Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Crunch May Put Price Tag On Environment
Farmers know the value of land from the amount of crops they can produce but large parts of the natural world -- such as wetlands that purify water, oceans that produce fish or trees that soak up greenhouse gases -- are usually viewed as "free."
Ecuadoran oil workers try to fix a broken fuel pipe at Pacayacu close to Lago Agrio in this August 20, 2005 file photo. The worst financial crisis since the 1930s may be a chance to put price tags on nature in a radical economic rethink to protect everything from coral reefs to rainforests, environmental experts say. (REUTERS/Stringer/Files) "Most of our valuable assets are not on the books," said Robert Costanza, professor of ecological economics at the University of Vermont. "We need to reinvent economics. The financial crisis is an opportunity."
Advocates of "eco-nomics" say that valuing "natural capital" could help protect nature from rising human populations, pollution and climate change that do not figure in conventional measures of wealth such as gross domestic product (GDP) or gross national product (GNP).
"I believe the 21st century will be dominated by the concept of natural capital, just as the 20th was dominated by financial capital," Achim Steiner, head of the U.N. Environment Program, told Reuters at the International Union for Conservation of Nature congress in Barcelona earlier this month.
"We are reaching a point...at which the very system that supports us is threatened," he said.
Conventional economists often object it is impossible to value an Andean valley or the Caribbean. "We have struggled with nature-based services: how does a market begin to value them?" Steiner said.
Costanza helped get international debate underway a decade ago with a widely quoted estimate that the value of natural services was $33 trillion a year -- almost twice world gross domestic product at the time.
INFINITY
Some economists dismissed Costanza's $33 trillion as an overestimate. Others pointed out that no one would be alive without nature, so its value to humans is infinite.
"There is little that can be usefully be done with a serious underestimate of infinity," economist Michael Toman said at the time.
But with the seizure of world money-markets bringing -- for some, at least -- an opportunity to rethink modern capitalism's basic tenet that greed and self-interest can counterbalance each other, more environmental experts hope to revisit nature's role in producing food, water, fuels, fibers or building materials.
"The financial crisis is just another nail in the coffin" of a system that seeks economic growth while ignoring wider human wellbeing, said Johan Rockstrom, executive director of the Stockholm Environment Institute.
Under standard economics, nations can boost their GDP -- briefly -- by chopping down all their forests and selling the timber, or by dynamiting coral reefs to catch all the fish. A rethink would stress the value of keeping nature intact.
Rockstrom said bank bailouts totaling hundreds of billions of dollars might "change the mindset of the public...if we are willing to save investment banks, why not spend a similar amount on saving the planet?" he said.
And there are ever more attempts to mix prices and nature.
The European Union set up a carbon trading market in 2005 to get industries such as steel makers or oil refineries to cut emissions of greenhouse gases, blamed for global warming.
Ecuador has asked rich countries to pay it $350 million a year in exchange for not extracting 1 billion barrels of oil in the Amazon rainforest.
BHUTAN
The Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan has shifted from traditional gross national product to a goal of "gross national happiness," which includes respect for nature.
And in U.N. talks on a new climate treaty, more than 190 nations are considering a plan to pay tropical nations billions of dollars a year to leave forests alone to slow deforestation and combat global warming.
"We want to see a shift to valuing ecosystems," Norwegian Environment Minister Erik Solheim said. Oslo has led donor efforts by pledging $500 million a year to tropical nations for abandoning the chainsaw and letting trees stand.
Deforestation accounts for about a fifth of all greenhouse gas emissions by mankind. Trees soak up carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, as they grow, and release it when they rot or are burned, usually to clear land for farming.
UNEP's Steiner said long-standing objections that it is too hard to value ecosystems were dwindling as economists' ability to assess risks improved.
A report sponsored by the European Commission and Germany in May estimated that humanity was causing 50 billion euros ($67.35 billion) in damage to the planet's land areas every year.
And a 2006 report by former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern said that unchecked global warming could cost 5 to 20 percent of world GDP, damaging the economy on the scale of the world wars or the Great Depression.
Steiner said stock market plunges, or a halving of oil prices since peaks of $147 a barrel in July, showed that environmental experts were not the only ones who had trouble valuing assets.
A 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Report also said that natural systems were worth more intact than if converted.
It said a Canadian wetland was worth $6,000 a year per hectare, and just $2,000 if converted to farmland. A hectare of mangrove in Thailand was worth $1,000 a year -- producing fish or protecting against coastal erosion -- against $200 if uprooted and converted to a shrimp farm.
Costanza, in a letter to the journal Science with a colleague earlier this year, said one way to value nature would be to set up a government-backed system to trade all greenhouse gas emissions and channel the revenues, estimated at $0.9-$3.6 trillion a year, into an "Earth Atmospheric Trust."
If half the cash were shared out, each person on the planet would get $71-$285 a year, a big step toward ending poverty. The rest could go to renewable energy and clean technology.
Editing by Sara Ledwith
- Posted in
85 Comments so far
Show Alli advocate participatory economics (parecon).
There is no way to take the environment into account in a market-based system without putting a value on it. Environmental degradation is deficit spending and must be figured in.
I agree but we also must be careful with the very idea of turning the environment into a commodity.
The first foray into this arena seems to be "cap and trade" proposals on CO2 emissions. If our very survival is on the line because of global warming, what sense can we really make of "factoring" in a cost of destroying Earth's climate?
