Comment to: 'How Private Equity Firms Work' - Talk of the Nation
We don't see much reporting (or any reporting) in the mainstream media about systemic flaws in our economic system.
It is a failure of public policy that makes harmful practices profitable for industry.
If putting pollution or taking natural resources causes harm to others (either because air and water quality is decreased or because resources are made unavailable to others) then it makes sense to charge a fee to those who cause the harm.
In a democratic society, fees would be set high enough so that most people would agree that the rates of taking of resources and rates of putting pollution are within acceptable limits.
This is a systemic flaw (to allow these side-effects of economic activity to go uncompensated) because it means that prices give false information about true costs. We do things that cause pollution and other kinds of environmental degradation *more* than what we would do if these environmental impacts were reflected in prices.
Resolving this systemic defect through fees on pollution and on the taking of natural resources would mean that efforts by corporations to seek to reduce costs would cause them to try to reduce environmental harm. With the current system, there is often a conflict (always a conflict) between what is good for the corporation and what is good for the larger community.
Is Civilization a Success or a Failure or is it Too Soon to Tell?
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Friday, January 20, 2012
What kind of capitalist?
Adapted from a comment on: Vulture Capitalism'? How Private Equity Firms Work
We don't see much (or any) reporting in the mainstream media about systemic flaws in our economic system.
A failure of public policy makes harmful practices profitable for industry.
If putting pollution or taking natural resources causes harm to others (either because air and water quality is decreased or because resources are made unavailable to others) then it makes sense to charge a fee to those who cause the harm.
In a democratic society, fees would be set high enough so that most people would agree that the rates of taking of resources and rates of putting pollution are within acceptable limits.
This is a systemic flaw (to allow these side-effects of economic activity to go uncompensated) because it means that prices give false information about true costs. We do things that cause pollution and other kinds of environmental degradation *more* than what we would do if these environmental impacts were reflected in prices.
Resolving this systemic defect through a fee on pollution or on the taking of natural resources would mean that efforts by corporations to reduce costs and increase profits would include efforts to reduce environmental harm. Rather than a conflict between what is good for the corporation and what is good for the larger society, there would be a coincidence. No more pathological trade-off between what is good for the corporation vs. what is good for society. Rather than seeking profit at the expense of the social good and healthy planet, we would have profit-seeking in accord with the social good and environmental health.
If proceeds from environmental impact fees are shared equally among all the world's people, no one would live in abject poverty. The economic hardship that comes with loss of a job would be less severe, since work income would be only part of a person's total income. All people would be more able to seek and hold jobs that offer them a sense of meaning and purpose, since the economic security that comes from an equal sharing of natural resource wealth would allow people more freedom to decline jobs or work fewer hours at jobs that do not contribute this sense of purpose.
Natural Law Requires Respect of Public Property Rights, Too
Systemic Flaws are Not Reported
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
How much time do we have?
Adapted from a comment on: The Doomsday Clock: Can Artists Save The World?
at 1/21/2010 5:53 PM EST
With about two hundred thousand (or a couple of million) years of experience with song and dance and call and response bringing us together, it is easy to feel agape or a sense of connectedness with others on seeing such joy and exuberance in those vids.
If we are to develop our moral sense sufficient to restrain the destructive power that we now possess that flows from our ability to understand and manipulate the material world, we might do well to recognize moral principle as natural law governing social interaction. We may come to see that a close examination of moral principles is necessary simply from the standpoint of survival. When we consciously engage our moral sense, we exercise it more fully.
Just as there are consequences when we disregard other kinds of natural law, (such as when we disregard the law of gravity which governs the interaction of massive bodies and are injured in a fall), there are consequences when we disregard the laws that govern social interaction.
If we pretend to ourselves and to others that it is a legitimate use of government to threaten to destroy a city, (even in the face of the fact that governments get their power from the people, and no person has any moral authority to threaten to destroy a city), then we are violating a basic moral precept that no person has authority to give or delegate a power to others which they do not possess themselves http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
If we persist in this error and continue to hold nuclear arsenals, then we will eventually experience severe adverse consequences of this serious moral lapse. There is a basic fact about threats: they remain effective only if they are occasionally backed up with action. Although there is usually, (always), a time-lag between the moment that basic laws of nature are disregarded and the moment that the harmful impact of our error is made manifest, there can be no doubt that the workings of the basic laws of nature are inexorable. (The truth will out.)
