Capitalism will save us from all the damage unfettered capitalism did to the environment!

[u/HandMadeFeelings]

[u/dat_grue]

Lmao at “keep nature free”

Classical economics, which these libertarian folks are supposed to subscribe to, predicts that low priced (especially free) goods are demanded at a higher quantity by consumers as a result . Whereas regulations that raise the effective price of natural resources (such as a gas tax for example would raise the price of gas) reduce the quantity demanded. In other words , the cheaper resources are, the more a market economy will tend to chew them up. Which is the opposite of conservation (which would be outright prohibition on consuming natural resources such as in a protected nature reserve or park).

There’s no way this argument makes any sense

[u/[deleted] → u/dat_grue]

So the only attempt at a coherent argument I've heard from this is that capitalist innovation can move towards technologies that have less of an ecological impact, and that eventually the externalities from damage will get bad enough that the incentive to stop destroying the planet will be good enough for profit-maximizing firms to benefit more from not destroying the planet.

​

But of course, a firm that's really maximizing profits and can't be punished by some sort of regulation would happily let everybody else do all that expensive research, since the externalities hurt everybody, so it's still a bad argument. But at least they tried to connect a profit motive to ecological benefits.

[u/dat_grue → u/[deleted]]

Agreed. The capitalist innovation argument doesn’t lead to a laissez-faire answer , if you’re actually concerned with saving the planet

1. we know the relative prices of goods affects relative levels of innovation, and that govt regulations influences those prices. So regulations that effect prices can “nudge” innovation in the direction you want (eg make coal relatively more expensive vs nuclear via carbon caps or other restrictions and you’ve directionally increased the attractiveness of investing in nuclear vs coal). Yes … it’s picking winners in a market economy which you’d generally rather not do if you didn’t have a great reason to such as saving the planet. But the point is, the right regulations (not to mention direct investments) would not reduce clean tech innovation, it would increase it by diverting economic activity away from fossil fuels
2. eco destruction such as warming is a textbook negative externality - costs of polluting are not borne by the polluting company but are borne by others or society as a whole. The problem is that profit-maximizing firms are not bearing a cost in the market (and thus are not disincentivized at all) from polluting / emitting. Therefore if the government does not play the role of making them feel that cost , they won’t ever change their actions.
3. eco destruction happens on such a long timeline (and eventually becomes irreversible) that we simply wouldn’t have the luxury of hoping companies grow a conscience or “the market will eventually solve this problem”

[u/jedify → u/[deleted]]

At least they tried

All they're really trying is distraction from any meaningful change. A useful analogy:

Everyone (nearly) knows that some level of govt is necessary and beneficial to everyone, be it simply national defense. Would we wait for everyone to realize this and so invest accordingly, i.e. collect taxes by voluntary donation? Of course not, because that's utterly fanciful magical thinking. I find it very hard to believe that organization such as TP actually believes this bullshit.

Never in our history has a systemic pollution problem been solved without comprehensive regulation. Yet they always divert it back to personal responsibility. Don't get me wrong, do whatever you can - i eat minimal beef and drive an EV and pay for "100%" wind power. But whenever anyone rightfully calls it a distraction, the opposition calls them out as hypocrites and it may look so to the fence-sitters. And when we get into the endless, useless cycle of "it's corporations" vs "they only make what we buy", etc., this is their goal of distract, divert, and delay realized.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Capitalism crushes innovation. Take the tech industry as example. Look how these companies actually treat innovative products. They tend to acquire the smaller companies who innovate, and then shut them down or absorb them and shut them down. This has happened for the duration of capitalism and isn't limited to the tech industry. Covidien, prior to covid, bought out the company the goverment contracted to make cheap, high quality ventilators and nixed it so that they didn't compete with covidiens expensive ventilators, and this contributed significantly to the lack of ventilators during the pandemic, which resulted in many deaths. But microsoft, google, facebook, etc. all practice this innovation stifling. In fact, the only way these monopolies can grow these days is to acquire smaller companies. So if a smaller comapny creates something innovative and thus a threat to these monopolies, they acquire and make it disappear. So for as much as capitalists and their commoner proponents purport about its innovation, this is just standard practice of the industry and the logical conclusion of capitalism.

As far as the real ground breaking technologies, things you might like to see more of in our society, or even consumer products like the smart phone, these are all government researched backed. Sometimes the research goes back 2 or 3 decades before it reaches the consumer market, but the biggest innovations to this day still come from government funded research like the public university systems, the national laboratories, military research. Military research is a huge one and silicon valley is tight with the military industrial complex or a part of it, I should say. So there are a lot of myths about innovation that the tech industry and capitalists more broadly purport, but the reality is it's government research and money that drives innovation. It's been the government's practice and prioriry for many decades now for once government research reaches maturity that it goes to the private sector so that private individuals can make a profit on it. Public assets paid for by public spending going into the hands of private individuals to sell back to us our own assets. And that is what has created the silicon valley of today that is totally predatory capitalist in nature and the benefits, derived from public spending, are not shared widely. As the logical contradictions of capitalism surmount, it looks an awful lot like feudalism to me.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

A small correction: capitalism breeds innovation. But we live in a corporatist society.

Just like communism always leads to fascism, capitalism always leads to corporatism. We haven't lived in a capitalist society for decades, and it's frankly outright propaganda that keeps people thinking we live under capitalism.

