|
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 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.
This is a completely empty statement, because there is no "free market" way of doing that.
|
On November 23 2013 10:35 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 10:33 Sub40APM wrote: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:
[quote]
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
It's not even that. It's just not a game-theoretically viable solution. It is preferrable (assuming rational actors) for both the producer AND the consumer to ignore the external costs and foist them off onto our grandchildren and/or poor suckers in the 3rd world, neither who have a say in the matter.
|
On November 23 2013 08:43 Mohdoo 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? 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.
Yeah, that's reasonable.
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.
Yeah a carbon tax isn't "letting companies crap the world" dumbfuck.
User was warned for this post
|
On November 23 2013 11:02 Acrofales 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. This is a completely empty statement, because there is no "free market" way of doing that.
I am referring to the mechanism where price signals what is the right level of consumption and the cost of that consumption. So all the externalities currently passed onto others would have to come into the price of every item, or at least be as close as possible.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Pretty impressive feat to get Jonny to swear lol.
|
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.
Now you understand why going the cheaper route isn't always cheaper when the externalities aren't socialized... now I finally understand conservatives' favorite saying; "There is no free lunch."
|
On November 23 2013 15:57 Livelovedie 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. Now you understand why going the cheaper route isn't always cheaper when the externalities aren't socialized... now I finally understand conservatives' favorite saying; "There is no free lunch."
There's no mystery about how any of this works. The real issues arehow badly are we going to punish ourselves to fight pollution whether our societal self-flagellation is worth it.
|
Shouldn't you be advocating for personal responsibility instead of taking one for the team that I'm not part of?
|
anyone know what's an unbiased resource that can tell me how each president has adjusted tax rates during their presidency?
|
On November 23 2013 16:50 W2 wrote:
anyone know what's an unbiased resource that can tell me how each president has adjusted tax rates during their presidency?
this help?
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On November 23 2013 16:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 15:57 Livelovedie 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. Now you understand why going the cheaper route isn't always cheaper when the externalities aren't socialized... now I finally understand conservatives' favorite saying; "There is no free lunch." There's no mystery about how any of this works. The real issues arehow badly are we going to punish ourselves to fight pollution whether our societal self-flagellation is worth it.
By 'we' you mean those invested in polluting industries and those who stand to profit from them.
|
yo hacklebeast, the first graph is a little bit biased. Like the information contained is entirely true, but singling out those particular tax brackets is done with a particular message in mind. Do you have one with all of the tax brackets represented?
|
On November 23 2013 17:52 hacklebeast wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 16:50 W2 wrote:
anyone know what's an unbiased resource that can tell me how each president has adjusted tax rates during their presidency? this help? + Show Spoiler +
He asks for an unbiased graph, gets the changes for only those with high income. If that isn't irony crystallized in a single moment, I don't know what is.
|
On November 23 2013 16:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 15:57 Livelovedie 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. Now you understand why going the cheaper route isn't always cheaper when the externalities aren't socialized... now I finally understand conservatives' favorite saying; "There is no free lunch." There's no mystery about how any of this works. The real issues arehow badly are we going to punish ourselves to fight pollution whether our societal self-flagellation is worth it.
Is that from "Thank you for smoking!"? Love a good lobbyist rallying cry!
|
On November 23 2013 08:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 07:44 WhiteDog wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
And here you go again, focussing on minor reality for ideological purposes.
I'm talking facts, it is not good for industrial profit to care for environment and health, period.
Don't refute the arguments, refute the choice of words right ?
|
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.
Absolutely.
As a matter of fact, a rational consumer wouldn't eat poisonous crap at Mc Donald's, wouldn't buy an apple product made by semi-slaves in a sweat shop in China, wouldn't buy oil from companies that ruin whole region in south america, wouldn't buy furnitures made of nice wood when the rain forest disappear at an alarming rate, etc etc etc...
Even being perfectly informed, considering the way food, pharmacologist, energy and so on, industries behave and do, you basically can't live today without making wildly stupid, and ethically questionable choices as a consumer every day of your life.
I can really hardly believe that some people are disconnected enough from reality to believe that consumer responsibility can replace government legislation in order to stop businesses to do atrocious things. But well, people get convinced about some theory and then, they are ready to curve reality as much as necessary to make it match their beliefs. But well after all Leninists also took half the world at one point even though you had evidences every single day that the whole dictatorship of proletariat was not a great idea.
Oh and Johnny called me a dumbfuck. That's quite funny.
|
On November 23 2013 21:01 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 08:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 07:44 WhiteDog wrote: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:
[quote]
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. And here you go again, focussing on minor reality for ideological purposes. I'm talking facts, it is not good for industrial profit to care for environment and health, period. Don't refute the arguments, refute the choice of words right ?
The discussion is over whether or not the phrase "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses" is apt for this discussion. You could call pollution an implicit subsidy or an external cost and be fine. The only thing we're discussing is word choice.
What's the relevance of your fact? How do those external costs matter when the phrase refers to internal costs that produce losses?
|
On November 23 2013 21:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 10:10 KwarK wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Absolutely. As a matter of fact, a rational consumer wouldn't eat poisonous crap at Mc Donald's, wouldn't buy an apple product made by semi-slaves in a sweat shop in China, wouldn't buy oil from companies that ruin whole region in south america, wouldn't buy furnitures made of nice wood when the rain forest disappear at an alarming rate, etc etc etc... Even being perfectly informed, considering the way food, pharmacologist, energy and so on, industries behave and do, you basically can't live today without making wildly stupid, and ethically questionable choices as a consumer every day of your life. I can really hardly believe that some people are disconnected enough from reality to believe that consumer responsibility can replace government legislation in order to stop businesses to do atrocious things. But well, people get convinced about some theory and then, they are ready to curve reality as much as necessary to make it match their beliefs. But well after all Leninists also took half the world at one point even though you had evidences every single day that the whole dictatorship of proletariat was not a great idea. Oh and Johnny called me a dumbfuck. That's quite funny.
I'm glad you've learned to laugh at your flaws 
To your point here, a lot of businesses and NGOs have trouble figuring out if sourcing is ethical or not as well.
|
On November 24 2013 01:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 21:01 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 08:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 07:44 WhiteDog wrote: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:
[quote]
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. And here you go again, focussing on minor reality for ideological purposes. I'm talking facts, it is not good for industrial profit to care for environment and health, period. Don't refute the arguments, refute the choice of words right ? The discussion is over whether or not the phrase "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses" is apt for this discussion. You could call pollution an implicit subsidy or an external cost and be fine. The only thing we're discussing is word choice. What's the relevance of your fact? How do those external costs matter when the phrase refers to internal costs that produce losses?
Why is it that externality that produces loss for the society should not be taken into consideration ?
You have no ground to refute this idea, it's just that for some reason you refuse to see what "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses" means by itself, outside of its usual utilization (too big to fail, etc.).
In my country, people use the sentence "it's always the same who pay", and even if from a pure objective point of view it's not "the same who pay", well everybody understands the sentence you know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Effective_tax_rates%2C_US_high-income.png)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/US_Effective_Corporate_Tax_Rate_1947-2011_v2.jpg)