If we resolve to abide by moral principles in the political and economic realms, we will not only end the practice of maintaining nuclear arsenals, (we might instead use the fissile material to generate electricity, thereby making it unavailable as a weapon of war, while also reducing our desire to burn coal and oil toward such end), we would also end the systematic neglect of PUBLIC property rights.
Property rights are a subset of human rights, which we MUST respect to be in accord with the golden rule, (a universally accepted moral principle).
We have a well-developed sense of private property rights, which is reflected in our culture and in our political and economic systems.
Less well developed is our sense of public property rights. We believe that we all own the air and water, (and some would say other natural resources). We all have an equal right to use them and we have, collectively, a right to stop others from taking too much or messing them up. (This is intrinsic to the concept of ownership.)
But when industries take or degrade natural resource wealth in pursuit of profit, we do not require that they pay a fee to the people, the owners of the resources, as compensation for the damage done or value taken. There is a thorough, systematic neglect of PUBLIC property rights. There is no compensation paid by users of these resources to the owners, (the people at large); nor is there an effective mechanism whereby the overall rates of taking of resources and levels of pollution are kept within limits acceptable to the people at large. (The idea that we have a collective right to limit environmental impacts--and basic democratic principles--would appear to dictate that actual environmental impacts ought to be kept within such limits.)
A public property rights paradigm would mean an end to extreme poverty in the world, and could provide the foundation for a sustainable and just civilization.
Biodiversity as a Public Good
at 1/21/2010 5:53 PM EST
With about two hundred thousand (or a couple of million) years of experience with song and dance and call and response bringing us together, it is easy to feel agape or a sense of connectedness with others on seeing such joy and exuberance in those vids.
If we are to develop our moral sense sufficient to restrain the destructive power that we now possess that flows from our ability to understand and manipulate the material world, we might do well to recognize moral principle as natural law governing social interaction. We may come to see that a close examination of moral principles is necessary simply from the standpoint of survival. When we consciously engage our moral sense, we exercise it more fully.
Just as there are consequences when we disregard other kinds of natural law, (such as when we disregard the law of gravity which governs the interaction of massive bodies and are injured in a fall), there are consequences when we disregard the laws that govern social interaction.
If we pretend to ourselves and to others that it is a legitimate use of government to threaten to destroy a city, (even in the face of the fact that governments get their power from the people, and no person has any moral authority to threaten to destroy a city), then we are violating a basic moral precept that no person has authority to give or delegate a power to others which they do not possess themselves http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
If we persist in this error and continue to hold nuclear arsenals, then we will eventually experience severe adverse consequences of this serious moral lapse. There is a basic fact about threats: they remain effective only if they are occasionally backed up with action. Although there is usually, (always), a time-lag between the moment that basic laws of nature are disregarded and the moment that the harmful impact of our error is made manifest, there can be no doubt that the workings of the basic laws of nature are inexorable. (The truth will out.)
If we resolve to abide by moral principles in the political and economic realms, we will not only end the practice of maintaining nuclear arsenals, (we might instead use the fissile material to generate electricity, thereby making it unavailable as a weapon of war, while also reducing our desire to burn coal and oil toward such end), we would also end the systematic neglect of PUBLIC property rights.
Property rights are a subset of human rights, which we MUST respect to be in accord with the golden rule, (a universally accepted moral principle).
We have a well-developed sense of private property rights, which is reflected in our culture and in our political and economic systems.
Less well developed is our sense of public property rights. We believe that we all own the air and water, (and some would say other natural resources). We all have an equal right to use them and we have, collectively, a right to stop others from taking too much or messing them up. (This is intrinsic to the concept of ownership.)
But when industries take or degrade natural resource wealth in pursuit of profit, we do not require that they pay a fee to the people, the owners of the resources, as compensation for the damage done or value taken. There is a thorough, systematic neglect of PUBLIC property rights. There is no compensation paid by users of these resources to the owners, (the people at large); nor is there an effective mechanism whereby the overall rates of taking of resources and levels of pollution are kept within limits acceptable to the people at large. (The idea that we have a collective right to limit environmental impacts--and basic democratic principles--would appear to dictate that actual environmental impacts ought to be kept within such limits.)
