or: Why private companies are not interested in solving problems
Our planet and our civilization seem to be on the verge of collapse, doomed to darkness. Climate and water crises, terrible heat waves and terrible floods killing thousands and destroying billions, loss of biodiversity and the threat of extinction of all life on planet Earth… The future looks bleak, but is there hope?
On social media and sometimes even of official news channels, you will see many initiatives to fight the destructive path that humanity is taking. From the UN on a global scale to local initiatives, hundreds of organizations and thousands, even millions of people are working to get things done and to put the world on a healthier path, opposing big corporations and their destructive operations, fighting for a human life as part of nature on our blue planet, and not dominating and exploiting nature for the sake of profit and shareholders. They call for science-based measures, for individual responsibility, for behavioral changes and/or political decisions, for climate compensation, carbon capturing, some even for the rights of nature and de-growth…
But against this rationality, corporations and their lobbyists (including “liberal” politicians) argue with what they call «the market». Nothing shall contradict the logic (?) and dynamics of money. If any proposed measure goes against this market, so the argument goes, it will not be viable, because it cannot be financed and would destroy private business. But who is this market, they are calling for? Is it some kind of deity with the famous invisible hand, giving orders and taking decisions? Some fact- and science-resisting folks seem to believe that. But let us be very clear: what we call «the market» is a field defined by its boundaries (constitution, laws, tax systems etc.) and a playground for only one player: money. The more money you have, the stronger you are on this market. And the less money you have, the more you are marginalized on this market square. So every market is political. There is no market outside or above society and its rules, because it is up to citizens to decide where we shall allow the power of money to decide (access to health? education? security? water? fresh air?) and where we put our common interests above the rules of the market.
One argument I often come across for why our fight for less market and more social justice is not progressing better and faster is the financial reasoning: it costs billions to fix things after decades, even centuries of neglect and destruction. Since states and international organizations claim not to have the money needed, they call for private money to come in, praise public-private partnerships or openly call on companies to fix the problems. Somehow it all sounds nice, too good to be true. Let me ask some questions and share my thoughts on this widespread and mainstream approach.
My first question would be: Why should there not be money to solve the problems? States spend billions on weapons, on building roads, on subsidizing air travel, etc. Obviously there is money, even in the so-called poor countries of the global south. So the question is not wheter there is money, but what the priorities of a given government are and what it spends the money on.
Secondly, I always wonder why there is no more money available. Governments are giving away billions through tax cuts for corporations and the super-rich, thereby creating their own financial constraints or even deficits. If taxes were at the level they were in the 60s or 70s, there would be a lot more money in government pockets to spend on our all future. But obviously those who run and control governments are more interested in the welfare of the few than the welfare of us all. And sadly, all too often they even get elected for these policies.
Next, I try to understand: Why should a private company put money into solving a problem? Why should they respond to the call for private-public partnerships? Why, for example, should a fuel company which has made billions in profits knowing what they are doing is causing global warming and climate change, put money into climate protection? To greenwash their appalling record? Donating peanuts to victims to silence them? Or why should private water companies, which run down the services and whole countries as in the UK, just to pay tremendous sums to their shareholders, now have any interest in cleaning up the rivers and beaches? Private capital is invested to make money for owners and shareholders, not as philanthropic donations. It’s not that they are evil, it’s simply that that’s what private capital is about. And for good reason, private money is only invested where it can be expected to make a profit. When a private company cooperates and invests in a public-private partnership, there is always an expectation that this investment will pay off, that after a while more money will come in than go out. Otherwise, the company would go bankrupt and the shareholders would lose all their money. In the end, it is always the customers and/or taxpayers who pay the price and ensure the private company’s profit – or bail it out when it goes bankrupt and pay social allowance for the people losing their jobs. There is an old German saying: «Gewinne private, Verluste dem Staat» (Profits for the private, losses for the state).
And worse: Private companies have no interest in solving problems. They make good money managing the problem, paid for by taxpayers and governments. If they were to solve the problem, they would destroy their own financial base, because the money comes in only as long as the problem exists and they are hired to manage it. And the bigger the problem, the more money there is to be made. For example, the global water crisis is generating billions of whatever currency for consultants, engineers, companies building and operating desalination plants, supplying packaged (bottled) water to regions where we have destroyed and polluted the water cycle, and so on and so forth. It makes much more sense for private companies to see billions invested in desalination plants, carbon capture etc. – even if it is just a very expensive and very small drop to the problem – than reducing water, land, and air pollution. Private companies favor what they can turn into money, plain and simple, because that’s what the whole market-thing is built on. And many international organizations, “liberal” governments and politicians are only too happy to feed them with taxpayers’ money, keeping “the market” going and expanding, creating jobs and shareholder revenues, pretending they are doing something, but in fact just accelerating the problems.
My conclusion: I don’t trust the market or private money in public affairs. I don’t wait or beg for private investment, because it will never come without its own agenda, and if it comes, it usually does more harm than good. The only way to tackle the destruction of our planet is to fight against the finanzialisation and commodification of goods and solutions, to campaign against private interests and profits, and to struggle for accountable public services, funded by taxes paid by those who have to pay for them, and controlled by citizens who make sure the government works for them and not for its own sake and the lucky rich few. This struggle is not easy peasy, it is challenging, hard work. But campaigning for public services, winning people to vote for them and electing public servants rather than businessmen is surely more sustainable for our planet and our survival than begging for private donations.
And your thoughts on this? I would love to hear your comments. Send me your comments here.