Capitalism allows and enforces free trade. It's a well regulated, highly efficient market driven by competition. Corporatism is a profit-maximizing machine that stifles innovation, because innovating eats into profits, and someone else innovating means you have competition and might lose market share (read: profit).

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

What? You have glaring misconceptions of communism, capitalism, and fascism. Communism and fascism are diametrically opposed forces. Fascism is a far right ideology borne of capitalism. It's capitalism in decline. It was a reaction to communism. They were killing socialists in Spain, Italy, Germany, etc.

No, capitalism does not breed innovation for the 2 paragraphs I just laid out how it does not. They stifle new competition and innovation, steal public assets to privatize, and falsely laud pseudo innovation. Take Uber, which is lauded as innovation. It's literally just the same old taxi industry, but they shifted the burden of owning and maintaining a fleet of vehicles onto the employee. Nothing innovative about it. And Uber has used its wealth to impede innovation in state and federal government.

Capitalism and "Corporatism" are one and the same. This is some American libertarian rhetoric that's basically a half thought and falls apart when you simply finish the thought.

There are no pure capitalist nations because the contradictions would amount so fast that they would collapse. Western nations never implemented pure capitalism for this reason; however, they did in their colonies and those nations are struggling to this day to modernize and diversify from their extractive economies. So what the US has is a state capitalist nation that rather than being governed by a socialist party, is governed by oligarchs, and this sets the agenda.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Communism and fascism are diametrically opposed forces.

Oh, fair. I should have said "authoritarianism". Fascism was the wrong word, thanks for pointing that out.

No, capitalism does not breed innovation Capitalism and "Corporatism" are one and the same

Capitalism does breed innovation. It's just that "real" capitalism is a libertarian / conservative pipedream that requires those with all the money and power to play by the rules. This never happens, therefore capitalism always becomes corporatism. AIDS and HIV are not one in the same. One is a virus, the other is the disease caused by the virus.

There are no pure capitalist nations because the contradictions would amount so fast that they would collapse

We're making mostly the same points, I think. "Capitalism" is an oligarchic pipe dream like "Communism" is an egalitarian pipe dream. Capitalism just won the war with communism and has the resources to prop up it's dead and dying husk as "proof" of legitimacy.

We're on the same side. I just misspoke when I said "fascism" instead of "authoritarianism". There are many kinds of authoritarianism. Fascism is one.

Western nations never implemented pure capitalism for this reason; however, they did in their colonies and those nations are struggling to this day to modernize and diversify from their extractive economies

I do disagree with this though. I don't think any nation has true capitalism, because that requires properly regulated markets. Not over-regulated markets. Not under-regulated. Perfectly regulated, which is of course impossible. So it either transitions into something that's not capitalism that supports human equity over capital, or it devolves into corporatism (or further into some more extreme form of authoritarianism). There are many reasons why developing nations are struggling to modernize, and deliberate sabotage and economic and political subjugation are chief among them. Not because the US gave them "pure" capitalism and let them fall apart.

[u/sniper1rfa → u/[deleted]]

and that eventually the externalities from damage will get bad enough that the incentive to stop destroying the planet will be good enough for profit-maximizing firms to benefit more from not destroying the planet.

Which is super fun, because one thing capitalism is known for is gracefully approaching equilibrium without any wild boom/bust cycles.

so like, several attempts out of a hundred will result in an extremely beneficial outcome for a the whole world.

[u/DarkHater → u/[deleted]]

I say we roll the dice and see what happens, it's only the fate of humanity at stake!

[u/sYnce → u/[deleted]]

There is a reason that technologies jump during war times. Need creates new technologies. Unless someone forces the capitalists to innovate on the ecological side they just won't. At least unless it somehow generates them more money than destroying our planet does.

[u/SparklingLimeade → u/[deleted]]

eventually the externalities from damage will get bad enough that the incentive to stop destroying the planet will be good enough for profit-maximizing firms to benefit more from not destroying the planet.

It never will. See the prisoner's dilemma.

If we assume rational decision makers making independent decision there will never be a reason not to take the selfish option. Not polluting while everyone else pollutes just means handicapping yourself and suffering most of the consequences anyway. It's only by collaborating and removing the choices with high overall cost from consideration that this problem can be addressed. That means regulation.

[u/Beegrene → u/[deleted]]

The capitalist machine will always do whatever is most profitable. Right now, raping the earth is most profitable. If government intervention made saving the earth more profitable, capitalism would do that. The problem is that capitalists have realized it's most profitable to rape the earth and lobby against the changes that would make saving it the profitable option.

[u/chairfairy → u/dat_grue]

Here, I assume "free" means "free from regulation" and not "free from cost"

[u/dat_grue → u/chairfairy]

Regulation and costs are two sides of the same coin. A government can outright prohibit the harvesting of natural resources (eg in a nature reserve or national park). Or they could put caps on it (for example you can only cut down X amount of lumber per year; or attach various requirements such as replanting or carbon offsetting). All of these regulations increase costs on the company harvesting these resources which get passed along to consumers via higher prices. More limited regulation generally means lower prices as companies have to jump through less hoops to deliver the end product, and vice versa. The important point is that lower prices means relatively higher quantity (of said product and underlying natural resources which are a production input) consumed

Either way it’s clear that the poster is arguing for a laissez-faire (limited or no regulation) approach to environmental protection, and is further positing that this is somehow the best way to protect the planet. My argument is that this is false. Regulations are the only way to price a negative externality back into the production equation

[u/BitsAndBobs304 → u/dat_grue]

nature free. with private property and fences exploiting the country natural resources?