Such mechanisms create policy by "market relativism" and fail to acknowledge that there is no acceptable level by which we can continue to burn fossil fuels. Put another way, the cost of producing a unit of CO2 emissions should be infinite. CO2 emissions need to be capped ... not traded.
it wouldnt matter if you put a value on it. also, values are grossly distorted in market economies, so I wouldnt accept the value of the enviornment in a market anyway.
besides, there is no way to take the enviornment into account in a market-based system period. that is, unless we have a very perverse and distorted sense "of account."
as noted, markets distort the values of goods and they pit buyers versus sellers. monetary profits are the guiding force of markets and when considering competition hardly any, if at all, profit-motivated companies will be willing to limit their gains/advantage. such and such company will cut corners which will result in X amount of deterioration, and other companies will follow suit in order to be competitive and please their stock holders. In other words, market systems are a race to the bottom
"markets distort the values of goods and they pit buyers versus sellers."
No, markets pit buyers vs. buyers and sellers vs. sellers. Look at eBay.
touche. they do that too. but what i am referring to is that a buyer will try to maximize his gainst by making a product as cheaply as possible while selling it for as much as possible, and a seller will seek to buy the best product the cheapest. this fundamental clash is largely why externalities are ignored. but true, markets also pit buyers against buyers. I think i kind of hit on that with the comment on competition, but it aptly applies to buyers too. and ebay is a wonderful example.
Where there is greater competition in a market, whether on the buyer side, seller side, or both, there will be less chance for those kinds of games.
supporting evidence? i cant seem to think of a single example that supports that statement.
It's theory first of all. Where there are lots of sellers of cars, it will be harder to get away with selling junk because at least some of them ought to be able to sell good quality cars. The buyers figure out who does this, and that seller is rewarded with more business.
that doesnt "lessen the game." not even in theory. it still amounts to distorting value of goods for the sake of maximizing gains. because it requires adjusting the value in order to turn it into an advantage. and once the advantage is made there is no theoretical reason to assume those who operate with an advantage will sacrifice their gains to continue being "competitive." for example, a local blockbuster radically dropped their prices to out compete a hollywood video. the former drove the latter out of business and then raised their rates higher than before they dropped them. remember, companies dont compete to sustain competition. they compete to win and annhilate their competition. even if markets could be competitive you still end up with the focus being to outdo others. if the focus is to outdo the competition and get as much from customers as they can then the system cannot and will not reward taking into consideration certain externalities that deal with social or ecological impacts. the result will be a predictable move to the markets overwhelmingly favoring certain actors over others.
" for example, a local blockbuster radically dropped their prices to out compete a hollywood video. the former drove the latter out of business and then raised their rates higher than before they dropped them."
In this example, the market for those suppling movie rentals became *less* competitive after one of them failed. We were discussing a situation in which the market was competitive, and not transitioning towards less competitive.
"companies dont compete to sustain competition. they compete to win and annhilate their competition. "
That's just one strategy. Now where does Blockbuster sit in the age of movies on demand technology?
"even if markets could be competitive you still end up with the focus being to outdo others."
But to outdo others in what regard? Service? Quality? Price? There is almost always room for a player who can succeed by focusing on one area that the others aren't very good at.
and what youre not understanding is that this "situation" of competition cannot be sustained, nor is that the aim. of course they became less competitive. thats the point. the point isnt to sustain competition for the fun of it, nor is it theoretically possible unless you arbitrarily control and limit the factors to even-handed actors playing on a level playing field. which should have someone pondering the efficacy of a system that constantly has to be erased and started from scratch to avoid what it is designed to do in the first place. the whole aim in competitive markets is to find an advantage that does away with the level playing field and even-handedness so that an actor comes out on top of the other.
besides, nothing in theoretical posturing on comparative advantage or the invisible hand resolves the reality of market systems, like that of the topic of this article. to even argue them requires a complete distortion of reality. the reality is that markets are not free or competitive, nor can they be due to the goal/nature of market systems and the inability to maintain a level playing ground where money-making is somehow limited to a friendly game reminiscent of some childhood play.
"and what youre not understanding is that this "situation" of competition cannot be sustained, nor is that the aim. of course they became less competitive. thats the point. "
I understand quite well, with history as our guide, that the degree to which a market is competitive is quite fluid and cyclical.
"the whole aim in competitive markets is to find an advantage that does away with the level playing field and even-handedness so that an actor comes out on top of the other."
That's only one strategy and it often is difficult or impossible to apply. Offhand I would cite cars, restaurants, musical instruments, clothing, etc. These markets aren't moving towards monopoly at all. Instead there are some big players, as well as boutique operations that rely on the perception of prestige and quality to get high margins.
"markets are not free or competitive"
"Free" simply means the participants act freely without restrictions such as when something is rationed. As a practical matter, markets are free. As for "competitive" I have cited a number of examples just now and earlier.
On a first pass, markets may appear to do a good job regulating price through the simple interaction of supply and demand.
In the end, however, doesn't it seem that the ultimate interplay results in the small being swallowed by the large until the market becomes totally corrupted? The resultant oligopoly then defeats the "theory" of price determined by competition.
Markets are also corrupted by advertising. People's buttons are pushed, using the research of focus groups, psychologists and others, to convince consumers to make unwise choices. The "externalities" have no voice. Pro-consumer groups or environmental groups do not have the resources to compete with for-profit corporations in the marketplace of ideas that advertising and marketing represent.
