|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 23 2013 06:14 xDaunt wrote:If the business is unprofitable, then the owners will get a poor return -- or even a negative return -- on their investment. Are you guys really so divorced from reality than you'd miss something so fundamental?
They aren't privatizing the pollution, this is the problem.
|
On November 23 2013 06:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 06:43 packrat386 wrote:On November 23 2013 02:10 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 02:02 Roe wrote:
Your Pyrrhonic ignorance isn't endearing. The connection between industrial pollution and health should be fairly obvious by this point. See, this is where the eco-hippies go off the rails. Pollution obviously is a bad thing. However, it is absolutely pointless and idiotic from a policy perspective to look at it as a bad thing without considering the good things that come from activities that cause pollution. You have to look at both sides of the ledger. As it comes to fracking, my point is that the positive side of the ledger GREATLY outweighs the negative side. All that I am seeing in response to that point is a bunch of hypothetical bullshit that does nothing to rebut 70 years of historical reality. you're missing the point of the whole "privatize the gains and socialize the losses" thing. Yeah I get that its basically a bunch of buzzwords, but the point is still legitimate. In the case of most industry all of the positive effects go to the benefit of the private company running it. New tech is awesome and they get to sell it. I don't think anyone is denying that good things come from industry, but that its important to point out that only very recently has industry begun to also feel the costs that come with pollution etc. For most of its history industry has ignored the fact that its processes have negative effects on the population, and its only with great reluctance that they have begun to chip in on the cost of such processes. No, I'm not missing the point. All you guys are doing is pointing out the obvious: that there are some negative externalities associated with fracking, or industry, or whatever. Then, you're holding it up like you have stumbled onto some great truth proving why fracking (which is what we have been discussing) is bad, when in reality you have demonstrated and effectively argued nothing.
All people are arguing is that industry should share the cost as well. I don't think this is some kind of killer argument against fracking (I don't even think fracking is bad ffs). All people are saying is that there is a long history of companies creating massive negative externalities due to pollution etc. and then saying "not our problem". I'm 100% ok with fracking or any other industry as long as any mess that gets made gets cleaned up on the company dime.
|
On November 23 2013 06:56 Livelovedie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 06:14 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 05:57 Livelovedie wrote:
Care to explain how they are? If the business is unprofitable, then the owners will get a poor return -- or even a negative return -- on their investment. Are you guys really so divorced from reality than you'd miss something so fundamental? They aren't privatizing the pollution, this is the problem.
To an extent? Yes. Completely? No.
|
On November 23 2013 07:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 06:56 Livelovedie wrote:On November 23 2013 06:14 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 05:57 Livelovedie wrote:
Care to explain how they are? If the business is unprofitable, then the owners will get a poor return -- or even a negative return -- on their investment. Are you guys really so divorced from reality than you'd miss something so fundamental? They aren't privatizing the pollution, this is the problem. To an extent? Yes. Completely? No.
To an extent should be replaced with "to a meaningless, inconsequential extent"
|
On November 23 2013 06:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 06:50 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 06:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 06:30 Roe wrote:On November 23 2013 06:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 05:53 Livelovedie wrote:On November 23 2013 01:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 01:52 WhiteDog wrote:On November 22 2013 16:35 Danglars wrote:On November 22 2013 15:23 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Because it's hip to say shit that you don't understand.
I've found that I am a much happier poster in this thread when I ignore the one-liner trolls. Gotta include enough buzzwords to give all your friends the idea that they know what it is and agree with you, and all your enemies no idea of what you're actually meaning. Or maybe you're all just a little too limited in your views to understands what he means. All environmental effect of economic activities are case of "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses", just think about the effect of industrial pollutions on health (like athma) and how it impact on social security costs. There are external costs associated with pollution, but I don't think that phrase works. Some of the gains are privatized, but some are socialized as well. Essentially what you have argued is that no gains are 100 percent privatized; that business exist to provide a product instead of to make a profit. The lower prices of fossil fuels is what is being "socialized" in your view. Then you went into some argument about how their should be a carbon tax instead to remove the externalities that they cause. Well there isn't, so I guess the losses are being socialized so that part isn't up for debate. So at best we have reached the conclusion that the companies are privatizing and socializing the gains and socializing the losses. I'm saddened that you view that as an acceptable tradeoff. Pollution affects everyone, polluter included. If you work at a coal plant, your health and productivity will be affected by the pollution. That's not privatizing the losses though is it? There are no "losses" to privatize or socialize. We're already stretching the phrase just to discuss it. The producer will be affected by the pollution, along with the rest of society. The producer will be affected by lower prices, along with the rest of society. Do you understand the word losses ? You think a lower life expectancy in specific city because of the pollution is not a loss ? And the banks are not affected by the crisis like the rest of the society ? Your second point doesn't mean anything. Loss means net loss on a P&L statement. Loss =/= cost. "Privatize the gains / socialize the losses" means a private entity turning a profit, and keeping it, or running at a loss and being covered by the public. The phrase does not refer to a public subsidy. Edit: Show nested quote +In political discourse, the phrase "privatizing profits and socializing losses" refers to any instance of speculators benefitting (privately) from profits, but not taking losses, by pushing the losses onto society at large, particularly via the government. Link
And as I said, if the situation was perfect, or even if the industrials were responsible for the impact of the pollution on people, they would have to pay them, which would represent a loss.
