Normally I would probably say yes, but in a system where environmentally unsound institutions are federally subsidized can we even say we have a truly free market. And if some things get special protection, than others cannot compete fairly.
Any thoughts on this?
2007-09-04 19:23:05 · 5 answers · asked by joecool123_us 5 in Environment ➔ Other - Environment
You might want to read up on externalities.
The problem is that those who destroy the environment don't have to pay the costs to other people.
By making them pay the costs of the damage they cause they'll have a good incentive not to cause the damage in the first place (or at least to clean it up). Not making them pay the costs of the damage would result in more pollution since the costs get passed on to someone else (there are good reasons why petrol beat electricity to power our cars and isn't because of a conspiracy).
Getting some carbon taxes would go a long way towards providing the motivation for solving the global warming problem we have in a much simpler way than other regulatory approaches (pity the others are going to have to fail first).
2007-09-04 19:34:19 · answer #1 · answered by bestonnet_00 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
So long as the current climate of "all things green are good" continues, than yes, it will. Free and open markets are always the best answer for everything. I would hypothesize that without government meddling, our society would already be far "greener" than it is today. For example; 100 years ago, nearly one out of every three cars on the road were (gasp) electric powered! Had there been no meddling by lobbyists for the petroleum companies, who knows how much more advanced that technology would be today.
It's a very simple formula. Greater efficiency = less cost. Lesser cost = broader customer appeal. Broad appeal = excellent sales.
It's why Japanese cars sell far better than Detroit's dinosaurish idea of big & heavy & flashy. Sure, the market for that is there, but it's not the lion's share of it. If they would concentrate on making a REALLY sensible commuter car, rather than the next gang bangin' dream Escalade, they would make serious profit in volume alone. But those boardroom pinheads can't see past their own sales pitches.
I choose cars because it's an easy example.. but the formula works for a lot of different products and industries. I drive a gas sucking old Jeep XJ, because about 10% of the time I really do need the towing / cargo / 4x4 / Etc. capacity that it has. I would love to have a lil' gas sipping econo egg-beater for the other 90% of the time.. I could easily afford to buy the car, but the added insurance and registration costs can't justify it. Therefore, DUE to governmental regulation, it is far CHEAPER for me to pollute MORE. I hate that!
The bottom line is; just about EVERYTHING that big brother forces you to do, is bad for just about everything. More regulation is always bad news for everyone except those in the employ of the machine.
I don't know who John Galt is, but I'm pretty sure he'd vote for Ron Paul.
2007-09-05 02:51:36 · answer #2 · answered by Backstage Guy 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Get rich quick schemes in the capitalist business world, (buyouts, IPOs, conglomerates, acquisitions, mergers, and the stock market), do not actually work. Remaining solvent does not actually exist within false economics capitalism.
Profit existing in the capitalist business world, or millionaires existing within capitalism, is pathological deception committed by the 21 organizations spying on the population with plain clothes agents, (with covert fake names and fake backgrounds).
Actual economics is the persons paying the monthly business loan payments of companies voting at work in order to control the property they are paying for.
Capitalism is the psychology of imaginary parents, false economics, and the criminal deception of employees that are paying the bills (including the stocks and bonds, or shares) of companies.
Anti-democracy republicanism is the psychology of imaginary parents and false government.
2007-09-08 12:00:41 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Eventually I would say yes, because people will eventually demand that the companies from which they buy products are green. However, I think this change will be extremely slow, and in the meantime we need government regulation to require that institutions become green in order to preserve our environment.
2007-09-05 19:54:22 · answer #4 · answered by Dana1981 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes. What else will this country adopt, socialism? I shudder at the thought.
2007-09-05 03:26:47 · answer #5 · answered by Coltrane 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