8 ms·

If only the government had nationalised industry, these bugs would be alive?

by missedthecue 5y ago

ashtonkem 5y ago
[flagged]
- nickff 5y ago
  Historically, the capitalist countries have been much less-polluted ('cleaner') and more environmentally friendly in general than the communist countries. With respect to 'socialist' countries, the correlations depend on exactly how you define socialism, and which countries you include/exclude.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    I think there’s enough contradictory information here to make clear ideological statements like that indefensible. The late USSR was far dirtier than America of the same period, yes, but neither can hold a candle to pre-EPA America or late industrial revolution England. Heck, London had a coal smoke smog in 1952 that killed 10-12K people in a week. Regardless, I find this discussion to be an unwelcome diversion. The USSR is dead, and even most communists don’t want that specific state back. The reality is that today in America we regularly let companies privatize their profits and shift their costs onto all of society. We don’t need to nationalize industry to fix that, and as you correctly point out that might not be sufficient, but we do need to regulate this.
    - nickff 5y ago
      North Korea and Cuba have been disasters, and I think you're wrong about the USSR being cleaner than pre-EPA USA. China has been a mess throughout its self-professed communist history as well; you may dispute its degree of communism, but it certainly has more nationalized industries (of the sort proposed in parent comments) than the USA or any other 'capitalist' country.
      - ashtonkem 5y ago
        I see you’re more interested in hashing out the communism vs. capitalism thing. I am not. Frankly it’s the internet’s most overwrought and under productive argument. All I want to see is industries pay according to the impact that they have on society. This isn’t an inherently socialistic idea, but it would require a change in the way that we currently conceive of capitalism[0]. 0 - Economists generally think that removing these externalities are good for the market. But this runs contrary to the anti-regulation attitude currently in vogue.
        nickff 5y ago
        >"I see you’re more interested in hashing out the communism vs. capitalism thing." No, I just think that most of your previous post was wrong. edit: I see that you added to your post: >"0 - Economists generally think that removing these externalities are good for the market. But this runs contrary to the anti-regulation attitude currently in vogue. " Where have regulations decreased over the medium to long-term (5+ years)? I can't think of any (stable) country which has acted in an anti-regulatory way; do you have any specific examples?
        ashtonkem 5y ago
        > Where have regulations decreased over the medium to long-term (5+ years)? I can't think of any (stable) country which has acted in an anti-regulatory way; do you have any specific examples? This is genuinely quite baffling to me. Ignoring the fact that de-regulation has been an explicit plank of the GOP for my entire life, the US deregulated a ton of stuff since the Reagan era. Airlines, trucking, labor, and the financial industry all saw significant cuts to their regulatory rules. Anti-trust laws have been re-interpreted to be less aggressive[0] leading to more mergers, and regulation of various services have been weakened[1]. Environmental regulations have been a bit of a back-and-forth with executive orders changing things often, but at the state level de-regulation and willful non-enforcement is the norm in some areas. Texas is generally the go-to here, with willful non-enforcement of EPA rules around fracking and the (disastrous) deregulation of the energy market. Trump in particular made industrial de-regulation a goal, and tried to de-regulate a ton of stuff and lock out his successors from changing the rules back. https://climate.law.columbia.edu/climate-deregulation-tracker https://climate.law.columbia.edu/climate-deregulation-tracke... The UK is now finally starting up their deregulatory processes again, now that they're no longer restrained by the EU. They've been greenlighting new pesticides for use, eliminating EU rules around used plastic exports, and allowing private water companies to dump their untreated sewage into the ocean. Personally I'd keep my eye on them the most for de-regulation, because their anti-regulation party has effectively no electable opposition, leaving them entirely without political restraint. Although given the current status of their import woes, I think they might end up not being sufficiently stable for your requirements. 0 - Anti-trust used to be about whether or not a company was "anti-competitive". The new rules determine whether or not a monopoly reduces consumer prices. Whether or not this is good or not, this is effectively a deregulation. 1 - I'm specifically thinking of the end of the fairness doctrine and the deregulation of ISPs.
  - nicoffeine 5y ago
    Totally and completely false. The UK in 1930 was much more polluted than the USSR and China at that time. Making that argument today is possible if you ignore moving practically all manufacturing to a country that happens to be communist. There would be far less pollution in China if they weren't making all of our stuff. It's actually a good example of how unchecked capitalism is always looking for new ways to externalize costs, regardless of the consequences for whoever is left holding the bag. Also, any country that builds infrastructure with taxes and regulates industry is socialist, including the US. The difference is usually that "capitalist" countries have safety net for corporations and the wealthy, while "socialist" countries have safety nets for everyone.
    - nickff 5y ago
      Well, China wasn't communist in 1930; that aside, I think it's tough to get an accurate idea of one specific time in the past, as such I think we're better off trying to understand the general situation over the situation over a longer-term in the USSR. Here is a quote from a self-professed socialist on a socialist website about the environmental situation there: >"On this basis, let me agree with Adam that the damage done to the environment by the Soviet regime and its successor doesn’t remotely bear comparison with that in the West. It was, and remains, catastrophically worse. Particular countries elsewhere, especially in the developing world, have suffered one or another ecological disaster, sometimes of mind-bending dimensions. The USSR managed something in just about every sector of heavy industry to match the worst of them." https://socialist-alliance.org/alliance-voices/ecological-disaster-was-ussr-0 https://socialist-alliance.org/alliance-voices/ecological-di...
