the structure or design of our markets/economy hindering us from developing a better way forward? — Benj96

Market prices reflect the totality of the information in the economy. If we want more guacamole silverware and less plastic, we'll have to contribute to that well of info through legislation that increases the price of plastic or subsidizes guacamole.

The eco company has no choice but to accept this charge as they don't find an alternative. Now the price of eco cutlery goes up to maintain profit margins and is now more expensive than plastic cutlery. — Benj96

it gets worse: between them, the two companies have increased the demand for avocado pits - if not necessarily avocado fruit. And then, some other cleverboots sees an opportunity to use avocado pit in place of plastic, manages to get hold of the formula or its inventor - which is a legal booby-trap waiting down the line. At first, this merely increases the price avocado farmers charge for their produce, but then the demand for just the pits skyrockets, and a lot of the fruit is left to rot, until somebody figures out a way to use it for fuel, so another byproduct is in huge demand again, so they start importing from Kenya instead of buying from California, which, of course, adds to transport costs and pollution. Some California farmers spotted the trend a couple of years in and turned fields of strawberries into avocado orchards, but they have to wait another twelve more years for even a modest a harvest, by which the time, the whole avocado craze may have peaked and declined. Meanwhile, there is a scarcity of strawberries, driving up the price and bolstering imports from Mexico, which is a great opportunity for smugglers...

Is the structure or design of our markets/economy hindering us from developing a better way forward? — Benj96

Not hindering. Preventing. Putting the kibosh on.

Market prices reflect the totality of the information in the economy. — frank

No they don't. The whole reason arbitrage works is because information assymetry, which we even see in highly liquid, transparent stock markets, let alone complex relationships resulting from the interaction of various supply chains.

No they don't. The whole reason arbitrage works is because information assymetry, which we even see in highly liquid, transparent stock markets, let alone complex relationships resulting from the interaction of various supply chains. — Benkei

Which part of that is outside the economy?

Your OP exemplifies the folly of a profit driven free market economy.
Capitalism fully supports and maintains the pernicious global plutocracy that the human race currently suffers under. You can choose to be part of it's support, or you can do what you can to help dismantle it.

I see nothing wrong with the way the market functions in the example. It has nothing to do with greed or capitalism. This is how economies have always functioned.

If the eco cutlery producer expected a free lunch, that's their mistake. There is no free lunch.

It has nothing to do with greed or capitalism. — Tzeentch

:lol: Sure! and pigs are vegetarians!

that's their mistake. There is no free lunch. — Tzeentch

Even for a starving child?

If you were out in a forest, and you ate berries, growing on a bush for your lunch, does that count as a free lunch?

[

This is how economies have always functioned. — Tzeentch

Economies have not always worked in a capitalistic manner. Economies (the flow of resources, goods and services) predates capital - monetary systems.
Bartering is another economic system as is simply sharing amongst a small tribal community.

Hence as I highlighted before, the modern way economies work hinders environmental consideration/sustainability for a fundamental reason - our attitude towards the world as an object to be owned, mined, deforested etc for objective resources.

But "stability" is a resource too. Its just not a material one - such that you can put in your pocket and sell to the highest bidder.

Stability as a resource is a highly important one as anything that is unstable, or unsustainable eventually collapses. And climate change is exactly the example of how mother nature is demonstrating our economies impacts in action.

The OPs moral kernel, is that a good idea (done with the ecosystems benefit in mind, stability or sustainability ) is strangled by the restrictions of how economy works based on profitability.

Eco-cutlery is appealing to consumers if it is as cheap as fossil fuel plastic cutlery. As no one wants to be at a financial loss but at the same time value anything healthier and better for their conscience.

The error here is that while there is innate demand for eco products, people monetise the means to manufacture the supplies to meet such demand (the guac company charging for avocado pits which they previously saw as a waste product that actually cost them to get rid of).

