--- 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]
