9 ms·

Negative externalities born by the public, but profits go to shareholders.

mhh__ 6y ago
Exactly, I really hope a coalition can form (around the world) between all opposed to this kind of policy (be they capitalists, anti-capitalists etc.). These corrupt distortions will kill the planet and harm the west.
- smhost 6y ago
  The problem is that when you create an international coalition powerful enough to control capital and to go against its logic, you've built a communism. Under that system, the common ideological space (what yuval noah harai calls "the greatest story ever told") comes under an active, deliberate intervention by a political will, and there's just no way the people in power are ever going to share in the kind of control they enjoy now.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    Why? If I organise enough people to vote to end subsidies like those featured in the article, I have created communism? What is practised in the west isn't even along a socialism-capitalism axis, it's just corruption. That is a problem in any society held together by words.
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      Why is corruption a problem specifically in a society held together by words? In what kind of society wouldn't it be a problem?
      - mhh__ 6y ago
        The remark was mostly to point out that we can and should aim for better, but we don't. I'm a bit drunk so excuse any poor oracy
  - Spooky23 6y ago
    No, you build communism when you transfer the asset to the people or the state. The supremacy of the sovereign over commerce has nothing at all to do with communism. Under US law, the Congress has nearly unlimited power to regulate interstate commerce, which by modern standards can be applied to almost all commercial activity. US policy tuned this down considerably from the 1960s onward. You’ll find that if you actually read about what some of the illustrious founders thought about regulatory authority, the average modern conservative in particular would be clutching their pearls. Hell, George Washington mustered a small army to collect (ie seize) excise taxes from hillbillies in Western Pennsylvania!
    - DetroitThrow 6y ago
      >Under US law, the Congress has nearly unlimited power to regulate interstate commerce As intended: Jefferson chose the term "pursuit of happiness" rather than "estate" (unlike Locke's earlier formulation) in the declaration of independence because all of the founding fathers viewed commerce and property as a function or construct of society, rather than a natural right in itself.
      - gumby 6y ago
        And because the word “happiness” at the time meant something more like felicity or properness, not pleasure or “near joy” as it does today.
        DetroitThrow 6y ago
        Yes! There is even further context to break down about what we originally formulated our natural rights to address; it's something I think all American's interested in their rights should read into.
      - IncRnd 6y ago
        all of the founding fathers viewed commerce and property as a function or construct of society, rather than a natural right in itself Your interpretation goes against the Founder's stated beliefs. The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen, in his person and property, and in their management. ~ Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1816 In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. ... Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own. ~ James Madison, Essay on Property Government is instituted no less for the protection of the property than of the persons of individuals. ~ James Madison, Federalist 54 the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate ... is the first object of government ~ James Madison, Federalist 10 And, if we read Locke's own words: The necessity of pursuing happiness [is] the foundation of liberty. As therefore the highest perfection of intellectual nature lies in a careful and constant pursuit of true and solid happiness; so the care of ourselves, that we mistake not imaginary for real happiness, is the necessary foundation of our liberty. ~ https://www.pursuit-of-happiness.org/history-of-happiness/john-locke/
- winstonewert 6y ago
  The problem, I think, with this is that while both capitalists and anti-capitalists oppose this policy, they view it differently. For capitalists, this is a corruption of the ideal market system. Consequently, it makes sense to try and advocate for a correct to those policies. For anti-capitalists, this is the nature of the market system. Consequently, it makes no sense to advocate for correcting these policies, the whole system needs to be uprooted.
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  What does "the west" have to do with this?
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    I think we have a moral duty to have a strong and confident western world (with or without the US) to act united against countries like russia and china.
  - xkcd-sucks 6y ago
    It's a good counterpoint to people that invoke nationalism as a reason to allow shitty business/environmental practice
fogetti 6y ago
But hey! It's trickle down economics, you know!
- avs733 6y ago
  I donut remember Reagan ever specifying what would trickle down...just that something would
  - hindsightbias 6y ago
    IDK why libertarians complain about anything. We’re living in a Reagan-Friedman Paradise.
ves 6y ago
The classic reference, for those who want to explore on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_for_the_rich_and_capitalism_for_the_poor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_for_the_rich_and_cap...
- twelvechairs 6y ago
  Also "Privatise the profits, socailise the losses"
rayiner 6y ago
That’s not how commodity markets, like for oil and gas work. If the entire industry saves $280 billion, they don’t declare a giant dividend. The industry is extremely competitive, and the price of gas is very sensitive to changes in the cost of extracting the gas. If you forced operators to say pay the costs of capping wells up front, those costs would almost entirely be passed onto the consumer. Since almost everyone uses gas, people are just going to be paying money they saved earlier through cheaper gas. More generally, the “but profits!” view of the world isn’t very useful when applied to highly competitive industries. Yeah, Purdue makes a lot of money in absolute terms, but it makes cents on each chicken. Consumers are the ones that mainly benefit from factory farming in the form of lower prices. Focusing on “profits” overlooks the real economic issue: people like cheap gas, chicken, and other commodities. Down voters: There is nothing here to “disagree” with. The fact that gas prices closely track costs of extracting oil is not only Econ 101, its well established empirically.
- __s 6y ago
  I'd rather pay for my gas when I'm paying for my gas, as opposed to regardless of my consumption of gas. That way there's incentives to reduce consumption
- acjohnson55 6y ago
  So let it be more expensive by internalizing the costs. Society will adjust. After all, Americans use an astounding amount of energy. I get your point on the competitiveness of the industry, but let's be real, a lot of people are, indeed, making money and socializing the costs.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    I’m not making a normative point about what we should do. I’m describing what’s happening. Econ 101 also tells us that failing to internalize an externality will result in more than an efficient amount of that thing being used, because it’s artificially cheap. So if I were to comment on it, I would support internalizing that cost up front. Rhetoric about “but profits!” is good for creating narratives and selling newspapers. But it’s not good at actually helping fix the problem. The oil & gas industry has a 5.6% profit margin. Profit is not a relevant discussion when it comes to the oil and gas industry. Also, insofar as there aren’t good alternatives to oil, oil companies might make even more money if you force them to pay the cost of capping wells ip front. That increases their up-front investment which means they’ll demand a higher return on the backend. The problem is that presidential approval ratings closely track gas prices at the pump, and politicians won’t do anything that will cause gas prices to go up. This is entirely a decision for consumers to make. Do we want to pay more at the pump know, or pay more in the cost of capping wells 20 years from now?
jlarocco 6y ago
If we had a working government, we'd raise their taxes and add registration fees to cover the costs. In our actual government, though, their lobbiests would kill that immediately.

