I have no idea how you could actually be confused about this.
- I can sell 100 units of product for $2. I feel good I am ethical and responsible.
- I can sell 300 units of product for $1. Everyone buys from me and I make more money, but I poison the land.
Capitalism does not account for externalities. Because businesses never have to pay the cost of poisoning water supplies or destroying ecosystems until he societal bell tolls - and because "if I don't, they will and I will go out of business" - unsustainable and unethical practices are the norm in late stage capitalism.
I mean, for real? Are you confused why mine operators encouraged taking more material at the expensive of structural integrity? Are you confused why gas barons don't like paying the cost to cap NG wells? Are you confused why big agri uses petrochemical fertilizers to grow subsidized ethanol and HFCS?
Where's the externality here?
Isn't "vitality of bees" that this method claims to improve actually supposed to be desirable to beekeepers themselves?
Modern, mass-scale beekeeping isn't about the vitality of bees, it's about getting the most honey out now.
The externalities are the introduction of non-native species en-masse to ecosystems that dominate the cultural niche and affect the entire balance of things.
It's the introduction of diseases and pests, which then prompted the use of antibiotics and pesticides. Then those waned in efficiency, creating even stronger pests and diseases. And that further amplifies the destruction to local ecosystem balance, where the native species lack even a defense for the base variants.
Beekeepers can't use native species, most of them don't make the economically viable hives. Those that minimize the damage they do or use sustainable practices will have reduced output for their forethought. This reduced output means higher prices, which means less customers. And their bees are still getting the diseases!
If they can survive or convince regulators, the long-run will benefit them. But, shocking no one, the bad actors now have all the money from the short-term gains and can now lobby governments or buy the small operations.
> unsustainable and unethical practices are the norm in late stage capitalism. thats just people. the economic system is about money, "ethics" are a social thing. you can have a utopia with or without capitalism.
Well you need some kind of incentive to not put "ethical" business out of business due to a race to the bottom.
yeah, essentially death or chastisement, capital punishment or arrest. its all weve ever had, and ever will have.
Capitalism will happily bake in externalities if anyone makes them.
‘Late stage capitalism’ right now is way less ugly than ‘any stage USSR’, for any sane comparison.
Regulations are not capitalist, definitionally free markets do not account for externalities. Only when an externality has such an effect that it affects market behavior, but then it stops being an externality. Again, definitionaly.
Full capitalism and full communism are not the only options. Not sure why you even brought that up, as I never claimed communism is better? I said capitalism is flawed.
lol. I think you’re thinking Anarchism, not Capitalism.
Capitalism is ‘capital makes the rules’, not ‘there are no rules’.
The problem is you are talking about orthogonal concepts, ie. economic policy and social policy. See the Political Compass: https://www.politicalcompass.org/
Not really, no, since all these mentioned political philosophies have explicit market elements.
Or do you think it’s possible to have a socialist or communist gov’t AND capitalism or free market at the same time?
Because those quite literally are incompatible as part of the definition.
Same as a heavily regulated economy or state ownership of production in Anarchism.