News Becoming a Capitalist President in El Salvador. Some advices?

[drankin]

I do not live in my mother's basement, I left home after high-school and you did not hit any nerve. I just remain convinced that you are not being helpful to AlexES16 by describing concepts of capitalism which are not real. The well-being of employees and their human rights are an important ingredient in our modern societies. I think the recent crisis also illustrates this idea.

edit
It is not about the Hitler's card. It is about illustrating that your argument in favor of a wild imaginary capitalism (It really does force a person to work hard and continually improve ones self.) is not a helpful one.

What human rights are you referring to that you seem to think that what I am saying is violating??

 

[AlexES16]

Take Chile, under Pinochet (the posterboy for free market fundamentalism), for example. That country was left in ruins by the time he was ousted.

Dude you realize that Chile is best country in Latin America?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index


http://www.heritage.org/Index/Country/Chile

 

[AlexES16]

I was thinking in Environmentally Regulated Capitalism.

 

[AlexES16]

In my school i am debating with socialist every moment.

Their strong points are(they win a lot of support with this):

-Enviroment
-Healthcare
-Education

 

[humanino]

What human rights are you referring to that you seem to think that what I am saying is violating??

Referring to "human rights" might be borderline, what I had in minds is

1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
[...]
3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

If a business owner can fire anybody as they please, then it will be hard to have the right to work and to a just remuneration.

 

[drankin]

Referring to "human rights" might be borderline, what I had in minds isIf a business owner can fire anybody as they please, then it will be hard to have the right to work and to a just remuneration.

This is where we differ completely. Work is not and should not ever be a "right". It is contrary to the competitive nature of capitalism. It offers no incentive for an individual to be competitive in the workplace and therefore improve the competitveness of the company product as it leverages its supply and demand in the market. What you are pitching is not capitalism, it is socialism.

 

[loseyourname]

In my school i am debating with socialist every moment.

Their strong points are(they win a lot of support with this):

-Enviroment
-Healthcare
-Education

They're simply failing to recognize that nations with market economies still need means of dealing with public goods and other instance of market failure. That's why we require publicly owned corporations to comply with FASB accounting standards and release publicly available annual reports, because information symmetry is a foundation of competitive markets and they won't function as well without it. It's also why we regulate things like water pollution, because otherwise, someone downriver bears the cost of a production activity aside from the consumers and producers of the good, creating negative externalities and market failure. Education and many facets of healthcare (like vaccines) exhibit very clear positive externalities and so the government subsidizes them to bring the market back to an efficient equilibrium.

Your friends are just committing the economic version of Galton's Error. Capitalism doesn't mean all-or-nothing we don't provide public goods or correct market failures. It's just a commitment to the notion that many heads are better than one and individual consumers and producers know their own preferences and utility expectations better than a central planning committee does.

 

[humanino]

This is where we differ completely.

It may be, but I would like to understand your point of view better. When you say

the competitive nature of capitalism.

You certainly do not say capitalism and competition are equivalent. Do you mean to say that capitalism implies competition, or that competition implies capitalism ? This really confuses me, to me there is no reason they should be related a priori. They may come together, they may come separately, there is no necessity in the relationship between them.

To me capitalism is a social organization aiming at maximizing private profit. I agree that competition is constructive in a capitalist society, but I do not see why it should be a necessary ingredient.

What you are pitching is not capitalism, it is socialism.

I do not think so, but maybe from your perspective. From my perspective, socialism and capitalism are not even contradictory. Communism is contradictory to capitalism.

 

[drankin]

Here is one of a few definitions via dictionary.com:

World English Dictionary
capitalism (ˈkæpɪtəˌlɪzəm)

— n
Compare socialism free enterprise , Also called: private enterprise an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, characterized by the freedom of capitalists to operate or manage their property for profit in competitive conditions.

 

[loseyourname]

To me capitalism is a social organization aiming at maximizing private profit. I agree that competition is constructive in a capitalist society, but I do not see why it should be a necessary ingredient.

Actually, economic profit at equilibrium in a pure competition model is zero. What competitive markets maximize is called net social surplus, a sum of consumer's surplus and producer's surplus. This sum is maximized when both components are equal. Profits exist when producer's surplus is larger than consumer's surplus, keeping net social surplus at a less than optimal sum, and this situation can only persist in the absence of competition. That's precisely why competition is so important to capitalism. The use of mechanisms (usually political favoritism) to intentionally subvert competition to cause either consumer's or producer's surplus to persist in excess of the other quantity is called "rent-seeking" and is a cardinal sin of a market economy.

