Thanks, peaches.
Phaedrus:
I subscribe to a magazine called AdBusters (you would hate it) that is largely anti-corporatism. However, it is also a very imaginative magazine that attempts to answer the questions it raises. One of its principle concerns regarding unfettered capitalism is the rise of corporatism and its direct effects on the environment. I share this concern tremendously. However, I also happen to find your pro-capitalist arguments to be intriguing and convincing, save for my paranoia that my wee nieces will have no world to enjoy if we don't control ourselves.
So ... an article posted in the latest issue of AdBusters discusses the notion of developing a "Sky Trust" whereby the sky (and presumably other commons as well) are owned by all the people within a particular state, and we must buy carbon emmissions permits. In turn, the revenue generated from these permits is re-distributed among all of us evenly. So, the less you need to buy (the less pollution you generate) the greater your ROI.
The article isn't on their website (www.adbusters.org) so I'm posting the link to the thinktank which dreamed up the Sky Trust initiative. http://www.cfed.org/focus.m?parentid=34&siteid=47&id=93
What, if any, criticisms do you have of this and how comfortably does this proposed market valuation of the commons adhere to your version of capitalism?
Merci beaucoup.
Phaedrus:
I subscribe to a magazine called AdBusters (you would hate it) that is largely anti-corporatism. However, it is also a very imaginative magazine that attempts to answer the questions it raises. One of its principle concerns regarding unfettered capitalism is the rise of corporatism and its direct effects on the environment. I share this concern tremendously. However, I also happen to find your pro-capitalist arguments to be intriguing and convincing, save for my paranoia that my wee nieces will have no world to enjoy if we don't control ourselves.
So ... an article posted in the latest issue of AdBusters discusses the notion of developing a "Sky Trust" whereby the sky (and presumably other commons as well) are owned by all the people within a particular state, and we must buy carbon emmissions permits. In turn, the revenue generated from these permits is re-distributed among all of us evenly. So, the less you need to buy (the less pollution you generate) the greater your ROI.
The article isn't on their website (www.adbusters.org) so I'm posting the link to the thinktank which dreamed up the Sky Trust initiative. http://www.cfed.org/focus.m?parentid=34&siteid=47&id=93
What, if any, criticisms do you have of this and how comfortably does this proposed market valuation of the commons adhere to your version of capitalism?
Merci beaucoup.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I subscribe to a magazine called AdBusters (you would hate it)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, I am an avid reader of the AdBusters site and the various outside parties they advocate. Some are simply fruitbat idiots who should be beaten savagely in lieu of breakfast each morning until they come to their senses, but some are quite thought-provoking.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
One of its principle concerns regarding unfettered capitalism is the rise of corporatism and its direct effects on the environment. I share this concern tremendously.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
A non sequitor. The rise of modern corporatism (to be differentiated from its antecedent, which had nothing to do with corporations and was the primary plank of fascism) is not a result of capitalism, it is the antithesis -- in fact some free market thinkers believe that corporatism, and not socialism, is the exact diametric opposite of capitalism (I disagree, but we're talking about some pretty well-respected people here, so perhaps I am wrong.)
AdBusters, like many other anti-capitalist organisations, takes aim at problems which have nothing whatsoever to do with capitalism and blames it on the producers of the world, since they tend to be the ones with money and are therefore evil. This fallacious reasoning is the Achilles' Heel in most of their arguments; since it generally aims to punish those who are not responsible for a given ill, it will not solve the problem at hand.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
However, I also happen to find your pro-capitalist arguments to be intriguing and convincing, save for my paranoia that my wee nieces will have no world to enjoy if we don't control ourselves.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I've never understood the mindset that people who are pro-capitalism are anti-environment. I'm very concerned about the environment and problems which effect it, like pollution and waste. Most of the best, most workable plans for saving it have of course come from profit-seeking individuals and companies, as most of the best plans for anything usually do. And interestingly, many of these plans get squashed by so-called "environemntal advocates" and government agencies which allegedly protect the environemnt (an example which comes to mind is EWMA in Ontario, which invented some of the most singularly astounding recylcing technology the world never got to see, since the Canadian and American governments all but destroyed the company.)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
So ... an article posted in the latest issue of AdBusters discusses the notion of developing a "Sky Trust" whereby the sky (and presumably other commons as well) are owned by all the people within a particular state, and we must buy carbon emmissions permits. In turn, the revenue generated from these permits is re-distributed among all of us evenly. So, the less you need to buy (the less pollution you generate) the greater your ROI.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I find the idea interesting, but there are a number of flaws in the plan (of course, the plan can always be tweaked)
1) First off, it is just stupid to refer to the Sky Trust as a "market-based plan." To take a non-scare resource which is owned by no one and charge everyone for it, regardless of the merits or demerits of the idea, is anything but "market-based."
2) By redistributing receipts in the manner in which they ar eproposing, one is not geting an "ROI" as you call it. One is participating in what amounts to an elaborate Ponzi scheme, like Amway or Social Security. (to be fair, users of Amway actually do get useful products as part of their participation, so it is head and shoulders above Sky Trust and Social Security.)
3) Air pollution is not a static factor; in fact most of the problems with global environmental treaties have revolved around this. Air moves; you won't breath the same air tomorrow as you're breathing today. For example, in the U.S. there have been massive struggles between states over acid rain caused by one state which falls on the other. Another example of such political breakdowns is the debacle over Kyoto.
4) The Sky Trust is basically a "sin tax." These do not work well except as a source of revenue. Since the Sky Trust plan basically remits 75% of receipts back to those who pay them, it isn't even producing any revenue -- just redistributing wealth.
5) The Sky Trust plan invests nothing and proposes nothing for actually reducing emmission and carbon-based pollution. By their own figures it would amount to a $ 0.06 per gallon increase in the cost of gasoline, which is not likely to encourage anyone to cut back on consumption -- in fact, it only marginally increases end-user costs, and sends everyone at the bottom of the food chain a cheque which will almost certainly be far in excess of what they pay in increased costs -- which means that the Sky Trust would liekly reduce the cost of gasoline, natural gas heat, etc. to consumers, maybe even dramatically so. And what do we suppose the result of a potentially dramatic drop in the cost of consumption would be?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
What, if any, criticisms do you have of this and how comfortably does this proposed market valuation of the commons adhere to your version of capitalism?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, as I said, it's not a market solution by anyt stretch of the imagination. Also, I don't have a "version" of capitalism. AFAIK capitalism doesn't come in flavours; only in varying degrees of crippled performance due to interference by the state and villification by the masses which it rescued from the squalor of pre-Industrial life.
Phaedrus
I subscribe to a magazine called AdBusters (you would hate it)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, I am an avid reader of the AdBusters site and the various outside parties they advocate. Some are simply fruitbat idiots who should be beaten savagely in lieu of breakfast each morning until they come to their senses, but some are quite thought-provoking.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
One of its principle concerns regarding unfettered capitalism is the rise of corporatism and its direct effects on the environment. I share this concern tremendously.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
A non sequitor. The rise of modern corporatism (to be differentiated from its antecedent, which had nothing to do with corporations and was the primary plank of fascism) is not a result of capitalism, it is the antithesis -- in fact some free market thinkers believe that corporatism, and not socialism, is the exact diametric opposite of capitalism (I disagree, but we're talking about some pretty well-respected people here, so perhaps I am wrong.)
AdBusters, like many other anti-capitalist organisations, takes aim at problems which have nothing whatsoever to do with capitalism and blames it on the producers of the world, since they tend to be the ones with money and are therefore evil. This fallacious reasoning is the Achilles' Heel in most of their arguments; since it generally aims to punish those who are not responsible for a given ill, it will not solve the problem at hand.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
However, I also happen to find your pro-capitalist arguments to be intriguing and convincing, save for my paranoia that my wee nieces will have no world to enjoy if we don't control ourselves.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I've never understood the mindset that people who are pro-capitalism are anti-environment. I'm very concerned about the environment and problems which effect it, like pollution and waste. Most of the best, most workable plans for saving it have of course come from profit-seeking individuals and companies, as most of the best plans for anything usually do. And interestingly, many of these plans get squashed by so-called "environemntal advocates" and government agencies which allegedly protect the environemnt (an example which comes to mind is EWMA in Ontario, which invented some of the most singularly astounding recylcing technology the world never got to see, since the Canadian and American governments all but destroyed the company.)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
So ... an article posted in the latest issue of AdBusters discusses the notion of developing a "Sky Trust" whereby the sky (and presumably other commons as well) are owned by all the people within a particular state, and we must buy carbon emmissions permits. In turn, the revenue generated from these permits is re-distributed among all of us evenly. So, the less you need to buy (the less pollution you generate) the greater your ROI.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I find the idea interesting, but there are a number of flaws in the plan (of course, the plan can always be tweaked)
1) First off, it is just stupid to refer to the Sky Trust as a "market-based plan." To take a non-scare resource which is owned by no one and charge everyone for it, regardless of the merits or demerits of the idea, is anything but "market-based."
