Discourse and Discussion - Cap/Com

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by pchang
So, I had 7 children out of wedlock and am trying to get out of paying child support. Don't hate the playa, hate the game.

Nothing will ever really get solved if you keep shifting responsibility away from the truly responsible parties.

I don't mean that people shouldn't be held responsible, but you have to solve the problem.

[Agathon]

Did you read what you just wrote? You just said that consumers will do things that make them less happy.

Like competitive consumption?

[BlackCat]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by pchang


So, any faults are the responsibility of the consumer. What you are saying is that consumers are too

Originally posted by pchang


So, any faults are the responsibility of the consumer. What you are saying is that consumers are too stupid/lazy/greedy to be trusted to make such decisions.

Late answer. Consumers are certainly stupid/lazy/greedy - especially when we are talking about the last two points. They goes for the cheapiest bargain that they can get with the lowest movement possible.

One thing though : it's a natural thing, so don't blame people for doing what comes natural.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I don't mean that people shouldn't be held responsible, but you have to solve the problem.

Witch is ?

It might be easier to solve the problem if it's known.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Witch is ?

It might be easier to solve the problem if it's known.

To limit polution to a socially acceptable level.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Kidicious


To limit polution to a socially acceptable level.

I don't know what to say except

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Agathon


The obvious solution is for the state to step in and enact punitive anti-pollution laws. Of course, it is then in the interest of corporations to bypass those laws as best they can and spend money on lobby groups so as to defend themselves against losses to other businesses in other sectors who don't need to pollute as much.

That is how pollution is created, by the market mechanism.

I dissent.

The obvious solution is to create incentive not to pollute. Tax breaks etc. for finding ways to curtail pollution. Emissions credits for trading to allow free market forces to incent pollution reduction if society really wants it.

Course as we all should know pollution is mostly created by the consumer and not the industry as a function of production perse. In any event, the market and soceity have by and large already decided the 'need' for pollution reduction. OTOH, if big old all seeing governement who knows best for all us wants to incent consumers to buy greener alternatives again the best mehtod is the carrot approach as opposed to the punitive stick approach IMO via tax breaks, credits, etc.

[Agathon]

The obvious solution is to create incentive not to pollute. Tax breaks etc. for finding ways to curtail pollution.

How dare the state interfere in the market!!!

But if you'll allow that, I can think of lots of other areas we can take out of private hands for the public good.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
OTOH, if big old all seeing governement who knows best for all us wants to incent consumers to buy greener alternatives again the best mehtod is the carrot approach as opposed to the punitive stick approach IMO via tax breaks, credits, etc.

How about tax credits? For all the people who don't buy SUVs.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Japher
I have recently become aware that many people use the words efficient and effective interchangably; saying one when they mean the other.

Exactly! Further, people supporting one side or the other make an unstated assumption about what is being measured.

Originally posted by pchang
But why is there a competitive advantage in polluting in the first place? It is because of the short sightedness and greed/laziness of the consumers. Consumers (with their choices) can just as easily punish polluters as the government. Corporations could bypass this by covering up their polluting activities, but then investigative reporters from the free press might expose this and cause even greater punishment from consumers.

There is a competitive advantage because it costs money to enact pollution controls. If you don't sepnd that money then it can be invested in other ways, increasing productivity, for example.

I'm not sure shortsightedness and greed of consumers is accurate. Most consumers polled say they would prefer to buy products that don't damage the environment, treat workers fairly, etc. The problem is, they do not get accurate information. The other problem is limited means. Organic food, fore example, costs signifigantly more than non-organic, and with most people spending 105% of their income these days, people make short-term decisions. After all, if you don't surive the short-term, the long term isn't part of the equation.

As far as investigative reporters go, it's very rare that they do this kind of real journalism. Large corporations are well stocked with lawyers to make media companies lives miserable, even if they win. Remember what happened to Oprah. In Florida in the mid-90s, an investigative couple working for Fox News was fired when they reported on bovine growth hormone. Industry feeds the media, via advertizing. You don't bite the hand that feeds you, which is why most "investigative" reporting these days is about billy bob's dog shed and how he makes his dog stay outside in the rain.

Finally, people are the product of their system. A short-sighted, greedy system (capitalism) will produce short-sighted, greedy people. People are not naturally this way. People have not always been this way. People don't have to be this way. In a system where it is disadvantageous to be short-sighted and greedy, people will not be short-sighted and greedy.

[pchang]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Finally, people are the product of their system. A short-sighted, greedy system (capitalism) will produce short-sighted, greedy people. People are not naturally this way. People have not always been this way. People don't have to be this way. In a system where it is disadvantageous to be short-sighted and greedy, people will not be short-sighted and greedy.

I cannot think of any significant periods in history where people have not behaved in short-sighted or greedy ways.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

no one has mentioned why pollution doesnt work with a free market - because it is an externality

you can tax it to get rid of this externality so that the company will reduce pollution to a level that doesnt affect other industries around it in a negative way

there is also the free market system, where you give a target year (2010) and give you credits to each firm. by trading these credits, it gives incentives for some companies to invest in greener alternatives and the buyers will keep polluting at the same rate. by 2010, the industry collectively will produce less pollution, but some individual firms will still produce the same as in 2005. either way, it works, and this is how the free market can reduce pollution

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kidicious


How about tax credits? For all the people who don't buy SUVs.

Actually incentirves work great despite your little tongue in cheek comments. For example, incentives to go for fuel cell cars and/or hybrids would work fine. It worked very well back in the 70's during the oil shortages.

LoA,

Your point is what Aggie and I have discussed in the past . He adamantly asusmes the only effective means at curtailing pollution is via punitive state action. I think that naivete as that simply causes the global pollution shell game to ensue such that pollution is simply shifted to the areas of the world least ikely to do squat about it. Instead as you indicate there are more meaningful ways to incent industry via some form of profit incentive to curtail pollution. Pollution credits are one very valid form.

This of course assumes that society as whole feels it is worth doing.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

by taxing, you arnt giving them incentive to get more efficient at producing, in other words, the ratio of GDP:Pollution will stay the same.

to break this, you need incentives to invest, and the system i proposed works best because some firms will invest and make money off of selling their credits and others will simply buy credits, and in the end, total pollution goes down and you break the gdpollution ratio.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by pchang
I cannot think of any significant periods in history where people have not behaved in short-sighted or greedy ways.

Most people under feudalism did not. The Hopi Indians did not. Many American Indian tribes did not.