the extent of this. On the other hand, I think a carbon tax is a very interesting proposition. It would definitely provide an incentive to reduce emissions, and could be used in a way that the tax is greater for those who emit the most carbon. In terms of affecting prices of just about everything in the United States, one such solution to that problem could be to simply reduce income tax so that people keep more of their income so as to be able to cope with the rise in prices. If done correctly, in theory, this would not be a bad policy because even though there is less revenue in income tax, the government would make up that lost revenue through the carbon tax. But then again there has yet to be a carbon tax implemented in the United States so it is hard to provide concrete evidence of its efficacy and possible success. This is something I think would be interesting to cover in class tomorrow. Jack Miller

After reading this paper, it was interesting to see how various studies found that in some cases, trade enhances growth while other studies found that trade had a significant negative effect on economic growth. I found it interesting that in developing countries, opening up to trade actually increased the headcount of poverty and reduced the income of the bottom fifth of the poor population. I think this goes back to the paper we read earlier in the year in that there is no clear and absolute model, theory, or policy that efficiently increases economic growth. In the end, this paper concludes that that “greater trade openness is not significantly associated with either lower or higher levels of poverty” (Goff et al). The topic of trade is great relative to the current events in our world now. It seems that there is a trend a nationalism spreading worldwide. Trump is leading that in the United States, Great Britain has left the EU, Marine Le Pen is running for office in France and is proposing a “Frexit” referendum. It seems that many countries are looking inward. Trump stated that he wanted to end trade deals with China to help increase jobs in America and reduce poverty. But according to this paper, there really is only one answer to the question: Does trade liberalization reduce poverty? And the answer is: It depends. Jack Miller

I thought Eichengreen and Mody’s paper was really interesting. They determined that capital flows to developing countries are not only the product of a developed countries interest rate nor solely the policies and decisions of the underdeveloped country. In the end, Eichengreen and Mody concluded that both supply and demand responses have been important in their analysis, yet the balance between them has differed by region. They conclude that there is an interest rate effect but in order to see it one has to look at all the small nuances that cause it. This made me think about the paper we read earlier in the semester regarding China’s and South Korea’s unorthodox ways to spur development. China marginalized farm production and South Korea did not allow foreign investment and restricted savings to only domestic markets. These methods may seem unconventional at first but they did seem to work. This goes back to the traditional economic model. These models can provide us with a view of the world that for the most part can give us accurate insights. But reality is much more complex and what may work one place may not work somewhere else. Jack Miller

After reading both articles, I found them very interesting as they incorporated a lot of the things we have covered in class. Things being functions in and of themselves (interrelatedness between malaria and poverty) and improved economic development through improved human capital, gender equality, health, and education. One thing that struck me, which we touched on in class, was the idea that land is fixed and cannot sustain our growing population. This matter has also been brought up in my environmental studies class. It is an interesting view because, at least in my env. studies class, the students who seemed more keen or passionate about the environment all had the same view that our population was growing too fast to sustain. But does that make sense? In class we discovered that developed countries contain 25% of the population and use 75% of the world’s resources. If most of the people in the world are poor, then the majority of the world only uses 25% of the world’s resources. And if low income families tend to have more children than high income families, then clearly population isn’t the issue. Furthermore, in terms of technology, a common trend I have seen throughout history is this: once a new form of technology is introduced to create efficiency, we adapt it, become dependent on it, and then get rid of some lesser technology that it replaced. The easiest example to provide is cell phones. 20 years ago they didn’t exist. Now, in our society at least, we are completely dependent upon them. With this in mind, we are clearly dependent on our agricultural system. It definitely comes with its problems, but we can’t get rid of the system just yet. What I liked in Schultz’s paper is that he said we must now innovate and come up with new technology to reduce the cost of our current agricultural system. Through research we can discover substitutes for cropland so that we lessen our dependence on it. But this comes with another problem. The government. If it is so clear that there comes such a huge cost to our current agricultural system, why have they done nothing about it? According to Schultz, it is due to politics. Schultz states that “The political influence of urban consumers and industry enables them to exact cheap food at the expense of the vast number of poor rural people.” This reminded me of a question that I have asked myself many times. Why is it that the people who provide us with food, a necessity for survival, have their product devalued vs. products that are essentially luxury goods? Jack Miller

Jack Miller^ (google plus account)

