Individual Responsibility and Corporate Guilt

Recognising the import of the individual in a collectivised world

Foreword

In the early 20th century, many economic and political philosophers and thinkers began to see with aghast how collectivist philosophies and movements began to pave their way into power. The most prominent example was for sure the Большевики movement in Russia that would eventually bear the Soviet Union. Ayn Rand would thus be its most famous dissident who also contributed greatly to a political philosophy. (Even though many would perhaps disparage her or the Libertarian philosphy as a non-philosophy or apology for misanthropic instrument to smother the poor, and her as a spiteful bully mocking the same for their state of impoverishment; I have since offered a more sober and constructive critique of her thinking¹) Other dissidents, like Александр Солженицын or Жорес Медведев, instead decided to stay within their country and oppose against the Stalinist régime from the inside, undergoing several kinds of mistreatment, documenting the terror from the inside and exhibiting it for the rest of the world to see, even though knowledge about the reign of terror remains awfully low within post-Soviet Russia² as well as in the Western world. (For which I ironically didn't find any relatable articles; if you have got any, let me know through the known means of communication so that I will add them in a separate footnote)

One could have claimed that those individuals' efforts, whether executed abroad or in their own country, to achieve an iconoclastic status as was pursued by questionable Russian opposition politician Алексей Навальный³, were in vain because they could have never led to a public uproar or a questioning of the incumbent régime as they had all undergone years of brainwashing and mind control as we know it from works of fiction like George Orwell's ›1984‹ (Where Big Brother would watch over them and eliminate those who dared to question his authority) over Aldous Huxley's ›Brave New World‹ (Where a similar Big Brother uses technological advancements to fulfil the same control as shown in Orwell's novel) to Ray Bradbury's ›Fahrenheit 451‹, also known as 233 degrees Celsius, where contradictory voices in writing are burnt publicly to both smother dissenting opinions and also coordinate public opinion, comparable to what the Nazis have exercised from March to October 1933, shortly after the NSDAP was elected and Adolf Hitler was sworn into office by then-federal president Paul von Hindenburg. Two other novels that should be mentioned honourably as they sought a different approach to describe totalitarian dystopias should be ›Мы‹ by Евгений Замятин, which described a world in which the individual had formally been abolished in favour of the collective, the book-entitling “We”. It presumably inspired the aforementioned Soviet emigrée Ayn Rand (née Алиса Росенбаум) and her début novel, ›We the Living‹³. (›Мы Живущие‹, if one hazarded to translate it to her native Russian) As she has reminisced in a source that I was unable to track down again, Rand wrote in aghast about how leftist intellectuals praised her home country; the country she left because she experienced the downsides of totalitarian and collectivisation as performed by the Stalinist régime ⁴. (In spite of all the apologetics who may try to argue that neither the régime under Владимир Ильич or Йосеф Виссарионович were in fact Socialist or Communist; the only régimes of which I could understand the argument were those by Pol Pot or that of Enver Hoxha, both of which were far from Socialist or Communist and closer to respectively an institutionalised genocide and institutionalised paranoia, combined with the workers' exploitation as known from today's South-East Asia›‹⁵, may it be in the textile industry of Bangladesh or the palm-oil plantations of Indonesia⁶. One could say that global maladies like these could be gradually eradicated through individual action, such as the abolition of products that were produced through such atrocities, and while many people pledge to consume ethically, few actually commit to it⁷. This should not divert from the individual's personal preeminence, nonetheless.

I

In times of crises, people oftentimes feel drawn to simple solutions to complex problems, and for many, the solution lies within a higher authority that were able to isngle-handedly scold and punish those who the masses feel responsible for their misery; for all maladies their world begets. Without sliding into the netherworld of conspiracy theories, we shall pick an example that will accompany us unto the end of this short text: Climate change. For beginners, there is little to nothing that could be questioned about its existence, and what could be questioned about it would be its overall severity. Its presence is indisputable⁸, and to deny it were either a sign of tomfoolery or being a conspiracy theorist who denied its existence for the sake of preserving existing comfort without any catches⁹. 
Having cleared that question, the next one to propose is: How do we stop it from worsening? The study in footnote number nine has already pointed out the obvious, as well as the authors of the annual IPCC study did: CO₂ emissions need to be curbed drastically, which either means a stark reduction in traffic, or a quick transformation from fossil-fueld transportation to electric one. At the moment, the industrialised world is making tremendous efforts for the latter, while during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, traffic of goods distribution and private travelling have decreased thanks to strict lockdown restrictions on central and federal levels across the world¹⁰. Expectedly, things returned to normal once the restrictions were lifted as sunnier days waited ahead¹¹. As if climate change had taken a break, people didn't consider that their decreased travelling were a welcome relief for the global climate. The reason for that abrupt ignorance was obvious: The restrictions and consequential abstinence were not followed voluntarily but were a sign of obedience to imposures. It doesn't require a wave of education for the people to realise that a pollution-heavy lifestyle is not sustainable long-term as the evidence of a deterioration are already noticeable¹². What we can learn from this in conclusion are, technically speaking, two things:
(1) Imposing restrictions on the people in such a way as that they would gradually lose those little comforts in life, or that they were indirectly coerced into making costly changes to comply with the recent restrictions—think, for example, of a ban on fossil-fuelled vehicles that ordered those who had such vehicles to sell their old vehicle in return for an electronic vehicle—is highly unpopular on the one hand and unsustainable on the other hand as that would lead to a great amount of scrap parts and metal on the one hand and a suddenly increased demand in goods that are comprise of, inter alia, rare earths, whose rarity is unrelated to their name but still represents it precisely¹³. Nudging people into a more sustainable lifestyle, on the other hand, could be a politically bearable and helpful policy, as it has also been proven in surveys.
(2) In order to combat climate change, and forgive me my loaded language at this point, it will take every single person's individual effort to achieve the ultimate outcome, that is a planet that while increasingly uninhabitable, remains overall habitable. Firstly, what this contradictory phrasing means is that the planet certainly becomes more uninhabitable because of a higher frequency of natural catastrophes such as wildfires or destructive thunderstorms, he still remains habitable on the largest parts of land. But in order to not lose more habitable land, actions must be drawn—as I said: By each person individually, even though that may raise some questions concerning the truth of this statement. This is what we are going to examine in the next chapter.


II

During my studies, I attended a couple of seminars in philosophy, and in one of them, we were asked to argue some theses in groups, and while one of them was the question of the legality of child labour, one of the others was whether the individual person's carbon footprint mattered when all the rest of the world's populace had an equally average carbon footprint and wouldn't bother to change that for the better. When we discussed this question, an apparent study didn't examine the question yet, A couple of months later, an apparent paper was published¹⁵. The outline, while ending on a positive note stating that policymakers should go ahead and introduce legislation that ordered the average Jane and Joe to change their behaviour, its results were far less decisive. Au contraire, it ended on the same aperçu that we saw during our seminar as well: That it is nearly impossible to argue that the single man had to change their behaviour to make a good instance. There are also more arguments, although some of them questionable in terms of merit as we shall see later, that the average Joe's efforts to curb overall CO₂ emissions were worth zilch compared to others', particularly of those who felt even less inclined to change their behaviour. The talk is of course about the rich. Now, it is known that they have got a naturally large footprint¹⁶, and they are themselves aware of it and seek apologies and excuses to defend themselves¹⁷, next to the industry¹⁸. The latter is of particular importance for another argument to which we will come back in a minute, but first, we should have a brief talk about the argument that the rich bore a disproportionately high responsibility to curb their emissions to such a degree that they alone could save the planet; according to that argument, no-one had to change their lifestyle except for the rich. The idea itself is not far-fetched, as the rich create a good part of the global pollution—presumably!¹⁹ We'll come back to that in the third chapter of this text. For the moment, we should ask ourselves whether it can be proven that all the millionaires and billionaires of the world could take up more than 50 percent of the world's pollution. The ›International Energy Agency‹ (see footnote no. 16) has already made the argument but provided few resources, which means that one had to believe their own intelligence.  Academic journal articles²⁰ on the subject are rare and those that exist, as the one shared hereunder have to confess to insufficient available data to provide a just comparison between the mere mortals and the rich. Other studies²¹ have at least provided sources for the data they presented, the one shared in footnote no. 21 alleging the rich of up to two thirds referred to the Global Carbon Project, yet another think tank, although of greater credibility than Oxfam. The problem is the large discrepancy between the three sources'—Oxfam, the Nature Sustainability article, and the IEA—alleged shareholdership in carbon dioxide emissions on the wealthiest's behalf. The best-faith argument one could technically believe when speaking of individuals were likely something between a third and half of all emissions. Because in the end, we must remember that there is not only contagious individual travel across the globe, but also the shipment of goods by ship and aeroplane²², as well as the production of waste, especially plastic waste. It should be common sense why plastic is a terrible product when it comes to sustainability, and so, alternatives are in dire need, particularly an alternative with the same benefits as plastic, and at best without the side-effects such as PFAS and phthalates²³. Needless to say, plastic has got its benefits, but what good are all the benefits of plastic in the world when it means that we thenceforth had to filter our groundwater²⁴ because it was no longer naturally safe for consumption, despite being the purest water one could find in the world. (Since mountainous springs are already infested as well²⁵).

Screenshot-2023-10-03-130631

Now, where did we stop? Individual impact, and individual behaviour. When it comes to plastic pollution, we all as customers and consumers, as well as as tourists, as far as one travels when on vacation, are responsible for the pollution of the world in polyethylen. There are alternating amounts of pollution one can contribute, depending on one's household income, but in the end, no-one is innocent. Yet in a court trial, complicity in a case is treated universally. I have once come across a tweet I was unable to retrieve, but it referred to a Guardian article stating that fossil-fuel producers were responsible to 80 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions. The guy who referred to it said that the article it missed the point insofar as that it didn't address for whom all the crude oil was produced: Again, of course the industry receives a share too, but individual users bear a good share of the product as well. We will come back to this anecdote in a minute, but to sum this chapter up, we should make one thing clear: That the individual matters when it comes to climate change, even though one study has previously put that into question because of lack of available data that could have contradicted that. Of course an individual's single abstention from driving a fossil-fuelled car will not shake the world for the better. But the gathering of multiple good deeds in sustianable consumption can make a difference; lest they have to as many factors that undermine the earth are based on individual decision-making: To continue buying products whose packaging will create plastic waste; to emit carbon dioxide by using a vehicle for oneself instead of relying on public transportation while simultaneously declining to create a car-sharing community that would make full use of the vehicle in question; nourishing on goods that have travelled thousands of miles or kilometres instead of purchasing locally grown and packaged goods²⁶. Travelling by aeroplane oneself is another hefty issue that contributes likewise. 
Whether one wants to live in an absolutely sustianable way or not is up to one's own; even in the direst situation we should not declare orders that forbade unsustainable ways of life, every restriction of one's basic human rights is righteously eyed with suspicion in times of war, and more so in times of peace. Because such measures were only marginally justified when they were executed universally, in every country of the world, a single government that became overzealous in light of the harbingers of our demise would either be thrown out by its supreme court or any alliance in which the nation the government rules is a member of²⁷. In one way or another we could think that the same scheme can be utilised for private citizens too: If it doesn't incentivise to live more sustainably for one's own or one's offspring's sake, it may incentivise them to do so for one's peers' sake. So far, conceptualisations towards a system of more sustainable consumption have been based mostly on the corporations' back: That they had to pave the way to make it easier for consumers to consume more sustainably²⁸. This is certainly not a bad idea at all, not only because without such support, it is unnecessarily difficult for consumers to fell informed decisions, but also because it is the sellers and producers alike who know best how their products were produced. Moreover, advertising earnestly can be a great plus for potential customers as well as the regular ones. The same idea has already been observed upon the enactment of the so-called “Nutri-Score”: Its presentation and the products' evaluation under it remains voluntary, so that many companies can be understood to have signed up for it first and foremost to treat it as a means of advertisement²⁹. The consumers benefit from the surplus information, so there are no real downsides to it. The same applies for signage on the packaging that informs them about other details of the product, such as the sustainability in production and just working conditions along the supply chain. For that purpose, internationally standardised signage is necessary in order to prevent confusion by signs companies create for themselves alone. But this is a subject that will be discussed in the next chapter; yet it has been proven that the two factors—individual and corporate responsibility—cannot be fully disentangled because they go hand in hand. This will be recognisable in the following chapter too.


