[Politics] In Light of Recent Events, How Do You Feel About "Preachy" Environmentalist Media

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

The last thing businesses and the market want to do is destroy the planet: their assets and profits go up in smoke as well. What a business wants to do is examine a cost/benefit analysis of doing something about climate change and how much climate change will cost them.

That's a hefty part of why I take the position I do on the topic. Contrary to what fossil fuels proponents would argue, we don't have a free (energy) market by any definition a reasonable or honest person would accept. We have one that's so heavily biased in favor of fossil fuels, by government action on behalf of the fossil fuels lobby, any forthcoming cost-benefit analysis would be fundamentally broken. Corporations follow the path of least resistance, and if it's cheaper and more effective to pay fines, settle citizen suits out of court absent injunctive relief, ad buy their way out of bad PR, or even to just buy politicians, corporations will do that rather than revise and reform their business models.

And frankly, environmental groups and law firms are absolutely no help at all, and amount any more to a glorified racket (and indeed, this is something with which I have personal knowledge). Look at the Hinkley groundwater contamination case (the famous Erin Brockovich case). The case went to private arbitration and was settled out of court, Masry et. al. stiffed their clients and actually had to be sued for the settlement money, and the site still hasn't been adequately decontaminated by PG&E. The only efficacy or efficiency in that process is in the energy company-to-environmental lawyer money pipeline.

Hell, look at NRDC v. Chevron. The most influential administrative law case in American history, and that boiled down to "it was cheaper for Chevron to buy the EPA than it was to install smokestack filters". Look at NAFTA Chapter 11 and the Environmental Side Agreement -- private corporations and investors are entitled to sue signatory states for compensatory damages if that state alters its environmental regulatory schema in a way that negatively impacts that private party's business, while de-fanging enforcement of environmental provisions between signatory states. GATT has similar language as well. The most famous case I can name off hand was in '97, I think, when Ethyl Corporation successfully sued the Canadian government, for Canada's prohibition of a highly toxic gasoline additive that Ethyl Corp made and exported.

That's how skewed the market really is, on every conceivable level, towards the fossil fuels industry. It's been normalized to the point we simply accept this is how a "free" market ought to operate. It's not.

The coal lobby loves to flout how "cheap" coal is...seven to fourteen cents per kilowatt-hour, depending on region and COLA, if I remember right. LNG's even "cheaper", supposedly three to five cents per kilowatt-hour. That's just the out of pocket, from consumer to energy provider, not accounting for hidden costs in terms of externalities or government subsidies. The real cost's two to three times that, most of it is just offloaded to the government and consumers pay it in taxes.

Really, coal's even more expensive per kilowatt-hour than "new" nuclear -- that is to say, newly-constructed recent-generation plants while construction and investment costs are still being paid off -- and that's about fifteen cents per kilowatt-hour, and once the plant's paid off that cost drops to about three cents per kilowatt-hour if I remember my maths right. Fossil fuels, in an actually free market, would never compete with any renewable on the market, and could never hope to compete with any renewable on the market.

It's the exact opposite scenario as, say, health care, where the insurance, pharma, and health care lobbies fabricate costs and double dip to scare voters away from universal health care. They bank on the average Joe voter not paying enough attention to realize whatever nominal increase to payroll taxation would be levied to pay for it, would still be pennies-on-the-dollar less than what they already pay in insurance bills plus deductibles.

Which is the point, I believe, progressives need to latch onto like a fly on shit. Government's already in the "socialism" business, it already picks winners and losers, and if Republicans they really want a free market and small government they can start by ripping the fossil fuels industry off the taxpayer teat.

 

[Terminal Blue]

No, you want to use your definition of corruption. One that argues liberal capitalism is "incorruptible", at least insofar that...

I have not argued that liberal capitalism is incorruptible, in any sense. Putting it in quotation marks will not make it so.

...laissez-faire capitalism is economic darwinism, and what any reasonable person would define as corruption -- the subversion of formal and informal institutions to serve oligarchic interests through misconduct and fraud -- is actually its ideal state of affairs.

