World’s top industries wouldn't be profitable at all if they paid for natural capital they use

Socialism for our needs

Capitalism for our wants.

It is not very difficult.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Are you saying that allowing the balance of supply and demand to establish value is wrong?

Here is an example of externalization by private industry from todays headlinges:

Vice President Mike Pence turns nostalgic when he talks about growing up in small-town Columbus, Indiana, where his father helped build a Midwestern empire of more than 200 gas stations that provided an upbringing on the "front row of the American dream."

The collapse of Kiel Bros. Oil Co. in 2004 was widely publicized. Less known is that the state of Indiana — and, to a smaller extent, Kentucky and Illinois — are still on the hook for millions of dollars to clean up more than 85 contaminated sites across the three states, including underground tanks that leaked toxic chemicals into soil, streams and wells.

By the early 2000s, Kiel Bros. was swimming in debt as industry consolidation and low gas prices stretched profit margins to the brink. The business racked up environmental fines and closed stores. In June 2004, Greg Pence resigned as the company filed for bankruptcy.

www.chicagotribune.com...

Poor Management (fraud?), externalized costs and a legal system that doesn't hold Board members responsible and We the People have to pay the actual costs of cleaning up the mess they leave behind while they get rich off the scam.

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
Socialism for our needs

Capitalism for our wants.

It is not very difficult.

I like this simple assessment. Off topic but elegant.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

There is an awful lot more to the neoclassical model than that, far more important facets to that toxic structure than how value is assumed for a good or service, including what neoclassical economics will ALWAYS do, which is, if left unchecked by things like Glass-Steagal for example, boom and bust to a degree which is easily capable of destroying entire economies, and damaging the lives of ordinary persons, without their permission, consent, or even their awareness until after the fact.

It needs demolishing on that basis alone.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Yea but neoclassical economics works on smaller scales, where it needs to. It could never work on a large scale in say the US or Britain, the population is far to large. But, it's adopted in large companies and works fine. I think it can be used successfully where it's integrated into the capitalist society. Like I have said and others have said in this thread there needs to be a healthy balance.

This is nothing new. External cost analysis has been a part of business since before my time. It's just that most people (outside of business school) aren't aware of it and so it looks new.

The OP makes a lot of assumptions, as do all external cost analysts. Unlike a product or material or labor, external costs are by their very nature almost impossible to accurately quantify. Every business does, yes, use the resources they have available, and these resources are often by their very nature a shared resource that cannot be definitely allotted. Take water, for instance. We have no control over where rain falls; the best we can do is cloud seed on occasion and know where it drains when it falls in a particular area. Everyone needs water, both people and businesses. So whose water is it?

The concept of ownership breaks down there. No one can actually own water, because nature will redistribute it whether we like it or not. So we have come up with ways to handle the legalities of whose water it is. If I buy a bottle of water, it belongs to me, but after I use it, it goes back into a reservoir of the planet's water supply to be owned temporarily by someone else. If rain falls on my property, do I own it? Yes... but no. I cannot hoard it, lest that hoarding lead to a deficit in the water supply downstream and deprive others of it. The water that is pumped out of my well is mine, right? Well, sort of. The reservoir I pump it from likely exists on the property of others as well; I simply have the well that pumps it. Thus, water is a socialized resource that cannot be capitalized.

Pollution is easier... a fairly accurate cost to clean up pollution can be estimated in most cases. But then, when things like carbon dioxide are reclassified as a pollutant, that muddies the whole issue. Carbon dioxide is a substantial although minor component of a purely natural atmosphere. We do not know what an optimal concentration is, nor do we have an established (read: known) infrastructure to control it. So in that case, estimation of costs becomes much more subjective than the cost to clean, say, a dumping site.

I reject the labor issue out of hand. The reason is that we change the dynamics by supplementing the labor costs, which changes the calculations.

The real issue here, though, is the complaint issue. Big business is subsidizing their profits by unfairly using natural resources. The logical extension of that is that we should not have big business. That is a false narrative, because the value of those resources used by big business only exists as it is because of big business. Water can be very expensive and precious in desert areas; it is dirt cheap in rainy areas. The driving force behind the value of the resources we are trying to quantify is the very thing that we are complaining about raising the demand.