This paper focused a lot on the positive effects of development on women and also the positive effects of increased women’s rights, power, etc… on economic development as well. This goes along with Sen’s idea that something can be a means and an end. Improved women’s rights are desirable in and of themselves. But what stuck out to me in this paper was the psychological aspect of chauvinism and female inferiority in society. Duflo brought up very interesting examples involving this idea with her references to the association of men with work and science and women with the household and liberal arts. She also provided an example of intrinsic stereotypical differences between males and females with the study regarding math scores and the stereotype that males are better at math than females. I feel as if the root of the woman empowerment issue is the ideas that society and culture have ingrained in all of us regarding women. I believe a lot of this goes all the way back to religion. In Christianity alone, there are many quotes in the bible that literally state that a woman must be submissive and subservient to her husband. I went to a Catholic high school and during a Confession (in which attendance was required), one of the priests told me to my face that women are naturally submissive and should be subservient to men. He even tried to biological describe how the anatomy of a woman supports that claim (that was the last day I ever went to a confession). I do not believe that women are naturally submissive/feel inferior unless they are affected subconsciously by societal ideals as shown through the experiment regarding math performance. Regardless, it is clearly incorrect and unethical to generalize an innate female inferiority, yet Christianity does this and is one of the largest religions in the world. Even in our pledge of allegiance we say “one nation, under God”. Furthermore, there are more subtle examples of male superiority. Look at our last names. They’re our fathers. This goes back to how men were the only ones to inherit property and thus the father’s name became the family name. This still exists in many parts of the world as well. With the relatively new arrival of woman’s rights and gender equality in terms of world history, looking back in history, to me, makes society’s standards regarding women seem primitive and unfair. With this, I think it is important that social standards find ways to change so as to increase women's empowerment and thus economic development.

I thought this piece by Rodrik was very interesting. After learning about the history of development economics, it seemed that many economists were trying to find universal laws of development–in that any country that followed these guidelines would increase economic development drastically and would escape the cycle of underdevelopment. Rodrik describes what policy makers have dubbed as the rules for development. Yet by looking at China, East Asia, and India, one can see that these countries did not follow these rules and still have some of the highest rates of development. This goes to show that each country must have its own detailed package in terms of spurring development. No country is exactly the same. Another thing noted in this paper is appropriate incentives, property rights, sound money, and fiscal solvency. These principles are present in the United States as well as China and Europe but the manner in which they are implemented is different. While these principles alone are factors of each country’s success, they have been implemented through different policy actions that are engineered specifically for each individual country. To me, this makes perfect sense. There are obviously some things that every country must have in order to have economic success, but every country is different politically and culturally. Being in the middle of the presidential debate, my Danish teammate and I have had many arguments about certain policies presented by Trump and Hillary. It is very interesting to hear his opinion in terms of policy because to him, Hillary is considered far right wing. Now obviously Denmark has economic success (it is considered one of the happiest countries in the world), but what he says works perfectly well in Denmark I find hard to believe would be just as successful in the United States. He tells me that education is virtually free in Denmark while that has yet to come close in the United States. Taxes rise greatly as incomes rise, which would seem like it would completely kill any incentives to improve one’s position. But that does not seem to be the case in Denmark. This goes to show that while some fundamentals in economic development must be present, they can be implemented in ways that are specific to the country in which they will be implemented in. Jack Miller

One small fact I thought was very interesting was that North Korea and Sudan are leading the world in the amount of famine, and they are under dictatorial rule. I saw a video released by national geographic that showed the “highlights” of North Korea. In this video it showed bustling streets, colorful and lively night life, and all sorts of appealing things that one would love to experience in a city. It even showed people working as cross walk guards that stopped traffic to help walk people across the street. Yet this view is to be taken with a grain of salt and in my opinion is a complete misrepresentation of North Korea. I am sure that just outside the lens of the camera in that video one could start to see the areas struggling with famine. I thought it was very interesting in how Sen spoke about quantifying freedom in relation to development. Just like relating to measuring utility–something subjective and hard to scale–it is difficult to quantify the aggregate freedom of a nation in regards to its overall development. Sen discussed and provided evidence that measuring income and wealth is not enough to accurately determine a country’s development. But then again, this becomes a big problem because, how do we then measure an individual’s freedom? It will be different for every town, every region, every state, and every country. So then what tools do we have and what aspects of people’s lives can we measure so as to compile them together to get a full scale of one’s freedom? And then how do we take that and determine the overall economic development of a country? Jack Miller

First and foremost, I find it surprising that on average, those living on about $1 a day spend only $0.50 on food. With such little money I assumed that food would take up almost the entirety of their budget. I also find it surprising that poor people spend money on weddings, festivities, and religious ceremonies. This suggests to me that one’s social standards or culture plays an important part in one’s financial decisions. Apart from this, it shows how everyone has similar basic needs, despite one’s income. Regardless of their income, poor people still find the time and money to participate in social events and stay connected with friends and family. Furthermore a small portion of the $1 a day is spent on tobacco or alcohol which could suggest addiction, a need for release, or simply the social aspect of using those substances. And still this aspect of life is not different from a wealthy person. With this in mind, it goes to show that food is not the sole priority of one living in absolute poverty, and that there is more to be gained in other aspects of life rather than being able to sleep with a somewhat full stomach. Jack Miller

