>
> On Tue, 14 Mar 1995, WIEST JAMES ANDREW wrote:
>
> > That's not a legal basis for regualtion. I'm all for stewardship, but if
> > someone chooses not to be a good steward he/she will simply have to face
> > the consequences of the land being worth less when it is sold. This is
> > called economics.
>
> I would call it negative externalities. Seldom are these
> externalities fully captured in the market value of the land. How much
> are you willing to pay for a nuclear waste site (after its been
> used)?
>
Very true. Negative externalities are a reality, but the goal is to
apply them fully to the individuals responsible not eliminate freedoms to
prevent them from happenning. Negative externalities as well as positive
externalities will always exist. Shouldn't "free riders" be made to pay
for positive externalities as well? This has been the thrust of my
argument...if person A wants to enjoy a positive externality(such as a
nice view) then that person must pay for it. I don't consider a lot of
what people are griping about as negative externalities, I consider them
as the loss of positive externalities, sematics, maybe, but it still
doesn't give others the right to dictate policy on my property.
> > Where you get to impose your *moral* viewpoint upon
> > someone is beyond me as far as legalities go.
>
> These are not just *moral* viewpoints. They are economic as well.
> Water that is polluted on your land has to cleaned on my land
> before I can use it.
>
I thought we had already established that doing harm to others by actions
on your property was and is against the law. There are minimum standards
for water quality and if I pollute I must clean it up.
> > If I want to kill all the
> > snail darters on my property then so be it. If you don't want them
> > killed, then buy them or pay rent for them. This is the economic
> > solution to the mral dilema. "encourage" I agree with, "force" I do not.
>
> Free market solutions to environmental protection don't work.
> Champion completely liquidated (clearcut) its Montana lands in response
> to market queues. The "market" does not have a conscience. Humans do.
> I'm very uncomfortable with an inanimate force called the "market"
> determining my fate. The invisible hand slaps pretty hard.
>
But the market is not an "inanimate force". It is people making moral
and ethical choices about the products they buy. If Champion liquidated
their lands it was what *people* demanded in the marketplace. The
invisible hand is driven by what people want. If the market did not work
than by your argument cows and chickens should be the scarcest animals
on the earth. Why? because they are obviously the most "exploited" animal
resource. Why are they not extinct? Because they are is a position of
proper value. I could probably guarantee you that the buffalo ranch near
Troy that sells hunts for $2000 apiece will never run out of buffalo
because it is in their best interest to maintain a thriving herd. This
is the free market in action. We all have a vote with our dollar.
My point is that the market *is* people. People making
rational decisions. Now, whether thay have complete information is
another story.
> > Who decides what is to much? Maybe cheap paper products are worth more
> > than the spotted owl after all. There seems to be some "magical" nature
> > given to "species" and their survival when species and habitat have
> > always been in flux. As far as what we leave to future people, that is
> > your moral choice. Do what you want with your property, I'll do what I
> > want with mine.
>
> The problem with economics has been said before...economics is very
> good at determining price, and very poor at determing value. The
> methods for determining and comparing the values of non-market items has
> very far to go. There will *never* be an entirely satisfactory way
> to compare market with non-market goods.
>
There are no non-market goods. Value is a subjective determination we
all make and varies from person to person. Price is the great
equalizer. It sythesizes all of our values to optimize price so as to
place an item in its place of appropriate *value*. For example, I may
believe item A is worth 5.00 but you may value item A at 10.00. Others
may have various *demand prices* for item A. If you plot a simple demand
curve for item A and plot a supply curve(what sellers minimum prices are)
where they intersect is the actual "value". It may be 7.43 so I think
it's overvalued and won't buy it, but you see it as undervalued so to you
it's a good deal. This is a simple explanation of how our economy works
in the aggregate. When an item is at it's optimum price, it is by
definition at its place of optimum value. Now this is not a perfect
system, predicting price is very difficult for companies, this is why the
ones that can provide the product close to the optimum price survive, and
those that don't, don't.
> To the extent that
non-market goods go head-to-head on
the > playing field with market goods, non-market goods will always lose.
> Ethics and morals make the playing field more competitive by
> caputuring values the market simply ignores.
>
The market cannot ignore ethics and morals because the market is people.
Some people may have different morals or ethics than you, but I'm sure
you, as well as I, use ethical and moral judgements when purchasing
products. I don't agree with a lot of companies policies, so I let them
know my grievences and choose not to purchase from them. This is your
right as well, however, don't cry "sour grapes" if the market(people)
doesn't agree with your position. Try to remember that we are in a
free society. You can be mad, you can be indignant, but you can't force
people to do what you or I have decided is morally right(remember legal
grounds are normally well defined...except for RCRA and just about
anything put out by the EPA...both are currently
violating the Constitution left and right). That is totalitarianism.
Best,
Andy