Delivering the keynote address at the United Nations forum on Indigenous People on Monday, Bolivia's President Evo Morales told the adoring crowd that "if we want to save our planet earth, to save life, to save mankind, we have a duty to put an end to the capitalist system."
Morales elaborated on that by calling for an end to "unbridled industrial development, extraction of natural resources, excessive consumption of goods and accumulation of waste."
More conveniently, he also demanded that trillions of dollars from the West be diverted to places like Bolivia, "to repair the earth."
Seldom has the environmentalist agenda to end the capitalist system been laid out so plainly.
But in reality, it's capitalism — combined with the framework that enables it to flourish, like rule of law and property rights — that has lifted billions of people out of poverty and improved the environment. Contrary to Morales' assertions, the most capitalist countries are also the cleanest.Read the rest here.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Want to Get Rid of Global Warming? Leader to UN: Kill Capitalism.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
59 comments:
The only time Capitalism helps improve the environment is when Restrictions are put into place (Those Regulations that tell the Capitalists they can not do exactly as they please where it effects others).
The very thing that the Right calls Socialist and I call "Plugging the Holes in Capitalism".
It is those same regulations that have cleaned up the most Capitalist countries.
But I don't know why I am typing this because you want to believe that Capitalism is all good and Socialism is all evil, and that there is not some combination of the two that might really work.
Yes, Capitalism does help bring people out of poverty.
How much of the pollution overseas is caused by Western companies that set up over seas for the more lenient environmental laws and cheaper labor?
Companies have ongoing campaigns to encourage over consumption of the products they sell.
It helps them make money.
They hire psychiatrists to help with their advertising campaigns.
Motive, to make more money, so those on top can get rich.
A lot of wealth is the result of true value added.
A lot of wealth is the result of manipulation of the system, and in many cases even value taken away.
Take for instance a pharmaceutical company that has a new drug, that is still under patent.
This new drug is LESS effective than the one they made years ago, that has lost patent protection and now is made as a generic.
Dollars are pumped into an advertising campaign to convince people (and doctors) that the new drug is really better, when it is worse.
Is value being added here?
Value was added when the first one was invented.
But continued value added is not the goal.
Profit is.
If externalities were paid, and profit was really mostly the result of value added, I would be 100% capitalist.
(I would be a left leaning Capitalist.)
Sorry, Eileen, but that has nothing to do with why capitalist countries tend to be the cleanest. They're the cleanest because they're wealthy enough to develop cleaner energy and care about parts per trillion of pollutants when socialist and third-world countries can only afford to care about survival.
Eileen, I challenge you to find a single socialist concept that is provably economically beneficial. Good luck finding one.
So capitalists go out of their way to create or enhance a demand for their products. Wow... that's incredible! And no one besides you knows it either! *rolls eyes*
Externalies are paid in spades, Eileen, until some socialist moves the goalposts and declares some new thing to be an externality that should be paid. Your argument hasn't the slightest hint of legitimacy. I'm sorry.
Keith,
Think about what you are saying.
You are saying that regulation has "NOTHING" to do with why capitalist countries tend to be cleanest?
Are you saying that we don't have regulations, that regulate how much a capitalist company can pollute?
Or are you saying that companies would behave as if the regulations existed even if the regulations did not exist because they can afford to?
OR are you saying that following the regulations does not make the environment cleaner?
I really think it takes either regulation or payment of externalities that are difficult (maybe impossible) to measure to get companies to change.
It is not that they can afford better technology, they can afford better then they use now already, and do NOT apply it, because the cost of their products would go up.
To survive, both a company AND its competitors must use the more costly/cleaner technology.
I agree that capitalism helped to provide the revenue, to make it possible to follow the regulations, and still meet way beyond our basic needs. However without the regulations do you think it would have happened?
Keith, I figured you would know that capitalists go out of their way to increase demand for their products.
I was not sure you would correlate it with excessive waste or the environmental problems it causes.
I was not sure you would correlate it with the non value added profit motives that make some aspects of capitalism in need of regulating.
At first I thought this was another Hugo Chavez story. Doesn't surprise me that South America is following in CUBA'S footsteps.
America get out of the Socialist U.N. WWIII right around the corner.
PS: Figures that eileen would attack capitalism (NOT TO MANY HP PRODUCTS BOUGHT THESE DAYS AAA eileen) and unfortunately I agree once again with Keith Moore the (Resident Seminar Rino Blogger).
PPS: Socialism and Democrats must be defeated. Are you listening
John McCain.
PPPS: Billary you need to openly thank "Operation Chaos" voters for helping you WIN last night.
OK, I admit it... regulation has some minor role in capitalist cleanliness. I believe that companies would tend towards steadily more environmentally-sound policies as time went on... and would cite timber companies (the origin of the idea of tree farms and more measured cutting) as proof. But it's the prosperity of capitalism itself that permits such things. If 99% of your population is wasting away from Stone Age medical care and a bare-bones diet, is your concern more orientated towards the environment or towards doing every possible thing to save your people? Note that my question presumes a desire to help your people, an abnormal condition in far too many socialist and 3rd-world countries.
Yes. You're twisting arms to make people pay more for products (guess what companies do with increased production costs) so your conscience is clear. If that's not selfish behavior, I don't know what is.
But creation of product demand has no connection whatsoever to pollution or the need for regulation. So I don't see why you make mention of it.
Victoria,
Let's just suppose, for the sake of argument, that "capitalism" was what was destroying our planet.
