tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14404776.post8857678022018152769..comments2024-01-30T07:22:22.675-08:00Comments on Making prices honest and sharing natural wealth will correct societal defects: The Golden Rule and Public Property Rights... There's a connectionJohn Champagnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12991470302088404570noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14404776.post-59708526915017786472017-10-22T14:54:11.868-07:002017-10-22T14:54:11.868-07:00First, "widespread extreme poverty" has ...First, "widespread extreme poverty" has been the norm of man since there was man. This idea that we can live comfortably and long is new and enabled by technology. <br /><br />There are no "boom and bust" cycles if government doesn't intrude into a market. There can be slowdowns, but those are quickly adjusted by changing prices. There are always people looking for a good deal and an opportunity to profit. Government plays with your money and there's no incentive to get it right. No risk to take.<br /><br />Societies don't run out of natural resources. When a resource becomes expensive, people look for substitutes. Recently we see large new streams of natural gas as a result of fracking technology. Now there may be problems with that, and if identified, the price rises and people go to work to fix them and make money in the process. Resource depletion in a free market has never been observed. Russia (not a free market) has seen depletion.<br /><br />I could go on and refute the rest of your piece, but you could go to Khan Academy and take an econ 101 course and save us both a lot of time. notetakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02579528936112324398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14404776.post-74018186777230588502015-10-17T09:46:56.395-07:002015-10-17T09:46:56.395-07:00see "inheritance CAP" on youtube, it'...see "inheritance CAP" on youtube, it's the only means by which our goals can be reeled in to serve the future!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14404776.post-33384746019618851742014-08-02T21:56:24.524-07:002014-08-02T21:56:24.524-07:00I like what you say. That is why I joined the Gree...I like what you say. That is why I joined the Green Party as their aims and policies would fit well with yours. For example promoting a citizens income and limiting income disparity and a lot more. Check it out you may like the greens policy?<br />Dave herbertnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14404776.post-84200971924647224792013-07-11T15:00:50.343-07:002013-07-11T15:00:50.343-07:00Thank you for your comment.
Would you agree, then...Thank you for your comment.<br /><br />Would you agree, then, that, by analogy, your bank account has no actual value, since you are not using the money in it? If this is a flawed analogy, where does it miss the mark?<br /><br />What does 'no actual value' mean? Does it mean 'no value'?<br /><br />We can think of plants in the rainforest or veins of ore in the ground as offering opportunities to present and future generations, either as a source of food and medicine in the case of plants or as material from which to make refined metals in the case of the ore. When opportunities are diminished, either because we make species extinct or because we deplete mineral resources, value is lost. I think it is an appropriate goal of a civilized society to limit depletion of resources and rates of taking of resources so that future generations are not seriously disadvantaged by being deprived of opportunities; or so that any curtailment of opportunities is not carried to an extent that most people feel is excessive. The public policy question is, 'What is an acceptable rate of taking or depletion of (this or that) natural resource?' A democratic society would aim for a rate that most people agree is appropriate (with an equal number saying we are not too strict in our limits as those who say we are not too lenient).<br /><br />I agree with you that material goods are produced by human beings taking natural resources and mixing their labor with them to make them useful. But this is not to say that raw materials have no value.<br /><br />Thanks again for sharing your thoughts.John Champagnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12991470302088404570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14404776.post-15492979962844865262013-07-11T14:02:06.413-07:002013-07-11T14:02:06.413-07:00"We know that natural resources are valuable—..."We know that natural resources are valuable—even indispensable—to industry and to society at large. Yet we allow industries to take and degrade natural resource wealth without any expectation that they will pay compensation for the damage done or value taken"<br /><br />The key flaw here is that an unused resource has no actual value. A vein of iron ore only gains value when altered by human activity. This activity is itself a public good. By extracting and processing the ore, members of the community come together as an industry and convert potential value to actual value. They are then compensated by the rest of the community for this effort, while the net value of the community increases. <br />Negative externalities, when present, are judged against the value produced, and as long as the cumulative net change in value is positive, the externalities will be corrected or ignored by the community.<br /><br />Central here is the simple point that value is an entirely subjective concept, existing only in the human mind. Therefore, relative valuation is the sole domain of human judgement, and subject to its whims and flaws, not an objective standard.<br /><br />As judgement is imperfect, it is possible to, for example, value the effects of methamphetamine more highly than one's own life. Collective judgement may be more stable and/or rational than that of the individual, but it is no less imperfect.Matt Torleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14829035174361766527noreply@blogger.com