Exactly, I really hope a coalition can form (around the world) between all opposed to this kind of policy (be they capitalists, anti-capitalists etc.). These corrupt distortions will kill the planet and harm the west.

smhost 6y ago
The problem is that when you create an international coalition powerful enough to control capital and to go against its logic, you've built a communism. Under that system, the common ideological space (what yuval noah harai calls "the greatest story ever told") comes under an active, deliberate intervention by a political will, and there's just no way the people in power are ever going to share in the kind of control they enjoy now.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  Why? If I organise enough people to vote to end subsidies like those featured in the article, I have created communism? What is practised in the west isn't even along a socialism-capitalism axis, it's just corruption. That is a problem in any society held together by words.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    Why is corruption a problem specifically in a society held together by words? In what kind of society wouldn't it be a problem?
    - mhh__ 6y ago
      The remark was mostly to point out that we can and should aim for better, but we don't. I'm a bit drunk so excuse any poor oracy
- Spooky23 6y ago
  No, you build communism when you transfer the asset to the people or the state. The supremacy of the sovereign over commerce has nothing at all to do with communism. Under US law, the Congress has nearly unlimited power to regulate interstate commerce, which by modern standards can be applied to almost all commercial activity. US policy tuned this down considerably from the 1960s onward. You’ll find that if you actually read about what some of the illustrious founders thought about regulatory authority, the average modern conservative in particular would be clutching their pearls. Hell, George Washington mustered a small army to collect (ie seize) excise taxes from hillbillies in Western Pennsylvania!
  - DetroitThrow 6y ago
    >Under US law, the Congress has nearly unlimited power to regulate interstate commerce As intended: Jefferson chose the term "pursuit of happiness" rather than "estate" (unlike Locke's earlier formulation) in the declaration of independence because all of the founding fathers viewed commerce and property as a function or construct of society, rather than a natural right in itself.
    - gumby 6y ago
      And because the word “happiness” at the time meant something more like felicity or properness, not pleasure or “near joy” as it does today.
      - DetroitThrow 6y ago
        Yes! There is even further context to break down about what we originally formulated our natural rights to address; it's something I think all American's interested in their rights should read into.
    - IncRnd 6y ago
      all of the founding fathers viewed commerce and property as a function or construct of society, rather than a natural right in itself Your interpretation goes against the Founder's stated beliefs. The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen, in his person and property, and in their management. ~ Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1816 In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. ... Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own. ~ James Madison, Essay on Property Government is instituted no less for the protection of the property than of the persons of individuals. ~ James Madison, Federalist 54 the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate ... is the first object of government ~ James Madison, Federalist 10 And, if we read Locke's own words: The necessity of pursuing happiness [is] the foundation of liberty. As therefore the highest perfection of intellectual nature lies in a careful and constant pursuit of true and solid happiness; so the care of ourselves, that we mistake not imaginary for real happiness, is the necessary foundation of our liberty. ~ https://www.pursuit-of-happiness.org/history-of-happiness/john-locke/
winstonewert 6y ago
The problem, I think, with this is that while both capitalists and anti-capitalists oppose this policy, they view it differently. For capitalists, this is a corruption of the ideal market system. Consequently, it makes sense to try and advocate for a correct to those policies. For anti-capitalists, this is the nature of the market system. Consequently, it makes no sense to advocate for correcting these policies, the whole system needs to be uprooted.
srtjstjsj 6y ago
What does "the west" have to do with this?
- mhh__ 6y ago
  I think we have a moral duty to have a strong and confident western world (with or without the US) to act united against countries like russia and china.
- xkcd-sucks 6y ago
  It's a good counterpoint to people that invoke nationalism as a reason to allow shitty business/environmental practice

