The main problem with placing consumers in charge is that they are generally uninformed and prey to Bernaysian psychological marketing manipulation. If not for my lack of faith in the average consumer, I'd agree with you 100%. Edit: Also, shareholders would have equal or greater power than consumers, and within this "power struggle", greed remains the primary motivation.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3ykR5x6ZdI[/youtube] How the public is manipulated by corporations to want things they don't need ....
So you are saying that there should be some authority that makes decisions about purchases on our behalf? :/
No. I'm saying people are stupid, easily led, and will inevitably, unknowingly, delegate their power to whoever whispers in their ear often enough.
The industrialists are the ones that make the products and the pollution it creates. They are also the same group that want the masses to take responsibility for it...
That is what they want the public to believe so they can preserve their wealth especially when it comes to the idea of a carbon tax .... let the people pay .... And by the way, the earth is not the centre of the universe and nor is it flat ... even though many i am sure thought it was a load of "shite" ...
I'm not exactly sure what point you are trying to make so I'll respond to two possible ones. First, "pollution" is only an issue if it affects the property of others in which case this is simply a legal issue that is independent of capitalism. Yes, producers have economic incentives to inappropriately dispose of their unwanted property (ie waste) but so does every single individual so, again, this has nothing to do with capitalism. Second, as per the post, producers only make products because customers want them (or in the expectation that they will be wanted). The customers are responsible for the presence of large numbers of cars, trucks, electricity, drugs, sugary beverages, etc in existence and which brands, product lines are in existence compared to others. The suppliers are responsible for offering goods at the prices they wish (or are able) to supply them. They simply offer X tonnes of nutritionless, tasteless tomatoes free of blemishes of a consistent size and appealing colour at $x/kg and either they sell compared to the organic, blemished, nutrient packed oddly shaped tomatoes at $y/kg or they do not. If they do not sell they won't be produced in any significant quantity. In the face of what else is available on the market the supplier can change the X tonnes and/or the $x/kg and that is the limit of their power. Suppliers offer a vast array of products that can possibly be made with the resources and technology available to them. Consumers dictate what should be offered and who should offer them.
I am not in Kansas. The Deepwater Horizon disaster should have shaken people out of their day dreaming but it seems not. China's production rate says it all about capitalism theory ...
.... they say, as they pull up in their concrete driveway in their car, walk into their house full of consumer items, turn their lights on, use their PC to log on to a forum that supports mining and smelting... .... :lol: :lol: :lol:
and wear one lousy Tshirt .... Producing it took 2,700 liters of water, plus it takes a lot of energy to get it from the cotton fields to your closet. http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/cotton-tshirts Apart from the environmental impact, how much do these companies pay in tax? SFA ....
It could go to clean up their act but why should they when the ignorant public is willing to pick up the tab ....