Would you give it up in the case, and attempt to find a more sustainable economic system?
Or are you so ideologically-locked that you will not even consider it then. (Remember the assumptions of my argument.)
David
Keith,
I used the example to indicate that value added does NOT equate to profit, and often the opposite really does.
If a company does not even care about the health of the people how can I expect it to care about the health of the environment.
But I admit to having some problem with communication related to getting all the dots connected in the way I present information.
But I am not completely sure why you so often think my content has no relevance.
klatu,
I am not anit capitalism completely.
I think a mixed model works best.
I don't necessarily agree with the values of the company I work for, and that does create somewhat of a dilema for me.
But I like the pay (I am selfish).
I know you meant the question for Victoria, Jake, but I'm interested in something... what features unique to capitalism would be destroying the planet in your example? The answer to my question determines the answer to yours because, depending upon how capitalism would be doing it, the possible alternatives could be either something a conservative could swallow or something that would be wildly unacceptable (for yer info, an economic system that has proven incapable of fulfilling its intended purpose qualifies as being wildly unacceptable).
I guess one of our problems, Eileen, is that we understand the term "value added" differently. For you, value added seems to be the increase in the price of the item over the price that would be naturally obtained by pure market forces. For me, value added means the price added for every step of the development by every vendor involved in its creation. The second, by the way, is what a value-added tax affects... each person in the process of building, say, a car (miners, steel-makers, machinists, engineers, designers, etc) is taxed on their contribution to the product in question and this value is integrated into the price. So which of those two "value added" definitions did you intend?
Well, Eileen, what do you think the ideal mix is? Taking history as a model, the increase in central control over an econmy (by regulation, taxes, etc) is inversely proportional to the productiveness of that economy. The more central control the Soviet Union exerted on its economy, for example, the less productive that economy was. So far as I am aware, the only socialist nation that experiences any degree of prosperity is Denmark... by some miracle, they lack a national debt and have managed to avoid a deficit. Possibly, this is because their military isn't as proportionally large as in other socialized countries (although I know that they have a very modern military for their size). So what is your ideal mix?
No Keith,
That is not the difference, that is what you want to think the difference is.
The difference is in how we view the cost of externalities.
I think the cost is way higher than you think it is.
I do not believe the cost is being paid, and you think it is.
I think the US, over the years, has been making progress toward a better mix, but still has a ways to go.
As for the ideal mix, I will have to address that later (after I sleep).
OK, what are you talking about now? I lay out the definitions of value added and you start talking about externalities. They have nothing at all to do with value added.
As I keep repeating, Eileen, I think that the reason the externalities aren't being paid is that the definition of what those externalities are keeps getting exapnded. Like, first the externalities were the damage the toxic sludge that an industrial plant released did to the immediate environment. Those externalities were paid for then someone decided that the water table was an externality too. Then anything that might be affected by the water table and immediate environment. Then the gaseous decay from the immediate environment. Then something else related to the first three then yet another thing added to the first four. At each stage, the externality is paid for in full but the definition keeps getting expanded so that someone can claim that the owner of the industrial plant isn't doing enough and needs to have a bigger pound of flesh extracted. That is why I believe you can make the claim that the externalities aren't being paid for... you keep expanding what constitutes "externalities."
"Better" in this case meaning more socialism. Remember what I said about the level of socialism being inversely proportional to the economy's prosperity? So what you're really saying is that the US has steadily progressed away from a prosperous economy. By no definition is that a good thing.
Keith,
You must see the correlation between externalities and value added. Externalities take away from true value added.
Think of them as value taken away.
Your second value added definition is the one I would use (at least in a theoretical discussion), but to really measure true value added you have to subtract externalities.
This doesn't mean I don't think that market forces should be used to determine price.
Try measuring value added? This is very complex, and I am not even sure reasonable to do. Market forces may be the closest we can get to measuring value added, even if it is inaccurate. But without regulating things, to minimize the negative effects on others (others being those not involved in the production or purchase or use of these value added goods); some people profit at a cost to others.
You state this:
the increase in central control over an economy (by regulation, taxes, etc) is inversely proportional to the productiveness of that economy.
If this is completely true, and the US has been adding more regulation over time, would our productivity be going down?
You use this as some absolute rule, to mean that IF we add regulation, productivity will go DOWN.
But what about the fact that we have been adding rules throughout the history of the country.
However, our productivity is going up.
Does that disprove the above rule? (No I don't think it does because there are other factors. The rule is not that simple).
What if we have ENOUGH productivity, and MORE (short term) means LESS (possibly NOT ENOUGH, long term?
What if the long term COST of the SHORT TERM productivity, is the health of the planet or population?
What about limited resources? How much value does the resource add to the product, and who should profit from that value?
Who should have the right to go into an area, and extract natural resources for their own use and profit?
How much junk should a company be allowed to add to the earth, in terms of stuff that either does not bio-degrade or takes thousands to millions of years to bio-degrade?
Should companies be required to take back all the waste from anything they sell, and be completely responsible for recycling everything that does not bio-degrade in reasonable time?
Morales spoke like a true Communist. Karl Marx, Joseph Engles, and Hugo Chavez would be proud.
So by your reasoning, a car becomes steadily less valuable the more negative externalities that its production causes. Interesting way of looking at the world...
