A question for Conservatives and Republicans:?

Question

Given your disdain for restraints and regulations on trade and the market, would you embrace an economic reform (specifically called Full Cost Accounting) in which non-monetary prices, such as undesirable effects on environment and human life, are accounted into the cost of resources, goods and services? Note that this would radically change the behavior of western societies, cut the overall consumption habits of our countries substantially and obviously entail sacrificing commodities which are now taken for granted. On the flip side, environmental and social strife could perhaps stabilize, wealth could be distributed more evenly and the economy would still act the same way.

This divide between Liberalism and Conservatism in America is ruining any possibility of open minded, progressive dialogue. Our minds are so guided by bipartisan bullshit and political slandering that we can no longer communicate on a personal level. Our minds are scewed by delusional preconceived notions generated by the quarrels between CNN and Fox News, the Rupublicans and the Democrats. Im not a Marxist, I'm not a hippy. I don't think that Clinton was any less of an insidious piece of **** than Bush; but I do acknowledge that America is in a state of denial if it fails to acknowledge the fact that the world can not sustain itself at this level of production and consumption. I don't think that anyone can deny this and if you still persist to, perhaps its not that ignorant, its that your selfish.

Answer 1

Let me put it this way. The environmentalist movement is void of realistic science. I prefer to let the market determine the cost of products. Wealth is obtained and worked for, not distibuted. It is not the role of the government to decide who need this much money and who deserves this much money. What you are talking about is pure socialism. Please see what the current policies of the Soviet Union are. Oops, my mistake. The Soviet Union collapsed.

Answer 2

You are assuming that all conservatives and Republicans think alike - similar to clones? Isn't that very stereotypical?
Personally I don't hold anyone in disdain nor do I hold a disdain for trade regulations. As for embracing something like Full Cost Accounting , I would need more research and study on the issue - not just your word it would be better. As for cutting the consumption habits of all western societies - that may be a harder sale to all not just conservatives.

Where has it been implemented and what is the success rates?

Answer 3

Social strife, the environment, won't stabilize because of trade regulations. Most learned Democrats will agree with me. Just a thought though, I see ALOT of Democrats that profit just as much as Republicans from all the current policies. I don't see the Clintons, Obama or the "none politicals" like Oprah Winfrey handing out food or any of there money at the neighborhood soup kitchens. By the way as of 2000 Oprah Winfrey was the richest women in America with an estimated wealth of about 35 Billion but no one busts her chops like they do Bill Gates.

Answer 4

Those aren't real costs. All the real costs are already in the costs of products and services. That includes all the regulations, taxes, etc.

So can you give an example of such an undesireable effect, how you would place a price on it, and how it would not just be a heavy government tax on all businesses, causing a serious depression?

Answer 5

First, let me point out that not all Conservative share the same economic views. And may I point out as well that it was Democratic President Clinton who signed NAFTA into law. Given your disdain for this small detail, you probably are looking for a partisan answer to a pretty good question. I understand that it is only the cons/reps that are buying the cheap goods from third world countries that are destroying economies and natural resources not to mention the environment, so as soon as we can break the cons/reps reliance on such objects we can probably address your concerns.

Answer 6

That's crazy hippie talk, that's what that is! ;)

Keep in mind that Republicans (by and large) don't mind restrains on trade when it supports the "right" people....for example, American subsidies on deomestically produced cotton, or tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber imports. Generally, what the GOP means by free trade is "you should allow us to sell our goods in your market with little or no interference and you should keep your currancy stable so it doesn't upset business."

I think the concept you are advocating is interesting, but I question the pragmatic complications. How do we arrive at fair prices? How do we allocate who pays what?

Take greenhouse gases for example. Sure, we can put a tax on cars and automakers...but alot of GH is methane produced by natural sources (i.e. decomposing garbage and cow farts). Do we put a tax on each cow? Is that fair to an African subsistance level farmer who depends on the cow for survival? Do we tax poor countries that cannot afford to put in sewage and solid waste systems that recapture methane gas emmissions?

How about population? It's a fact...more people mean more resources are used. Do we tax couples who CHOOSE to have more than 2 kids? What about agrarian societies where you need larger families to work the farm and produce food? Do we tax the children of the rich more than we tax the children of the poor on the theory that the rich will, over the course of their life, consume more?

That doesn't even get to the question of "undesirable effects on human life". Who determines what the value of an "undesireable effect is".

It's an interesting idea, I just don't see how it would work pragmatically.

---Follow Up---

Sorry about the "hippy" comment, I was hoping you'd realize I was kidding.

I agree with your basic premise - the world cannot sustain a 6 Billion population where everyone has the life style of middle class Americans.

I also agree that the free market system has an inherent flaw in that it doesn't accurately allocate the indirect costs of production to the producers. That the old "Tragedy of the Commons" problem.

What I was attempting to point out, and would be interested in hearing your views on, is "How do we accurately divide these costs" and "Who should be in charge of figuring out who pays what?".

And Jessi -

You're assuming that pollution control measures (taxes, credits, regulation, etc.) are accurate and adequate.

Let me suggest that they are not.

Have you heard of "The Tragedy of the Commons"? If not, I'm sure it's on Wikkipedia. In short, the profits over over explotation are concentrated in the exploitor, while the associated costs are spread over the market segment as a whole. Therefore, absent regulation, there is a built in incentive in the market system to overproduce, pollute, etc.

Answer 7

You have to buy into the +theory+ that human activity is in fact causing environmental changes, if you can convince me of that you might have a point.

They key word here is "could". There is no evidence whatsoever that a sound ecology would create global stability.

And evenly distributed wealth is straight out of Marx, and, as the soviet union showed us, planned economies don't work.

Answer 8

Interesting, but what evidence do you have to support the assertion that doing so would "radically change the behavior of western societies"? Give an example.

Answer 9

"wealth could be distributed more evenly"... so this is another plan for the redistribution of wealth.

Costs of goods already include the costs of the pollution control devices required here in the US.

Answer 10

It makes me think this whole global warming thing is a racket to get money out of the West.