Occupying the Moral High Ground

john eden

john eden

male pale and stale
Slothrop said:
Oh yeah, that's the other question that always bothers me about free marketism - do you just have to ignore external costs?

The environmental part of this doesn't neccessarily just mean stuff like global warming, either - it could be not chucking toxic chemicals into the water supply because it's cheaper than getting rid of them properly...
Click to expand...

One argument would be that sensible entrepreneurs would look to their long term rather than short term investments.

Another would be that if you are rich you can shield yourself from the environmental catastrophe you have unleashed - and even make a profit it out of it! (C.f. Gary Clail's "Privatise The Air")
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
crackerjack said:
I do think this is a bit of a cop out. Every country that has proclaimed itself communist (whether through opportunist or ideological reasons) has ultimately tilted towards tyranny.

This is a fact that can't and shouldn't be omitted when discussing communism's merits as an ideology.
Click to expand...

And not just tyranny but economic ruin. Survival is as even more necessary than freedom. Any successful socialist economies?
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
External costs - of course shouldn't be ignored, but remember:

The value of the effects of the externality are difficult to calculate in a technocratic way by economists or social planners, since they reflect the ethical views and preferences of the entire population: it may not be clear whose preferences are most important; interests may conflict; the "value" of the externalities may be difficult to determine; and all parties involved may attempt to influence the policy responses to their own benefit (particularly if "others" can be made to pay for the proposed solutions).

It's the basic problem with planned economies - how do you work out cost?
 
john eden

john eden

male pale and stale
So what is to stop a hardy entrepreneur from pumping toxic chemicals into the air and waterways in a truly free market?
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Successful in what sense? Cuba is said to have an enviable public health service, with any shortcomings probably due more to the general poverty caused by the US trade embargo than anything else.
 
C

crackerjack

Well-known member
Any successful socialist economies?
Click to expand...

A socialist economy's criteria for success are different to a capitalist one, as you know. The gap between their claims and the truth are also subject to variation,, so I will pass on this one ;)

But I will say this - if someone can identify a socialist country which drastically improved literacy and health over a sustained period, in a country where they were previously awful, while also avoiding a sharp fall in living standards for anyone but the top, say, 10% I would call that a success.
 
C

crackerjack

Well-known member
vimothy said:
What's to stop the government from doing that in a command economy?
Click to expand...

Self interest - a government with its people's interests at heart has nothing to gain by destroying the environment. Companies with only shareholders interests - which is not just the norm, but the fucking law! - do.
 
john eden

john eden

male pale and stale
vimothy said:
What's to stop the government from doing that in a command economy?
Click to expand...

Pressure from the electorate.

Businesses are prevented from doing it by legislation, as I am sure you know.

All in all this seems preferable to letting entrepreneurs decide for themselves if they want to reduce their profits by not screwing up the planet.
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
Mr. Tea said:
Successful in what sense? Cuba is said to have an enviable public health service, with any shortcomings probably due more to the general poverty caused by the US trade embargo than anything else.
Click to expand...

Er, no I don't think so, actually! A lot of doctors isn't the same as having a good economy.
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
crackerjack said:
A socialist economy's criteria for success are different to a capitalist one, as you know. The gap between their claims and the truth are also subject to variation,, so I will pass on this one ;)

But I will say this - if someone can identify a socialist country which drastically improved literacy and health over a sustained period, in a country where they were previously awful, while also avoiding a sharp fall in living standards for anyone but the top, say, 10% I would call that a success.
Click to expand...

I know - China, post 1980s DXP reforms!

(Oh, wait a minute....)
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
john eden said:
Pressure from the electorate.

Businesses are prevented from doing it by legislation, as I am sure you know.

All in all this seems preferable to letting entrepreneurs decide for themselves if they want to reduce their profits by not screwing up the planet.
Click to expand...

Didn't work in the USSR though.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
vimothy said:
Er, no I don't think so, actually! A lot of doctors isn't the same as having a good economy.
Click to expand...

My point being that your definition of 'a good economy' might be 'a high average GDP per person', which has no real meaning for the well-being of most people as a country can have a high GDP with almost all the wealth generated and controlled by a very small number of people.

Cuba's health system seems to be doing fairly well from what I read on the Wiki page (unless that was written by Cuba's Health Minister, or something) - high life expectancies and an infant mortality rate lower than the USA!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Cuba
"Thanks chiefly to the American economic blockade, but partly also to the web of strange rules and regulations that constrict Cuban life, the economy is in a terrible mess: national income per head is minuscule, and resources are amazingly tight. Healthcare, however, is a top national priority"
So there you have it: people doing the best they can, and doing well, with limited resources (due both to America's ridiculous blockade and the inherent inefficiency and bureaurocracy of a communist economy).
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
john eden said:
You seem to have answered my question with another question. Which has now been answered. Over to you.
Click to expand...

You haven't answered the question. There is nothing to stop a government from doing exactly what it wants (shooting dissidents; dumping waste in rivers; wasting money; etc) in a command economy, especially not pressure from the electorate. The USSR was a hideous polluter of the environment, in part because it answered to no one. Will Chavez listen to electoral pressure? Did Mao?
 
john eden

john eden

male pale and stale
vimothy said:
You haven't answered the question. There is nothing to stop a government from doing exactly what it wants (shooting dissidents; dumping waste in rivers; wasting money; etc) in a command economy, especially not pressure from the electorate. The USSR was a hideous polluter of the environment, in part because it answered to no one. Will Chavez listen to electoral pressure? Did Mao?
Click to expand...

So that's your argument? That it's OK for entrepreneurs to destroy the planet because anti-democratic states may also do it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top