The Social Cost of Capitalism

Guest Post by Paul Craig Roberts

Few, if any, corporations absorb the full cost of their operations. Corporations shove many of their costs onto the environment, the public sector, and distant third parties. For example, currently 3 million gallons of toxic waste water from a Colorado mine has escaped and is working its way down two rivers into Utah and Lake Powell. At least seven city water systems dependent on the rivers have been shut down. The waste was left by private enterprise, and the waste was accidentally released by the Environmental Protection Agency, which might be true or might be a coverup for the mine. If the Lake Powell reservoir ends up polluted, it is likely that the cost of the mine imposed on third parties exceeds the total value of the mine’s output over its entire life.

Economists call these costs “external costs” or “social costs.” The mine made its profits by creating pollutants, the cost of which is born by those who had no share in the profits.

As this is the way regulated capitalism works, you can imagine how bad unregulated capitalism would be. Just think about the unregulated financial system, the consequences we are still suffering with more to come.

Despite massive evidence to the contrary, libertarians hold tight to their romantic concept of capitalism, which, freed from government interference, serves the consumer with the best products at the lowest prices.

If only.

Progressives have their own counterpart to the libertarians’ romanticism. Progressives regard government as the white knight that protects the public from the greed of capitalists.

If only.

Everyone, and most certainly libertarians and progressives, should read Jeffrey St. Clair’s book, Born Under A Bad Sky (2008). St. Clair is an engaging writer, and his book is rewarding on many levels. If you have never floated the Western rivers or met the challenge of treacherous rapids or camped among mosquitoes and rattlesnakes, you can experience these facets of life vicariously with St. Clair, while simultaneously learning how corruption in the Park Service, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management results in timber companies, mining companies, and cattle ranchers making money by plundering national forests and public lands.

The public subsidies provided to miners, loggers, and ranchers are as extravagant and as harmful to the public interest as the subsidies that the Federal Reserve and Treasury provide to the “banks too big to fail.”

Progressives and libertarians need to read St. Clair’s accounts of how the Forest Service creates roads into trackless forests in order to subsidize timber companies’ felling of old growth forest and habitat destruction for endangered and rare species. Our romanticists need to learn how less valuable lands are traded for more valuable public lands in order to transfer wealth from the public to private hands. They need to learn that allowing ranchers to utilize public lands results in habitat destruction and the destruction of stream banks and aquatic life. They need to understand that the heads of the federal protective agencies themselves are timber, mining, and ranching operatives who work for private companies and not for the public. Americans of all persuasions need to understand that just as senators and representatives are bought and paid for by the military/security complex, Wall Street, and the Israel Lobby, they are owned also by mining, timber and ranching interests.

The public interest is nowhere in the picture.

The two largest reservoirs, Lake Mead and Lake Powell, are at 39% and 52% of capacity. The massive lakes on which the Western United States is dependent are drying up. And now Lake Powell is faced with receiving 3 million gallons of waste water containing arsenic, lead, copper, aluminum and cadmium. Wells in the flood plains of the polluted rivers are also endangered.

The pollutants, which turned the rivers orange, flowed down the Animas River from Silverton, Colorado through Durango into the San Juan River in Farmington, New Mexico, a river that flows into the Colorado River that feeds Lake Powell and Lake Mead.

All of this damage from one capitalist mine.

In November of last year, US Rep. Chris Stewart (R.Utah) got his bill passed by the House. Stewart is a hit man for capitalism. His bill “is designed to prevent qualified, independent scientists from advising the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). They will be replaced with industry affiliated choices, who may or may not have relevant scientific expertise, but whose paychecks benefit from telling the EPA what their employers want to hear.” http://www.iflscience.com/environment/epa-barred-getting-advice-scientists

Rep. Stewart says it is a matter of balancing scientific facts with industry interests.

And there you have it.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
8 Comments
Iska Waran
Iska Waran
August 12, 2015 7:48 am

That’s not the social cost of capitalism per se, it’s the social cost of cronyism which afflicts socialist counties as well.

klyde
klyde
August 12, 2015 8:01 am

I learned this from “love canal” in the 70’s. They were recently bumping into that contamination again when they repaved some roads to find that alot of the dug up and disposed of pollutants turned up in the road asphalt and base they were removing.

