Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our land

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll go ahead and get to the punchline. He's going to do some sort of cost/benefit "scorecard" that shows that there's money to be made by blowing the earth up and getting the iron out of the core for scrap. But it will leave out a crucial piece of information - the VALUE to the OWNER of leaving the resource INTACT.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the corporate value of leaving the ANWR intact?

[/ QUOTE ]

They will have it tomorrow?

[/ QUOTE ]

Even companies that have a vested interest in the longevity of a resource cannot be relied upon for its preservation. Look at the fishing industry all across the EU.

People want to get rich quick.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, if we as consumers are interested in preservation, we should align "getting rich quick" with preservation. This is assuming your basic premise, that "getting rich quick" drives all business decisions, is true.

Works for me. I'd pay 5 extra cents on every dollar spent on cod fillets to go to preservation. Wouldn't you? I'll answer for you, since you care about preservation: "5 cents, heck make it 30."

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesnt matter how much you and I spend on cod. We are basically spending extra money for that particular company to not fish so much or let younger fish go. If other companies do not want to fish with regulations (and they have proven they don't), then the problem of overfishing will remain.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't seem to be understanding my point. You basically just said "Yes, of course thats right, but it is completely wrong." If I am willing to pay 5 cents more, what does that mean? It means I have a preference for preservation. I am not going to pay 5 cents more for preservationless cod, so this other company of yours is going to be screwed. The only companies that will thrive are the ones that pander to the consumers, i.e. the ones with the "preservationist" seal on the box.

Unless of course you think there is a huge market of consumers who don't care about preservation, and would buy the 95 cent cod instead of the dollar cod. In which case, I'd ask you why you think laws and regulations are a good idea, since most people apparently oppose them.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I go down the chippy and don't ask how the fish was caught, I'm opposing all fishing regulation. Really?

Besides, these overaggressive fishers could be selling all their fish thousands of miles away. Should Chinese consumers dictate if there will be any fish around the UK or USA? We're talking a global market here, any country would be powerless to stop global demand to ruin their ecology.

[/ QUOTE ]

So they are poaching? I don't get it. They have an inferior business model (inferior in the sense that obviously all the consumers are in favor of preservation, which is what justifies us passing laws to that effect) and yet somehow they outcompete all these other fishing industries?

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, I'll use an extreme example to try and get my point across. 2 companies are contesting the right to use all of the US's natural landscape. One wants to preserve its flora and fawner for future generations, it is backed by 200 million americans (after all they live there). The other wants to aggressively use the aforementioned flora and fawner for cheap produce and short term financial gain, this company is backed by the 2 billion in the third world and developing countries. The second company clearly has the better business model, but is it not a far worse tyranny of the majority then localised democracy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who owns the land? How are these 2 billion people dictating what the 200 million Americans do with their land?

Oh, you were talking about like global warming or nuclear holocaust or something? Not sure why you think it would become acceptable to ruin someone elses property under AC.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Unless of course you think there is a huge market of consumers who don't care about preservation, and would buy the 95 cent cod instead of the dollar cod.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a good point, I mean it's not like there's a big market for SUVs or anything. Allowing people to decide via their dollars what objective truths are important seems a little dangerous.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

Objective truths? Having cod in ten years is OBJECTIVELY better than eating a bunch of cheap cod now?

[/ QUOTE ]

Having Bees in 10 years is infinitly better then doing something that kills them all, seeing as they polinate most everything in the world and keep the ecosystem afloat.

Still cheap honey, or whatever, would be tasty now, so I see your point.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

Man, if I had the last couple bees on earth, I think I'd be pretty judicious about their honey. Talk about short-sighted!

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying that you trust people that have proven time and time again to be short-sighted to the point that they endanger their own existance (see: Hunting species to extinction, polluting their environment) to protect themselves from things like this in situations where it directly conflicts with profits?

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

My other choice is to trust you to decide for us, right?

Its a tough one.

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Unless of course you think there is a huge market of consumers who don't care about preservation, and would buy the 95 cent cod instead of the dollar cod.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a good point, I mean it's not like there's a big market for SUVs or anything. Allowing people to decide via their dollars what objective truths are important seems a little dangerous.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

Objective truths? Having cod in ten years is OBJECTIVELY better than eating a bunch of cheap cod now?