III

This issue may be as clear-cut as was the first issue: To many people, it is indisputable that corporations bore the (sole!) responsibility for climate change and its alleviation. Again, we have got the issue of especially polluting industries such as the oil refinery or energy producers who still rely on coal-powered plants. (Many of them in Germany are being reactivated, while in Poland and in Mainland China, they have never been off the grid.Germany reactivated some in order to compensate having shut down its last nuclear plants. Already the fact that the German government ordered their reactivation³⁰ shows that it is sometimes not even in the hands of the free market to decide whether such polluters should be instated or not.  In other countries, the energy companies operate almost independent from the governments in whose countries they reside—needless to say, this happens in Germany too, of course, although they have to ask for permissions when it comes to excavating coal to run its plants. But aside of that, they are not being meddled with by the government. An example of a state-owned refinery that operates freely still would be Saudi Aramco, one of the most valuable companies in the world³¹. In Norway, the state-owned oil company invests in the equally state-owned hedgefund that finances the country's pension³². 
We could go on for some more time, but the question is where this is ought to lead us. Technically we could say that it makes little sense to allege those (such) companies of being crucially irresponsible while they still work at the behest of a government or a governmental agency. We must level the state ownership of such companies, of course, as few may actually receive orders concerning their performance. Since this is not the point of this text, though, we won't, and instead focus on companies that are entirely dependent on themselves and their agency; companies like RWE in Germany, British Petroleum (BP) in England, Shell plc in England too, ExxonMobil in the US, &c. According to the vox populi
³³, they had to pay more taxes on the one hand, and instantaneously discontinue their climate-disrupting business³⁴. Assuming that they did: What would happen? Good parts of the industry came to a sudden standstill as there are only insufficient alternatives available in an instance. For example, as it has been pointed out a couple of times in debates so far, the heavy industry such as ships need different fuels from personal vehicles. Hydrogen has been in negotiations a couple of times, but there is no infrastructure to supply enough of it to wharfs. Did we have a chance to build that already? Technically, yes, but uncertain and flip-flopping policies have made it impossible to plan ahead for such herculean construction projects. As long as we have gotten companies and corporations in the classical style of today, the government remains necessary to concert wide-ranging changes on the market, such as the pathway to carbon neutrality. Lorries can be rebuilt retroactively to be charged in depots and at stations, or even while driving on the streets via trolley systems when they exist. (Which they seldom do because it likened another gargantuan infrastructure project; creating depots at the  vehicle fleet hall would be better, combined with charging stations for buses whenever they stop to drop out and pick up passengers) and the expansion or replacement at petrol stations to allow quick-charging for vehicles of every size) The problem is that this takes time. I have worked at a company that builds rooftop pantographs and have seen how long it takes to build one suitable pantograph for just one of them; thinking about how long it may take to rebuild an entire vehicle fleet shows that it is a yearslong gradual process for whose success there must be clear political signals. A definitive withdrawal from the fossil-fuels industry may be the clearest imaginable example. So far, a couple of countries, especially amongst Scandinavia, but the lack of guidance urges many producers to instead seek ways to justify the usage of fossil fuels³⁵
In order to stop beating around the bush, one decisive statement msut be felled: That the corporations are not solely guilty of what they are doing, even if their business may appear unethical under today's circumstances. One other perpetrator are the average Jack and Jill. Everyone who continues purchasing petrol or other products deemed unethical are at least complicit in the unsustainable exploitation of the planet. Those who exclaim the loudest that the sole perpetrators were the corporations and their supposedly greedy managers are coincidentally people who often frequent dense urban areas with sprawling city centres and reliable public transportation which makes personal vehicles unnecessary for daily life. For people living in rural areas, this comes close to a pipe dream: Because of unreliable public transportation beyond the ubiquitous school bus and shops often far away, even a bicycle is only a limited alternative
³⁶. The debate between inhabitants of the two regions is fairly unequal and is led from starkly different standpoints. What is thus overseen is the win-win situation that particularly the urbanites could benefit from: Rents are often lower in the rural areas³⁷, so that urbanites who were sick and tired of having to pay monthly rents to their landlord could also move to the land and purchase a house. Of course this happened on a credit, but down the line, they could still live freer and with more space than they could even wish for in a city. The rural areas could benefit from the influx of city dwellers insofar as that they could boost their region's development, which in turn made public transportation more attractive, so that congestion and pollution decreased gradually. As I have stated outside of my blog in discussions from time to time, one cannot achieve one's goals when other people are involved unless one gets in touch with the people who had to contribute to the achievement in question. Humans are not universally rational, not all of them are simply persuaded by convincing arguments as long as the actions they were enquired to perform were perceived as a trade-off for the performers. It is technically the same mindset that is otherwise observed with managers of corporations of fossil-fuel producers and proves that this is not something exclusive to certain groups of people—it is an all-human behaviour. To quote from David Hume's ›Treatise on Human Nature‹ (Courier Corporation, page 296): 
`Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger. `Tis not contrary to reason for me to chuse my total ruin, to prevent the least uneasiness of an Indian or person wholly unknown to me. `Tis as little contrary to reason to prefer even my own acknowledge'd lesser good to my greater, and have a more ardent affection for the former than the latter. A trivial good may, from certain circumstances, produce a desire superior to what arises from the greatest and most valuable enjoyment; nor is there any thing more extraordinary in this, than in mechanics to see one pound weight raise up a hundred by the advantage of its situation.

 Having assessed that pollution is at least a duo's act between the corporations as the provider of the scourge of humanity and the consumers who make use of said scourge, we should ask ourselves the question what can thus be the responsibility and duty of the corporations. Before we examine the question, we should also propose an expansion of the scope of corporations from just those who produce fossil fuels to those who generally practise their business unsustainably. Without pernickety scrutinisation we could assume that up to 95 percent of all businesses of alternate sizes fall under this term. We meet the same problem we see in those unsustainable producers with those who still operate businesses in Russia despite the ongoing war in Ukraine: The revenue still stays in the green and black numbers. Their products are still bought, in Russia as well as in the Western world and beyond. Only a fraction of all companies running operations in Russia have withdrawn therefrom, and while well-known names like McDonald's, IKEA and Domino's Pizza have ceased their operations in Russia, other names like Bosch are still in situ. This did not stop any automotive manufacturer or handyman to boycott their products. Looking in the other direction, the fewest people have sold their fossil-fuelled engine or started being more on the lookout about where their products come from, or how they are produced. Of course those who expect companies to be more Catholic than the Pope are those who have it the easiest in living sustainably. Again, those are the people who (1) live in cities that are either walkable or with a thickly webbed public transportation system, and (2) have an above-average household income that allows them to pay a little more for sustainably produced food³⁸. Of course there are also many less-well-to-do who support collectivist views founded on the premise that rich people were the symptom of unjustified inequality and the consequential remedy of forceful redistribution had to be imposed for the common good³⁹. Those may build their views more on resentment and animosity for wealthy people, amongst them many managers and CEOs who they believe earn their money without contributing anything to society. But since this is not the topic of this blog post, we will ignore this, also for sake of not sowing any unnecessary division or inject any culture war-topics to this post. Instead, it should be pointed out that it is easy to expect of others to do right while not doing right oneself. It is the concept expressed in the idiom of drinking wine while praising water⁴⁰. And it is easiest with visibly elusive corporations and equally oblivious managers and CEOs who one could shout at and decry as scourges of humanity as old men yell at clouds. They could function as involuntary, unharmed valves for people who feel powerless in the face of powerful corporations who seem to control the world like a puppeteer in a puppet theatre during a children's matinée. It is the same feeling of impotence that also fuels the emergence of conspiracy theories⁴¹. But with some sobriety we must also emphasise one important premise in our world: That we must be the change we want to see in the world. As everyone knows, this is a quote by the pacifist, non-violent independence fighter Mahatma Gandhi. (Or so it is believed, although falsely so⁴²)
Where does this lead us to? Obviously the belittled and oftentimes begrudged concept upon which the whole free market rests, down the line: Supply and demand. (Although the order should be in reverse: First comes the consumer demanding a badge of whatever the distributor sells, and the distributor makes an offer the consumer may accept. Thus comes the supply at the negotiated conditions. But you get the jest) The reason for why I bring this up should be crystal clear: We have assessed that while some global corporations bear a good brunt of the world's pollution and reckless exploitation of natural resources without a sense of sustainability⁴³—economically it may be, but ecologically, it isn't, so that it becomes a naïve fallacy to believe that this equalled a long-term business plan to work by—, they only do so on indirect behest of the customers who continue buying their products. Some critics would yell 'you're reversing perpetrator and victim here', but this were a wholly emotional reaction to it. Because again, companies and corporations alike are no monoliths who produce goods and spill them down the gutter once they are finished. Customers who are earnestly concerned about the ethics of the goods they purchase usually have a more ethical alternative in stock. Whether it is a foul game to sell the more ethical alternatives at higher prices than the unethical ones stands on a different letter; it is obvious that the sellers thereof would like to be more competitive, but in the end, the divergence between the costs of production (and marketing) and sales is too great to allow for lower prices. It is likewise understandable that some people, particularly those with less disposable income, are drawn into spending on less qualitative products without restraint⁴⁴. 

Down the line, little has changed between the second and the third chapter: While we can agree that a lot of pollution is produced by corporations, it depends on the customers to signal said companies that they needed to change their business in favour of sustainability. Boycotts have recently been proven to still be an effective technique to punish companies for unfavourable business decisions⁴⁵. And if it works with a beer company having hired a trans TikToker for one single reel promoting their product, it certainly works with a distributor of vegetables that were picked in Latin America and were flown to Europe to be sold in German supermarkets. (Just as an example) To paraphrase the ›Federal Chant of the General German Workers Club‹ (Bundeslied für den Allgemeinen Deutschen Arbeiterverein) (and also translate it into English):

Wake up, all you customers!
And recognise your might!
All the companies' revenues stand on the rim,
happening only at your whim.
⁴⁶ 