And that corrupts the innately good idea based on the free lunch (waste products being up cycled or used to make meaningful of valuable products).

If the eco cutlery producer expected a free lunch, that's their mistake. There is no free lunch. — Tzeentch

Ironically, we are the only species that "pays to survive".
Nature offers free lunch. All the time in fact. Sunlight is free lunch for plants, plants are free lunch for herbivores and fungi etc.

The only thing any living thing "pays" for lunch is the energy required to capture and digest it. Which must always be cheaper than the energy they receive from that lunch otherwise they are in a "starvation to death" trajectory.

So survival is free according to nature provided you're fit enough to eat. If you're not fit enough to eat, you're still fit enough to be eaten. You become the lunch.
They are your fundamental 2 choices

So no I don't believe it was the mistake if the Ecocutlery company to seek out a free lunch, they saw the value in a waste product. It was a mistake of our economic systems to ever believe it wasn't free in the first place (converting newfound value in waste into a charge/fee to access it)

If you were out in a forest, and you ate berries, growing on a bush for your lunch, does that count as a free lunch? — universeness

Only if you're gone before the bear family arrives.

the modern way economies work hinders environmental consideration/sustainability for a fundamental reason - our attitude towards the world as an object to be owned, mined, deforested etc for objective resources. — Benj96

Yessss!!!

But "stability" is a resource too. — Benj96

:clap: :clap:

Your OP exemplifies the folly of a profit driven free market economy.
Capitalism fully supports and maintains the pernicious global plutocracy that the human race currently suffers under. You can choose to be part of it's support, or you can do what you can to help dismantle it. — universeness

True. Easier said than done of course. We have a systematic obsession with material, namely money and thus all that money can acquire.

Its understandable as its hardwired into our fear of death and desire to survive, prosper and live in abundance.

We need material to survive, sure. That is a fact.
How much do we need? That is the next question.

In the face of capitalism, we need as much as we can get because others will always try to take it from us. If we value the same things, we are in endless competition for them. And the competition itself propagates the fear of losing and thus the behaviour of hoarding.

This is seen in nature - competition for mates, food, shelter and reflected in civilisation - competition for social status, physical prowess, health, beauty, power, food and property.

Therefore when we say dismantle capitalism I'm not sure if it needs to be abolished completely. However what it does need is regulation. And government is and should always be about equalising, checks and balances.

Hence capitalism only works when basic needs for survival are met so that people no longer need to fear for their lives if they fall into dire straits financially. Socialism steps in here to ensure that all people have food, shelter and access to health services regardless of circumstance.

The remaining desire for wealth is "healthier." You can live on a base/universal salary and be happy and live a long life or you can play the game and live wealthy and be happy with the same long lived life. Or anywhere in-between.

As in this case capitalism doesn't come at the direct cost of other people's lives. And it can't anyways. Because if it did, if capitalism was 100% pure, the world would be left with the 99% who perished/failing to secure finances to survive, and the remaining 1% which are no longer wealthy because there is no population of workers to hire, consumers to buy and services and luxuries to purchase.

Imagine a world with 1 quintillionaire and no one else. They have stacks of gold and currencies and own the entire planet. But they are alone.

Is their money and property useful anymore? Would you say pure unregulated run-away capitalism served them well?

Only if you're gone before the bear family arrives. — Vera Mont

There are no bears in the forests of Scotland. The existence of competitors for access to the berries, does not justify some vile human tribe/capitalist group claiming permanent ownership of the forest.
I have yet to hear a valid argument that supports the concept of ANY human OWNING land.
Legal occupation and protection from others taking what you and yours NEED, is a different matter. BUT, no-one has a RIGHT to OWN land imo.

Therefore when we say dismantle capitalism.... what it does need is regulation. — Benj96

Too late for that. Whatever regulations a government enacts the next one will begin to dismantle; within four election cycles, its effects are completely neutralized and the rush toward the precipice resumes with gusto.