2) By redistributing receipts in the manner in which they ar eproposing, one is not geting an "ROI" as you call it. One is participating in what amounts to an elaborate Ponzi scheme, like Amway or Social Security. (to be fair, users of Amway actually do get useful products as part of their participation, so it is head and shoulders above Sky Trust and Social Security.)
3) Air pollution is not a static factor; in fact most of the problems with global environmental treaties have revolved around this. Air moves; you won't breath the same air tomorrow as you're breathing today. For example, in the U.S. there have been massive struggles between states over acid rain caused by one state which falls on the other. Another example of such political breakdowns is the debacle over Kyoto.
4) The Sky Trust is basically a "sin tax." These do not work well except as a source of revenue. Since the Sky Trust plan basically remits 75% of receipts back to those who pay them, it isn't even producing any revenue -- just redistributing wealth.
5) The Sky Trust plan invests nothing and proposes nothing for actually reducing emmission and carbon-based pollution. By their own figures it would amount to a $ 0.06 per gallon increase in the cost of gasoline, which is not likely to encourage anyone to cut back on consumption -- in fact, it only marginally increases end-user costs, and sends everyone at the bottom of the food chain a cheque which will almost certainly be far in excess of what they pay in increased costs -- which means that the Sky Trust would liekly reduce the cost of gasoline, natural gas heat, etc. to consumers, maybe even dramatically so. And what do we suppose the result of a potentially dramatic drop in the cost of consumption would be?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
What, if any, criticisms do you have of this and how comfortably does this proposed market valuation of the commons adhere to your version of capitalism?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, as I said, it's not a market solution by anyt stretch of the imagination. Also, I don't have a "version" of capitalism. AFAIK capitalism doesn't come in flavours; only in varying degrees of crippled performance due to interference by the state and villification by the masses which it rescued from the squalor of pre-Industrial life.
Phaedrus
nice post Phaedrus interesting points you bring up especially the capitalist = environment destroyer. Efficiency = reduction in waste (which includes cost and pollution) is a primary goal of any manufacturing operation therefore companies have a real interest in finding ways to make things cleaner. My family has a mining back ground which probably has the worst reputation of all and the thought that the PURPOSE of the mine was to destroy the trees, fish and air is still rampant. I don’t know how many billions of $$ are spent on research and development not because some govt. entity forced them to but because its simply good for business.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Phaedrus:
The rise of modern corporatism (to be differentiated from its antecedent, which had nothing to do with corporations and was the primary plank of fascism) is not a result of capitalism, it is the antithesis -- in fact some free market thinkers believe that corporatism, and not socialism, is the exact diametric opposite of capitalism (I disagree, but we're talking about some pretty well-respected people here, so perhaps I am wrong.) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Corporatism and capitalism do have one main thing in common, which is profit, and is precisely which distinguishes it from the (non-corrupt) state. Until it is made very clear to people that corporatism couldn't happen without the cooperation of the state, the two will continue to be confused, and capitalism will be society's punching bag.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>AdBusters, like many other anti-capitalist organisations, takes aim at problems which have nothing whatsoever to do with capitalism and blames it on the producers of the world, since they tend to be the ones with money and are therefore evil. This fallacious reasoning is the Achilles' Heel in most of their arguments; since it generally aims to punish those who are not responsible for a given ill, it will not solve the problem at hand. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have tremendous love for AdBusters' text within the political realm. I own and operate an Advertising biz, have worked in marketing my whole life, so don't share their disdain for the 'brand bullies.' If I boycott Nike (which I do) it has nothing to do with the 'swoosh.'
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I've never understood the mindset that people who are pro-capitalism are anti-environment. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't think capitalists are anti-environment. I'm more inclined to think that corporatists will use pro-environmental issues as public relations tactics, and will even adopt environmentally friendly policies, while their real stance may be neutral or disinterested or actually concerned. That wasn't what I was implying at all. I am simply saying our love of driving, plastics and blah blah is pouring a tremendous amount of crap into our air and water and it worries me. I blame consumers as much as I do corporations for the end result. (I don't believe it to be malicious, either.)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I'm very concerned about the environment and problems which effect it, like pollution and waste. Most of the best, most workable plans for saving it have of course come from profit-seeking individuals and companies, as most of the best plans for anything usually do. And interestingly, many of these plans get squashed by so-called "environemntal advocates" and government agencies which allegedly protect the environemnt (an example which comes to mind is EWMA in Ontario, which invented some of the most singularly astounding recylcing technology the world never got to see, since the Canadian and American governments all but destroyed the company.) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I've not heard of that company so will have to look it up. And I agree with the profit-motive, which is why the Sky Trust attracted my attention in the first place.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>1) First off, it is just stupid to refer to the Sky Trust as a "market-based plan." To take a non-scare resource which is owned by no one and charge everyone for it, regardless of the merits or demerits of the idea, is anything but "market-based." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
At what point does our 'air' and 'sky', neither of which are infinite, be deemed 'scarce'? Proponents of this plan seem to be taking the position that the sky is already scarce, and owned by all of us already, albeit only in the altruistic sense.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>3) Air pollution is not a static factor; in fact most of the problems with global environmental treaties have revolved around this. Air moves; you won't breath the same air tomorrow as you're breathing today. For example, in the U.S. there have been massive struggles between states over acid rain caused by one state which falls on the other. Another example of such political breakdowns is the debacle over Kyoto. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Another reason why internationalism is so tricky but so necessary, in my world view.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>4) The Sky Trust is basically a "sin tax." These do not work well except as a source of revenue. Since the Sky Trust plan basically remits 75% of receipts back to those who pay them, it isn't even producing any revenue -- just redistributing wealth. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The way I read it -- if you drive a Jag which emits 8.7 tonnes of greenhouse gas emmissions per year whereas I choose not to drive at all, you are charged $25 x 8.7 at the proposed going rate, I am charged nothing. We receive the same 'dividend' from the trust annually, but I have profited because I didn't have to pay into in the first place. I fail to see how this is simply redistributing wealth in the same context as taxing the rich, since an individual's profit is based first on their consumption levels.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>5) The Sky Trust plan invests nothing and proposes nothing for actually reducing emmission and carbon-based pollution. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Right.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>By their own figures it would amount to a $ 0.06 per gallon increase in the cost of gasoline, which is not likely to encourage anyone to cut back on consumption -- in fact, it only marginally increases end-user costs, and sends everyone at the bottom of the food chain a cheque which will almost certainly be far in excess of what they pay in increased costs -- which means that the Sky Trust would liekly _reduce_ the cost of gasoline, natural gas heat, etc. to consumers, maybe even dramatically so. And what do we suppose the result of a potentially dramatic drop in the cost of consumption would be? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Because there is to be an imposed 'cap' on the level of emmissions permits, if consumption indeed were to rise, so too would the price of the permits. To be price competitive (and this is the principle advantage to all of this and is worth the risks, in my view) companies would find themselves with incentive to find viable alternatives. While this is going to happen eventually anyway in a climate of rising oil prices and diminishing supply, this 'trust' could speed the process along by more quickly increasing the demand for alternative sources of energy, etc.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Well, as I said, it's not a market solution by anyt stretch of the imagination. Also, I don't have a "version" of capitalism. AFAIK capitalism doesn't come in flavours; only in varying degrees of crippled performance due to interference by the state and villification by the masses which it rescued from the squalor of pre-Industrial life. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Saying 'your version' is my way of distinguishing between capitalism and corporatism.
At any rate, I am glad to see that people are beginning to think outside the box using ideas that have wider appeal than our more traditional tactics. Joe Lieberman has taken this idea to Congress and it is being debated. The Greens have proposed a somewhat similar model to Parliament. It's a start.
The rise of modern corporatism (to be differentiated from its antecedent, which had nothing to do with corporations and was the primary plank of fascism) is not a result of capitalism, it is the antithesis -- in fact some free market thinkers believe that corporatism, and not socialism, is the exact diametric opposite of capitalism (I disagree, but we're talking about some pretty well-respected people here, so perhaps I am wrong.) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Corporatism and capitalism do have one main thing in common, which is profit, and is precisely which distinguishes it from the (non-corrupt) state. Until it is made very clear to people that corporatism couldn't happen without the cooperation of the state, the two will continue to be confused, and capitalism will be society's punching bag.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>AdBusters, like many other anti-capitalist organisations, takes aim at problems which have nothing whatsoever to do with capitalism and blames it on the producers of the world, since they tend to be the ones with money and are therefore evil. This fallacious reasoning is the Achilles' Heel in most of their arguments; since it generally aims to punish those who are not responsible for a given ill, it will not solve the problem at hand. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have tremendous love for AdBusters' text within the political realm. I own and operate an Advertising biz, have worked in marketing my whole life, so don't share their disdain for the 'brand bullies.' If I boycott Nike (which I do) it has nothing to do with the 'swoosh.'