I have not mentioned economic Darwinism (whatever economic Darwinism is supposed to mean) nor implied it.

I was operating under the assumption that we were not talking about misconduct or fraud. I was operating under this assumption because none of the examples you have given of cronyism or special treatment of fossil fuel industries would qualify as misconduct or fraud, to a "reasonable" person or otherwise. This is not to suggest that misconduct or fraud does not occur, but you seem to assume that it is required to explain the world we live in, which brings us back to what was the actual point.

If you look at a system in which government operates on behalf of private interests, and your only explanation for why that relationship exists is misconduct and fraud, or that the individuals involved must be literal criminals, then you are indulging exactly the same view of the world and its problems that made up shows like Captain Planet. It is overly innocent to believe that bad systems can only come from bad people, and right now we can't afford innocence.

...Implying cultish, irrational, zeal...

Or, more reasonably, imply the stupendous and magical change of heart required to adopt an irrational, idealistic view "lassaiz faire capitalism" over its use as ideological window dressing on a world where most people, to some extent, rely on the fossil fuel industry and are directly impacted by its economic influence.

That is why environmentalism has failed and why the fossil fuel industry has such enormous influence. It is not the mythical "cronyism", it is not corruption, it is not cackling villains somewhere in congress pouring oil on baby seals because it gets them off. It is the simple, well meaning desire to preserve a status quo which, unless you happen to be poor, is comparatively pleasant compared to the real sacrifices required for alternatives.

You do understand my commentary about "commernisms is Stalinisms!" is the tendency of unreasonable partisans to build straw men of their opposition's points by representing their beliefs by the basest-possible terms and worst-possible implementations, yes?

Yes, that is quite obvious. However, what is the implication of what you're saying? Because if the implication is that Stalinism is not communism, that communism as a theory must remain separate and untouchable as a pure and perfect ideal distinct from the empirical realities of its application, then that is a unreasonable and partisan argument to put any other to shame.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

I have not argued that liberal capitalism is incorruptible, in any sense. Putting it in quotation marks will not make it so.

Yes, you are, you just don't realize it. You tipped your hand trying to weasel the definition of "corruption" while arguing out the other side of your mouth the traits reasonable people would ascribe to a corrupt system, are inherent, unavoidable, and even ideal, under laissez-faire capitalism. The reason you need to have your cake and eat it too, is because if your premise is correct, then "corruption" under laissez-faire capitalism would have to be an equitable and transparent system -- a rhetorically untenable position -- or laissez-faire capitalism is indeed incorruptible.

I have not mentioned economic Darwinism (whatever economic Darwinism is supposed to mean) nor implied it.

No, you're just ascribing each and every descriptor, trait, and definition of economic Darwinism to it, but don't I dare call you out on it. Or, to put it bluntly, "here is a waterfowl that quacks and has a corkscrew penis, but I have not mentioned ducks nor implied this is a duck".

I was operating under the assumption that we were not talking about misconduct or fraud.

For someone who wants to pick nits about the definition of corruption, you seem to not understand its actual definition [https://www.britannica.com/topic/corruption-law].

It is overly innocent to believe that bad systems can only come from bad people, and right now we can't afford innocence.

And, here once again do we see your failure to read or understand my points, and zeal in building straw men, illustrating one of my chief grievances with contemporary liberals. This is not what I'm arguing; in fact, I'm arguing something completely different. I'm arguing actors inside a political, economic, or social system are self-interested and inherently seek to maximize gains and minimize cost. If lobbying government to skew the market is the most efficacious and expedient means for maximizing gain and minimizing cost, then indeed that will be the chosen course of action. Likewise, if that is not a permissible course of action because government is required by law to treat all actors equally and prohibited from taking action to advantage one sector, product, or corporation above others, or it is not the most profitable means of conducting business, actors will opt for a different course of action.

That is not a moral judgment, that is a description of how actors within a market operate.