Eileen, it doesn't reduce present production unless you get extreme. What it does produce is a steadily flatter increase curve. The more that centralization is included, the slower growth becomes. Growth happens in spite of what the government does and would happen at a much increased rate if the government was less involved. The natural effect of growth is that industry is forced to become increasingly slimmed down and efficient because competition becomes more bloody and merciless the more the free market is allowed to work. Mistakes are penalized more severely, inefficient work practices costs more, public perception of a company as a polluter or ethically challenged hits where it hurts most. The closer you get to the razor edge, where the slightest thing because a significant advantage, the more responsive companies become to the sort of hysterical beliefs in environmental doom that are currently bouncing around. Just recently, Johnson & Johnson started up advertisements about how green and planet-friendly they are. The environmentalist hysteria has been going on for a very long time and just recently, a major company has felt the need to respond. Might this effect have happened much sooner in a more free market? Of course it would because J&J would have felt the urgent need to jump ahead of rivals on the trend to increase its market share.
Your more socialist ideas are the solution to the "problems" of a clean environment and a prosperous economy, not the solution to environmental peril and economic troubles. The very best way to hurt the economy and the environment simultanouesly is to shield companies from the pain of their mistakes with all the taxes and regulation and central control that you seem to be fond of.
As to your paragraphs, here's the answers in order:
The freer operation of a free market economy strongly militates against the first possibility. In the second case, too dang bad.
Free market assigns greater value to rarity. The consumer benefits.
Humanity in general, those who are capable of doing so specifically.
As much as they need to. Note the word "need" in that sentence.
No. Companies exist to make profit, not to serve the social justice whims of activists and a nosy government.
Yes Keith,
Your first paragraph, That is exactly where I stand.
If I really believed that companies would act responsibly, and that Consumers would really make choices based on the responsible actions of companies, I would then be less in favor of regulations.
I agree with you some on the rarity aspect and how market forces effect the price of such items. But I am not sure that the most powerful necessarily has the rights to profit from the resource.
If Companies and Consumers were really willing to act responsibly, with concern for the environment and the future, then how do you explain the mess the earth is in (oh yea, you don't believe we have a problem).
So we have a few areas of disagreement
- cost of externalities
- the ability of natural market forces to handle this cost
- the level of negative impact on the earth and future generations.
I am not in favor of abolishing Capitalism, I am in favor of regulating capitalistic practices to minimize externalities.
If someone wants to interpret that as Socialist, go ahead.
I care not.
So your position proceeds from a basic lack of faith in the intelligence of the normal person. It might be warrented sometimes but the next step to your reasoning is that the smart people should make decisions for the simple lesser people. We unwashed masses are, after all, simply not wise enough to make good decisions without the loving guidance of Big Brother.
It's no fault of the most powerful that the ability to most efficiently extract oil remains firmly in the grasp of companies that make millions of dollars a year in profit. Should we somehow take that ability from them and give it to the proletariat?
I do believe we have a problem. I just don't view it in hysterical "we're doomed, we need the government's iron fist" terms. We need wise management of resources, something that a free market, with minimal interference, provides. We don't, however, need the iron fist of goverment squeezing us into the ideal shape.
It's not a matter of interpretation so much as it's a matter of fact. Centralization in government is the defining characteristic of socialism. You favor increased centralization of economic power in government. By definition, you believe in a socialist policy. This isn't some sort of insulting value judgement, merely putting a factual name to what you're advocating.
If I am interpreting Eileen's remarks here, it sounds as if she just finished reading Karl Marx.
No scottiebill, I read Karl Marx years ago. Based on the time he lived in, and the conditions of employment at the time, I understand why he felt the way he did.
What you fail to get, is that I do NOT believe we have to abolish Capitalism to clean up the environment, I believe we need to regulate it. I believe a mixed system is best.
I recognize that pure socialism inhibits innovation and productivity.
What I find most sad about Keith's position is his response of
In the second case, too dang bad.
Where the 2nd case being reference is this:
What if the long term COST of the SHORT TERM productivity, is the health of the planet or population?
But at least he debates in a reasonable manner instead of just throwing out thoughtless statements. He recognizes that my views tend toward some degree of Socialism, but I am sure he sees that they are not purely Socialist.
Keith, it is not a lack of faith in the intelligence of the individual as much as a lack of faith in people's ability to act unselfishly.
Naturally, I gave you an exasperated response. The question is immaterial because it fails to include the question of whether this long-term damage is more damage than the subsequent gain is worth or whether the balance swings the other way. If it swings the other way, any amount of damage is worth the cost. For example, the frenzied contruction of shipyards on the coast to allow the rapid fabrication of Liberty-class cargo ships likely caused immense ecological damage that persisted for a long time afterwards. However, this long-term cost was justified by the short-term massive upswing in ship production because it allowed England's lifeline to remain intact during the early 1940's. In that case, the appropriate response to your question is, indeed "too dang bad."
Of course they're not purely socialist, Eileen... you think capitalism can be allowed to exist as long as its kept firmly in the iron grip of the government. Pure socialism means that the government IS the economy instead of merely damaging the economy with regulation. And, as a general matter, I think that regulation does damage without doing anything beneficial that couldn't be achieved by other means.
If lack of faith in people's ability to be unselfish is your problem, I reccommend spending your free time watching a charitable operation like a food bank or one of the Mormon church's Bishop's Storehouses. If watching people get up at 5 AM and leave the facility at 7 PM every day to serve the poor without compensation doensn't convince you of people's ability to be unselfish, you probably aren't willing to be convinced.
