One of the things the Right Wing and Conservatives in this country espouse is the desire to be free of government interference and intervention. I agree that the government should not interfere in our lives unreasonably. It is that term “reasonably” that really becomes the issue.
I am regularly listening to my Conservative friends rail about the abuses of various alphabet soup agencies, one being the EPA. Let us look at the EPA as an example, but let us look at the EPA first, in a comparative analysis to private industry.
We have, in the United States, developed a concept called the “corporation.” I shall, for the purposes of discussion, use this term interchangeably with the term business, manufacturer, and all manner of profit-making endeavors. Corporations have, to the exclusions of all others, one, single, solitary, purpose in the world. No, it is not to make a product, no, it is not to provide a service and no, it is not to make the world a better place for all. These are, at best, byproducts of the primary goal, or they are the way that corporations accomplish the primary goal. The only reason a corporation exists is to make money, and make as much money as it is physically capable of making.
A corporation does not, contrary to all the public relations campaigns on the planet, have a conscience. Corporations are a lot like robots or computers in the steadfast achievement of their goals. They do whatever is necessary to make ever-increasing profits. The right and the wrong of what they are doing does not come into play unless there is a financial downside to it. We have recently seen how even the prospect of going to jail does not seem to be a deterrent; Enron, Goldman-Sachs, Massey Energy, Bernie Madoff, etc.
The other thing that a corporation does not have is a truly long-term way of viewing things. Corporations only think in the relatively short term. They forecast out maybe five or ten years as far as profits and such are concerned. Sure, they do financial planning way out into the future, but that does not have to do with how they do business, it has more to do with borrowed and invested money. If we borrow this much money for 40 years, or invest this much money for 40 years, what does it cost us or how much does it make us? These are the kinds of questions they ask in the long term. The corporation things about how much money they will be making in five or ten years, but they do not think about the consequences associated with making that money. They look to get the relatively quick buck and then get out while the getting’ is good, about the time they have done so much damage it will take, literally, an act of Congress to fix it.
There are legitimate reasons why the government has to intervene in our lives, usually for the greater good. Let’s look at the consequence side of the issue. Let’s assume that a corporation is engaged in the manufacture of “widgets.” In the process of making the widgets, they produce a significant amount of air and water pollution. As long as they do not make too much pollution, that people in the area begin to notice on a daily basis, no one will complain, for the most part. If, however, on a daily basis they belch smoke into the sky that causes people to cough, hack and wheeze and put chemicals into the water that cause people to get sick and die in the short term, they have a problem with which they will deal. However, if the problem is not too serious in the short term, but the chemicals in the air and water build up slowly, they are not likely to worry until it becomes a serious problem that is recognizable.
The take-home point here is that there is no self-regulation. It is not going to occur because it is not consistent with the free-enterprise system. Controlling pollution does not make money and therefore there is no reason, within the free-enterprise system to control it. It is not profitable. I know, there are those that would tell us that when it becomes profitable enough to control environmental pollution, then companies will be formed to deal with it and technologies will be created as well. Probably, but after how much irreparable damage has been done?
The existence of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is predicated on the above. It is not in the corporate interest to control air and water pollution in the short term, so a governmental agency steps in and by legal fiat (mandate) makes them. The EPA steps in for the greater good of all and forces the corporation to be responsible. I know there are people that argue they have overstepped and overspent and over-everything. There are those that also argue that in our difficult economic times, regulation must be cut back, so corporations and businesses can make more money, create more jobs and employ more people. While it may not be popular, the fact still remains, from the 1960’s and 70’s when “pollution” finally became a problem perceived by the population, that no matter how many jobs we create, no matter how many people we employ, no matter how much economic prosperity we have, it isn’t going to make a whole lot of difference if we do not have water to drink and air to breath. So, we have set our priorities.
I will agree with my Conservative friends that when the EPA starts regulating milk spills under the same terms as they regulate oil spills, they lose credibility and it kinda gets easy to laugh at them. If BP had dumped 4.9 million barrels of milk into the Gulf of Mexico, I am not sure we would have been screaming as loudly as we did (keep in mind, I live in Florida). It would not have been a good thing, but it would not have been near as bad as oil. Yet, our EPA wants to protect us from that which we drink every day. Aside from those of us that are lactose intolerant and those that are allergic, the harmful effects are limited. Is it necessary for the EPA to regulate milk? I think it is just bureaucratic turf grab, personally, but it is not a reason to disband an entire regulatory agency that does have a legitimate job to do. Kinda like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
We need to be very, very careful when we start thinking about eliminating government regulation because it has a purpose and is necessary. The Conservatives have adopted the mantra that the private sector, free-enterprise system and Capitalism can solve all the problems of the world. They might, maybe are right, but by the time it becomes profitable to fix the problems they create, how much death, damage and destruction has occurred?
No comments:
Post a Comment