[/ QUOTE ]

Having Bees in 10 years is infinitly better then doing something that kills them all, seeing as they polinate most everything in the world and keep the ecosystem afloat.

Still cheap honey, or whatever, would be tasty now, so I see your point.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

Man, if I had the last couple bees on earth, I think I'd be pretty judicious about their honey. Talk about short-sighted!

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying that you trust people that have proven time and time again to be short-sighted to the point that they endanger their own existance (see: Hunting species to extinction, polluting their environment) to protect themselves from things like this in situations where it directly conflicts with profits?

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

My other choice is to trust you to decide for us, right?

Its a tough one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not close, but good guess. Actually, it's you. You're in med school. Hypothetically lets say you use your future MD for research science on the ecological link between Species A and humans (Not really worth all those bio-chem classes right?).
You become something of an expert on the field, and you, as well as the vast majority of your collegues agree that Species A is critical to the ecosystem, not for profit, but because that animal does something that, were it removed, would cause great harm to our way of life. I'd really like for there to be a way for the learned opinions of the scientific community to effect change in this matter, government seems a likely option to that end.

Cody

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Unless of course you think there is a huge market of consumers who don't care about preservation, and would buy the 95 cent cod instead of the dollar cod.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a good point, I mean it's not like there's a big market for SUVs or anything. Allowing people to decide via their dollars what objective truths are important seems a little dangerous.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

Objective truths? Having cod in ten years is OBJECTIVELY better than eating a bunch of cheap cod now?

[/ QUOTE ]

Having Bees in 10 years is infinitly better then doing something that kills them all, seeing as they polinate most everything in the world and keep the ecosystem afloat.

Still cheap honey, or whatever, would be tasty now, so I see your point.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

Man, if I had the last couple bees on earth, I think I'd be pretty judicious about their honey. Talk about short-sighted!

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying that you trust people that have proven time and time again to be short-sighted to the point that they endanger their own existance (see: Hunting species to extinction, polluting their environment) to protect themselves from things like this in situations where it directly conflicts with profits?

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, it is private owners who have a long term interest in the capital value of their assets, not distant government bureaucrats. You can ignore this all you like, but that doesn't change the fact. Who is more likely to take care of a house? The owner or renters? Why don't you go ask some landlords about who cares more about long term value of capital, owners or caretakers, and get back to us.

Also, it appears to me that the private owners of cattle, chickens, turkeys, pigs, sheep, aligators, dogs, cats, parakeets, BUFFALO, ostriches, emus, rattlesnakes, pythons, iguanas, llamas, camals, and every other damn species that can be privately owned and bought and sold for profit have somehow managed to avoid hunting them to extinction. Meanwhile, all the species that are rapidly heading towards the dustbin of history are the ones that governments claim exclusive ownership of and "protection" over.

The same is true of polluting the environment. Governments are the largest polluters, governments protect polluters from liability, governments subsidize pollution on a massive scale, and on and on. Private owners of land are far more careful with it than are distant bureaucrats who have more interest in creating a crisis so that they can justify enlarging their budgets at taxpayer's expense.

For a capitalist, devalued capital is a loss while preserved capital is an asset. For government, well maintained capital is a pure liability and devalued capital is an opportunity. THAT is the essential direction of the incentives.

Incentives matter, whether you like (or comprehend) it or not.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Unless of course you think there is a huge market of consumers who don't care about preservation, and would buy the 95 cent cod instead of the dollar cod.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a good point, I mean it's not like there's a big market for SUVs or anything. Allowing people to decide via their dollars what objective truths are important seems a little dangerous.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

Objective truths? Having cod in ten years is OBJECTIVELY better than eating a bunch of cheap cod now?

[/ QUOTE ]

Having Bees in 10 years is infinitly better then doing something that kills them all, seeing as they polinate most everything in the world and keep the ecosystem afloat.

Still cheap honey, or whatever, would be tasty now, so I see your point.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

Man, if I had the last couple bees on earth, I think I'd be pretty judicious about their honey. Talk about short-sighted!