 

[humanino]

That's precisely why competition is so important to capitalism.

Competition between different businesses, sure ! I have no doubt that free enterprise is vital to capitalism. My concern was about how to create an incentive to work within one given company. In drankin's proposal, the removal of workers' protective laws would create the incentive for being productive. This is this specific aspect which I strongly doubt. For instance, psychological counseling is a business which has flourished in England. Industrial and organizational psychology is a key tool for human resources. There are other means to create work productivity in a positive fashion, which in turns also is business itself !

 

[drankin]

Competition between different businesses, sure ! I have no doubt that free enterprise is vital to capitalism. My concern was about how to create an incentive to work within one given company. In drankin's proposal, the removal of workers' protective laws would create the incentive for being productive. This is this specific aspect which I strongly doubt. For instance, psychological counseling is a business which has flourished in England. Industrial and organizational psychology is a key tool for human resources. There are other means to create work productivity in a positive fashion, which in turns also is business itself !

Removal of protective laws? Like protection from being fired because your boss decides it's best for the company? You see, an employer has rights too. He has the right to fire you if he feels you are a detriment to the business so the company can maintain it's competitive edge in the market. At least in the US this is true.

Capitalism isn't just about corporations and large businesses, it's aslo about individuals who have their own skillset necessary in the market that they leverage to maximize their personal income if they so choose. If you make it difficult for one to get fired you make it difficult for someone else with a better skillset, whatever that might be, to get a position. If the position is no longer based on merit, then you cripple the capitalistic/competitive nature of the business that created that position.

 

[loseyourname]

Well, labor economics gets complicated more so than general microeconomics. Theoretically, pure competition in the labor market produces a more efficient equilibrium as well when the marginal revenue product of a worker equals his indifference point between the marginal utility of labor and leisure. People work exactly as much as they want and they are paid exactly what they are worth.

The first obvious problem is that marginal revenue product is extremely difficult to measure, and even when it is not, a company's financial performance is not always cleared tied in any meaningful way to labor productivity due to macroeconomic factors. This is fine if we have perfect labor mobility, because like in drankin's hypotheticals, if a company is no longer able to pay what a worker feels he is worth, he can leave. More realistically, there are a huge number of factors constraining labor mobility, such as non-transferable institutional knowledge, moving expenses, and the reality that workers have families that may not want to move or may not be able to move. This is why the federal government subsidizes moving expenses and corporate training expenses, to increase labor mobility and theoretically bring the labor market closer to an efficient equilibrium.

The other problems are usually related to the social costs of unemployment and underemployment, which are born by everybody even if just in the form of neighborhood blight due to homelessness and panhandling in a society that does absolutely nothing to combat it. This is why we have minimum wage laws, subsidized housing, and things like the EITC to make labor worth more to a worker even at low wages. Ideally, though, I think drankin is right that the best way to tackle the problem is to move these costs (since they are social costs) from the employer to society at large. Let employers fire people when they will and pay wages as low as they wish, but subsidize this via direct wealth transfers to individual laborers. The problem there is, even though it's cheaper and more efficient to directly transfer wealth than it is to indirectly subsidize through wage laws and labor protection, it's politically unsellable to just give money to people because it's seen as welfare and unfair to people who are worth more to their employers, who don't realize they're going to pay for it one way or another regardless.

Unfortunately, a place like France kind of employs the worst of both approaches, heavily subsidizing unemployment while also making it near impossible to lose a job, which combine to create historically stable high unemployment and a more systematic and persistent transfer of wealth from workers to non-workers.

To address you specific example, though, I think if in 10 years a company finds it cheaper to move its operations completely, it should be able to do so. Protecting workers at the expense of harming business competitiveness ends up hurting everyone in the long run. However, we shouldn't ignore all of the people that lose their jobs. We should probably pay their moving expenses in full, pay fairly generous but short-term unemployment benefits, and aid them in retraining if that is necessary. But it's better to bear that cost as a social cost than to force businesses to bear it, harming their competitiveness. The problem, again, is that it's probably politically unsellable in the US to be that generous to the unemployed even if it actually allows businesses to be more competitive and make both goods and services and labor markets more efficient. Republicans would attack it as subsidizing laziness and giving an incentive not to work and Democrats would attack it as subsidizing the offshoring of American jobs when in reality it's just allowing businesses to operate more efficiently and freely without destroying the lives of workers.