Ludwig von Mises

Reaching to the penultimate chapter, it seems compulsory and self-explanatory to include the pioneer of individualist philosophy, Ludwig von Mises. This will not take long as he didn't consider questions like that of a life-threatening natural catastrophe that would require concessions in one's lifestyle⁴⁷. What he did speak about is the responsibility and superiority of the individual over a collective responsibility. Again, in consideration of what needs to be done in order to not descend into a catastrophic afterworld, we need to collectively reduce carbon dioxide emissions; what is true is that there is no universal plan that could be imposed by a superordinate authority like the government⁴⁸.
At first, we shall quote a bromide of his that is key to understanding that we are in fact able to make wide-ranging concessions to our own (social) behaviour in order to not trap ourselves in irrevocable conditions that would seal our fate as the most advanced and powerful species that ever roamed this planet:
While all other animals are unconditionally driven by the impulse to preserve their own lives and by the impulse of proliferation, man has the power to master even these impulses. He can control both his sexual desires and his will to live. He can give up his life when the conditions under which alone he could preserve it seem intolerable. Man is capable of dying for a cause or of committing suicide. To live is for man the outcome of a choice, of a judgment of value.⁴⁹
Again, this is not a major revelation to us educated humans who have been brought up in a civilised world, i.e. in a world that enjoys the benefits of human curiosity and the will to invent technologies and discover the interior of our planet's functioning in shape of natural sciences. Of course we could experience similar examples in other societies that some cultural chauvinists would decry as savages, such as the Native Americans or the indigenous tribes of the Amazon region or the outback of Australia, if in different shapes, such as profound knowledge of nature and how to exploit it through peaceful cohabitation⁵⁰. (Side-note: Indigenous people live more sustainable through lesser pollution, as we all know)
I address the issue of civilisation in reference to technologically advanced societies because those are, as we all know, are those who depress the planet's state of health the most, to a point in which it becomes hard to move on as before without experiencing a dire aftermath. We know that humans are able to adapt to an altering world, and by now, it becomes clear that such an alternation has arrived. A gaze into the first footnotes of this text suffices to make this clear, even though there are still many people who deny this Zeitenwende, borrowing the word German chancellor Olaf Scholz has coined after the declaration of war by Russia against Ukraine. The realisation of climate change—wherever we would place the milestone for this crossroads where we still stand⁵¹, some would possibly link its recognition to the time when Al Gore was nominated for the Nobel Prize for his documentary “An Inconvenient Truth”⁵²—marks the time at which radical changes need to be made. In the end, Mises ascertained that this too lies within the realm of powers donned by the individual. In his own words, he stated that
The essence of an individual’s freedom is the opportunity to deviate from traditional ways of thinking and of doing things.⁵³
Disregarding his positivity about the individual's ability to adapt to its changing environment, it is needless to say that besides every single individual's effort to this battle, some collective action will be necessary, although, as written above, in a manner that is not going to impose negative effects of overregulation. There is no need to repeat all of what has already been written above. As usual, it will be the governments' (speaking of all national governments and all transnational alliances) obligation to set the bumpers aligning individual and collective action in the right direction. Consumer behaviour is going to be of the essence, hence the individual obligation besides the government's. Obviously, Mises saw not only agency but also superiority within the consumers' hands too, which only perpetuates his earlier point. For this reason alone one could assume that the government's handling were superfluous since consumer behaviour, combined with consciousness about the ongoing climate crisis would immediately, gradually alter their consumption in such a way as that the companies adjusted their course apparently, just to satisfy their customers' altered demands. But as we have already laid bare in this text, consumer behaviour is little reliable when it comes to collectively changing its behaviour, may it be because of ignorance and denial in favour of the aforementioned preference of convenience even in the face of lurking catastrophes—there have been abundant memes, many oscillating between a pamphletic and a downright hurtful and vexing character⁵⁴—like the Frenchmen who enjoy their coffee in the café while there are violent riots passing by, igniting barriers and throwing stones against the police in front of them. It is hard to reckon the share such ignorant individuals make up in the overall purchase force, but regardless of how few or many they may be, the government must set the direction for them too. Expectedly, von Mises didn't think much of collectivism as such—he has written a book dedicated on this subject alone too, from which the following quote did not arise, but it could still have existed therein:

Society does not exist apart from the thoughts and actions of people. It does not have “interests” and does not aim at anything. The same is valid for all other collectives.⁵⁵

It is true and we already notice many positive oscillations into a more sustainable future. But it would be naive to solely rely on human reason alone—that tenor should be clear by now, as we're heading for the end of this text. The question is: Could von Mises change our opinion on the subject anyhow, major or minor? No, he couldn't, as there was little that could have pursued us of the righteousness of our prior points of view. The more interesting question would instead be whether, as an earlier thesis paper has rather focused on Ronald Coates and F. A. Hayek, would have agreed with more radical climate change policies, or disagreed and called them a sign of growing authoritarianism for an alleged higher good's sake. This question is difficult to answer because throughout his political life and writing career, he has stuck to theoretical issues alone, he has written little on practical subjects on living examples, something that differs him negatively from counterparts like James M. Buchanan, who, together with his colleague Gordon Tullock, has written extensively on practical subjects while never technically leaving the theoretical route. Therefore, and also aware that my verdict may draw ire from sympathisers and apologetics of von Mises', I would say that he would have disagreed and drawn comparisons to Hayek's “Road to Serfdom”⁵⁶. The problem is that we did not enquire or pursue the individual's disempowerment in favour of planned economies and production. We pursue what has always helped us gaining the greatest benefits of the free market with the lowest risk of its failure due to false pursuits imposed by too-powerful managers and operators who favour their personal gain alone, short-sighted and with long-term harm for their business⁵⁷. Unlike the legislators usually decried by Libertarians, entrepreneurs are not as severely accountable for their sometimes detrimental pursuits and actions, even if they may threaten their business' survival and prosperity, and their shareholders' stocks' values. We could think of Volkswagen's Martin Winterkorn and Deutsche Bank's Anshu Jain, of Porsche's Ferdinand Piëch and Rio Tinto Jean-Sebastian Jacques. The point should be clear: Whatever those men did, no-one spent any time in gaol, despite of their actions' impact on everybody's life. (Everybody at least referring to the automotive CEOs. Deutsche Bank mostly harmed its own customers and shareholders)
Reading this should finally grant us the wisdom that when it comes to theoretical works of any discipline, we should read them with a grain of salt and the consciousness that their knowledge is often limited to theoretical frameworks alone, but are incapable of always expanding to us insights into how to solve practical issues of our days. They can lead us into the right direction when it comes to what premises we must clear in order to structure our solution, but they cannot fill the void within the scaffold they erect. This must be filled with the material that is the context of the real world: The world theoretical works cannot penetrate because this way, they would carve into their own flesh. There is a distinction between theory and praxis: Theory grants us the background knowledge we need in order to make sense of the Hows and Whys of the practical world. Only when we understand the theoretical world, we can make proper sense of the practical one. 
To put it in a clearer way: We could learn all the vocabulary of a language, but we will not be able to make sense of the word salad presented to us in newspapers, books or conversations by the coffee machine in our office unless we understand the grammar linked to this lingual gibberish. We could learn all the theoretical framework of street traffic, but what good did it do if we didn't know how to ride a bicycle or a motorcycle, or how to drive a car or bus? Of course we could ride by bus or just walk, but this would seriously hinder the speed at which we could travel. And what if we didn't know how to purchase a ticket for the bus? The point should be clear, at least in regards to the first example (we could also imagine learning all about what a packaging machine does and how it does that, but what good did that do for us if we didn't know how to operate it?): We need the knowledge of both worlds in order to function properly, not for someone else's sake, but for our own (too). von Mises, unfortunately, delved only into the first world, not the second; only the theoretical, not the practical. 


Final Remarks

Since I have written little in this post, and referred a lot to other sources to back up the few statements I have made, I try to steer the ship in a different direction at least here, in the conclusions. At least a little. I don't mean to say that I have led anyone into a false direction. There's nothing wrong with featuring existent knowledge instead of repeating what others have already iterated more eloquently than I. So, anyways, what is the conclusion we must draw from the above argument? First of all, it is the knowledge many have emphasised in the past few years already, that there cannot be a sole responsibility for stopping climate change from worsening. (Stopping is already out of the realm of possible solutions, the train has long departed and we only recently managed to carry our baggage up the stairs because the elevator is out of order again) It is instead a shared one; whether we perceive it as bilateral, trilateral or even quattrilateral is of no matter to us here. It's the people as a whole who need to gather their powers to save the planet we mutually inhabit as no-one of us mortals is going to reach an inhabitable exoplanet outside of our solar system. (Those who would venture to such a journey would have to reproduce during the journey so that their offspring had the chance of becoming the first generation of humans on that planet, whichever it were) We have pointed out that incentivisation into both (or all) directions could be key in directing us there, may it be through nudging or prudent policymaking. A general recognition of the issue and the necessary steps helps to offer low-hanging fruits of that kind—denialists and relativists who either state that climate change were a myth and a prelude to oppress the people in their basic human rights, as if they needed a reason for that. Governments could forfeit such rights and no-one stood the realistic chance to rise up against that, given that the military were deployed within minutes, and the police could already smother those who dared to even show the sign of uprising against them. This is both a minor necessity for a government to maintain its legislative and jurisprudential authority, and a threat when a government went rogue either through the parliamentary and electoral process (see the 20th century in Europe, and authoritarian rulerships such as in Syria, starting with Hafez al-Assad and continuing with his son Bashar al-Assad. Revolutionary processes went similarly awry; just think about the PRC or Iran). But this subject should be discussed elsewhere, it has got no space here. All that should be said is that for this particular reason, the US chose to become a federal Republic, a model that has been adopted in Germany postbellum.  
We have talked a lot about individual responsibility and how in spite of its perceptibly minor impact, it remained essential in this unjust fight. This remains true. Plastic waste, although proven to have a lesser impact on the overall global pollution, is one of the factors easiest to reduce. People could be more responsible in their littering behaviour, while municipalities could thicken the web of accessible garbage cans. Corporations become more aware of their responsibility in finding appropriate alternatives for plastic packaging, such as paper⁵⁸. As I have written in the footnote, they should be given some time to adapt and find suitable solutions to our needs, the consumers' needs. There will be some fakers and quacks who try to sell themselves as something they are not, and those perpetrators need to be called out so that the market can be amended apparently. Yet as it is shown in the footnote, we see earnest approaches to delivering goods for a better world, and this should be met with equally earnest optimism and cheer. In the end, only those who are serious about living autark had a right to be sarcastic in bad faith about such tempos. Everyone else will still likely rely on the same producers' products instead of paying extra for alternatives by niche manufacturers with a narrow outreach due to their natural limitations. (Craft beers, despite their popoularity, are still proportionately more expensive, thus accessible only to a certain target group who enjoy them as a delicatessen, not as something you could leisurely drink after work with a pal in a pub) The path towards sustainability is not easy, neither for average Jacks and Jills, nor for the companies who often have to make radical changes to reduce their emissions. Instead of contemplating wide-ranging nationalisations that would likely lead to no functioning reductions whatsoever (and have the expected decreases in productivity⁵⁹), patience should be presented. It's a monumental task that we carry on our backs. It should be treated as such.
Another issue I have addressed is government guidance towards more sustainability, on teh societal as well as on the market level. In traditional Liberal fashion, the government should do so, through the aforementioned prudent policymaking, which are also the words I used in the penultimate footnote. It hsould not be too penetrating as that could lead to the well-known, expected aftermath of lowered producitivty, a brain drain and a probable upheaval as the nationalisations, likely undertaken violently and involuntarily, may be understood to portend worse actions to follow if the rogue government weren't stopped on sight. Likewise, Libertarians were wrong to call for government's complete withdrawal from the market to let the market wheel freely instead and miraculously produce solutions that simultaneously helped to curb pollution of all kinds and satisfy the consumers' demands. This is a pipe dream, as much as a Communist, Socialist or Anarchist revolution is with regards to today's conditions. (Although I personally approve of an Anarchist revolution as written out in my earlier longer texts, I know of the odds it required to not only be initiated, but also succeed; this is a subject worthy of being addressed in a text of its own. It's furthermore of no interest in this text's context) Libertarians are blind to human fallaciousness, so it comes to no surprise that they don't realise how naïve it is to believe in the omnipotence and omniscience of the free market. I have addressed this subject in the text I cited herein in the first footnote. Again, this is not the subject here. I, because of the negative odds we live under nowadays, abstain from my Utopian views and instead attempt to recreate an Ordoliberal understanding of the government's duties over the market; economic policies, you could say, are of the essence. As a German, there are pioneering politicians to look up to, especially in early postwar Germany. Back then, Ludwig Erhard was the minister of the economy, and one of his advisers was Alfred Müller-Armack. And his work provides us with some healthy insights into what he and Erhard coined „Soziale Marktwirtschaft”—which can be translated as a welfare market economy, although it was not meant to be an ersatz for a welfare state, like privat health insurers completely replacing the government-owned ones. (As has happened in the US, with the known outcome⁶⁰) For those not from Germany and also without knowledge about it by other means, the question is: What is Soziale Marktwirtschaft⁶¹? In brief, it is an economic ethic of maintaining free competition on the market while commanding a social outcome, thus disallowing the predatory mechanics that were proposed through the Manchester School of Economics. As such, both Erhard and Müller-Armack promoted an active government, but with limitations. Reading through Erhard's „Wohlstand für alle!”, one will inevitably notice the importance he gave to his fight against cartelisation in postwar Germany; it is comparable to the US' Sherman Act and the flak it received particularly from right-winged Liberals and Libertarians. (Although nowadays there may be more interest in abolishing the Jones Act) Because this text is not about cartelisation and other kinds of price-rigging between companies, his book—which is designed more as a popular-science book meant to inform the public about his policies—will be ignored in this text, while I can recommend reading it. In addition, I can also recommend reading Müller-Armack, although his work is even less likely to be available in translation. But his contribution to the intellectual background is more insightful and helpful to our understanding not only how the Soziale Marktwirtschaft is supposed to work, but also how it could help us to forge a concept of governance towards sustainability. This shall also mark the end of this text. Allez !
Müller-Armack's (heretofore abbreviated as MA for easiness' sake) work was heavily influenced by the Third Reich's rise and fall, and much like von Mises, he has written against the concept of economic planning, which both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany have practised, promoting instead what we now know as the free market and the principle of competition between producers. He has pointed out the fallacies of a monitored economy (Wirtschaftslenkung) the same way as von Mises has done in his “Socialism”. And like the latter, MA has written out why economic planning as documented has failed long-term. He wrote that 
Der Wirtschaftslenkung fehlt jegliches Kriterium für die Übereinstimmung von Bedarf und Produktion. Solange es in der Wirtschaftslenkung typisch ist, daß die Spannung zwischen Preisstopp und Kreditexpansion besteht, wird dem Konsumenten ein Warensortiment praktisch aufgezwungen, ohne daß festgestellt werden kann, ob es seinen Wünschen entspricht.”⁶⁴