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I've never understood the mindset that people who are pro-capitalism are anti-environment. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't think capitalists are anti-environment. I'm more inclined to think that corporatists will use pro-environmental issues as public relations tactics, and will even adopt environmentally friendly policies, while their real stance may be neutral or disinterested or actually concerned. That wasn't what I was implying at all. I am simply saying our love of driving, plastics and blah blah is pouring a tremendous amount of crap into our air and water and it worries me. I blame consumers as much as I do corporations for the end result. (I don't believe it to be malicious, either.)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I'm very concerned about the environment and problems which effect it, like pollution and waste. Most of the best, most workable plans for saving it have of course come from profit-seeking individuals and companies, as most of the best plans for anything usually do. And interestingly, many of these plans get squashed by so-called "environemntal advocates" and government agencies which allegedly protect the environemnt (an example which comes to mind is EWMA in Ontario, which invented some of the most singularly astounding recylcing technology the world never got to see, since the Canadian and American governments all but destroyed the company.) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I've not heard of that company so will have to look it up. And I agree with the profit-motive, which is why the Sky Trust attracted my attention in the first place.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>1) First off, it is just stupid to refer to the Sky Trust as a "market-based plan." To take a non-scare resource which is owned by no one and charge everyone for it, regardless of the merits or demerits of the idea, is anything but "market-based." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
At what point does our 'air' and 'sky', neither of which are infinite, be deemed 'scarce'? Proponents of this plan seem to be taking the position that the sky is already scarce, and owned by all of us already, albeit only in the altruistic sense.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>3) Air pollution is not a static factor; in fact most of the problems with global environmental treaties have revolved around this. Air moves; you won't breath the same air tomorrow as you're breathing today. For example, in the U.S. there have been massive struggles between states over acid rain caused by one state which falls on the other. Another example of such political breakdowns is the debacle over Kyoto. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Another reason why internationalism is so tricky but so necessary, in my world view.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>4) The Sky Trust is basically a "sin tax." These do not work well except as a source of revenue. Since the Sky Trust plan basically remits 75% of receipts back to those who pay them, it isn't even producing any revenue -- just redistributing wealth. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The way I read it -- if you drive a Jag which emits 8.7 tonnes of greenhouse gas emmissions per year whereas I choose not to drive at all, you are charged $25 x 8.7 at the proposed going rate, I am charged nothing. We receive the same 'dividend' from the trust annually, but I have profited because I didn't have to pay into in the first place. I fail to see how this is simply redistributing wealth in the same context as taxing the rich, since an individual's profit is based first on their consumption levels.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>5) The Sky Trust plan invests nothing and proposes nothing for actually reducing emmission and carbon-based pollution. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Right.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>By their own figures it would amount to a $ 0.06 per gallon increase in the cost of gasoline, which is not likely to encourage anyone to cut back on consumption -- in fact, it only marginally increases end-user costs, and sends everyone at the bottom of the food chain a cheque which will almost certainly be far in excess of what they pay in increased costs -- which means that the Sky Trust would liekly _reduce_ the cost of gasoline, natural gas heat, etc. to consumers, maybe even dramatically so. And what do we suppose the result of a potentially dramatic drop in the cost of consumption would be? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Because there is to be an imposed 'cap' on the level of emmissions permits, if consumption indeed were to rise, so too would the price of the permits. To be price competitive (and this is the principle advantage to all of this and is worth the risks, in my view) companies would find themselves with incentive to find viable alternatives. While this is going to happen eventually anyway in a climate of rising oil prices and diminishing supply, this 'trust' could speed the process along by more quickly increasing the demand for alternative sources of energy, etc.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Well, as I said, it's not a market solution by anyt stretch of the imagination. Also, I don't have a "version" of capitalism. AFAIK capitalism doesn't come in flavours; only in varying degrees of crippled performance due to interference by the state and villification by the masses which it rescued from the squalor of pre-Industrial life. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Saying 'your version' is my way of distinguishing between capitalism and corporatism.
At any rate, I am glad to see that people are beginning to think outside the box using ideas that have wider appeal than our more traditional tactics. Joe Lieberman has taken this idea to Congress and it is being debated. The Greens have proposed a somewhat similar model to Parliament. It's a start.
posted by xpanda:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Corporatism and capitalism do have one main thing in common, which is profit ...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Perhaps we're splitting hairs here, but I would say that the former is concerned with money, not profit. Even if by "profit" you were simply making a blanket reference to money, I'd say that corporatism is far more concerned with power than cash.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
... and is precisely which distinguishes it from the (non-corrupt) state.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
There is no such thing as a "non-corrupt" state.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Until it is made very clear to people that corporatism couldn't happen without the cooperation of the state, the two will continue to be confused, and capitalism will be society's punching bag.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Very succinctly put.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I have tremendous love for AdBusters' text within the political realm. I own and operate an Advertising biz, have worked in marketing my whole life, so don't share their disdain for the 'brand bullies.' If I boycott Nike (which I do) it has nothing to do with the 'swoosh.'
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't really get anti-advertising propoganda -- it seems like a truly dumbass hobby to me. I recently read an essay by a person I generally consider quite bright who asserted with deadly seriousness that advertising is to blame for virtually all economic inequality in the world, by causing covetousness among the poor -- the unintentionally implied premise being that the poor are very stupid and easily manipulated compared to the rich. Naturally the author was aghast at this observation and denies having such a low opinion of the poor, manipulated poor.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I've not heard of [EWMA] so will have to look it up.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Environmental Waste Management Associates in Ajax. If I am not mistaken the company is long since shuttered. They developed an absolutely incredible form of recycling technology, one of the most startling applications I've ever seen (and I am very very big an recycling tech and have studied most of them.) The technology, unfortunately, used microwaves, and since microwaves are used to prepare food and treat some forms of cancer they are clearly very, very dangerous and EWMA were agents of Satan for attempting to implement such a thing etc.
I worked for the UN (shock! gasp!) at the time that I learned of EWMA and saw one of their test bed operations in the States, which used EWMA's technology to reduce tires into carbon, sulfur and steel (tires are one of our biggest waste problems in the States btw.) Shortly after it was built one of the site operators noticed that the enormous amount of heat generated from the process, which was being diverted into water-filled cooling vats, could be as easily diverted into water-filled turbines, which then powered the entire rest of the building with amps to spare. Suddenly there was an "environmental crisis" and the place got shut down. I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but still.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
1) First off, it is just stupid to refer to the Sky Trust as a "market-based plan." To take a non-scarce resource which is owned by no one and charge everyone for it, regardless of the merits or demerits of the idea, is anything but "market-based."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
At what point does our 'air' and 'sky', neither of which are infinite, be deemed 'scarce'? Proponents of this plan seem to be taking the position that the sky is already scarce, and owned by all of us already, albeit only in the altruistic sense.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I meant scarce in the economic sense; i.e. that the expenditure of capital resources is not necessary to have air. Water is not an economically scarce resource anywhere on earth; potable water is, almost everywhere on earth. With little exception (scuba divers, astronauts, residents of Los Angeles) air is as free as, well, the air we breathe, and the world will have to get substantially worse than it is before that changes.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
3) Air pollution is not a static factor; in fact most of the problems with global environmental treaties have revolved around this. Air moves; you won't breath the same air tomorrow as you're breathing today. For example, in the U.S. there have been massive struggles between states over acid rain caused by one state which falls on the other. Another example of such political breakdowns is the debacle over Kyoto.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Another reason why internationalism is so tricky but so necessary, in my world view.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Okay, but that doesn't change the fact that the Sky Trust plan would only likely be implemented by a small percentage of the world's population (although granted that if it were implemented in the U.S. it would at least impact a larger percentage of the world's polluters than the 5% of the population we have.)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
4) The Sky Trust is basically a "sin tax." These do not work well except as a source of revenue. Since the Sky Trust plan basically remits 75% of receipts back to those who pay them, it isn't even producing any revenue -- just redistributing wealth.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The way I read it -- if you drive a Jag which emits 8.7 tonnes of greenhouse gas emmissions per year whereas I choose not to drive at all, you are charged $25 x 8.7 at the proposed going rate, I am charged nothing. We receive the same 'dividend' from the trust annually, but I have profited because I didn't have to pay into in the first place. I fail to see how this is simply redistributing wealth in the same context as taxing the rich, since an individual's profit is based first on their consumption levels.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It is wealth redistribution because it is simply adding a fee to something that was free in the first place, and then redistributing those funds minus admin costs.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
5) The Sky Trust plan invests nothing and proposes nothing for actually reducing emmission and carbon-based pollution.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Right.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
... and is therefore little more than a "sin tax" such as is found on gasoline, cigarettes, whores, etc. in various jurisdictions already, without significantly impacting consumption of same (and in fact encouraging black markets in same in many cases, especially cigarettes and whores.)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
By their own figures it would amount to a $ 0.06 per gallon increase in the cost of gasoline, which is not likely to encourage anyone to cut back on consumption -- in fact, it only marginally increases end-user costs, and sends everyone at the bottom of the food chain a cheque which will almost certainly be far in excess of what they pay in increased costs -- which means that the Sky Trust would liekly _reduce_ the cost of gasoline, natural gas heat, etc. to consumers, maybe even dramatically so. And what do we suppose the result of a potentially dramatic drop in the cost of consumption would be?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Because there is to be an imposed 'cap' on the level of emmissions permits, if consumption indeed were to rise, so too would the price of the permits.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I must have missed this part. So in other words, we're allowed an aggregate x amount of emmissions, and once those are used up the solution is just to make the price higher for next year?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
To be price competitive (and this is the principle advantage to all of this and is worth the risks, in my view) companies would find themselves with incentive to find viable alternatives. While this is going to happen eventually anyway in a climate of rising oil prices and diminishing supply, this 'trust' could speed the process along by more quickly increasing the demand for alternative sources of energy, etc.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree that it could act as a sor of incentive, but last I checked interest and investment in alternative energy has increased nearly every year for decades, while, as many "Oilmageddon" enthusiasts are fond of pointing out, exploration for new oil and natural gas is waning even in these days of massive consumption and record-setting oil prices.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
At any rate, I am glad to see that people are beginning to think outside the box using ideas that have wider appeal than our more traditional tactics. Joe Lieberman has taken this idea to Congress and it is being debated. The Greens have proposed a somewhat similar model to Parliament. It's a start.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think it's an interesting concept on the face of it, but their proposal needs to be seriously reworked, preferably by someone who understands economics.
