"The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants" - Albert Camus

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Blog War: Response To Broletariat (Part II)

Lets see if I can pick up where I left off.

You think that I am saying lets discount environmentalism; I certainly am not. I am discounting the green movement as it has evolved, especially over the past two decades. No one in their right mind promotes wanton destruction of the environment. However, when a movement takes on terroristic tactics to stop activities like responsible logging (where more trees are planted than cut down) in the Pacific Northwest based on falsely creating appearances of turn of the 20th century lumber barons raping the forests, that goes way beyond responsible environmentalism. Same tactics goes for oil and minerals exploration and nuclear power.

Moreover, destruction of rain forests has nothing to do with free markets or capitalism. If it did, totalitarian countries (like the former USSR, PRC, North Korea, etc.) would have the best environments – yet they are/were the most polluted hell holes you could imagine.
What you do not see is that in a free market environment, the incentive (and regulations) is there to leave the environment pristine so that you can continue to profit from it.
Even the EPA says we are environmentally cleaner than 40 years ago. And in comparison to ‘green’ Europe? Guess who is doing a better job? The U.S.!

Your apparent indirect assertion that clean environment is a socialist thing misses the point as you can see. Your explanation of why the green movement is dominated by Marxists today is “they are Marxists because they also realize how corporations are exploiting resources under the guise of “free markets”.” My assertion on the other hand is that environmentalism must be common sense and as clean environment would maximize profits over the long run, free markets are the best solution. That is why we out-perform the more progressive countries in most of Europe and elsewhere when it comes to cleanliness.
By the way, I have nothing against James Lovelock. He is considered the father of the movement, but as I said, his movement got hijacked by today’s greens for their insidious agenda.
Enough said on this subject for now.

--
You say that rationing (energy, etc.) can be an enabler of democracy and point out that I said it was a great way to bring about social change. I said that in a critical way. Government policy should not be for bringing about social change in a free society.

In the same paragraph, you wonder why we do not have democracy instead of a republican form of government since internet is so available to the masses. If we had pure democracy in the 1960s, there would probably be no civil rights legislation. How do you feel about that? Direct democracy is wide open to mob rule and political instability and the only instance where it has worked relatively well is Switzerland (with its small and relatively homogenous population). In a republic, we have representative government that curbs such potential abuses of power. The founding fathers established a form of republican Democracy as the framework because (as explained- I believe- in The Federalist #10) a direct democracy creates, among many other things, tyranny of the majority. Benjamin Franklin even questioned future generations’ ability to “keep it” – he was right! He prophetically said: “Once the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” Our republican form of government is now as corrupted as the doomed republican government of ancient Rome.

Due to human nature, money in politics has corrupted our political process. A congressman has to practically start raising money for his next race the day he is elected. Lobbyists run amok with wads of cash, ready to oblige.
Politics must be made to be a service to the nation once again. Not a place to enrich one’s self or get entrenched for the next 30-40 years. Here are my drastic proposals to reform the system:

Take all money out of politics. All cash and equivalents are forbidden. Lobbyists can still lobby based on the merits of the causes they represent.
All elections are publicly funded. No private money of any kind.
Congressmen can only serve limited terms (no more than 2 terms)
Strip all outrageous benefits that congressmen have (immediate retirement benefits, cheap healthcare, etc.)

--
Regarding how green policies would eventually destroy the free market system, you reply: “I understand the concept, but I’m not sure there is any impact to the dissemblance of free markets. The markets are already established? Would they just disappear? The government would come in and shut down all of the businesses? I don’t understand why you think government regulation of the economy is such a terrible idea. Moreover, even in our “free market” system, there is government intervention when it fails. Look at the bailouts. I’d love to hear your opinion on the bailouts of investment banks and the auto industry.”

