File: secE5.html

package info (click to toggle)
anarchism 9.5-1
  • links: PTS
  • area: main
  • in suites: woody
  • size: 12,192 kB
  • ctags: 493
  • sloc: makefile: 40; sh: 8
file content (62 lines) | stat: -rw-r--r-- 3,270 bytes parent folder | download
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<TITLE>E.5 How does its need to focus on short-term profitability... </TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<p>

<H1>E.5 How does its need to focus on short-term profitability affect capitalism's ability to deal with the ecological crisis? </h1>
<P>
Harmful environmental effects such as pollution, global warming, ozone
depletion, and destruction of wildlife habitat are referred to in
economics as <I>"externalities,"</I> which are not counted as <I>"costs of
production"</I> in standard methods of accounting because they must be borne
by everyone in the society affected by them. Since their costs are thus
spread out over the whole society, externalities can be ignored by
capitalists when planning future production. But this means that they
<B>will</B> be ignored, since competition forces firms to cut as many 
costs as possible and concentrate on short-term profits.
<P>
Here's an example (paraphrased from Noam Chomsky): Suppose there
are 3 automobile companies, X, Y, and Z, which are competitive (not
conspiring to fix prices) and which exist in a typical capitalist 
society where there is no democratic community control of the economy. 
Then suppose that company X invests in the project of developing a
non-polluting car within ten years. At the same time its competitors, Y
and Z, will be putting their resources into increasing profits and market
share in the coming days and months and over the next year. During that
period, company X will be out of luck, for it will not be able to attract
enough capital from investors to carry out its plans, since investment
will flock to the companies that are most immediately profitable. This
means that the default position under "free market" capitalism is 
that the company (or country) with the lowest standards enjoys a 
competitive advantage, and drags down the standards of other companies 
(or countries).
<P>
The supporter of capitalism may respond by arguing that business leaders 
are as able to see long-term negative environmental effects as the rest of 
us. But this is to misunderstand the nature of the objection. It is not 
that business leaders <B>as individuals</B> are any less able to see what's
happening to the environment. It is that if they want to keep their jobs
they have to do what the system requires, which is to concentrate on what
is most profitable in the short term. Thus if the president of company X
has a mystical experience of oneness with nature and starts diverting
profits into pollution control while the presidents of Y and Z continue
with business as usual, the stockholders of company X will get a new
president who is willing to focus on short-term profits like Y and Z. 
<P>
In general, then, if one company tries to devote resources to develop
products or processes that are ecologically responsible, they will simply
be undercut by other companies which are not doing so (assuming such
products or processes are more expensive, as they generally are), and hence
they won't be competitive in the market. In other words, capitalism has a
built-in bias toward short-term gain, and this bias -- along with the
inherent need for growth -- means the planet will continue its free-fall 
toward ecological disaster so long as capitalism exists.
<P>

</BODY>
</HTML>