Privitization...

[Prince_Imrahil]

...of the environment, such as water and forests, etc.

If people or companies owned these resources, not as a monopoly but in a competitive free-market, do you think treatment of the environment would improve? Would this make our water fresher, our air cleaner, as these companies are compelled to make them so in order to sell them more than their competitors? Would this make us in general have to treat the environment better since laws and regulations would protect this private property?

 

[Brighteye]

No.
The cost of keeping things clean is greater than the price people are willing to pay. So the companies would go out of business unless they allowed things to become dirty.
Once they did start destroying the environment, property laws would stop us doing anything about it.

 

[Tee Kay]

...of the environment, such as water and forests, etc.

If people or companies owned these resources, not as a monopoly but in a competitive free-market, do you think treatment of the environment would improve? Would this make our water fresher, our air cleaner, as these companies are compelled to make them so in order to sell them more than their competitors? Would this make us in general have to treat the environment better since laws and regulations would protect this private property?

Water is privatised in many places around the world and overall the result had been disastrous. Water quality drops by as much as 75% and the cost of water rose as much as 200%. In developing countries this makes life hard for the majority of people. A few years ago there were serious protests in Bolivia over privatisation of water. But most people in the world living with high cost, low quality water don't have the chance to protest.

Capitalism encourages profits over conservation and sustainability. Most companies won't give a fig for the environment or the wellbeing of others unless they're forced to. So, no, privatisation of water and natural resources will only just makes things worse, not better.

 

[ainwood]

Capitalism encourages profits over conservation and sustainability. Most companies won't give a fig for the environment or the wellbeing of others unless they're forced to. So, no, privatisation of water and natural resources will only just makes things worse, not better.

It depends on how regulation sets out a framework. The tragedy of the commons shows that public ownership isn't perfect either.

 

[Prince_Imrahil]

But the commons is not always tragic.... native americans for the most part didnt ruin themselves by trying to maximize their self-interest, neither did the Tarkwell river people who shared a common grove of food that, when taken over and regulated by the government, actually brought forth starvation and ruin that supposedly would happen in a 'commons' environment... neither system is perfect of course, but what's the best way to go about, say, protecting the environment if indeed we should at all?

 

[Tee Kay]

It depends on how regulation sets out a framework. The tragedy of the commons shows that public ownership isn't perfect either.

True, the public sector is prone to corruption and abuse, but so is the private sector. Look at Argentina, for example.

 

[El_Machinae]

There has to be a better way than the current system, where the polluters madly obfuscate the damage while everyone else doesn't know how to fight back.

 

[amadeus]

True, the public sector is prone to corruption and abuse, but so is the private sector. Look at Argentina, for example.

Look at Argentina. It seems like every decade, they get another populist in office that tries to get the state to run the economy and it crashes.

 

[Mise]

Like most "public" things, as long as the externalities are properly costed to the parties involved, Private companies can do just as good a job as public ones. Unfortunately, the externalities are rarely costed appropriately (either through regulation or taxation), and necessarily require a strict level of government intervention. The effect is that private companies tend to fair less well than in other markets, sometimes to the point where the gov't could do a better job.

 

[History_Buff]

But the commons is not always tragic.... native americans for the most part didnt ruin themselves by trying to maximize their self-interest, neither did the Tarkwell river people who shared a common grove of food that, when taken over and regulated by the government, actually brought forth starvation and ruin that supposedly would happen in a 'commons' environment... neither system is perfect of course, but what's the best way to go about, say, protecting the environment if indeed we should at all?

Native Americans did not exist in sufficient numbers to completely wipe out ecosystems like we can today. They also did not exist in a modern capitalist society.

Never heard of the Talkwell River Folk though

 

[emzie]

Native Americans did not exist in sufficient numbers to completely wipe out ecosystems like we can today. They also did not exist in a modern capitalist society.

Tell that to Aztec farmers.

 

[Sophie 378]

Well, considering the mess that privatisation has brought for most of the UK services (electricity, water, trains, buses, etc) - a far worse service costing far more - I'd be pretty wary of trying to privatise something that I suspect is inherently unprofitable (in the classical definition), like the environment.

 

[Xanikk999]

Native Americans did not exist in sufficient numbers to completely wipe out ecosystems like we can today. They also did not exist in a modern capitalist society.

Never heard of the Talkwell River Folk though

Utter Bullcrap.

Who the heck do you think drove the america lion, american wooly mammoth, american rhino, and other american megafuana to extinction?

 

[Mise]

Well, considering the mess that privatisation has brought for most of the UK services (electricity, water, trains, buses, etc) - a far worse service costing far more

Most utilities are better and cost less, and the sale of public assets generated billions of pounds for the British government, which went back into schools and hospitals, and our pockets (hence why it costs less).

 

[WillJ]

Exactly what Mise said. I think it's safe to say that a free market ALWAYS (or almost always) works well, unless there are externalities. And in the case of the environment, it is usually (as far as I can tell) impossible to structure a market that doesn't have any significant externalities, making governmental intervention (possibly "market-based") necessary.

 

[emzie]

Utter Bullcrap.

Who the heck do you think drove the america lion, american wooly mammoth, american rhino, and other american megafuana to extinction?

Oddly enough, global warming and hunting.

 

[Xanikk999]

Oddly enough, global warming and hunting.

Global warming possibly on the mammoth, but even then unlikely. Hunting was the main cause, those inconsiderate natives!

 

[Elrohir]

...of the environment, such as water and forests, etc.

If people or companies owned these resources, not as a monopoly but in a competitive free-market, do you think treatment of the environment would improve? Would this make our water fresher, our air cleaner, as these companies are compelled to make them so in order to sell them more than their competitors? Would this make us in general have to treat the environment better since laws and regulations would protect this private property?

Are you suggesting we sell our air to private companies?

 

[Cannae]

Look at Argentina. It seems like every decade, they get another populist in office that tries to get the state to run the economy and it crashes.

Another reason for this could be that American companies are sucking the blood out of where it is supposed to be an instead into wallets of rich Americans who already to begin with. I also say that if the people want the economy to nationalised than so be it! Let them have the carcass.

 

[Xanikk999]

Another reason for this could be that American companies are sucking the blood out of where it is supposed to be an instead into wallets of rich Americans who already to begin with. I also say that if the people want the economy to nationalised than so be it! Let them have the carcass.

Yeah thats right, blame everything on america!

Even south americas independent problems are americas fault...