For good measure, we should include one quote from Mises' aforementioned book as he has equipped an example of just how a government were bound to fail in its attempt to plan the economy:

“There will be hundreds and thousands of establishments in which A minority of these will produce goods ready for use. The majority will produce capital goods and semi-manufactures. All these establishments will be closely connected. Each commodity produced will pass through a whole series of such establishments before it is ready for consumption. Yet in the incessant press of all these processes the economic administration will have no real sense of direction. It will have no means of ascertaining whether a given piece ofwork is really necessary, whether labour and material are not being wasted in completing it. How would it discover which of two processes was the more satisfactory? At best, it could compare the quantity of ultimate products. But only rarely could it compare the expenditure incurred in their production. lt would know cxactly - or it would imagine it knew - what it wanted to produce. lt ought therefore to set about obtaining the desired results with the smallest possible expenditure. But to do this it would have to be able to make calculations. And such calculations must be calculations of value. They could not be merely 'technical', they could not be calculations of the objective use-value of goods and services. This is so obvious that it needs no further demonstration.”⁶⁵
It is something that is being overlooked especially by apologetics and proponents of Socialism and its practical displays, namely the USSR and today's Venezuela: There is no chance for a static entity like the state to anticipate the customers' needs in the future. This already excludes sudden occurrences like a natural catastrophe (which can happen all the time) or a biohazard like the SARS CoV-2 pandemic. Just imagine that there were passersthrough (vacationers), families going on vacation, who stop by a supermarket and plan to stack up their resources before they will cross the next hundreds of kilometres without pauses. They would get some castes of water and some ingredients for sandwiches. The federal government may have assigned only enough resources to feed the town's inhabitants, with a little surplus that would thus be eaten up completely by the passersthrough. Now, if a family in the town suddenly needed some more stuff from the supermarket because the woman's parents came to visit her and her husband, she would be dumbfounded to see that the supermarket didn't have anything left. 
I don't claim that this didn't happen in our society of today either; we have seen things like these happening during the pandemic too, as supermarkets were oftentimes equally dumbfounded by the strikes of hoarders who would buy all the toilet paper (or whatever they bought, depending on the country they lived in⁶⁶) they could get, but as many Tweetnicy have pointed out when the photographs of the empty grocery shelves appeared, unlike in a country with a planned economy (it doesn't need to be a Socialist one; economic planning is unequal to a Socialist government. Nazi Germany planned its economy too, but was still not Socialist. Or, the arguments present in academic research for this comparison is thin, and those available are weak), the shelves in countries of Europe or the US would quickly be refilled again, because branch managers could calculate how much they'd need in the manageable future. For their overseeable business, they could calculate the needs, it's the focal point of their job. Governments bore the responsibility to calculate the same needs for an entire country of different demographics. One didn't have to be an economist to tell why such a task were destined to fail. It's the same reason for why it is impossible to properly govern a country from one capital city alone. What started with Charlemagne and his palatinates⁶⁷ has eventually become the governmental system firstly of the United States, and secondly in Great Britain, Germany, France, and so on, because it proved to be more efficient to rule by proximity to one's constituents rather than sitting in an ivory tower and telling the people from afar to obey his commands. Presence and populism (Volksnähe) can help a lot in justifying policies of all kinds, because it offers the chance to explain the proposals first-hand, and eradicate worries and miscomprehensions the populace has. Likewise, a branch manager has better knowledge of his regular customers' needs and interests, and thereby can prepare the stock. Because of this impossibility of omniscient oversight, policies imposed by the government need to be more general and superficial. The latter usually bears a negative denotation because it is said to have little impact and be nothing more than a paper tiger, a labour market mesure for additional governmental employees in the capital. But not only is it necessary in order to take full proper effect to the lowermost negative effects. If it becomes too specific, it will have little to no effect and at worst even show a fatal rebound. In the same fashion, there must be as few policies passed into law as possible—there is the well-known quote from Publius Cornelius Tacitus' "Annals" I have used a couple of times in other texts, that the most corrupt countries/states have got the most laws. This idea is correct to this day: Laws are Janus-faced insofar as that they can serve every purpose the legislator wishes them to fulfil. It's like doing online research to create a sound argument: One will find proof for every argument to be made, whether it is, for example, about the severity of climate change or the US' economic policies during the single tenure of the 45th POTUS, Donald J. Trump. Playing the advocatus diaboli has never been easier. What it proves, though, is that when it comes to certain issues, there is no single truth because the subject in question is too abstract to pin it down to a black and a white page⁶⁸. That's why multiple successive governments can approach the same issue differently and make equally reasonable arguments justifying their actions. Pluralism is good for such kinds of arguments as it can help to mutually point out shortcomings and contradictions, as well as irregularities. Ideas of certain size and on specific issues, particularly ideas that address our society and all that oscillates around it, that influences and monitors it, cannot healthily grow in an incubator, they have to be raised like chicks in their mother's nest: Eventually, they will have to be dropped out and learn to fly. Some of them may be lucky and be picked up by passersby who will engage to get them back in their mother's nest, but most of them may perhaps die in their failed attempt to fly. The same accounts for ideas: They need to be tried in public, in interaction with other people and what they have got to say about those ideas. Otherwise, only one view—your own—will have penetrated your ideas, thus remaining one-sided and unaware of its own fallacies. It's like a child that has never left its home because its parents were anxious to expose their offspring to maladies, insects, sunlight, &c. Expectedly, the child will be allergic to abundant influences on the outside, like hayseeds and pollination, because it was not allowed to experience them earlier in life. (Not to say that being a family pet is a gateway to becoming allergic or asthmatic) Ideas need to be treated like test products that have to undergo popularity surveys to indicate the chance of their success before they will hit the shelves. MA did that, theoretically speaking, by simultaneously writing them down in essays and introducing them to the green desk Erhard denounced in his book, speaking about the occupants of the ivory tower I have spoken about above. The green desk is not generally bad, but secluding oneself in the office and controlling the country from there alone can only produce half-baked proposals that will sink like a house built on sand. 
Now we have meandered enough about those general ideas that are only vaguely relevant to those final remarks. We're ought to return to the actual topic at hand, Above we have spoken about MA's and von Mises' unanimous disapproval of monitored economies and the planning of the latter. What MA was better at than von Mises was the contribution of an alternate model that was not rooted in the abolition of the government. Not to say that von Mises were the one to talk about such rampant Libertarianism as he never said so; his critique of the emerging conditions he observed was the reason why I consider him one of the more interesting reads I have reviewed on my blog⁶⁹. But now getting back MA, he has also written a very brief primer on what he calls „Soziale Marktwirtschaft”. Reading up on it could perhaps convince any right-winged Liberal with a glimpse of empathy to embrace it since it doubles down on both the benefits of a free, functioning market and the benefits the people should in fact derive from the market. Again, it's not a means to itself to preserve it, claiming that the market already worked at its best when it just produced profits and proliferated wealth in general while poverty doesn't diminish—one advantage that is usually mentioned when pointing out the greatest achievements of Capitalism. We have seen many a people falling from grace with Capitalism because they no longer experience the upsides of it, instead gradually impoverishing⁷⁰. Waiving them off, claiming that they were just manipulated by mainstream media and opinions and that they didn't know about their luck or would deny it even as it flew into their face would deny their agency and autonomy over their own experiences, branding the argument as about as weak as the pseudo-advice that those who didn't like their job should quit and look for a more suitable job elsewhere. Such arguments should be dropped as soon as one left puberty and became a grown-up adult. 
Now for the brief description of Soziale Marktwirtschaft as given by MA. From the essay, the following quotation can be drawn:
Wir müssen daher künftig die Wirtschaftspolitik von einer reinen Ordnungsidee her entwickeln, die entweder marktwirtschaftlich oder lenkungswirtschaftlich sein müßte. [...]
Es muß demgegenüber betont werden, daß keine Ordnung als solche schon sittlich ist. Auch die Marktwirtschaft darf primär nur als ein instrumentales Mittel gelten. Wenn wir sie für nicht ungeeignet halten, einer ethischen Ordnung als Basis zu dienen, so geschieht dies weil in ihr persönliche Verantwortung bei Freiheit des einzelnen eher notwendig einengt.”⁷¹
Unfortunately, it is not uncommon to see that even in such basic descriptions of a framework the author himself has co-designed remain abstract in the expression of their intentions and the path on which they mean to achieve the fulfilment of those intentions. In a different essay, written a couple of years after the Soziale Marktwirtschaft was imposed, he has become a little more specific about the ways and means chosen to materialise this policy framework⁷². But still, only the scopes were written out, not the particular actions. Perhaps I am expecting too much of a protocol in an essay, but it would have helped greatly in reconstructing how MA and Erhard designed their economic policies for postwar Germany. But reading through the last footnote's source text, it shows that everything could be correctly understood on the surface, and how far exactly the government were ought to intervene in order to guide the market into the supposedly right direction. Because of this, the Soziale Marktwirtschaft in shape of MA's and Erhard's idea could become the lodestar for all countries' market economies. Perhaps the WTO could recommend making their combined writings compulsory reading for all students of economics. (preferalby Volkswirtschaftslehre, not that the English language had a proper translation for this word)  

To wrap things up on this text, all that is left to say is that in the end, when it comes to climate change, or social order in general, it is still a shared business in which everyone—individual people, peoples of nations, tribes and other kinds of communities, and companies and corporations—bears an equal duty in combating it as well as they could in their given circumstances. We have shown that everyone deserves some sympathy as long as they at least genuinely try to contribute to improving our world and relieving it of the pain of global warming. We should stop the blame game and shifting of responsibilities like governmental officials shifting responsibilities on poorly executed tasks and absolutely ludicrous impositions. One could think of many more governmental regulations that are nothing but exhibitions of power and estrangement from the real world. But you get the jest. We must take over responsibilities and recognise our power as consumers to let businesses know what they had to do if they didn't already know by themselves. 

We can get this done, and we will get it done. We only need to abstain from resignation and doomerism, to speak in the online jargon. Nothing is lost until it is lost. Until then, there is still some time left. We shall either prevail in our venture to save our home planet, or perish trying. 

Editor's note: Despite the cover I created, I am not affiliated, nor published by Suhrkamp. I only like their design, but neither the colours, nor the typeface match Suhrkamp's as I don't know the exact data for either one. Both are freely available respective from Open Office and Google Fonts. 