And government is and should always be about equalising, checks and balances.

Should, yes, but never can. However honestly and well-meaningly it begins, government is always suborned by the interests of the most ruthless citizens and the economic system, with all the powerless in it, made to serve them.

It will have to collapse under its own corruption. Just pray that happens soon - before national rivalries, corporate greed, technological irresponsibility and the whirlwinds our predecessors have sown wipe us off this planet.

Legal occupation and protection from others taking what you and yours NEED, is a different matter. BUT, no-one has a RIGHT to OWN land imo. — universeness

"Take only photos, leave only footprints".

We are guests in the world. We have our time and then we are gone. All people are walking ash and dust. And nothing matters to ash and dust.

A porche or private island is not going to further your longevity nor is it going to benefit you when you're dead. Dust doesn't drive or sunbathe.

However we do birth new life. And we want them to come into a world that we have set up for them to thrive in.

So accruing wealth for ones own enjoyment is a "young man/woman's game", and accruing wealth for others (children and grandchildren) is an "old man's/woman's game".

Even then, intergenerational wealth is not permanent and can be lost by children and grandchildren in the same way it was created by their parents and grandparents. There are no guarantees to multi-generational inheritance, this is something not even the richest of us can guarantee for their family line.

So all that is left is to ensure the game can even continue. Which means climate change, pollution and destruction of our humble planet should be the top item on the priority list of all families and their industries everywhere.

Ultimately, the greatest wealth we have is one that no one owns outright - the continuity of nature itself and the life it fosters.

Too late for that. Whatever regulations a government enacts the next one will begin to dismantle; within four election cycles, its effects are completely neutralized and the rush toward the precipice resumes with gusto. — Vera Mont

I fear you're correct. Governments seem to be "neutral" over time. With only two options: Conservative or liberalism, there is certainly a cancelling effect. The pendulum swings back and forth making ultimately little to no headway.

Meanwhile both are proponents of capitalism to some capacity while all this is happening.

In the face of capitalism, we need as much as we can get because others will always try to take it from us. If we value the same things, we are in endless competition for them. And the competition itself propagates the fear of losing and thus the behaviour of hoarding. — Benj96

This is the crux of the matter. The problem IS global capitalism. It's all fear based (same as theism).
We need to remove it. UBI offers a good beginning. The money trick is the bedrock of capitalism, so getting rid of money must become the main goal of everyone who want's a better way for the human race to exist.
A resource based global economy is the ultimate goal, and technology/automation is the best tool we have to help make such happen. I have learned a little abouts the 'Gosplan' as it was employed by the USSR. It was fundamentally moneyless and successfully supported a large population.
Unfortunately evil people such as Lenin and Stalin started to corrupt it, from it's beginning.
It eventually failed completely due to corruption. This shows that a fair and equitable, resource based system can be established. We need a system that can also incorporate the need that many have for an individual sense of freedom and the notions of reward and recognition humans associate with demonstration of personal entrepreneurial aptitude.

There are no bears in the forests of Scotland. — universeness

Not anymore! But there are still a few in other places where people and berries live.
My poor little joke was meant to illustrate that "free" is a function of timing, alertness and luck. There is usually a cost and some risk in human endeavours. Nothing is truly free, but survival is a whole lot less costly if you don't have to carry the landlords, administrators, priests, armies and corporate profits while you forage.

I have yet to hear a valid argument the concept of ANY human OWNING land. — universeness

Or water or air or trees or animals or even other people.

Shoukld, yes, but never can. However honestly and well-meaningly it begins, government is always suborned by the interests of the most ruthless citizens and the economic system, with all the powerless in it, made to serve them.

It will have to collapse under its own corruption. Just pray that happens soon - before national rivalries, corporate greed, technological irresponsibility and the whirlwinds our predecessors have sown wipe us off this planet. — Vera Mont

Yes indeed.
Which is why I don't pursue politics in life. I pursue knowledge. Some form of revelation if it exists. Because education is the best way to steer the behaviour oneself and of others.

