|
|
#51
09-18-2007, 04:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ 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. 
|
|
#52
09-18-2007, 05:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
I'm not sure if a clear cut example of governments denying property rights to resource-rich areas and the resulting "over-use" of those areas is a good argument in favor of government regulation.
|
|
#53
09-18-2007, 05:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ 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
|
|
#54
09-18-2007, 05:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure if a clear cut example of governments denying property rights to resource-rich areas and the resulting "over-use" of those areas is a good argument in favor of government regulation. [/ QUOTE ] If the damage to these areas through overuse was perminent (such as extinction), then I think its a very good argument for them.
|
|
#55
09-18-2007, 05:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I'm not sure if a clear cut example of governments denying property rights to resource-rich areas and the resulting "over-use" of those areas is a good argument in favor of government regulation. [/ QUOTE ] If the damage to these areas through overuse was perminent (such as extinction), then I think its a very good argument for them. [/ QUOTE ] Do you have any theories about why cows, chickens, and pigs haven't gone extinct, and in fact are not even endangered, despite massive, widespread, systematic, mechanized "hunting" of them?
|
|
#57
09-18-2007, 06:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ 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?
|
|
#58
09-18-2007, 06:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ 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!
|
|
#59
09-18-2007, 08:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ 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?
|
|
#60
09-18-2007, 08:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ 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
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