List of Footnotes


¹ Bender, Oliver (August 2021). Ayn Rand — A Review. Rationalpolitik [Blogspot]: https://politique-rationale.blogspot.com/2021/08/Ayn-Rand-Review-Capitalism-Libertarianism.html#more 

² Adler, N. (2012). Reconciliation with – or rehabilitation of – the Soviet past? Memory Studies, 5(3), 327–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750698012443889
Трудолюбов, Максим (24 Марта 2022). Мы живем в шкафу, набитом скелетами. Медуза: https://meduza.io/feature/2022/03/24/my-zhivem-v-shkafu-nabitom-skeletami

³ Needless to say, one can findi indirect references to Soviet Russia in her two major books, ›Atlas Shrugged‹ and ›The Fountainhead‹: 

Rosenthal, B. G. (2004). The Russian Subtext of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.” The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, 6(1), 195–225. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41560275 

⁴ I falsely remembered to have read about it first in the foreword to ›Atlas Shrugged‹, but upon checking, I saw that it was actually Leonard Peikoff who wrote the foreword for this book. Ms. Rand herself didn't write one. All the other books of hers I own and have read—›The Virtue of Selfishness‹, ›Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal‹, and ›For the New Intellectual‹—didn't feature it either. But in a biography written about Ms. Rand, the topic has come up a couple of times, if only as a mere abridgement to introduce the intellectual darlings she has met in her new home, perhaps her actual home, to speak not only of Ms. Rand's philosophical uprising but also in terms of a place she could call home because she would not be prosectured or censored. In this biography, it is written that
In Hollywood, she had been intimate with relatively few people and was largely unaware, she later said, of the degree of “pink” penetration in America or of the growing appeal of Communist battle cries to screenwriters and directors and to some of the nation’s bankrupt farmers, miners, and unemployed industrial workers. In New York, the leftward trend was more evident, especially among the cultural elite; she gradually became aware that many literary celebrities, such as Mencken’s old friend Theodore Dreiser, Heywood Broun, Edmund Wilson, Langston Hughes, John Dos Passos, and critics Malcolm Cowley, Matthew Josephson, and Granville Hicks, were members of or sympathizers with the Communist Party of the United States. At the literary cocktail parties and events that were covered in the gossip columns, they endorsed Stalinism as a noble experiment and drank toasts to the coming of America’s “Red Dawn.” Their message was that capitalism had been tested and had failed; the time had come to try Marxism on the Soviet model. It was only after living in New York for a year or two that Rand began to see the extent of the pro-Communist bias on the American intellectual left. A nineteenth-century Russian at heart, she believed that ideas have the power to change history and that intellectual leaders are the engines and agents of change. It was American intellectuals whom she eventually decided she would have to target and fight. 
(Heller, Anne C. (2009). Ayn Rand and the World She Made. New York City, London: Penguin Books. I am unfortunately unable to provide a precise page number as I have only got the EPUB edition. The quote is from chapter four, ›We Are Not Like Our Brothers, 1934—1938‹. Underscores are mine.)  

Now the language is unlike the one I have used, Ms. Rand may not have been aghast at the sight of the US интеллигенция that endorses Stalinism while she had seen to what Stalinism does to the humans, particularly those who do not embrace it wholeheartedly. I have also now used the word intelligentsiya although I didn't want to, but when we speak about people who live abroad and purport Soviet propaganda in spite of being able to know better, they fit the concept of the brainiacs true to their incumbent government come hell or high water.

 
Speaking of South-East Asia, Vietnam may be the best example of a formerly Socialist country (at least in half) that chose to transform into an at least partially Capitalist country: 

Vo, A. N. (2009). Vietnam as a transforming country. In The Transformation of Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations in Vietnam (pp. 17–40). Elsevier. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-84334-270-0.50002-X

 ⁶ On the subject of Bangladeshi sludge mismanagement:
Miah, Md. B., Haque, Md. S., Khaleque, Md. A., & Santos, R. M. (2023). Sludge Management in the Textile Industries of Bangladesh: An Industrial Survey of the Impact of the 2015 Standards and Guidelines. Water, 15(10), 1901. MDPI AG. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/w15101901
On the subject of sexual abuse on palm plantations:
Mason, M., & McDowell, R. (2020). Rape, abuses in palm oil fields linked to top beauty brands. AP News. Link: https://apnews.com/article/palm-oil-abuse-investigation-cosmetics-2a209d60c42bf0e8fcc6f8ea6daa11c7

⁷ Sudbury-Riley, L., & Kohlbacher, F. (2016). Ethically minded consumer behavior: Scale review, development, and validation. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 2697-2710. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.11.005 

⁸ Lee, H., Calvin, K., Dasgupta, D., Krinner, G., Mukherji, A., Thorne, P., ... & Zommers, Z. (2023). AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle/ . This was just the latest report of the IPCC, but you could technically share any synthesis report of the Panel, it would still prove the point that while one is supposed to think critically, there is just no evidence that could prove the point of climate change's reality. What one could argue is that the name climate change were the wrong name for what is happening, but climate catastrophe were too striking to treat it serious. 
Aside of that, there are further studies that simply prove the same point. Of all of them, one and shall be listed for full clarity on the subject:
 
Marcantonio R, Javeline D, Field S, Fuentes A (2021) Global distribution and coincidence of pollution, climate impacts, and health risk in the Anthropocene. PLoS ONE 16(7): e0254060. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254060 

Another study  has also pointed out that greenhouse gas emissions have been increasing particularly throughout the past fifty years, thus gradually worsening the onset from which we start trying to save our planet: 

Minx, J. C., Lamb, W. F., Andrew, R. M., Canadell, J. G., Crippa, M., Döbbeling, N., Forster, P. M., Guizzardi, D., Olivier, J., Peters, G. P., Pongratz, J., Reisinger, A., Rigby, M., Saunois, M., Smith, S. J., Solazzo, E., and Tian, H.: A comprehensive and synthetic dataset for global, regional, and national greenhouse gas emissions by sector 1970–2018 with an extension to 2019, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 13, 5213–5252, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-5213-2021, 2021.

⁹ Needless to say, it is highly unpopular to present such arguments towards the public as a politician because the populace would immediately rush towards the adversary who promised them the pie in the sky instead. But with regards to all the imaginable scenarios concering climate change's reality, the hardship humankind, and particularly every individual on their own, were multiply greater than the loss of minor comforts in personal life. The following study elaborates on that:

Kemp, L., Xu, C., Depledge, J., Ebi, K. L., Gibbins, G., Kohler, T. A., ... & Lenton, T. M. (2022). Climate Endgame: Exploring catastrophic climate change scenarios. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(34), e2108146119. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2108146119

 ¹⁰ Nicolini, G., Antoniella, G., Carotenuto, F., Christen, A., Ciais, P., Feigenwinter, C., ... & Papale, D. (2022). Direct observations of CO2 emission reductions due to COVID-19 lockdown across European urban districts. Science of the Total Environment, 830, 154662. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154662

Ray, R. L., Singh, V. P., Singh, S. K., Acharya, B. S., & He, Y. (2022). What is the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on global carbon emissions?. Science of The Total Environment, 816, 151503. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151503

¹¹ Bhanumati, P., de Haan, M., & Tebrake, J. W. (2022). Greenhouse Emissions Rise to Record, Erasing Drop During Pandemic. IMF Blogs. Link: https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2022/06/30/greenhouse-emissions-rise-to-record-erasing-drop-during-pandemic

¹² Munich RE (July 27, 2023). Earthquakes, thunderstorms, floods: Natural disaster figures for the first half of 2023. Link: https://www.munichre.com/en/company/media-relations/media-information-and-corporate-news/media-information/2023/natural-disaster-figures-first-half-2023.html

Ana M Vicedo-Cabrera et al 2023 Environ. Res. Lett. 18 074037. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ace0d0

¹³ In the end, recycling will play a major role in keeping rare earths available: 

Silvestri, L., Forcina, A., Silvestri, C., & Traverso, M. (2021). Circularity potential of rare earths for sustainable mobility: Recent developments, challenges and future prospects. Journal of Cleaner Production, 292, 126089. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126089

Another problem, obviously, is the fact that many of the rare earths deposits are located in countries that do not have the whitest of vests when it comes to their human rights record. And those recently discovered deposits of lithium in Sweden and Portugal will only partially make up for the world's need for both, not to speak of all the actual rare earths  the greatest mining country by and large remains the People's Republic of China: https://www.statista.com/statistics/270277/mining-of-rare-earths-by-country/

¹⁴ DaSilva, Bryann; Dhar, Julia; Rafiq, Sana; Young, David (May 20, 2022). Nudging Consumers Towards Sustainability. Boston Consulting Group: https://www.bcg.com/publications/2022/nudging-consumers-to-make-sustainable-choices

He, G., Pan, Y., Park, A., Sawada, Y., & Tan, E. S. (2023). Reducing single-use cutlery with green nudges: Evidence from China’s food-delivery industry. Science (New York, N.Y.), 381(6662). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.add9884

¹⁵ Fraser C Lott et al 2021 Environ. Res. Lett. 16 104040. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abe9e9

¹⁶ Cozzi, L., Chen, O., & Kim, H. (2023). The world’s top 1% of emitters produce over 10,000 times more CO2 than the bottom 1%. International Energy Agency (IEA): https://www.iea.org/commentaries/the-world-s-top-1-of-emitters-produce-over-1000-times-more-co2-than-the-bottom-1

¹⁷ Cass, N., Büchs, M., & Lucas, K. (2023). How are high-carbon lifestyles justified? Exploring the discursive strategies of excess energy consumers in the United Kingdom. Energy Research & Social Science, 97, 102951. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.102951

¹⁸ United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Emissions Gap Report 2022. Link: https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2022
I have heard that argument mostly on the internet, particularly on Twitter because that platform I frequented the most, but there are even academic professionals who make the argument that the mere existence of rich people were in itself unsubstainable:

Hickel, J. (2020). We can't have billionaires and stop climate change. The Correspondent, 9. Link:  https://thecorrespondent.com/728/we-cant-have-billionaires-and-stop-climate-change

The argument is as silly as to say that one could not have subsidised healthcare and a department for gender studies at every public university. Billionaires are humans, first of all, and specifically they are humans who have managed to grow their wealth oftentimes either through the discovery of a market gap they dexteriously filled with demanded products or the management of a company in such a way that it remained excessively profitable. Their existence is the culmination of consumer satisfaction and management skill. The least of their success was built either on corruption or luck, despite of what the vox populi believes is the reason for their abnormal wealth.

¹⁹ The argument that it were the rich to blame for global climate change, which is propelled particularly by CO₂ emissions, it is the darling also of many think tanks, next to the online left that likes to allege the right of picking easy solutions for complex problems but jumps to allege nouvelles riches and established billionaires of being responsible for destroying the planet for quick cash grabs. As we will come back to the argument, one example for the think tank's like-mindedness, we shall prove at least one article published less than one year:

Oxfam International (November 07, 2022). A billionaire emits a million times more greenhouse gases than the average person. Link: https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/billionaire-emits-million-times-more-greenhouse-gases-average-person. 

The subtitle already hints towards what is wrong with the allegation in general, and why we cannot grant it the titular switch in verbs towards accuse.

²⁰ Beatriz Barros & Richard Wilk (2021) The outsized carbon footprints of the super-rich, Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 17:1, 316-322, DOI: 10.1080/15487733.2021.1949847

²¹ Chancel, L. Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019. Nat Sustain 5, 931–938 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00955-z

²² Although their emissions have so far ranked rather low: 
Salgmann, Rico; Rojon, Isabelle; Englert, Dominik (June 15, 2023). Pricing emissions from shipping: Where should the money go? World Bank Blogs: https://blogs.worldbank.org/transport/pricing-emissions-shipping-where-should-money-go
In the article, it was estimated that they account for only about three percent of all global carbon emissions.  Yet the impact it may have on the global environment may be found in the deep blue sea: From the disorientation of whales because of the noises caused by the container ships:
Sørensen et al., Anthropogenic noise impairs cooperation in bottlenose dolphins, Current Biology (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2022.12.063
Over the impact of the ships on the oceanic fauna and habitats as they pass by:
Erbe, C., Smith, J. N., Redfern, J. V., & Peel, D. (2020). Impacts of shipping on marine fauna. Frontiers in Marine Science, 7, 637.
To littering: As surprising as it may sound, but the fact that even garbage is being shipped from one continent to another leads to a lot of it ending up in the oceans, which we may only see again when it ends up as flotsam on the beaches: 
Haarr, M. L., Falk-Andersson, J., & Fabres, J. (2022). Global marine litter research 2015–2020: geographical and methodological trends. Science of The Total Environment, 820, 153162.
And when we speak about climate change, we may thus fall short of the full circumference of human malfeasance against its own living space. Carbon emissions are only the peak of the iceberg, but in order to maintain the inhabitability of our Blue Marble, we must also assure the inhabitability for flora and fauna. Animals are already dying out at a morbid pace, while the oceans become more unlivable for marine life by the minute. One issue we haven't mentioned yet is the impact of trawl nets for the oceans' floors and the animals that live in them. But for brevity's sake, we will leave it out for now. All in all, it cannot be denied that the status quo is vastly unhealthy for all parties involved. In that regard, it almost didn't matter who bore the greater burden of fault for the situation, but it is indisputable that the way it goes now cannot be continued without a horrendous aftermath. In the end, the interest in preserving this planet is mutual, no matter how long self-proclaimed anti-Capitalists allege their outsown enemies of the latter, as if they had a miraculous bunker to hide in once the planet became a scorched landscape of inarable soil, laid bare underneath a gleaming sun. They lived on the same planet as everyone else until inhabitable planets within mortal reach were found, which at the moment appears impossible as the only inhabitable planets were so far away that it took at least one-and-a-half lifetimes to only reach them. So, the saying that “there is no planet B” rings true. For those who live today, there is no second option. We must settle ourselves for the one we have, or perish trying.