If we're going to try to price in environmental harm, we should also price in other societal values. For example, let's consider a paid lobbyist tax. For each dollar a corporation spends on lobbying, they should pay a second dollar to the public treasury to be used by non-profit groups and citizen lobbyists.
For each dollar of advertising, corporations should have to pay a dollar to citizens groups. So, for example, if you spend a million dollars advertising a car you produce, you would have to give a million dollars to a group that thinks we need to reduce auto use.
In the end, there are certain corporate behaviors that should just be outlawed. If corporate influence, money and power are corrupting our democracy, it makes no sense to put a price on it. It just needs to be stopped.
No amount of money and no market should be tolerant of unacceptable, undemocratic behavior.
"In the end, however, doesn't it seem that the ultimate interplay results in the small being swallowed by the large until the market becomes totally corrupted?"
It may seem that way but if you look you find examples where it is not true. I have a freind who owns a coffee shop in an urban area that is doing well where Starbucks has closed a couple stores. Nest door in an independent brewpub.
"So, for example, if you spend a million dollars advertising a car you produce, you would have to give a million dollars to a group that thinks we need to reduce auto use."
Always fascinated by a lawmaker who would do this. A third perty who themselves has no stake in the matter, pays no consequence if wrong, and somehow presumes to know more about it than the principals involved.
regarding your friend, there are probably many other factors at play that youre not mentioning or not aware of. also, the statement that he is well off can be premature, and besides, exceptions generally dont make the rule.
"exceptions generally dont make the rule."
Right, but without hard numbers we are usually just guessing.
Well, suffice it to say that we strongly disagree.
First, let's get beyond your coffee shop example. I have no quibble that there are, indeed, examples where a small business can swim upstream against the tide.
But, let's focus on critical industries that have a massive impact on our society. Let's talk about the loss of thousands of local newspapers and the overwhelming centralization of media control. Mass media in the US is controlled by a handful of corporations who, by charter, put their commercial interests ahead of the interests of the nation. Names like Big Oil and Big Pharma aren't created out of thin air. Most of our foreign policy is designed to cater to Big Oil and Big Banking. If you haven't read "The Shock Doctrine" or "The Sorrows of Empire", I'd encourage you to do so.
Mainstreet USA has been destroyed by regional malls (mauls?) that bring huge national chains into an area at the expense of mom and pop operations. The local hardware store that employed your neighbors and provided a short commute and real competition has been replaced by the great American oligopoly. Perhaps mega-chain stores did reduce prices. They also destroyed communities. They stole jobs. They exported jobs to countries where labor and environmental standards are reduced close to zero. Yes, maybe they produced lower prices; they did so at the cost of our humanity and our planetary well-being.
You stated:
"Always fascinated by a lawmaker who would do this. A third party who themselves has no stake in the matter, pays no consequence if wrong, and somehow presumes to know more about it than the principals involved."
Well, Jake, this is one of my pet issues and I couldn't disagree with you more strongly.
Meaning you no disrespect, I can't fathom how you can even begin to suggest that a third party "has no stake in the matter" when I even provided a specific example. If you're going to disagree, fine; but at least explain why you disagree.
Do you not accept the concept of "externalities" that Chomsky referred to in the video? I recently had an argument with a self-labeled Libertarian who made the same point you did. She argued that if she and a seller entered into a deal for her to buy a big, honking SUV that got 10 miles per gallon, it was none of my damned business. Do you agree with that?
If so, who gets to speak on behalf of global warming? Who gets to speak on behalf of the dangers SUV's present to smaller cars? Who gets to speak on behalf of the damage oil imports are doing to our economy? Is your argument that only those who are engaged in the narrow (i.e. not societal) transaction should have a say? Why is that?
You say that a third party, by definition, "pays no consequence if wrong, and somehow presumes to know more about it than the principals involved." I would argue that the buyer and seller "pay no consequence" for the external harm their transaction causes. I can make no sense at all of your suggestion that a third party "presumes to know more about it than the principals involved." For me, "who knows more" is not the issue; the issue is that third parties are very much interested parties.
We do not live in a world of infinite resources. We are interconnected and what you do affects others in society. I'm all for providing as much freedom to individuals as we possibly can but not at the expense of the broader society. Getting that balance right and finding a sustainable way for us to live on the planet is what it's all about. To yield society's interests to the narrow interaction between buyers and sellers, as if markets will inevitably lead us in the right direction, is not supported by our current fiscal crisis, our current environmental crisis, our current wars, our current inhumanity to third world nations, our current failure of democracy.
We need to make radical changes to the way our various systems operate. These changes will be costly and painful and may come far too late for many of us. Nevertheless, change we must. This is not a "choice." This is not something markets will determine. We are currently operating under the myth that new technologies and unlimited resources will save us from our planetary plundering and that truly unencumbered markets will show us the way. It's clear that markets have a role to play but, in the end, the only real measure will be determined by that which is sustainable and that which is not.
"Let's talk about the loss of thousands of local newspapers and the overwhelming centralization of media control. "
And contrast that with interactive forums such as this one and many similar that they have little control over and are rapidly losing market share to.
"Mainstreet USA has been destroyed by regional malls (mauls?) that bring huge national chains into an area at the expense of mom and pop operations. "
This is not universally true. I cite my owm town, several nearby, and the West Philly neighborhood that has the coffee shop and brewpub that I refered to earlier, along with all kinds of eclectic shops, as examples. Are you making the above statement based on hard data?