A public property rights paradigm would mean an end to extreme poverty in the world, and could provide the foundation for a sustainable and just civilization.
Biodiversity as a Public Good
Monday, January 16, 2012
Comment on: Cadbury Shareholders Approve Kraft Deal
at 1/20/2010 12:17 AM EST
(The news story and this comment disappeared from the NPR website.)
If property rights are a subset of human rights, and if PUBLIC property rights are a particular kind of property rights, then we have to recognize that neglect of public property rights is a human rights violation. This means that it is immoral to allow the current socio-political-economic system to continue as is. Basic moral principles REQUIRE that we start accounting for economic externalities, charge a fee to those who degrade environmental quality or take natural resources in pursuit of profit, and share the proceeds equally with all the world's people.
Basic democratic principles REQUIRE that we set fees such that environmental impacts do not exceed what most people say is acceptable.
A sustainable and just civilization
(please, someone help me understand why there is no discussion of public property rights, particularly as it relates to natural resource wealth and economic externalities, on the public airwaves.)
Minimum wage vs. minimum income
Government Health Care not so Popular
Comment on
Why Public Support for Health Care Faltered
at 1/21/2010 9:53 PM EST
Much reporting about health care legislation. Very little reporting about how to stay healthy by eating a saturated fat- and cholesterol-free diet based on whole foods, (primarily plants).
It is not possible to reduce costs of services by legislative fiat.
It is not possible to create wealth by decree.
Costs can be shifted around... assuming a political system that undertakes to regulate and manage what are essentially private matters.
(But as a matter of public health policy, it is quite appropriate for government to promote vaccination programs and regulate drinking water quality and sanitation.)
A more efficient health care system could result from changes that promote a more free market. (More competition.) That would mean reducing barriers to entry into the market. The government ought not be in the business of deciding who can and cannot practice medicine.
It is a proper function of government to require that people deal fairly. People should be honest about what training they claim to have and what experience they have. To aid citizens in obtaining pertinent information about those who offer services, there could be a role for government to provide forums where people can share information about their experiences.
Neva Goodwin: Primer on externalities; Accounting for externalities promotes social justice
Biodiversity as a public good
at 1/21/2010 9:53 PM EST
Much reporting about health care legislation. Very little reporting about how to stay healthy by eating a saturated fat- and cholesterol-free diet based on whole foods, (primarily plants).
It is not possible to reduce costs of services by legislative fiat.
It is not possible to create wealth by decree.
Costs can be shifted around... assuming a political system that undertakes to regulate and manage what are essentially private matters.
(But as a matter of public health policy, it is quite appropriate for government to promote vaccination programs and regulate drinking water quality and sanitation.)
A more efficient health care system could result from changes that promote a more free market. (More competition.) That would mean reducing barriers to entry into the market. The government ought not be in the business of deciding who can and cannot practice medicine.
It is a proper function of government to require that people deal fairly. People should be honest about what training they claim to have and what experience they have. To aid citizens in obtaining pertinent information about those who offer services, there could be a role for government to provide forums where people can share information about their experiences.
Neva Goodwin: Primer on externalities; Accounting for externalities promotes social justice
Biodiversity as a public good
Are Afghan soldiers still stealing from children?
Comment on: For U.S., Vast Challenge To Expand Afghan Forces
at 12/23/2009 12:10 PM EST
"One soldier searching villagers pocketed an orange he found on a young boy, then hit the youth with a stick."
So, our tax dollars help to pay the salary of a petty thief who uses his Afghan Army uniform as cover as he shakes down children for their fruit (and presumably other valuables).
How can anyone think that this is a proper way to behave?
Where is the news story about what this soldier's commander and those higher up are doing with this kind of information? Soldiers are supposed to give oranges to children, not steal them away.
Is this soldier still doing shakedowns?
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Systemic flaws are not reported
"One soldier searching villagers pocketed an orange he found on a young boy, then hit the youth with a stick."
So, our tax dollars help to pay the salary of a petty thief who uses his Afghan Army uniform as cover as he shakes down children for their fruit (and presumably other valuables).