Since they don't, the population has to pay for the impact of the said pollution on health through welfare state, social security, etc. So yeah, loss gain and all. It's all semantic, like always with you.
|
On November 23 2013 07:42 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 07:01 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 06:56 Livelovedie wrote:On November 23 2013 06:14 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 05:57 Livelovedie wrote:
Care to explain how they are? If the business is unprofitable, then the owners will get a poor return -- or even a negative return -- on their investment. Are you guys really so divorced from reality than you'd miss something so fundamental? They aren't privatizing the pollution, this is the problem. To an extent? Yes. Completely? No. To an extent should be replaced with "to a meaningless, inconsequential extent"
So what extent do you propose? Companies are already on the hook civilly and administratively if they pollute outside of set tolerances. Keep in mind that imposing additional costs upon the companies always ends up being passed on to the consumer (us) in one form or another.
|
On November 23 2013 07:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 07:42 Mohdoo wrote:On November 23 2013 07:01 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 06:56 Livelovedie wrote:On November 23 2013 06:14 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 05:57 Livelovedie wrote:
Care to explain how they are? If the business is unprofitable, then the owners will get a poor return -- or even a negative return -- on their investment. Are you guys really so divorced from reality than you'd miss something so fundamental? They aren't privatizing the pollution, this is the problem. To an extent? Yes. Completely? No. To an extent should be replaced with "to a meaningless, inconsequential extent" So what extent do you propose? Companies are already on the hook civilly and administratively if they pollute outside of set tolerances. Keep in mind that imposing additional costs upon the companies always ends up being passed on to the consumer (us) in one form or another.
The status quo passes costs onto the consumer and even the non-consumer. At least it would make people who invest in those companies accountable and responsible for the product.
|
On November 23 2013 07:44 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 06:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 06:50 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 06:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 06:30 Roe wrote:On November 23 2013 06:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 05:53 Livelovedie wrote:On November 23 2013 01:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 01:52 WhiteDog wrote:On November 22 2013 16:35 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Gotta include enough buzzwords to give all your friends the idea that they know what it is and agree with you, and all your enemies no idea of what you're actually meaning. Or maybe you're all just a little too limited in your views to understands what he means. All environmental effect of economic activities are case of "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses", just think about the effect of industrial pollutions on health (like athma) and how it impact on social security costs. There are external costs associated with pollution, but I don't think that phrase works. Some of the gains are privatized, but some are socialized as well. Essentially what you have argued is that no gains are 100 percent privatized; that business exist to provide a product instead of to make a profit. The lower prices of fossil fuels is what is being "socialized" in your view. Then you went into some argument about how their should be a carbon tax instead to remove the externalities that they cause. Well there isn't, so I guess the losses are being socialized so that part isn't up for debate. So at best we have reached the conclusion that the companies are privatizing and socializing the gains and socializing the losses. I'm saddened that you view that as an acceptable tradeoff. Pollution affects everyone, polluter included. If you work at a coal plant, your health and productivity will be affected by the pollution. That's not privatizing the losses though is it? There are no "losses" to privatize or socialize. We're already stretching the phrase just to discuss it. The producer will be affected by the pollution, along with the rest of society. The producer will be affected by lower prices, along with the rest of society. Do you understand the word losses ? You think a lower life expectancy in specific city because of the pollution is not a loss ? And the banks are not affected by the crisis like the rest of the society ? Your second point doesn't mean anything. Loss means net loss on a P&L statement. Loss =/= cost. "Privatize the gains / socialize the losses" means a private entity turning a profit, and keeping it, or running at a loss and being covered by the public. The phrase does not refer to a public subsidy. Edit: In political discourse, the phrase "privatizing profits and socializing losses" refers to any instance of speculators benefitting (privately) from profits, but not taking losses, by pushing the losses onto society at large, particularly via the government. Link And as I said, if the situation was perfect, or even if the industrials were responsible for the impact of the pollution on people, they would have to pay them, which would represent a loss. Since they don't, the population has to pay for the impact of the said pollution on health through welfare state, social security, etc. So yeah, loss gain and all. It's all semantic, like always with you.