"I recently had an argument with a self-labeled Libertarian who made the same point you did. She argued that if she and a seller entered into a deal for her to buy a big, honking SUV that got 10 miles per gallon, it was none of my damned business. Do you agree with that?"
Yes I agree. I also agree that you could publically ridicule such a person, as I do myself, all you wish for making that choice. But the gasoline that they buy is not yours. You provided none of the geological expertise to locate the deposit, or the engineering expertise to bring it to the surface and convert it to gasoline, or the original imagination to recognize the potential in what was up to then a completely worthless substance. You seem to wish to be the arbiter of such things as the SUV transaction, that goes in more than one direction you know.
"If so, who gets to speak on behalf of global warming? Who gets to speak on behalf of the dangers SUV's present to smaller cars? Who gets to speak on behalf of the damage oil imports are doing to our economy? Is your argument that only those who are engaged in the narrow (i.e. not societal) transaction should have a say? "
Aren't you doing so right now?
"For me, "who knows more" is not the issue; the issue is that third parties are very much interested parties."
Again, this approach is not a one way street. You'd be satisfied I suppose when I decide to audit your life including areas that you think should be off limits.
"We do not live in a world of infinite resources."
They aren't going anywhere, they just change form. The landfills of today could be the mines of tomorrow.
"new technologies "
It's true that technologies sometimes cause problems while solving others. I have to say though that it's hard to understand your position when you do not, say, suggest what ought to be "done" about that SUV deal.
"you do not, say, suggest what ought to be "done" about that SUV deal."
Actually, I did. I would have had, dollar for dollar, a budget provided (by the advertisers) to groups that were opposed to SUV's. I would have enabled those groups to speak to Americans with the same resources behind them as the auto companies had.
Instead, we left the long gasoline lines and gas rationing of the 1970's behind and welcomed Reagan's new day in America. We were all so proud that OPEC couldn't push America around anymore. Big old SUV's and trucks that were "ram tough" showed those tree huggers a thing or two. The result was a planet threatening global warming crisis, multiple wars for oil in the Middle East, massive budget deficits largely due to energy imports and a non-existent national energy policy.
No more whining from those hate-America lefties - it's time to restore America's right to use something like 25 - 30% of the world's energy with only around 3 - 5% of its energy resources. Good old free market capitalism, greed, and nationalism all blended into a madness stew that was clearly not sustainable was the inevitable result.
What would I have done? Well, I probably would have outright banned the damned things and I would have mandated changes to our national transportation and energy policies. Whether my "tyrannical views" would have received any popular support remains to be seen; truthfully, I'm sure they would not have.
What should have happened regardless of what I think, is that we should not have turned the national airways into a market commodity. At least, if citizens and non-profit interests groups could have competed for the hearts and minds of Americans on a level playing field, we might have made better choices as a nation. Instead, corporations advertised and lobbied and interest groups begged for nickels and dimes to get their voices heard. It's an insane way to ensure a well-informed public which is a pre-requisite of good public policy.
"Actually, I did. I would have had, dollar for dollar, a budget provided (by the advertisers) to groups that were opposed to SUV's. "
I don't agree that this addresses directly the deal made by a buyer and seller of a product, and it certainly looks like an unreasonable restriction on how they spend their money. As I would wonder why anyone would want to market a product under such repressive rules, you might have been better suggesting the outright ban.
"long gasoline lines and gas rationing "
You remember how government price controls contributed to the problem by causing an artificial shortage.
"Well, I probably would have outright banned the damned things and I would have mandated changes to our national transportation and energy policies. "
As much as I almost always find that SUVs are a ridiculous choice I can't agree with such repression.
"rationing "
That was never implemented BTW, just odd/even restrictions, which was pretty stupid.
Many gas stations set a limit on how much gas you could buy. Some set the limit at $5; others set it at a number of gallons.
I didn't mean to suggest it was government-mandated rationing.
BTW, I've enjoyed discussing this with you although we couldn't be further apart on the issues.
"BTW, I've enjoyed discussing this with you although we couldn't be further apart on the issues."
Back at you. I am not always well treated here and I try to be nice myself until maybe after someone else gets nasty.
Half a Loaf is Better Than None
Imagine, hypothetically or otherwise, a world in which there are only ten people and one of them, Mr. Baker, owns all the remaining food - say it's ten loaves of bread.
How does market capitalism address this situation? Would you still argue that third parties have no interest?
Suppose Mr. Baker agrees to sell half of his loaves to Mr. Weapons because he's worried the others will try to steal his food. Your pro-market arguments suggest the others have no right to intervene between Mr. Baker and Mr. Weapons. In this model, the cost of bread and the cost of weapons would undoubtedly rise (no pun intended) sky high because life itself is on the line for everyone.
Would you argue that whatever Mr. Baker decides to do with "HIS" loaves of bread is acceptable or is there a societal interest? If Mr. Baker decides to sell half his loaves to Mr. Weapons, should the others just sit by passively and allow the transaction to happen?
Analogies are often attacked as not being analogous to the real world. I would suggest that this analogy reflects the real world very well in that resources are limited and that the choices we make, even in individual transactions, might very well be the difference between life and death.
BTW, my guidance on the above dilemma would be to give half a loaf to each person. Market capitalism doesn't do a very good job when fairness is the issue. You might condone a survival of the fittest form of governance; I don't.
"How does market capitalism address this situation?"
