@SharkAttak A chief failure of the profit motive is that it cares not a whit where profit comes from.

If profit derived only from wealth as defined by Adam Smith ("the produce and labour of the nation"), that would be fine.

But profit is in fact an accounting artefact, not an economic one. That bit of equivocation is at the heart of a great deal of the apparent contradictions and fallacies of mainstream economics.

Profit is based on realised costs and revenues, which means that any trick which can be used to lower or offset / externalise costs, and to inflate or capture revenues, is a net gain to the business.

That's why "free market" entrepreneurs are not in fact in favour of free markets where they can secure higher profits by suppressing free markets. Whether that's through dumping toxic waste (physical or informational), fraud, slavery, labour oppression, tax avoidance, quashing or buying competitors, oppressing suppliers, inserting themselves as middlemen in trade (capturing both supplier and consumer surplus), monopolisation, regulatory capture, lobbying, or any of the other abuses.

Markets can be effective, but generally only where there is a balance of power between capital, labour, government, and common weal generally. If you read Smith closely you'll find that he's a champion of small scale commerce, but casts a jaundiced eye on monopolies (he doesn't use that word, but search for "engross" within Wealth and you'll find some mention), and those who can influence the State to their own interests (wool merchants get a call-out).

As best as I've been able to trace, it, the principles of cost accounting in the US were set out by Alexander Hamilton Church (and yes, related to that A.H.), see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hamilton_Church.

There's a wonderful inquiry into cost accounting by Leo Tolstoy in, I think in What Is To Be Done, (sometimes "What Then Must We Do") a collection of essays: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_to_Be_Done%3F_(Tolstoy) https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/leo-tolstoy-what-is-to-be-done.

@Gotterdammerung

I'm pretty sure @pluralistic is aware of much of this but AHC may be of interest.

#Economics #EconomicFallacies #equivocation #profit #wealth #ProfitVsWealth #AlexanderHamiltonChurch #accounting #FreeMarkets #LeoTolstoy #WhatIsToBeDone #WhatThenMustWeDo

@pluralistic On the "markets can't solve this" aspect ... there's one possible angle in which they might help.

Business function as accounting engines. They don't create wealth, they create accounting profits. (Interesting backstory, look up Alexander Hamilton Church on the origins of Cost Accounting, and yes, he's related to that A. Hamilton.)

Because Reasons, accounting considers some costs and not others. Natural resource accounting, and economics, its own special class of utterly fucked up, and that's also an interesting little tale of utter fuckwitted thinking. See Hotelling's Rule & earlier L.C. Gray (neither of whom cite any geology), and back to David Ricardo for what theory exists. It utterly fails to match actual pricing history (see BP's annual statistical rule, petroleum's got excellent data to 1860).

(Hotelling's relationship to Rockefeller-funded University of Chicago also raises eyebrows: petroleum monopolist-financed economist justifies petroleum monopolist pricing.)

Leo Tolstoy has an interesting alternative accounting, IIRC in "What Then Shall We Do" which includes sunshine and land and other factors excluded from traditional cost accounting.

The Rule of Capture (via an utterly fucked-up 1904 Texas Supreme Court ruling) creates a legal basis that again utterly ignores geological science. The principle is less used, but the legal precedent stands.

Jeffrey S. Dukes, "Burning Buried Sunshine" (2003), gives the information on primordeal primary production (plant growth) that resulted in fossil fuel deposits. A year of present consumption is 5 million years of ancient accumulation, a depletion cost not considered in present pricing.

If it were, depletion allowances for extraction would increase the cost of fossil fuels by a factor of millions. Simply by an accounting change, the resources would be effectively pinned to the ground by a force stronger than gravity: it would be a complete economic loss.

(Odds of this happening? Uncertain. Worth a shot? Um, hell yeah!)

Keep in mind that this is independent and in addition to accounting for sink costs, which is what a carbon or other pollution cost would be. Proposed carbon taxes are a very small fraction of what a full, geologically cognizant cost-accounting depletion allowance would be.

Links to follow.

#AlexanderHamiltonChurch #CostAccounting #HotellingsRule #NaturalResourceEconomics #HowardHotelling #LeoTolstoy #JeffreySDukes #BurningBuriedSunshine #DepletionAllowances #AccountingStandards #Petroleum #Economics