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      >The UK in 1930 was much more polluted than the USSR and China at that time. And how industrialized were the USSR and China in 1930? When a larger part of your economy is agrarian you're going to be incapable of polluting the shit out of everything to the same extent as more industrialized nations.
  - istorical 5y ago
    The alternative to 'capitalism as we see it today' is not socialism. It's capitalism without regulatory capture and functional regulatory bodies that have teeth and use them.
- papito 5y ago
  That's too bad. "Corporations are people", my friend, but they can also pump unlimited amounts of money into politics, creating their own laws. Let's not just call out "the government". They are the government. And, no, it's not tinfoil stuff, we know what's going on.
  - Jensson 5y ago
    Politicians taking bribes from companies for creating laws is an example of politicians using their power to enrich themselves. Such politicians will use their power to enrich themselves regardless of what system you use, making such people run the entire economy would guarantee a disaster. What you need is a stronger separation of capital and state.
    - papito 5y ago
      There is no separation of capital and state in the United States anymore. It's just more "gentle". What we have is "broken capitalism". We have a system where government figures trade as if they were teenagers on Robinhood, then disappearing through revolving doors to work for the companies they were supposed to "regulate", we have CEOs running companies into the ground while walking away with riches. This ain't capitalism. It's something.
- Jensson 5y ago
  > the solution to these types of problems are incompatible with capitalism as we practice it today. It isn't, regulations to price in externalities is a cornerstone of modern capitalism as practiced everywhere in the west. If your government isn't doing its job then you shouldn't blame capital, you should blame your government, your voters or the system you use to count votes and elect officials. If companies can just buy politicians then the problem lies with your democracy and not with those companies.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
revolvingocelot 5y ago
The difference between a nationalised industry and a publically-offered industry is that the nationalised industry has a chance of properly dealing with externalities, treating workers properly, ensuring safe long-term functionality, and, y'know, prioritizing the service they're there to provide. This situation is covered by the first, though I bet the things that are killing the insects are hurting us, too.
- oofabz 5y ago
  >nationalised industry has a chance of properly dealing with externalities Do you know the history of the Soviet whaling program? They killed more whales for industry than the West.
  - revolvingocelot 5y ago
    Yes, yes, the USSR was bad. If I allow you to define "nationalised industry" as "something bad the Soviets/CCP/Venezuelans did", then of course it's bad. Contrast that to the concept of a Crown corporation in Canada, which "provide services required by the public that otherwise would not be economically viable as a private enterprise or that do not fit exactly within the scope of any ministry." [0] They can do things like "care about externalities" because they're not expected to make money, but they're still structured as corporations and therefore can have the usual trappings like middle management and competitive salaries and casual Fridays. A famous example would be the Canadian National Railway, which was created by government fiat in 1918 as a response to a bunch of private railways in (less-developed) western Canada running out of government money to feed on and thereby going bankrupt. The diversity of the interests that it inherited allowed it to spin off all sorts of other beneficial Crown corporations recognized by every Canadian, like VIA Rail, Air Canada, and the CBC. Of course, the privatization of Crown corporations is also a great way for right-wing governments to create minor budgetary surpluses to enthrall the plebes while handing over a captive "customer"-base to their already-wealthy friends, and since the 80s it's become a proud tradition. [1] Air Canada, Ontario Hydro, Petro-Canada... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_corporations_of_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_corporations_of_Canada [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Former_Crown_corporations_of_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Former_Crown_corporat...
farias0 5y ago
I mean, probably? If we had elected good officials at least. I'm not defending socialism at all, but if you accept the fact that this kind of thing happens because there's no monetary incentive for the industry to avoid it, then the logical conclusion is that under a system not motivated by profit this would be less likely to happen. But what I'm sure you are aware of this line of thinking. What is the argument against it?
- revolvingocelot 5y ago
  Lots of downvoting, as you're about to find out. For some reason, HN really really hates the idea that there's enormous monetary incentive to ignore existential problems caused by modern capitalism. Probably because, as Jeff Hammerbacher said, "the best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads. That sucks."
  - LanceH 5y ago
    I think HN really hates the histrionics that started this thread, "They heroically died for our capitalist masters". When people talk about HN becoming Reddit, this is one of the things they are talking about.
    - revolvingocelot 5y ago
      > I think HN really hates the histrionics that started this thread, "They heroically died for our capitalist masters". When people talk about HN becoming Reddit, this is one of the things they are talking about. Oh absolutely, it's very clear HN hates that. Redditification is an ever-present threat, as I learned when I turned on showdead and finally saw, in almost every comment section, the root-level graveyards of "Very cool!" etc. But that's an entirely different memeplex. HN hates that, but it also hates the idea that there's enormous monetary incentive to ignore existential problems caused by modern capitalism. One of the ways that displeasure might be shown is whataboutism regarding genuine if unhelpful "histrionics".
    - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
papito 5y ago
How about the middle ground, where the capitalists try to be good citizens and patriotically do not attempt to poison us all for profit, while building escape bunkers in New Zealand, once we are all f---ed back home. Ok, big ask, I know. How about this - they stop gutting the government to a point where any sort of reasonable regulation and oversight is essentially absent. Let's be honest for once about what "small government" stands for.