It's easy to run rampant if you're ignorant. Ignorance is bliss. You don't understand or take responsibility for the your actions and their consequences if you're not aware of them, don't have the knowledge/wisdom to address them.

But if you're educated, you're responsible, or at least you have the choice to be, and the guilt and shame that comes with knowing and choosing the worse path. Just as our children become ever more responsible for their actions as they grow and learn, we give them more freedoms (with responsibility) - to vote, to consent to sex, to manage their own finances etc.

For me the purest pursuit in life is truth. If we all knew what was true of the world, if none of us were misguided, deceived or ignorant to the truth of things, the world would surely be completely different.

I agree with everything you typed in your last post.
We are stewards of this planet at best. We have the right to exist on it and be sustained by it's resources. We have no right to 'use it up and wear it out,' based on individual carefree whim.
It's only something as pernicious as capitalism and/or theism that see's this planet and it's resources as expendable. Capitalists, because they only really care about their right to sate their own notions of excess and theists, as they believe, that their true glorification will happen in the next life and not in this one.

The money trick is the bedrock of capitalism, so getting rid of money must become the main goal of everyone who want's a better way for the human race to exist. — universeness

Okay I do know exactly where you're coming from. And I have previously believed money was the root of all evil. And also wanted to rid of it.

However I later realised its not money that causes harm, its what we choose to use it for. Money has done/continues to do great things - feed the poor, house the homeless, educate the uneducated, support social rehabilitation, urban renewal etc. The list of good deeds done with money as the vector is as long as all those done for selfish, perverse or evil reasons.

Money was invented to standardise value. As a mode of comparison. So that we can equate 2 tonnes of apples to an iPhone and an iPhone as the same value as 5 weeks of psychotherapy.

Money is excellent at standardising the value of all products/goods, services and properties against one another. As before that bartering was tricky.

How do you barter apples for shoes each week when the size, variety and quality of apples might naturally change with the seasons while the quality of shoes does not. Money removes this issue.

So if money is not evil. It's the behaviour and attitude ues that we have towards it that are - how much we want, and at what cost, what we spend it on and how we get it (thievery, immoral corporation or charitable donations etc).

Economies (the flow of resources, goods and services) predates capital - monetary systems. Bartering is another economic system as is simply sharing amongst a small tribal community. — Benj96

I don't think the eco cutlery from your example would have fared any better under a system of barter.

What happens in your example is that a previously useless waste product gained value. And the market simply adapts to this new situation by asking something in return.

If the eco cutlery producer cannot produce something equal or greater in value then it simply means his "innately good idea", while perhaps well-intentioned, wasn't very good.

You're essentially lamenting the fact that people don't care enough about eco cutlery.

As no one wants to be at a financial loss but at the same time value anything healthier and better for their conscience. — Benj96

And that includes the eco cutlery producer, no?

Why don't they continue producing eco cutlery anyway, and simply soak up the loss, if it's such a good idea?

And that corrupts the innately good idea based on the free lunch (waste products being up cycled or used to make meaningful of valuable products). — Benj96

To suggest that the use of waste products equals a free lunch is wrong. It's a free lunch for the eco cutlery producer, paid for by the guac producer, so not a free lunch after all.

The amount of goods produced goes up, and as a result of the guac producer's free giving away of their waste product which the eco cutlery producer turns into value, the guac producer's buying power goes down as a result of their charity.

The only thing any living thing "pays" for lunch is the energy required to capture and digest it. — Benj96

Then it's not actually free, is it?

It turns out the labor cost of living in nature is actually quite high, which is why mankind does just about anything it can to avoid having to pay it.

The "problem of capitalism" even extends into the animal kingdom. :grin:

Nothing is truly free — Vera Mont

So, do you reject the word 'freedom' as unattainable?

