Good points. Thanks. -jsh --- Fred Foldvary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- john hull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ... you seem to be suggesting that > > policy makers are benefiting the present at the > > expense of the future, yet couldn't one could > accuse > > you of wanting to benefit the future at the > expense of > > the present? > > One could accuse me thusly, but the accusation would > not be warranted. > My belief is that a pure free market would bias > neither the present nor the > future. > > > It seems like the balanced position > > would be to accept the consequences of the 100 > year > > flood for the benefit of 99 years of prosperity > and > > growth. > > There can be too much investment in disaster > prevention, but I have not seen > any cost/benefit analysis indicating that the > governmental river policies in > Europe have been optimal. The same applies to US > and Chinese policy. > > At any rate, if prosperity and growth are the goals, > none of the European > countries have tax and regulatory policies that > maximize it, so the evidence > is that there are other goals and preferences that > have higher priority for > the policy makers. > > Fred Foldvary > > ===== > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com