And here you go again playing extremely loose with definitions for ideological purposes.
|
On November 23 2013 07:57 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 07:45 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 07:42 Mohdoo wrote:On November 23 2013 07:01 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 06:56 Livelovedie wrote:On November 23 2013 06:14 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 05:57 Livelovedie wrote:
Care to explain how they are? If the business is unprofitable, then the owners will get a poor return -- or even a negative return -- on their investment. Are you guys really so divorced from reality than you'd miss something so fundamental? They aren't privatizing the pollution, this is the problem. To an extent? Yes. Completely? No. To an extent should be replaced with "to a meaningless, inconsequential extent" So what extent do you propose? Companies are already on the hook civilly and administratively if they pollute outside of set tolerances. Keep in mind that imposing additional costs upon the companies always ends up being passed on to the consumer (us) in one form or another. The status quo passes costs onto the consumer and even the non-consumer. At least it would make people who invest in those companies accountable and responsible for the product.
Shouldn't the consumer also be responsible for buying the product and contributing to the pollution?
|
On November 23 2013 08:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 07:57 Roe wrote:On November 23 2013 07:45 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 07:42 Mohdoo wrote:On November 23 2013 07:01 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 06:56 Livelovedie wrote:On November 23 2013 06:14 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 05:57 Livelovedie wrote:
Care to explain how they are? If the business is unprofitable, then the owners will get a poor return -- or even a negative return -- on their investment. Are you guys really so divorced from reality than you'd miss something so fundamental? They aren't privatizing the pollution, this is the problem. To an extent? Yes. Completely? No. To an extent should be replaced with "to a meaningless, inconsequential extent" So what extent do you propose? Companies are already on the hook civilly and administratively if they pollute outside of set tolerances. Keep in mind that imposing additional costs upon the companies always ends up being passed on to the consumer (us) in one form or another. The status quo passes costs onto the consumer and even the non-consumer. At least it would make people who invest in those companies accountable and responsible for the product. Shouldn't the consumer also be responsible for buying the product and contributing to the pollution?
Some things are reasonable and some aren't. The insanely widespread use of non-biodegradable packaging shouldn't make the consumer responsible for finding niche products made of stuff that won't contribute to our waste problem.
I believe in big taxes on SUVs and the like, but it's hard to say consumers can really be held accountable in instances where it's unreasonable to ask them to avoid certain products.
|
On November 23 2013 08:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 07:57 Roe wrote:On November 23 2013 07:45 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 07:42 Mohdoo wrote:On November 23 2013 07:01 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 06:56 Livelovedie wrote:On November 23 2013 06:14 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 05:57 Livelovedie wrote:
Care to explain how they are? If the business is unprofitable, then the owners will get a poor return -- or even a negative return -- on their investment. Are you guys really so divorced from reality than you'd miss something so fundamental? They aren't privatizing the pollution, this is the problem. To an extent? Yes. Completely? No. To an extent should be replaced with "to a meaningless, inconsequential extent" So what extent do you propose? Companies are already on the hook civilly and administratively if they pollute outside of set tolerances. Keep in mind that imposing additional costs upon the companies always ends up being passed on to the consumer (us) in one form or another. The status quo passes costs onto the consumer and even the non-consumer. At least it would make people who invest in those companies accountable and responsible for the product. Shouldn't the consumer also be responsible for buying the product and contributing to the pollution?