Capitalists, because they only really care about their right to sate their own notions of excess and theists, as they believe, that their true glorification will happen in the next life and not in this one — universeness

Quite right. Well said. However I would point out that not all theists believe in an afterlife nor any specific entitlements in this one.

I am a theist. But I don't ascribe to any current religion as I find many aspects of them arbitrary or harmful to other peoples way of life. Theyre all in need of an update I guess as many are archaic and the language and culture they were built in has changed.

So I chose to develop my own theistic theory all things considered.

My relationship to the universe is a unique one and I'm not interested in imposing it on anyone all I offer is discussion and my views. The rest is up to others. The proof is in the pudding so to speak.

You're essentially lamenting the fact that people don't care enough about eco cutlery. — Tzeentch

Haha I see your point and enjoy the humour in it. However I don't have a specific penchant for eco cutlery. Reflected by the fact that I don't own an eco cutlery company. It was simply an arbitrary example to highlight the nature of the issue.

You're probably right that it wouldn't have faired better on a barter system. As at the end if the day all systems of economy are based on "value". And we as humans apply value to literally everything.

To suggest that the use of waste products equals a free lunch is wrong. It's a free lunch for the eco cutlery producer, paid for by the guac producer, so not a free lunch after all. — Tzeentch

Then it's not actually free, is it? — Tzeentch

You're correct. Nothing is truly "free" as everything relies on fundamental principles of energy and entropy as their basis. Energy is a currency in its own right and one that nature deals in. We have supplemented this with our own symbol of currency - "money". And thus the concept of "free" is based on which currency is being considered. Things can be free of charge (free of monetary expense) but they of course have a physics based expense too.

Let's get down to the root of what I wished to say.
The environment offers us a net surplus of currency (energy) from the Sun. And though we know that even the sun is not eternal for the purpose of our short existence we can consider it a stable supplier of "free currency" - solar energy.

For our economies to work without impacting on the balances of nature, all industry and economy must obey the principles of living on a finite planet with a steady influx of energy to use for our "business as usual" - from the ground up.

This means that all waste products must be able to be converted into a substrate if value (recycling). As cycles are the fundamentally most stable and self perpetuating phenomena in nature.

So in essence, we must "tie up the loose ends of economy". And that means adopting the belief that economic growth is not indefinite. We live on a finite planet. So recycling is an absolute must.
We cannot create "terminal processes" like waste plastic that doesn't degrade for tens of thousands of years. Terminal processes are not stable or sustainable.

If we could develop a bacteria for example that could convert plastic back into crude oil, then fossil fuels would be a renewable resource. And then all we have to mitigate is the carbon footprint. If we could address that with carbon capture or planting more trees etc then again we have created a sustainable cycle.

If all these activities loose ends are circled back into soemthing organic and reusable instead of terminal, then we are golden.

We can truly "keep calm and carry on".

But as it stands economy is not based on 100% recycling its based on maximising product and by default maximising terminal waste. The terminal waste is where all our problems arise from.

So, do you reject the word 'freedom' as unattainable? — universeness

First, I'd like to reject the conflation of 'liberty' with 'a free lunch'.
Second, I do not believe that anyone can be autonomous free, or that any desirable thing can be attained entirely without cost.
Third, that is not a rejection or freedom itself, nor of the word; it merely puts them into a realistic perspective.

Money is excellent at standardising the value of all products/goods, services and properties against one another. As before that bartering was tricky. — Benj96

Therein lies a fundamental problem: the assumption that all things must have a market value for the purpose of commerce. Well if "things" can be assessed in monetary terms, why not resources, land, water, time, work, wildlife and human life?

Is it impossible to imagine the avocado grower, the guacamole maker, the pit recycler, the town councillor and the tree-hugger to discuss ways that they could most efficiently can co-operate to get what they each want and serve their community at the same time?

