Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

free market and the environment


  • Please log in to reply
83 replies to this topic

#1 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,548 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 03:18 AM

I was in discussion with a friend who doesn't support OWS because of Ad Buster's role in initiating it. Ad Busters (radical, anarchistic, leftist, for sure) cites concerns about U.S. consumption habits and its relationship to finite planetary resources--caused me to ask, shouldn't any conversation about economic and political philosophy include a conversation about the impact and sustainability of that philosophy? I don't hear that often when listening to free-market thinkers. How does unfettered capitalism adjust for the realities Daly addresses in this piece? What do you think of his claims?


http://theeuropean-m...e-end-of-growth

#2 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,548 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 03:28 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adbusters

#3 seany

seany
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,748 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 03:30 AM

One of my biggest problems with Ron Paul is his free market theory that people can just sue the polluters and that will keep them in check. I'm sorry, but even after years of correction under his free market philosophy, that would never work. That's just setting poorer people up to die at the hands of wealthier businesses. It's not like suing someone over environmental "wrongs" stops that practice instantaneously. Best case scenario environmental litigation takes 3 -5 years if contested. Most times it is a much much longer process.

#4 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,548 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 03:57 AM

"Only after the last tree is cut down, only after the last water poisoned, the last animal destroyed, only then will you realize you can't eat money." Cree Indian prophecy

#5 Julius

Julius
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,153 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 04:20 AM

Can I get that in English?

#6 seany

seany
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,748 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 04:35 AM

Sure. Do you have a soul and conscience? Or should we just fuck everything?

Better?

#7 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 11:33 AM

One of my biggest problems with Ron Paul is his free market theory that people can just sue the polluters and that will keep them in check. I'm sorry, but even after years of correction under his free market philosophy, that would never work. That's just setting poorer people up to die at the hands of wealthier businesses. It's not like suing someone over environmental "wrongs" stops that practice instantaneously. Best case scenario environmental litigation takes 3 -5 years if contested. Most times it is a much much longer process.


No, suing doesn't stop the practice instantly. But in a free market, not subsidized or regulated by the govt, more people would be able to compete new ideas, which leads to better innovation. People dont want to be polluted on in general and products that prove to be polluters, would lose business to competition with sounder practices.

Regulations that tax a business for polluting, only cause that business to inflate their price to cover the tax. Thats no incentive to innovate and curtail wasteful and polluting habits.

#8 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 12:48 PM

http://m.guardian.co...nt&type=article

#9 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 12:49 PM

This is a perfect example of why govt market intervention fails. Always basing policy off perfect model instead of real market models

#10 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 02:56 PM

I wwwill address Daly later when i can be less restricted. But he begins his argument that free markets dont work. Except in tje richest nations free markets arent at work.

#11 beerzrkr

beerzrkr
  • VibeTribe
  • 716 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 02:58 PM

People need to be held accountable for their actions. Businesses should not have rights. People shouldn

#12 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 03:11 PM

Thats certainly part of it. Yes.

#13 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 03:15 PM

Fm must be built on sound rule of law. The market fails wheeen private property rights lack definition for accountability.

#14 Jabadoodle

Jabadoodle
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,967 posts
  • LocationBoston MA

Posted 10 October 2011 - 03:36 PM

Here's an interesting podcast on the subject:

[COLOR="Sienna"]
Economics Without Ecocide: Building a Whole Earth Economy

Peter G. Brown, Professor, McGill University School of Environment
talks at The Commonwealth Club of California on July 8, 2009: The
economy is damaged and needs fixing. But Brown argues that we

#15 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 21,290 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 03:37 PM

[quote name='beerzrkr']People need to be held accountable for their actions. Businesses should not have rights. People shouldn

#16 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,548 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 04:07 PM

[quote name='beerzrkr']People need to be held accountable for their actions. Businesses should not have rights. People shouldn

#17 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 04:30 PM

By allowing unregulated competition.

#18 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 04:37 PM

Also, the charter andrew j. Vetoed continuation on was central banking.

