🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <28165@mindlink.bc.ca> Steve_Vestergaard@mindlink.bc.ca (Steve Vestergaard) writes:
>
>Environmental issues have little to do with political ideologies.  Many
>environmentalists are strong believers in capitalism as an efficient way to
>allocate resources.
_____________
We don't have capitalism in state controlled forests, Steve.  Resource
allocation in the natural resource sector is very much in the Government
domain and arguably it's mismanagement the Governments fault.

>Unfortunately, our current version of capitalism arose when natural resources
>were in effect infinite.  Any economics book describes resources and values
>like top soil and clean water and air as extraneous to the model.
_____________
Are they extraneous to Agricultural models?  Why do you believe them
extraneous to Silvicultural models?  Forest Economics texts that I have
read devote significant study to capital resources, such as soil.  Perhaps
since soil and water are publicly controlled in B.C. they are extraneous
to a free market model?

>Big corporations aren't "evil".  But by their very nature, they are obliged
>to consider only one value - profit for their shareholders.  Privately held
>companies often take moral issues into account.  But any CEO that did that in
>a public company would be quickly turfed.
_____________
Freedom and the right to control private capital are moral issues, Steve. 
Profit is only generated for shareholders when a company produces goods
and services that consumers demand--  this whole cycle of activity
generates the wealth and the diversity of supply to meet the diversity of
demand.  The whole process is shafted in B.C. because the root tool, the
land, is controlled by the state and it's allocation determined by
political pressure and political pull.

-- 
"There will always be an apologist for Business As Ususal. A pleasure to
meet you, Robert"  _Jim_Hurst_

....Robert Froese  VE7MOQ                          taganov@unixg.ubc.ca