Anonymous
Anonymous
August 12, 2015 8:23 am

The “social cost” of all other systems is in evidence by large numbers of their populations trying everything they can -often at risk of death- to get to one of the Capitalist systems.

The flow of migrants, both legal and illegal, is from there to here not here to there.

The damage to the Animas and San Juan was done by the government who will go largely free of consequence, not a Capitalist who would be held accountable to the extreme degree.

FWIW, China is an outstanding example of how well Communism deals with all these things. You would prefer that system maybe?

dc.sunsets
dc.sunsets
August 12, 2015 9:05 am

Bull.

His “social cost of capitalism” is simply a TRESPASS, aka a tort!

The only way this goes on is with complicity from the political system; in an honest world (without politics) those harmed would seek redress from anyone who bore responsibility for polluting or otherwise trespassing on their property.

You want to see the REAL future issue with this?

Nuclear power plants.

All nuke plants in the US are past their original design life. NOT ONE of them is operated by a power company that has socked away the money to decommission them, which is why they are being licensed to operate, and operate, and operate….

Eventually this will come back to haunt us all. I have no problem with nuclear power done properly. The fact that it was always a creature of the political system (which protected it from liability) makes the nuclear power industry a disaster just awaiting its cue to come on stage.

The fact that this nuke plant crisis will undoubtedly occur amidst a figurative meltdown of US finance and social cohesion just adds plutonium icing to the heavy metal cake.

Falconflight
Falconflight
August 12, 2015 9:41 am

These days, PCR is sounding much like any Sierra Club/Democratic Party functionary. Tiring just like the Rachel Madcow hour on MSNBC.

BigStupid
BigStupid
August 12, 2015 12:04 pm

@dc.sunsets

It’s pretty common practice for generation assets to be essentially abandoned by the owner – decommissioning tends to get picked up by the ISO for the region (translation – rate-payers/consumers). The extension of plant life is another issue in which the politicians manage to fuck-up. Building new plants is expensive as hell, either becomes a part of the rate-base in regulated, or drives the base rate charged in de-regulated market. No politician is willing to allow their ‘constituents’ to see the real cost of maintaining power plants so they use gimmicks like extensions to allow the operators to squeeze more money out of the assets.

The plants themselves aren’t as much of a problem as when they play this game with transmission assets. When a key component of a plant fails (barring catastrophic failures – eg. fukushima) the redundancies in place are designed to allow a controlled shutdown. With D&T assets, when you have a failure, they tend to be spectacular (look up arc-flash explosions, substation failure) and can cause cascading failures throughout the grid.

Considering the state of the grid across NA (ageing, poorly secured, near capacity, underfunded, deferred maintenance…) having a plant go down isn’t as big an issue as having a key HV transmission sub go – there is redundancy of supply (a mandated 10% extra production capacity for example)baked into the grid so to speak, but loosing the wrong transformer (with 6-24 month lead time, 0 stock) can send an entire region back to the stone age for years (or just double/triple power bills as the companies running the system get to extort their captive customers).

phoolish
phoolish
August 12, 2015 5:40 pm

You got no “controlled shutdown” when there is no plan and no option for dealing with spent nuke waste.

Westcoaster
Westcoaster
August 12, 2015 8:06 pm

Let us remember that Fukushima is still spewing as much & probably more rads per hour as it did back in 3/11. The buildings are sinking into the Earth due to the melted corium escaping the containment and getting into the environment.

It’s fucking amazing to me that anyone could have anything positive to say about nuclear power with this as an example of what can happen, and keep happening for the next 10,000 years.

We have an aircraft carrier full of Navy crew exposed to the deadly cloud from the reactor explosion. Many are already dead or dying. People all over Japan have thyroid problems and it’s worse with kids.

This is a great site for news about Fukushima:

http://enenews.com/officials-trillions-becquerels-radioactive-material-flowing-sea-fukushima-map-shows-nuclear-waste-flowing-bottom-ocean-offshore-japan-tv-journalist-contaminated-seawater-will-circulate-around-gl