How can anyone think that this is a proper way to behave?
Where is the news story about what this soldier's commander and those higher up are doing with this kind of information? Soldiers are supposed to give oranges to children, not steal them away.
Is this soldier still doing shakedowns?
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Systemic flaws are not reported
Sunday, January 15, 2012
NPR news story: Under Pressure, Al Qaida Reaches Out To Affiliates
at 1/11/2010 5:36 PM EST
Adapted from a Comment on this story
In a society that respects public property rights and where ownership of natural resource wealth is seen to be vested in the people at large, we will have a straightforward mechanism for limiting overall environmental impacts and rates of taking of resources. If most people believe that levels of pollution or rates of taking of resources are excessive (as revealed by a random-sample survey), we could charge a fee (or raise the fee) associated with the particular activity that the people want to limit. The reality in the world, in terms of resource conservation, limits on pollution and the general state of ecological health, would come to match what the largest portion of the people consider as acceptable. That would be a REAL democracy.
With equal sharing of the proceeds of the natural resource user-fees (a monetary representation of the value of the commons) we would create a world where no one would live in extreme poverty. Disparity of wealth would be less extreme ... less of a problem. Social justice would be enhanced.
A sustainable and just civilization would be more likely to be supported by and embraced by all peoples all across the globe.
We do not yet have a version of civilization that is stable. Is there a cure for what appears to be an inherent flaw in civilization that makes it an unstable phenomenon? Is the arc of civilization, thriving followed by collapse, inevitable?
Perhaps a sense of justice and fairness among the populace is a prerequisite for a sustainable civilization. It is so much easier to tear down and destroy that it is to build and create. If even a small fraction of the populace believes that an unjust society is being thrust upon them, then the damage they might do in expressing their anger and disaffection could easily swamp any ability of the larger society to withstand.
There may be a remedy to this difficult situation that builds on our tradition of strong respect of property rights. If we expand our concept of property rights beyond private property to include a real respect of public property rights--so that rates of taking of natural resources and levels of pollution in the air and water do not exceed what most people consider as acceptable (and so that the people receive payment when these resources owned by all are taken or degraded by corporations in pursuit of profit)--we will have significantly reduced two of the greatest threats to the stability of our global society.
If we cannot offer the promise of a sustainable and just civilization, we cannot expect our well-meaning attempts to develop traditional societies to be welcomed by members of those societies.
Our practice appears to be to support corrupt elements within more traditional societies, provided that they give lip service to supporting Western-style democracy. If we align ourselves with corrupt elements, we will be on the wrong side of history. Our efforts will be doomed to failure.
Graft, social stratification (disparity between rich and poor), a degraded and despoiled environment, pollution and blight are what we offer to "less-developed" nations and peoples.
Social stratification should be a serious concern for all governments because extreme disparity increases tendencies toward violence among some people. For many others, extreme disparity contributes to feelings of being oppressed by structural injustice.
Environmental degradation and depletion of resources should be of concern for all governments and all people because resource depletion is perhaps the greatest threat to the stability of our global civilization. Ecological collapse has been a trigger or a cause of civilizations' collapse in the past.
More Security for the Least Secure Means More Security for All
at 1/11/2010 5:36 PM EST
Adapted from a Comment on this story
In a society that respects public property rights and where ownership of natural resource wealth is seen to be vested in the people at large, we will have a straightforward mechanism for limiting overall environmental impacts and rates of taking of resources. If most people believe that levels of pollution or rates of taking of resources are excessive (as revealed by a random-sample survey), we could charge a fee (or raise the fee) associated with the particular activity that the people want to limit. The reality in the world, in terms of resource conservation, limits on pollution and the general state of ecological health, would come to match what the largest portion of the people consider as acceptable. That would be a REAL democracy.
With equal sharing of the proceeds of the natural resource user-fees (a monetary representation of the value of the commons) we would create a world where no one would live in extreme poverty. Disparity of wealth would be less extreme ... less of a problem. Social justice would be enhanced.
A sustainable and just civilization would be more likely to be supported by and embraced by all peoples all across the globe.