fogetti 6y ago

But hey! It's trickle down economics, you know!

avs733 6y ago
I donut remember Reagan ever specifying what would trickle down...just that something would
- hindsightbias 6y ago
  IDK why libertarians complain about anything. We’re living in a Reagan-Friedman Paradise.

ves 6y ago

The classic reference, for those who want to explore on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_for_the_rich_and_capitalism_for_the_poor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_for_the_rich_and_cap...

twelvechairs 6y ago
Also "Privatise the profits, socailise the losses"

rayiner 6y ago

That’s not how commodity markets, like for oil and gas work. If the entire industry saves $280 billion, they don’t declare a giant dividend. The industry is extremely competitive, and the price of gas is very sensitive to changes in the cost of extracting the gas. If you forced operators to say pay the costs of capping wells up front, those costs would almost entirely be passed onto the consumer. Since almost everyone uses gas, people are just going to be paying money they saved earlier through cheaper gas. More generally, the “but profits!” view of the world isn’t very useful when applied to highly competitive industries. Yeah, Purdue makes a lot of money in absolute terms, but it makes cents on each chicken. Consumers are the ones that mainly benefit from factory farming in the form of lower prices. Focusing on “profits” overlooks the real economic issue: people like cheap gas, chicken, and other commodities. Down voters: There is nothing here to “disagree” with. The fact that gas prices closely track costs of extracting oil is not only Econ 101, its well established empirically.

__s 6y ago
I'd rather pay for my gas when I'm paying for my gas, as opposed to regardless of my consumption of gas. That way there's incentives to reduce consumption
acjohnson55 6y ago
So let it be more expensive by internalizing the costs. Society will adjust. After all, Americans use an astounding amount of energy. I get your point on the competitiveness of the industry, but let's be real, a lot of people are, indeed, making money and socializing the costs.
- rayiner 6y ago
  I’m not making a normative point about what we should do. I’m describing what’s happening. Econ 101 also tells us that failing to internalize an externality will result in more than an efficient amount of that thing being used, because it’s artificially cheap. So if I were to comment on it, I would support internalizing that cost up front. Rhetoric about “but profits!” is good for creating narratives and selling newspapers. But it’s not good at actually helping fix the problem. The oil & gas industry has a 5.6% profit margin. Profit is not a relevant discussion when it comes to the oil and gas industry. Also, insofar as there aren’t good alternatives to oil, oil companies might make even more money if you force them to pay the cost of capping wells ip front. That increases their up-front investment which means they’ll demand a higher return on the backend. The problem is that presidential approval ratings closely track gas prices at the pump, and politicians won’t do anything that will cause gas prices to go up. This is entirely a decision for consumers to make. Do we want to pay more at the pump know, or pay more in the cost of capping wells 20 years from now?

jlarocco 6y ago

If we had a working government, we'd raise their taxes and add registration fees to cover the costs. In our actual government, though, their lobbiests would kill that immediately.