If only the government had nationalised industry, these bugs would be alive?

ashtonkem 5y ago

[flagged]

nickff 5y ago
Historically, the capitalist countries have been much less-polluted ('cleaner') and more environmentally friendly in general than the communist countries. With respect to 'socialist' countries, the correlations depend on exactly how you define socialism, and which countries you include/exclude.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  I think there’s enough contradictory information here to make clear ideological statements like that indefensible. The late USSR was far dirtier than America of the same period, yes, but neither can hold a candle to pre-EPA America or late industrial revolution England. Heck, London had a coal smoke smog in 1952 that killed 10-12K people in a week. Regardless, I find this discussion to be an unwelcome diversion. The USSR is dead, and even most communists don’t want that specific state back. The reality is that today in America we regularly let companies privatize their profits and shift their costs onto all of society. We don’t need to nationalize industry to fix that, and as you correctly point out that might not be sufficient, but we do need to regulate this.
  - nickff 5y ago
    North Korea and Cuba have been disasters, and I think you're wrong about the USSR being cleaner than pre-EPA USA. China has been a mess throughout its self-professed communist history as well; you may dispute its degree of communism, but it certainly has more nationalized industries (of the sort proposed in parent comments) than the USA or any other 'capitalist' country.
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      I see you’re more interested in hashing out the communism vs. capitalism thing. I am not. Frankly it’s the internet’s most overwrought and under productive argument. All I want to see is industries pay according to the impact that they have on society. This isn’t an inherently socialistic idea, but it would require a change in the way that we currently conceive of capitalism[0]. 0 - Economists generally think that removing these externalities are good for the market. But this runs contrary to the anti-regulation attitude currently in vogue.
      - nickff 5y ago
        >"I see you’re more interested in hashing out the communism vs. capitalism thing." No, I just think that most of your previous post was wrong. edit: I see that you added to your post: >"0 - Economists generally think that removing these externalities are good for the market. But this runs contrary to the anti-regulation attitude currently in vogue. " Where have regulations decreased over the medium to long-term (5+ years)? I can't think of any (stable) country which has acted in an anti-regulatory way; do you have any specific examples?
        ashtonkem 5y ago
        > Where have regulations decreased over the medium to long-term (5+ years)? I can't think of any (stable) country which has acted in an anti-regulatory way; do you have any specific examples? This is genuinely quite baffling to me. Ignoring the fact that de-regulation has been an explicit plank of the GOP for my entire life, the US deregulated a ton of stuff since the Reagan era. Airlines, trucking, labor, and the financial industry all saw significant cuts to their regulatory rules. Anti-trust laws have been re-interpreted to be less aggressive[0] leading to more mergers, and regulation of various services have been weakened[1]. Environmental regulations have been a bit of a back-and-forth with executive orders changing things often, but at the state level de-regulation and willful non-enforcement is the norm in some areas. Texas is generally the go-to here, with willful non-enforcement of EPA rules around fracking and the (disastrous) deregulation of the energy market. Trump in particular made industrial de-regulation a goal, and tried to de-regulate a ton of stuff and lock out his successors from changing the rules back. https://climate.law.columbia.edu/climate-deregulation-tracker https://climate.law.columbia.edu/climate-deregulation-tracke... The UK is now finally starting up their deregulatory processes again, now that they're no longer restrained by the EU. They've been greenlighting new pesticides for use, eliminating EU rules around used plastic exports, and allowing private water companies to dump their untreated sewage into the ocean. Personally I'd keep my eye on them the most for de-regulation, because their anti-regulation party has effectively no electable opposition, leaving them entirely without political restraint. Although given the current status of their import woes, I think they might end up not being sufficiently stable for your requirements. 0 - Anti-trust used to be about whether or not a company was "anti-competitive". The new rules determine whether or not a monopoly reduces consumer prices. Whether or not this is good or not, this is effectively a deregulation. 1 - I'm specifically thinking of the end of the fairness doctrine and the deregulation of ISPs.
