Stay with the point.
Say I produced $50 million and caused no pollution or health problems.
Perhaps to no-one is that controversial.
Harry
--------------------------------------------------------
Bill wrote:
Harry,
It is a major issue. Corporations for years have produced goods and pollution. Often, the long term costs of cleaning up the pollution or the associated health effects have been greater than the value of the products [which may or may not lead to improved QoL]. Whenever potential harm to the community, the environment, the society may occur, there is need to cost out and subtract the negative from the positive.
Bill
On Thu, 05 Jun 2003 14:10:49 -0700 Harry Pollard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Bill, > > That's called shifting grounds. > > Say there was no pollution and no health care costs? > > Then, how can I be faulted for supplying the community with $50 > million > worth of goods and/or services? > > Feel better? > > Harry > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Bill wrote: > > >To an economist, the following is not controversial > > > > How can I be faulted for supplying the community with > > $50 million worth of goods and/or services? > > > >but if it costs $20 million [MBTE for example] to clean the > pollution and > >your goods/services cause $10 million in additional health care > costs, > >the value is $20 million. There certainly are cases where the > damage to > >the environment is greater than the value of the products and > services > >produced. > > > > > >Bill
**************************************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: (818) 352-4141 -- Fax: (818) 353-2242 http://home.attbi.com/~haledward ****************************************************
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.486 / Virus Database: 284 - Release Date: 5/29/2003
