Discourse and Discussion - Cap/Com

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Except there is a question as to whether you can have laws to reduce polution to an acceptable level with capitalism. Anti polution laws hurt profit and jobs. Capitalims depends on both.

Which is why it is necessary to incent rather than deter. Which by the by is actually doing something as opposed to your definition of "not doing something". "Not doing something" would be allowing the status quo means of wasteful manufacturing something communistic societies have a long track record of.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Except there is a question as to whether you can have laws to reduce polution to an acceptable level with capitalism. Anti polution laws hurt profit and jobs. Capitalims depends on both.

err well yes and no. A given industry is hurt by anti-pollution laws but then again there is a whole new environmental industry that crops up where companies find new products and new methods to reduce pollution in a cost -effective way. reducing emissions MAY be an economic driver in situations where a company needs to replace older machinery ( I say "may" since the production in the old polluting method may just be outsourced to a place with less stringent standards)

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I don't find you so civil.

Which is not suprising since you often find those that disagree with you to be uncivil. Also, you are, on some occasions, one of the least civil posters I have encountered.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Which is why it is necessary to incent rather than deter. Which by the by is actually doing something as opposed to your definition of "not doing something". "Not doing something" would be allowing the status quo menas of wasteful manufacturing.

I doubt you will get many supporters for subsidies like these. Look at farm subsidies.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


err well yes and no. A given industry is hurt by anti-pollution laws but then again there is a whole new environmental industry that crops up where companies find new products and new methods to reduce pollution in a cost -effective way. reducing emissions MAY be an economic driver in situations where a company needs to replace older machinery ( I say "may" since the production in the old polluting method may just be outsourced to a place with less stringent standards)

Is what you say real? I don't think so. Polution is at an very unacceptable level, and we have trouble with the economy.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


Which is not suprising since you often find those that disagree with you to be uncivil. Also, you are, on some occasions, one of the least civil posters I have encountered.

It's that I disagree with uncivil people.

[Japher]

"Acceptable"

All because the commies have more important things to complain about...

I see we quiet all the environmentalist and then our pollution levels would be acceptable

[Arrian]

One of the major problems with the fight against pollution is that people aren't willing to spend the time & money to properly test new products and/or chemicals to see if they're potentially hazardous to human health.

This goes to the short-sightedness issue. Companies (or the government) want their products out now now now, and the government doesn't have the willpower to say "no, test it thoroughly first!" Of course, testing is expensive (in both time and money). Other countries who are less gun shy might allow production first and reap the economic rewards...

So a product gets into the market and often is extensively used (and transferred into the environment) before somebody figures out that it's harmful.

From a straight economic perspective, is it smart to do it this way? Maybe, but I have my doubts. The profit to society from the use of some new wundergood may be large, but ultimately these cleanups are, like I said before, extremely expensive in their own right. From a moral/human perspective, I think it's pretty clear that stricter testing should be required.

...

I think there is a pretty big problem w/regard to regulation in small business. It's one thing to demand stronger regulations on waste handling/disposal and point to GE or somesuch large manufacturer. That makes it seem fairly trivial to do inspections & monitor emissions. But how about, say, the dry cleaning industry? There's a bazillion dry cleaners out there, and they pretty much all use hazardous chemicals (tetrachloroethylene). I know from experience that contaminated dry cleaner sites are common. Given the sheer number of them, how do we effectively regulate w/o spending too much on it (and how much is too much?)? We're not talking about installing a sensor in smokestack here, we're talking about sending a government employee out to a place of business and inspecting it. Frequently.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Japher
"Acceptable"

All because the commies have more important things to complain about...

I see we quiet all the environmentalist and then our pollution levels would be acceptable

You don't have to be an environmentalist to find polution unacceptable if someone in your family has lung desease. And I'll be damned if I'm going to pay a corporation for not giving people lung desease. They should pay.

[Arrian]

Kid, did you mean "unacceptable" in your second-to-last post?

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

yeah, thanx

[Arrian]

See how civil I am?

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Farm subsidies are an apples and oranges comparison. Farms subsidies are paying farmers to not produce and to set aside land for reasons of overproduction moreso than environmental protection. Any meaningful 'subsidy' (and note not all incentives need take the form of subsidy as emission credit trading are not necessarily a government subsidy other than the necessity to create the market in the first place) would be tied to per unit production emissions.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
See how civil I am?

-Arrian

You are when you aren't being a capitalist.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Farm subsidies are an apples and oranges comparison. Farms subsidies are paying farmers to not produce and to set aside land for reasons of overproduction moreso than environmental protection. Any meaningful 'subsidy' (and note not all incentives need take the form of subsidy as emission credit trading are not necessarily a government subsidy other than the necessity to create the market in the first place) would be tied to per unit production emissions.

I think it's more like tangerins and oranges. Tax breaks to corporations for not harming our air is not going to be popular. Taxing them would work just fine if they didn't have so much influence in with the govt. That's the real problem.