- nicoffeine 5y ago
  Totally and completely false. The UK in 1930 was much more polluted than the USSR and China at that time. Making that argument today is possible if you ignore moving practically all manufacturing to a country that happens to be communist. There would be far less pollution in China if they weren't making all of our stuff. It's actually a good example of how unchecked capitalism is always looking for new ways to externalize costs, regardless of the consequences for whoever is left holding the bag. Also, any country that builds infrastructure with taxes and regulates industry is socialist, including the US. The difference is usually that "capitalist" countries have safety net for corporations and the wealthy, while "socialist" countries have safety nets for everyone.
  - nickff 5y ago
    Well, China wasn't communist in 1930; that aside, I think it's tough to get an accurate idea of one specific time in the past, as such I think we're better off trying to understand the general situation over the situation over a longer-term in the USSR. Here is a quote from a self-professed socialist on a socialist website about the environmental situation there: >"On this basis, let me agree with Adam that the damage done to the environment by the Soviet regime and its successor doesn’t remotely bear comparison with that in the West. It was, and remains, catastrophically worse. Particular countries elsewhere, especially in the developing world, have suffered one or another ecological disaster, sometimes of mind-bending dimensions. The USSR managed something in just about every sector of heavy industry to match the worst of them." https://socialist-alliance.org/alliance-voices/ecological-disaster-was-ussr-0 https://socialist-alliance.org/alliance-voices/ecological-di...
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    >The UK in 1930 was much more polluted than the USSR and China at that time. And how industrialized were the USSR and China in 1930? When a larger part of your economy is agrarian you're going to be incapable of polluting the shit out of everything to the same extent as more industrialized nations.
- istorical 5y ago
  The alternative to 'capitalism as we see it today' is not socialism. It's capitalism without regulatory capture and functional regulatory bodies that have teeth and use them.
papito 5y ago
That's too bad. "Corporations are people", my friend, but they can also pump unlimited amounts of money into politics, creating their own laws. Let's not just call out "the government". They are the government. And, no, it's not tinfoil stuff, we know what's going on.
- Jensson 5y ago
  Politicians taking bribes from companies for creating laws is an example of politicians using their power to enrich themselves. Such politicians will use their power to enrich themselves regardless of what system you use, making such people run the entire economy would guarantee a disaster. What you need is a stronger separation of capital and state.
  - papito 5y ago
    There is no separation of capital and state in the United States anymore. It's just more "gentle". What we have is "broken capitalism". We have a system where government figures trade as if they were teenagers on Robinhood, then disappearing through revolving doors to work for the companies they were supposed to "regulate", we have CEOs running companies into the ground while walking away with riches. This ain't capitalism. It's something.
Jensson 5y ago
> the solution to these types of problems are incompatible with capitalism as we practice it today. It isn't, regulations to price in externalities is a cornerstone of modern capitalism as practiced everywhere in the west. If your government isn't doing its job then you shouldn't blame capital, you should blame your government, your voters or the system you use to count votes and elect officials. If companies can just buy politicians then the problem lies with your democracy and not with those companies.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

