It took me a while to make this page, seems like I overslept by like…a lot. So this is how the world look like in 2017, looks nice with all those fancy vehicles on the street, and the tall buildings made of all types of things… I don’t even know what they are called! It’s so nice to see the light again, now, you may ask who am I, let me introduce myself properly. My name is Arthur Pigou, a British economist back in the 19^th century. I grew up in  a small town in the sea side, called Ryde, it’s a very beautiful place. I am the eldest son in my family. now, let me tell you how complicated my family is. My father was a retired army officer, a descended from a Huguenot line, which means we have some connections with India and China. Isn’t that amazing! On my mother’s side, she came from an Irish family. When I was young, like my father, I went to study at Harrow but as an approved athlete. So, yes, you can say that I’m quite fit and strong. Later on in my life, I went to Cambridge as a history scholar of King’s College. I was a leading figure in the Union Debating Society, and I began lecture on economics in 1901. In my field, I’m best known for the theory of economic welfare, other than that, I’ve published 12 books and contributed over 100 articles. More amazing things happened later on, for example, I became a professor of political economy at Cambridge University from 1908 to about 1943. Besides from teaching my students, I also have an interest in rock climbing when I was younger. Oh, I can still see myself climbing to the top of that mountain with my dear friend, Wildrid Noyce, a respected English author. As I got older, in the 1930s, an illness starts to affect my health, which restrained me from the sport. After my retirement from being a professor in 1943, I remained in King's College to study economics. To spend all of my free time from retirement, I decided to write down all of the main factors of my life. If you are interested in my theories and perspectives of the society you’re living in now, welcome to my blog (that I spent hours on because the technology is too new for me)!

It is the responsibility for all of economists to urge the government to adopt policies that "internalize" an externality in order to limit the impact to parties who choose to incur them. It isn't impossible to solve this issue. I suggest that taxes should be applied to market activities that generate negative externalities, while positive externalities should be offset by a subsidy. By imposing my tax system, a government can create a new "cost" - ideally a cost equal to external cost and discourages the potentially harmful social activities.

Pigou Effect:
Every country is going to experience some recession and prosperity, and a variety of decisions could be made in order to maintain the best out of a community. Around 1943, I derived with a special economic effect: Major decline in prices stimulates economy and triggers a wealth effect, which generates full employment. To put this in a simpler way, during a recession, unemployment rate rises. At this stage, if we reduces the major market price, consumers would spend the same amount of money buying more goods, therefore having spare cash available for spending. If we try to think from a psychological perspective, owning spare cash makes people feel wealthier, so they would like to spend more. This increase in demand can eventually lead to a high rate of employment as employers need to produce more products.

Your opinion on the way taxes should be assigned is certainly has an interesting approach to it, however, I still maintain my stance on the way it should be distributed, as I am convinced it is the most fair and equal method, given that the state should only have the right to take away an amount directly proportionate to what the person earns.

While I see the stance from which you are coming from with the statement of rewarding those who ‘promote benefits of society’, I do not believe it to be sustainable. I find the weaker points of the economy to be its instability, and if taxes are not taken from everyone equally in correlation to their exact income, it runs risk of becoming severely unbalanced.