A New Capitalism with Blood and Gore

George Rebane

Al Gore and David Blood have written ‘A Manifesto for Sustainable Capitalism’ in the 14dec11 WSJ.  This is a remarkable tour de farce that demonstrates conclusively the gross ignorance that both authors have of human nature and capitalism.  We recall that both are also with Generation Investment Management, a private lobbying and investment firm that uses something it calls “sustainability research” to identify enterprises in which to invest.  In their own words –

Generation has built a global research platform to integrate sustainability research into fundamental equity analysis. … We focus on key drivers of global change, including climate change and environmental degradation; poverty and development; water and natural resource scarcity; pandemics and healthcare; and demographics, migration and urbanization.

From their website one quickly concludes that Blood and Gore (an appropriately named pair) are in the business of profiting from almost every dimension of human misery available – manmade and natural.  (You remember Big Al, the guy who couldn’t convince anyone that he invented the internet?  But he did invent Anthropogenic Global Warming, and for that they gave him a Nobel prize.)  Now all these two need is to have some witless government guarantee markets for and then subsidize certain private enterprises which can then capitalize on a supposedly sustainable approach to alleviating the problem.  And their considered bet is that witless governments abound – who can forget Solyndra et al?

In their ‘manifesto’ these two socio-political mavens propose to revamp capitalism into an economic system that addresses “real needs while integrating environmental, social, and governance (ESG) metrics throughout the decision making process.”   These TBD metrics are supposed to incorporate the “true value” of a business activity, and meld ESG with the traditional profit motive.  However, all of this will take place in future managed markets (with “established fair prices”)  in which the new sustainable capitalism is to deliver its returns in the “encouraged longer term” through “incentivized” investing with “loyalty-driven securities”.

Apparently through the more than nudged “embrace (of) environmental, social, and governance metrics”, things will be worked out so that governments can easily identify and justify commensurate public policies which assure that the metrically correct corporations will succeed.  As anyone familiar with utility theory knows, such metrics or utilities can be fashioned and cobbled together to justify damn near any preferential policy desired.  The main thing is to control the manufacture of the metric, and that presumably is where Generation Investment Management’s boys and girls and their “sustainability research” will come in to lend a hand.

Now I don’t know why Big Al and his sidekick wanted to have their manifesto published in the op-ed section of the WSJ, arguably the most read newspaper pages in the world.  You may respond, well there you have it, they wanted the most eyeballs exposed to their newest road to a socialist command economy.  But here’s the rub, WSJ readers know all about Big Al, the manic mental midget.   To them the manifesto is an entertaining (read laughable) form of ‘forewarned is forearmed’.

Comments

[Account Deleted]

Another important feature of capitalism is competition. Many companies may sell the same type of product. A feature that is very rampant in whatever industry. Nowadays, there is no more unique idea.

How to Start a Business
https://www.doobizz.com/

[Russ Steele]

George, this may be a coordinated campaign. Here is an article at Fox News on the new EPA Sustainability Initiiative.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency wants to change how it analyzes problems and makes decisions, in a way that will give it vastly expanded power to regulate businesses, communities and ecosystems in the name of “sustainable development,” the centerpiece of a global United Nations conference slated for Rio de Janeiro next June.

The major focus of the EPA thinking is a weighty study the agency commissioned last year from the National Academies of Science. Published in August, the study, entitled “Sustainability and the U.S. EPA,” cost nearly $700,000 and involved a team of a dozen outside experts and about half as many National Academies staff.

Its aim: how to integrate sustainability “as one of the key drivers within the regulatory responsibilities of EPA.” The panel who wrote the study declares part of its job to be “providing guidance to EPA on how it might implement its existing statutory authority to contribute more fully to a more sustainable-development trajectory for the United States.”

Or, in other words, how to use existing laws to new ends.

According to the Academies, the sustainability study “both incorporates and goes beyond an approach based on assessing and managing the risks posed by pollutants that has largely shaped environmental policy since the 1980s.”

It is already known in EPA circles as the “Green Book,” and is frequently compared by insiders to the “Red Book,” a study on using risk management techniques to guide evaluation of carcinogenic chemicals that the agency touts as the basis of its overall approach to environmental issues for the past 30 years.

At the time that the “Green Book” study was commissioned, in August, 2010, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson termed it “the next phase of environmental protection,” and asserted that it will be “fundamental to the future of the EPA.”

Read more here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/19/epa-ponders-expanded-regulatory-power-in-name-sustainable-development/?test=latestnews#ixzz1gzalDQls

[George Rebane]

That's a good pick-up Russ. I too would be surprised if this were a coincidence. The government gun has to come in there somewhere. Direct (mis)picks of winners and losers (a la Solyndra et al) has proven embarrassing. Now, basing their picks on sustainability computed from a dodgy metric may be much more palatable since it easier to bamboozle the populace who can't separate a metric from their mess kits.

[Account Deleted]

For this process to be fully implemented the govt will need to get rid of all physical money. Otherwise, a large and thriving underground economy will spring up to provide what is actually important to people at exchange rates that reflect reality as opposed to what the govt considers important. Direct bartering is only workable to a certain degree. I'm wondering at what sort of universal item of value could be used for this purpose that would be able to bypass easy detection by the authorities. Gold and other precious metals are out. The new attempts at electronic 'peoples' cash would be quashed instantly, as the 'people' don't control the internet.
Here in California, we are moving forward with various govt mandated energy products that carry 'true green value' price tags. Read: higher costs for what the volk really want in order to subsidize the less valuable 'green' energy products that the enlightened elites think we should really want.

[www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmNWbVtDRGQBpPJEsSqSh1AePLXrZrp3tc]

I can just imagine what the Chinese must think when they read about this stuff. Isn't it amazing that the industrialists in a socialist country now have a better idea of how to benefit from capitalism than some of the imagined movers and shakers in this country. I bet not one of them ever has any feeling of guilt at all while they are taking candy from a baby.

No hope.

[Russ Steele]

Scott:

At some point ammunition for our guns will have a high value. All the folks at the Fathers Day Sale up at the Range understand the value, as they wheel out hand trucks loaded with ammo. At the Reno gun show 18 wheelers full of ammo sell out in less than two hours.

[George Rebane]

It is noteworthy but not surprising that this proposal for 'sustainable capitalism' is drawing so little support from the Left both here and in the WSJ. Does this mean that the understanding of how economies work is beginning to gain some traction in the Left's collective intellect - i.e. is the resulting blood and gore from following Blood and Gore's proposal so obvious to such a wide range of ideologies that it's just best to let it lie?