We do not yet have a version of civilization that is stable. Is there a cure for what appears to be an inherent flaw in civilization that makes it an unstable phenomenon? Is the arc of civilization, thriving followed by collapse, inevitable?
Perhaps a sense of justice and fairness among the populace is a prerequisite for a sustainable civilization. It is so much easier to tear down and destroy that it is to build and create. If even a small fraction of the populace believes that an unjust society is being thrust upon them, then the damage they might do in expressing their anger and disaffection could easily swamp any ability of the larger society to withstand.
There may be a remedy to this difficult situation that builds on our tradition of strong respect of property rights. If we expand our concept of property rights beyond private property to include a real respect of public property rights--so that rates of taking of natural resources and levels of pollution in the air and water do not exceed what most people consider as acceptable (and so that the people receive payment when these resources owned by all are taken or degraded by corporations in pursuit of profit)--we will have significantly reduced two of the greatest threats to the stability of our global society.
If we cannot offer the promise of a sustainable and just civilization, we cannot expect our well-meaning attempts to develop traditional societies to be welcomed by members of those societies.
Our practice appears to be to support corrupt elements within more traditional societies, provided that they give lip service to supporting Western-style democracy. If we align ourselves with corrupt elements, we will be on the wrong side of history. Our efforts will be doomed to failure.
Graft, social stratification (disparity between rich and poor), a degraded and despoiled environment, pollution and blight are what we offer to "less-developed" nations and peoples.
Social stratification should be a serious concern for all governments because extreme disparity increases tendencies toward violence among some people. For many others, extreme disparity contributes to feelings of being oppressed by structural injustice.
Environmental degradation and depletion of resources should be of concern for all governments and all people because resource depletion is perhaps the greatest threat to the stability of our global civilization. Ecological collapse has been a trigger or a cause of civilizations' collapse in the past.
More Security for the Least Secure Means More Security for All
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Accounting for downstream effects
Byproducts Of Urban Life Smother Chesapeake Bay
The most efficient and fair way to control pollution is to charge a fee to polluters, so that they have incentive to reduce there environmental impact.
So what are we waiting for?
Why are we not hearing this fact mentioned on the public airwaves?
(When I ask the NPR ombudsman this question, (Why are public property rights questions not discussed on NPR?), I don't even get the courtesy of a reply. Why is that?)
Thu Dec 24 2009 22:53:18 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time)
Governments that initiate force or coercion violate moral principle
The most efficient and fair way to control pollution is to charge a fee to polluters, so that they have incentive to reduce there environmental impact.
So what are we waiting for?
Why are we not hearing this fact mentioned on the public airwaves?
(When I ask the NPR ombudsman this question, (Why are public property rights questions not discussed on NPR?), I don't even get the courtesy of a reply. Why is that?)
Thu Dec 24 2009 22:53:18 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time)
Governments that initiate force or coercion violate moral principle
Friday, January 13, 2012
Broadcasting in the public interest
Re: Muting loud TV ads
Adapted from a comment offered in response to the NPR news story
Whatever way people choose to use the public airwaves should be consistent with the public interest. If most people believe that the sound levels of various programs and other messages should be kept at a uniform level, then (in a democratic society) this is how the airwaves would be used.
There are other considerations, too, if we want to examine whether the airwaves are being used in a way consistent with the people's will. There are many ways that we could characterize various programs to determine whether they serve the public interest. Random surveys could ask people to tag various broadcasts with relevant labels: truth vs. deceit -- enlightening vs. pandering to baser instincts, etc. Those broadcasts that garnered a constellation of labels that most people agree are strongly correlated with broadcasts that promote the public interest would be favored by a rational public policy. Those that have labels that are not associated with contribution to the public good would be discouraged, perhaps with a fee charged to those who choose to broadcast such programming. Which uses of the airwaves are highly consistent with the public interest, and which uses are better understood as merely promoting private interests? A democratic political process could use random surveys to help answer this question, and a system of fees could ensure that the reality is made to match what the people want.
If the public airwaves are used to promote private interests, it makes sense that those who use the public resource in this way should pay a fee to the people in consideration of the fact that the people's property is being put to private use.