Phaedrus
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Corporatism and capitalism do have one main thing in common, which is profit ...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Perhaps we're splitting hairs here, but I would say that the former is concerned with money, not profit. Even if by "profit" you were simply making a blanket reference to money, I'd say that corporatism is far more concerned with power than cash.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
... and is precisely which distinguishes it from the (non-corrupt) state.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
There is no such thing as a "non-corrupt" state.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Until it is made very clear to people that corporatism couldn't happen without the cooperation of the state, the two will continue to be confused, and capitalism will be society's punching bag.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Very succinctly put.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I have tremendous love for AdBusters' text within the political realm. I own and operate an Advertising biz, have worked in marketing my whole life, so don't share their disdain for the 'brand bullies.' If I boycott Nike (which I do) it has nothing to do with the 'swoosh.'
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't really get anti-advertising propoganda -- it seems like a truly dumbass hobby to me. I recently read an essay by a person I generally consider quite bright who asserted with deadly seriousness that advertising is to blame for virtually all economic inequality in the world, by causing covetousness among the poor -- the unintentionally implied premise being that the poor are very stupid and easily manipulated compared to the rich. Naturally the author was aghast at this observation and denies having such a low opinion of the poor, manipulated poor.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I've not heard of [EWMA] so will have to look it up.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Environmental Waste Management Associates in Ajax. If I am not mistaken the company is long since shuttered. They developed an absolutely incredible form of recycling technology, one of the most startling applications I've ever seen (and I am very very big an recycling tech and have studied most of them.) The technology, unfortunately, used microwaves, and since microwaves are used to prepare food and treat some forms of cancer they are clearly very, very dangerous and EWMA were agents of Satan for attempting to implement such a thing etc.
I worked for the UN (shock! gasp!) at the time that I learned of EWMA and saw one of their test bed operations in the States, which used EWMA's technology to reduce tires into carbon, sulfur and steel (tires are one of our biggest waste problems in the States btw.) Shortly after it was built one of the site operators noticed that the enormous amount of heat generated from the process, which was being diverted into water-filled cooling vats, could be as easily diverted into water-filled turbines, which then powered the entire rest of the building with amps to spare. Suddenly there was an "environmental crisis" and the place got shut down. I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but still.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
1) First off, it is just stupid to refer to the Sky Trust as a "market-based plan." To take a non-scarce resource which is owned by no one and charge everyone for it, regardless of the merits or demerits of the idea, is anything but "market-based."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
At what point does our 'air' and 'sky', neither of which are infinite, be deemed 'scarce'? Proponents of this plan seem to be taking the position that the sky is already scarce, and owned by all of us already, albeit only in the altruistic sense.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I meant scarce in the economic sense; i.e. that the expenditure of capital resources is not necessary to have air. Water is not an economically scarce resource anywhere on earth; potable water is, almost everywhere on earth. With little exception (scuba divers, astronauts, residents of Los Angeles) air is as free as, well, the air we breathe, and the world will have to get substantially worse than it is before that changes.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
3) Air pollution is not a static factor; in fact most of the problems with global environmental treaties have revolved around this. Air moves; you won't breath the same air tomorrow as you're breathing today. For example, in the U.S. there have been massive struggles between states over acid rain caused by one state which falls on the other. Another example of such political breakdowns is the debacle over Kyoto.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Another reason why internationalism is so tricky but so necessary, in my world view.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Okay, but that doesn't change the fact that the Sky Trust plan would only likely be implemented by a small percentage of the world's population (although granted that if it were implemented in the U.S. it would at least impact a larger percentage of the world's polluters than the 5% of the population we have.)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
4) The Sky Trust is basically a "sin tax." These do not work well except as a source of revenue. Since the Sky Trust plan basically remits 75% of receipts back to those who pay them, it isn't even producing any revenue -- just redistributing wealth.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The way I read it -- if you drive a Jag which emits 8.7 tonnes of greenhouse gas emmissions per year whereas I choose not to drive at all, you are charged $25 x 8.7 at the proposed going rate, I am charged nothing. We receive the same 'dividend' from the trust annually, but I have profited because I didn't have to pay into in the first place. I fail to see how this is simply redistributing wealth in the same context as taxing the rich, since an individual's profit is based first on their consumption levels.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It is wealth redistribution because it is simply adding a fee to something that was free in the first place, and then redistributing those funds minus admin costs.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
5) The Sky Trust plan invests nothing and proposes nothing for actually reducing emmission and carbon-based pollution.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Right.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
... and is therefore little more than a "sin tax" such as is found on gasoline, cigarettes, whores, etc. in various jurisdictions already, without significantly impacting consumption of same (and in fact encouraging black markets in same in many cases, especially cigarettes and whores.)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
By their own figures it would amount to a $ 0.06 per gallon increase in the cost of gasoline, which is not likely to encourage anyone to cut back on consumption -- in fact, it only marginally increases end-user costs, and sends everyone at the bottom of the food chain a cheque which will almost certainly be far in excess of what they pay in increased costs -- which means that the Sky Trust would liekly _reduce_ the cost of gasoline, natural gas heat, etc. to consumers, maybe even dramatically so. And what do we suppose the result of a potentially dramatic drop in the cost of consumption would be?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Because there is to be an imposed 'cap' on the level of emmissions permits, if consumption indeed were to rise, so too would the price of the permits.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I must have missed this part. So in other words, we're allowed an aggregate x amount of emmissions, and once those are used up the solution is just to make the price higher for next year?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
To be price competitive (and this is the principle advantage to all of this and is worth the risks, in my view) companies would find themselves with incentive to find viable alternatives. While this is going to happen eventually anyway in a climate of rising oil prices and diminishing supply, this 'trust' could speed the process along by more quickly increasing the demand for alternative sources of energy, etc.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree that it could act as a sor of incentive, but last I checked interest and investment in alternative energy has increased nearly every year for decades, while, as many "Oilmageddon" enthusiasts are fond of pointing out, exploration for new oil and natural gas is waning even in these days of massive consumption and record-setting oil prices.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
At any rate, I am glad to see that people are beginning to think outside the box using ideas that have wider appeal than our more traditional tactics. Joe Lieberman has taken this idea to Congress and it is being debated. The Greens have proposed a somewhat similar model to Parliament. It's a start.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think it's an interesting concept on the face of it, but their proposal needs to be seriously reworked, preferably by someone who understands economics.
Phaedrus
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Phaedrus:
I meant scarce in the economic sense; _i.e._ that the expenditure of capital resources is not necessary to have air. Water is not an economically scarce resource anywhere on earth; _potable_ water is, almost everywhere on earth. With little exception (scuba divers, astronauts, residents of Los Angeles) air is as free as, well, the air we breathe, and the world will have to get substantially worse than it is before that changes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Okay, change the language a little by adding the word 'clean' to either. To borrow from the tagline of the anti-corporatists, corporations (and individuals) are able to throw pollutants into the air because, for the most part, the state absorbs the costs of cleanup while the profits go to a select few. But many of these costs won't be incurred until a future date yet the profits are realised now. I see this as an opportunity to account for costs not generally associated with the Balance Sheet. That said, I would rather see the Trust (or its likeness) fund the cleanup rather than pay me a cheque for $400 a year.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I must have missed this part. So in other words, we're allowed an aggregate x amount of emmissions, and once those are used up the solution is just to make the price higher for next year? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I was under the impression that the number of emmissions permits would be fixed (actually, I believe they intend for it to decline gradually over a period of years) thus, price is determined by how they are traded on the market rather than determined from year to year. The more polluting that occurs, the higher the price as demand for [the still fixed number of] emmissions permits increases. In other words, after the initial couple of years, no permits will be available from the trust itself, but from polluters who have reduced their need for the permits they already own. This was my interpretation, but I could be wrong.
This concept, emmissions caps and ownership of everything, was brought up by a proponent of laissez faire and über-privatisation in the film The Corporation to the gasps of the audience. For the life of me I cannot remember his name, although his face is clear in my mind. At any rate, my interpretation of the Sky Trust could be based on the fact that I immediately recalled his comments and associated the two.
