I’ve always found the notion that the free market will naturally solve any pressing environmental problems ludicrous, but this light bulb joke puts it in succinct perspective.
I was not in attendance at this year’s Nobel Conference but I just read about a comment made by presenter Steven Chu:
How many free-market advocates does it take to change a light bulb?
None, because if there was a problem, the free market would have taken care of it.
In other words, it’s possible that just maybe the profit motive does not always coincide perfectly with what’s best for the world (shareholders notwithstanding).
I don’t really know what the solutions are to environmental concerns. But I imagine the best course of action would more likely be revealed by reasoned discussion rather than jokes. I would be interested to hear your views on how environmental problems should be handled, and more importantly, why you believe what you do. In the meantime, here is a different viewpoint.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=the_free_market_does_it_better&ns=JohnStossel&dt=11/28/2007&page=2
Well the point here is not so much that I have a solution to environmental problems, as it is to make the point that the cop-out non-solution (that has George W. Bush’s name all over it) of “leave it to the free market and it will get solved automatically” doesn’t hold water. The only responsibility a publicly-traded, for-profit corporation has is to its shareholders. Lots of corporations make philanthropic gestures (whether they’re anything more than gestures depends on the corporation), but ultimately the only thing that really matters is that the stock value rises, regardless of the secondary effects.
It’s heartening to see the kinds of efforts companies like Google are making to this end, but all the same, this seems more to be an effect of the company having such a surplus of funds that it can invest in forward-thinking research, rather than making the environment a means to generate profit.
Certainly, if a company finds a way to make cleaning up the planet profitable, they’ll do it, and others will probably jump on the bandwagon. But it’s an uphill battle when you’ve got entrenched industries (like petroleum) that stand to make considerably more profit by leaving things as they are (or more accurately, by allowing things to continue on their current trajectory).
It’s nice to see that we agree that we don’t have all the solutions. So how do we go about finding them? I’ve read Stossel’s column and I think he makes some valid points. But I take things like this with a grain of salt.
Probably my only difference with you is that I have even less faith in government to do anything meaningful. Politicians, like business people, operate under incentives, just different ones. And many times they are insulated from the results of their actions. Businesses, on the other hand, generally have to actually produce something in order to be rewarded.
Further complicating the situation is the constant bickering about the nature of environmental concerns, which ones are real, which ones aren’t, etc. Take global warming. The forces on both sides of that issue have a powerful incentive to believe what they do regardless of the objective reality. Businesses want to run their factories at full steam, while anti-business/big government types see it as the ultimate mandate for regulation. I’m not sure that either side is genuinely concerned with the environment.
Gene
I think a lot of the disagreement in this area has to do with perception of government, really, and a lot of that has to do with one’s experiences over the years, but especially the most formative years growing up. In much of the country, government is quite corrupt. I happen to have grown up in Minnesota, which is one of the few states that has not been tainted by much government corruption. It’s a place where people believe in their politicians’ general commitment to the common good, and politicians generally do recognize and honor that commitment. Plus, in the past anyway (but maybe not as much so recently), we’ve actually been able to see tangible benefits from our tax dollars; as a result we haven’t objected to the idea of being taxed at a rate that other states might object to. Since those tax dollars translated into better roads, better schools, better public services in general, and everyone (or almost everyone, I suppose) benefited, the overall standard of living rose and government was seen as a benevolent institution.
The same largely went for labor unions: they aren’t (or weren’t) corrupt, and they led to a tangible benefit for everyone. I suppose in more laissez-faire places like Georgia, it leads to the “Minnesoviet” reputation, but as I said at the beginning, it’s all about perspective and experience.
I think a lot of the disagreement in this area has to do with the reality of what government intervention has resulted in many, if not most, cases. That being said, I would actually be very interested in hearing some details of governmental interventions and results in MN. You might be surprised to hear it, but in theory – and I emphasize “theory” – socialism does not bother me. My problem is with the results, which historically have been pretty abysmal. Give me some examples of government intervention successes.
Gene