Because if the implication is that Stalinism is not communism, that communism as a theory must remain separate and untouchable as a pure and perfect ideal distinct from the empirical realities of its application, then that is a unreasonable and partisan argument to put any other to shame.

Again with the straw men. No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying no system is inviolable, and judging a system exclusively on the basis of its violability -- or worse, arguing said violability is actually "a feature, not a bug" is incorrect and partisan. It is incorrect when conservatives do it with socialism and communism, and because you are doing the same thing to laissez-faire capitalism you are incorrect as well.

 

[Silvanus]

Yes, that is quite obvious. However, what is the implication of what you're saying? Because if the implication is that Stalinism is not communism, that communism as a theory must remain separate and untouchable as a pure and perfect ideal distinct from the empirical realities of its application, then that is a unreasonable and partisan argument to put any other to shame.

Well, hang on. One can quite reasonably discount Stalin's form of government from the definition of "communism" without separating communism from "the empirical realities of its application". Stalinism was so far removed as to be unrecognisable. It did not represent the application of communism at all-- no more than most countries with "democratic" in their official titles do not represent the applications of democracy.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Yes, you are, you just don't realize it. You tipped your hand trying to weasel the definition of "corruption" while arguing out the other side of your mouth the traits reasonable people would ascribe to a corrupt system, are inherent, unavoidable, and even ideal, under laissez-faire capitalism.

So, I don't know if you agree, but I think a reasonable working definition of corruption would be the abuse of entrusted power for private gain.

Are you claiming that politicians themselves support fossil fuel companies with the expectation of personal gain? Are you claiming that fossil fuel companies are paying off elected politicians, or that elected politicians are using their position to increase the value of their own investments in fossil fuel companies and thus enrich themselves personally? Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it happens, and I have never claimed that corruption does not occur in liberal capitalism. But none of the examples you have given actually clearly describe this.

The problem, when you start trying to broaden the concept of corruption to include any degree of private interest influencing, is that politicians are supposed to represent the perceived interests of their constituents, who are themselves private interests and whose interests are often bound up in the interests of large private corporations. Politicians share a "communion of interests" with their constituents, and that communion is always going to favour the interests of those with the greatest overall influence within the constituency.

If I'm elected to the US senate to represent a state where large numbers of jobs and a lot of capital investment comes from the oil industry, then me advocating for the oil industry is in the general interests of my constituents, it is not a special or particular interest, it is me literally doing my job. If I went into government and campaigned against the oil industry, I would be specifically breaking the communion of interests with my constituents whose jobs or livelihoods rely on the oil industry. I would in effect be deliberately impoverishing the very people who had put me into power to represent them.

For someone who wants to pick nits about the definition of corruption, you seem to not understand its actual definition [https://www.britannica.com/topic/corruption-law].

Again, nothing you have described actually meets this criteria.

And, here once again do we see your failure to read or understand my points, and zeal in building straw men, illustrating one of my chief grievances with contemporary liberals.

Did you just call me a liberal?

I'm arguing actors inside a political, economic, or social system are self-interested and inherently seek to maximize gains and minimize cost. If lobbying government to skew the market is the most efficacious and expedient means for maximizing gain and minimizing cost, then indeed that will be the chosen course of action. Likewise, if that is not a permissible course of action because government is required by law to treat all actors equally and prohibited from taking action to advantage one sector, product, or corporation above others, or it is not the most profitable means of conducting business, actors will opt for a different course of action.

That is not a moral judgment, that is a description of how actors within a market operate.

It's a bad description.

A market does not consist of isolated actors living out their lives in self-contained economic bubbles. Collective interest is inevitable. Refusing to advantage one sector, product or corporation above others would be a failure to treat all actors equally, since one sector, product or corporation may represent a greater share of individual actor interests than another.