After analyzing data in Hungary, this article examines how an increase in imports affects the productivity of firms. In a baseline test, the data showed that after increasing imports, the overall productivity does increase. But after more closely examining the data, they saw a relationship between imperfect substitution and foreign-owned firms. Foreign owned firms have a 24% benefit compared to domestic firms so they should increase their spending on inputs. Foreign owned firms also experience a lower cost than domestic firms, which would increase their spending. And because they have lower costs of imports, then there would be a lower cost in the selling of their products, increasing consumption. By looking at this in the aggregate output model, an increase in consumer spending would occur, thus raising aggregate demand. But at the same time if imports increased, it would shift the aggregate demand curve in the opposite direction. So depending on the magnitude of the change in consumer spending and imports, the aggregate demand curve will either increase, decrease, or stay the same. Just a small aside–more than half of the GOP voters in the Wisconsin primaries and nearly half of democrats say that foreign trade costs the U.S. jobs. This would be interesting to see tested using models in class to see if half of Wisconsin is actually right. Jack Miller

I agree that the balanced budget amendment should not be passed. As stated in the article, if the economy were in a recession and the government was in a deficit, it would not be allowed to spend, invest, or lower taxes in order to get the economy out of its recession. If there were a balance budget amendment, then during times of a recession, the government would not be allowed to apply fiscal policy to help get out of the recession. Monetary policy could be incorporated but if that failed, then there would be nothing to prevent the contraction of the economy and thus the balanced budget mandate would actually aggravate the recession, not fix it. There is a negative connotation associated with the word “deficit” in this country and a lot of the times a deficit is not necessarily a bad thing. Rather, it may be the result of the government’s attempts to expand the economy and to fight against an occurring recession. Jack Miller

Eichengreen comments that with the failure of monetary policy and a low aggregate demand, a raise in government spending will help bring the demand curve back up. He also states that governments should invest in infrastructure, education, and private investment. This could be effective and wouldn’t be very expensive because interest rates are very low so the government would be able to take this investment. Also, by investing in education, this will not only bring the aggregate demand curve back to potential output in the short run, but it will also push the long run aggregate supply curve outward, thus increasing potential output which will benefit society. Eichengreen shows how fiscal policy can be necessary for the economy depending on the current state of the economy. He also comments on how deficits have such a negative connotation within citizens. If the economy is in a recessionary gap, then wouldn’t a budget deficit be beneficial since that would result in the increase of government spending so as to bring the aggregate demand curve back up? On another note, if the government does decide to invest as Eichengreen suggests, where do they borrow their money from? China? The Federal Reserve Bank? Jack Miller

It’s interesting to see how in the model that we made in class that in the long run the total output would not be changed despite effects in the short run. Yet in historical trends, a self regulating economy takes a very long time to self correct in the long run, which is the opposite of what was first believed in the article. As stated by DeLong, many economists believed that the economy had the ability to regulate itself and to fix short run problems. After events in 2008, DeLong admits that this theory was in fact wrong and that long term equilibrium is much more long term than he had expected. Thus DeLong suggests fiscal policy to be used to fix the “Longest Depression”. In the article he comments that in order to get rid of unemployment the government has to increase spending so as to increase aggregate demand. In theory this will bring the aggregate demand curve back up, ending the recessionary gap, and reducing unemployment. But at the same time, increasing government spending has plenty of its own problems. It is very difficult to determine exactly what to spend money on, and this is usually aggressively debated in politics. And by the time politicians make their decision, the economy could actually be heading back toward equilibrium. And if it takes long enough to decide where and how to apply government spending, the economy could have actually transitioned into an inflationary gap, in which case government spending would make the economy worse off. So yes, in theory it would be correct to increase government spending in order to get rid of a recessionary gap, but at the same time the government must be diligent so that it does not apply its fiscal policies at inappropriate times. Jack Miller

In this article, Robert E. Rubin touches on exactly what we finished talking about in class. Negative externalities like pollution, global warming, etc... are part of a function of income. If negative externalities continue to grow, then the growth of the economy and the production of an economy will actually decrease. In the model of the aggregate production function, global warming would actually cause a downward shift in the function, lowering income. It's interesting that Rubin also relates negative externalities to man capital as well. In class we saw how human capital, negative externalities, natural resources, and technology were all a function of income, but according to the article, it seems that human capital is also a function of negative externalities. This being because as temperatures rise, some people will not be able to work at certain times of the day, which will further lower productivity. I also found it interesting that Rubin proposed that investors should be able to see how companies are affected by negative externalities. This information would most likely be bad and deter investors from investing, which would mean that money would either be spent on goods or saved in banks, not invested in firms. –Jack Miller

Jack Miller^^^