#19 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 04:47 PM

The Economics of Freedom: What Your Professors Won't Tell You, Selected Works of Frederic Bastiat (Students For Liberty Library) by Bastiat, Fr

#20 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,548 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 05:51 PM

By allowing unregulated competition.


clinton signed telecommunications act of 94, less regs on media ownership. result? a few powerful corps buy up even more media outlets. result? less competition. result? 5 corps now control 90% media outlets.

the bigger some get the more monopolistic they become. seems to create less competition (smaller competitors no longer have equal access).

seems to be happening with media, with banks...

I don't know, Dave. my head hurts :undecided:

#21 seany

seany
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,748 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 06:16 PM

Fm must be built on sound rule of law. The market fails wheeen private property rights lack definition for accountability.


How does the "rule of law" differ from regulation?


By allowing unregulated competition.


In unregulated competition, business will always seek a competitive edge. And this is likely to come at the expense of worker safety and the environment. It's dangerously naive to think that business will "just do the right thing" if left unchecked. How'd that work out in the early 1900s? How's that working in China right now? Dangerously naive :rolleyes:

#22 seany

seany
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,748 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 06:23 PM

you need to remember that we're not starting from a level playing field. If every business needed to start from scratch, this theory might hold some water. But that's not the case. Even regulated Monsanto squashes all the competition. Think about how they'd be unregulated. You think organic farmers are going to fair well suing Monsanto for polluting their property w/ GMOs? Monsanto can tie that shit up in court for the next 40 years and it not think twice about how it might effect their bottom line. But the farmer will second mortgage their house and lose their house and farm trying to pay for legal fees. Dangerously naive.

#23 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 06:24 PM

Cc, that unregulation only fteed the subsidized to buy out the competition. That isnt free markets. Its snatch and run cronyism.

Sean, you keep thinking that the rules of law dont apply under gree markets. Finding a competitive edge at the expense of the worker, the consumer or others private property (pollution) is fraud. That is where the legal structure is suppose to step sans bias and uphold the law. It isnt a regulate themselves idea. Its a market regulation idea. So, lets define the market.

#24 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 06:27 PM

I agree, sean. The field isnt level and there are options to begin the process if creating it. Noone believes in dumping all our current system entirely overnight. It is a process of undoing the damage to get back to a genuine free market. Weve done that befote too...

#25 seany

seany
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,748 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 06:29 PM

So if you get rid of the EPA, who enforces environmental laws? The Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act? RCRA? .... You think the citizenry or police have the technical know how to police that? You think companies will play by the rules? :lmao:

#26 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 06:43 PM

The judicial branch upholds the laws. If you dump toxin in my water way and me an my entire town of 500 collectively sue for damage, your company is will be held responsible to the fullest extent of the law. This is where govt is charged with defining property rights thoroughly to make sure the penslties match the damage. In an free market the market will take care of fraudd through competition.

#27 seany

seany
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,748 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 06:52 PM

Judicial branch :rotf:

You don't get it. It takes $300+k instruments to measure some of this pollution. And highly educated field and lab techniques to collect and process a sample. People die because companies pollute and citizens just don't have the knowledge, expertise, or resources to challenge them - or it's far to late for them to do so once they get sick 5, 10, 20 years later. Watch Erin Brockovich for christ sakes. :rolleyes: You think anything has changed since then? Honestly, are you going to trust your health or your family's health to corporations doing the right thing? you and your town of 500 are going to sue a company? Really? After how many people get sick and die?

#28 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 06:54 PM

If you ate attempting to draw some line of perfection within any economic model, thats problematic. We should be basing that off thxe real market. Imperfections will exist, and we work collectively through the market to find solutions. Or we turn it all over to govt and central planning. Which by and large, is how we got here
.

#29 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 06:57 PM

Yes i do get it. And i make no assertion to have all the answers. No economic modeling will be perfect. As for testing, private enterprise for pollution testing could proveze more effective than a govt agency.

#30 seany

seany
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,748 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 07:07 PM

Really? Who pays for it? Citizens? Local government? That doesn't seem fair. If it's the corporation, then you need regulation. GE is paying about $10k per week for routine background monitoring on the Hudson. They pay about 10-20x that during remediation activities. The Hudson is only one of over 90 Superfund sites they have in the U.S. You think they'll just voluntarily monitor all of this stuff?

#31 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 07:07 PM

Seany, you make it sound like the epa has really do.e homerun job when it comed to protectin people from pollution.