The world you described sounds worse than Mad Max. I can think of no parallel to the real world. Particularly where one person owns all the food, and there are apparently no reserves. The answer is that market capitalism doesn't exist in such a world, and assuming anyone would continue to live in such a place to the extent that ten loaves of bread would sustain one or more of them, it would be survival of the fittest. It wouldn't be enough to fill a half hour teevee show, let alone a whole movie.
The parallel to the real world is that some people have food and some are dying of hunger. It's interesting that you don't see that.
The parallel to the real world is that some economies use, and even abuse, all the fuel they want while others suffer and die. It's interesting that you don't see that either.
The parallel to the real world is that resources are limited and that we need to start engineering systems that support "sustainability" rather than blindly transacting one business deal after another to maximize profits with no concerns about limited resources.
The parallel to the real world is that global warming is real. I wonder, after all you've written, if you accept that premise. Global warming, like limited loaves of bread, recognizes a "common wealth" to individual transactions.
I assume from your arguments that you are continuing to maintain the premise that what a buyer and seller do creates no valid interest for third parties. This is such an absurd argument it's hard to know where to begin to refute it.
Take this example: you sell off a portion of your vast acreage to a tool and dye manufacturer. They built their little factory and start poisoning the local air and water with toxic waste products. The "rural character" of the neighborhood is changed. Do you believe in zoning laws? Do you believe in anti-pollution laws?
Let's talk about "redlining" by banks. Redlining, now outlawed, was a policy where banks drew a red line around certain urban areas frequently populated by minority groups. They refused to make mortgages, or made loans at higher interest rates, because they thought properties in these zones were at higher risk of crime or vandalism and thus were not good as collateral. They also viewed minorities as less likely to make good on the mortgage. The point is that they weren't willing to use the fair market value of the properties; they elected instead to recognize their perception of the behavior of people living within the red zone and denied them of the opportunity to obtain a mortgage. If the market is truly free to seek profits, racism and classism is overlooked and the good old profit motive is able to discriminate any way it wants to. You OK with that?
"The parallel to the real world is that some people have food and some are dying of hunger. "
Right, but you created a world with a finite amount of food and no system that raises food, i.e., ten loaves of bread and that's it. Parallel rejected.
"The parallel to the real world is that some economies use, and even abuse, all the fuel they want"
No, only the fuel they can trade for.
"while others suffer and die. It's interesting that you don't see that either."
It's interesting that you seem to imply cause and effect between the one and the other, while ignoring many other possible factors.
"The parallel to the real world is that global warming is real. I wonder, after all you've written, if you accept that premise."
Not like a religous beleif, no. It's an extremely complicated issue and not all of the implications of such a thing are "bad".
"I assume from your arguments that you are continuing to maintain the premise that what a buyer and seller do creates no valid interest for third parties."
It's true that there is complex interconnectedness around everything that anyone does, but my initial objections were concerning powerful lawmaking politicians as third parties who presume to know better for all of us.
"They refused to make mortgages, or made loans at higher interest rates, because they thought properties in these zones were at higher risk of crime or vandalism and thus were not good as collateral. "
Which would be a good policy in certain areas. Race was not always involved in this practice. That some banks would pass up good loan risks based on race is their own stupid fault.
"A third perty who themselves has no stake in the matter, pays no consequence if wrong, and somehow presumes to know more about it than the principals involved."
The public DOES have a stake (public health, well-being), governments regularly pay consequences (e.g. settling police abuse cases, financial bailouts for failing to regulate), and the presumption to know comes from a public mandate to understand. The example given, advertising, we understand is abused to drive unnecessary consumption.
"The public DOES have a stake "
I was talking primarily about individual politicians. Of course the public as a whole has a stake in certain things.
Thanks to both jakenewton and welshTerrier 2 for a very interesting exchange and some good viewpoints.
Consider another example ... Jake didn't like my symbolic, hypothetical loaves of bread analogy so here's something a little closer to current circumstances.
A fisherman takes his boat out to sea, casts out his nets, and makes a huge haul. He finds fishing lucrative.
The problem is, and this has already occurred on Georges Bank off the Northeast coast and is occurring all over the world, many fishing areas are badly over-fished. If we allow the markets to function, fewer and fewer fisherman will be able to make a living at fishing. If we allow the market to function, fewer and fewer fish are caught. If we allow the market to function, the price of an ever smaller supply of fish rises and rises such that only a privileged few can afford this commodity.
The question becomes, how should we address this situation?
Free market capitalists respond with a "well, them's the breaks." If the price rises, if jobs are lost, if fish become extinct, "them's the breaks. The market knows best."
Should "corrupt politicians" intervene?
It's a very dangerous business when we stop believing in government as a means to "protect the commons" against the ravages of capitalism.
You don't need to convince me how corrupt and how corporate our government has been. It's beyond disgraceful and I certainly understand how some would see catering to individual liberties and the free market as preferable to our current system of corruption.
The problem, however, is that this throws the baby out with the bath water. Government, if we can ever create a real system of "power to the people", should represent the best interests of those people. If we become so cynical that governments, by definition, are corrupt, it's not clear to me how we as citizens can join together to protect our interests from the wealthiest and most powerful. If you condone a "survival of the fittest, dog eat dog" system, you're at least logically consistent. I'm not willing to give up on the idea of government for the people, by the people and of the people. Just because we've screwed the whole thing up does NOT mean it's not possible. I see no other path. To choose absolute individual liberties over the interests of the greater society sounds like survivalist, militia madness to me. I believe we can build something much better based on human cooperation and living in harmony with nature.
