Doug Pensinger wrote: >One interesting conundrum he discusses is the conflict between >businesses that exist to make money and "moral obligations" to clean >up after themselves. Is this a good argument against the >preeminence of a free market economy or can we have both a strong >economy and a clean environment?
That depends on your definition of a strong economy. That is, how much is enough for the wealthy owners/stockholders? For someone like me, who makes a comfortable living, I can't really comprehend the need to makes millions at the expense of others, the environment and the future. But for Charles Schwab, who bought so much of that land and (as rich baby boomers are going to be doing for the foreseeable future, I'll wager) drove local prices up beyond the means of the locals to pay readily, cutting into his millions may seem unreasonable. As an aside, if this crap of wealthy seniors buying up cheap land and driving prices up everywhere (Utah, where my brother lives, is facing a similar problem with Californians to Montana's), I wonder how young people are *ever* going to find places to live. Frex, my own house has more than *DOUBLED* in value in ~9 years. And it was built before WW I! I have a bit of a problem with this idea that environmentalism and economics are mortal enemies. There has to be some middle ground. >Another interesting point that he raises is the fact that while >native Montanan's are extremely suspicious of government and >especially Washington, they are heavily subsidized by the federal >government. <SNIP> Is it hypocritical of Montana's people to be >unsupportive of the Federal Government while they have their hand in >the till? Of course it is. But then, they may not even realize that it's so. But then I live in New Jersey, which IIRC gets about the least back from the US government per dollar that goes in, so I may not have an entirely unbiased opinion. Now, I do believe that sometimes the government's approach *is* unreasonable. Requiring landowners to pay for dams built 100 years ago, instead of trying to share the cost burden just seems crazy to me. Especially if the people who own the land now are not the builders. >Montana's problems are somewhat interesting. We can understand and >empathize with them because we face many of the same kinds of >problems. We face them all over. I'll give you an example. My wife's relatives get together for a family reunion in Barnegat, NJ every year, at a modest ranch on the lagoon. People are buying up those houses on those small lots, tearing them down and putting up *HUGE* McMansions in their place, filling up the property to the point of bursting. Frankly, I can't see how the local infrastructure can handle it. And they'll be the first ones to bitch when the weather goes south on them, or when someone builds something bigger across the street, ruining "their" view. I think it's just human nature to have myopic tunnel vision. We all do it, to some extent. Jim _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
