From Here to Economy Can capitalism be harnessed to solve environmental problems, or is capitalism itself the problem? http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2004/04/23/cox-economy/ Capitalism and the Environment http://www.monthlyreview.org/1004pms3.htm
This is a little deep for first thing Sunday morning, pre-coffee, but I'll make an effort. One of the problems is that natural resources are considered 'externalities', outside the loop of cost and profit. Clean air, water, and soil are essential to life, yet are treated by our economic system as worthless. Another major flaw is the selfishness of the corporation, which considers only its own interests and nothing else. This makes many individuals rich, but doesn't necessarily enrich society, or even yield a profit, all things considered. A problem with pricing, not necessarily capitalism itself, is that not all costs are counted. Gasoline, as an example, might look expensive at the pump compared to last week, but it's priced far below the true full costs of its use. The ultimate result of ignoring the value of natural capital, the costs of environmental degradation, and the costs borne by anyone not a shareholder, is a balance sheet that doesn't balance and a bottom line that's nowhere near the bottom.
Both excellent reads! Overall it's an interesting concept that I've myself pondered. It's always been difficult to respond in agreement with it w/o being labeled a communist or socialist. I feel that between lawyers and environmental destruction due to selfish gain, we might witness either the fall of capitalism or our democratic government as we know it within our lifetimes or our kids lifetimes. IMHO, capitalism promotes selfishness rather than striving for the greater good, and that's where the environment takes it's hit. For instance, the SUV point in the article. Auto makers are driven to make more money. Americans have 100% free will on the choices of their cars. Presently, these choices rarely take into consideration the consequence of these choices so long as they get the sweetest ride. Auto makers are more than happy to oblige, since that's in their best interest to make a profit. Until a governing authority (or a serious global enlightenment) steps in, this is unlikely to change on it's own as it would make this selfish gain for profit more difficult to attain. Same goes for big oil. We're on a track that makes some people or entities billions, but at a clear environmental cost. Straying from this would be costly for those making the profits. Only when a newer cleaner method becomes more profitable, or when the entities goals become something beyond making money would change be realized. It's a sad world we live in, but too many people succeed (often at the expense of others and their surroundings) for it "want" to change. Only serious catastrophe caused by the system itself (more likely), or a global enlightenment for a desire for something greater than money (less likely, we're more addicted to money than we are oil) will lead the change. I'm saddened by this idea, but yet I feel powerless to truly change it because so much of what is defined as success depends on high incomes in order to survive in todays world at a comfortable level. And that definition only encompasses shelter that keeps you warm or cool and dry, healthy food and water on the table, and a means to get from place to place to keep the first two perpetuated.
Ridiculous! What's better? Socialism? Communism? Dictatorship? Sometimes liberals surprise me.. in a very bad way.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Mar 4 2007, 04:00 PM) [snapback]399982[/snapback]</div> I suppose you consider the Exxon Valdez spill and the Enron collapse to be Very Good Things? While you're at it, please explain how airlines, which always had a nice profit before deregulation, are all now struggling despite the dreaded Big Gummint off their backs (in fact, they seem to need Big Gummint to help them stay alive!). Conservatives never surprise me. I know they'll always go for Evil whenever possible.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Mar 4 2007, 02:00 PM) [snapback]399982[/snapback]</div> Each model has it's flaws. Question is which are we able to tolerate? And more importantly, which can the environment tolerate? I think each model has had it's rise and fall, only to be replaced by something new, and generally "better".
btw, for the record I am definitely NOT anti-capitalist (I've made VERY good money on the stock market, thank you very much). I'm totally against do-whatever-you-want to-hell-with-the-consequences unrestricted business, though.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Mar 4 2007, 03:58 PM) [snapback]400024[/snapback]</div> I second that. Capitalism is great when consequences of business are taken into consideration, and properly dealt with. Like it was said above, often only the value of the commodity itself is considered, and not its farther reaching impact. For instance, if we were charged (taxed?) for each pound of CO2 we emitted into the atmosphere (based on fuel consumed), and these monies were directly used to fund a cleanup program (i.e. CO2 scrubbing), that would be, well, idealistic, but responsible, and would address farther reaching impact than just paying for and burning gasoline. It would cut into bottom lines for both business and the consumer, but the ecological impact issues would be addressed equally based in the impact of some behaviors. Would be far less imposing than a dictatorship saying you could only drive car X and drive Y miles per year.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Mar 4 2007, 08:02 AM) [snapback]399891[/snapback]</div> Economists actually have a term for this. But it's been a while since I studied the Economics lecture series on from TTC, and I remember concepts, but not terminology very well. However, the concept, well established in the firld of economics, is that in a free market system, two parties may agree on a transaction, and both may be satisfied with the terms and consequences, but that transaction may have an effect on a third party who has no say in the matter. This is one of the (many) areas where a free market can be detrimental to society. Pollution is one glaring example. The depletion of scarce resources is another. Both capitalism and socialism have strengths and weaknesses: Capitalism is very good at creating high-quality goods efficiently, but it is a complete failure at distributing those goods to the people who need them, most particularly getting the basic necessities of life to the lowest-paid workers. Socialism does a poorer job of creating quality goods at low prices, but does a much better job of meeting the material needs of people. But it is a serious error, often made by narrow-minded people, to assert that a country must have one or the other: unbridled capitalism or pure socialism. We need to develop a third way, or perhaps a synthesis, that would include the strengths of both, and, hopefully, eliminate the weaknesses of both. I honestly believe we could do this if our political system were not so mired in hate-filled demagogery, or so dominated by corrupt politicians and corrupting lobbyists.