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.

[Rainbow Warrior]

First, the same demographic is synonymous with both issues.

Second, I have to say something about Kathy's post... do some research on bio-magnification and then lets talk about DDT girl friend! You obviously don't have much of a background in environmental issues but can easily repeat debunked right wing talking points, pathetic...

Here's some stats about what the free marketers and Republicans have done to our country over the past 30 years starting with the election of Ronny Reagan and finished up by G W Bush;

• 83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people.
• 61 percent of Americans "always or usually" live paycheck to paycheck, which was up from 49 percent in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007.
• 66 percent of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans.
• 36 percent of Americans say that they don't contribute anything to retirement savings.
• A staggering 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved up for retirement.
• 24 percent of American workers say that they have postponed their planned retirement age in the past year.
• Over 1.4 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009, which represented a 32 percent increase over 2008.
• Only the top 5 percent of U.S. households have earned enough additional income to match the rise in housing costs since 1975.
• For the first time in U.S. history, banks own a greater share of residential housing net worth in the United States than all individual Americans put together.
• In 1950, the ratio of the average executive's paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to one.
• As of 2007, the bottom 80 percent of American households held about 7% of the liquid financial assets.
• The bottom 50 percent of income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth.
• Average Wall Street bonuses for 2009 were up 17 percent when compared with 2008.
• In the United States, the average federal worker now earns 60% MORE than the average worker in the private sector.
• The top 1 percent of U.S. households own nearly twice as much of America's corporate wealth as they did just 15 years ago.
• In America today, the average time needed to find a job has risen to a record 35.2 weeks.
• More than 40 percent of Americans who actually are employed are now working in service jobs, which are often very low paying.
• or the first time in U.S. history, more than 40 million Americans are on food stamps, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that number will go up to 43 million Americans in 2011.
• This is what American workers now must compete against: in China a garment worker makes approximately 86 cents an hour and in Cambodia a garment worker makes approximately 22 cents an hour.
• Approximately 21 percent of all children in the United States are living below the poverty line in 2010 - the highest rate in 20 years.
• Despite the financial crisis, the number of millionaires in the United States rose a whopping 16 percent to 7.8 million in 2009.
• The top 10 percent of Americans now earn around 50 percent of our national income.


We will see if so called conservatives are as stupid now as in the past this November, If we allow them to have their way with the environment as they have had with our politics, laws and economy we can kiss our butts good bye, Great Spirit help us!!!

[Cave Creek]

It is simply that there is no proof whatsoever that global warming is anything but a normal cycle and man has no influence. Even the "scientists" admit they made it up.

[Jim Z]

Skepticism of AGW isn't strickly rightwing. There are plenty of left wing people that are also skeptical. Your question is a very revealing testimony to how nearly every alarmist is anti-industry, anti-capitalist. That isn't a coincidence. Exaggeration of AGW has always been a politically (not scientifically) driven phenomena.

I am afraid that Meg Whitman isn't a strong enough conservative but I hope you are correct about her. Brown would be a menace to our already reeling economy.

A conservative is someone that actually learns from history. History teaches us about the failures of Marxism, Socialism, Fascism, or you can just lump it all into statism because there isn't much difference between the doctrines. They all believe that a central government can make economic decisions better than a free market. It has been proven wrong again and again yet some people refuse to learn and think they are smarter than those who previously failed. They aren't. Governments simply cannot effectively set prices or determine supply. It invariably leads to shortages, waste, and/or over pricing.

[Fred]

No for myself it has to do with scientists fudging numbers. But again i believe in GW just not AGW.

[Cool L]

Some people who claim to support the free market, do not object to huge government subsidies for the oil, coal and natural gas related industries, including tax breaks, research grants, loans and support for military action to ensure access to foreign oil. (8 times more in direct subsidies to fossil fuel than to clean energy between 2002 and 2008).

'Free market' sounds better than 'grab it while you can'.

A fair distribution of opportunities to make a profit requires some government help in controlling our impulses towards greed. We have seen that the policy of allowing corporations to choose to be responsible for the protection of the environment and the rights of workers does not result in real protections. Until the costs of damage to the environment and harm to workers is factored into the spread sheets so that it affects profits, we will not see corporations acting in the best interests of all the people. We need economists that understand externalities.

The point of a democracy is that the citizens will hold their elected representatives accountable if they are not representing the our needs and our rights.

Activists and would be activists should read Jim Loeb's book, Soul of a Citizen, Living with Conviction in Challenging Times

Rainbow Warrior, where did you get those statistics, please?

[Weise Ente]

Pretty much. They know the free market can do no wrong so they warp reality to fit their little world view.

The DDT people annoy the hell out of me. The attempt to eradicate malaria failed miserably long before we even realized DDT was even bad for the environment. Short term victories never lased and all we ended up with were resistant mosquitoes.

[Andy]

Actually, most good capitalists agree that there has to be some oversight in a free market system to protect the consumer. Also, most of us man driven climate change do believe in protecting our environment. It is people like you who believe that the government knows best and loves higher taxes and less freedom that will not listen to anyone at all.

[antarcticice]

With all the denier comments about tax rather than science I think it's pretty obvious what they are really concerned about.

Liberal_60: You comment might have been a little to subtle for Eric, he may not have 'herd' what you meant, even in his retort to you he seems to have missed the point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_mentality

[Mr. Blob]

Fear and resentment over being told what we are doing is wrong has driven many to the antipole.

If you tell me that resources are finite and mankind is responsible for environmental degradation I will tell you that resources are unlimited and humans are not responsible.

If you tell me that social democracy and regulated markets to support a sustainable economy are the only way to stop the destruction of the natural world, I will tell you that unlimited personal freedom and unrestrained markets are the only solution.

I would characterize it as reactionary cornucopian theistic libertarian free market fundamentalism.

After all, fundamentalism is based on faith, not evidence.