As the subject is proposed in Congress, there are no limits on the number of free emmissions permits for business and no limits to the number of new permits alloted each year. Of course, these ommissions completely defeat the purpose.
Thanks for your comments.
I meant scarce in the economic sense; _i.e._ that the expenditure of capital resources is not necessary to have air. Water is not an economically scarce resource anywhere on earth; _potable_ water is, almost everywhere on earth. With little exception (scuba divers, astronauts, residents of Los Angeles) air is as free as, well, the air we breathe, and the world will have to get substantially worse than it is before that changes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Okay, change the language a little by adding the word 'clean' to either. To borrow from the tagline of the anti-corporatists, corporations (and individuals) are able to throw pollutants into the air because, for the most part, the state absorbs the costs of cleanup while the profits go to a select few. But many of these costs won't be incurred until a future date yet the profits are realised now. I see this as an opportunity to account for costs not generally associated with the Balance Sheet. That said, I would rather see the Trust (or its likeness) fund the cleanup rather than pay me a cheque for $400 a year.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I must have missed this part. So in other words, we're allowed an aggregate x amount of emmissions, and once those are used up the solution is just to make the price higher for next year? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I was under the impression that the number of emmissions permits would be fixed (actually, I believe they intend for it to decline gradually over a period of years) thus, price is determined by how they are traded on the market rather than determined from year to year. The more polluting that occurs, the higher the price as demand for [the still fixed number of] emmissions permits increases. In other words, after the initial couple of years, no permits will be available from the trust itself, but from polluters who have reduced their need for the permits they already own. This was my interpretation, but I could be wrong.
This concept, emmissions caps and ownership of everything, was brought up by a proponent of laissez faire and über-privatisation in the film The Corporation to the gasps of the audience. For the life of me I cannot remember his name, although his face is clear in my mind. At any rate, my interpretation of the Sky Trust could be based on the fact that I immediately recalled his comments and associated the two.
As the subject is proposed in Congress, there are no limits on the number of free emmissions permits for business and no limits to the number of new permits alloted each year. Of course, these ommissions completely defeat the purpose.
Thanks for your comments.
posted by xpanda:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Okay, change the language a little by adding the word 'clean' to either.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's not that simple, not even for purpose of illustration. Even poor-quality air is generally breathable; poor-quality water can kill you from dysentery (sp.?) practically overnight. Clean water exists in many places in a natural state; however, a consistent and reliable source of drinkable, usable water is a scarce economic resource inasmuch as it is not something you can just walk outside and take a big whiff of. If air were remotely like water as a resource, we would all be long dead.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
To borrow from the tagline of the anti-corporatists, corporations (and individuals) are able to throw pollutants into the air because, for the most part, the state absorbs the costs of cleanup while the profits go to a select few. I see this as an opportunity to account for costs not generally associated with the Balance Sheet.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<devil's advocate>
This sort of "big picture" thinking, while an admirable show of macroeconomic conceptualisation, requires the reader to point out that those corporations foot the bill for many benefits which are realised by the state and society in general, such as mass employment, readily accessible goods and services at low low prices (like potable water for example) compared to that for which they can be attained on a small scale, etc.
</devil's advocate>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
That said, I would rather see the Trust (or its likeness) fund the cleanup rather than pay me a cheque for $400 a year.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, the beauty of air cleanup is that by all accounts it appears to be self-cleaning, so what we really need to do is focus on reducing emmissions in general.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I was under the impression that the number of emmissions permits would be fixed (actually, I believe they intend for it to decline gradually over a period of years) thus, price is determined by how they are traded on the market rather than determined from year to year. The more polluting that occurs, the higher the price as demand for [the still fixed number of] emmissions permits increases. In other words, after the initial couple of years, no permits will be available from the trust itself, but from polluters who have reduced their need for the permits they already own. This was my interpretation, but I could be wrong.
This concept, emmissions caps and ownership of everything, was brought up by a proponent of laissez faire and über-privatisation in the film The Corporation to the gasps of the audience. For the life of me I cannot remember his name, although his face is clear in my mind. At any rate, my interpretation of the Sky Trust could be based on the fact that I immediately recalled his comments and associated the two.
As the subject is proposed in Congress, there are no limits on the number of free emmissions permits for business and no limits to the number of new permits alloted each year. Of course, these ommissions completely defeat the purpose.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This would be a typical socialist disaster. You can't plan resource rationing in advance unfortunately, no matter how good your economic data of the past is. To take what is, again, a non-scarce resource and try to convince people that not only do they have to pay for it, but that there will be a decreasing supply from here on out (in stark contravention of the evidence provided by the factthat we're not all dead) would simply cause that system to collapse because no one would follow it after a while -- either through black market activity, or nations refusing to fall into line or dropping out of convention via attrition.
The guy you mention, by the way, sounds a lot like Milton Friedman. He's not really all that laissez-faire, although he is by far the most nearly Austrian of the Chicago economists (Austrians are generally the laissez-faire and anarchist types -- in fact one of the biggest influences on the early Libertarian Party was Austrian economist Murray Rothbard, despite his love-hate relationship with LP founder David Nolan.)
Phaedrus
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Okay, change the language a little by adding the word 'clean' to either.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's not that simple, not even for purpose of illustration. Even poor-quality air is generally breathable; poor-quality water can kill you from dysentery (sp.?) practically overnight. Clean water exists in many places in a natural state; however, a consistent and reliable source of drinkable, usable water is a scarce economic resource inasmuch as it is not something you can just walk outside and take a big whiff of. If air were remotely like water as a resource, we would all be long dead.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
To borrow from the tagline of the anti-corporatists, corporations (and individuals) are able to throw pollutants into the air because, for the most part, the state absorbs the costs of cleanup while the profits go to a select few. I see this as an opportunity to account for costs not generally associated with the Balance Sheet.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<devil's advocate>
This sort of "big picture" thinking, while an admirable show of macroeconomic conceptualisation, requires the reader to point out that those corporations foot the bill for many benefits which are realised by the state and society in general, such as mass employment, readily accessible goods and services at low low prices (like potable water for example) compared to that for which they can be attained on a small scale, etc.
</devil's advocate>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
That said, I would rather see the Trust (or its likeness) fund the cleanup rather than pay me a cheque for $400 a year.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, the beauty of air cleanup is that by all accounts it appears to be self-cleaning, so what we really need to do is focus on reducing emmissions in general.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I was under the impression that the number of emmissions permits would be fixed (actually, I believe they intend for it to decline gradually over a period of years) thus, price is determined by how they are traded on the market rather than determined from year to year. The more polluting that occurs, the higher the price as demand for [the still fixed number of] emmissions permits increases. In other words, after the initial couple of years, no permits will be available from the trust itself, but from polluters who have reduced their need for the permits they already own. This was my interpretation, but I could be wrong.
This concept, emmissions caps and ownership of everything, was brought up by a proponent of laissez faire and über-privatisation in the film The Corporation to the gasps of the audience. For the life of me I cannot remember his name, although his face is clear in my mind. At any rate, my interpretation of the Sky Trust could be based on the fact that I immediately recalled his comments and associated the two.
As the subject is proposed in Congress, there are no limits on the number of free emmissions permits for business and no limits to the number of new permits alloted each year. Of course, these ommissions completely defeat the purpose.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This would be a typical socialist disaster. You can't plan resource rationing in advance unfortunately, no matter how good your economic data of the past is. To take what is, again, a non-scarce resource and try to convince people that not only do they have to pay for it, but that there will be a decreasing supply from here on out (in stark contravention of the evidence provided by the factthat we're not all dead) would simply cause that system to collapse because no one would follow it after a while -- either through black market activity, or nations refusing to fall into line or dropping out of convention via attrition.
The guy you mention, by the way, sounds a lot like Milton Friedman. He's not really all that laissez-faire, although he is by far the most nearly Austrian of the Chicago economists (Austrians are generally the laissez-faire and anarchist types -- in fact one of the biggest influences on the early Libertarian Party was Austrian economist Murray Rothbard, despite his love-hate relationship with LP founder David Nolan.)
Phaedrus
I'm familiar with Friedman (one of his books is en route as well) but I don't think it was him.
I just started reading The Unconscious Civilisation by Canadian writer John Ralston Saul (of Voltaire's Bastards fame) who is, by most accounts, socialist in nature. The book is an indictment of Corporatism and its left-wing/right-wing embrace, but, most interestingly, he's been quoting Adam Smith for the past eight pages. Interesting how readily ideologies borrow from one another.
Up next week: Neo-Conservatism and Fascism: How The Joys of Self-Loathing can Make Your Life Less Troublesome.
I just started reading The Unconscious Civilisation by Canadian writer John Ralston Saul (of Voltaire's Bastards fame) who is, by most accounts, socialist in nature. The book is an indictment of Corporatism and its left-wing/right-wing embrace, but, most interestingly, he's been quoting Adam Smith for the past eight pages. Interesting how readily ideologies borrow from one another.
