> As we say in the theater: "I love you Arthur but that is a terrible
idea."
> Can you imagine the first Disney bear that eats a highly paid camper?
> Then you get the park as run by the Parliament. "Shoot the bears they
> are not good for business." Is this the reason Canada needed a Queen?
>
> Ray Evans Harrell.
You can extend this scenario a bit. The Canadian thing to do would be to
send a parliamentary committee out to investigate. The bears would eat the
politicians and we would all be better off.
Ed Weick
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 10:03 AM
> Subject: RE: Reality of money (was RE: Computers: our downfall (wasRe:
> Privatizing the Public: Whose agenda? At What Cost?)
>
>
> > Also, suddenly in money terms we can all become more "wealthy." Say the
> > government decided to privatize all national parks. Ownership shares
were
> > sent to all Canadians. Suddenly a public good becomes commoditized as a
> > private good and people are and feel more wealthy. By defining
something
> > differently it is montetized and goes into GDP as wealth.
> >
> > So instead of Parks Canada running the parks, it can be run by Parks
Inc.
> > Admission fees are doubled, concessions granted, well you get the idea.
> > Sort of a wilderness Disneyland.
> >
> > arthur cordell
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ed Weick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 8:37 AM
> > To: Michael Gurstein; Keith Hudson
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Reality of money (was RE: Computers: our downfall (wasRe:
> > Privatizing the Public: Whose agenda? At What Cost?)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > What seems to be at issue here is the human inclination to search for,
and
> > set, standards. We've done it with distance, weight, size, temperature
> and
> > various other things. If something weighs ten kilos, it weighs ten
kilos,
> > whether its and ostrich, a motorcycle or a huge bag of wind. We've done
> the
> > same thing in the case of exchange value or valuing wealth (or poverty)
or
> > making international comparisons. We've applied a common standard which
> > permit things to be valued so that exchanges can be made, wealth can be
> > measured or taxed, and comparisons among living standards can be made.
> > Money, while an abstraction, is so important to all of our affairs (just
> as
> > length or weight is) that it has taken on a reality of its own. What is
> > unique about money as a standard, however, is that it does not, and
> cannot,
> > remain fixed in value. Or, perhaps to turn things around, the things
that
> > it measures do not remain fixed for long. Perhaps this is because money
> is
> > a strictly human standard. It does not exist in nature like, for
example,
> > temperature does.
> >
> > Ed Weick
> >
> > > At 08:18 21/04/02 -0400, you wrote:
> > > >Hmmm....
> > > >
> > > >Rocks are "real", we can stub our toes on them; coins are "real", we
> can
> > > >choke on them, or throw them at dogs urinating on our lawns (forgive
me
> > > >Bishop Berkeley). "Money", like other forms of totem worship is a
> social
> > > >convention.
> > > >
> > > >MG
> > >
> > > Please yourself, then. But you're on a slippery slope if you can claim
> the
> > > privilege of denoting anything or everything as real or unreal as you
> > wish.
> > >
> > > Money has been real for at least 5,000 years, and very probably
longer,
> > > ever since man traded beyond the confines of his local community.
Except
> > > for natural disasters like droughts or famines, different forms of
money
> > > have held their value for very long periods of time (except when
> > government
> > > intervenes). If, as it now turns out, you want to reinterpret all
known
> > > history and all known cultures as having been prey to a social
> convention
> > > and not an economic necessity, then so be it.
> > >
> > > KH
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________________
> > > "Writers used to write because they had something to say; now they
write
> > in
> > > order to discover if they have something to say." John D. Barrow
> > > _________________________________________________
> > > Keith Hudson, Bath, England; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > _________________________________________________
> > >
>
