I was not saying there is no external cost from alcohol – far from it, we have accepted an external cost in the past, and discussed how to deal with it.

I was saying that I don’t think THIS SPECIFIC external cost exists. Such as when I said this at the start:

“I see that generally an externality from lost output, excessive unemployment, and forgone wages has been assumed in the discussions.”

I generally agree with this statement. Efficiency loss in evident in this market.

im write here:

http://www.mert2407.com/

Indeed. However in so far as thinking about the regulation of alcohol, this matters insofar as we think the average alcoholic parent does not value their child relative to a non-alcoholic parent. This has to be the policy relevant point, and I’m not sure that a tax would be the best way to fix that.

The parent child relationship is always a tough one because of the asymmetry in power, both legally and socially. Furthermore, we should recognise that it matters for development. However, quantifying the specific cost of alcoholic parents, and figuring out the policy relevant way of dealing with it, is a difficult question.

Furthermore, any focus on that question without the realisation that non-alcoholic parents can do similar things, and without an understanding of the relationship between alcohol and other facts, would likely lead to a greater than optimal amount of state intervention.

We may see cases where we wish the state did intervene at the moment, but is the benefit of intervention in these cases worth the cost of interference in other healthy parental relationships?

I assert that not only are drunk people worse at parenting(anyone is less willing and indeed able to help with reading after a bottle of bourbon) but more inclined to commit crimes against their children (abuse). This is traumatic for the children at the time, and also has repercussions on their learning, development, and outlook on life.