 

[loseyourname]

Capitalism isn't just about corporations and large businesses, it's aslo about individuals who have their own skillset necessary in the market that they leverage to maximize their personal income if they so choose. If you make it difficult for one to get fired you make it difficult for someone else with a better skillset, whatever that might be, to get a position. If the position is no longer based on merit, then you cripple the capitalistic/competitive nature of the business that created that position.

This is a really good point that often gets lost in these discussions. The NY Times just ran a piece the other day on the effect of tenure and the end of mandatory retirement on employment prospects for young academics. We're really seeing this nationwide as people retire later and later, leaving fewer and fewer jobs available to the fresh blood graduating from college every year.

 

[humanino]

Removal of protective laws? Like protection from being fired because your boss decides it's best for the company? You see, an employer has rights too. He has the right to fire you if he feels you are a detriment to the business so the company can maintain it's competitive edge in the market. At least in the US this is true.

Just a reminder, this conversation started with the russian guy who fires you for no reason, only because he so pleases. That is what I find unacceptable, and I still believe this is illegal.

 

[drankin]

Just a reminder, this conversation started with the russian guy who fires you for no reason, only because he so pleases. That is what I find unacceptable, and I still believe this is illegal.

It's not illegal in Russia.

 

[humanino]

It's not illegal in Russia.

From your own link

But government officials say such extreme measures could violate Russia's labor laws.

So without further information, it does not seem settled yet. And I still have not seen why this should be justified.
http://www.mn.ru/society/20100818/187990753.html
Also
http://www.mn.ru/society/20100813/187983560.html

 

[drankin]

From your own linkSo without further information, it does not seem settled yet. And I still have not seen why this should be justified.
http://www.mn.ru/society/20100818/187990753.html
Also
http://www.mn.ru/society/20100813/187983560.html

I explained why I think it should be allowed. An employer should be able to hire and fire whomever he/she wants for whatever reason he/she wants. If an employee doesn't agree, he/she is free to find employment elsewhere. This is pure free market capitalism. With an emphasis on "free"dom to run your business as you see fit.

 

[loseyourname]

Just a reminder, this conversation started with the russian guy who fires you for no reason, only because he so pleases. That is what I find unacceptable, and I still believe this is illegal.

Yeah, I guess the point I was getting at was that, in a perfectly competitive labor market, with perfect mobility of labor and many employers preventing anyone employer from acting as a price setter, this guy's action would be self-defeating in that he would not attract quality labor and his business would go under, leaving market share to be filled by other employers, allowing the employees he fired to work there.

The issue is that labor mobility is not perfect and people incur material losses moving from one job to another. Other firms can't gain market share instantaneously, so at least some people would remain unemployed for lengths of time the government would need to subsidize in order to allow this type of behavior.

For what it's worth, I think the labor mobility subsidies in the US do a pretty good job. When we're not in a massive recession like we are now, the cyclically unemployed tend to find new work relatively quickly and don't become an excessive burden or blight on society-at-large. Our homeless tend to be mentally ill or drug addicts, which is a completely different and unrelated problem.

As it stands in the US, it would be illegal for an employer to fire someone explicitly for their religious beliefs, but illegality of cause only becomes an issue when you fire someone for cause. It is usually legal for most employers to lay off for no explicit cause at all and, because of the fairly competitive labor market and subsidized labor mobility, we don't really end up with worker armageddon because of it.

Plus, most of our largest employers are public corporations that would never appoint morons like this to make decisions for them.

 

[humanino]

I explained why I think it should be allowed. An employer should be able to hire and fire whomever he/she wants for whatever reason he/she wants. If an employee doesn't agree, he/she is free to find employment elsewhere. This is pure free market capitalism. With an emphasis on "free"dom to run your business as you see fit.

I should mention that I would agree with you that this is acceptable in a society with very low unemployment. The main reason I have difficulties with the idea is that employment is pretty bad right now. So that also seems in line with what loseyourname describes.

 

[AlexES16]

This is where we differ completely. Work is not and should not ever be a "right". It is contrary to the competitive nature of capitalism. It offers no incentive for an individual to be competitive in the workplace and therefore improve the competitveness of the company product as it leverages its supply and demand in the market. What you are pitching is not capitalism, it is socialism.