Lets see Keith:
So your argument against regulation now stems on the belief that people will not act selfishly?
Interesting?
Why does the capitalist model work better for the labor component than the socialist model?
If people were all both intelligent and unselfish, Wouldn't either Capitalism Or Socialism thrive?
We were never discussing the exact degree of regulation. We were discussing whether or not the government should regulate to either eliminate or require payment for externalities.
I think yes, you think no.
I think that it is regulation that causes some of the richest capitalist countries to be some of the cleanest countries.
You disagree, and think we would be just as clean if we didn't have the regulations.
In fact, based on your argument, I wonder if you think we would be even cleaner without regulation.
Do you know what Corporations were doing BEFORE various pollution prevention regulations were put into place?
I think that, in most cases, all known externalities should be either paid for, or regulated against. You think that none should, and it is just too bad if someone else is negatively effected.
The case where I would make an exception is where people really could not meet their nutritional and protection needs without causing the externalities they can not pay for.
You only want the externalities paid for if you can still have everything that makes you as comfortable as you want to be, while paying for them.
And if someone else is less comfortable (or even can't now get what they need to survive) that is just to dang bad
(If I misrepresent your view, and go more extreme with it than you really feel, excuse me. But you seem to be doing that to me throughout the discussion).
So you have an example where some percent of people are willing to act unselfishly.
Yea Keith, I know this. I do not believe that it represents the behavior of a large majority.
(Didn't you tell me that my own argument was irrelevant when I used an example to indicate greed that was not directly related to Global Warming?)
I could bring up the example of all the people who show up every year to volunteer to clean up the Oregon Coast.
I could choose to emphasize the amount of trash they collect, as an indication that people, when they can get away with it, will act selfishly, and just dump their trash where someone else has to deal with it.
OR I could choose to emphasize this as an example of how people are unselfish.
I wonder if there would be more trash if it were actually legal to dump it?
I think yes,
You think no.
You tell me that externalities have nothing to do with value added, and mentioning them in a value added discussion is irrelevant.
Then suddenly it is because the externalities seem to be increasing?
Well it is not that the externalities are increasing, it is the awareness of them, and the desire by many to do something about them.
Whenever I make a point, that might help the other side of the argument (the side that does not completely agree with you), why do you label it as irrelevant or immaterial?
Or, that it is just to dang bad
If firm grip of the Government means
"prevent people from profiting while passing the cost onto others who do not in anyway benefit from the thing the profit is coming from"; Then yes, I want a firm Government Grip, by a Government elected by the People, which represents the voice of the people.
I have difficulty understanding why Eileen's theory is not clearly understood here, or why she is being harangued over it...
Restrictions are absolutely necessary, as long as corporate greed exists; and it does, and always will.
I lived for awhile in a country that would be deemed Socialist (by American standards, anyway) and the one overwhelming observation for me was that every single individual there had medical care, and never once did I see a homeless person sleeping on the sidewalk. I never saw garbage in the streets, the air smelled good and the sky was blue, not brown...
It made an indelible impression on me, I can tell you that.
If I am interpreting Eileen correctly, she envisions a country that would incorporate the best of both societies - capitalism with a (regulated) conscience.
Sounds good to me...
No, I responded to your statement that you have no faith in people's ability to act unselfishly. In case you haven't understood before, I regard your selfishness arguments to be without merit. So don't try to pin me down with your fallacious argument; my argument is the ability of capitalism to achieve without regulation what you want to use regulation to achieve.
Economies that are capitalist DO thrive. The main reason that socialist economies come about is to implement socially popular programs. The entire universe of welfare programs, subsidies, environmental justice... all of these things require socialist practices to implement. In a capitalist economy, the big popular social programs would wither and die which is the best fate for them.
It's just too bad if some bleeding heart feels the pain of the plants. The best mechanism to prevent significant negative externalities is minimally-regulated capitalism. Yes, onerous regulation keeps things clean, much like cutting someone's tongue out keeps them quiet. Regulation is the harmful way to achieve the good goal, the equivalent of using bariatric surgery (stomach stapling) instead of diet and exercise to lose weight.
It IS legal to dump trash. I can load up a pickup truck and drive down to this big facility in a nearby town and dump my garbage there. Perhaps you're unfamiliar with landfills.
Well, Eileen, I'm in the habit of labeling many of your statements immaterial or irrelevant because you have a curious habit of bringing in arguments that have no bearing on the subject. In a debate on whether constricting capitalism to save the environment is wise or not, you start talking about negative externalities and
"value added" as if these have anything to do with with the wisdom of regulation. If you keep your focus and arguments narrow, there'll be less for me to dismiss as irrelevant in an attempt to keep the discussion focused.
And the voice of the people more often than not says "we're hungry and things cost too much." The government's response is destroying millions of tons of food to help farmers than slapping regulations on everything they can reach to drive costs up. If the government was really the voice of the people, it would make a serious attempt to serve the people's interests. Thus why I say that the iron grip of the government is an unneccessary evil instead of some form of salvation.
Keith wrote:
"my argument is the ability of capitalism to achieve without regulation what you want to use regulation to achieve."
^^ I don't believe this can ever happen, unless by some form of voodoo this country is cleared of all narcissistic greed. Heh. And if that were possible, it would have happened by now :)
I think you subscribe to magical thinking on this...