If messages broadcast in pursuit of private profit were promoting behavior that most people feel is contrary to the public interest, (e.g.: increased consumption of saturated fat and cholesterol, or purchase of gas-guzzling SUVs), then these messages could have HIGHER fees attached, to keep the prevalence of these messages within acceptble limits
Mon Jan 04 2010 17:31:46 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time)
Biodiversity as a Public Good
What news media and universities do not tell us
Adapted from a comment offered in response to the NPR news story
Whatever way people choose to use the public airwaves should be consistent with the public interest. If most people believe that the sound levels of various programs and other messages should be kept at a uniform level, then (in a democratic society) this is how the airwaves would be used.
There are other considerations, too, if we want to examine whether the airwaves are being used in a way consistent with the people's will. There are many ways that we could characterize various programs to determine whether they serve the public interest. Random surveys could ask people to tag various broadcasts with relevant labels: truth vs. deceit -- enlightening vs. pandering to baser instincts, etc. Those broadcasts that garnered a constellation of labels that most people agree are strongly correlated with broadcasts that promote the public interest would be favored by a rational public policy. Those that have labels that are not associated with contribution to the public good would be discouraged, perhaps with a fee charged to those who choose to broadcast such programming. Which uses of the airwaves are highly consistent with the public interest, and which uses are better understood as merely promoting private interests? A democratic political process could use random surveys to help answer this question, and a system of fees could ensure that the reality is made to match what the people want.
If the public airwaves are used to promote private interests, it makes sense that those who use the public resource in this way should pay a fee to the people in consideration of the fact that the people's property is being put to private use.
If messages broadcast in pursuit of private profit were promoting behavior that most people feel is contrary to the public interest, (e.g.: increased consumption of saturated fat and cholesterol, or purchase of gas-guzzling SUVs), then these messages could have HIGHER fees attached, to keep the prevalence of these messages within acceptble limits
Mon Jan 04 2010 17:31:46 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time)
Biodiversity as a Public Good
What news media and universities do not tell us
Product releases are announced but economic externalities are not mentioned
Google announces release of Nexus phone - NPR Jan., 2010
Product release announcements are not news.
Major news organizations will report when large corporations introduce new products or try to buy other companies. But we see scant little reporting on issues related to economic externalities, as such.
'Economic externalities' are the side-effects of economic activity that are outside of the cost-benefit analysis, i.e., they are off the balance sheet and not part of the prices charged in the marketplace.
When we have some costs of production hidden from consumers (and from designers of production processes and business models) we get an inaccurate picture of the real costs of our decisions, so our cost-benefit analyses are flawed. Personal habits and the functioning of the entire economic system are skewed toward more harm to the environment and more depletion of resources, because there are no (or very few) general taxes or fees charged in proportion to natural resources taken or pollution released. Environmental impact costs are hidden from consumers. Economic externalities mean prices lie to us and cause us to do the wrong thing.
If news organizations want to report on new product releases, they should do so AFTER they have reported on systemic flaws in politics & economics.
The news story that this comment was prompted by has disappeared from the NPR website, so this comment no longer appears on their site (except on my profile page where you can read old posts that I have written).
Equal sharing of natural resources would mean a sustainable and more just civilization
Product release announcements are not news.
Major news organizations will report when large corporations introduce new products or try to buy other companies. But we see scant little reporting on issues related to economic externalities, as such.
'Economic externalities' are the side-effects of economic activity that are outside of the cost-benefit analysis, i.e., they are off the balance sheet and not part of the prices charged in the marketplace.
When we have some costs of production hidden from consumers (and from designers of production processes and business models) we get an inaccurate picture of the real costs of our decisions, so our cost-benefit analyses are flawed. Personal habits and the functioning of the entire economic system are skewed toward more harm to the environment and more depletion of resources, because there are no (or very few) general taxes or fees charged in proportion to natural resources taken or pollution released. Environmental impact costs are hidden from consumers. Economic externalities mean prices lie to us and cause us to do the wrong thing.
If news organizations want to report on new product releases, they should do so AFTER they have reported on systemic flaws in politics & economics.
The news story that this comment was prompted by has disappeared from the NPR website, so this comment no longer appears on their site (except on my profile page where you can read old posts that I have written).
Equal sharing of natural resources would mean a sustainable and more just civilization
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)