Up next week: Neo-Conservatism and Fascism: How The Joys of Self-Loathing can Make Your Life Less Troublesome.
posted by xpanda:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I just started reading The Unconscious Civilisation by Canadian writer John Ralston Saul (of Voltaire's Bastards fame) who is, by most accounts, socialist in nature. The book is an indictment of Corporatism and its left-wing/right-wing embrace, but, most interestingly, he's been quoting Adam Smith for the past eight pages. Interesting how readily ideologies borrow from one another.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, Smith has long been a favourite of commie pinko bastard authors going at least as far back as Marx and Engels, who built their system largely on Smith's many enormous fallacies (such as the totally bullshit labour theory of value, which is based on observations by Smith.)
Smith made many contributions to economics and to the field of political economy in particular, but let's always bear in mind that this was a man who thought that corn would make a better base for a currency than silver, and that who openly -- and with a straight face -- was mystified by the fact that water cost less than diamonds, despite water's inarguably more utilitarian appeal.
Phaedrus
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I just started reading The Unconscious Civilisation by Canadian writer John Ralston Saul (of Voltaire's Bastards fame) who is, by most accounts, socialist in nature. The book is an indictment of Corporatism and its left-wing/right-wing embrace, but, most interestingly, he's been quoting Adam Smith for the past eight pages. Interesting how readily ideologies borrow from one another.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, Smith has long been a favourite of commie pinko bastard authors going at least as far back as Marx and Engels, who built their system largely on Smith's many enormous fallacies (such as the totally bullshit labour theory of value, which is based on observations by Smith.)
Smith made many contributions to economics and to the field of political economy in particular, but let's always bear in mind that this was a man who thought that corn would make a better base for a currency than silver, and that who openly -- and with a straight face -- was mystified by the fact that water cost less than diamonds, despite water's inarguably more utilitarian appeal.
Phaedrus
LMAO at 'commie pinko bastards.'
The labour theory of value is one that rather gives me the giggles, although I am not schooled well enough in economics to fully explain or understand why that is. At any rate, I didn't know that Smith influenced Marx and Engels, although I shouldn't pretend to understand Marx at all.
As always, it's been enlightening.
The labour theory of value is one that rather gives me the giggles, although I am not schooled well enough in economics to fully explain or understand why that is. At any rate, I didn't know that Smith influenced Marx and Engels, although I shouldn't pretend to understand Marx at all.
As always, it's been enlightening.
Well, Marx drew copiously on Smith, and the LTV was based directly on musings of Smith's in Wealth of Nations.
Funny thing, honestly one of the funniest leftie twit things I ever saw, was this annoying troll at the PW forum who made fools out of most of the Bush-worshippers there, by "quoting Marx" and then challenging them to refute the claim .. can't remember exactly what it was ... anyway, the uber-rechters all went beserk like monkeys tossing turds trying to refute the theory, only to find a day or so later that although the quote could be found in Marx' work, it was actually Marx quoting Smith within the context of his own work .. so basically everyone was going nuts to debunk Adam Smith, but were too ignorant to know it.
I dislike the kid and he always ran from me whenever I challenged him, but I have to admit that was one of the funniest things I ever saw on an Internet forum, all those neocon lapdog shits who obviously had never read Marx or Smith trying to navigate both with any semblance of authority.
Phaedrus
Funny thing, honestly one of the funniest leftie twit things I ever saw, was this annoying troll at the PW forum who made fools out of most of the Bush-worshippers there, by "quoting Marx" and then challenging them to refute the claim .. can't remember exactly what it was ... anyway, the uber-rechters all went beserk like monkeys tossing turds trying to refute the theory, only to find a day or so later that although the quote could be found in Marx' work, it was actually Marx quoting Smith within the context of his own work .. so basically everyone was going nuts to debunk Adam Smith, but were too ignorant to know it.
I dislike the kid and he always ran from me whenever I challenged him, but I have to admit that was one of the funniest things I ever saw on an Internet forum, all those neocon lapdog shits who obviously had never read Marx or Smith trying to navigate both with any semblance of authority.
Phaedrus
Couldn't resist, so here ya go:
********
Capitalist on this website gets PUNK'D
Posted by Socialist
Knowing the typical knee-jerk reactions capitalists (fascists) have to marx, Engles, chomsky, etc... I decided to set up a little trap of which I would quote Adam Smith, say it's marx, and then sit back and watch as capitalist argue with themselves.
Of course gusoceros, cricket, Azeron, Wild Kardd (this kid is about as smart as a stack of bricks) and other capitalists took the bait, and this shows that conservative capitalists are not only ignorant of other people's beliefs, but their own as well.
Conservatism is perishing for a lack of a moral base and of a full philosophic defense.
- Ayn Rand, Conservatism: An Obituary, 1962
This is what happened:
Capitalist says he knows everything about Smith and that I know nothing (this gave me the idea)
Azeron (Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2003 7:58 pm):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
have you read "wealth of nations"? (not excerpts)
did you miss this paragraph:
"Among the savage nations of hunters and fishers, every individual who is able to work, is more or less employed in useful labour, and endeavours to provide, as well as he can, the necessaries and conveniencies of life, for himself, or*6 such of his family or tribe as are either too old, or too young, or too infirm to go a hunting and fishing. Such nations, however, are so miserably poor, that from mere want, they are frequently reduced, or, at least, think themselves reduced, to the necessity sometimes of directly destroying, and sometimes of abandoning their infants, their old people, and those afflicted with lingering diseases, to perish with hunger, or to be devoured by wild beasts."
the whole god dam book is about the rise of nations, and the attainment of greater economic capactiy is soley based on premikse of people willingly taking on the burdens of responsibility, and government trusting them to do so. Otherwise we decend to the level of the savages, and toss our babies to the lions. I know they don't pass along this in "Wealth of Nations" sub paragraph on capitalism in your economic woorkbook, but its definitely there. More like its an understood assumption.
what do you think Law is?
Do you think killing off future workers is good for the economy?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Notice how he claimes that I haven't read smith only "excerpts" in my economic text book, this is too good, whose the one that has only read excerpts?
Socialist sets up the trap:
Socialist (Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2003 7:05 pm)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The quote implies that poor nations have such difficulties, which is true, and you trying to relate this to abortion is ridiculous. Abandoning their infants is something nobody wants to do, but this is much different than abortion, also much different than imposing moral beliefs on people.
Heres a better quote on Workers (in a kapital market) and the importance of their menial jobs in das kapital (marx)
"The understandings of the greater part of men ... are necessarily formed by their ordinary employments. The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations ... has no occasion to exert his understanding... He generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become [...] The uniformity of his stationary life naturally corrupts the courage of his mind ... It corrupts even the activity of his body and renders him incapable of exerting his strength with vigour and perseverance in any other employments than that to which he has been bred. His dexterity at
his own particular trade seems in this manner to be acquired at the expense of his intellectual, social, and martial virtues. [...] this is the state into which the labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall."
Not a very nice future for the free-market workers.
Marx was always right
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Note: Marx quoted the above in Das Kapital from Adam Smith's the wealth of Nations
Capitalists take the bait:
Cricket (Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2003 7:53 pm)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Socialist wrote:
Marx was always right
Go take you medicine dear, your insanity is starting to bleed through...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
(Don't you mean adam Smith should have taken his medicine?)
WiLDD KaRDD (Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2003 7:55 pm)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I can't take him seriously anymore, he has to be kidding.
Maybe someone here's playing a joke?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Socialist:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Don't you mean you can't take Adam Smith seriously any more? Yah, you're right, no one should listen to him.
Oh yah, somebody is playing a joke, and you just got punk'd
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
At this point I posted it again and:
WiLDD KaRDD (Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2003 8:00 pm):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Did someone just fart?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Such challenging arguments from rightists. It's no wonder this moron walked right into it, NEXT:
gusoceros (Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2003 9:09 pm)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Soup
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So you're saying that what Adam Smith wrote is Soup (whatever the hell this means)?
Liberty Belle:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
"Marx was always right"
And this makes you any better than the Harry Potter burning crowd how?
You think Marx is God. That's pathetic. I don't even think Ayn Rand is close to infallible.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe that's because you don't even read such authors
Here I up it a notch:
Socialist (Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 9:07 am):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Heres some more "soup"
"People in the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in some contrivance to raise prices."
markets are prey to excesses, such is the danger of "combination" (when corporations get together to limit resources, lower pay for the workers, etc..)
"Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labor."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
gusoceros (Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 9:11 am):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Soup
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yep, somebody who is trying to defend the free-market doesn't know the difference between Adam Smith and Karl Marx. I don't know rather to laugh or cray. (both those last two quotes were of smith by the way, the former quoted by Marcuse in one of his works)
Capitalist who says he has read smith doesn't know the difference between Smith and Marx:
Azeron (Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 9:07 pm)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Socialist,
Since this is really a new topic that was intially addressed in the abortion thread, you mentioned that a major argument of marx was that workers in a capitalist society had to do repitious mundane tasks.
Given that the trash has to be taken out in communism and in capitalism, how does communism keep being a garbage man from becoming mundane?
how much were garbage men paid under the USSR, and how much were garbage men paid in the USA in say 1985?