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Mar 4 2007, 02:00 PM) [snapback]399982[/snapback]</div> As far as I know there has never been a pure model of socialism, communism or capitalism implemented. Arguing over which is better based on historical record is meaningless as there have only been variations of modified or bastardized versions of each.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Mar 4 2007, 05:28 PM) [snapback]400064[/snapback]</div> Missed one: Business Administration Graduates.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Mar 4 2007, 04:50 PM) [snapback]399997[/snapback]</div> They are not good things - they are the reality of life and forces for + change. You name the Valdez spill - name one since? And are we moving more or less oil since then? Could this be evidence of a good thing resulting from a bad thing? Enron too. There is no perfect society and people can make mistakes or do bad things. The difference here is that they got punished (not hard enough, and still too many people not recompensed) - however how many oversight organizations are there in countries who are communists, or socialists or dictatorships - where they hold ultimate power and have no one looking over their backs? If you are really interested in a socialized system or do not like our form of capitalism - you are free to leave or try to change it through through the marketplace of free ideas/thoughts/actions.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 5 2007, 07:55 AM) [snapback]400245[/snapback]</div> 1993, Off The Shetland Islands, tanker Braer, 26,000,000 tons of oil. 1996, Off SW Wales, tanker Sea Empress, 18,000,000 tons of oil. 2001, Galapagos Islands, tanker Jessica, 240,000 tons of oil. This is evidence of Business As Usual. Unfortunately, there has never been a true Socialist country in the world. Ever (as far as I know). In a true Socialist country, there WOULD be no "ultimate power", and everyone would have a say in everything. Saying the old U.S.S.R. was a Socialist country is like saying the U.S.A. is a Democracy. It may be in name, but in reality, it's a far cry.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Mar 5 2007, 11:07 AM) [snapback]400463[/snapback]</div> Many hunter-gatherer societies are socialistic. We call them "primitive" but people in such societies typically have far more free time (after providing themselves with the necessities of life) than do people in industrial socities such as ours. You are right, however, that no industrial society has ever implemented pure socialism. And the much-touted and much-despised USSR never had anything of socialism about it other than free or highly-subsidized rent, medical care, and education (excellent things in themselves, but insufficient to deserve the name of socialism.)
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Mar 5 2007, 02:07 PM) [snapback]400463[/snapback]</div> 1. so tell me, given the amount of oil transported and total miles transported - is it safer or more dangerous today to transport oil to day vs. yesterday(s)? And i do not see an accident for the past 6 years - that evidence of business as usual seems to be fairly well hidden. dont forget - money is LOST when a tanker goes down or oil is spilled. And where those acts of God (or for you - accidents beyond human control like a hurricane, tsunami, etc) or human error? 2. a perfect opportunity for you to leave this country and create one in your image - dont forget to spend a little on defense and not rely on the US of A for help - and also budget some money for humanitarian aid - and while you are at it make sure you bring enough workers to cover all those that will happily choose not to work - just a joke :lol:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 5 2007, 08:55 AM) [snapback]400245[/snapback]</div> Research the Niger Delta. The total volume of oil spilled there aggregates that of the oil spilled by the Valdez. Excerpts from the first paragraph of the link below........ "Up to 1.5 million tons of oil, 50 times the pollution unleashed in the Exxon Valdez tanker disaster, has been spilt in the ecologically precious Niger Delta over the past 50 years, it was revealed yesterday." http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa...icle1930130.ece
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Mar 5 2007, 03:32 PM) [snapback]400511[/snapback]</div> over the past 50 years - how about trends and where the heck is the niger delta? is that a US terrortory or something where we regulate transport of oil into and out of? what about soviet oil spills - that great bastion of socialism and communism - i bet our capitalistic society is kinder to the environment than that failed social experiment was?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 5 2007, 04:37 PM) [snapback]400519[/snapback]</div> The libertarian crying inadequate regulation. Hahahahahahahhaha. The spills are not by local companies, but by the US and British. Left conveniently by their mother countries to embrace unencumbered capitalism, they destroy environmental treasures. That is fact; your silly ideology of the invisible guiding hand does not reflect reality. For the ignorant: the niger delta holds the same ecological importance to Nigeria and surrounding countries, as the Nile delta does to Egypt and Northern Africa, or the Mississippi delta does to the Southern US.
Great responses. I'll take this time to present David Korten's talk on his book "The Great Turning". How do your credentials stack up to his? LOL 31minutes long. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=42...orten&hl=en
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Mar 4 2007, 08:28 PM) [snapback]400064[/snapback]</div> Agreed - but I was surprised you didn't carry the third option ( a blended ism) to the current political system - a third party that can take the strengths of what the two major parties are supposed to stand for... but that would require some significant reform which I fear will not happen anytime soon.
