> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Robert J. Chassell
[snip]
> (On the other hand, a market is more efficient than a ban, but more
> complex to administer.
Is the first part "a market is more efficient than a ban" a statement of
faith? I would hope so, since it is hardly provable. Failing to question
the assumption that markets are inherently maximally efficient, the
end-point in evolution of human political-economic systems, is one of the
unhealthiest traits of our society, I fear. I hate seeing it presented as
fact, rather than a choice of where to put one's faith, as if it is
illogical to choose otherwise.
> For example, it is better for a society to
> spend $100 million to clean up one power plant than to spend $250
> million to clean up 4 old plants; you can use the $150 million for
> lots of things -- for example, out of that you could spend $50 million
> on rich people and $5 million on poor people that other wise would not
> be spent on them. But an artificial market is more difficult to set
> up. You, as a government, have to decide what to permit and how much.
I'm afraid I can't make sense of your example.
Nick