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying that you trust people that have proven time and time again to be short-sighted to the point that they endanger their own existance (see: Hunting species to extinction, polluting their environment) to protect themselves from things like this in situations where it directly conflicts with profits?

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

My other choice is to trust you to decide for us, right?

Its a tough one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not close, but good guess. Actually, it's you. You're in med school. Hypothetically lets say you use your future MD for research science on the ecological link between Species A and humans (Not really worth all those bio-chem classes right?).
You become something of an expert on the field, and you, as well as the vast majority of your collegues agree that Species A is critical to the ecosystem, not for profit, but because that animal does something that, were it removed, would cause great harm to our way of life. I'd really like for there to be a way for the learned opinions of the scientific community to effect change in this matter, government seems a likely option to that end.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

If we're all so smart, we ought to be able to convince people, right? Why must we impose it on everyone by force? Because otherwise they are too dumb to listen? That makes me really uncomfortable.

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Unless of course you think there is a huge market of consumers who don't care about preservation, and would buy the 95 cent cod instead of the dollar cod.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a good point, I mean it's not like there's a big market for SUVs or anything. Allowing people to decide via their dollars what objective truths are important seems a little dangerous.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

Objective truths? Having cod in ten years is OBJECTIVELY better than eating a bunch of cheap cod now?

[/ QUOTE ]

Having Bees in 10 years is infinitly better then doing something that kills them all, seeing as they polinate most everything in the world and keep the ecosystem afloat.

Still cheap honey, or whatever, would be tasty now, so I see your point.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

Man, if I had the last couple bees on earth, I think I'd be pretty judicious about their honey. Talk about short-sighted!

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying that you trust people that have proven time and time again to be short-sighted to the point that they endanger their own existance (see: Hunting species to extinction, polluting their environment) to protect themselves from things like this in situations where it directly conflicts with profits?

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

My other choice is to trust you to decide for us, right?

Its a tough one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not close, but good guess. Actually, it's you. You're in med school. Hypothetically lets say you use your future MD for research science on the ecological link between Species A and humans (Not really worth all those bio-chem classes right?).
You become something of an expert on the field, and you, as well as the vast majority of your collegues agree that Species A is critical to the ecosystem, not for profit, but because that animal does something that, were it removed, would cause great harm to our way of life. I'd really like for there to be a way for the learned opinions of the scientific community to effect change in this matter, government seems a likely option to that end.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

If we're all so smart, we ought to be able to convince people, right? Why must we impose it on everyone by force? Because otherwise they are too dumb to listen? That makes me really uncomfortable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Scary no? But 25% of the people think 9/11 was a government job. 55% (admittedly this number can vary widely depending on sample size) believe global warming isn't real.

This shouldn't come as I suprise to you, or Boro, or anyone else with a degree in a scientific field (Chemistry here), people are still hesitant to believe science. For christ sake, it's the only thing in their lives that attempts to offer any proof for its opinions and yet it's met with "I don't know, my preacher said that's not real".

In addition to people being bastards (my oft repeated positions) I'm going to throw in that people are just dumb. I'm well aware of my cynical leanings, and if you don't share them, that's fine. Certainly we won't reconcile our personal philosophies. Still, I fail to look out at the majority of people in the world and find hope from their basic behaviors. I hope, for our sake, I'm totally mistaken.

Cody

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Unless of course you think there is a huge market of consumers who don't care about preservation, and would buy the 95 cent cod instead of the dollar cod.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a good point, I mean it's not like there's a big market for SUVs or anything. Allowing people to decide via their dollars what objective truths are important seems a little dangerous.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

Objective truths? Having cod in ten years is OBJECTIVELY better than eating a bunch of cheap cod now?

[/ QUOTE ]

Having Bees in 10 years is infinitly better then doing something that kills them all, seeing as they polinate most everything in the world and keep the ecosystem afloat.

Still cheap honey, or whatever, would be tasty now, so I see your point.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

Man, if I had the last couple bees on earth, I think I'd be pretty judicious about their honey. Talk about short-sighted!

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying that you trust people that have proven time and time again to be short-sighted to the point that they endanger their own existance (see: Hunting species to extinction, polluting their environment) to protect themselves from things like this in situations where it directly conflicts with profits?