Exactly

 

[AlexES16]

They're simply failing to recognize that nations with market economies still need means of dealing with public goods and other instance of market failure. That's why we require publicly owned corporations to comply with FASB accounting standards and release publicly available annual reports, because information symmetry is a foundation of competitive markets and they won't function as well without it. It's also why we regulate things like water pollution, because otherwise, someone downriver bears the cost of a production activity aside from the consumers and producers of the good, creating negative externalities and market failure. Education and many facets of healthcare (like vaccines) exhibit very clear positive externalities and so the government subsidizes them to bring the market back to an efficient equilibrium.

Your friends are just committing the economic version of Galton's Error. Capitalism doesn't mean all-or-nothing we don't provide public goods or correct market failures. It's just a commitment to the notion that many heads are better than one and individual consumers and producers know their own preferences and utility expectations better than a central planning committee does.

But when you read or hear milton friedman, you can see why extreme capitalism sounds like it shouldn't be enviromental laws.

 

[AlexES16]

They're simply failing to recognize that nations with market economies still need means of dealing with public goods and other instance of market failure. That's why we require publicly owned corporations to comply with FASB accounting standards and release publicly available annual reports, because information symmetry is a foundation of competitive markets and they won't function as well without it. It's also why we regulate things like water pollution, because otherwise, someone downriver bears the cost of a production activity aside from the consumers and producers of the good, creating negative externalities and market failure. Education and many facets of healthcare (like vaccines) exhibit very clear positive externalities and so the government subsidizes them to bring the market back to an efficient equilibrium.

Your friends are just committing the economic version of Galton's Error. Capitalism doesn't mean all-or-nothing we don't provide public goods or correct market failures. It's just a commitment to the notion that many heads are better than one and individual consumers and producers know their own preferences and utility expectations better than a central planning committee does.

here is my point

 

[AlexES16]

Also you can red the "Capitalism Magazine"

They attack:

-Enviromentalism
-Green movement
-FDA
-Regulation


well you can find here http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/here is about the environment http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/environment/index.1.html and here is about energy

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/science/energy/index.1.html .
You can look and even you can read that in the USA, they should use the ANWR

I think is somthing like antartica national wild reserve

 

[AlexES16]

Please people take some time reading the Capitalism Magazine

 

[AlexES16]

I am even kinda worried, even my capitalist allies in school said that no regulation and antienviromentalism are crazy.

This put me in a very hard stance.

 

[russ_watters]

Please people take some time reading the Capitalism Magazine

No. One website developer's views on how capitalism should work do not have any bearing whatsoever on how capitalism does work. Again, again, again, you're arguing against a system that does not exist in the real world.

...even my capitalist allies...

Wait, are you saying you're a capitalist? Nothing I've ever seen you post has implied to me that you are a capitalist.

 

[russ_watters]

To me capitalism is a social organization aiming at maximizing private profit. I agree that competition is constructive in a capitalist society, but I do not see why it should be a necessary ingredient.

I do not think so, but maybe from your perspective. From my perspective, socialism and capitalism are not even contradictory. Communism is contradictory to capitalism.

humanino, in order to have a productive discussion, people have to be speaking the same language, otherwise they won't be able to understand each other. Please use words how they are actually defined: do not make up your own definitions.

 

[rootX]

Naive? That's life son. If I've been there ten years and some newby kid can just show up and do my job as well as me for half my pay, then I deserve to be replaced. I am no longer being competitive in the work force. That's capitalism. It would not hurt my feelings if it happened today! It would motivate me to work even harder at my professional game. My work is worth what the market determines. If I don't like it it's my prerogative to adapt and increase my worth in the market as required. Noone owes me a job.

And the adults who don't get these concepts still live in their moms bacement.

That's not reality. You are talking about "long term" not "short term",

"In the long run we are all dead" .

:)

I explained why I think it should be allowed. An employer should be able to hire and fire whomever he/she wants for whatever reason he/she wants. If an employee doesn't agree, he/she is free to find employment elsewhere. This is pure free market capitalism. With an emphasis on "free"dom to run your business as you see fit.

If employers fire people based on their race, color, beliefs they are not practicing capitalism. You need regulated market to be more close to the pure free market capitalism so that businesses do not take uncompetitive actions such as firing people for reasons other than profits.

 

[humanino]

humanino, in order to have a productive discussion, people have to be speaking the same language, otherwise they won't be able to understand each other. Please use words how they are actually defined: do not make up your own definitions.

I am sorry russ, I am aware that my english is not very fluent. On my side, I did learn quite a bit in this discussion, so I appreciate the feedback from drankin and loseyourname.