Let me explain this way. Transition to complete dependence on the central government takes place one step at a time, over a long period of time (unless you are talking about a sudden, overnight coup). As more and more onerous regulations are piled up, cost of doing business goes way up. Case in point, in 2008, regulations were estimated to cost $1.75 trillion to the U.S. economy, or 12.5% of the G.D.P. Some of that cost was obviously warranted but there is also a good portion that is useless, or at times redundant.
As the costs are passed on to consumers, they have the effect of impoverishing people (other than the absolutely necessary ones). At the same time, these regulations (ones designed to change our habits and condition us to live by the ‘prescribed’ way) accomplish the social change necessary for transitioning in to a collectivist system. As more and more people are impoverished, reliance on government increases proportionally. Once you render a critical mass of people helpless to take care of themselves by welfare policies that are akin to giving people a fish (as opposed to teaching them to fish), you can democratically transition in to a centralized collectivist system.

Do you remember when I talked about the spectrum between laissez faire system and communism? Everything else on that spectrum is a slippery slope on the way to collectivism. Dependence begets dependence. It is a self perpetuating vicious cycle (and that is why poor inner city dwellers rarely escape the cycle). See how people in Greece react to austerity measures? They do not care that they are insolvent. All they want is their government assistance (at whatever the cost)!

My opinion about the bailouts is not favorable (especially untenable ones like the auto manufacturers). For the system to recover healthily, it must be allowed to crash. If you prop it up, it will take much longer to recover (like housing market). Again: free market principles. One caveat however. Almost all these crisis/recessions occur thanks to government screwing around with stuff like housing policy, burdensome regulations designed for social policy, etc. Another reason to dislike big government. I am sure this will be discussed further, later.

--
Your assertion that poverty in the U.K. is “attributed to a widening gap between the rich and the poor from a reliance on capitalistic ideals” does not make any sense when you look elsewhere. By that account, we should be even poorer here, instead of having the highest standard of living in the G20. Also, how about Switzerland, etc.? Makes no sense and you cannot explain such a sophomoric statement by citing any evidence.

I’ll tell you why the U.K. standard for most people is lower than you would expect. With the exception of a relatively short Thatcher rule, U.K. has had the most socialistic governments of any in Western Europe (not including Nordic countries). That is why. It is an outright welfare society, practicing welfare capitalism. Again, what impoverishes Brits isn’t the amount of money they make. It is the cost of living thanks to high fees and taxes to support the welfare society.

Regarding gasoline, it is expensive all over Europe. They buy it at the same price (whatever the spot market price happens to be) that we do and ship it a shorter distance to boot, despite your attempt to tie their supply and prices they pay. It is, once again, all sky high taxes – gasoline, food, or whatever. Taxes in the U.S., despite being high, are no where near the VAT Europeans pay (upwards of 25% by itself, before any other taxes and fees)

You bet I am mad at our energy policies. Past few presidents have all slept at the wheel. We have plenty of resources when you include the proven undiscovered reserves, but again, the environmentalists and progressives who are bought off by them (and otherwise spineless Republican politicians) will not let that happen. I have a couple of articles that I wrote on that on my blog, if you care.

Part three will be discussing your and my views of constitutional republic. Till then, have a nice day.

5 comments:

factoseintolerant said...

On the subject of term limits and campaigns, you will hear no arguments from me. There was never supposed to be "lifetime" politicians, but the job is so cozy (not sure if thats the word I want, but it'll do) that people don't want to leave.

Akiles said...

However, when a movement takes on terroristic tactics to stop activities like responsible logging
Really? Poor companies... they have the best interest at heart.

Moreover, destruction of rain forests has nothing to do with free markets or capitalism. If it did, totalitarian countries (like the former USSR, PRC, North Korea, etc.) would have the best environments – yet they are/were the most polluted hell holes you could imagine.
What kind of logic is this? No one has claimed that totalitarian countries have better environments. If anything they have the worst ones because of lack of regulation and indiscriminate exploitation.

Even the EPA says we are environmentally cleaner than 40 years ago
No, they did not say that. They said -in short- that we are doing more, but the extend of their argument ends there -in other words, if you have polluted at an increasing rate for 50 years and the rate of "cleaning" has increased at half the speed, true you are doing more, but you're still behind. We are probably doing more because there is more regulation and awareness.

Government policy should not be for bringing about social change in a free society
Agreed. Government policy should not be used to transfer wealth from the bottom to the top, thus changing the social strata in a society either.

