Discourse and Discussion - Cap/Com

[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.

[BustaMike]

Capcom. As I recall, they made some pretty good fighting games back in the day. Street Fighter 2 Turbo anyone

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by GePap
Capitalism =/ free market, first of all.

You can have a free market of lots of things, never including capital (free market of trading cards)

That was my two cents to this never ending debate.

Theoretically I suppose, if you wanted to call it calitalism, but noncapital free marketism seems more appropriate.

Anyway, just making a token showing before I have to leave soon.

I'll be back.

[GePap]

Originally posted by pchang
To really debate this we need to agree on what it means to be Capitalist, Socialist, and Communist. We need to agree on how it is that they operate. Only then can we debate about their relative strengths and weaknesses.

I agree completely.

[Agathon]

But why is there a competitive advantage in polluting in the first place?

Isn't it obvious?

Let's say that ten companies are involved in heavy industrial production. They all have the same kind of equipment and all are competitive.

Then someone invents a new kind of machinery that improves production efficiency by 50%. The downside is that it releases large amounts of pollution into the atmosphere.

So. Each CEO of these companies has a decision to make. If he installs the machinery, he will gain a competitive advantage over the rival firms. If he doesn't, then one or more of the other firms will beat him to it and he will be at a competitive disadvantage.

So he has a decision to make. The possible range of decisions is contained in this schema:

1) I install the machinery, no-one else does. (best for me, I have big advantage)

2) No-one installs the machinery. (second best, no advantage but I don't spend the money installing the equipment)

3) Everyone installs the machinery. (third best, no advantage and I'm out of pocket),

4) I don't install the machinery, everyone else does (Worst: everyone else has a competitive advantage over me).

Since he can't control what the others do, he can only choose between 1 and 2 and 3 and 4, and since 1 is better than 2 and 3 is better than 4, it is rational to choose to install the machinery.

But everyone will do this, and we will end up with three. Since two is better than three, why doesn't everyone refrain? Answer: there is nothing stopping them and no reason to trust your competitors.

The result is an increase in pollution, which the companies do not pay for (unless some pinko commie goverment enacts pollution controls). Who pays for the pollution? Joe Public, by breathing it in.

Why don't the CEO's worry about breathing in pollution? Because they make so much money out of it that they don't care (they prefer the increase in income to the health risks). But Joe Public doesn't see any of that money.

Let's say pollution controls are enacted. This means that industry sectors that gain a competitive advantage from polluting will be at a disadvantage to those who don't. Hence, organizations like "The Coal Burners of America" will be formed to lobby the government to repeal the pollution laws. There's a lot of money to be made by polluting, so the bribes can get quite big. Joe Public can't afford to effectively bribe politicians, so the polluters get their way (look at what Bush has done).

[Agathon]

OT: I just saw the funniest thing on CBC.



The CBC politics roundtable was discussing Prime Minister Paul Martin's effectiveness/evasiveness/weakness in response to Bush and they were chatting merrily away about him.

He must have been outside watching and walked into the studio smiling and waving to bum them all out.

You should have seen their faces.

[BlackCat]

As i see it, capitalism is the right way, but not in it's pure way. Raw capitalism will of course pollute and abuse since that in the short term will give the highest profit, but i think that this is generally accepted as a wrong way of implementing capitalism.

Capitalism as such is a good tool as long as it is limited by certain rules. Those can be evironmental, related to workers etc. That is "don't pollute"; don't get your workers into harms way, or for that case, your neighbours.

If i'm not wrong, then most anti capitalists stiil se capitalism as it was implemented in british factories in the 18`enth century, and taht has nothing to do with todays capitalism.By law enforcement companies are either forced to not doing environmental damage or by taxation urged to act sensible. Capitalistic copanies don't pollute or do envirnmental damage because they want, but because it's the cheapest - raising the price for that and they stop.

Capitalism is also accused of hire and fire - well, that's only sensible. If they don't they end up going bankrupcy and then everybody looses their jobs. I certainly think it's better that a company continues with a reduced staff than it has to close down forever.

In the "good old days", companies and unions was deadly (litteraly) enemies, but in modern capitalism they actually supports each others. If a company is forced to reduce, then both copany and union takes their lot in reeducation and finding new jobs for the fired.

I know that it may sound like fantasy for some, but i don't care - it works here and we are in the top ten of the richest countries; has very little pollution (some left wing fantatics claims otherwise but can't prove it) and are stiil renewing ourselves (that is : when old production get oblsolete/moved to cheaper contries, then we find new things to do),

[Japher]

to engineers polution is seen as waste... everything that leaves a plant should technically make money.

Not to mention that the less efficient a combustion process is, the more pollution it creates.

[Agathon]

If i'm not wrong, then most anti capitalists stiil se capitalism as it was implemented in british factories in the 18`enth century, and taht has nothing to do with todays capitalism

Been to a third-world sweatshop lately?

to engineers polution is seen as waste... everything that leaves a plant should technically make money

But it doesn't.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by pchang
To really debate this we need to agree on what it means to be Capitalist, Socialist, and Communist. We need to agree on how it is that they operate. Only then can we debate about their relative strengths and weaknesses.

That's impossible though.

[Japher]

But it doesn't.

nope, there's a cost/reward ration that determines how much a capitalist company will polute. The reward value is based on corprate image and costs to polute over baseline.

Can that be done in a socialist economy? Or, if some polutes/wastes too much they will get shut down? I don't know.

[Kidlicious]

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.

Also, is the true goal of an economic policy wealth more so than independence?

Does a capitalist society supply this most effectively or most efficiently?

I would be one to say that a capitalist society is very wasteful with money and is therefor not very efficient. However, in most situations it obtains it's intended goal, whether that be independence or wealth... Thus, it would be effective.

IMO, a socialist economic policy may be more efficient in the long wrong, but is incapable of being effective without a reduction in the efficiency when applied to a larger scale, and the larger the scale the lower the effectiveness and the lower the efficiency... maybe not linear, but close as the scale approaches some value.

Capitalism, however, does not react that way. It can untie the pairing of effectiveness and efficiency if it so desires. However, we have not reached the magnitude of an economy in order to do so (though some environmentalist would beg to differ).

Why is this?

Opportunity and Motivational factors

I'm interested in this post, but I can't grasp the central meaning.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Capitalism may have created a situation where the rate of pollution increased (and it surely did), but that's not nearly the same thing as outright causing it.

But we make a trade off between more economic production and less polution. Somewhere there is an optimal level. You could say that capitalism creates too much polution by creating too much economic production, there by leaving society less well off.

[Agathon]

nope, there's a cost/reward ration that determines how much a capitalist company will polute. The reward value is based on corprate image and costs to polute over baseline.

Image matters squat when profits are at stake.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by pchang
It is because of the short sightedness and greed/laziness of the consumers.

Because there is no cost to poluting (embodied in the product), the consumers don't alter their consumption habits. So polution is because of capitalism.