Can you be more specific as to what did not make sense in the quote above ? Do you mean that socialism and capitalism are necessarily contradictory ?

edit
I'm sorry, it appears I forgot that "socialism" in France does not have the same use anymore. It is almost synonymous to what people call "democrats" here in the US (that is, anybody "left" is classified socialist). I understand why my claim did not make much sense to a US reader. What I meant was that democrats' policies are not contrary to capitalism. To my understanding, this is nothing different from what Obama does right now !

 

[drankin]

If employers fire people based on their race, color, beliefs they are not practicing capitalism. You need regulated market to be more close to the pure free market capitalism so that businesses do not take uncompetitive actions such as firing people for reasons other than profits.

Capitalism does not discriminate. My point is that if someone were to run a company in a truly capitalistic fashion and discriminate against potential workforce talent, he/she is ultimately shooting themselfs in the foot. But, that is HIS/HER choice in a pure free-market system. The market will weed him/her out because he/she will lose their competitiveness in the market if they base their workforce (and ultimately customers) on a narrow demographic. Regulation is not required.

Name a single company in a first world country that profits in such a fashion? It doesn't happen! It's not because of regulation, it's because of competition for public opinion. Capitalism.

The true grease of Capitalism is information (IMO).

 

[Gokul43201]

Capitalism does not discriminate. My point is that if someone were to run a company in a truly capitalistic fashion and discriminate against potential workforce talent, he/she is ultimately shooting themselfs in the foot. But, that is HIS/HER choice in a pure free-market system. The market will weed him/her out because he/she will lose their competitiveness in the market if they base their workforce (and ultimately customers) on a narrow demographic. Regulation is not required.

Can you say this was true about slavery? Do you believe that the profitability of Southern slave-owners was not in any way due to their virtually unrestricted ability to own and use slave labor?

Name a single company in a first world country that profits in such a fashion? It doesn't happen! It's not because of regulation, it's because of competition for public opinion. Capitalism.

That's an unsupported assertion. There is no country today that is completely unregulated. So when you make an assertion like the one above, the onus is upon you to demonstrate that it is not the regulation that prevents discrimination. Also, why the restriction on first world countries? After all, let's not forget that this thread is about El Salvador, which is likely not what you would call a first world country.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Can you say this was true about slavery? Do you believe that the profitability of Southern slave-owners was not in any way due to their virtually unrestricted ability to own and use slave labor?

This is a ridiculous strawman argument.

In general though, this argument about non-competitive practices is an illusion. If I'm hiring someone to work retail or answer phones all day or cut my grass and trim the bushes, I don't need the "best person" for the job. I just need someone who can do the work competently. And it's unlikely that I can't find a competent white person to do the job

 

[mheslep]

Referring to "human rights" might be borderline, what I had in minds isIf a business owner can fire anybody as they please, then it will be hard to have the right to work and to a just remuneration.

I suspect exactly the opposite is true. If employers are prevented from firing anybody, they will be reluctant to hire new people or perhaps even to start a business in the first place, and then it will be difficult to have work.

 

[nismaratwork]

I suspect exactly the opposite is true. If employers are prevented from firing anybody, they will be reluctant to hire or perhaps even to start a business in the first place, and then it will be difficult to have work.

Really, you have a good point. While there is certainly a balance, look at what happens when a terrible teacher or professor gets tenure! The opposing nature of "union" vs. "corp" works fairly well in theory. You can't make firing capricious, but without some flexibility you get DEEP beauropathologies.

 

[mheslep]

It is not smart to completely privatise education or healthcare.

Why not?

Both are socialised in "first world" countries. (In the past, some people traveled from the USA to Cuba to get better health care.)

Source?

 

[nismaratwork]

This is a ridiculous strawman argument.

In general though, this argument about non-competitive practices is an illusion. If I'm hiring someone to work retail or answer phones all day or cut my grass and trim the bushes, I don't need the "best person" for the job. I just need someone who can do the work competently. And it's unlikely that I can't find a competent white person to do the job

The job may be simple, but dependability and doing it WELL... isn't as easy to find as you think. I've been in circles where I had the dubious joy of hearing women of "good breeding" discussing how difficult it can be to find and retain a good gardener, housekeeper, etc. Retaining them at a flat payscale, seeing the work done on time and without some of the baggage you get from SOME (not all) white people in that situation can be priceless.

Go into the kitchen in any restaurant in NYC, Boston, SF, Chicago, and you're going to find Hispanic, Brazilian, and other immigrants washing dishes, humping loads, and working their way up the line. There is a reason for this; it's not just a stepping stone, and when it is, it's often within the single business. If the immigrants are white, it doesn't change, but right now most immigrants aren't Caucasian.