Which system had garbage men living a higher standard of living, yet the tasks were essentially the same?
just wondering......
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Apparently you've forgotten more of the wealth of nationas than I have ever read. My quotes were not that of Marx but smith. I thought you read it?
SIT DOWN CAPITALISTS, YOU'VE JUST BEEN PUNK'D
Side note: the orginal Idea isn't mine but one some socialist played on a libertarian in a usernet group (the libertarian also fell into it like a moron)
Also, i've sent a note to both Alan and Kfir and asked them to make this sticky, this exposes
A. The ignornace of rightsts and the followers of "protest warrior"
B. The fact that conservative capitalists don't know what they're talking about in debate and that most of their "arguments" come from crap they've heard played out on Rush limbaugh.com or something instead of reading
C. You can never defeat socialists.
********
Eight pages of hilarious ad hominems, non sequitors and good old-fashioned backtracking ensue here if you're interested in watching a bunch of people who would give Donald Rumsfeld a blowjob as long as he promised not to ask or tell get their asses beaten in a debate with a semi-literate high schooler who, to judge by his posting archive, couldn't debate his way out of a large salad bowl.
Priceless. Simply priceless.
Phaedrus
********
Capitalist on this website gets PUNK'D
Posted by Socialist
Knowing the typical knee-jerk reactions capitalists (fascists) have to marx, Engles, chomsky, etc... I decided to set up a little trap of which I would quote Adam Smith, say it's marx, and then sit back and watch as capitalist argue with themselves.
Of course gusoceros, cricket, Azeron, Wild Kardd (this kid is about as smart as a stack of bricks) and other capitalists took the bait, and this shows that conservative capitalists are not only ignorant of other people's beliefs, but their own as well.
Conservatism is perishing for a lack of a moral base and of a full philosophic defense.
- Ayn Rand, Conservatism: An Obituary, 1962
This is what happened:
Capitalist says he knows everything about Smith and that I know nothing (this gave me the idea)
Azeron (Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2003 7:58 pm):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
have you read "wealth of nations"? (not excerpts)
did you miss this paragraph:
"Among the savage nations of hunters and fishers, every individual who is able to work, is more or less employed in useful labour, and endeavours to provide, as well as he can, the necessaries and conveniencies of life, for himself, or*6 such of his family or tribe as are either too old, or too young, or too infirm to go a hunting and fishing. Such nations, however, are so miserably poor, that from mere want, they are frequently reduced, or, at least, think themselves reduced, to the necessity sometimes of directly destroying, and sometimes of abandoning their infants, their old people, and those afflicted with lingering diseases, to perish with hunger, or to be devoured by wild beasts."
the whole god dam book is about the rise of nations, and the attainment of greater economic capactiy is soley based on premikse of people willingly taking on the burdens of responsibility, and government trusting them to do so. Otherwise we decend to the level of the savages, and toss our babies to the lions. I know they don't pass along this in "Wealth of Nations" sub paragraph on capitalism in your economic woorkbook, but its definitely there. More like its an understood assumption.
what do you think Law is?
Do you think killing off future workers is good for the economy?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Notice how he claimes that I haven't read smith only "excerpts" in my economic text book, this is too good, whose the one that has only read excerpts?
Socialist sets up the trap:
Socialist (Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2003 7:05 pm)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The quote implies that poor nations have such difficulties, which is true, and you trying to relate this to abortion is ridiculous. Abandoning their infants is something nobody wants to do, but this is much different than abortion, also much different than imposing moral beliefs on people.
Heres a better quote on Workers (in a kapital market) and the importance of their menial jobs in das kapital (marx)
"The understandings of the greater part of men ... are necessarily formed by their ordinary employments. The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations ... has no occasion to exert his understanding... He generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become [...] The uniformity of his stationary life naturally corrupts the courage of his mind ... It corrupts even the activity of his body and renders him incapable of exerting his strength with vigour and perseverance in any other employments than that to which he has been bred. His dexterity at
his own particular trade seems in this manner to be acquired at the expense of his intellectual, social, and martial virtues. [...] this is the state into which the labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall."
Not a very nice future for the free-market workers.
Marx was always right
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Note: Marx quoted the above in Das Kapital from Adam Smith's the wealth of Nations
Capitalists take the bait:
Cricket (Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2003 7:53 pm)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Socialist wrote:
Marx was always right
Go take you medicine dear, your insanity is starting to bleed through...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
(Don't you mean adam Smith should have taken his medicine?)
WiLDD KaRDD (Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2003 7:55 pm)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I can't take him seriously anymore, he has to be kidding.
Maybe someone here's playing a joke?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Socialist:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Don't you mean you can't take Adam Smith seriously any more? Yah, you're right, no one should listen to him.
Oh yah, somebody is playing a joke, and you just got punk'd
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
At this point I posted it again and:
WiLDD KaRDD (Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2003 8:00 pm):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Did someone just fart?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Such challenging arguments from rightists. It's no wonder this moron walked right into it, NEXT:
gusoceros (Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2003 9:09 pm)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Soup
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So you're saying that what Adam Smith wrote is Soup (whatever the hell this means)?
Liberty Belle:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
"Marx was always right"
And this makes you any better than the Harry Potter burning crowd how?
You think Marx is God. That's pathetic. I don't even think Ayn Rand is close to infallible.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe that's because you don't even read such authors
Here I up it a notch:
Socialist (Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 9:07 am):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Heres some more "soup"
"People in the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in some contrivance to raise prices."
markets are prey to excesses, such is the danger of "combination" (when corporations get together to limit resources, lower pay for the workers, etc..)
"Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labor."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
gusoceros (Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 9:11 am):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Soup
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yep, somebody who is trying to defend the free-market doesn't know the difference between Adam Smith and Karl Marx. I don't know rather to laugh or cray. (both those last two quotes were of smith by the way, the former quoted by Marcuse in one of his works)
Capitalist who says he has read smith doesn't know the difference between Smith and Marx:
Azeron (Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 9:07 pm)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Socialist,
Since this is really a new topic that was intially addressed in the abortion thread, you mentioned that a major argument of marx was that workers in a capitalist society had to do repitious mundane tasks.
Given that the trash has to be taken out in communism and in capitalism, how does communism keep being a garbage man from becoming mundane?
how much were garbage men paid under the USSR, and how much were garbage men paid in the USA in say 1985?
Which system had garbage men living a higher standard of living, yet the tasks were essentially the same?
just wondering......
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Apparently you've forgotten more of the wealth of nationas than I have ever read. My quotes were not that of Marx but smith. I thought you read it?
SIT DOWN CAPITALISTS, YOU'VE JUST BEEN PUNK'D
Side note: the orginal Idea isn't mine but one some socialist played on a libertarian in a usernet group (the libertarian also fell into it like a moron)
Also, i've sent a note to both Alan and Kfir and asked them to make this sticky, this exposes
A. The ignornace of rightsts and the followers of "protest warrior"
B. The fact that conservative capitalists don't know what they're talking about in debate and that most of their "arguments" come from crap they've heard played out on Rush limbaugh.com or something instead of reading
C. You can never defeat socialists.
********
Eight pages of hilarious ad hominems, non sequitors and good old-fashioned backtracking ensue here if you're interested in watching a bunch of people who would give Donald Rumsfeld a blowjob as long as he promised not to ask or tell get their asses beaten in a debate with a semi-literate high schooler who, to judge by his posting archive, couldn't debate his way out of a large salad bowl.
Priceless. Simply priceless.
Phaedrus
Nice board you sent me to, there, P.
My favourite quote so far:
"A preemptive military strike is a good military tactic without which we will lose this war."
Ummm ....
And the honourable mention goes to:
"The United States has a 13% Black population, yet they cause more then 67% of the violent Crimes. Those are the statistics, but what I have learned, is you cannot just simply go by the statistics, you must look past them, and see why crime happens. I am for tracking Minorities that statisticlay are a problem. What harm can it do to people that don't do the crimes, IE: Innocent minority? It would help us catch criminals faster anyways. Sure its not a deterrent... but still, it would help police.
Why should criminals get rights?"
And these are from the 'Liberty' forum. I am getting the impression that in the US, people pick a party and pretty much stick to it, no matter how far that party strays from its own ideological centre. I cannot fathom how someone can stand for Liberty and Bush/NeoConservatism at the same time.
My favourite quote so far:
"A preemptive military strike is a good military tactic without which we will lose this war."
Ummm ....
And the honourable mention goes to:
"The United States has a 13% Black population, yet they cause more then 67% of the violent Crimes. Those are the statistics, but what I have learned, is you cannot just simply go by the statistics, you must look past them, and see why crime happens. I am for tracking Minorities that statisticlay are a problem. What harm can it do to people that don't do the crimes, IE: Innocent minority? It would help us catch criminals faster anyways. Sure its not a deterrent... but still, it would help police.
Why should criminals get rights?"
And these are from the 'Liberty' forum. I am getting the impression that in the US, people pick a party and pretty much stick to it, no matter how far that party strays from its own ideological centre. I cannot fathom how someone can stand for Liberty and Bush/NeoConservatism at the same time.