"Free market capitalists respond with a "well, them's the breaks." "
"The breaks" include fairly high profile marketing of fish that are considered low risk on the fishing out issue, as well as the higher prices you mentioned which would lead people towards alternatives. This is a fairly tough issue considering the venue of international waters. As for fishermen, that's one of the toughest and most dangerous of all jobs and I tend to think they are resilient and flexible people who know their business better than we do.
"Government, if we can ever create a real system of "power to the people", should represent the best interests of those people."
I agree, but on the higher level, the individual politicians wield quite a bit of power and often are making decisions wthout sufficient knowledge and experience in the field affected. I suggest there is much more effectiveness that can be had at the local level, as far as the value of our votes or other efforts are concerned, yet everyone gets all worked up every four years when we are electing a president instead.
"To choose absolute individual liberties over the interests of the greater society sounds like survivalist, militia madness to me."
I don't do that, there are obvious areas where liberties overlap and conflict and other not so obvious areas. I tend to start thinking about it at the individual transaction level and go from there. That's about as far as my libertarianism goes, a starting point.
Excellent post.
Thanks. *thumbs up*
Wealth and power must be wrested from the hands of 20th Century men and placed in the hands of Wisdom. This must be done soon, before the sky turns green from methane. It is a path of great hardship but is necessary for survival.
".if we are willing to save investment banks, why not spend a similar amount on saving the planet?"
A McCain/Palin/Republicans win would mean more unregulated "market" disasters, radioactive waste, theocracy, plutocracy and permanent war.
If Obama wins, we have a chance.
"If Obama wins, we have a chance."
But we have to hold his feet to the fire - as he has asked us to.
The time to hold the Democrats' feet to the fire is before each election. What you're arguing for is a system where the candidate you support says one thing to get elected and then magically does something else after they're in office.
Your making a great case for candidates to lie to us rather than lead on the issues they actually believe in.
The "feet to the fire" is a great idea but you have the timing wrong. Progressive ideas will never see the light of day if we keep supporting those who are afraid to campaign for them.
Not only are the Democrats not campaigning for them but they conspired to toss Kucinich and Gravel out of their debates and they conspired with the Republicans to silence the voices of progressive third party voters.
The progressive path to change mandates that progressives of all different stripes join together to gain a seat at the table. Those who call for compromise need to understand that no one will comprise with progressives unless they are strong enough and numerous enough to demand to be heard. We don't have that voice right now and we will not have it after the election either.
My prescription, even given all its faults, is to vote third party. Until all progressives do this, the Democrats, including Mr. Obama, will not give a damn about us. Right now, they see more votes in the center than on the left.
The first step for progressives is influencing the Democratic Party. Right now, we're not even close. The second step, because I don't think the Democratic Party can be influenced to be "progressive", is to form our own party. I no longer believe the Democratic Corporate Party can be influenced but it doesn't matter. We grow; we educate; we gain a seat at the table while we continue to grow. When Democrats ultimately join with the radical center, as I believe they have already done, the left will eventually recognize that forming a viable third party is our only path. Liberal Democrats don't understand that yet.
When you say "the left will eventually recognize that forming a viable third party is our only path" do you mean the radical left, the progressives or the liberals or all three?
I'm not sure at all that the Democratic party can't be influenced the left and liberals.
Radical center? I have not heard that before. What or who are you referring to?
All three. Personally, I hold little hope that groups like PDA will be able to effect progressive changes from inside the Democratic Party. I commend them for their efforts but, in the end, I see Democrats, like Republicans, accepting the corporate domination of our national policies and values. I think Democrats "mop up" the damage better so I do think one party is "better" than the other. But progressive? Forget about it!
Having said that, I envision a process where 1. progressives unify around a common set of values 2. they teach and promote those values to attract those who are willing to listen and learn 3. they grow large enough to "negotiate" with the major parties and 4. where compromise cannot be reached, and I doubt it will be, they splinter off into a third party.
The path to this change, in my view, should happen now even though third parties are not politically viable - certainly not viable nationally. Still, the idea that we "get as many guys to show up and support our values and ideas" is still the beginning of forming a political force. Right now, we're nowhere. To allow ourselves to be subsumed by parties that are antithetical to what we believe in, even if it results in the greater of the evils being elected, makes no sense. The only path to change is in building a real movement for change. You can't get there voting with the Democrats. All you get doing that is invisibility.
As for the "radical center", I didn't coin the phrase. What would you call Obama who addresses the issue of global warming in a way that will not solve the problem but is "better" than what McCain offers? Obama seems like the radical center to me because he promotes the idea that we have to do what we can without being too disruptive to the society and too "lefty fringe" to get elected. Global warming, regardless of what some see as political pragmatism, is NOT AN OPTION and I think it's pretty radical of those in the center to argue for incremental, politically palatable approaches.
You seem to frequently differentiate between the left and the "radical left." I gather you have some sort of disdain for what you call the radical left. The truth is, I use these labels only because others use them.
It was interesting to note that in the video, Chomsky quickly brushed aside the Socialist label. He focused on doing whatever is necessary to bring about real democracy. Some call that "left"; I'm not sure why.
In fact, I might readily call for revolution but I don't see why trying to honor the Constitution and fight for real citizen empowerment should be labeled left or right or anything else. I guess I would prefer the label "radical" if I must be labeled at all. I think we need to turn our corporate, competitive, industrial, greedy society on its head so that we can work toward sustainability and value that above return on investments.