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, it is private owners who have a long term interest in the capital value of their assets, not distant government bureaucrats. You can ignore this all you like, but that doesn't change the fact. Who is more likely to take care of a house? The owner or renters? Why don't you go ask some landlords about who cares more about long term value of capital, owners or caretakers, and get back to us.

Also, it appears to me that the private owners of cattle, chickens, turkeys, pigs, sheep, aligators, dogs, cats, parakeets, BUFFALO, ostriches, emus, rattlesnakes, pythons, iguanas, llamas, camals, and every other damn species that can be privately owned and bought and sold for profit have somehow managed to avoid hunting them to extinction. Meanwhile, all the species that are rapidly heading towards the dustbin of history are the ones that governments claim exclusive ownership of and "protection" over.

The same is true of polluting the environment. Governments are the largest polluters, governments protect polluters from liability, governments subsidize pollution on a massive scale, and on and on. Private owners of land are far more careful with it than are distant bureaucrats who have more interest in creating a crisis so that they can justify enlarging their budgets at taxpayer's expense.

For a capitalist, devalued capital is a loss while preserved capital is an asset. For government, well maintained capital is a pure liability and devalued capital is an opportunity. THAT is the essential direction of the incentives.

Incentives matter, whether you like (or comprehend) it or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh this should be good:

Cody: I think people tend to be shortsighted/careless
Boro: I think Gov'ts are shortsighted/careless
Cody: You shut up
Boro: No you shut up

Well we should be able to get at least 3-4 more replies with this so why not.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, it appears to me that the private owners of cattle, chickens, turkeys, pigs, sheep, aligators, dogs, cats, parakeets, BUFFALO, ostriches, emus, rattlesnakes, pythons, iguanas, llamas, camals, and every other damn species that can be privately owned and bought and sold for profit have somehow managed to avoid hunting them to extinction. Meanwhile, all the species that are rapidly heading towards the dustbin of history are the ones that governments claim exclusive ownership of and "protection" over.

[/ QUOTE ]

This assumes there is a commercial use for the species in question, certainly this might not be the case.

[ QUOTE ]
The same is true of polluting the environment. Governments are the largest polluters, governments protect polluters from liability, governments subsidize pollution on a massive scale, and on and on. Private owners of land are far more careful with it than are distant bureaucrats who have more interest in creating a crisis so that they can justify enlarging their budgets at taxpayer's expense.

[/ QUOTE ]

All failures of this government, not all government.

[ QUOTE ]
Incentives matter, whether you like (or comprehend) it or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

One reply before the ad hominem. Christ Boro what am I going to say, "I can slang that attack in 0 replies" you aren't giving me a chance.

Cody

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Unless of course you think there is a huge market of consumers who don't care about preservation, and would buy the 95 cent cod instead of the dollar cod.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a good point, I mean it's not like there's a big market for SUVs or anything. Allowing people to decide via their dollars what objective truths are important seems a little dangerous.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

Objective truths? Having cod in ten years is OBJECTIVELY better than eating a bunch of cheap cod now?

[/ QUOTE ]

Having Bees in 10 years is infinitly better then doing something that kills them all, seeing as they polinate most everything in the world and keep the ecosystem afloat.

Still cheap honey, or whatever, would be tasty now, so I see your point.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

Man, if I had the last couple bees on earth, I think I'd be pretty judicious about their honey. Talk about short-sighted!

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying that you trust people that have proven time and time again to be short-sighted to the point that they endanger their own existance (see: Hunting species to extinction, polluting their environment) to protect themselves from things like this in situations where it directly conflicts with profits?

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, it is private owners who have a long term interest in the capital value of their assets, not distant government bureaucrats. You can ignore this all you like, but that doesn't change the fact. Who is more likely to take care of a house? The owner or renters? Why don't you go ask some landlords about who cares more about long term value of capital, owners or caretakers, and get back to us.

