At 03:44 PM 7/19/01, Jeroen wrote:
>At 22:12 18-7-01 -0400, you wrote:
>>At 11:52 AM 7/18/01 +0200 Baardwijk, J. van DTO/SLBD/BGM/SVM/SGM wrote:
>> >Do you have any idea why we'd rather let the government decide on that?
>> It's
>> >because the government (ideally) goes for the option that benefits society
>> >most, while the market will go for the option that results in the highest
>> >profits.
>>
>>And guess where those profits come from? From benefiting society.
>
>That's beside the point. The point was that when it comes to taking steps
>to help the environment, a government is more likely to choose those steps
>that would benefit society most, while the market would choose the steps
>that would maximize their profits.
>
>Step A is good for the environment, and will generate 1 billion dollars in
>profits. Step B is better for the environment than step A, but will
>generate 0.5 billion dollars in profits. Guess which step would be taken
>if we let the market decide on it.
>
>
>>Meanwhile, that "ideally", should be in big letters. This, is, after all
>>the same government that spends millions upon millions of dollars to make
>>basic foodstuffs more expensive for poor people. They're really acting in
>>the general interest there, eh?
>
>Would that be the same government that spends billions of dollars on
>weapons, while at the same time lets the poor and the homeless starve to death?
And the reason to believe that the government that starves children to
build weapons will give a flip about the environment is . . . ?
-- Ronn! :)