Actually, no. Corporate greed is a self-correcting problem in a pure market economy. It imposes artificial costs upon a company that follows those practices and these artificial costs eventually damage the company; the more free the market, the more quickly this correction happens. I'm afraid that you cannot make a person be good. You can make them to act in good ways but no amount of thrashing with the whip of government regulation will squeeze out greed. Good heavens... in the USSR, greed and corruption was oozing out of every orifice no matter how strongly the KGB controlled the people. Regualtion is an inappropriate and harmful solution to the problem of human folly.
I did stipulate earlier that there are a couple socialist countries that have actually managed to implement the system without coming apart. Those countries are also in Europe which has a different economic and social climate than the US. American health care would become cheaper and more accessible if you deregulated it; certain European countries increase the effectiveness of their health care with crushing regulation.
That said, however, there are execeptions to the rule but they're just that--execeptions. The more socialist that Canada becomes, the worse off it is. Ditto with England and every time one of the US states attempts to implement more socialist policies, it crashes and burns. I know for a fact that Denmark is one of the few socialist success stories and one of the extremely few govenrments that operates in the black. However, America isn't Denmark. Americans would nbe infuriated if they had to start turning over 80% or more of their income to the government (which is the volume of money that American socialism would require to operate), no matter what they got out of it.
Anyway, Eileen certainly means well but what she advocates ignores the proven reality that as socialism increases, prosperity decreases. The more the government controls, the less free we are and the poorer we are. This is simply how the world we live in is.
Oh, it is magic. It's called the "hidden hand of the market" and it fixes what ails us. In socialism, human greed would need to be eliminated; in capitalism, the system prospers despite greed. Thus, capitalism is the superior system and is able to achieve virtually any end without the government directing it.
And I'm sorry if you're attached to the peculiar notion that there's a great deal of narcissistic greed in America. You must see a different world than the rest of us.
Keith wrote:
"It IS legal to dump trash. I can load up a pickup truck and drive down to this big facility in a nearby town and dump my garbage there. Perhaps you're unfamiliar with landfills."
^^ Where I live, if you do that without a city permit (hard to get), and you aren't an on-duty sanitation worker, they throw your corporate white ass in jail... lol.
"And I'm sorry if you're attached to the peculiar notion that there's a great deal of narcissistic greed in America. You must see a different world than the rest of us."
^^Yes, unfortunately I do. Every morning I head to work for several corporate narcissists in corporate America.
Which brings me back to defending Eileen's POV. Not all capitalists are selfish individuals with no conscience (I'm a capitalist, for that matter)... but, as long as there are some, I believe that what you envision is not possible, that some regulations are in order.
Perhaps in early post World War II days this country had the kind of conscientiousness you speak of, but not any longer.
I wish it were different, of course.
Klatu wrote:
"Figures that eileen would attack capitalism (NOT TO MANY HP PRODUCTS BOUGHT THESE DAYS AAA eileen?"
^^ And as for this guy:
You, amigo, are a jackass.
Bugger off.
Cx, That is exactly what I am advocating.
Thank you.
(I was beginning to wonder if my written language skills were really that lacking.)
Keith,
You can dump your garbage in the dump.
But you know that is not what I meant.
Do you think it should be legal for me to dump what I want into the River? What about the Street or nearest Public land?
The very basis of environmental Damage is the EXTERNALITIES that detract from value added.
How can it be irrelevant.
Environmental damage is one of the most damaging, least paid for (by those doing and benefiting from the harm) of them all.
My Selfishness argument is NOT fallacious. It is Reality. It is the core of why Corporations are not as likely to make the choice to actually absorb the costs of their externalities unless forced to.
And the problem when they want to, is that they may have to compete against companies that do NOT want to.
Why did we start imposing environmental regulations to start with?
It was not because companies were already taking the initiative to clean up on their own.
It was not because market forces were already doing the job.
This goes back to the very core of my initial argument, that Regulation (the very thing I get accused of being socialist for wanting) is the reason that wealthy capitalist countries are cleaner than many non capitalist countries.
Speaking of irrelevant we are not discussing social welfare and subsidy programs here.
As an environmental consultant, I am first hand witness to a lot of corporate greed when it comes to environmental regulations. Many company managers are very unhappy with complying with the regs and believe me, if they didn't have to, they wouldn't. Of course there are also those that are happy to comply and do everything to keep their plants compliant and clean but I don't know that they would if it weren't the law.
Since the early days of the US industrial revolution and until the mid to late 20th century, there were no environmental regs and there were no attempts whatsoever by any manufacturer to make their practices cleaner. Corporate trash and chemicals were dumped indiscriminately into public waterways created huge
Superfund messes. Vast swaths of land were strip mined and then left completely unreclaimed as a scar on the earth. There were no clean air technologies and no interest in them. Much of this was going on until the 1970s and none of it ever changed until laws were passed to make it happen.
To claim that laisez faire capitalism is the best way to deal with these issues is completely naive. Without laws, there would NEVER be attempts at cleaning the environment.
Ah, but here's the best part, CX: it still has it although it's a bit harder to see for the casual observer. Regulation is a decent thing but only when it's almost nonexistant. The more regulation there is, the less the business makes and the worse off the rest of us are. It's a pretty reliable formula.
Once again, you stray from the topic. Externalities are irrelevant to the topic at hand. They neither add nor detract value and their existance, nonexistance, and varying degrees of theoretical impact have nothing to do with whether the free market can regulate them without the government's iron fist. Focus, Eileen, on what's relevant, not peripheral discussions that, while interesting, don't mean anything in the context of the topic.