So if money is not evil. It's the behaviour and attitude ues that we have towards it that are - how much we want, and at what cost, what we spend it on and how we get it (thievery, immoral corporation or charitable donations etc).

The theft and corruption, hoarding and cheating are much easier to accomplish with money - even more so, with digital money! - than with turnips, shoes and roofing slates.
The charity, however, is far more efficient and effective without money.

If the eco cutlery producer cannot produce something equal or greater in value then it simply means his "innately good idea", while perhaps well-intentioned, wasn't very good. — Tzeentch

The problematic word there is "value" and how that evaluation is made in a capitalist system. Two products on a shelf, both perform the same function equally well. One is more expensive to buy. That's an easy choice - for the consumer.
For the concerned citizen the equation is quite different. Assuming identical manufacturing methods:
Product A is a result of deep ocean oil drilling and its concomitant accidental pollution events - see map. It comes packaged in plastic. Oil refineries are heavy polluters and the raw material needs special transport vessels, which themselves are heavy polluters. All these materials are toxic carcinogens. Both the product and its packaging will be discarded and take 20-500 years to decompose, meanwhile stuffing landfills or killing wildlife on land and in the oceans. Some of it will become micro-plastic and end up in the consumers' lungs.
Product B is made from avocado pits. Avocado trees only thrive in sub-tropical regions and so their products need to be packaged and shipped to colder places, polluting wherever the trucks and ships go. The trees are large and need water which may be scarce in some growing regions. Neither the raw material nor the final product is hazardous to health and both are biodegradabe.
If we count up the associated costs in environmental degradation, cleanup, disposal, human health and long-term medical care, which product is actually cheaper?

The amount of goods produced goes up, and as a result of the guac producer's free giving away of their waste product which the eco cutlery producer turns into value, the guac producer's buying power goes down as a result of their charity. — Tzeentch

I don't see how. Before he gave it away - not as charity but in self-interest - he was paying to have it hauled away. So he was saving money on the transaction all the while the eco-cutlety producer was investing in the early stages of his company's growth. The guac-producer was a couple of years ahead in extra profits and continues to benefit from free pit removal, and the eco-cutlery company doesn't ever become a competitor or cut into his business.

Is the structure or design of our markets/economy hindering us from developing a better way forward? — Benj96

The only better way is to use less disposable things and use, instead, things that can be used for many years, like stainless steel forks, knives, spoons, mugs, and plates. We need to wean ourselves from throw-away economy.

Well if "things" can be assessed in monetary terms, why not resources, land, water, time, work, wildlife and human life? — Vera Mont

Should they be? I don't think so. Are they? Sadly yes.
There's even a valuation of human life (insurance companies). And the popular quote "time is money" reflects the fact that your salary reflects how much your hours of life left are worth compensating.

An hour of life of a minimum wage worker doing a job they don't want to do is worth less than that of an hour of the life of a tech CEOs.

Hence why in an ideal world we would all do jobs we love/are passionate about. As if you love your job you "don't work a day of your life so to speak".

. We need to wean ourselves from throw-away economy. — L'éléphant

Agreed. Some industries are more throw-away for sure.
I think there's probably no better example than fashion.

The whole premise of fashion shows and catwalks is something "new", "fresh" or different. It has one of the greatest turnovers in relevance. It behaves like an ADHD child dropping the thing they liked 10s ago for something new and shiny which they'll throw away for the next in another 10s.

Fashion is so wasteful as there is nothing wrong with the clothes of last season other than the fact people are bored and don't want to wear them again. Closets full of perfectly good clothes worn only once or twice.

I read of startups now where you bring your last season clothes and they get modified several times over the course of the life of the piece so that your jacket you bought 7 years ago looks almost completely different now and so stays current/fresh using the same fabric or less fabric then it woukd use to make an entirely new item if clothing. It's a move in the right direction - satisfying both the desire to keep up with fashion trends but also to recycle.

Or water or air or trees or animals or even other people. — Vera Mont

Agreed.