🚀 go-pugleaf

Private ownership gives you and your friends the opportunity to hold and 
protect these resources if you choose to do so.  And if you hold them, then
you can choose to forgo the current liquidation value and to rest content with
the sustainable long term yield.  If you believe these resources should be
protected, and if you believe others do not adequately protect them, and if
you do not presently hold some of these resources, then why have you chosen
not to hold them?  You can hold them if you will forgo the current liquidation
value, which is equivalent to fair market value.  If you are not willing to
forgo the current liquidation value, then you understand why the present owner
makes the same choice.

In article <1332900116@igc.apc.org> Alan McGowen <alanm@igc.apc.org> writes:
>
>2) Biotic resources are *not* automatically protected by being privately held.
>The resources which can be protected in this way are those which grow so
>rapidly that a discounted sustained yield is worth more than total 
>liquidation. Most biotic resources grow slowly (whales, redwood trees, 
>climax ecosystems) and are worth more, under normal economic discounting, 
>if liquidated and reinvested in higher-growth areas than if harvested 
>sustainably: this is exactly why there is economic pressure to cut all
>remaining Pacific Northwest old-growth. This point applies equally to 
>privately held resources and to commons: in fact the privately-held 
>timberlands of the logging companies have no remaining old-growth. It has
>*not* been protected by being privately held, it has been eliminated. The 
>ideological dogma that privatization is the solution to all resource degradation 
>problems does not bear up under bioeconomic analysis. 
-- 
 --------------------------------------------------------------
 Daniel Brockman             tel 415-953-0406, fax 415-622-2892
 Bank of America, Dept 5906, 555 Calif St
 San Francisco 94104 USA    email uunet!odinba!dan dan@BofA.COM