The idea that we can solve the climate crisis through free market fundamentalism is ludricous.
I actually don’t think it’s ludicrous; what’s required is an intervention to adjust in market incentives. What seems to get missed in these discussions is that regulations generally come in a form that does, in fact, adjust incentives.
Basically, corporations don’t care about regulatory compliance per se; what they care about is not getting fined. (This is why I love the free market; the most influential actors in it, the large corporations, are entirely predictable.)
So, you want to cut down on GHG emissions? Raise the fines for noncompliance, either by (a) lowering the thresholds, (b) raising the fines for exeeding the thresholds, or (c ) some mix of the two. The corporation looks at that, calculates their risk of being fined (and how much) based on historical output, and takes whatever action they deem appropriate (which if the gummint’ has done everything correctly — big IF — ends up being what they want them to do.)
let’s not forget who corrupted them in the first place. Corporate money in politics is the primary reason why governments seem to do little for the average citizen and tend to favor corporate-friendly policies.
I’m not as cynical as you are. The large corporations which actually DO have influence employ something like 40% of us. So, it’s not crazy in the least for the average person to want our corporations to do well, and therefore are not directly opposed to corporate money in politics.
Put another way — — there is no scenario that you or anyone else can dream up that has the average joe doing well *and* our major corporations NOT doing well. The problem today is not that the corporations are failing — — they are not — but that so little of the benefit is accruing to the average joe.
That’s not easy to fix.
If you remove corporate money in politics, you remove most of the corruption.
I don’t agree that lobbying is necessarily corruption. In a free nation, everyone can (and SHOULD) be able to engage in advocacy in their own best interests. Corporations included.
Additionally, regarding the causes of the Great Recession, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission had this to say, “While the vulnerabilities that created the potential for crisis were years in the making, it was the collapse of the housing bubble — fueled by low interest rates, easy and available credit, scant regulation, and toxic mortgages — that was the spark that ignited a string of events, which led to a full-blown crisis in the fall of 2008.” So, to simply blame one factor on the cause of the recession is just factually incorrect.
I most certainly did not blame ONE factor, and I agree with the FCIC on that statement, as far as its limitations exist.
But it’s essential to remember that the housing has been a heavily regulated sector since the Great Depression. All the alphabet agencies (Fannie, Freddie, GNMA, FHA, CRA and even VA loans) are gimmicks designed to increase demand for housing; when demand increases in the face of supply which cannot be met…..prices rise. None of that is controversial.
HOWEVER, that level at which all those agencies goose demand, and demand in the private markets, is dependent on a variable; that being the Fed Funds rate. When the Fed raised rates in 2007, that started a chain reaction which would not have occurred IF the government hadn’t had a load of programs designed to make money easy to get, AND hadn’t change their own rules in 1997 to allow Frannie to underwrite shit mortgages.
There were several factors caused by poor decision-making of individuals, banks, and the government.
An understatement to be sure. However, there is a sequential process to that “bad decision making” which starts with the reality that it was the government alphabet agencies that enabled those bad decisions in the first place.
You didn’t think the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission was going to assign blame to themselves, did you? :-)