²³ As mentioned in the prior footnote, it is an issue to great to talk about in general, but in purpose of this context, we must realise that the only possible withdrawal we could undertake is to dry out its pipeline: We had to get rid of plastic use altogether. There have been studies investigating how present PFAS already are, particularly in the US, and the results have been as one could expect: They have already sunk into the groundwater:
Ailijiang, N., Zhong, N., Zhou, X. et al. Levels, sources, and risk assessment of PAHs residues in soil and plants in urban parks of Northwest China. Sci Rep 12, 21448 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-25879-8

 United States Geological Survey (USGS) (July 05, 2023). Tap water study detects PFAS 'forever chemicals' across the US. Link: https://www.usgs.gov/news/national-news-release/tap-water-study-detects-pfas-forever-chemicals-across-us

Speaking of having to get rid of plastic in order to reduce the circulation of PFAS, there has been at least one study that has even linked toilet paper as a vehicle of PFAS into the groundwater:
Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2023, 10, 3, 234–239. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.3c00094
We could go on about this with more studies about the presence, but the point should be clear: PFAS are like any illness we have not managed to eradicate yet, they are mongst us, with alternating density. To wrap this footnote up, we should close with one more study, on the subject of how PFAS impacts people's health:
Ehsan, M. N., Riza, M., Pervez, M. N., Khyum, M. M. O., Liang, Y., & Naddeo, V. (2023). Environmental and health impacts of PFAS: Sources, distribution and sustainable management in North Carolina (USA). Science of The Total Environment, 878, 163123. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163123

 ²⁴ Umlauf, Georg; Vorbeck, Claudia (July 18, 2023). PFAS-kontaminiertes Wasser wird wieder sauber – erfolgversprechendes und umweltschonendes Verfahren entwickelt. Fraunhofer-Institut: https://www.igb.fraunhofer.de/de/presse-medien/presseinformationen/2023/pfas-kontaminiertes-wasser-wird-wieder-sauber-erfolgversprechendes-und-umweltschonendes-verfahren-entwickelt.html

And since this is not an article that implicitly addresses of PFAS-infested groundwater, we should add another article that does:

Ailijiang, N., Zhong, N., Zhou, X. et al. Levels, sources, and risk assessment of PAHs residues in soil and plants in urban parks of Northwest China. Sci Rep 12, 21448 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-25879-8

²⁵ Neelavannan, K., Sen, I. S., Lone, A. M., & Gopinath, K. (2022). Microplastics in the high-altitude Himalayas: assessment of microplastic contamination in freshwater lake sediments, Northwest Himalaya (India). Chemosphere, 290, 133354. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.133354

It is worth mentioning that since it makes up a fifth of global carbon emissions:

Li, M., Jia, N., Lenzen, M. et al. Global food-miles account for nearly 20% of total food-systems emissions. Nat Food 3, 445–453 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-022-00531-w

²⁶ But as is the case with the fossil-fuel production, those goods are neither produced, nor grown for the sole purpose of garnering money from thin air. There is a demand for them on the market, iterated by regular customers who are ready to pay for them, knowing that the delivery may contribute to an ongoing climate hazard. 

²⁷ A similar phenomenon has already been examined amongst internationally operating corporations, with a positive outcome. Because governments of specially powerful nations in equally noticeable alliances, there is good reason to believe that both the arguments and results can be transposed. See the study: 

Bodnaruk, A., Massa, M., & Simonov, A. (2013). Alliances and corporate governance. Journal of Financial Economics, 107(3), 671-693. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2012.09.010

²⁸  Gossen, M., Jäger, S., Hoffmann, M. L., Bießmann, F., Korenke, R., & Santarius, T. (2022). Nudging Sustainable Consumption: A Large-Scale Data Analysis of Sustainability Labels for Fashion in German Online Retail. Frontiers in Sustainability, 3, 922984. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2022.922984

²⁹ In all honesty, though, it hs had a minor impact on customers' decision-making, as studies have proven:
 Folkvord, F., Bergmans, N., & Pabian, S. (2021). The effect of the nutri-score label on consumer’s attitudes, taste perception and purchase intention: An experimental pilot study. Food Quality and Preference, 94, 104303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104303

³⁰ Die Bundesregierung (October 04, 2022). Reserve für Stromproduktion nutzen. Link: https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/schwerpunkte/klimaschutz/versorgungsreserve-2130276. The title already insinuates what is written in the brief press release: That they should not run indefinitely from the date onwards, but in case of emergencies, when energy should run low because Russia has cut off ties for energy distribution, and France could not run its nuclear plants permanently because its rivers ran dry, thus disallowing the cooling of the plants:

Ouest-France (August 18, 2022). EN IMAGES. De la Loire au Louet, la sécheresse en Maine-et-Loire. Link: https://www.ouest-france.fr/pays-de-la-loire/maine-et-loire/en-images-de-la-loire-au-louet-la-secheresse-en-maine-et-loire-bf84977e-1ef7-11ed-8d55-ffd310d62ef7

³¹ Vlastelica, Ryan; Turner, Matt (May 11, 2022). Saudi Aramco Becomes World’s Most Valuable Stock as Apple Drops. Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-11/saudi-aramco-becomes-world-s-most-valuable-stock-as-apple-drops. Of course it didn't take its adversaries long to overtake them again, but when it comes to the pole position, it is an embattled field with frequent place trades. 

³² It is called ›Statens pensjonsfond‹, colloquially called ›Oljefondet‹, the latter which also shows that it is entirely ifnanced with oil drilling: https://www.nbim.no/no/oljefondet/om-oljefondet/

³³ Throughout the past few months, when Tesla CEO Elon Musk took over Twitter (now called X, but I will never bow down to his rebranding effort), the term vox populi is being misused as it was never meant in a positive sense. It is derived from a letter by the Christian scholar Alcuiniana to the then-Holy Roman emperor Carolus Magnus in 798 anno Domini. The apparent passage, because it seems impossible to find the full passage of the letter in Latin (passage VIIII, as some people may have missed the part where the number 9 is written as IX), reads as follows:

Populus iuxta sanctiones divinas ducendus est, non sequendus; et ad testimonium persone magis eliguntur honeste. Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, Vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit

(Source: Epistula 132, passage VIIII. In: Dümmler, E., & Gundlach, W. (1892). Epistolae karolini aevi, volume II. Hildesheim: Olms - Weidmann. Link: https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_epp_4/index.htm#page/(II)/mode/1up)
It comes close to the falsely allocated, likely completely made up quote by former British PM Winston Churchill, claiming that all it takes to be disillusioned by Democracy were a five-minutes conversation with a common man. (Source: https://winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour/finest-hour-141/red-herrings-famous-quotes-churchill-never-said/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CThe%20best%20argument%20against%20Democracy%20is%20a%20five%2Dminute%20conversation%20with%20the%20average%20voter.%E2%80%9D) In my opinion, it is teh same issue as with homeopathic medicine: It can help (work), but one must know its limits. The common man is not elected and not eligible to anybody but their own. (As votes remain anonymous, one could easily lie about their vote on something if they knew that telling the truth could spark some controversay amongst their peers) They are also not told to be informed about particular issues and could not be provided equally with a staff of advisers and researchers who could brief them on issues they were about to vote on. Direct Democracy, as it could be the only kind of Democracy that could truly destabilise a country and threaten complete immobility and the reign of populism. 

³⁴ This were not even the most aggressive suggestion/order uttered by the populace, as a look in the ›Guardian‹ and the redirection to the article's original resource that sparked the article:

Grasso, M., & Heede, R. (2023). Time to pay the piper: Fossil fuel companies’ reparations for climate damages. One Earth, 6(5), 459-463. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2023.04.012

As expected, the argument—which is based on moral theory as we know it from ethical philosophy—doesn't include the actual consumers who are finally responsible for the carbon dioxide pollution, but only the producers. The same way, we could hold manufacturers of ballistic arms and kitchen knives when someone is being murdered with either one, extrajudiciarily. To peak this argument in ridicule, the only permissible way to murder someone would be to fight them close quarters, or with DIY weapons. The argument that the producers provided the consumers with a means of incentivisation doesn't hold up as we are capable of reason as humans, and if we weren't because of mental incapacities, then we shouldn't be allowed to perform purchases without supervision. 

³⁵ As it has been pointed out many times in research, the quicker we can manage to phase out fossil fuels in the industry, the cheaper it will come. Likewise, adjourning the inevitable will cost us more. The same applies for all the implementation of sustianability measurements in every field, especially with regards to the costs that are proliferated with every day that they are not even touched, let alone planned and performed. 
See one paper promoting the acceleration of a fossil-fuel phase-out: 
Thielges, S. (2023). The global shift away from fossil energy. Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP), German Institute for International and Security Affairs. https://doi.org/10.18449/2023C38
Above in the main text I have already spoken about countries that have come close to phasing out fossil fuels, especially in Scandinavia. With some fantasy, one could imagine what those Scandinavian countries actually committed to: An end to drilling operations in the North Sea to seek more oil. Needless to say, that is important, but they too have not yet ended the utilisation of petrol et al. in public. Read a short news article under the following link: 
Frost, Rosie (August 12, 2021). The end of fossil fuels: Which countries have banned exploration and extraction? Euronews: https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/08/12/the-end-of-fossil-fuels-which-countries-have-banned-exploration-and-extraction

Britain, meanwhile, has committed to explorations in ending its dependency on fossil fuels while simultaneously securing its energy supply by other means. (Hoping that this will not just be energy produced with the same means they banned in their own country. See hereunder: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmselect/cmenvaud/109/report.html
Another country that has got my interest is that of Poland; a country that is highly dependent on coal, even though it infests the air in cities like Kraków and even affects women's fertility:

 Wronka, I., Kliś, K. Effect of air pollution on age at menarche in polish females, born 1993–1998. Sci Rep 12, 4820 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-08577-3

Poland is dependent on coal, and the incumbent government (writing as of today, August 27, 2023) has vowed to transition to a cleaner energy production blend, although it is yet to tell whether they can succeed in this project or will fail:

Li, Y., Zhang, H., & Kang, Y. (2020). Will Poland fulfill its coal commitment by 2030? An answer based on a novel time series prediction method. Energy Reports, 6, 1760-1767. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2020.06.021

As is necessary in all kinds of transitioning processes at least for smaller countries with a smaller GDP, outside entities support them financially with credits. The World Bank is such an entity, and it helps Poland with the transformation of former, historical coal regions like the wielkopolskie, śląskie and dolnośląskie województwa. It can be read about under the following link: https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/poland/publication/support-for-polish-coal-regions-in-transition (There, three different, interrelated reports can be downloaded and read) 
Finally, a Polish think tank has conceptualised three different scenarios for Poland's energy future, and the results are pretty predictable with a little fantasy: Scenario one is the most optimistic: Poland switches to renewable energies and the earth relieves. The second scenario is the bleakest of all three: The global climate rises by 2.5 ˚C and all the consequences of such a rise come into force. The third scenario is similar to the first scenario but with even more hazardous consequences, both of whic hshow that when projected onto the rest of the world shows that inactivity or pathological hesitancy will have a couple of unpleasant repercussions (check the following link for the full analysis: https://www.cire.pl/artykuly/o-tym-sie-mowi/trzy-scenariusze-przyszlosci-sektora-energetycznego-w-polsce) 

³⁶ Mishra, A., & Agarwal, A. (2019). Do infrastructure development and urbanisation lead to rural-urban income inequality? Evidence from some Asian countries. International Journal of Sustainable Economy, 11(2), 167-183. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSE.2019.099054

