Impact of The Free Market on Environmentalism

[PoliticalNightmare]

I have posted this blog (click here (http://syndicalistlibertarianism.blogspot.com/2011/02/private-property-and-environmentalism.html)) as a critique of the free market structures that are supposed to protect the environment.

I would like to hear your thoughts and possible rebuttals from restricted OIers. Have I said anything inaccurate? Is there perhaps, better points I could have made? etc.

[hatzel]

You raise some good points here, but there are always some gaps. Perhaps this isn't the place for it, but we can all think of products in the supermarkets with vague environmental claims on them. 'Dolphin friendly' or some stamp from the Rainforest Alliance or any other group, to 'prove' the product's green credentials. Of course these claims don't mean jack, in truth, but their supposed green credentials are used as a marketing gimmick nowadays, just like 'low fat' or 'with Omega 3', to appeal to the greeny in us. This creates a false illusion of these companies caring about the state of the environment, and perhaps makes consumers complacent, thinking that they have done their part by picking one product over another. This might make them less likely to undertake some other, more useful, action :)

How familiar are you with 'green socialism'? As in, which texts have you read, which thinkers are you familiar with etc.?

[PoliticalNightmare]

How familiar are you with 'green socialism'? As in, which texts have you read, which thinkers are you familiar with etc.?

Ah, not much, admittedly.

[hatzel]

That's cool, comrade! There's a pretty extensive Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-socialism), of course, if you're interested in that field :) Judging by your 'tendency' there, you might even be interested in that very fringe idea, green syndicalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_syndicalism). I'm trying to make sure I'm pointing you towards the elements of green socialism which aren't primitivism, because they do exist! Social ecology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_ecology) might interest you a bit as well, I dunno...

[PoliticalNightmare]

That's cool, comrade! There's a pretty extensive Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-socialism), of course, if you're interested in that field :) Judging by your 'tendency' there, you might even be interested in that very fringe idea, green syndicalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_syndicalism). I'm trying to make sure I'm pointing you towards the elements of green socialism which aren't primitivism, because they do exist! Social ecology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_ecology) might interest you a bit as well, I dunno...

Primtivism doesn't interest me, purely because I happen to quite like technology :). But seriously, when I say that I haven't read any specifically green literature, I mean that I have read stuff by anarchists and other socialists who don't restrict themselves to environmentalism but bring the issue up here and there. I will look into those links though, cheers.

[Revolution starts with U]

The funny part about primitivism is they don't consider a spear technology... unless they do. But you will find it hard to kill an antelope with your bare hands. :laugh:

[hatzel]

Judo technology, then...

[RGacky3]

One thing I might have included is the short term nature of capitalist incentives.

BUisiness compete one 2 different levels, one being consumers (you talked about that), the other being investors (You talked a little about them too).

However when it comes to investment competition for that means always more profit, they need more profit every quarter to get more investment, which means that it is impossible for these companies to think long term (as in "oh no, if we ruin the enviroment there goes our buisiness,") because if they do their profits drop, and investment drops and the company that did will take over. Remember too investers are looking for a return, investment is not generally seen as a stake in ownership, its seen as an investment, you want money back, investors don't generally see themselves as "part" of the company they invest in.

Also keep in mind that even many executives are not personally long term invested in the company, they are their to raise to the stock price, get their bonus and then get out.

Enviromental protection requires long term thinking and moderation, things which are impossible in Capitalism.

[PoliticalNightmare]

However when it comes to investment competition for that means always more profit, they need more profit every quarter to get more investment, which means that it is impossible for these companies to think long term (as in "oh no, if we ruin the enviroment there goes our buisiness,") because if they do their profits drop, and investment drops and the company that did will take over. Remember too investers are looking for a return, investment is not generally seen as a stake in ownership, its seen as an investment, you want money back, investors don't generally see themselves as "part" of the company they invest in.

Also keep in mind that even many executives are not personally long term invested in the company, they are their to raise to the stock price, get their bonus and then get out.

Interesting and thank you. I will look more into this because it interests me.

[Skooma Addict]

However when it comes to investment competition for that means always more profit, they need more profit every quarter to get more investment, which means that it is impossible for these companies to think long term (as in "oh no, if we ruin the enviroment there goes our buisiness,") because if they do their profits drop, and investment drops and the company that did will take over. Remember too investers are looking for a return, investment is not generally seen as a stake in ownership, its seen as an investment, you want money back, investors don't generally see themselves as "part" of the company they invest in.It is impossible for companies to think long term? We are now in the realm of you making things up.

If companies think long term their profits drop? Evidence?

[PoliticalNightmare]

It is impossible for companies to think long term? We are now in the realm of you making things up.

If companies think long term their profits drop? Evidence?

Since you are a hardcore right-winger, I would be interested in hearing your critique of my blog post ;)

[RGacky3]

It is impossible for companies to think long term? We are now in the realm of you making things up.

If companies think long term their profits drop? Evidence?

Its impossible for companies to think long term AT THE EXPENSE of short term profits, thats what I meant, and what most people would have understood.

[Skooma Addict]

Its impossible for companies to think long term AT THE EXPENSE of short term profits, thats what I meant, and what most people would have understood.

It is impossible to think long term at the expense of the short term? How is this impossible?

[hatzel]

I would argue that it's possible to look long-term to some extent. The issue is that, at the moment, it's easy to think that investment in, for instance, solar power technology, isn't based on anything to do with protecting the environment, but mitigating the fact that oil and gas will run out. Before that, though, it'll get prohibitively expensive. So sure, they're looking long-term, but for this thread, we should be talking about making sure that resources (i.e. money) aren't only dedicated to environmental concerns, and finding solutions to these concerns, when these solutions also happen to offer financial benefits. Which might be in the medium- / long-term, yes, such as the move to solar power.

[RGacky3]

It is impossible to think long term at the expense of the short term? How is this impossible?

Because in the competition for investment you need to maximise quarterly profits, thats what happens in the capital market, if you don't have the highest quarterly profits possible you loose investment. So short term profits are always the main priority, when you start taking short term hits you loose investment, and you get out competed.

Investors are looking for a return on their investment, and its the companies obligation to deliver.

[Revolution starts with U]

I think impossible may have been a poor term to use. It is "unethical" maybe (according to the actions of the investors).

[Veg_Athei_Socialist]

There is an interesting book titled Socialism & Ecology by Chris Williams you guys might be interested in.

[trivas7]

I have posted this blog (click here (http://syndicalistlibertarianism.blogspot.com/2011/02/private-property-and-environmentalism.html)) as a critique of the free market structures that are supposed to protect the environment.

What makes you think that "free market structures...are supposed to protect the environment?"

[PoliticalNightmare]

What makes you think that "free market structures...are supposed to protect the environment?"

Lol, I can't ever seem to get much of an argument out of you, Trivas.

One thing I will say though is that even if you couldn't give a toss about the ecological impact of capitalism, externalities (like pollution) screw up the whole price mechanism and make rational economic decision making harder and harder, distorting market signals and making the allocation of resources more inefficient.

So yeah, you should care about the environment in terms of filling up your belly.

[RGacky3]

What makes you think that "free market structures...are supposed to protect the environment?"

They arn't and they can't and thus they are useless.