Mat, I see another dimension to your statement about the lack of regulation and the lack of sustainability. In my Natural Instability book I made the case that increasing pressure on the input side -- such as through higher wages or greater environmental restrictions -- can create a simulated competition in the sense that they impose market pressures without the deflationary pressure of product marketing competition.
"Forstater, Mathew" wrote: > Jim, I have thought about this recently and come to the conclusion that, > first, unregulated or badly regulated capitalism is both > macroeconomically unsatisfactory and environmentally unsustainable. > Second, traditional policy approaches to both unemployment and > environmental degradation are insufficient to achieve either > satisfactory macro outcomes (e.g., full employment) or ecological > sustainability. Moreover, policy approaches addressing either one of > these (either full employment or environmental sustainability), even if > successful, actually in most cases exacerbate the other one. So, e.g., > attempting to achieve full employment through stimulating aggregate > demand if successful would probably increase resource depletion and > pollution. So it may be that 'sustainable capitalism' really is an > oxymoron. Mainstream economics usually says that problems like > discrimination or environmental degradation are due to market forces > (e.g., competition) not being strong enough or associated institutions > (e.g., private property) not being widespread enough. But it is much > more likely that, as you suggest, these are the normal outcomes of a > capitalist system. So the government intervention necessary to address > these problems would probably be of a kind and of a degree that the > resulting system would be something many would not define as capitalism. > So the questions really come back to those that have long been at the > heart of debates concerning socialism and communism and even various > forms of anarchism: Is there any role for markets at all in a > post-capitalist economy? Is there any role for money in a > post-capitalist economy? Can a post-capitalist economy be attained > without violence? Would a socialist society *necessarily* be > environmentally sustainable (or non-racist or non-sexist)? And so on. > Mat > > -----Original Message----- > From: Devine, James [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 11:32 AM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: [PEN-L:21886] precautionary principle > > reading a manuscript, I came upon the "precautionary principle," defined > as > saying that "when an activity raises threats of harm to the enviornment > or > human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause > and > effect relationships are not fully established scientifically" (from the > "Wingspread statement" of 1998). (pen-l's Peter Dorman had an > interesting > paper on this subject at the recent URPE@ASSA conference.) > > The Enron and dot.con melt-downs suggest that a similar principle should > be > applied to accounting (in the face of new corporate forms that stretch > traditional accounting norms). > > But can capitalism -- which centers on the aggressive > accumulate-to-compete > or compete-to-accumulate principle -- ever follow any precautionary > principle without strict governmental restrictions? > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
