5 ms·

Petroleum is literally exhibit number one of the failures of ruthless capitalism in that its negative externalities have led to the possibly irreversible destru

Petroleum is literally exhibit number one of the failures of ruthless capitalism in that its negative externalities have led to the possibly irreversible destruction of our climate. This is not a good start to your argument. > Or a "guaranteed public option"? Or is the idea to have more of a "centrally planned" housing market, where the means of production^W^W^Whousing stock is owned by The People but decisions about how to employ the housing stock is made by the government? Basically yes. The “progressive” position on affordable housing generally calls for major government investment in housing. This is not a new idea; in the U.S., much of the big buildout of middle class housing last century was heavily subsidized by HUD.

tathougies 7y ago
Oh really? I didnt realize it was the petroleum companies who forced people to buy petroleum and not the fact that fossil fuel based transit and energy is technologically superior and easier than any alternative.
- abalone 7y ago
  The concept of negative externalities just completely flew over your head.
  - tathougies 7y ago
    No it didn't. The responsibility of negative externalities due to petroleum does not belong to the oil companies. It mainly rests on the shoulders of the vast majority of people who demand oil, cheaply and widely available. Demand for petroleum is not explained by capitalism, but rather by humanity's collective laziness
jlebar 7y ago
You're saying that the system we have for oil would work but for the fact that governments don't attach a price to oil's negative externalities? This does not seem like much of an argument against a capitalist system! I would call this a win for capitalism then, and a loss for governments sidestepping their obligations to, you know, govern. I am the first person to agree that oil companies have used their money and influence to buy favorable regulations, putting the whole world in danger. On the other hand, this again seems like a failure of government rather than a failure of capitalism. Indeed, the powerful using their influence to protect their interests is something that has happened under every economic system ever tried, no? >> Or a "guaranteed public option"? Or is the idea to have more of a "centrally planned" housing market [...] > Basically yes. Are you familiar with the notion of "the projects"? I wouldn't say this turned out well for anyone... The good news is that the major driver of cost in places like SF isn't actually the cost of building per se but instead is the cost of absurd regulations, causing it to take many years of fighting with NIMBYs just to get a permit to build anything. Solving this morass would be a huge effective subsidy to developers and would cost the public literally nothing. If you're in favor of subsidizing housing development, I hope you're in favor of starting with this?

tathougies 7y ago

Oh really? I didnt realize it was the petroleum companies who forced people to buy petroleum and not the fact that fossil fuel based transit and energy is technologically superior and easier than any alternative.

abalone 7y ago
The concept of negative externalities just completely flew over your head.
- tathougies 7y ago
  No it didn't. The responsibility of negative externalities due to petroleum does not belong to the oil companies. It mainly rests on the shoulders of the vast majority of people who demand oil, cheaply and widely available. Demand for petroleum is not explained by capitalism, but rather by humanity's collective laziness

jlebar 7y ago

You're saying that the system we have for oil would work but for the fact that governments don't attach a price to oil's negative externalities? This does not seem like much of an argument against a capitalist system! I would call this a win for capitalism then, and a loss for governments sidestepping their obligations to, you know, govern. I am the first person to agree that oil companies have used their money and influence to buy favorable regulations, putting the whole world in danger. On the other hand, this again seems like a failure of government rather than a failure of capitalism. Indeed, the powerful using their influence to protect their interests is something that has happened under every economic system ever tried, no? >> Or a "guaranteed public option"? Or is the idea to have more of a "centrally planned" housing market [...] > Basically yes. Are you familiar with the notion of "the projects"? I wouldn't say this turned out well for anyone... The good news is that the major driver of cost in places like SF isn't actually the cost of building per se but instead is the cost of absurd regulations, causing it to take many years of fighting with NIMBYs just to get a permit to build anything. Solving this morass would be a huge effective subsidy to developers and would cost the public literally nothing. If you're in favor of subsidizing housing development, I hope you're in favor of starting with this?