Sustainability is science; sustainability is radical; sustainability is probably even fringe; but left? I don't understand that label.
And valuing the rights of citizens and the society over the power of corporations and power of money has also somehow been labeled as leftist ideology. Again, I see such values as human empowerment. I see such values as respecting the greater society over the narrow, greedy, commercial pursuit of profits. Citizen power should not be a commodity. It should not be sold to the highest bidder or the one who can afford the most commercials. Free markets have no place, none, in the definition of human governance. If that view makes me a lefty, so be it. If it makes me fringe, so be it. I cast my vote for electoral parity where each and every citizen, regardless of wealth, prestige or power, has the exact same influence on the government. While this is admittedly an ideal, the current system, condoned by the radical centrists who advertise and spend and spend and spend, caters to those who can buy themselves a government. Which of your two major parties will change that inequity?
"I gather you have some sort of disdain for what you call the radical left."
Absolutely. These are the extremist elements and I view them the same way I view Neocons or the extreme religious right. Extremists are the enemy of rational achievement. Their "my way is the only way" retards any progress. Their insistance on retaining their myths stops them from ever progressing past the complaint stage. They have been killing us for decades.
And the radical left is a fringe group, fairly small, mostly academics and elites.
The left to me favors a more socialist agenda than liberals but are open to discussion and compromise. Without which we can forget any progress.
"1. progressives unify around a common set of values"
That is exactly what we need and exactly what the "radical left" is keeping us from doing. And some on the left. When someone demands adherence to unrealistic goals or condemns anyone that diviates from their set in concrete codes, you have no chance of convincing the rest of the population you are right or to try it your way. Most people assume that people that look like nuts or act like nusts are nuts.
I am not a fan of Chomsky, I didn't care for him as a communist in the old days, but he does come out with a nugget from time to time.
"Sustainability is science; sustainability is radical; sustainability is probably even fringe; but left? I don't understand that label."
I don't either.
"And valuing the rights of citizens and the society over the power of corporations and power of money has also somehow been labeled as leftist ideology."
I don't see that. I believe that is most peoples view, not lefties.
You are most definately not a radical, sorry.
"but I don't see why trying to honor the Constitution and fight for real citizen empowerment should be labeled left or right or anything else."
I'd label it American. Labels simply tell you what and where (or who) it is.
Unfettered free markets have no place in civilized society, but regulated, fair markets are pretty much required for freedom in my opinion.
Thanks for your thoughts.
I draw a very clear distinction between tactics (or style if you prefer) and values.
Based on your response, the only difference I was able to ascertain in the distinctions you draw between the left and the "radical" left is based on tactics. Is this true? In other words, the "radical" left, in your view, is inflexible and alienating in their style of discourse.
You indicated you don't see my views as radical. That's very interesting to me. Allow me to make a very partial list, without elaboration or defense, of a few of my key views just to ensure you're aware of them. I'd be interested to know whether you don't consider these views radical (regardless of whether you agree with them or not).
1. mandatory severe reductions in auto use
For starters, I would mandate that say, starting in 2 years, all employers would have to reduce their employee's commuter miles by 25%. After 3 years, 50%. After 4 years, 75%.
2. I would put a cap on wealth because wealth buys way too much influence for our government to function properly.
I would exempt primary residences. The cap would be whatever amount was required to stop the purchasing of influence. It might be $10 million. It might be $5 million. It might be $2 million. I don't seek to create absolute economic parity but the massive gap between the richest and the poorest must be narrowed.
3. As the urgency of global warming becomes clearer and clearer, at some point we will require revolution if our government continues to put the planet and our lives at risk. It is they who are jeopardizing our system of governance by condoning corporate greed at the expense of our very survival.
4. Corporations that are too large to fail should be broken up or put out of business. Corporate charters of commercial enterprises that seek profits while the public interest (i.e. the "commons") is harmed should be revoked. Corporations have no right to exist; they exist at the will of the public and can and should be disbanded when they don't serve the public interest.
5. We should do whatever is necessary to approach the "one man, one vote" ideal. This includes capping wealth as mentioned above. It also would include the beheading of any elected representative who provides preferential, not in the national interest, treatment to anyone. Taking campaign cash (which I would outlaw), meeting privately with paid lobbyists, and promoting local interests over the national interest is nothing short of treason. We already have laws for that; we just don't enforce them. Representation is not a commodity to be bought and sold.
6. The military budget should be slashed to whatever level is needed to provide excellent "defensive" protection of the country. In my view, and I'm admittedly no expert, we should start with a budget of around $300 billion which is roughly just over 25% of what we now are spending. All, or at least most, foreign US military bases should be shut down.
7. We should be spending the "savings" we get by reducing our corporate-welfare "defense" program on alternative energy research and development.
8. No one should ever be denied the best possible health care because of money. Life and health are not commodities to be bartered by the free market swine.
9. Citizen and non-profit interest groups should be given, at no cost to them, equal time in the mass media. All news programs, commercial advertising and political advertising must happen on a level playing field. We cannot ever hope to approach a "power to the people" form of government as long as special interests, be they commercial or political, have the resources to purchase time on the nation's "freeways of communication" while the voices of the people do not.
