3 ms·

Ask a Republican or Democrat what is more important, capitalism or the environment (safe environment for future generations)? Neither will be able to give you a

Ask a Republican or Democrat what is more important, capitalism or the environment (safe environment for future generations)? Neither will be able to give you a straight answer.

convolvatron 5y ago
apparently we can either cause major damage to the planet or all go live in caves. either we have to lay off the market completely for it to work its magic or its totalitarian communism. certainly I have a heard a republican answer - double down on consumption and the market will figure out a way (I call this this 'shoot the moon' idea from hearts). the best thing about the market is that its highly adaptive. we should change the ground slowly and let it adapt. I guess that would be 'choosing the winners'
DFHippie 5y ago
What? What is your answer? I assume by capitalism you mean economic prosperity. Climate change is going to be terrible for economic prosperity. On the other hand, there are a lot of jobs to be had addressing climate change. The problem isn't that we have to choose between economic prosperity and doing something about the climate, but that certain vested interests will be harmed. If you've invested billions in prospecting for fossil fuels and buying up mineral rights your ox is going to be gored. These people, who only foresee a few more decades of life before them anyway, have a lot of spare cash to invest in propaganda to change the subject, confuse issues, and divide the electorate. Telling people that they have to choose between the economy and the climate is one of the ways they do this. Don't buy it.
- encryptluks2 5y ago
  > On the other hand, there are a lot of jobs to be had addressing climate change. The environment is real, and no matter how much we pretend to care about it, the artificial economy will continue to take priority as long as capitalism is around.
ericd 5y ago
Put a heavy price on carbon externalities, let the free market do its work. It will heavily incentivize local manufacturing and onshoring in general, so it should result in a hell of a lot of local job creation.
- ifyoubuildit 5y ago
  Not disagreeing with what you're saying, but is that the right terminology? Once you start pulling levers and putting thumbs on scales like that, is it still a "free" market?
  - ericd 5y ago
    People always argue about this when it comes up, it’s basically the no true Scotsman thing. Call it what you want, but it’s generally a lot more “free market” than targeted subsidies/penalties designed by legislators - eg $5000 back if you buy an EV, but only if that manufacturer has sold less than 500,000 cars, and a bonus if it was made in a union shop with x% American parts.
    - ifyoubuildit 5y ago
      Like I said, I'm not opposed to what you're saying, it just seems like calling it the free market is just distracting from your point, which is to solve this with regulations. The contradiction kind of jumped out at me, and it sounds like it has jumped out at others before based on what you said. Your original comment could be paraphrased as "regulate the market and then let the unregulated market do its magic." Why not just avoid all that and just take out the "free" part? Its the market part thats doing the work.
      - ericd 5y ago
        Maybe you're right, feel free to ignore the "free" if it makes it make more sense, the "free" part wasn't the point so much as letting the market decide where carbon is worth a steep price and where it isn't.
  - 5y ago
somewhereoutth 5y ago
It's not really an either or question, and, unlike the environment, 'capitalism' seems to have different meanings to different people, often somewhat divergent from its proper definition. Let's take capitalism to mean capital allocation by independent profit seeking entities within a (state mandated) market framework. Such a system has turned out to be fairly efficient at resource allocation, in purely economic terms, compared to e.g. central planning. It encourages the rule of law, requiring as it does strong property protections. Since actors are expected to be independent, it also fits nicely with ideas of personal freedom (at least, for capital owners anyway). Unfortunately, in its remorseless drive for greater extractive efficiency, it tends to trash anything external to the market system within whose logic it operates. Namely, the health and dignity of workers, and the environment.

Ask a Republican or Democrat what is more important, capitalism or the environment (safe environment for future generations)? Neither will be able to give you a straight answer.

convolvatron 5y ago

apparently we can either cause major damage to the planet or all go live in caves. either we have to lay off the market completely for it to work its magic or its totalitarian communism. certainly I have a heard a republican answer - double down on consumption and the market will figure out a way (I call this this 'shoot the moon' idea from hearts). the best thing about the market is that its highly adaptive. we should change the ground slowly and let it adapt. I guess that would be 'choosing the winners'

DFHippie 5y ago

What? What is your answer? I assume by capitalism you mean economic prosperity. Climate change is going to be terrible for economic prosperity. On the other hand, there are a lot of jobs to be had addressing climate change. The problem isn't that we have to choose between economic prosperity and doing something about the climate, but that certain vested interests will be harmed. If you've invested billions in prospecting for fossil fuels and buying up mineral rights your ox is going to be gored. These people, who only foresee a few more decades of life before them anyway, have a lot of spare cash to invest in propaganda to change the subject, confuse issues, and divide the electorate. Telling people that they have to choose between the economy and the climate is one of the ways they do this. Don't buy it.

encryptluks2 5y ago
> On the other hand, there are a lot of jobs to be had addressing climate change. The environment is real, and no matter how much we pretend to care about it, the artificial economy will continue to take priority as long as capitalism is around.

ericd 5y ago

Put a heavy price on carbon externalities, let the free market do its work. It will heavily incentivize local manufacturing and onshoring in general, so it should result in a hell of a lot of local job creation.

ifyoubuildit 5y ago
Not disagreeing with what you're saying, but is that the right terminology? Once you start pulling levers and putting thumbs on scales like that, is it still a "free" market?
- ericd 5y ago
  People always argue about this when it comes up, it’s basically the no true Scotsman thing. Call it what you want, but it’s generally a lot more “free market” than targeted subsidies/penalties designed by legislators - eg $5000 back if you buy an EV, but only if that manufacturer has sold less than 500,000 cars, and a bonus if it was made in a union shop with x% American parts.
  - ifyoubuildit 5y ago
    Like I said, I'm not opposed to what you're saying, it just seems like calling it the free market is just distracting from your point, which is to solve this with regulations. The contradiction kind of jumped out at me, and it sounds like it has jumped out at others before based on what you said. Your original comment could be paraphrased as "regulate the market and then let the unregulated market do its magic." Why not just avoid all that and just take out the "free" part? Its the market part thats doing the work.
    - ericd 5y ago
      Maybe you're right, feel free to ignore the "free" if it makes it make more sense, the "free" part wasn't the point so much as letting the market decide where carbon is worth a steep price and where it isn't.
- 5y ago

somewhereoutth 5y ago

It's not really an either or question, and, unlike the environment, 'capitalism' seems to have different meanings to different people, often somewhat divergent from its proper definition. Let's take capitalism to mean capital allocation by independent profit seeking entities within a (state mandated) market framework. Such a system has turned out to be fairly efficient at resource allocation, in purely economic terms, compared to e.g. central planning. It encourages the rule of law, requiring as it does strong property protections. Since actors are expected to be independent, it also fits nicely with ideas of personal freedom (at least, for capital owners anyway). Unfortunately, in its remorseless drive for greater extractive efficiency, it tends to trash anything external to the market system within whose logic it operates. Namely, the health and dignity of workers, and the environment.