#32 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 07:15 PM

The business would pay for it. The provider would be private. I dont see the problem there...m

#33 seany

seany
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,748 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 07:16 PM

No. They haven't. I spent 4 years of my life negotiating environmental monitoring plans with EPA. They are inefficient. But that's all we've got. You want to reform it, fine. It needs to be reformed. But if you think citizens are going to be safer w/o it, your dead wrong. And a lot of citizens will be dead too.

#34 seany

seany
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,748 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 07:23 PM

The business would pay for it. The provider would be private. I dont see the problem there...m



Why would the business pay for it w/o regulation and a regulatory agency to make sure that they did that?

FYI, business's already pay for it and they collect their own samples and use a private lab. EPA is just enforcing that. EPA is not the one out there taking and processing samples. They might get a split/duplicate sample (typically 1 in 20) to just double check lab results.

Again, I've been in the thick of this. I know how it works and what the pitfalls are :wink:

#35 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 07:27 PM

If the law regarding private property was properly defined, if they didnt do it to cut corners, that is fraud. If sued and yit became known they did not do due diligence...their business could go under for bad pr. Compensation and loss of ybusiness. Avoiding moral hazards would be commonplace and competition would be fierce.

#36 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 07:30 PM

That may not be premptive, and suffragewould still occur. Perfection this will never be.

#37 seany

seany
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,748 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 07:32 PM

Dude. I appreciate your dedication to this philosophy. But it's just that - philosophy. Hypothetical at that. You're freaking high if you think businesses like GE would spend 100s of thousands of dollars per week on environmental monitoring just to avoid some bad PR or to protect private property rights. Freaking high.

#38 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 07:32 PM

Seany, is the epa ripe for payoff and collusion from business through contract selection?

#39 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 07:37 PM

Ok. So then have big govt do it and we get what we have now. Insulting me doesnt change anything. Read the book above. Or dont. This system doesnt work.

#40 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 07:38 PM

Its ripe with and encourages moral hazard.

#41 seany

seany
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,748 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 07:47 PM

Not that I've seen. There isn't any contract selection. If you are a business that has air, water, toxic waste discharges, there are rules and monitoring schedules and you have some EPA agent assigned that reviews that stuff on a periodic basis. If you're out of compliance, then you get more scrutiny. If you're in compliance, it is a pretty non-intrusive process. And there's different divisions that monitor different things - air, water, toxics, etc. - so it's unlikely that you could just pay off one person. Could there possibly be a payoff w/ some EPA regulator? Sure, I suppose. But given the practice of split/duplicate samples that go to an EPA lab (generally a private lab contracted by EPA), there are some facts that are out of the control of the EPA manager.

#42 seany

seany
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,748 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 07:54 PM

BTW - I'm in no way trying to insult you. I spent many years working w/ EPA and big companies on their environmental monitoring programs. That is my expertise - designing monitoring programs.

So, I may not agree with you on how your proposed new paradigm might work, but you need to respect the fact that I know how the current system works much more than you. Or Ron Paul does, for that matter.

#43 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 08:02 PM

Im not suggesting that you dont have expertise. I dont know how extensive pauls knowledge on epa inner workings is. The point is they middleman a pro ess. Oversight is one thing. Contracting out work on tax dollars is quite another.

#44 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 08:06 PM

You have to look at this from a macro too. Suggesting companies like ge would never test because it eouldnt be in their bottom line in a system where competition isw fierce avoids the fa t that business must comply to the market to remain.

#45 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 08:07 PM

No govt i.tervention except through the law. Break the law and face the repercussions. Not some tax off for the govt regulator

#46 seany

seany
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,748 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 08:44 PM

You have to look at this from a macro too. Suggesting companies like ge would never test because it eouldnt be in their bottom line in a system where competition isw fierce avoids the fa t that business must comply to the market to remain.


Why would they test if there's no regulatory agency to force them to?A nd what would they test for? And who would verify those tests and say they are in compliance?

What about new threats? You think corporations are going to come up with new stuff to test for on their own? Our knowledge of chemicals in the environment is evolving daily.

No offense, but your FM position on this is completely naive. I don't care what FM Utopian world your pushing, letting the environment go the way of free market values just ensures that more people get sick and die.