10. Our electoral system must undergo radical changes. First, as I like to say, an ill-informed electorate is the tombstone of democracy. We must change any systems and laws that interfere with a real national discourse. The so called marketplace of ideas must be open to all ideas. As such, we should behead the treasonous swine who control the current elections and debates commissions. What they're doing is depriving us of open and fair elections. All parties should have access to the initial debates. Some system of narrowing the field should be put in place such that fewer parties participate as the election nears. The current exclusion of third parties is an affront to democracy itself.
I don't know whether this would be my "top 10" list or not. It's good enough for starters. I'd be interested to hear whether you consider these views "radical." I call them that because they call for major changes in our society. We're sure as hell not likely to see any of these changes anytime soon.
Very interesting.
Its a bit more than tactics. Example...speech codes at universities, they limit freedom of speech, freedom of discussion. But that seems to be one of the radical lefts desires. To control that speech and thought. The "I know whats best for all of you and I'll tell you what to do" attitude. In effect they want to rule.
1. Absolutely radical. Not governments business to tell me where I go or how far. Now you can put a tax on cars by the size of the engine if you want to help emissions. Or curb population. That would be the biggest help. The impact of illegals on our enviornment is staggering, but nobody notices.
2. Radical. You can't determine what people make on the upside...within reason. Nothing wrong with regulating the economy to level the playing field.
3. Revolution would be radical. But it wouldn't last long and certainly wouldn't be sucessful. Our government is doing better than most I think. We have some restrictions and need more. Its the rest of the world thats the problem. Our emissions are nothing compared to theirs.
4. Radical. There is nothing wrong with the structures. The problem resides in the government and its lack of regulation and oversight. And yes, we need revisions in Corporste charters ton stop the looting by corporate officers. A formula perhaps.
5. Beheading is fairly radical. But the rest is not.
6. Not radical. I don't see the need to increase the military budget that much, I'm not sure we can't reduce it if we close a lot of our bases and withdraw our protection of the worlds trade. Just protect our trade. And get rid of a bunch of officers. We don't need that many laundry and morale officers. No private contractors.
7. Not radical.
8. Not radical.
9. Radical. Thats the same as trying to equalize wealth. And that you can't do without going to a socialist or communist state. And if you do that everyone ends up poor except the elite.
10. 1/2 radical (There you go beheading again) "an ill-informed electorate is the tombstone of democracy" is the absolute truth and we need to get the radical left and radical right out of our schools and return to teaching kids how to think and reason.
I don't have a good answer to third party candidates. But they will have to be more than one note johnnies.
OK. You are a semi radical! Most of your discourse is thoughtful and reasoned. You have seemed open to others ideas, you seem to think before you speak, you don't seem to hold some of the radical lefts myths that dear. Your civility is appreciated. Some postings here make me wonder if I shouldn't become a conservative.
Consider....you aren't saying disband our military, the criminal murderers. At least if you did I missed it.
I'm not so sure you won't see some of the things you listed show up and/or modified forms of others.
Now about those beheadings........
YES! YES! YES!!!
If we are going to have capitalism rule, lets set the accounting equation straight.
Our planet before the industrial revolution was in fair shape, before man, it was in great shape.
If you look at everything that we are plundering on the planet; it's an ASSET. The earth as it was is no more and some things can't be replaced.
Since these things are finite, when they are gone the planet as a whole is devalued.
Life has no meaning or value in the pursuit of valuable property and resources.
Assets=Liability+Equity
We are taking out liability when we destroy assets. The problem is we don't even have assets in the accounting equation at all.
The other problem is the equity. (what we turned those nat. resources into) It's short term, and when it's gone we have nothing.
I don't see how to put a price on the quality of our planet.
The equation above should only try to keep a healthy balance by having the people who degrade, rehabilitate somewhere else to offset the negative effect.
It's not about money, it's about saving habitat for us ALL.
(redundant post)
Good day.
Again, may I suggest we turn away from money and turn to Earth.
If we are to be free of future crises we must alter our thinking from conquest, control, domination, colonization and destruction of Earth--our present "economic" system--and create a mindset that honors Earth. I've tried to make this clear and concise in my comment:
Earth first in all things and thoughts, deeds and decisions.
Thank you for reading.
http://www.darkskyinitiative.org
"Again, may I suggest we turn away from money and turn to Earth."
It's OK, you can discuss economics without discussing money. To a point.
As I am always saying:
The first order of busines is to recognize that there is no such thing as profits; if they existed they would violate the second law of thermodynamics. Instead our society is founded upon the privilege (i.e., private law) of contracts. The signators of a contract are witnessed by the government which is then bound to protect the contract and the signators from the victims of the contract, all the non-signators. This is the central point of what is called, rightly or wrongly, the market which provides the means to develop social infrastructure from the ground up – at the expense of the environment, the public, the consumer, and the worker. We must begin by recognizing the true cost of a transaction:
True cost = Market value + (Market Value / Throughput Efficiency)
The added value incorporating efficiency is recognized by business planners as “externality,” the costs of which may be realistically estimated as hundreds of times any value created by the market. The social victims could reasonably expect to find compensation at the value of the world’s product, so the non-social victims, those who cannot vote or protest, would be valued at approximately 99 times the world’s productive output.
The incurrence of such costs must be the moral prerogative of democratic decision making, not the decision of supply in the production market. Our version of democracy from both sides of the aisle prohibits the public from assuming the necessary moral burden for our economy, reframing the victimization of the public as individual “freedom” rather than individual privilege, protected by government.