Selfishness is your personal pipe dream. In the first place, it's your pet theory, in the second place your only evidence of it is your own belief system, and in the third place, it doesn't apply in this situation.
We began to impose environmental regulations because of environmentalist hysteria. Someone said that DDT was killing all the poor widdle birdies and was toxic and dangerous and EVIL and so we slapped regulations on it. Someone decided that the poor poor trees were being victimized by the evil lumber companies and so we slapped regulations on it. Someone came up with the pet theory that a certain species of spotted owl was seen in a forest and so we beat up the lumber companies. After the initial wave was over and things looked clean, the regulations were declared successful and more were thrown down because it made the government feel warm and cuddly inside. No one ever botherd to ask whether the regulations accomplished something that otherwise wouldn't have gotten done. THAT is how we got environmental regulations, not out of a genuine studied rational need.
It's not the reason... it's the mechanism that's assumed to be responsible because there's no way to prove otherwise. This is a logical fallacy called a theory incapable of disproof. There's no way to disprove that the kind wise benevolent government's regulations are responsible for the cleanliness because the government used its power to ensure that its solution is the only one.
It is indeed irrelevant to the topic. So was your theorizing about socialist and capitalist states... I merely responded to the fallacious statement.
To claim that regulations are the reason that all these good things came about is much more naive. Except for the highway system, the government has never created a superior solution to any problem. Managers aren't happy to comply with the regs? They wouldn't comply without a governmental gun to their head? NO KIDDING! The noisy wrongheaded government sticks its nose into the running of industry and the industry resents it. Are you planning to announce that the Earth is round? Nobody likes a busybody running around demanding that they do things a certain way, least of all when the busybody is someone from the government who's almost obscenely clueless.
The fun thing about your argument, Kimba, is that it ignores the most critical component: senators and congressmen rarely display enough backbone to do anything without a synchopant squad, usually a poll. People in the environmentalist movement surely had a part but in the end, the consumers demanded change. If the government did its duty and kept its hands off, the consumers still would have demanded change. And when consumers demand change, the free market punishes everyone who refuses to change, assuming that the government has its hands off and allows the free market to operate normally. So the free market would have solved the very problem the government took it upon itself to fix would have been solved without regulations. I'm sorry you love the governmental iron hand so much but an organization that can barely deliver the mail competantly (US Postal Service) more than likely deserves no credit at all for the success of its onerous demands.
Why am I discussing economics and environmental impact with someone who thinks that externalities are irrelevant.
(Not to be confused with disagreeing on the degree of their impact or the best way to minimize it; which I expect in such a discussion).
I'm still not sure why you believe they are relevant to this topic. They might be relevant to the topic of economics and the environment but they're not relevant to the topic of economic systems affecting the environment. You can go on and on and on about what they are, how they affect prices, why you labor under the impression that they're not paid for... but it's a tangent. The question is, is the government the better vehicle for externality reduction or is the free market? All the other little enticing discussions around it are utterly unrelated to the topic at hand. In the question I just asked, you could replace the word "externality" with "joystick" and it wouldn't alter the discussion. The discussion is essentially how to reduce a negative effect, not how that negative effect affects the astronaut moonlight radiating off man-in-the-moon marigolds on a blue spring night.
No one here has made any reference as to who the "evil" corporations are. The are not only the officers on the various boards, but are also the stock-holders of these companies. People like us. If you own stock in any oil company or any automobile company or any major brewing company, you are part of the "evil" corporate America.
I, of course, have no knowledge of Eileen"s or Atlantic's situations, but if either of them are investing in 401K programs at their work places, they are part of the "evil" corporate system, for it is very likely that their 401K monies are invested in either oil or automobile or brewery stocks, or in mutual funds which incorporate many various stocks into their funds.
If this is so with Eileen and Atlantic, then Karl Marx would not be proud of you. I hate to keep bringing him up, but from what I have seen of your writings here, it sounds very like his teachings.
But I have been known to be wrong before.
`c.x.atlantic: Amigo? Your from south of the border say Cuba? Figures you hate Capitalism.
Keith:
It is way easier to play hangman with klatu than to try to understand what you are saying right now.
You just made even more contradictions.
Klatu,
I do kind of miss hangman.
Keith:
The question is, is the government the better vehicle for externality (er, I mean) joystick reduction or is the free market?
They might be relevant to the topic of economics and the environment but they're not relevant to the topic of economic systems affecting the environment.
^^ HUHHHH? Heh.
Oh.... and yesterday I clearly stated that I'm a Capitalist. I'm repeating it here again for any retards who are too stupid to even be on here.
OK, so detailed distinction between arguments is somewhat above you. Fine and well... it simply means you're a normal person. I'm just saying that there's a difference between an argument about the interaction between general economics and the environment and an argument about how specific economic systems affects the environment.
Precisely! I'm arguing that the free market is the best vehicle because it has the virtue of lacking government's obscenely long list of failures. If you'd like me to compile an alphabetical list of the things the government has failed at (drawing a distinction between the things the government has failed to do itself and the things it's forced other entities to do at the point of a gun), I'd be glad to give it to you.
Out of curiousity, CX, what makes you a capitalist? You seemed to indicate in some post that you work for corporate entities whereas I understand a capitalist as someone who manages capital in some way. The other definition, an advocate of capitalism, doens't seem to describe you overly well since you seem to believe that the best solution descends from the government, much like Eileen does. So in what way are you a capitalist, CX? Just so you know, I mean the question out of curiousity, not malice.