 

[Gokul43201]

This is a ridiculous strawman argument.

Could you explain? I fail to see the strawman in my questions.

 

[vela]

Could you explain? I fail to see the strawman in my questions.

A free market is based on voluntary exchange. Slavery is not voluntary.

 

[mheslep]

Here I think is a useful analogy: Gokul suggests perhaps that since the 18-19th century slave owners were selling products of slave labor that slavery was in some matter part of capitalism. I'd say no, not more so than one would say slavery was part of 18th-19th democracy because the owners voted or held elective office. The institutions were contemporary, influenced each other, yet they remain distinctly different things.

 

[Gokul43201]

A free market is based on voluntary exchange. Slavery is not voluntary.

Agreed (for the most part, there were still plenty of slaves that continued to voluntarily serve their former owners after Emancipation). I definitely didn't think that through sufficiently.

But in any case, the point I was hoping to make is that a free market exchange need not be, in principle, at odds with discrimination, since the market may assign positive value to a discriminatory practice. In a racist White-majority market, for instance, a buyer may gladly spend more on a product made in an all-White factory than one made in a mixed factory.

I therefore am not convinced that there can be no discrimination (I mean this in the sense of 'bigotry') within a free market.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I therefore am not convinced that there can be no discrimination (I mean this in the sense of 'bigotry') within a free market.

Certainly bigotry can exist under capitalism. But the system inherently rewards 'defectors' from bigotry. Under a command economy, there are no such rewards. On one hand, this means that a command economy could be used to stamp out a form of discrimination rather more quickly: the government buys products from white-only factories but also from non-(white-only) factories. But on the other, in a command economy discrimination can be enshrined more easily. Suppose the women's rights movement managed to affect a command economy predicated on the idea that women and men would be treated equally by the only buyer, the state. This may have brought about economic gender equality faster -- who knows? But the homosexual rights movement might be much less advanced than it is now, because there would be no price incentive for the government buyers to buy from homosexual-only factories, even if they charged lower prices.

 

[AlexES16]

Hey guys i will answer the posts tomorrow, I am kinda in a hurry in school.

Thanks for your answers and keep up with the debate =)

 

[AlexES16]

Capitalism does not discriminate. My point is that if someone were to run a company in a truly capitalistic fashion and discriminate against potential workforce talent, he/she is ultimately shooting themselfs in the foot. But, that is HIS/HER choice in a pure free-market system. The market will weed him/her out because he/she will lose their competitiveness in the market if they base their workforce (and ultimately customers) on a narrow demographic. Regulation is not required.

Name a single company in a first world country that profits in such a fashion? It doesn't happen! It's not because of regulation, it's because of competition for public opinion. Capitalism.

The true grease of Capitalism is information (IMO).

Hello men. Regulation in the labor market is not neccesary.

But i think is very healthy to have a strong scientific based state that make hard regulation on pollution and healthcare.


This is an example of what hapens when a compnay is left with no regulation(in my country)

http://www.diariocolatino.com/es/20070925/nacionales/47489/

 

[AlexES16]

Im totally in favor of using force against polluters and companies that treat the health of the people.

You maybe argue that the consumer will punish companies that pollut, but they already polluted, they already ruined the life of the people that got affected.And for me 1 life matters.

Healthcare is open to a debate.

 

[AlexES16]

The documental HOME was presented today in my school, and almost all people blamed capitalism and such unregulated enviroment.

Enviroment is maybe the last stronghole of the socialist, in the economic grow they totally are left withoth arguments, but when they come with the environment they kinda get all the support

 

[CRGreathouse]

A well-functioning capitalist society requires that externalities be internalized. Unregulated pollution is anti-capitalist.

 

[AlexES16]

A well-functioning capitalist society requires that externalities be internalized. Unregulated pollution is anti-capitalist.

This means that the guys of this page are anti-capitalist?

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/environment/pollution/376-The-Arsenic-Wars.html

They said to be capitalist but they are against almost all regulations?

 

[CRGreathouse]

I can't speak to the magazine in general; I don't read it. The particular link you posted is a political puff piece which doesn't say much about regulation -- it's mostly about politics as usual.

But capitalism, as I said, requires the internalization of externalities for proper functioning. This can be through any number of methods, including regulation, tort, Pigovian taxation, privatization of commons, etc.