Bad example. The sun is a free good and for all practical purposes
inexhaustible.
I suggested how to do it with clean(er) air, though for a less CO2'ish
atmosphere
I'd say the demand side is not tractable.
Jim Devine wrote:
okay, how do you assign prices? how valuable is the Sun?
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Max B. Sawicky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jim Devine wrote:
Miracle Max mutters:
Don't ask me how this works in re: the Cambridge capital controversy. I
wouldn't know. Maybe it just doesn't, but it wasn't clear that was
Father
Devine's principal objection. In any case I would say this stuff is
worth
measuring, somehow.
the Camb Cap Contr, among many other things, says that the value of
"capital" depends on the prices. If some piece of Nature isn't valued
by capitalism, its distribution of income, the tastes it encourages
people to embrace, etc., then it won't count in calculating "natural
capital."
(That's not exactly non-intuitive, so we don't need the Camb Cap Contr
to make the point.)
(Still muttering) But some natural capital assets are marketed and have
prices.
For something less solid, like clean air, there is some cost of attaining
it and
some willingness to pay. Public capital is not marketed and clearly has
value.
What's the problem?
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
