Bush ready to gut Endangered Species Act.

I'm not sure what your point is. I would suggest that the most productive economies tend to be those in which the private and public sectors are able to work in partnership to get things done that at the same time benefits the public interest.

 

Careful, you're sounding moderate.

 

Tim's always sounded moderate.

 

Actually I would take great exception to your statement. Capitalism and communism are economic, not political systems. Capitalism has the feature of being responsive to consumers while communism does not. If you don't like the way a company does business, or manufactures a product, you don't buy it. If enough people agree with you the company goes out of business. Now perhaps not enough people agree with you regarding a certain manufacturer or product so it remains in distribution, but there are companies out there that do pay attention and are constructing zero landfill plants, or using waste methane from landfills to power their plants. The advantage of capitalism is that it recognizes that humans are greedy and uses that greed to give the consumer power. There are many private sector companies that also understand that many processes and actions thought to be environmentally friendly also save operational, maintenance and production costs, which also improves profits and this respect capitalism tends to be self-regulating so long as there is adequate access to information.

Regulation, governmental regulation, does not give balance to anything except perhaps with respect to the underlined phrase above (at least to some degree). At very best, it simply removes responsibility from individuals for taking responsibility for themselves. Basically, it takes the nature out of human nature and eliminates one of nature's most basic concepts, survival of the fittest. Want to set some reasonable boundaries for society; OK, but there better be a damn good reason for having to set that boundary and you better have pretty unanimous agreement on it. That is what the framers believed when they drafted the Constitution (try the "Federalist Papers" if you don't want to take my word for it). At its worst, it is simply an imposition of the attitudes and philosophy of those in power on everyone else (socialism as a political philosophy).

Perhaps, having both managed the preparation of environmental impact statements and been the responsible federal official on others I am more than a little cynical with respect to the motives of so called environmentalists. I have seen less hard science and more political science in these actions which really leads me to question the motives of many self-styled environmentalists. In most cases they simply seem to use environmental issues as a fairly simple path to gaining power and imposing their view on a society that largely is ignorant of the hard science underlying most issues.

So, I certainly would not call you a centrist, at least with respect to a political system that is a representative democracy in the form of a republic. Keep in mind that the system developed by the framers is based on a capitalistic economic system and it should be no surprise that Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" was published in 1776.

 

Perhaps, in theory, but in practice that's clearly not the case. In our own country we have a bit of a plutocracy going on. "What's good for GM is good for America" comes to mind. Labour conditions in the 19th were shocking. The legacy of that is unions, which are horrid things in their own right. It's democracy that tempers capitalism. Capitalism, unregulated, leads to things like the Cuyahoga river catching fire, the current credit crisis, and the Enron debacle in CA. Communism lead to something even worse (because it's always couple to authoritariam regiemes because it's a very artificial system).

The purpose of regulation is to protect the public from the wanton behavior of the private sector. No, not all companies are irresponsible, but by definition, they're in it for themselves and they'll do what it takes to crush their competition and maximize their profit. The problem is that they'll do anything that gives them a competitive advantage and in the absence of regulation, they'll pursue those advantages ruthlessly. This country would be trashed without environmental regulation. Do you really think companies would behave nicely if they weren't forced to? Regulation gives companies a level playing field (at least in theory) with rules that participants in a given industry must conform to certain, basic rules. That's a good thing. I agree that regulations can be restrictive and sometimes idiotic, and that's where common sense has to come in. That's doesn't make the concept of regulation bad, but it's possible to have bad regulations that need to be rethought or removed altogether. Just as over bearing regulation is bad, no regulation leads to an unstable economy and a degraded environment (which has its own economic impact). Neither of those things are desirable, thus we need intelligent regulation.

So I'm very much a centrist because I find both extremes are untenable in the long run, if not sooner.

 

Quoting political slogans doesn't do much for proving a point. The only regulation that is really necessary for capitalism to operate is protection from monopoly to ensure competition. Otherwise regulation simply gives credence to unethical practices so long as they stay within the strict confines of the regulation, that always have loopholes. The point is the laws of supply and demand work, and with the instant communication that exists today social/environmental responsibility is a factor that consumers can take into account when making purchasing decisions.

