Definitely not the solution. Ending capitalism for some other form of economy is the only way in my opinion. Not that I don’t think people should be rewarded for the products and services they offer just that the incentive to make cheap shit and sell an upgrade every year is definitely harmful to our earth. The problem I see is I don’t know what type of economic solution there is that would fit.
I think the tools to solve the challenges of waste, environmental damage etc. already exist within the framework of capitalism. Mostly they are just unpopular and seen by many as a government overreach.
1. taxes that force corporations and individuals to pay for the negative externalities / social costs of their actions
2. regulation (e.g. stop allowing planned obsolence, mandate the right to repair etc.)
3. government spending into R&D, incentives and subsidies for renewables etc.
Anyway, my point is that the issue is basically one of co-ordination and political will. It obviously doesn't help that many Americans (and Australians too for that matter, where I live) don't accept the basic facts of the situation (before we can even discuss solutions).
>Anyway, my point is that the issue is basically one of co-ordination and political will
Again, what does "political will" mean? What are you going to do to those that disagree? Lock them up? Exterminate them? What is the solution to force people to do your bidding, and has it ever worked?
I assume they mean convince enough people to implement the proposed policies that they can fix things through normal, legal means. "Forcing people to do your bidding" normally consists of winning elections and then implementing and enforcing legislation. This is how we force people who want to shoplift, cheat on their taxes, or murder to do our bidding. It doesn't work perfectly, but it only has to work well enough.
Theft is also a problem of political will. If people would just not steal, the problem of theft would be solved. For some definition of "solution", it is a solution. But not a useful or realistic one. It's just not going to happen in any reasonable timeframe. Only if human nature itself changes in some distant future. Same thing applies to environmental damage.
I have yet to hear of an economic model that humans have discovered which is better than free market capitalism.
The issue isn't the cheap junk; it's the demand for the cheap junk. Things would be far more sustainable if people focused on reducing their consumption habbits, as producers would be run out of business.
The free market is probably the best we are going to get, but we need to address some of its known failure modes: externalities, monopolies, and the imbalance of power between employers and employees.
Externalities: any negative externality upon an involuntarily third party can become illegal via law. This can cover things like littering, servitude, etc.
Monopolies: the free market has yet to produce a monopoly that increases prices for consumers if there isn't a natural monopoly. The gov deals with allocation of naturally constrained resources such as radio frequencies.
Imbalance of power: just save more. Save enough so you can wake up comfortable with the idea that you were fired overnight. It dissolves any power imbalance when your boss needs you as much as you need the income.
