You are in Guest mode. If you want to post, you'll need to register (we promise it's painless).
Registered users should log in now. (Forgot your password?)

Guest-accessible forum This forum allows unregistered guests access to read. You must register to post in this forum.

Nature_and_Environment.14

Topic HomeTopicsForum HomeForumsHomeSearchSettingsHelpExit

Population Growth

--------

{Nature_and_Environment.14.114}: Richard Witty {gisland} Thu, 30 Dec 2004 12:10:44 CST (49 lines)

I don't have a specific answer.

The US government is structured on a statutory law basis and less on
a common law, so the political winds determine the extent of
regulation, taxation, etc. They attempt to base the assessments and
legislation on some rational criteria, but the theories applied
swing depending on political power.

The current swing is to reduce specific regulation (even as specific
privileges and subsidies ARE being enacted), and attempting to
reduce the legal reasoning that adjustments could ever be made on.
(There is always the reconciliation of conflicting property rights,
but that only applies to those able to sue, and excludes existential
rights and valuations and rights and valuations of posterity.)

My pet requirement is a restoration insurance, in which an audit
would be conducted of the cost to restore all land to qualitatively
original condition. Landowners would be required to fund either a
portion of that assessment, or insure against it, to retain
authorized exclusive property rights to the land.


Other methods not as unpalatable as taxation, are disclosure
requirements, say of the locus of a product (the mean latitude and
longitude of all value added activity to make the product, combined
with a variance to describe the average distance from the locus of
the value-addition). That would assume that people value more local
value-addition than remote, and would CHOOSE more local products
than remote.


From the business perspective, the Bush administration is described
as a "pro-business" one. But the reality is that is a "pro-currently
dominant business" one.

I use the analogy of a glass half full or half empty. Most call
a "positive attitude" regarding the glass as half full. ("Look what
we've accomplished", rather than complain about what we should have
done.) In contrast, I think a half empty glass is more positive, as
a half-empty glass there is room to add more water, room to effect
the world. Whereas with a full glass, there is no room to move, no
room to do.

Similarly with business. If the marketplace, the land represented by
real estate values, is full, its a cause (not just an indicator)
that less is possible in the future.

So, I call the Bush administration an anti-business administration,
for abusing future potential.

--------

Forum
Topic HomeTopicsForum HomeForumsHomeSearchSettingsHelpExit
Guest-accessible forum This forum allows unregistered guests access to read. You must register to post in this forum.

You are in Guest mode. If you want to post, you'll need to register (we promise it's painless).
Registered users should log in now. (Forgot your password?)

The New Café  Home | Your Hotlist and Directory | Independent Partner Forums |
FAQ | User Guidelines | Privacy Policy