--- Fred Foldvary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "It takes a government to ruin a river. ...As for the future, they have not learned the right lesson, as huge dams and other current works will continue to alter the natural flow of Europe's rivers."
With all due respect, 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? 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. Or to put it more generally, accept the consequences of the X year flood for the benefits of the X-1 years of growth and prosperity. I infer that you are putting X as near zero as possible, why do you view that as the optimal solution? Respectfully yours, jsh __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com
