The morality of the free market

Straight out of the Ayn Rand playbook, with a little old fashioned Calvinism thrown in for good measure.

In other words to all you people dying in Africa, tough shit.

Yowza.

 

We're looking at food shortages HERE, Ragu. Kind of flies in the face of your argument.

 

Ragu,
Uh, no, these are exactly your words.

As a lapsed Presbyterian, I recognize Calvinism when I see it.

This may come as a shock to you, but I have read every single world your philosopher hero Ayn Rand wrote--when I was about sixteen--and like most adults, have moved on. Your post is pretty much a summation of her sophmoric philosophy.

But as sure as the sun rises in the East, you're going to bore us with another 3,000 word post on how The Invisible Hand and the Wide Open Marketplace will solve the problem of food scarcity--you know, like it solved the problem of child poverty.

We weren't talking about political corruption in Africa. That was an earlier post which I couldn't bother to respond to.

 

And do you believe that applies to ALL sectors of the economy? Including, for example, health care and education?

 

Can someone explain to me how this food shortage is a damnation of the free market? Aren't very suspect policy decisions by Western nations at least as much to blame? With those said policy decisions flying in the face of the free market, at least how I understand it.

From what I've read and what I understand the free market isn't exactly a fair scape goat here, BUT I haven't had time to do the reading to come to a complete understanding of the subject and I hate to post with authority on something I'm hardly an authority on.

 

The free market gives us lots of choices, such as many different brands of cereal.

However, some things don't work as a free market - health care and many forms of public transportation. Insurance isn't a free market either - they have an anti-trust exemption.

Like everything, there are compromises.

 

We need a concert from Bono to fix things or perhaps Al Gore could do Inconvenient Truth II- The Other Shoe Drops.

 

Overpopulation is not an issue.

The issue is the push to biofuels, which have NOTHING to do with the free market. The push to biofuels has been egged on by governments who are pandering to their environmental wings.

Ethanol is not, and will not be, the answer. The unintended consequences are many -- it uses almost as much energy to produce as it actually provides, it takes up valuable land that could be used for food (especially in nations like Brazil, where the ethanol market is huge), it is eating up jungle/rainforest land to clear for more fuels. It is an extremely corrosive fuel (because of that, it needs to be trucked everywhere, not delivered via pipeline), and pollutes like crazy.

Ethanol is a good idea on paper, but it is a big mistake. Everywhere it's used (especially here), it's government-subsidized, and it's leading to huge increases in the cost of food, because corn and sugarcane are being grown for ethanol instead of food.

The answer for fuels is ...
*-Nuclear -- it's the most powerful clean fuel we have. The consequences are huge. That would take pressure off coal/natural gas for home heating.
*-Plug-in hybrids -- I think this will happen in the next 5-10 years, if not sooner. Cars with a 50-100-mile range on a battery, and then run on a gas motor for longer trips.
*-Hydrogen-powered cars. GM is developing the hydrogen fuel cells. The environmental consequences are minimal (the exhaust is water vapor) and hydrogen is everywhere. GM has been pushing E85 flex-fuels, but GM also has a stake in the largest (government-subsidized) ethanol producers in the country.

Our distaste for high fuel prices will create a market for these things, much as it created a market for hybrids and flex-fuel cars that can use the cheaper (because it's government subsidized), but not necessarily cleaner, ethanol.

The free market will give us those things IF governments don't get in the way. When everything boils down, the free market will be environmentally responsible -- producers have incentive to keep their production facilities/resources/land/raw materials available, usable and clean. If one really believes socialism/government control is the answer, encourage them to check out the environmental records of China and the USSR and compare them with ours.

 

What you say isn't an issue is a massive problem.

 

Exactly - this problem is a direct result of the push to bio fuels. This is not something that should be a surprise. As early as 2005 many of the foremost energy scientist were predicting this exact situation.

 

Coal burns cleaner than at any time in history. Why the hell shouldn't we shift to that?