revolvingocelot 5y ago

The difference between a nationalised industry and a publically-offered industry is that the nationalised industry has a chance of properly dealing with externalities, treating workers properly, ensuring safe long-term functionality, and, y'know, prioritizing the service they're there to provide. This situation is covered by the first, though I bet the things that are killing the insects are hurting us, too.

oofabz 5y ago
>nationalised industry has a chance of properly dealing with externalities Do you know the history of the Soviet whaling program? They killed more whales for industry than the West.
- revolvingocelot 5y ago
  Yes, yes, the USSR was bad. If I allow you to define "nationalised industry" as "something bad the Soviets/CCP/Venezuelans did", then of course it's bad. Contrast that to the concept of a Crown corporation in Canada, which "provide services required by the public that otherwise would not be economically viable as a private enterprise or that do not fit exactly within the scope of any ministry." [0] They can do things like "care about externalities" because they're not expected to make money, but they're still structured as corporations and therefore can have the usual trappings like middle management and competitive salaries and casual Fridays. A famous example would be the Canadian National Railway, which was created by government fiat in 1918 as a response to a bunch of private railways in (less-developed) western Canada running out of government money to feed on and thereby going bankrupt. The diversity of the interests that it inherited allowed it to spin off all sorts of other beneficial Crown corporations recognized by every Canadian, like VIA Rail, Air Canada, and the CBC. Of course, the privatization of Crown corporations is also a great way for right-wing governments to create minor budgetary surpluses to enthrall the plebes while handing over a captive "customer"-base to their already-wealthy friends, and since the 80s it's become a proud tradition. [1] Air Canada, Ontario Hydro, Petro-Canada... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_corporations_of_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_corporations_of_Canada [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Former_Crown_corporations_of_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Former_Crown_corporat...

farias0 5y ago

I mean, probably? If we had elected good officials at least. I'm not defending socialism at all, but if you accept the fact that this kind of thing happens because there's no monetary incentive for the industry to avoid it, then the logical conclusion is that under a system not motivated by profit this would be less likely to happen. But what I'm sure you are aware of this line of thinking. What is the argument against it?

revolvingocelot 5y ago
Lots of downvoting, as you're about to find out. For some reason, HN really really hates the idea that there's enormous monetary incentive to ignore existential problems caused by modern capitalism. Probably because, as Jeff Hammerbacher said, "the best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads. That sucks."
- LanceH 5y ago
  I think HN really hates the histrionics that started this thread, "They heroically died for our capitalist masters". When people talk about HN becoming Reddit, this is one of the things they are talking about.
  - revolvingocelot 5y ago
    > I think HN really hates the histrionics that started this thread, "They heroically died for our capitalist masters". When people talk about HN becoming Reddit, this is one of the things they are talking about. Oh absolutely, it's very clear HN hates that. Redditification is an ever-present threat, as I learned when I turned on showdead and finally saw, in almost every comment section, the root-level graveyards of "Very cool!" etc. But that's an entirely different memeplex. HN hates that, but it also hates the idea that there's enormous monetary incentive to ignore existential problems caused by modern capitalism. One of the ways that displeasure might be shown is whataboutism regarding genuine if unhelpful "histrionics".
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago

papito 5y ago

How about the middle ground, where the capitalists try to be good citizens and patriotically do not attempt to poison us all for profit, while building escape bunkers in New Zealand, once we are all f---ed back home. Ok, big ask, I know. How about this - they stop gutting the government to a point where any sort of reasonable regulation and oversight is essentially absent. Let's be honest for once about what "small government" stands for.