« Truth Squads in America | HomePage | Free Markets »
23/03/2006
Free Markets
Everyone wants cash and that’s why markets work. If everyone could get more cash, then their life would be better, because they can buy all the crap any American who watches TV has been convinced that they need. We have all been told that America is a consumer economy because we consume more per person than any other country on Earth. Except maybe for some small countries that only have homes for wealthy monarchs and their kin. But, the desire for wealth drives the capitalistic drive to make distribution of goods more efficient. The drive for wealth drives innovation. The drive for wealth makes people work to feed and house themselves if nothing else…
Maybe the distribution of goods is not as fair as Jesus would like, but the drive to make money powers the industries with people who need money to buy food, goods and services which supplies these industries with the money needed to produce more goods and services and jobs. That is the magic of the free markets.
The truth is that people need food and shelter. They could go out into a forest and set up a tent and live there if they chose not to be part of our society. (Well, actually they would need to own some land to do that. And that would require money. And once we are talking money we are talking society again. Unless you are able to get to some remote piece of land that no one has claimed yet.) For modern man, money is the only way that people can live in our society. This means that people need to acquire money in some way to buy the things they need to survive. Removing yourself from that need for money is impossible in America.
For most people money is acquired by working. Someone with capital and a grand idea will use their capital to hire labor to pay people to do what they want done in order to realize their dream. Some people have no ideas and lots of capital, and they use their capital to invest in someone that has some ideas and no capital. The person with the capital therefore buys the ideas and is able to exploit those ideas to make more capital for himself or herself. Similarly the person with the ideas hopes that the person with the capital isn’t smart enough to realize the full potential for an idea, so that the person with the idea can make more money than the person with the capital. And, so it goes. America was built on these interactions one billionaire at a time.
So, the system works. People who need food and housing are able to make minimal amounts of money to survive. People with ideas are able to get those ideas realized. And, people with money are able to make more money.
So, why can’t we create another type of market that could benefit all of us? This market takes care of basic needs of food and shelter. However, it encourages waste and pollution. If someone has an idea to dig a hole in the ground and burn the coal he found there to make energy the idea wins if it is cheaper to do this than to make solar cells and get the energy from the sun. If the guy believes that throwing all the ashes from the burnt coal in the river is cheaper than burying them in the ground in a land fill, then throwing them in the river wins. If someone thinks taking Uranium and putting it in a pile creates energy more cheaply than building wind turbines, then the nuclear energy plan wins, even if they don’t consider what to do with the waste afterward. But, the problem with pollution is that it effects everyone. So, if one guy has a cheap idea that causes lots of pollution everyone who is effected by that pollution pays a price in a deteriorated environment. The guy who is polluting is “stealing cleanliness” from those who once had nice clean places to live and work.
Pollution is a fact of life. Every time we use the toilet we pollute the environment. So, just like the capitalist market that rewards people for having ideas and money we need a market that reward people for polluting less. A free market that rewards people for not destroying our environment would drive people to pollute less and find the means to pollute more efficiently. For example, nuclear energy could be cleaner if new processes to use the nuclear fuel were carefully studied. But, power companies were spooked in the past when their innovation in using nuclear energy resulted in Three Mile Island. The extraordinary safety measures triggered by this failure made nuclear energy expensive and scared the energy industry away from future investigations. But, if some type of low pollution rewards market were created new innovators could be driven to investigate their dreams. Other forms of energy would also be rewarded for being clean while dirty coal and oil would be less desirable.
The point is that Free Markets work, so why don’t we use them to preserve our world before its too late.
Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit
Politics
16:55 Posted in Politics | Permalink | Comments (4) | Email this | Tags: Politics


Comments
You're setting up a false dichotomy. You can create necessary environmental protections without creating an entire new system. (and if its not free, then therefore it is:______)
If someone is pumping toxic chemicals into my air, I can sue them in a free market - but not when the government manages pollution like in today's America. If someone dumps waste into a river, can't whoever owns the river seek damages?
And in a free market, it is the consumers who make the decisions on the risks and benefits of nuclear energy, not the buerucracy we have today.
Posted by: Adam | 23/03/2006
False dichotomy?
That would imply that I am offering only two choices. However, I am offering a possible solution based on something that works. So, if we assume that free markets work, then why don't we use them? Just because money is our current currency of exchange doesn't mean that we can't include another important currency that pushes the market toward a desirable goal for society. That is how taxes and tax credits have worked, but only in limited ways for specific industries. However, instead of creating arbitrary taxes or tax credits, why not create a system that does what the society desires, namely control pollution.
I didn't even go to the extent of even naming a system, and you are already against it. You have told me in the past that you are against government control. A free market model takes the heavy hand of government out of the equation. Only the desired result is put into law. The industries that pollute need to work together to control their pollution. Whether it is through energy efficiency credits, CO2 credits or some other method the market would be used to point industry in the right direction.
I am surprised that you make the suggestion that the courts decide the cases of who is polluting whom. I thought we didn't want any more law suits? When someone dumps pollution into a river, there isn't only one person effected by that pollution. Every property that lies adjacent to the River is effected, the fisherman who fish the river and the bay it dumps into, and the oceans. Are you seriously suggesting that when a person pollutes a river every person effected should file a lawsuit? What if the effect isn’t known for years? How do we trace the mercury in the tuna back to the original polluter? There would certainly be a growing number of lawsuits that would strangle our economy. Isn't that what is happening today with lead paint and asbestos?
So, you are calling for more government to fix our problems instead of using a system that has been proven to work?
Posted by: Dr. Forbush | 24/03/2006
OK, I'm embarassed now, I misread "The point is that Free Markets work, so why don’t we use them to preserve our world before its too late." as saying "The point is that Free Markets *don't* work..."
The problem at least with the pollution credit schemes I've seen (I don't know exactly what you're proposing here) is that companies are willing to pay out small fees in exchange for a license to pollute. If they start to face class-action lawsuits from the people they kill and injur from pollution in major cities or the rivers and streams they illegally dump materials into, they won't be able to survive as large-scale polluters anymore.
Posted by: Adam | 24/03/2006
No problem Adam,
Industry is going to pollute, because when you create anything you create waste as well. If it's steel from iron ore, or energy from coal or plastic from oil. It doesn't matter what you create and what your source is you create pollution to some extent. Once you realize this, then one needs to figure out how to minimize the pollution in some way. A simple way to do this is to say that we only want to increase pollution a certain amount per year. We could argue what that value should be, but that should be the number we argue about and come to a consensus based on facts. And, we are not doing that at any level.
Once we agree on the amount of pollution we as a society are going to allow, then we divide credits up for companies that pollute. The number of credits does not change, but the people who want to use them may change. Then the market forces will drive the industries to become efficient...
Posted by: Dr. Forbush | 24/03/2006
Post a comment