³⁷ Mazur, C. (2016). Homes on the range: Homeownership rates are higher in rural America. Census Blogs, US Census Bureau. Link: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2016/12/homes_on_the_range.html 

Another opportunity for rural development is the interconnectivity between urban and said rural areas:

Tacoli, C. (2003). The links between urban and rural development. Environment and urbanization, 15(1), 3-12. Link: https://www.iied.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/migrate/G00486.pdf (PDF, 88.5 KB)

Still, there are a few studies on the eocnomic effects of urban-to-rural migration, although more studies, also in journals that are not alleged of predatory malpractice, would be necessary to manifest the point and iron out probable inaccuracies:

Le, T. H., Nakagawa, Y., & Kobayashi, Y. (2021). Conditions under Which Rural-to-Urban Migration Enhances Social and Economic Sustainability of Home Communities: A Case Study in Vietnam. Sustainability, 13(15), 8326. MDPI AG. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13158326

 ³⁸ Brown-Iannuzzi, J. L., Lundberg, K. B., & McKee, S. (2017). The politics of socioeconomic status: how socioeconomic status may influence political attitudes and engagement. Current opinion in psychology, 18, 11-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.06.018

³⁹ Gu, Y., Wang, Z. Income Inequality and Global Political Polarization: The Economic Origin of Political Polarization in the World. J OF CHIN POLIT SCI 27, 375–398 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-021-09772-1

⁴⁰ Smilansky, S. (1994). On Practicing What We Preach. American Philosophical Quarterly, 31(1), 73–79. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20014485

⁴¹ Groh, D. (1987). The Temptation of Conspiracy Theory, or: Why Do Bad Things Happen to Good People? Part I: Preliminary Draft of a Theory of Conspiracy Theories. In: Graumann, C.F., Moscovici, S. (eds) Changing Conceptions of Conspiracy. Springer Series in Social Psychology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4618-3_1

⁴² What he actually said is:

We but mirror the world. All the tendencies present in the outer world are to be found in the world of our body. If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him. This is the divine mystery supreme. A wonderful thing it is and the source of our happiness. We need not wait to see what others do.

Source: The Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India (1964). The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Volume XII, April 1913 to December 1914, Chapter: General Knowledge About Health XXXII: Accidents Snake-Bite, (From Gujarati, Indian Opinion, 9-8-1913). Page 158. The Mahatma Gandhi Sevagram Ashram provides a different edition of his collected works, but a good one and one that is freely available online. The quote can be found in the 13th volume of his works, on page 241: https://www.gandhiashramsevagram.org/gandhi-literature/mahatma-gandhi-collected-works-volume-13.pdf#page=241

We read similar sentiments in the Holy Bible as well. Just think about what is written in James 2, 14-17, about a believer who complains about a lack of work while there were poverty and misery to combat in his approximant environment: 

 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

We thus see that the idea of taking action ourselves rather than expecting others to do the work for us is not bound to cultural or ideological, theoretical or religious boundaries, it is somewhat universal, although we may emphasise that for once, the Holy Bible build the philosophical groundwrok for the Christian religion, whereas Mahatma Gandhi was the spiritual leader of the Indian independence movement. But still, both are bestowed with goodness and goodwill, with the idea that all people could live together in a peaceful fraternity. 

⁴³ — Bocken, N. M., & Short, S. W. (2021). Unsustainable business models–Recognising and resolving institutionalised social and environmental harm. Journal of Cleaner Production, 312, 127828. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127828
— Lenton, T.M., Xu, C., Abrams, J.F. et al. Quantifying the human cost of global warming. Nat Sustain (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-023-01132-6
— Certainly the second study is more directed towards the question of how much the aftermath of climate change will cost humankind rather than the businesses, but in the end, once the frequency of natural catastrophes goes higher and creates more proprietary damage, the people will call upon their governments to retaliate those tragedies by punishing the alleged perpetrators, namely corporations that exploit natural resources as a bsuiness model and—again, allegedly—take no prisoners therein, as long as the money kept coming. With regards to what we have assessed earlier in the text, a more appropriate description of the causes for their professionalised zero-sum game would be that they had targets to meet under the best possible conditions, best meaning the cheapest. And the judge setting the target is the customer demanding affordable products. 
Affordability is a thorny issue specifically regarding essential products. The US are an omnipresent palette of examples for many issues, and this one is amongst them too. During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, one product became scarce although many young parents relied on it: Formula. Anti-Capitalists cherish the photographs of locked-up grocery shelves where formula is only accessible after talking to the supermarket staff. The locks were necessary because those products were oftentimes victims to shoplifting. Those conditions already existed previous to the pandemic, but worsened meanwhile still. Critics alleged that the producers of formula deliberately imposed those scarcities in order to increase their profits, which made little sense since they could have pulled that lever all the time before too, with the same conclusions. They didn't need to wait until a pandemic took off and set international supply chains off the rails. After a couple of weeks, it turned out that while there were too few national producers of infant formula in the US—the situation could eventually be relieved by lifting regulations on imported infant formula from Europe—, one major bottleneck were regulations imposed by the government. For those who don't want to pay for further information, there is a concise commentary from GWU:

Sullivan, Mary (July 21, 2022). Factors Contributing to the Infant Formula Shortage. George Washington University: https://regulatorystudies.columbian.gwu.edu/factors-contributing-infant-formula-shortage-0

And for those who are ready to pay for some insights, there is also a study on the same subject:

Doherty, T., Coutsoudis, A., McCoy, D., Lake, L., Pereira-Kotze, C., Goldhagen, J., & Kroon, M. (2022). Is the US infant formula shortage an avoidable crisis?. The Lancet, 400(10346), 83-84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00984-9

Now this is a little outside of this blog post's scope, but regulations, when producing a negative effect, harm the customer-supplier relationship in such a way as that natural ways and means no longer show the desired effects. This is when regulations overreach and create more harm than good. A benevolent interpretation of such overreaching would be that the people, the voters, demand noticeable conclusions, and since the government is thus under a zugzwang, it imposes invasive regulations that will inevitably produce noticeable effects, presumably positive ones. At first glance, this may seem reasonable: In order for a regulation to moderate the market in the people's favour, there needs to be a certain degree of invasiveness. But this clearly missed the point, since regulation does not work as a linear upwards equation. At one point it reaches a break even point where the line will go down because regulation harms the market's functionality. Of course such a BEP is a myth, it doesn't exist; regulations cannot be treated like mathematical equations that could be pinned down in their values. They are abstractions, abstract items created within the construct of our society. It is more complex than a single number whose characteristics can be listed, thus creating a full description of it. A regulation is too abstract to be even comprehended in its fullest scale when described in a draft bill ranging over hundreds of pages. When written down in such a way, all estimations as to how its impact will be in the environment is sterile, and once it has taken effect, it still remains a matter of discussion as to whether it has a beneficial or maleficient effect on the economy and the people as a whole. It is what separates an umbrella discipline like sociology from the analytical field of mathematics, or STEM sciences in general. It is also why I am better at the former than the latter: Because the latter leaves space for interpretations and creative abstracting of the matter at hand; the answer is not pinned down and cannot be precisely concluded. It is more materialistic and therefore more ductile. No level of human reason could make our society as precise as a mathematical equation. 

⁴⁴ Although it is not all doom and gloom on the market. In fact, the conditions are as a Neoliberal, for example, would expect it to be:
Morikawa, M. (2021). Price competition vs. quality competition: Evidence from firm surveys. Journal of Economics and Business, 116, 106007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconbus.2021.106007
Even better, the tides may turn in the customers' favour, particularly those with said lower disposable income. Some may argue that they hadn't experienced such a turn of tides, saying that nothing had changed and that the cheaper products were still those of inferior quality, but as we know, such statistical papers can never describe specific details but only an overall average. 
Chenavaz, R. (2017). Better Product Quality May Lead to Lower Product Price . The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, 17(1), 20150062. https://doi.org/10.1515/bejte-2015-0062

⁴⁵ BusinessWire (May 04, 2023). AB InBev Reports First Quarter 2023 Results. Link: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230504005165/en/AB-InBev-Reports-First-Quarter-2023-Results 

⁴⁶ I also really like the Yiddish translation of this song, entitled « און דו אקערסט און דו זייסט ». Unfortunately, the National Library of Israel didn't provide the full lyrics for it, but at least a clean recording: https://www.nli.org.il/he/items/NNL_MUSIC_AL990038580930205171/NLI. 

⁴⁷ Contrarily, the same question has been proposed with regards to Austro-English economist F. A. Hayek and English economist Ronald Coase. Read:

Anderson, T. L. (2016). If Hayek and Coase were environmentalists: Linking economics and ecology. Supreme Court Economic Review, 23(1), 121-140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/686475

⁴⁸ Needless to say that the Mainland Chinese government has forged a plan to lead its people into carbon neutrality. What is surprising, though, is that it is by far not as invasive in its policy proposals as it would be expected from a government that is known to control its people in every step of life. You can read their proposal hereunder: https://en.ndrc.gov.cn/policies/202110/t20211027_1301020.html

⁴⁹ von Mises, Ludwig (1998). Human Action. A Treatise on Economics. Auburn (AL): Ludwig von Mises Institute. Page 19-20. 

⁵⁰ The Western world—a probably more appropriate description of the Western, first world, as opposed to what we call the third world, although this negatively denoted title may be misleading in many ways, including the view it conveys about indigenous people who would be poor in our definition, which is mostly based in a view of the financial situation, while they themselves would not consider themselves poor. The US-American novelist and journalist Rose Wilder Lane witnessed the same about Georgian people in the Caucasus (the people whose native country is called Sakartvelo in their native language; not to be confused with the US State of the same name) as they were pushed in the impoverishing kolkhozy of the Soviet Union. 
But first, read how the World Bank perceives the indigenous peoples of the US:

Davis, S. H., & Wali, A. (1993). Indigenous views of land and the environment. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Rose Wilder Lane didn't emphasise the humility of the Georgian people (unlike I remembered it), but mentioned that they lived in what we would call poverty but those people would call home. As she wrote about their standard of living:

Certainly the standard of living was primitive. In a hundred years, it had not changed. They had no electric lights, no plumbing. They bathed, I supposed, only once a week in the village bath-house, and perhaps it wasn't sanitary. How many germs were in their drinking water, no one knew. Their windows were not screened. Their dusty roads were undoubtedly fathomless mud in rainy weather. They had no automobiles, nor even horses; only ox-wagons. Their standard of living, in a word, had remained that of the pioneers of Illinois a hundred years ago. Possibly their standard of living has already been raised. It may be that in time every tooth in Russia will be brushed thrice daily and every child fed spinach. (Wilder Lane, Rose (1936). Give me Liberty. Caldwell (IO): The Caxton Printers, Ltd.)

⁵¹ The NASA, in the second footnote of its Evidence page (https://web.archive.org/web/20230923190857/https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/), has given us the years of 1896, 1938, 1941, and finally 1956, the antepenultimate and penultimate lying pretty close to one another. Either way, the knowledge about a problematic direction where humanity and its lifestyle were headed is old; old enough to have countered it through trends towards sustainability. The reason why we didn't lies in our preference of convenience. Preference for convenience and the consequential ignorance of warnings by the Cassandrian experts was also what led to the fateful demise of many citizens of Hamburg when the “Blanke Hans” (Bare Hans) went down on them in 1962: https://hhla.de/en/company/history/storm-flood-1962

⁵² He even won the Nobel Prize in 2007, sharing it with the IPCC on the same subject, we could say:

Al Gore – Facts. NobelPrize.org. Nobel Prize Outreach AB 2023. Sun. 24 Sep 2023. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2007/gore/facts/

⁵³ von Mises, Ludwig (2007). Theory & History. Auburn (AL): Ludwig von Mises Institute. Page 378. 

