The problem with reliance on free markets is that techniques of persuasion can be used to get those participating in the free markets to skew their choices away from would otherwise be considered 'good.' E.g. consumer choices can be skewed toward excessive acquisition via advertising, or away from long-term benefits, or social responsibility, or healthy choices, or their children's well-being, etc. etc. Whole societies can be entrained into poor choices (e.g. US actions in Afghanistan), while nominally operating under free-market philosophy.
Now, I am not even getting into the matters of monopolies, market fixing collusion, etc. Personally, I benefit quite a bit from free-markets, but I would never view them as assurances of personal or social well-being, or anything that I would equate with social justice or smart development. Indeed, I view free markets as antithetical to smart development. When commercialism and material acquisition become the driving forces behind free markets, the social future of our species comes into risk. But that's a larger issue. Lawry > -----Original Message----- > From: Harry Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 8:45 PM > To: Keith Hudson > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: not so fast! > > > Keith, > > Four points! > > First, we have plenty of everything that is needed. However, we are > behaving so badly we cannot help but get into severe trouble. As I > mentioned, when the cow patties are used for fuel instead of > fertilizer, we > have passed a point of no return - or at least a point where recovery may > be Herculean. > > Second, in many areas, we have deprived ourselves of the free > market which > can make better decisions, more quickly, than any government planner, and > do so impartially. > > Third, where the free market doesn't work - such as with land - measures > must be taken to make the price mechanism do the job. Sidestepping the > price mechanism's failure can bring us nothing but grief. Converting > common interests - such as the oceans into price-mechanism controlled > situations. Contract and competition will do a better job for us all, > whether it be whales or elephants than any governmental dictate. (Compare > Kenya and Botswana before the world ivory ban!) > > Fourth, the crucial need is power. If we have power, we can turn > ashes into > coal - salt water into drinking water, or do anything else that is > necessary. We will need to go to nuclear power or coal sooner, or later. > With an operating market, as non-renewable fuels become more > expensive, so > will solar, hydro-thermal, wind, and other "powers" become more > attractive. > At the moment, these power sources are not very practical except > in special > circumstances. > > The price mechanism can handle water. I believe the toilets in the UK are > mostly "wash-down" - a system that uses, I believe, 10-12 > Imperial gallons > of water with each flush. My toilets, and the toilets of tens of > thousands > (and maybe millions) of Southern Californians are "low-flush" - using 1.6 > American gallons per flush. > > The saving in England if the conversion were made would amount to a > trillion, or two, gallons a year for every 5 million families (if my > calculations on the back of an envelope are correct). Anyway, the > point is > that there are savings in water that can be made without getting too > esoteric about it. > > However, government planners are more inclined to use stand-pipes > on every > corner, adding an inconvenience to every housewife's day. It's the way > they think. > > We have plenty of wilderness in the world. Across the road from me is a > 1,000 square mile national park. If that isn't enough, another park 2,000 > square miles in area adjoins the first. I'm about 25 minutes from the > skyscrapers of Los Angeles. > > I walked in Dorset from Wareham to Swanage - some 12 - 15 miles. I went > along paths through deciduous forests and over hills. I came over > the brow > of a hill and looked down on Corfe Castle. I imagined archers up there > picking off the guards on the battlements. > > I had a great Cottage Pie at Corfe - not good for walking. Then continued > across fields until I finally got to Swanage. > > In summertime on a wonderful English summer day, I didn't meet a single > walker on the paths, even though I passed at one point within > half-mile of > a trailer camp. > > I've walked 11 miles across the South Downs, perhaps 20 miles from > Buckingham Palace and never more than a mile from the main > London-Brighton > Rd. and encountered less than a dozen walkers. > > I have a feeling we make wilderness too much of an issue. > > If we had half our present world population, hunger and deprivation would > still be with us, for population isn't the problem. > > Harry > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------- > > Keith wrote: > > >Hi Harry, > > > >I buy a great deal of what you've written in reply to Lawrence. > Many of the > >so-called limits to growth (economic and population) which started to be > >advanced in the 1960s and 70s have turned out to be chimerical. > > > >However, there are a couple of factors concerning population > which I don't > >think can be glossed over -- one current and the other a potential one. > > > >The current one concerns water shortage. There is little doubt > that in many > >parts of the world there is a fresh water shortage already. Because of > >extraction along their routes, many rivers are largely devoid of water by > >the time they reach the sea. Those who are more expert than me in these > >matters seriously suggest that water shortages will be a major cause of > >wars in the not-too-distant future. The one example I can think of at the > >moment is the Euphrates -- from which Turkey, Syria and Iraq are all > >extracting increasing amounts. Turkey is building dams and irigation > >systems and I can only think that some sort of nasty response will be > >called forth at some point. > > > >The other concerns the production of nitrogenous fertiliser. This is > >derived from fossil fuels as chemical feedstock in pretty easy and direct > >fashion and is thus relatively cheap. But even now, most of the > >agricultural regions of the world can't afford to buy as much as > is needed > >in order to grow sufficient food, never mind when developing countries > >start to demand more meat which needs an extra stage of production and > >imposes a 10-fold decrease in efficiency in protein production. > > > >As fossil fuels decline in the coming years (and just think for a moment > >what the demands of China will be in the coming years as the country > >industrialises!) then fertiliser will become enormously expensive -- even > >in the developed world. Those who say that in a post-fossil fuel world it > >could be manufactured via electricity from nuclear, wind or solar power > >don't realise that subsequent hydrolysis of water into hydrogen, and the > >successive stages of production to produce fertiliser, each with low > >efficiency, means that nitrogenous fertiliser would be anything > between 20 > >and 50 times more expensive than now. > > > >For stability (and, for goodness sake, a sufficient retention of > sufficient > >natural wildernesses in the world) we could do with a population at least > >half of what we have now. > > > >Keith > > > ****************************** > Harry Pollard > Henry George School of LA > Box 655 > Tujunga CA 91042 > Tel: (818) 352-4141 > Fax: (818) 353-2242 > ******************************* >
