I think that the basic problem that we have been debating is whether the
economy is extractive or productive. Let me choose a couple of names to
illustrate my point.
Mark says that we are running out of energy -- suggesting that the
economy is extractive. Doug mentioned that profit-oriented business
might come up with an alternative to oil -- who knows, maybe solar, wind
-- implying that the economy is productive.
Lou or Mark mentioned that the production of solar and wind also
requires resources -- extractive again.
So I think that we were yelling at each other because we are looking at
two different animals. Some time ago, Koopmans wrote about being on a
commission to study the federal helium deposits. He noted that the
economists could not speak with the scientists easily because of
something like the extactive/productive divide.
Lots of activities seem to be sustainable, but are not. Commercial
forestry was called sustainable, but the foresters teach relatively
little about soil conservation. Trees can grow back, but the soil
degrades with commercial growing practice
Grazing can work within limits in some soils, but only within limits,
otherwise the soil degrades.
In economics, it does not matter. In my Farming for Profit book, I
discussed an article that held that soil depletion was rational because
the discount rate was high enough to justify it. Again, the idea of
discounting brings us back to the same extactive/productive divide.
I wonder if we can discuss this intelligently or if the question is too
theological.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901