What you are describing is a system in which government exists not to represent the interests of its citizens, but rather as the referee of a bizarre, abstract game called capitalism, where the ordinary people who are trampled under the feet of the players must remain voiceless and without interest lest they prejudice the outcome. It is a system so bizarre, arbitrary and nonsensical that noone would ever tolerate it, which is why noone ever has.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Stalinism was so far removed as to be unrecognisable. It did not represent the application of communism at all-- no more than most countries with "democratic" in their official titles do not represent the applications of democracy.

Realistically, Stalinism is better defined as the logical endpoint of Russians' batshit take on Marxism, and German and French Marxists were right on the money in their critiques and disposition of it. But, that was a proud tradition of abject stupidity that predated Stalin by a century.

...Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it happens...

Oh, you're "sure" it happens, eh?

Spoiler

How fuckin' magnanimous.

...Politicians share a "communion of interests" with their constituents, and that communion is always going to favour the interests of those with the greatest overall influence within the constituency.

Here we go with the "thin veneer of utilitarian calculi to justify corporatism". See, here's the problem. You might notice I said "actors" in my own post when discussing interactions between parties in a market. This is because private, for-profit, corporations are not the only actors in a market. So you can dispense with the "muh collective interest" nonsense straight out, because it's inherent to my entire point. If, at this point, you're going to start on "natural monopolies" we may as well relegate this discussion to the same intellectual dustbin as debate on the existence of Santa Claus or the tooth fairy.

Individuals are actors in a market. Private for-profit corporations are actors in a market. Non-profs and pressure groups are actors in a market. Labor unions are actors in a market, because -- surprise! -- labor is a commodity and ought to be subject to the same market forces as currency, manufactured goods, and services. And indeed, the core motivation of all actors in a market is self-interest.

Here is where your argument falls completely, irrevocably, apart. You want to talk about a legislator representing a district dominated by the oil industry, and whether it is proper for that legislator to represent the interests of the oil industry above that of individual constituents, or competing interests. So, how does one dispense with the tragedy of the commons? What of externalities inflicted by said industry? Why should the entire district's constituency tolerate low property values due to proximity to heavy industry, and high taxes to support said industry's infrastructure needs, to benefit a minority of individuals, under the auspices of one or more multi-nationals, who may not and almost certainly do not even live in that district?

Or, how about a more concrete example. Oil industry's heavily unionized, and just so happens to exist predominantly in states with right-to-work legislation. Oh sure, the talking points on right-to-work are that it "protects individual workers' right to not associate with unions", but those are fucking lies root to stem. The reality is, right to work laws are governmental intervention between private parties, on for-profit corporations' behalf against labor unions, by prohibiting union security agreements.

The reality is, USA's are terms of a contract negotiated and agreed upon by private parties. The ideologically consistent laissez-faire position is that is sacrosanct, and the only role of the government in relation to it as a fiduciary trust is to enforce its terms should one party or the other violate it. Government ought to have no power to intervene on behalf of either party to change the terms of that contract, or to restrict either party's bargaining power, or to dictate which terms are legal or enforceable. Prospective employees' freedom of association does not trump this contract, because employers are bound to that contract and therefore obliged to not associate with employees who refuse to join unions.

Right to work laws are actually not consistent with the core principles of laissez-faire capitalism. This is why the distinction between laissez-faire capitalism and corporatism is key to my point, because my point is this is ground that shouldn't be conceded by default; these inconsistencies and outright contradictions should be highlighted, and those who endorse them taken to task. Because those people are not laissez-faire capitalists, they're corporatists lying about being laissez-faire capitalists, and the pernicious influence of those lies upon how we perceive and discuss the market and actors within it is the very definition of corruption.

The funny thing is, environmental regulation is actually eminently consistent with those very same core principles! Industries that invoke strong negative externalities ought to be held liable for the destruction and devaluation of others' property and health as a direct result of their economic activity beyond the scope of any existing contract -- that act being tantamount to large-scale vandalism -- and environmental regulation is the provision of a legal framework for relief and remediation from damages.

