On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 12:09 PM, Tom Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 25, 11:02 am, "Michael Tobis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 10:52 PM, Jim Torson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> > > Number one, it assumes that this is going to cost us money.
> > > This is a fantastic economic opportunity.
...
...
> > This is impossible.
> > Logically speaking an optimal strategy with a constraint will always
> > yield a result inferior to or in the best case equal to the
> > unconstrained equivalent.
...
> A new constaint could break some existing ones perhaps.
...
That's sort of clever but it muddles things.
Should I say that the new constraint would "cost" us some old
constraints? We must have had some benefit from them.
Otherwise what you are saying is that our current policy is so
suboptimal that an additional constraint will miraculously guide us to
a better policy. That is conceivable but very unlikely. Why would
adding another layer of complication make us smarter?
mt
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