Yes that's quite what I meant. And that's what Dauntx argued as well when he said that costs are passed on to the consumer.
|
On November 23 2013 08:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 07:57 Roe wrote:On November 23 2013 07:45 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 07:42 Mohdoo wrote:On November 23 2013 07:01 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 06:56 Livelovedie wrote:On November 23 2013 06:14 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 05:57 Livelovedie wrote:
Care to explain how they are? If the business is unprofitable, then the owners will get a poor return -- or even a negative return -- on their investment. Are you guys really so divorced from reality than you'd miss something so fundamental? They aren't privatizing the pollution, this is the problem. To an extent? Yes. Completely? No. To an extent should be replaced with "to a meaningless, inconsequential extent" So what extent do you propose? Companies are already on the hook civilly and administratively if they pollute outside of set tolerances. Keep in mind that imposing additional costs upon the companies always ends up being passed on to the consumer (us) in one form or another. The status quo passes costs onto the consumer and even the non-consumer. At least it would make people who invest in those companies accountable and responsible for the product. Shouldn't the consumer also be responsible for buying the product and contributing to the pollution?
Yeah so let companies crap the world and say that it's the consumer's fault. That's gonna work.
I would love to be in your head for five minutes to understand how it works. No offense.
|
On November 23 2013 08:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 07:57 Roe wrote:On November 23 2013 07:45 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 07:42 Mohdoo wrote:On November 23 2013 07:01 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 06:56 Livelovedie wrote:On November 23 2013 06:14 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 05:57 Livelovedie wrote:
Care to explain how they are? If the business is unprofitable, then the owners will get a poor return -- or even a negative return -- on their investment. Are you guys really so divorced from reality than you'd miss something so fundamental? They aren't privatizing the pollution, this is the problem. To an extent? Yes. Completely? No. To an extent should be replaced with "to a meaningless, inconsequential extent" So what extent do you propose? Companies are already on the hook civilly and administratively if they pollute outside of set tolerances. Keep in mind that imposing additional costs upon the companies always ends up being passed on to the consumer (us) in one form or another. The status quo passes costs onto the consumer and even the non-consumer. At least it would make people who invest in those companies accountable and responsible for the product. Shouldn't the consumer also be responsible for buying the product and contributing to the pollution?
Have to agree with this attitude. If you support free market solutions to the climate crisis the best way to do it is to minimize the consumer's ability to externalize the costs of their behaviors onto others.
|
On November 23 2013 09:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 08:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 07:57 Roe wrote:On November 23 2013 07:45 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 07:42 Mohdoo wrote:On November 23 2013 07:01 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 06:56 Livelovedie wrote:On November 23 2013 06:14 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 05:57 Livelovedie wrote:
Care to explain how they are? If the business is unprofitable, then the owners will get a poor return -- or even a negative return -- on their investment. Are you guys really so divorced from reality than you'd miss something so fundamental? They aren't privatizing the pollution, this is the problem. To an extent? Yes. Completely? No. To an extent should be replaced with "to a meaningless, inconsequential extent" So what extent do you propose? Companies are already on the hook civilly and administratively if they pollute outside of set tolerances. Keep in mind that imposing additional costs upon the companies always ends up being passed on to the consumer (us) in one form or another. The status quo passes costs onto the consumer and even the non-consumer. At least it would make people who invest in those companies accountable and responsible for the product. Shouldn't the consumer also be responsible for buying the product and contributing to the pollution? Yeah so let companies crap the world and say that it's the consumer's fault. That's gonna work. I would love to be in your head for five minutes to understand how it works. No offense.
But thats how price signals are supposed to work. Right now corporations have incentives to go to crap countries with lax climate controls like China -- among other reasons of course -- so they can sell you a product at a cheaper price than some guy with his factories in America under the watch of EPA. so logically if we equalized the costs to the consumer the incentive to go the higher polluting route will be removed for the businesses involved in pollution.
|
On November 23 2013 09:50 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 08:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 07:57 Roe wrote:On November 23 2013 07:45 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 07:42 Mohdoo wrote:On November 23 2013 07:01 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 06:56 Livelovedie wrote:On November 23 2013 06:14 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 05:57 Livelovedie wrote:
Care to explain how they are? If the business is unprofitable, then the owners will get a poor return -- or even a negative return -- on their investment. Are you guys really so divorced from reality than you'd miss something so fundamental? They aren't privatizing the pollution, this is the problem. To an extent? Yes. Completely? No. To an extent should be replaced with "to a meaningless, inconsequential extent" So what extent do you propose? Companies are already on the hook civilly and administratively if they pollute outside of set tolerances. Keep in mind that imposing additional costs upon the companies always ends up being passed on to the consumer (us) in one form or another. The status quo passes costs onto the consumer and even the non-consumer. At least it would make people who invest in those companies accountable and responsible for the product. Shouldn't the consumer also be responsible for buying the product and contributing to the pollution? Have to agree with this attitude. If you support free market solutions to the climate crisis the best way to do it is to minimize the consumer's ability to externalize the costs of their behaviors onto others.
