4 ms·

> Also, the implication that all profit in the system has come about externalities aren't accounted is unsupportable. I'd like to see your calculation on this,

> Also, the implication that all profit in the system has come about externalities aren't accounted is unsupportable. I'd like to see your calculation on this, showing that the enormous profits gains in productivity over the entire industrial and green revolutions are cancelled out by these external costs. Just one report puts the top 100 companies in the primary sector at $7.3 trillion / year in externalized costs related to the environment [1]. Still, measuring these things in capital doesn't capture the problem, since you can't buy back environment and it has far reaching consequences. This doesn't account for social well being either. [1] http://www.teebforbusiness.org/news/article/teeb-for-business-coalition-study-shows-multi-trillion-dollar-natural-capital-risk.html http://www.teebforbusiness.org/news/article/teeb-for-busines... > You just proved my point. I said capitalism is like an ecosystem, you say it's a fallacy, but then go on to say it's not addressing disparity, welfare, environmental destruction, but nature ecosystems don't address these either. There's no social welfare for mothers of calves eaten by apex predators. I see you're back at analogies. Social welfare for calves... what are you talking about anyway? I'm talking about capitalism not providing the best solutions to concrete problems the society faces, despite being - in theory - a system that allows the best solutions to strive. In practice, we know it's parasitic, and the solutions that strive are the ones that move the economy itself forward, in detriment of society.

cromwellian 13y ago
>Just one report puts the top 100 companies in the primary sector at $7.3 trillion / year in externalized costs related to the environment [1]. Still, measuring these things in capital doesn't capture the problem, since you can't buy back environment and it has far reaching consequences. This doesn't account for social well being either. Well, if you want to account for externalities like that, then we need to account for positive externalities not captured by these corporations either, as GDP or profit figures do not adequately capture the difference between a $200 smartphone and a $200 feature phone. >'m talking about capitalism not providing the best solutions to concrete problems the society faces, despite being - in theory - a system that allows the best solutions to strive. In practice, we know it's parasitic, and the solutions that strive are the ones that move the economy itself forward, in detriment of society. Capitalism does not promise to solve global optimization problems which are not priced in or demanded, that's the whole point of having a democracy in order to set the constraints of the game, a negative external feedback system. And best solution to what? If you have an optimization algorithm, you have to set up the constraints so that it optimizes for what you want. Market competition optimizes for the demands of individuals, not for the demands of society. If you want capitalists and entrepreneurs to do this, then the incentives have to encourage a gradient in that direction. If you want more fuel efficient cars, than tax carbon and pollution, the capitalists will quickly find that their profits are dropping as their cars get more expensive and will seek out alternatives. Tax an incandescent lightbulb, and the market will start competing on LEDs and CFLS. You're making the same fallacy people make when talking about "survival of the fittest" in an ecosystem, they think natural selection is optimizing for a certain kind of creature, rather than just the creature that can reproduce the best in that ecosystem. Capitalism is undirected evolution, and if we want it to solve global problems, we need to guide it via political feedback in a mixed economy. You started this thread by trying to criticize the analogy of capitalism to natural selection, but nothing you've said has debunked it. You've criticized capitalism for not solving global first or second order costs, but a market can't solve these problems if there's no price signals for them, in much the same way that species have naturally gone extinct in the past, because individual selection doesn't necessarily select for health of the group. If there's one criticism of capitalism, it's that the 'best' product or service doesn't always win (assuming you can objectively define best). Sometimes superior marketing wins out, sometimes superior execution wins out, and sometimes underhanded tactics win out, especially if it involves political favors. No one's denying that, but you're criticizing a strawman of a pure, perfect capitalist system. I am not, nor has anyone here, asserted such a perfect system, My point is simple, capitalism, for all it's flaws, is a useful system to have to optimize productive capacities along the lines that we want (in contrast to top-down centralized control), and that we should have a mixed economy, where political decisions adjust costs to factor in externalities, and to ensure that the capitalists are working on optimizing the problems that we want solved as a society. It needs to be managed for costs, for transparency, for corruption, but there isn't any real alternative to the current mixed systems we already have, we just need to work on them to improve them. That's it, nothing more. If you came to do battle with Ayn Rand, you're in the wrong thread.
- hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
  > Well, if you want to account for externalities like that, then we need to account for positive externalities not captured by these corporations either, as GDP or profit figures do not adequately capture the difference between a $200 smartphone and a $200 feature phone. Please... The whole point is those companies in the primary sector, which are the backbone of the global economy, would be operating at a loss if they weren't offloading costs to future generations or this generation's poor - and in the other hand, economy as it stands today would be unsustainable if they were taxed proportionally. It's not a game of numbers as you want to put, as if the uncaptured value between a phone and a shinier phone "balanced out" the problems behind it's means of production. > Capitalism does not promise to solve global optimization problems which are not priced in or demanded, that's the whole point of having a democracy in order to set the constraints of the game, a negative external feedback system. It has worked out great so far right? I don't think the US, which is a highly functional democracy, optimizes for those problems (environmental, social) rather than accumulation of wealth. The problem is that a government's primary objective turns into maintaining economic growth, at all costs, even by use of force. This is the core of the criticism in the article.
  - cromwellian 13y ago
    >The whole point is those companies in the primary sector, which are the backbone of the global economy, would be operating at a loss if they weren't offloading costs to future generations or this generation's poor - and in the other hand, economy as it stands today would be unsustainable if they were taxed proportionally. The study says that the majority of those costs are CO2 (38%) and water (25%). Can you prove that it is impossible to run those 100 companies any more efficiently, that sustainable energy and efficient use of water can never be made profitable? Your original assertion was "The notion of economic growth is tied to environmental and human labor exploitation, at fundamental levels." You have fundamentally not proven that assertion with this evidence, that it is impossible to have economic growth in a sustainable way. What you have done is point out our current inefficiencies, not that the laws of physics preclude it. >It has worked out great so far right? I don't think the US, which is a highly functional democracy, optimizes for those problems (environmental, social) rather than accumulation of wealth. Right, because you have evidence of problems in the current system, it means it is irrevocably broken? To be replaced with what? What is your alternative than, Marxism? This sounds a lot like the rhetoric of the right who point to government failures and then make a logical leap that government can't be improved. >The problem is that a government's primary objective turns into maintaining economic growth, at all costs, even by use of force. This is the core of the criticism in the article. The government's primary objective is to stay in power. If it's primary purpose was purely economic growth, they'd be going crazy on Keynesian spending, as many eastern countries do to prop up growth. The US government hasn't done much at all in the last 6 years to prop who growth at any cost (unless you count grid lock and inaction as "at all costs"). And European nations wouldn't be implementing austerity policies if their goals were growth at any cost. This is a vast simplification of the motivations of the political. If you want to see "growth at any cost" look at Chinese domestic spending. The Western electorate is far more sensitive to unemployment, inflation, or benefit cuts than it is to abstract notions of "growth". Throughout most of the "great recession", GDP growth has been positive, yet no one is happy, because voters don't vote based on quarterly GDP growth, and attempts to maximize that variable hurt others that politicians care about. That's why the Federal Reserve is now doing nomimal unemployment targeting instead of only fighting inflation. I mean, I fail to understand what your primary philosophy is. Growth is bad? We are doomed? We should give up our modern lifestyle because you think it is impossible to sustain it? That technology and politics can't save us?