⁵⁴ And since I won't share anything in either such direction, I want to emphasise that the reason why some people are either ignorant or in denial about elephants in the room, the reason for this is as easy as it is problematic: People don't like leaving their comfort zones, and so they will instead rest in a state of bliss and enjoy the time of comfort that is left to them. Many who live in such blissful states are said to be elders or nearing seniority, so that they were allegedly enjoying the last years of peace and prosperity, leaving behind for their offspring and following generations the decay of their ignorance. I disagree with this assessment as this firstly constitutes a fallacious generalisation that simultaneously alleges an entire generation of irresponsibility while stylising another generation of a carte-blanche innocence and sainthood in terms of sustainability, and secondly is not supported by any relevant research. Thirdly, divisiveness won't solve any issues, since we will always live (and die) in a multigenerational, pluralist society. This multi-layered plurality is a dilemma insofar as that it is our joy and demise at once. 
Long story short, there is also noticeable literature on the phenomenon of blissful ignorance:

Zerubavel, E. (2006). The elephant in the room: Silence and denial in everyday life. Oxford University Press.

 ⁵⁵ von Mises, Ludwig (1962). The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science. Princeton (NJ): D van Nostrand Company, Ltd. Page 79. 

⁵⁶ Freedom to order our own conduct in the sphere where material circumstances force a choice upon us, and responsibility for the arrangement of our own life according to our own conscience, is the air in which alone moral sense grows and in which moral values are daily re-created in the free decision of the individual. Responsibility, not to a superior, but to one’s conscience, the awareness of a duty not exacted by compulsion, the necessity to decide which of the things one values are to be sacrificed to others, and to bear the consequences of one’s own decision, are the very essence of any morals which deserve the name.
(Hayek, F. A.; Caldwell, Bruce (ed.) (2007). The Road to Serfdom. The Definitive Edition. Texts and Documents. Chicago (IL): Chicago University Press. Page 216-217.)

⁵⁷ von Mises wrote that “If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.” (von Mises, Ludwig (1974). Planning for freedom, and twelve other essays and addresses. South Holland (IL): Libertarian Press. Page 44) He is right with regards to that, I have spoken similarly earlier and elsewhere. Wherever man is at work, the risk of error is imminent. But he judges prematurely when he claims that when the entrepreneur errs, the legislator will err likewise. When we speak of the legislator, we speak of laws he passes that mean to set barriers for the market to direct him. Those laws are not passed prematurely and pushed through with all of the legislator's might. Instead, those laws undergo several layers of review and are being scrutinised by the parliamentary opposition. Those who deem it problematic anyhow can enquire a review by a court. Again, those courts are occupied by humans, equally errable. If we had to assume that all those layers of humans failed to notice a fallacy within those laws, we could either assume that we reached another reason for why humanity were its own doom, or that the error were so tiny that its effects will remain infinitesimal and won't (marginally) hinder the entrepreneur from producing a satisfactory good or deliver a decent service to his customers. 

⁵⁸ Unilever was one of the first companies I heard of that planned to replace its plastic container for pot noodles with a paper one. The plans have been reported some time ago:

Francis, Jo (July 12, 2023). Unilever trials paper for Pot Noodle. Printweek: https://www.printweek.com/news/article/unilever-trials-paper-for-pot-noodle

PepsiCo, in the meantime, tries to squash the responsibility back to the end customer and contemplates further options for them to avoid additional plastic containers by refilling their beverages at home.

Packaging Europe (September 18, 2023).  PepsiCo: EU packaging rules should embrace refill at home. Link: https://packagingeurope.com/comment/pepsico-eu-packaging-rules-should-embrace-refill-at-home/10328.article

In my opinion, it was weak of PepsiCo to not present own plans for a more sustainable packaging of their products, given the wide range it offers. For example, until recently, I didn't know that they also sold concentrate solutions, but they have even got a whole subordinate company only for such products. The idea itself, though, is not bad, it's even pretty good as this could also reduce the distribution of further bottles and other containers once people started keeping them at home. The interest of consumers was already noticeable with the growing popularity of robust to-go drinking cups and thermal mugs. The only problem I had wit hthis interview in general was the point about SodaStream-like home carbonation systems that require carbon capsules that are often throw-away products, like the coffee caps by Nescafé, which are moreover fit for Nescafé machines too, adding up on an already ludicrous product. It has been mentioned that those caps should become reusable too; it could help to make them more popular for drinkers of carbonated water (like me), plus it could make purchasing and carrying heavy castes of glass bottles superfluous—targeting singles who live in flats up in the higher storeys. 
There are many more stories one could refer, such as the commitments of other corporate giants, two of which I too have read only recently and should be mentioned due to their global brand recognition. Think, for example, of the ALDI group's commitment to trace packaging to improve its sustainability, preluded by another partnership programme:

ALDI South Group (June 2022). Tackling plastic and packaging: ALDI becomes a member of HolyGrail 2.0 and RecyClass. Link: https://cr.aldisouthgroup.com/en/responsibility/news/tackling-plastic-and-packaging-aldi-becomes-member-holygrail-20-and-recyclass

 Starbucks Stories & News (August 14, 2023). Starbucks Latest California Borrow A Cup Test Furthers Company’s Shift Toward Reusables. Link: https://stories.starbucks.com/press/2023/starbucks-latest-california-borrow-a-cup-test-furthers-companys-shift-toward-reusables/

The latter press release was also a good example of why quotation marks exist. But aside of that, those are two commitments urgently required because incentivisation on the customer side does not suffice when there are no practical, affordable alternatives to the existing plastic products. Paper straws were mocked for their impracticality for a reason, just as metal straws were for beverages that are not lukewarm but either hot or cold. What is more is that both plastic and paper straws have recently been found to contain PFAS, thus narrowing down the choice down to technically just the metal straws:

Pauline Boisacq, Maarten De Keuster, Els Prinsen, Yunsun Jeong, Lieven Bervoets, Marcel Eens, Adrian Covaci, Tim Willems & Thimo Groffen (2023) Assessment of poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in commercially available drinking straws using targeted and suspect screening approaches, Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A, 40:9, 1230-1241, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19440049.2023.2240908

This example alone shows us again why PFAS are still in use: Because their alternatives are rare and not been caught up in terms of convenience. Calls from outsiders without any practical experience in the chemical industry, telling the latter to abolish such carcinogenic additives are therefore taken little serious, as many climate activists' demands for quicker carbon neutrality. It's heinous and easy to claim that companies did too little and were too slow, too lazy in their commitments to carbon neutrality. It is a mainstream opinion for a reason. The truth is that while there are certainly many greenwashing and relativistic companies and corporations that do little to nothing, but carpeting the entire market with such calls is to also boot the ones who act in good faith but struggle with their supply chain, their products as such and the gradual irreplacability of certain additives and raw materials, as well as their business' probable immobility. Broader climate awareness has come late, unfortunately, there is no use to now look for scapegoats to point fingers at. Nearly no-one of us is without fault, hence no-one could consider themselves to be the first ones to cast stones. Jesus was forgiving with those alleged of sinning, telling the accusers to say whether they were without sin. They proved themselves to be self-conscious, and left him and the alleged woman behind.
When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. (John 8:10-11)
Whether she thus ceased to sin, we don't know. But we should be hopeful with the companies that now commit to seek alternatives for their unsustainable products, and give them time to develop proper alternatives that will not fall from grace later. It is a hard road as we have settled for a long time with plastic products because of their convenience. Many have harkened back on this and resumed alleging companies of having behaved irresponsible by relying on those materials known to have bad effects. But again, as I wrote multiply in the text, they only relied on them because they were well received by their customers. Had they heard and seen that the people disliked those harmful products because of those attitudes, they would have steered away earlier and ramped up experimental investigations into better alternatives. We must remember that they are producing service providers, not government-owned laboratories supplying planned margins of goods like in a planned economy. We must expect that those developments will have some failures, as LEGO recently announced as it firstly discontinued its plans for bricks made from recycled water bottles:

Milne, Richard (September 25, 2023). Lego ditches oil-free brick in sustainability setback. Financial Times: https://www.ft.com/content/6cad1883-f87a-471d-9688-c1a3c5a0b7dc
Allegations should instead arise exclusive to those who committed to becoming greener but later, in full hypocrisy, changed their course and returned to their a priori state of unchecked pollution. Malevolent generalisations do not help anybody and only show mindless vile for which there is no use in proving to be better. As is with education, you cannot educate someone who is not ready to learn and even overthrow past beliefs. 

⁵⁹ Çakir Melek, N. (2020). PRODUCTIVITY, NATIONALIZATION, AND THE ROLE OF “NEWS”: LESSONS FROM THE 1970S. Macroeconomic Dynamics, 24(5), 1264-1298. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1365100518000846

MOLYNEUX, R., & THOMPSON, D. (1987). Nationalised Industry Performance: Still Third-Rate? Fiscal Studies, 8(1), 48–82. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24436312

⁶⁰ Gardner LB, Scheffler RM. Privatization in Health Care: Shifting the Risk. Medical Care Review. 1988;45(2):215-253. doi:10.1177/107755878804500203

⁶¹ Blum, R. (1988). Soziale Marktwirtschaft. Link: https://wirtschaftslexikon.gabler.de/definition/soziale-marktwirtschaft-42184

⁶² Fels, R. (1960). The Manchester School of Economics. By William D. Grampp. (Stanford: Stanford University Press. 1960. Pp. vii, 153. $4.00.). American Political Science Review, 54(4), 1013-1013. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055400302593

⁶³ Temin, P. (1991). Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s. The Economic History Review, 44(4), 573–593. https://doi.org/10.2307/2597802. Perm. Link: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2597802

⁶⁴ Müller-Armack, Alfred; Tuchtfeldt, Egon (Hrsg.) (1976). Wirtschaftslenkung und Marktwirtschaft. In: ibid.: Wirtschaftsordnung und Wirtschaftspolitik. Bern, Stuttgart: Verlag Paul Haupt. Seite 36. 

⁶⁵ von Mises, Ludwig (1962). Socialism. An Economic and Sociological Analysis. New Haven (CT): Yale University Press. Page 120. 

⁶⁶ Sloat, Amanda (March 22, 2020). Cologne Sanitizer, Boxed Wine and Bidets: How People in 68 Countries Are Coping With Coronavirus. POLITICO Magazine: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/22/cologne-sanitizer-boxed-wine-and-bidets-how-people-in-68-countries-are-coping-with-coronavirus-140648

⁶⁷ McKitterick, Rosamond. "A king on the move: the place of an itinerant court in Charlemagne’s government." Royal Courts in Dynastic States and Empires. Brill, 2011. 145-169. Link: https://www.academia.edu/50159046/A_King_On_The_Move_The_Place_Of_An_Itinerant_Court_In_Charlemagne_s_Government

⁶⁸ Fraser MacBride (2002) The Problem of Universals and the Limits of Truth-Making, Philosophical Papers, 31:1, 27-37, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/05568640209485093

⁶⁹ Bender, Oliver (March 29, 2021). Ludwig von Mises. A Review. Rationalpolitik [Blogspot]: https://politique-rationale.blogspot.com/2021/03/Mises-Review.html#more

⁷⁰ Luna, V. M. I. (2016). The persistence of poverty in capitalist countries. Economía Informa, 400, 67-82. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ecin.2016.09.005

⁷¹ Müller-Armack, Alfred; Tuchtfeldt, Egon (Hrsg.) (1976). Stil und Ordnung der Sozialen Marktwirtschaft. In: ibid.: Wirtschaftsordnung und Wirtschaftspolitik. Bern, Stuttgart: Verlag Paul Haupt. Seite 237-238. Unterstreichungen meine.
We could extrapolate his words to today's days, when, as I said, many people fall from grace with what they understand to be Capitalism and the free market because it allegedly no longer works for them, or in their favour, as it supposedly should. Interestingly, only recently, a Nobel Prize laureate in economics has said the same about his own field, that of economics. You can read it under the following:
Shawn, Donnan (September 29, 2023). A Nobel Laureate Offers a Biting Critique of Economics. Bloomberg Businessweek: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-29/angus-deaton-s-new-book-says-economists-value-markets-over-people

⁷² Müller-Armack, Alfred; Tuchtfeldt, Egon (Hrsg.) (1976). Die Soziale Marktwirtschaft nach einem Jahrzehnt ihrer Erprobung. In: ibid.: Wirtschaftsordnung und Wirtschaftspolitik. Bern, Stuttgart: Verlag Paul Haupt. Seite 258.

No comments:

Post a Comment