Referring to management practices that led to unionization 100-years ago is a bit like continually talking about the crusades, it doesn't have anything to do with talking about the issues today. We have known that participative management practices lead to better productivity and higher profits for some time. Unfortunately, unions remain a political necessity for at least one party so they can't be eliminated. Again, regulation and politics are what bastardizes capitalism, not the "greedy unscrupulous CEOs constantly referred to by politicians and the media.". Show me an unethical capitalist where true competition exists and I'll show you someone in Chapter 7 or 11.

As I said, so long as monopoly is prevented, capitalism works quite well. You did notice that virtually all of the ills you mention were generated under monopolistic conditions, where the laws of supply and demand are inoperative.

Keep in mind, when you begin to regulate, just what are you trying to accomplish? Are you actually protecting anyone, or attempting to impose your view of what the world should be on everyone else. I would suggest to you that there is very little of the former and very much of the latter in governmental regulation and, in particular, governmental legislation.

 

How is unregulated competition supposed to lend itself to a healthy environment when if allowed, companies would probably rather carry the environmental protection expense through to the bottom line as profit especially in a competitive scenario? I'm not seeing it, Bob.

 

Me either. Greed is basic human nature.

Unfettered greed = abuse

Overregulation = bureacracy

Balance is the answer. Not unchecked capitalism.

 

For starters, renewable energy or energy from waste is far less expensive than energy purchased from a utility. This leads to lower production costs. The use of environmentally friendly solvents, cleaners, lower employee absence etc. reduce facility maintenance costs which lower operating costs which improve profits. The reality is that the more a business or an industry can reuse resources and limit the costs associated with disposal of used materials the lower its production, operation and maintenance costs generally are. When you add the ability of consumers to make decisions with their pocketbook based on the social/environmental responsibility record of competing companies, lack of such responsibility becomes a cost in terms of lower market share.

The key is that all such costs need to filter through to the bottom line. Ineffectual regulation or regulation based on a political or social agenda tends to legitimize practices that contribute to continued inefficient resource use and actually drive that behavior you describe since staying "within the letter of the regulation" legitimizes the company's practices and limits the market reaction to their behavior. This is why lobbyists spend so much time on politicians and regulators making sure that legislation and regulation provide that legal safe haven and protection from the will of the consumer.

You may think all of the legislation and regulation in this country has had a positive impact on the environment, at least beyond what the market would have provided. The reality is that such legislation and regulation has driven much of basic industry out of this country into those countries where such regulation does not exist and since there is little or no information then available to the consumer, no element of such consideration in consumer decisions is possible with more research than most folks are willing to do. Further, we see the results in having no new refineries built in nearly 30 years, no new nuclear plants that produce no carbon dioxide, etc.

You may wish to be dependent on the regimes of other countries for necessities, I don't. I believe that the markets have the power to do much of what needs to be accomplished, the kicker is that for the markets to be effective consumers must take responsibility for their decisions. When sufficient folks incorporate social/environmental responsibility into their consumption decisions, an unregulated market will give the result you are looking for. If consumers do not take that responsibility, then the market will not provide the desired results. The alternative is someone, or some party, or some regime, dictating what is important and what is not. You may have more faith in the political process and government to effect a reasonable end than the economic forces of a free market, I do not.

Please note that I am not talking about the commodities market. The stock market does provide capital for investment (but doesn't respond well to market forces), the commodities market provides nothing except a gambling opportunity that could be better transferred to end consumers rather than middle men.

 

The problem with your mantra is regulation, not over-regulation equals bureaucracy, and market forces serve to fetter greed by driving bottom line profit. The issue is that it takes individual responsibility to make the system work. There is no such thing as regulation that does not engender a bureaucracy!

 

Efficiency and conservation are key. It is far more cost effective to be efficient and conserve what we have than to expect to constantly "go get more." Increasingly there is no more "more" just as there is no "away" to throw things to. We live in a closed system and must act accordingly. We have been living off of ancient sunlight (fossil fuels) acting if what took millions and billions of years can be replenished in the blink of an eye. Time is overdue to emphasize sustainable, renewable energy (small hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, conservation & efficiency). Anything else is denial or short-term thinking.

