Re: BRIAN: Capitalism lover extrordinaire

[HANLY@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Carnell wrote:

In most governments the government ends up exercising all property
rights over rivers.

COMMENT: So what is your point? Do you want to privatize rivers so
that only those who pay can swim, or use water from them, etc. or what?
And how would this solve pollution problems? If it pays to pollute the rivers
private owners would pollute them, so you would need government to step
in any way to solve the problem. This is so even if you adopt the
pollution rights trading methodology as contrasted with more direct regulation.

Carnell wrote:
The poisoning is happening becase the vaunted Chinese Communist
government is rolling over and letting it be poisoned.  There is
nothing inherent in increased productivity that requires we allow
people to poison us.  Of course since Communism essentially destroys
strong property rights, there isn't much recourse to go after
polluters there (and of course it wasn't private concerns that
polluted Eastern Europe).

COMMENT: I thought this was the vaunted Communist government that you have been
praising for its productivity and market reforms. Seems the market reforms
have caused it to rollover and let the rivers be poisoned. As Doug points out
deregulation, privatisation, etc. do not lead to conservation they lead
to depredation. You don't refer to my post on the Michigan peninsula forests
They are an excellent example of private depradation and public restoration.
    What you say of Eastern Europe (and it is also true of the former Soviet
Union) is basically correct. For many reasons environmentalism was not
a great force in these societies--although Lake Baikal was more or less saved.
The model that Stalin and others used though is the same as that of the
West, rapid increases in production. Indeed, the slogan was to catch up with
and surpass the west in production. Environmental externalities were not
adequately considered, and there were no adequate mechanisms by which
informed criticism could change this. During many periods there actually was
rapid increase in production, but the emphasis under Stalinism was the
production of the means of production not consumer production as in the
west. Even so I expect that during the Brezhnev period for example the
poor and working class would have better medical care than in the US--
which of course has among the technically most advanced system in the world.
Also, access to university education for those who qualified would be
free and with expenses paid as well (At least I think that this was the case. I
would have to check to make sure. But considering Carnell rarely cites anything
I guess I am safe). Compare that with the US (of course Germany and other
capitalist states are a different story).
  Cheers, Ken Hanly




-----------------------------------------------------------------

Brian Carnell                   http://www.net-link.net/~briand/
briand@xxxxxxxxxxx


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---