This isn't even the exclusive purview of one industry or one policy issue. It's pretty much a universal, and exists as strongly in the fossil fuels industry as it does silicon valley, and as strongly in environmental protection and climate change as it does in labor rights, work visa abuse, and health care. Look at the likes of Wal-Mart and Amazon, which have the appearance of strong, upstanding corporations, but the reality is their business models are flawed to the point of non-viability in an actual free market, not because they're predatory and inhumane but because they're existentially dependent on corporate welfare.

Did you just call me a liberal?

Stop arguing like one and I'll stop calling you one.

...is a system in which government exists not to represent the interests of its citizens, but rather as the referee of a bizarre, abstract game called capitalism...

It's rather funny you want to attribute this to me, when it's a picture-perfect example of what already happens, and that happens precisely because...

Refusing to advantage one sector, product or corporation above others would be a failure to treat all actors equally...where the ordinary people who are trampled under the feet of the players must remain voiceless and without interest lest they prejudice the outcome.

Gotta treat actors unequally, to keep actors from being treated unequally, huh? Peak neolib, right there.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Individuals are actors in a market. Private for-profit corporations are actors in a market. Non-profs and pressure groups are actors in a market. Labor unions are actors in a market, because -- surprise! -- labor is a commodity and ought to be subject to the same market forces as currency, manufactured goods, and services. And indeed, the core motivation of all actors in a market is self-interest.

You seem to think this is some kind of galaxy brain point when the reality is noone has denied it. It just doesn't work in practice the way you seem to imagine it does.

Why should the entire district's constituency tolerate low property values due to proximity to heavy industry, and high taxes to support said industry's infrastructure needs, to benefit a minority of individuals, under the auspices of one or more multi-nationals, who may not and almost certainly do not even live in that district?

Because they do not have the power to stop it.

Their labour is simply less valuable than the capital of the multinational company. That is capitalism. That is what it means to live in a capitalist society.

Because the primary means of generating capital is capital investment, capitalism inevitably leads to a concentration of wealth in the hands of wealthy corporations and individuals, who thus hold a monopoly on capital and thus on the ability to invest capital. This results in a situation whereby capital is scarce while labour, with the exception of some forms of skilled labour, is plentiful. Remember what you said about market forces.

Oh sure, the talking points on right-to-work are that it "protects individual workers' right to not associate with unions", but those are fucking lies root to stem. The reality is, right to work laws are governmental intervention between private parties, on for-profit corporations' behalf against labor unions, by prohibiting union security agreements.

Again, you seem surprised.

All this has happened before. Heck, back in the golden age of "classical economics" unions were outright illegal. How do you think that happened?

Gotta treat actors unequally, to keep actors from being treated unequally, huh? Peak neolib, right there.

What do you think your position is, if not neoliberal?

Like, I get it, you're a cool "woke" neoliberal who cares about the environment and economic exploitation, but fundamentally you are the one arguing that lassaiz faire capitalism is a viable solution to the world's problems. You are the one who believes that the market will naturally and magically self-correct problems like social inequality and environmental devastation if we simply leave it to its devices.

So sure, keep believing that if the mean evil government was gone, people on mimimum wage would be negotiating fair contracts with the billion dollar corporations that employ them. Keep believing that it's only government which keeps the fossil fuel industry viable, rather than the complete economic stranglehold the fossil fuel industry has on every aspect of a modern economy and thus on the government. Keep believing that green energy startups will be able to compete fairly with vast fossil fuel internationals without any form of government assistance. Keep believing that vastly expensive energy infrastructure will just appear overnight by the mystical power of the free market. Keep believing these things, just don't expect anything to change. It won't.

The system you want is the one that already exists, it's just that noone wants to play by your arbitrary rules. It's not in the "self interest" of anyone with real power to play by those rules, and it never will be.

 

[Silvanus]

Realistically, Stalinism is better defined as the logical endpoint of Russians' batshit take on Marxism [...]

Their batshit take, yes-- which would be quite unrecognisable and abominable in Marx and Engels' eyes.

I'm not saying that Stalin's totalitarianism was not a predictable evolution of Lenin's employment of secret-police tactics and suppression. It was.