Posts Tagged ‘environment’

600

Special mention

hammock_590_396 West Virginia

ME_116_MarketsOnTrees

It used to be Harvard-based neoclassical economists could count on their Republican friends and allies to support their free-market policies. Now, apparently, not so much.

That’s the only explanation for why Jeffrey Frankel has to step forward and attempt to remind Republicans that market mechanisms—such as cap-and-trade and Obamacare—were their idea.

In the US, cap-and-trade was originally considered a Republican idea. Market-friendly regulation was pushed by those who thought of themselves as pro-market, rather than by those who thought of themselves as pro-regulation. . .

Republican politicians have now forgotten that this approach was ever their policy. To defeat the last major climate bill in 2009, they worked themselves into a frenzy of anti-regulation rhetoric. . .

One can draw a fascinating parallel between the evolution of American political attitudes toward market mechanisms in the area of environmental regulation and Republican hostility to the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. Obamacare is a market mechanism in the sense that health insurers and care providers remain private and compete against each other.

Frankel is, in fact, right. Both cap-and-trade and Obamacare came straight out of Republican think tanks, precisely in the way neoclassical economists had designed them. Then, they were the best of friends. Now, apparently, Republicans have to be reminded of that friendship.

Or scared into remembering that close relationship. Because, Frankel warns, the alternative is more government regulation.

It really is a sign of how much political and economic discourse has changed in the United States that it’s Democrats who are implementing market-based, originally Republican-designed policies. And that, even more: from the perspective of someone like Frankel, any government regulation of business (not, mind you, government ownership) can blithely be referred to as “command and control.”

moochers720

Special mention

NnWDU.AuSt.79 Steve Bell on St George defending The dragon 16.01.2014

and011514web-600x446

Special mention

Martin Rowson 13/01/14 142977_600

where-billionaires-come-from-cartoon

Special mention

cool-cartoon-economy-greed-money 142559_600

141482_600

Special mention

Sorensen-shopping

 

What’s the difference between Massey Energy’s Upper Big Branch mine in Montcoal, West Virginia and Ohio Cooperative Solar in Cleveland? The mine, in which 29 workers were killed in 2010, created wealth for CEO Don Blankenship and Massey’s shareholders and “illth”—poisoned streams, toxic air, and deliberate inattention to safety in and around the mine—for everyone else. Ohio Cooperative Solar, in contrast, is a worker-owned enterprise that operates on a one-worker/one-vote model and, as part of the Evergreen Cooperatives, seeks to improve conditions for its workers and the surrounding communities.

As Erik Reece [ht: db] explains in a remarkable recent essay, “The End of Illth,”

As CEO of Massey, Don Blankenship hadn’t dug up an ounce of coal, but in his last year at the company he walked away with $17.8 million and a deferred compensation package valued at $27.2 million. [Former CEO Steve] Kiel told me that under the formula OCS had developed, profit-shares were determined one third by a worker’s wages, one third by the hours he or she had worked that year, and one third by his or her overall tenure with the company. The model sought to reward commitment to the co-op and to the community.

“The deal we make with employees is that this is not an overnight ATM machine,” Kiel said. “You’re going to have to work here eight to ten years before you see the benefits of ownership. . . . What we get in return as a community is people living in these neighborhoods for long periods of time with long-term job security, and that leads to the entire community stabilization we’re looking for.” What’s more, when the workers are the stakeholders, long-term thinking about what’s best for the company replaces the short-term, profit-driven motives of today’s average shareholder. “Most capitalists have a return-on-investment threshold,” Kiel said. “Typically venture capital is going to put up a million dollars up front and will look to get a [huge] annual return. We don’t have that capitalist on board, so we have a different measure, which is how many people can we hire.”

The worker-owned model advocated by Reece represents a new answer to the question “which side are you on?” not only for the traditional coal-mining areas in Appalachia but for the rest of the country.

wuc130917_605

Special mention

labor-history-what-now-490 137605_600

137439_600

Special mention

137402_600 5zPad.AuSt.79

Bolling-1-8

Special mention

135398_600 July 31, 2013