#47 Julius

Julius
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,153 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 10:06 PM

Sure. Do you have a soul and conscience? Or should we just fuck everything?

Better?


No, worse. That might be English but it's no basis for a civil discussion.

#48 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 10:17 PM

7. Markets Don’t Work (or Are Inefficient) When There Are Negative or Positive Externalities Markets only work when all of the effects of action are born by those who make the decisions. If people receive benefits without contributing to their production, markets will fail to produce the right amount. Similarly, if people receive “negative benefits,” that is, if they are harmed and those costs are not taken into account in the decision to produce the goods, markets will benefit some at the expense of others, as the benefits of the action go to one set of parties and the costs are borne by another. The mere existence of an externality is no argument for having the state take over some activity or displace private choices.
Fashionable clothes and good grooming generate plenty of positive externalities, as others admire those who are well clothed or groomed, but that’s no reason to turn choice of or provision of clothing and grooming over to the state. Gardening, architecture, and many other activities generate positive externalities on others, but people undertake to beautify their gardens and their buildings just the same. In all those cases, the benefits to the producers alone—including the approbation of those on whom the positive externalities are showered—are sufficient to induce them to produce the goods. In other cases, such as the provision of television and radio broadcasts, the public good is “tied” to the provision of other goods, such as advertising for firms; the variety of mechanisms to produce public goods is as great as the ingenuity of the entrepreneurs who produce them. More commonly, however, it’s the existence of negative externalities that leads people to question the efficacy or justice of market mechanisms. Pollution is the most commonly cited example. If a producer can produce products profitably because he imposes the costs of production on others who have not consented to be a part of the production process—say, by throwing huge amounts of smoke into the air or chemicals into a river—he will probably do so. Those who breathe the polluted air or drink the toxic water will bear the costs of producing the product, while the producer will get the benefits from the sale of the product. The problem in such cases, however, is not that markets have failed, but that they are absent. Markets rest on property and cannot function when property rights are not defined or enforced. Cases of pollution are precisely cases, not of market failure, but of government failure to define and defend the property rights of others, such as those who breathe polluted air or drink polluted water. When people downwind or downstream have the right to defend their rights, they can assert their rights and stop the polluters from polluting. The producer can install at his own expense equipment or technology to eliminate the pollution (or reduce it to tolerable and non-harmful levels), or offer to pay the people downwind or downstream for the rights to use their resources (perhaps offering them a better place to live), or he must stop producing the product, because he is harming the rights of others who will not accept his offers, showing that the total costs exceed the benefits. It’s property rights that make such calculations possible and that induce people to take into account the effects of their actions on others. And it’s markets, that is, the opportunity to engage in free exchange of rights, that allow all of the various parties to calculate the costs of actions. Negative externalities such as air and water pollution are not a sign of market failure, but of government’s failure to define and defend the property rights on which markets rest.

Bastiat, Fr

#49 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,548 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 10:44 PM

No, worse. That might be English but it's no basis for a civil discussion.


what didn't you understand about Daly's piece?

#50 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 10:57 PM

I was in discussion with a friend who doesn't support OWS because of Ad Buster's role in initiating it. Ad Busters (radical, anarchistic, leftist, for sure) cites concerns about U.S. consumption habits and its relationship to finite planetary resources--caused me to ask, shouldn't any conversation about economic and political philosophy include a conversation about the impact and sustainability of that philosophy? I don't hear that often when listening to free-market thinkers. How does unfettered capitalism adjust for the realities Daly addresses in this piece? What do you think of his claims?


http://theeuropean-m...e-end-of-growth


While SOME resources are finite on this planet, there are others that flourish hardily and in constent abundance. We are adaptable beings with great potential and a hardy curiosity. I think his stance is down right cynical and overtly nihilistic. Stop growth? Just stop growing, changing and working toward solutions? No.
He has it right about economists the more I read. The "science" has been pigeon holed into certain philosophy. Reading Von Mises is refreshing in that regard. He believes the true nature of economics resides heavily within Praxeology. I'm really gaining a lot of interest in this topic. I'm eager and apprehensive to formulate a hard stance on much at all right now. But these "new" ideas are really neat.