cromwellian 13y ago

>Just one report puts the top 100 companies in the primary sector at $7.3 trillion / year in externalized costs related to the environment [1]. Still, measuring these things in capital doesn't capture the problem, since you can't buy back environment and it has far reaching consequences. This doesn't account for social well being either. Well, if you want to account for externalities like that, then we need to account for positive externalities not captured by these corporations either, as GDP or profit figures do not adequately capture the difference between a $200 smartphone and a $200 feature phone. >'m talking about capitalism not providing the best solutions to concrete problems the society faces, despite being - in theory - a system that allows the best solutions to strive. In practice, we know it's parasitic, and the solutions that strive are the ones that move the economy itself forward, in detriment of society. Capitalism does not promise to solve global optimization problems which are not priced in or demanded, that's the whole point of having a democracy in order to set the constraints of the game, a negative external feedback system. And best solution to what? If you have an optimization algorithm, you have to set up the constraints so that it optimizes for what you want. Market competition optimizes for the demands of individuals, not for the demands of society. If you want capitalists and entrepreneurs to do this, then the incentives have to encourage a gradient in that direction. If you want more fuel efficient cars, than tax carbon and pollution, the capitalists will quickly find that their profits are dropping as their cars get more expensive and will seek out alternatives. Tax an incandescent lightbulb, and the market will start competing on LEDs and CFLS. You're making the same fallacy people make when talking about "survival of the fittest" in an ecosystem, they think natural selection is optimizing for a certain kind of creature, rather than just the creature that can reproduce the best in that ecosystem. Capitalism is undirected evolution, and if we want it to solve global problems, we need to guide it via political feedback in a mixed economy. You started this thread by trying to criticize the analogy of capitalism to natural selection, but nothing you've said has debunked it. You've criticized capitalism for not solving global first or second order costs, but a market can't solve these problems if there's no price signals for them, in much the same way that species have naturally gone extinct in the past, because individual selection doesn't necessarily select for health of the group. If there's one criticism of capitalism, it's that the 'best' product or service doesn't always win (assuming you can objectively define best). Sometimes superior marketing wins out, sometimes superior execution wins out, and sometimes underhanded tactics win out, especially if it involves political favors. No one's denying that, but you're criticizing a strawman of a pure, perfect capitalist system. I am not, nor has anyone here, asserted such a perfect system, My point is simple, capitalism, for all it's flaws, is a useful system to have to optimize productive capacities along the lines that we want (in contrast to top-down centralized control), and that we should have a mixed economy, where political decisions adjust costs to factor in externalities, and to ensure that the capitalists are working on optimizing the problems that we want solved as a society. It needs to be managed for costs, for transparency, for corruption, but there isn't any real alternative to the current mixed systems we already have, we just need to work on them to improve them. That's it, nothing more. If you came to do battle with Ayn Rand, you're in the wrong thread.

hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
> Well, if you want to account for externalities like that, then we need to account for positive externalities not captured by these corporations either, as GDP or profit figures do not adequately capture the difference between a $200 smartphone and a $200 feature phone. Please... The whole point is those companies in the primary sector, which are the backbone of the global economy, would be operating at a loss if they weren't offloading costs to future generations or this generation's poor - and in the other hand, economy as it stands today would be unsustainable if they were taxed proportionally. It's not a game of numbers as you want to put, as if the uncaptured value between a phone and a shinier phone "balanced out" the problems behind it's means of production. > Capitalism does not promise to solve global optimization problems which are not priced in or demanded, that's the whole point of having a democracy in order to set the constraints of the game, a negative external feedback system. It has worked out great so far right? I don't think the US, which is a highly functional democracy, optimizes for those problems (environmental, social) rather than accumulation of wealth. The problem is that a government's primary objective turns into maintaining economic growth, at all costs, even by use of force. This is the core of the criticism in the article.
- cromwellian 13y ago
  >The whole point is those companies in the primary sector, which are the backbone of the global economy, would be operating at a loss if they weren't offloading costs to future generations or this generation's poor - and in the other hand, economy as it stands today would be unsustainable if they were taxed proportionally. The study says that the majority of those costs are CO2 (38%) and water (25%). Can you prove that it is impossible to run those 100 companies any more efficiently, that sustainable energy and efficient use of water can never be made profitable? Your original assertion was "The notion of economic growth is tied to environmental and human labor exploitation, at fundamental levels." You have fundamentally not proven that assertion with this evidence, that it is impossible to have economic growth in a sustainable way. What you have done is point out our current inefficiencies, not that the laws of physics preclude it. >It has worked out great so far right? I don't think the US, which is a highly functional democracy, optimizes for those problems (environmental, social) rather than accumulation of wealth. Right, because you have evidence of problems in the current system, it means it is irrevocably broken? To be replaced with what? What is your alternative than, Marxism? This sounds a lot like the rhetoric of the right who point to government failures and then make a logical leap that government can't be improved. >The problem is that a government's primary objective turns into maintaining economic growth, at all costs, even by use of force. This is the core of the criticism in the article. The government's primary objective is to stay in power. If it's primary purpose was purely economic growth, they'd be going crazy on Keynesian spending, as many eastern countries do to prop up growth. The US government hasn't done much at all in the last 6 years to prop who growth at any cost (unless you count grid lock and inaction as "at all costs"). And European nations wouldn't be implementing austerity policies if their goals were growth at any cost. This is a vast simplification of the motivations of the political. If you want to see "growth at any cost" look at Chinese domestic spending. The Western electorate is far more sensitive to unemployment, inflation, or benefit cuts than it is to abstract notions of "growth". Throughout most of the "great recession", GDP growth has been positive, yet no one is happy, because voters don't vote based on quarterly GDP growth, and attempts to maximize that variable hurt others that politicians care about. That's why the Federal Reserve is now doing nomimal unemployment targeting instead of only fighting inflation. I mean, I fail to understand what your primary philosophy is. Growth is bad? We are doomed? We should give up our modern lifestyle because you think it is impossible to sustain it? That technology and politics can't save us?