Keith,
How does history show that the free market lacks Governments long list of failures, where the environment is concerned?
"at the point of a gun), I'd be glad to give it to you."
And I'd be glad to give right back to you.
Whatsa matter fishie? Can't talk to women in the real world, so you put them down on blogs? Harassing women on the internet makes you the lowest form of abuser on the planet. A bottom-feeder.
I hope your mother sees your comments.
Jack!
Clever way of sidestepping my offer of evidence but in answer to your question, the evidence you seek can't exist because of the government's seizure of the issue. We'll never know the ways in which the free market would have succeeded where the government failed because the government used its power to ensure that only its solution was put to the test. If a government uses its power to ensure that phrenology (measuring noses to determine race) is the only method tested, how does anyone come up with proof that an alternative method would work better?
Out of "If you'd like me to compile an alphabetical list of the things the government has failed at (drawing a distinction between the things the government has failed to do itself and the things it's forced other entities to do at the point of a gun), I'd be glad to give it to you." you managed to isolate "at the point of a gun), I'd be glad to give it to you." and responded to just that fragment.
It is said that it takes one to know one. I don't subscribe to that exactly but it seems like it requires a real bottom-feeder to level accusations at someone in the dishonest method you have. You, who lacks the courage to respond to my entire statement, calls me the "lowest form of abuser"? You, sir, are a coward and unworthy of a respectful response to your puerile charges.
Keith, you offered a list.
I don't care of it is alphabetical.
I was only interested in the failures related to the environment, for this discussion.
At least you admit that there is no "proof" that the market would handle the situation better.
So it is merely your opinion (which I realize you do share, with some economists).
But what you seem to ignore, is the fact that the market did have a chance, and it was failing, and that is why regulations were imposed.
The market system did NOT GO AWAY as regulations were imposed.
So if the government failed to do the job, would the market not pick up the slack?
There is a world full of examples, showing capitalistic systems spewing pollution, with little concern for the environment.
There is evidence suggesting that when regulations are imposed to decrease such pollution, that pollution decreases.
Yet you have spent this entire thread arguing that the Market is the better way to regulate this, with no evidence.
You finally decide that there is no evidence, and offer the excuse for this. But Keith, it has been tried. The early industrial revolution was very minimally regulated.
You also never addressed the issue related to US companies, setting up overseas, to avoid local environmental laws.
I appreciate you acknowledging that I'm not just belching forth pet theories. :)
Well, actually, the market DID go away in the areas where government imposed its will. The government's regulations and interference replaced the market mechanism, not supplamented it. As to whether the market failed or not, it didn't. It simply didn't have an opportunity to respond to consumer discontent before the government swooped in, driven by the same force, and substituted its pet solutions.
I'll bet your next argument is that during the entirety of the industrial revolution, everyone and their dog had access to satellite data showing an environmental effect. The reason the industrial revolutions were minimally regulated was that no one really knew that there was a justification to do so. The scientific realization of a serious problem is a 20th century innovation. The industrial revolutions were in the previous two centuries.
It's for the same reason they set up overseas to dodge American labor laws: the laws are so absurdly damaging to their business that finding ways to cut costs is vital to their existence. Without minimum wages, without absurdly stringent environmental regulation, without hostile tax structures... without all the ways that the government damages the economy, companies would stay here and be happy about it. It's not a burning desire to pollute that drives them overseas... it's a burning desire to survive.
Keith wrote:
"So in what way are you a capitalist, CX? Just so you know, I mean the question out of curiousity, not malice."
^^ It's a fair question, Keith...
I'm a Capitalist (imo) because I do not wish for anyone to limit my ability (or others' abilities) to have as many zeros on my paycheck/personal draw/commission as I wish; to be free to start any enterprise I might desire or imagine, and to continue to utilize my right to invest monetarily in whatever venture I choose.
Even oil.
I am with Cx, as long as these companies she invests in, and those that pay her, also pay the cost of the externalities/joysticks they create and/or use the best available technology to limit them.
This means SUVs will cost a lot more, and fewer people will be able to afford them.
Keith,
Just how were market forces removed when regulations were put in place, as far as what the market could do, to get a company to cut back on (or pay for) joysticks/externalities.
Funny thing is, the same people I know who are MOST willing to actually hold a company accountable, by taking their business elsewhere (often meaning paying a higher cost) are the SAME people who are in favor of regulation to limit the negative externalities/joysticks.
I still am just not seeing that the word joysticks, can replace the word externalities and have the sentence mean the same thing?
Fair enough, CX. :) Enjoy and invest wisely so you have more zeros in your wallet than Bill Gates.
Oh, for goodness sakes, Eileen. -_- You wish yer luck as long as her chosen investments meet your social standards?
Regulations crowd out market mechanisms. An industry tied down with regulations is insulated from the normal market because supply, demand, externalities, scarcity, competition, etc don't affect it in the normal way.
It can in this context because both joysticks and externalities are wholly unrelated to the topic of discussion. When a factor is irrelevant, you can rename the factor however you wish because it has no importance.
so Keith,
In one sentence you use the word "externalities" in a relevant fashion, and in the next claim it has no relevance.
You lack logic.
Again I have to ask myself why I am arguing the effect of capitalism on the environment, with someone who refuses to recognize the relevance of externalities (any more than joysticks).
Of course I wish Cx luck despite her investments.
I disagree with increasing the number of zeros on the paycheck (or in investment gains), if the money flow which allows those zeros is the result of unpaid for externalities. This has nothing to do with her individual luck.
