• aesthelete@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    4 months ago

    or you could say “producers, you’re now paying for the disposal of packaging yourself”

    Definitely wouldn’t solve the problem as they’d just find the cheapest method of disposal to match the letter of the law and go about their day.

    Corporations don’t self-regulate. They regulate the regulators. They work and then later buy the refs.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Definitely wouldn’t solve the problem as they’d just find the cheapest method of disposal to match the letter of the law and go about their day.

      Those are illegal. Already were before. I’m not talking about a hypothetical, here, the policy is over 30 years old.

      Corporations don’t self-regulate. They regulate the regulators. They work and then later buy the refs.

      Yeah if they do that were you are then maybe elect better politicians. They sure as hell try it over here but it’s not nearly as much as an issue as e.g. in the US.

      • aesthelete@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        I dunno if I were in Germany I wouldn’t be so smug about electing politicians that prevent a slide into fascism.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Are you actually trying to make a point or did you simply want to be hostile.

          • aesthelete@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            My point is that it’s not as simple as setting “common sense” neoliberal rules when the corporations actively evade them. The problem in the US is also more complicated than you’re making it, here we need to basically redo a court which is full of people on lifetime appointments in order to roll back their ruling that political corruption is basically free speech.

            • barsoap@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              The stuff I described was not a neoliberal rule at all, they abhor any kind of regulation that’s not securing property rights for the affluent.

              This “regulate away market failures to approach the ideal of the free market better” thing is ordoliberalism. An actual economic theory I don’t fully agree with but which is mostly sane, and is, most of all, unlike neoliberalism not pure class war. Ordoliberalism e.g. considers welfare necessary so that the labour market isn’t stacked in favour of the employers.

              • aesthelete@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                The stuff I described was not a neoliberal rule at all, they abhor any kind of regulation that’s not securing property rights for the affluent.

                Don’t agree with your definition of “neoliberal” really at all, and especially not within the context of American politics. It’s too narrow and wouldn’t fit most any politician.

                This “regulate away market failures to approach the ideal of the free market better” thing is ordoliberalism.

                Do we really have to have yet another esoteric term for what is largely the same school of thought?

                I am not really sure what point you are trying to make other than arguing definitions. Much of or even most of prominent American politicians in the last half century or so could be classified as neoliberals. They favor “market”-based solutions to everything and “public-private” partnerships. Many of those still consider welfare necessary as well so they’d be “ordoliberals” in your book.

                Ordoliberalism is the German variant of economic liberalism that emphasizes the need for government to ensure that the free market produces results close to its theoretical potential but does not advocate for a welfare state. Ordoliberal ideals became the foundation of the creation of the post-World War II German social market economy and its attendant Wirtschaftswunder.

                Actually, maybe not because that just sounds like German for neoliberal.

                The concept of regulatory capture is the fundamental illustrating concept in modern US politics. Industry groups and the wealthy sit on our politicians until they get exactly what they want. Traditional and increasingly even social media serve as the persuasion arm for the wealthy, industrial class. Simple rules added in good faith and followed by industry groups via “self-regulation” simply do not work here. Even if you pass the rule and then later try to enforce it, enforcement is made toothless by our Supreme Court.

                There are a few places in the country where politicians can hit back at industry groups with some degree of success, but even in our most “ordoliberal” or “liberal liberal” or “neoliberal” or “choco-moco-latta-yaya-liberal” states, industry mostly wins.

                And we’re just ahead of the curve in the slow slide toward fascism. Exactly as the Nobel laureate here is saying, neoliberalism is just another mechanism used to hollow out the government from within and make it ineffective until it serves mostly no one, and then that disenchantment with material conditions over time leads to right-wing populism (a.k.a. fascism).

                The Marxists have been saying this all along, and I am not a Marxist though I agree with a lot of Marx’s analysis on capitalism and industry. I think there is an alternative, and I think mid-century American politics illustrated it…strong unions, a welfare state, tax policy that levels out wealth inequality, and a government capable of regulating industry.

                • barsoap@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  strong unions, a welfare state, tax policy that levels out wealth inequality, and a government capable of regulating industry.

                  All those are absolutely things in line with, required by, ordoliberalism. They are very much not in line with neoliberalism. Maybe you should’ve actually read the theory section of that wikipedia article you linked because it talks about unions, of welfare, progressive taxation, and definitely regulations.

                  Speaking of Marx: He is, via Weber, a definite influence on ordoliberalism. The Freiburg school (whence ordoliberalism) is to economics what the Frankfurt school (whence critical theory) is to sociology.

                  I said it before and I’ll say it again: The American mind can’t comprehend European social liberals.

                  Simple rules added in good faith and followed by industry groups via “self-regulation” simply do not work here. Even if you pass the rule and then later try to enforce it, enforcement is made toothless by our Supreme Court.

                  That may very well be. But you’re talking about the US, specifically. Complaining about regulation not working in the US is like complaining that rule of law is a non-starter in Somalia: The issue is not the idea of the rule of law, but Somalia being Somalia.

                  • aesthelete@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    I said it before and I’ll say it again: The American mind can’t comprehend European social liberals.

                    Oh so smug, and yet still “European social liberals” are constantly on the brink of having their own outbreak of fascism.

                    I think that one of the few reasons the Nazi party hasn’t re-emerged in Germany is that it’s strictly forbidden by law.

                    But you’re talking about the US, specifically. Complaining about regulation not working in the US is like complaining that rule of law is a non-starter in Somalia: The issue is not the idea of the rule of law, but Somalia being Somalia.

                    Oh yes, it’s simply because the US is the US, and has nothing to do with the fact that we’ve had neoliberal politicians for approximately 50 years. All of that stuff I mentioned at the end of my last post was describing mid 20th century US politics.

                    Also, comments like “rule of law doesn’t work in Somalia because it’s Somalia” show me you have exactly nothing to add to any conversation about geopolitics and borders on racism.