Also, it appears to me that the private owners of cattle, chickens, turkeys, pigs, sheep, aligators, dogs, cats, parakeets, BUFFALO, ostriches, emus, rattlesnakes, pythons, iguanas, llamas, camals, and every other damn species that can be privately owned and bought and sold for profit have somehow managed to avoid hunting them to extinction. Meanwhile, all the species that are rapidly heading towards the dustbin of history are the ones that governments claim exclusive ownership of and "protection" over.

The same is true of polluting the environment. Governments are the largest polluters, governments protect polluters from liability, governments subsidize pollution on a massive scale, and on and on. Private owners of land are far more careful with it than are distant bureaucrats who have more interest in creating a crisis so that they can justify enlarging their budgets at taxpayer's expense.

For a capitalist, devalued capital is a loss while preserved capital is an asset. For government, well maintained capital is a pure liability and devalued capital is an opportunity. THAT is the essential direction of the incentives.

Incentives matter, whether you like (or comprehend) it or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh this should be good:

Cody: I think people tend to be shortsighted/careless
Boro: I think Gov'ts are shortsighted/careless
Cody: You shut up
Boro: No you shut up

[/ QUOTE ]

The critical difference is that I keep talking about the actual direction of actual well understood economic incentives, and you keep saying, "Private owners are dumb, bureaucrats are wise and benevolent."

[ QUOTE ]


Well we should be able to get at least 3-4 more replies with this so why not.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, it appears to me that the private owners of cattle, chickens, turkeys, pigs, sheep, aligators, dogs, cats, parakeets, BUFFALO, ostriches, emus, rattlesnakes, pythons, iguanas, llamas, camals, and every other damn species that can be privately owned and bought and sold for profit have somehow managed to avoid hunting them to extinction. Meanwhile, all the species that are rapidly heading towards the dustbin of history are the ones that governments claim exclusive ownership of and "protection" over.

[/ QUOTE ]

This assumes there is a commercial use for the species in question, certainly this might not be the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

I boggle. Most of the species being "protected" into oblivion are being "protected" specifically BECAUSE they have commercial use. Elephant tusks, rhino horn, whale oil, leopard skin, practically every every kind of seafood swimming in the ocean, on and on and on.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The same is true of polluting the environment. Governments are the largest polluters, governments protect polluters from liability, governments subsidize pollution on a massive scale, and on and on. Private owners of land are far more careful with it than are distant bureaucrats who have more interest in creating a crisis so that they can justify enlarging their budgets at taxpayer's expense.

[/ QUOTE ]

All failures of this government, not all government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where have I heard that before? "Oh, if only it weren't Lenin, socialism would have worked! If only it were Trotsky! If only it weren't Stalin it would have worked! If only it weren't Mao, or Chiang Kai-shek, or Castro, or Amin, or . . ." I'm so tired of this sort of blame the government but never look at government per se apologetics. "If only we had the right omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent bureaucrats coercing everyone into doing what is good for them. Why, if only it were ME, it would all work perfectly . . ." It completely ignores the actual economic incentives, which are plain, and which you continue to ignore.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Incentives matter, whether you like (or comprehend) it or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

One reply before the ad hominem. Christ Boro what am I going to say, "I can slang that attack in 0 replies" you aren't giving me a chance.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, what am I supposed to conclude when all your replies ignore the ENTIRE CRUX OF THE ARGUMENT, the plain direction of simple and well-understood economic incentives? As far as I can tell you've been given several chances, namely every time the same point has been made in this thread, and you still ignore it.

[lehighguy]

The enviorment doesn't have infinite value. If it did we wouldn't drive cars or fly airplanes. We'd all be living in mud huts. There is some point in which the benefit of harvesting natural resources outways the benefit of leaving them alone.

Individuals and the market are best equiped to determine what the tradeoffs are. They have a long history of generating prices.

Government has no mechanism for generating prices. It can't weigh the costs and benefits of harvesting a natural resource. So either it will harvest to little or harvest too much, but you can bet the outcome will be less efficient then the market.

[zasterguava]

Are there any books/essays availiable online specifically concerning free markets and the enviroment? I mean there doesn't seem to be much rationale behind simply saying "you can bet" that free markets are better. Whereas I've read plenty of convincing arguments stating capitalism itself its by its very nature hostile and incompatable with nature and the enviroment.