Environmentalism's perilous ignorance of the free market
Environmentalists are crying for faster adoption of alternatives to oil-consuming products and eco-friendly corporate practices- but, as always, through a flawed process that ignores their own responsibilities within a free market system.
View full story:
Environmentalism's perilous ignorance of the free market
5 Comments:
An outstanding piece. Well thought out and expressed. I can only say "Amen!"
Keep up the good work!
Will
Thanks, Will! I appreciate it. Glad to be a part of MND now.
While, on the whole, my positions don't generally conform to Conservative/Liberal entirely, I am glad Conservative sites have embraces some of the ideas I've been pushing.
I think the idea that 'sacrifice isn't ever necessary' is a fantasy enjoyed by people who've enjoyed unfettered access to cheap energy for multiple generations. One of our greatest triumphs in 'The Great Generation', when we finally awoke to the threat that Germany had again become, was that Americans were willing to sacrifice.. Gas, Sugar, Metals, Fresh Produce.. and we not only succeeded in building a massive response to a growing fascist threat practically overnight, but we (I would say THEY, our parents) rediscovered a strong thread of common purpose across the society.
No, sacrifices are necessary, and they are already happening, as your tax dollars are subsidizing heavier-than-air industries that could never fly in a 'Free Market', like Nuclear Energy, Pharmaceuticals, Insurance and the Airlines. The sacrifice is the lack of access to decent healthcare, the countless families who have to now send paper and pencils with their kids to a heinously underfunded public school system, the budget cuts for VA services, Firehouses and Police Precincts. We are all being Forced to sacrifice, but are kept blind to this by the unhindered access to TV, to Slogans, Banners and Flags that suggest some magical national pride, while we undercut our future and even our immediate security.
I agree that we all have grown up with habits that have us ALL consuming blindly with lights, thermostats, cars, packaging.. and that some of this is self-correcting with demand and price balances, but the corporate subsidies undermine the balance of a free market, in the stated interest of maintaining important industries for national security. But that security is challenged by stubbornly supporting industries that continue to glut ourselves on a resource that we have to divest from. The market can't make an informed choice about what they would be demanding, when long known options are kept out of the conversation. Corporate media and news consistently sides with big oil, and our TV system is built on pure consumption and addiction to the dream of an endless supply of Beer, Chocolate, Antidepressants, Gasoline, etc.. that's the only vision that an advertiser would ever promote, even if it leaves us blind to the potential of ever just running out of something. Things run out.. People all over the world are doing without, and in all likelihood, we will have to do without at some point.
Finally, I don't agree with the Tunnel-vision notion that a company's only responsibility is to make a profit, and I'd bet you that very few CEO's would ever take that narrow a view on the requirements of their business. Principally, a business, like a nation, will have to have an awareness that it's profits only come from the availability of their supplies, as well as the markets that come to buy them. Oil companies are surely more aware than most of us about the tenuous reliability of the Oil Supply. They have to keep us buying, but new discoveries are a thing of the past. I believe in Business and a healthy economy.. but this fantasy of a free-market that people keep singing about.. It sounds like a great idea. Let's try it sometime.
Bob- Maine
Bob,
I appreciate the comments, but I think you misunderstood the specifics of what I was saying in a few places.
When I say "sacrifices are not necessary" (and this comes somewhat from the fact that people just are not going to make them)... I am referring specifically to environmentalism. The concept does apply to other things as well, but I never said "everything." Certainly in times of War (WWII is a good example, as you brought up), sacrifice is often necessary. This is because War goes against almost everything in terms of free market cause-and-effect. The environment does not. That's my point there.
I certainly don't disagree with you on corporate subsidizes. Welfare doesn't work, for anyone, at any time. Simple Economics 101 explains that in a few paragraphs. However, when you go into concepts like "corporate media and news consistently sides with big oil, " I think you're not paying attention to the whole of media. There is a lot of anti-corporate media out there. Come on!
Finally, in terms of a corporation's only responsibility being profit... of course I understand what goes into making a profit. But, in the end, profit remains the sole responsibility. If environmentalism isn't profitable, you cannot expect for (and you will never make) a corporation care. Not going to happen.
But that's not a problem. Environmentalist concepts can be profitable. They won't all be, and they're not all "the right thing to do" in terms of results anyway.
Yet again, the free market is there to correct the course of most everything.
The idea that environmentalists ignore the demand side of the capitalist equation is an excellent point. For this reason, at KarmaBanque, we've come up with a way to utilize the power of the demand side, as well as raw greed itself, to power a shift in the system so that 'green' issues are represented equally with everyone elses. Simply put, if environmentalists organized themselves in ways that seriously challanged the top-line revenue models of the companies they are campaigning against, they would inspire the entire 1 trillion dollar hedge fund community to play along and make negative bets (put options and short-sales) against these companies (the raw greed mentioned); giving enviro's 'currency' to get their issues incorporated into the daily workings of these companies - who would be forced to recognize this new 'dissent risk' and its impact on their balance sheet or possibly lose their competitive edge. I would say that, along with environmentalists not having a clue about the 'demand' side of how capitalism works, I would add they have no idea how basic 'economies of scale' work either. Too bad, if they did, they could organize themselves effectively and impart meaningful changes to the system that would benefit everybody, including the CEO's who run the companies campaigned against by the environmentalists - who, presumably, have to breathe every so often.
Post a Comment
<< Home