It has to do with how the profit is generated.
Please explain which market force, related to decreasing negative externalities, is limited by regulation.
Please go beyond just stating that something no longer behaves in a "normal" way, and give me a clear example.
Your argument has gone from stating that "history shows ..." to include offering evidence; to telling me that "there is no evidence because government regulation prevented it".
So in the end, you (and some economists) have this "pie in the sky" idea, that market forces would have worked, to decrease externalities (which you consider irrelevant), had they been allowed to work, with ZERO evidence.
Yet the other side of the argument has historical evidence, and current evidence (based on behaviors in countries where it is not as regulated) to suggest otherwise.
Try to keep up, Eileen. In one sentence I list off some of the multitude of factors in a free market. In the next sentence, I explain that externalities have no relevance to the topic at hand. Surely you can't believe that listing off some of the things that generally affects markets is an admission that that thing is relevant to our current discussion.
Since I've repeatedly pointed out the irrelevants of externalities, I'll answer your second question. One clear example of regulations affecting the free market is the minimum wage. The minimum wage is a policy called a "price floor" which is a method of artificially fixing a certain price as the lowest price that the supply of a product (in this case labor) can be sold/bought for. It forbids the market from working to determine the equilibrium market price for one hour of labor and thus, the market for labor, tied down by the minimum wage, is no longer capable of functioning in a normal manner. If you need me to explain how a market normally determines price, I can do that but would be forced to wonder how you figure that you can argue the relevance of externalities if you don't understand one of the most basic economic models.
OK, for the tenth or more time: externalities are not relevant to the current discussion. The discussion is NOT the effect of unintended negative or positive effects upon the price of a product. The discussion is whether market forces are capable of better determining the behavior of a company than regulations. Will you PLEASE stop desperately trying to shoehorn in an unrelated topic. It's getting very tiresome.
That's just the thing... the other side of the argument doesn't have any evidence either. The evidence it has is what regulations have wrought, not anything that addresses whether regulations are better or not. Your "evidence" has no bearing on the situation. Moreoever, tell me about the economic system of these countries that don't have as many regulations. How prosperous are they? How free are their markets? What is their governmental system? All of these questions have bearing on whether your "other country" evidence is worth consideration. Have you asked any of them?
Keith
Would you PLEASE STOP trying to claim that EXTERNALITIES are NOT relevant.
They are VERY RELEVANT.
They are the very thing, that the market was NOT (and still is not completely) handling.
IF THEY DID NOT EXIST, there would NOT BE A PROBLEM.
The Environmental damage, being blamed on Capitalism, is a form of negative EXTERNALITIES.
Is that not the base of this discussion?
They are the ONE THING that is not well accounted for in the market model.
Without them your prized pure, unregulated (or very minimally regulated) market model works very well.
So I see why you want to exclude them from the discussion.
They are the very thing that everyone not immediately effected by them can (and often do) choose to ignore when choosing their behavior.
As I said several posts ago, I have NO idea why I am even taking time to argue economics with someone who does not find Externalities relevant to the effects of capitalism on the environment.
It is not me who fails to get the most basic of economic concepts.
Trying to get you to see this, is getting very tiresome.
They're not relevant because they have bearing on product valuation, not pollution or environmental effects (or lack thereof). They're quite well-accounted for in market models but their existence, nonexistence, effect on product value, and other ways in which they're relevant have no bearing on what we're discussing. Externalities are just a general term for those things that affect product valuation. The ability of the capitalist model to compensate for POLLUTION (which may or may not be an externality based on the specific circumstances) has nothing to do with an evaluative measure of product value.
I'm still waiting for you to stop with your eternal focus on something that has no bearing at all on the discussion. Capitalism can deal with externalities and, indeed, deals with them stupendously well. However, that discussion has nothing to do with this one. In a sense, you're right... there's no point in continuing this discussion until you're willing and able to discuss the topic at hand instead of your preferred fragment of theoretical minutiae.
Am I the only one to notice how smoothly Eileen walks off with this argument here?
Externalities are relevant to everything Keith, as long as you reside on planet earth.
If you're a gaseous spirit, light years away, in another galaxy, you might get away with ignoring cause and effect... dunno.
:)
This means SUVs will cost a lot more, and fewer people will be able to afford them.
^^ Three cheers for Eileen!
You guys won't believe this, but yesterday afternoon I was treated like an out-of-the-loop individual at Home Depot because I deigned to purchase a ten foot ladder without a pickup truck or SUV to carry it off in.
An employee had to actually take a moment from his busy standing-around-doing-nothing schedule to help me tie the thing to the roof of my car. As I drove off, he stood there shaking his head in disapproval.
The car, and the ladder, survived this breach of conformity just beautifully, btw...
:)
Actually, the word itself implies that they're applicable to almost nothing but you're entitled to your opinion of which argument you like best. Whether that has any bearing on which argument is better is a wholly different question.
Well, your experience is entirely natural, CX. Most people would find it somewhat odd that you bought something and had to rely on jury-rigging to transport it, something like buying a washing machine when you can only transport it with a 2-door coup. Typically, a person would use the right tool for the job which is, in this case, a vehicle with design features conductive to transporting a large long object.
Oh, and Eileen is exactly right. It is indeed possible to use the power of government to force people to do the right thing, as long as the government gets to decide what the right thing is. Glad someone else saw it too.
Post a Comment