Is global warming denialism primarily based on free market fundamentalism?

[Bubba]

Could be!!!!! Hadn't thought about free market fundamentalism. If the free market fundamentalist truly believe there is NO government involvement in the free market, then they are wrong. It is true that there is MINIMAL government involvement, but the government has to be involved to keep the market free.

Free doesn't mean free from all government involvement. Free means consumers (not the producers, church, government, company, etc.) are free to choose the goods and services that benefits them the most. By doing this, resources are efficiently allocated and this maximize societies welfare as a whole, not just producers, the church or the company. Consumers can choose to get goods and services that enrich these entities, but cannot be forced to buy goods and services from these entities. The government has the task of enforcing the rules of the free, competitive market. the rules are: 1. freedom of entry and exit from the market without influencing it, 2 perfect knowledge about the benefits and costs of goods and services, 3. many producers and consumers, 4. if you get the all the profits, you pay all the costs.These might be all of them but I forget some sometimes.

Sounds like the fundamentalist want a purely competitive market which reduces the benefit to society as a whole. I don't think the fundamentalist really understand what a free market means, or what the economy is or what the government's role is.

I'll define some terms for them

1. economy = societies way of allocating scarce resources.
2. economic system = societies way of maximizing social benefit
- Communist - government completely controls allocation of resources and typically restricts democratic process;
- Socialist - partial government controls resource allocation and can be democratically elected government
- Free, competitive market (restricted capitalism) - minimal government control of resource allocation and democratically elected government
- Pure capitalist - those with the resources allocate resources and dictate goods and services produced (not necessarily the consumers) and democratically elected government although the government may be controlled by the capitalist

Dictatorships is often most like communism but without even a restricted democratic process.


Perhaps the "fundamentalist free market" people are really corporate minions that don't understand it is not about benefiting their company in the end, but about benefiting society as a whole. By working WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE FREE MARKET (the free market constrains capitalism) to maximize their welfare, they maximize the welfare of the country as a whole, but working to eliminate government oversight and free market rules reduces the nations welfare and transfers that welfare to those who broke the rules. Government involvement is absolutely needed, otherwise we get the Wall Street mess, BP Oil spill and the Massey mine tragedy. All these were cause because government oversight has been weakened to the point of ineffective and violating the free market rules.

Most of the examples were the result of consumers not knowing the consequences and true costs of the substances (DDT, tobacco, CFC use). DDT is still used for Malaria control in some places, but some mosquitoes have built up a resistance. Tobacco is still used, but the dangers and made clear and the costs to society for care of those affected built in, CFCs are banned because of the wide spread nature of the effect - those benefiting from there use don't always bear the costs. Same with acid rain. The restrictions actually are the results of trying to conform to the rules of the free market.

Meg Whitman would enrich those with the capital at the expense of the welfare of other citizens in the state. This is not free market but pure capitalism.