Message-ID: <32D24F93.55BA@mind.net> Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 13:28:51 +0000 From: "B. Diamond" <mailto:bdiamond@MIND.NET> Subject: Re: Why capitalism is NOT sustainable -Reply To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L <mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Jonathan Sanford wrote: >
> Dear B. Diamond,
>
> Your criticism of conspicuous consumption and the presumed passion for
> acquisitiveness has little to do with the sustainability of capitalism. The latter
> is a method for organizing production, not a definition of the kinds of products
> that result. Presumably, privately owned art studios and theaters could
> produce vast quantities of art and drama that the public might clamor to buy--
> acquisition of ideas and feelings rather than things. That would still be
> capitalism, particularly if the art studios and theaters got so profitable that
> they sold shares to the investing public.
True, but don't forget that there is little or no social/ecological costs associated with the sale of ideas and feelings, and thus there are no externalities. what i beleive is inherantly wrong with capitalism is that we have allowed it to place profit above all other concerns--like clean air, water, etc. Business interests throw a fit at the very mention of any regulatory effort to minimize externalities, and not because the proposals aren't warranted (scrubbers on smokestacks, limits to particulate matter, acid rain buffers, limiting clearcuts, "cradle to grave" responsibility for toxins, etc.) but because they will cut into profits. Clearcutting is more profitable than selective cutting--so they clearcut. Letting tailings piles (toxic hard-rock mining residues) leach into the public drinking supply is cheaper than cleaning the mess up--so they keep piling up the tailings. Fixing the Pinto's gastank cost more than settling the wrongful death lawsuits, so Ford didn't fix the problem. Tobacco companies make billions of dollars in profits and pass the health care costs associated with their products of death onto the rest of us, because so far their platoons of lwayers and lobbyists have succeeded in skirting any liability, etc., etc., etc.
> So I think you need to separate your feelings about contemporary society from
> your analysis of the long term viability of capitalism itself.
The examples you site have little or no long term negative consequences, and therefore I would not argue against their efforts. What I do argue against is the unlimited exploitation of finite resources.
B. Diamond