Without business, there would be no unfair use of water, no additional pollution, no "excess" carbon dioxide, true. There would also be no prosperity and no way to clean up what little pollution still existed from individuals. Without business there would be no income for anyone whatsoever, because there would be no jobs, no commerce, no taxation, and no government funds. The relationship is symbiotic: business uses resources and the economy created by the businesses serves to allow better access to those resources for all.

So yes, the article in the OP is talking about an actual issue (although I disagree with their calculations), but the conclusion that it is all capitalism's fault is a fake narrative.

TheRedneck

a reply to: CB328

When has socialism been against burning coal?
Trying to say the socialism is better than capitalism from an environmental standpoint seems bizarre.

www.numbeo.com...

Moscow has higher pollution than New York.

I'm not saying that proves anything.
I'm just saying that my contribution is as meaningless as Peter Joseph's.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Moscow?

What about Denmark? Its an ACTUAL socialism, not a pisspot dictatorship on roids, in a Federalist frock.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Sweet...

Copenhagen beats New York.

Are you adding more meaningless stats to prove my point?

a reply to: strongfp

But there is NO balance at all.

Business is done for the wrong reasons, people controlling it at the upper levels are in it for the wrong reasons, think too highly of their own minimal talents, too little of the stamina and dedication of those below them, and the entire model is designed to concentrate wealth in too few hands, despite the fact that at some stage, usually just after the first million or two enter an executives bank account, they stop being worth the money they are paid to do the frankly pathetic amount of work they end up doing for the next few decades of their lives.

For example, Bill Gates, for all the time he has left on this world, will never NEED another paycheck from anything he ever developed, sold, or built. Nor will any of the oil barons, the tycoons, and if Trump was not an incompetent hack of a man, neither would he.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: strongfp
But there is NO balance at all.

Of course there isn't.
Why should there be?

How much of the money that Bill Gates has earned (by hook or by crook) should you be eligible for?

If you want to blame someone there's only one person to blame and he's in the mirror.

there is NO balance at al

No because capitalism has been turned into a political system and it's mostly right-wing and highly corrupt. The system isn't even designed to be balanced, fair, equitable or moral.

a reply to: CB328

Do you really want balance?

Do you understand that it would mean you would have less and not more?

a reply to: CB328

Nature is not designed to be balanced, fair, equitable, or moral. Capitalism has improved on that option.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: CB328

how God awful would we look with only the state giving and no corporations to make payrolls, investment profits, or to tax?

We need socialism.

Right. Socialism. So good you have to force people to do it.

How is socialism for the rich any better?
We have heard thousands of times that any expenses or taxes are passed to the customer rather than come out of the pockets of shareholders and managements wallets.

That is socializing the costs and privatizing the profits.

Also, one cursory glance at Washington DC shows it is full of corporate and banking lobbyists forcing their policies on us.

How is that free market capitalism?

originally posted by: CB328
The human costs are gigantic too. All the forced labor, health and psychological problems not to mention business scams that the people are screwed over with.

There is also the cost of our trillion dollar military to protect global trade routes for corporations which goes well beyong protecting our borders.

Someone in flyover country usa is being robbed to protect trade routes thousands of miles away or dropping bombs on a country that never attacked us to make the MIC rich.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: CB328

All the forced labor

Where?

health and psychological problems not to mention business scams that the people are screwed over with.

Scams aren't business, scams are crimes.

Look to China for the forced labor where 250 million farmers had their land bull dozed to make widgets for American corporations.

They had 0 problems with labor that have 0 rights under communism as long as they are on the winning side and others pay for it.

People in our country are very often forced to work more hours than they want, or not take their breaks, or do two jobs at the same time so the company can save money. There are lawsuits all the time about it for example Walmart has had several.

Not to mention most people would rather work less hours than they do if they could afford it, but our corrupt, overpriced capitalist system gives them no choice.

originally posted by: CB328
Not to mention most people would rather work less hours than they do if they could afford it, but our corrupt, overpriced capitalist system gives them no choice.

Are you more likely to wear Nike's or make Nike's?

I have a feeling that the children who make the clothes you are wearing would be happy to take your role in this corrupt, overpriced capitalist system.