But what we're talking about isn't really a free market solution if you have something like taxes on companies that pollute.
|
United States43977 Posts
On November 23 2013 09:51 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 09:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 23 2013 08:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 07:57 Roe wrote:On November 23 2013 07:45 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 07:42 Mohdoo wrote:On November 23 2013 07:01 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 06:56 Livelovedie wrote:On November 23 2013 06:14 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 05:57 Livelovedie wrote:
Care to explain how they are? If the business is unprofitable, then the owners will get a poor return -- or even a negative return -- on their investment. Are you guys really so divorced from reality than you'd miss something so fundamental? They aren't privatizing the pollution, this is the problem. To an extent? Yes. Completely? No. To an extent should be replaced with "to a meaningless, inconsequential extent" So what extent do you propose? Companies are already on the hook civilly and administratively if they pollute outside of set tolerances. Keep in mind that imposing additional costs upon the companies always ends up being passed on to the consumer (us) in one form or another. The status quo passes costs onto the consumer and even the non-consumer. At least it would make people who invest in those companies accountable and responsible for the product. Shouldn't the consumer also be responsible for buying the product and contributing to the pollution? Yeah so let companies crap the world and say that it's the consumer's fault. That's gonna work. I would love to be in your head for five minutes to understand how it works. No offense. But thats how price signals are supposed to work. Right now corporations have incentives to go to crap countries with lax climate controls like China -- among other reasons of course -- so they can sell you a product at a cheaper price than some guy with his factories in America under the watch of EPA. so logically if we equalized the costs to the consumer the incentive to go the higher polluting route will be removed for the businesses involved in pollution.
This assumes the consumers has perfect information, both about the environmental policies of the rival companies and the wider impact of their decisions. Capitalism works great if you assume perfect information and rational decision making on the part of consumers but there is strong evidence against both assumptions.
|
On November 23 2013 10:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 09:51 Sub40APM wrote:On November 23 2013 09:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 23 2013 08:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 07:57 Roe wrote:On November 23 2013 07:45 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 07:42 Mohdoo wrote:On November 23 2013 07:01 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 06:56 Livelovedie wrote:On November 23 2013 06:14 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
If the business is unprofitable, then the owners will get a poor return -- or even a negative return -- on their investment. Are you guys really so divorced from reality than you'd miss something so fundamental? They aren't privatizing the pollution, this is the problem. To an extent? Yes. Completely? No. To an extent should be replaced with "to a meaningless, inconsequential extent" So what extent do you propose? Companies are already on the hook civilly and administratively if they pollute outside of set tolerances. Keep in mind that imposing additional costs upon the companies always ends up being passed on to the consumer (us) in one form or another. The status quo passes costs onto the consumer and even the non-consumer. At least it would make people who invest in those companies accountable and responsible for the product. Shouldn't the consumer also be responsible for buying the product and contributing to the pollution? Yeah so let companies crap the world and say that it's the consumer's fault. That's gonna work. I would love to be in your head for five minutes to understand how it works. No offense. But thats how price signals are supposed to work. Right now corporations have incentives to go to crap countries with lax climate controls like China -- among other reasons of course -- so they can sell you a product at a cheaper price than some guy with his factories in America under the watch of EPA. so logically if we equalized the costs to the consumer the incentive to go the higher polluting route will be removed for the businesses involved in pollution. This assumes the consumers has perfect information, both about the environmental policies of the rival companies and the wider impact of their decisions. Capitalism works great if you assume perfect information and rational decision making on the part of consumers but there is strong evidence against both assumptions.
