5 ms·

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

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.
      - nickff 5y ago
        I would agree that many specific regulations in the USA have been reduced/eliminated, but overall regulations have steadily increased throughout the last 90+ years. You may be able to pick out one year that they decreased overall (though I can't), but I doubt you can find a 5-year period over which they've decreased (by any measure).

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.
    - nickff 5y ago
      I would agree that many specific regulations in the USA have been reduced/eliminated, but overall regulations have steadily increased throughout the last 90+ years. You may be able to pick out one year that they decreased overall (though I can't), but I doubt you can find a 5-year period over which they've decreased (by any measure).