 

Which forces within the market would those be? Which forces fetter the greed fueled mayhem in the housing market or the energy markets? Individual responsibility doesn't work in the market because if you don't cheat/push the limits you will lose out to your competitors who do. Classic game theory it seems to me.

 

Fishing regulations are a good counter to your examples. Without regulation the Cod fisheries on the east coast of North American were completely eliminated in 1992. It is regulations in remaining fisheries that keep the same from happening elsewhere.

I do agree with the legislation point driving some industries out. Slave labor is harder to come by in the US of A.

 

There are thousands of examples. The Cuyahoga river catching fire in 1970 was the direct result of the lack of environmental regulation. That's not to say that all regs are good or that we can't have enough regulations. That's got its own set of problems. Either extreme is bad. You've got to have balance or you won't have a workable/sustainable situation.

The problem with the market is that it is very short sighted and extremely self-interested. At least the participants are self-interested and they generally operate with the short-mid term in mind. They are in business to maximize profit and reduce cost and they will do that however they can. They only act in an "enlightened" way if it's cost effective. If it diminishes profit then it won't happen.

 

That one's a classic.

 

Well, energy was hardly "deregulated" leading to the Enron debacle, which was simply felonious activity. There are laws that deal with such activities and they are appropriate since such activity thwarts the market. Don't mistake what I am saying - you said "...manufacture an artificial [sic] scarcity..." This eliminates the ability of the market to act appropriately and criminal activity can subvert the market force. Don't believe that those who think that the market is the appropriate control mechanism condone criminal behavior whose purpose is to subvert the market forces. There will always be snake oil salesmen and confidence men/women. Existing laws are sufficient to prosecute such felons, although the "protections" being interpreted by some judges make prosecution more difficult.

As for a lack of environmental regulation being the cause of the Cuyahoga catching fire, I would say it was the result of short sighted management ignoring the profit potential of removing materials from the effluent discharge. This is exactly what the textile industry discovered when it began to look at its effluent discharge. It becomes a chicken or egg argument, did the environmental regulation engender the examination of the profit potential of effluent recovery or was it that market potential that led the industries to remain in place and change their practices? The point is that even without regulation, had management taken the time to adequately analyze their operations they would have identified that they could increase their profit by recovering material from the effluent that had market potential. Unfortunately we demand instant and constantly increasing profits from senior management through our investments which may lead individuals to take "shortcuts" [read break the law] to satisfy us. I say us since it is often the largest pension funds that are the big investors with the greatest clout and influence on management. The question is how many individuals use a self-directed IRA in order to ensure that their retirement account supports those companies that use good management practice that allows the market to work and provides a "greener" operation as a byproduct. I do, do you?

And as far as the Cod - so what. Part of nature's process for controlling the population of various species to maintain a natural balance is the extinction of other species that are a food source. To my way of thinking, preserving (or "farming") Cod in order to support the unnatural explosion of human population is an absolute affront to nature. We can't live in balance with nature because there are just too many of us, a basic fact that many seem to ignore!

 

So what you're saying is we should just wipe out everything that we like to eat because we can't find balance? So if we apply that philosophy and entire ecosystems collapse there will be a massive hit to our economies that depend on stable ecosystems. That's incredibly irresponsible.

"Nature" also isn't nearly as efficient as we are at wiping out species (save the mass extinctions which are usually brought on by external forces). By putting massive pressure on various species there isn't time to fill various niches. If we wipe out tuna for example, the squid proliferate. That will put pressure on the things the squid like to munch on, which we like to eat to, so those other species are now under even greater stress. There's no telling what kinda impact that will have. It probably won't be good, however.

 

Or was it that being force to clean up their mess they realized that they could recoup some of their costs? Do you have a good like to the history? I'm curious.

The simple fact is that this sort of thing is ubiquitous and wouldn't have changed unless people said "enough" or... the cost of those inputs was so high that recovery operations made sense. The former seems to have been the only thing that worked until recently as the price of many commodities has increased as the global economy has grown.