More on the Trans-Pacific Partnership
In response to my recent post on the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership), “MarcoPolo” writes about my position that we need to reject the agreement: That’s the problem of trying to interpret every issue through an ideological prism.
After years of discussion, which I’ve very much enjoyed btw, I think you’ve just nailed it, i.e., where and why we disagree. I very much DO look at every issue (in these arenas) through an ideological prism, and it’s a very simple one: I’m convinced that humankind is on a collision course with disaster if it maintains its business-as-usual approach, and I (along with tens of millions of others) are on a mission to do something about it before it’s too late.
Having said that, I believe that free enterprise and cleantech do not have to be at odds with one another; in fact, as I’ve written in dozens of places elsewhere, it’s clear that cleantech is destined to be the defining industry of the 21st Century.
Craig,
I believe you are correct when you say that “clean-tech” will be a major influence on technological development in the 21st century.
Nor do I disagree with your assessment that private enterprise will lead the development of clean-tech technology. It will be important for governments to provide incentives and adaptive regulatory frameworks to ensure that new technologies and industries are developed with a minimum of waste and disruption, and unintended consequences.
As I see it, the problem with following a fixed agenda (ideology)is the danger of lacking objectivity. The ideologue is always in the unfortunate position of trying to fit problems into pre-detirmined solutions or belief structures.
As an analyst I try to explore all the dynamics of a problem, before trying to analyze proposed solutions.
Perhaps my approach lacks zeal and crusading passion, but I seek to influence rational decision makers. I’m not seeking to attract excitable adherents, inflamed by passionate advocacy, as converts to a new “faith”.
(I’m not including you in that category ! :).
We have always had a mixed economy, i.e., part socialist (police, fire protection, roads, water, etc.) and part free enterprise. That’s because government does some things better and free enterprise (capitalism) does other things better. In some cases, it is unclear which does things better and changes in technology may influence that. And, it often happens that laissez faire capitalism creates serious problems which must be controlled with regulations.
Clinging to a principal when evidence indicates that the principal doesn’t work or doesn’t work as well as an alternative makes no sense and is at the root of many of our problems.