Due to human nature, money in politics has corrupted our political process
True. Agreed. For an example, just look at the birth of the tea party movement.

As more and more onerous regulations are piled up, cost of doing business goes way up. Case in point, in 2008, regulations were estimated to cost $1.75 trillion to the U.S. economy
First off -the source. Really? Second, even if I was going to accept your point about the cost of regulations, how much does "de-regulation" cost? Please, pray tell? At the very least 5T in bailouts, 5M jobs... but hey, who's counting, so as long as we let corporations do whatever they want? Like borrow leverage over 25x their assets and then let the gvmt pick up the tab. The irony of it all, is that this is coming from someone who once cried for "mark-to-fantasy". Bravo: let's reduce corporation costs so that they can make more money on my back and we will also pick up the tab. I'm not even counting the lost of revenue by individuals, loss of capital, etc. And don't be too surprised when the remaining $60T of shadow assets hit the fan -yeah, the ones you wanted marked-to-fantasy. Deregulate away!!!
Back to the article, are you really going to use that as evidence? They claim 1.75T but can only come up with examples that can't even sum up to 0.2T? And would you please look at what those "costs" are? I.e.: "Limits on “effluent” discharges from construction" Are you kidding? So let's just let them destroy everything in their path so they can save a dime?
That study is a joke.

My opinion about the bailouts is not favorable (especially untenable ones like the auto manufacturers).
At least you didn't say "Obama is screwing the bondholders" -the bondholders being the morons that bought assets of dead companies at the close of the previous day from the expected announcement.

Regarding gasoline, it is expensive all over Europe. They buy it at the same price (whatever the spot market price happens to be)
I don't think this is correct. This is a very complicated issue. If I was you, I would not even touch it. You have to deal with shipping and future prices of 1) the commodity itself and the refined product. Of course, I'm sure you are well aware of this, as you know it all.

You bet I am mad at our energy policies. Past few presidents have all slept at the wheel
Yet you did not cry "bloody murder" until Obama became the president. I guess you were asleep too.

The Patriot said...

We agree, factoseintolerant.

Now for Akiles:
Your mind is stuck at turn of last century business tactics. You probably think that there are still sweatshops with all sorts of safety and human rights violations, too.
The point is, regulations are there to stop abuses of the environment and competitive free market system sees to it that environment is treated responsibly in order to maximize long term profits.

The point about the rain forests was made because the post I responded to blamed capitalism for destroying them. If that was true, then the pacific northwest would look like a desert by now!

EPA painstakingly goes over statistics on recycling, air and water quality, etc. and states what we have improved/accomplished. You take that to mean we are not better off than in 1970? Hmmmm….

I agree that all policies should be neutral. However, your comment insinuates that wealth is transferred from bottom up. Exactly what do you mean by that? (I can think of occasions that can happen – poor legislation like ethanol subsidies)

What does money in politics have to do with the Tea Party? That is in response to corruption in politics, not a symptom of it.

As for regulations, my point is that we have nearly 70,000 pages of it with a portion of it being unnecessary, nanny state type stuff. You cannot completely deregulate or else there will be other costs as you say. I am going to post an article for you, outlining the logic behind my assertion that deregulation, in the case of the housing collapse, was greatly the result of government social policies. It will be too long to explain here.

Bondholders of GM and Chrysler took a risk, knowing well that if these companies failed, they would have recourse under our legal system. I am not talking average Joe on the street here. I am talking about the major groups that financed the companies. They were screwed, plain and simple.

So, Akiles, if American companies buy oil at $110, what do the Europeans pay? $220? By your account, they would have to in order to have gasoline at over 2x the U.S. prices. You say shipping? Europeans should have lower shipping costs as well. So, explain it away, if you can.

I am mad at past few presidents, Republican or Democrat. The difference however is that it is the more progressive ones that do not want anything to do with fossil fuels and pile regulation after regulation to impede drilling more.

factoseintolerant said...

I really like Akiles. He beats me to the punch though. Do you have an inter-web-blog in the ol' blog-o-sphere?

The Patriot said...

No, he works with me.