not to belabor the point, but this is the commodity fetish
|
On November 23 2013 09:59 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 09:50 Sub40APM wrote:On November 23 2013 08:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 07:57 Roe wrote:On November 23 2013 07:45 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 07:42 Mohdoo wrote:On November 23 2013 07:01 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 06:56 Livelovedie wrote:On November 23 2013 06:14 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 05:57 Livelovedie wrote:
Care to explain how they are? If the business is unprofitable, then the owners will get a poor return -- or even a negative return -- on their investment. Are you guys really so divorced from reality than you'd miss something so fundamental? They aren't privatizing the pollution, this is the problem. To an extent? Yes. Completely? No. To an extent should be replaced with "to a meaningless, inconsequential extent" So what extent do you propose? Companies are already on the hook civilly and administratively if they pollute outside of set tolerances. Keep in mind that imposing additional costs upon the companies always ends up being passed on to the consumer (us) in one form or another. The status quo passes costs onto the consumer and even the non-consumer. At least it would make people who invest in those companies accountable and responsible for the product. Shouldn't the consumer also be responsible for buying the product and contributing to the pollution? Have to agree with this attitude. If you support free market solutions to the climate crisis the best way to do it is to minimize the consumer's ability to externalize the costs of their behaviors onto others. But what we're talking about isn't really a free market solution if you have something like taxes on companies that pollute. yea I understand, but the appeal of free markets is that they offer as a signalling and coordinating mechanism, and the only way to ensure proper coordination is to make sure all costs are part of your decision making process.
|
On November 23 2013 10:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 09:51 Sub40APM wrote:On November 23 2013 09:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 23 2013 08:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 07:57 Roe wrote:On November 23 2013 07:45 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 07:42 Mohdoo wrote:On November 23 2013 07:01 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 06:56 Livelovedie wrote:On November 23 2013 06:14 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
If the business is unprofitable, then the owners will get a poor return -- or even a negative return -- on their investment. Are you guys really so divorced from reality than you'd miss something so fundamental? They aren't privatizing the pollution, this is the problem. To an extent? Yes. Completely? No. To an extent should be replaced with "to a meaningless, inconsequential extent" So what extent do you propose? Companies are already on the hook civilly and administratively if they pollute outside of set tolerances. Keep in mind that imposing additional costs upon the companies always ends up being passed on to the consumer (us) in one form or another. The status quo passes costs onto the consumer and even the non-consumer. At least it would make people who invest in those companies accountable and responsible for the product. Shouldn't the consumer also be responsible for buying the product and contributing to the pollution? Yeah so let companies crap the world and say that it's the consumer's fault. That's gonna work. I would love to be in your head for five minutes to understand how it works. No offense. But thats how price signals are supposed to work. Right now corporations have incentives to go to crap countries with lax climate controls like China -- among other reasons of course -- so they can sell you a product at a cheaper price than some guy with his factories in America under the watch of EPA. so logically if we equalized the costs to the consumer the incentive to go the higher polluting route will be removed for the businesses involved in pollution. This assumes the consumers has perfect information, both about the environmental policies of the rival companies and the wider impact of their decisions. Capitalism works great if you assume perfect information and rational decision making on the part of consumers but there is strong evidence against both assumptions.
I agree.
|
On November 23 2013 10:33 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 09:59 Roe wrote:On November 23 2013 09:50 Sub40APM wrote:On November 23 2013 08:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 07:57 Roe wrote:On November 23 2013 07:45 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 07:42 Mohdoo wrote:On November 23 2013 07:01 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 06:56 Livelovedie wrote:On November 23 2013 06:14 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
If the business is unprofitable, then the owners will get a poor return -- or even a negative return -- on their investment. Are you guys really so divorced from reality than you'd miss something so fundamental? They aren't privatizing the pollution, this is the problem. To an extent? Yes. Completely? No. To an extent should be replaced with "to a meaningless, inconsequential extent" So what extent do you propose? Companies are already on the hook civilly and administratively if they pollute outside of set tolerances. Keep in mind that imposing additional costs upon the companies always ends up being passed on to the consumer (us) in one form or another. The status quo passes costs onto the consumer and even the non-consumer. At least it would make people who invest in those companies accountable and responsible for the product. Shouldn't the consumer also be responsible for buying the product and contributing to the pollution? Have to agree with this attitude. If you support free market solutions to the climate crisis the best way to do it is to minimize the consumer's ability to externalize the costs of their behaviors onto others. But what we're talking about isn't really a free market solution if you have something like taxes on companies that pollute. yea I understand, but the appeal of free markets is that they offer as a signalling and coordinating mechanism, and the only way to ensure proper coordination is to make sure all costs are part of your decision making process.
which is, of course, a computationally intractable problem
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