I almost forgot:
In this month's issue of Harpers, Naomi Klein pens an article about Capitalism and NeoConservatism. I was all a-giggle when I saw the headline on the front cover, but blatantly disappointed when I read the article. She has confused capitalism and corporatism and hasn't a clue about NeoConservatives (she claims that Cheney and Rumsfeld are neocons, which they are not, for example.) Most interestingly, she makes a flippant claim that NeoCons were somehow influenced by Milton Freidman and that Freidman himself is the logical base for neoconservatism. For the life of me I can't imagine where she gets this, but you know him better than I. You might find the article interesting (not on the internet yet I'm afraid) if only from the perspective of witnessing completely misunderstood ideologies. If you do read it, I would welcome your clarification on Freidman's contribution, if any at all, to the neocon platform.
In this month's issue of Harpers, Naomi Klein pens an article about Capitalism and NeoConservatism. I was all a-giggle when I saw the headline on the front cover, but blatantly disappointed when I read the article. She has confused capitalism and corporatism and hasn't a clue about NeoConservatives (she claims that Cheney and Rumsfeld are neocons, which they are not, for example.) Most interestingly, she makes a flippant claim that NeoCons were somehow influenced by Milton Freidman and that Freidman himself is the logical base for neoconservatism. For the life of me I can't imagine where she gets this, but you know him better than I. You might find the article interesting (not on the internet yet I'm afraid) if only from the perspective of witnessing completely misunderstood ideologies. If you do read it, I would welcome your clarification on Freidman's contribution, if any at all, to the neocon platform.
Yeah, PW is a cesspool. For a while it was a pretty good place to go have a conservative debate, but I just gave up there a couple of months ago.
I'm somewhat confused by your statement that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are not neocons. The definition of "neoconservative" may have gotten a little fuzzy ever since the term worked its way into common vernacular, but Cheney is one of the charter members of PNAC, and if that doesn't make him a neoconservative I don't know what would.
Phaedrus
I'm somewhat confused by your statement that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are not neocons. The definition of "neoconservative" may have gotten a little fuzzy ever since the term worked its way into common vernacular, but Cheney is one of the charter members of PNAC, and if that doesn't make him a neoconservative I don't know what would.
Phaedrus
I'm aware of Cheney (and Rummy's) presence at the PNAC, and that many commentators consider him a neocon. I see both more as pro-war, aggressive realists, than I do as neocons. Cheney also reeks of corporatism. Which of course is not to say they don't have much in common with the neocons, or don't help one another along, but they are not identical.
At any rate, the real issue in this article I refer to is Klein's misunderstanding of the neocon agenda, believing it having to do with capitalism and opening free markets. Obviously, neocons support corporatism and opening markets to American products, but for reasons of cultural and corporate dominance, not specifically the bottom line as she alludes to. This is where the Freidman confusion comes in.
At any rate, the real issue in this article I refer to is Klein's misunderstanding of the neocon agenda, believing it having to do with capitalism and opening free markets. Obviously, neocons support corporatism and opening markets to American products, but for reasons of cultural and corporate dominance, not specifically the bottom line as she alludes to. This is where the Freidman confusion comes in.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Phaedrus:
The rise of modern corporatism (to be differentiated from its antecedent, which had nothing to do with corporations and was the primary plank of fascism) is not a result of capitalism, it is the antithesis -- in fact some free market thinkers believe that corporatism, and not socialism, is the exact diametric opposite of capitalism (I disagree, but we're talking about some pretty well-respected people here, so perhaps I am wrong.)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am halfway through The Road to Serfdom and find it a fascinating read. However ...
I am wondering if you could point me in the direction of some of these 'well-respected' people who hold this view of corporatism. I may also be of the opinion that corporatism is the foundation for fascism (Mussolini even agrees,) not socialism simply (although I do see the relationship.) However, I would like to do more reading on this. I have Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom which is next on my list to read. Does he broach the subject of corporatism?
Also, does Hayek confine his definition of socialism to the East German model of central planning or would he consider the modern US to be socialist? (it would be wonderful if this book were more recent and broader in reference.)
The rise of modern corporatism (to be differentiated from its antecedent, which had nothing to do with corporations and was the primary plank of fascism) is not a result of capitalism, it is the antithesis -- in fact some free market thinkers believe that corporatism, and not socialism, is the exact diametric opposite of capitalism (I disagree, but we're talking about some pretty well-respected people here, so perhaps I am wrong.)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am halfway through The Road to Serfdom and find it a fascinating read. However ...
I am wondering if you could point me in the direction of some of these 'well-respected' people who hold this view of corporatism. I may also be of the opinion that corporatism is the foundation for fascism (Mussolini even agrees,) not socialism simply (although I do see the relationship.) However, I would like to do more reading on this. I have Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom which is next on my list to read. Does he broach the subject of corporatism?
Also, does Hayek confine his definition of socialism to the East German model of central planning or would he consider the modern US to be socialist? (it would be wonderful if this book were more recent and broader in reference.)
posted by xpanda:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I am halfway through The Road to Serfdom and find it a fascinating read.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I thought that you might.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I am wondering if you could point me in the direction of some of these 'well-respected' people who hold this view of corporatism.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'll dig you up some resources.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I may also be of the opinion that corporatism is the foundation for fascism (Mussolini even agrees,) not socialism simply (although I do see the relationship.)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It should be borne in mind that the corporatism of which Mussolini wrote when formulating his theory of working fascism had nothing at all to do with corporatism as the word is generally regarded today (this metamorphisis of perception is similar to that which the word "liberal" has experienced over the years.)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I have Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom which is next on my list to read. Does he broach the subject of corporatism?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I must admit that I am not as well-read on Friedman as I possibly should be. As I said above, the Chicago School guys are not that interesting to me except as a point of reference.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Also, does Hayek confine his definition of socialism to the East German model of central planning or would he consider the modern US to be socialist?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Later in life, Hayek considered the postwar developments in the UK to be as nearly a fulfillment of prophecy as a man of his famous stoic logic could be, so I imagine that he was pretty much horrified by the US in recent history (mind you, he only died in 1992, so he was around to witness much of it.) He would have no doubt had a field day with Clinton's regime of oppression and statist extremism.
It is interesting to note that although Hayek was cited often and copiously for decades by Thatcher, he worked to distance himself from her, Reagan and their ilk, as in his 1960 essay "Why I am Not a Conservative."
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
(it would be wonderful if this book were more recent and broader in reference.)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hayek himself referred to The Road to Serfdom as a "pamphlet" and not a book. I have found it to be an outstanding primer since it is largely analytical and unbiased in its presentation, and that Hayek openly and unapologetically concedes the benefits of socialism and the limitations of a laissez-faire society, rather than simply ignore (or worse, deny) these problems as many more recent authors and "thinkers" do.
I believe that the relevance of ... Serfdom has not dimished at all over the years, however. The concepts Hayek discusses were not new at the time, being rooted largely in 19th century German political philosophy, and the Western political structure's tacit embrace of those concepts (while publicly decrying them no less) has not changed since Hayek's time.
Phaedrus
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I am halfway through The Road to Serfdom and find it a fascinating read.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I thought that you might.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I am wondering if you could point me in the direction of some of these 'well-respected' people who hold this view of corporatism.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'll dig you up some resources.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I may also be of the opinion that corporatism is the foundation for fascism (Mussolini even agrees,) not socialism simply (although I do see the relationship.)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It should be borne in mind that the corporatism of which Mussolini wrote when formulating his theory of working fascism had nothing at all to do with corporatism as the word is generally regarded today (this metamorphisis of perception is similar to that which the word "liberal" has experienced over the years.)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I have Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom which is next on my list to read. Does he broach the subject of corporatism?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I must admit that I am not as well-read on Friedman as I possibly should be. As I said above, the Chicago School guys are not that interesting to me except as a point of reference.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Also, does Hayek confine his definition of socialism to the East German model of central planning or would he consider the modern US to be socialist?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Later in life, Hayek considered the postwar developments in the UK to be as nearly a fulfillment of prophecy as a man of his famous stoic logic could be, so I imagine that he was pretty much horrified by the US in recent history (mind you, he only died in 1992, so he was around to witness much of it.) He would have no doubt had a field day with Clinton's regime of oppression and statist extremism.
It is interesting to note that although Hayek was cited often and copiously for decades by Thatcher, he worked to distance himself from her, Reagan and their ilk, as in his 1960 essay "Why I am Not a Conservative."
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
(it would be wonderful if this book were more recent and broader in reference.)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hayek himself referred to The Road to Serfdom as a "pamphlet" and not a book. I have found it to be an outstanding primer since it is largely analytical and unbiased in its presentation, and that Hayek openly and unapologetically concedes the benefits of socialism and the limitations of a laissez-faire society, rather than simply ignore (or worse, deny) these problems as many more recent authors and "thinkers" do.
I believe that the relevance of ... Serfdom has not dimished at all over the years, however. The concepts Hayek discusses were not new at the time, being rooted largely in 19th century German political philosophy, and the Western political structure's tacit embrace of those concepts (while publicly decrying them no less) has not changed since Hayek's time.
Phaedrus
