> Interesting responses to the arsenic issue. Especially coming from an economics
>list.<
> Economics, of whatever flavor or wing, is in large part about allocation of finite
"scarce" resources. Shouldn't we look at the arsenic issue in that regard? Especially
here.<
I'd say that the main concern of this is list with _artificial_ scarcity of resources,
jobs, public services, consumer goods, and the like due to the power of those who
benefit
from maintaining that artificial scarcity.
For example, since rich folks are able to afford more than enough arsenic-free water
for
their own consumption, and because they really don't care about anyone else's welfare,
they have pushed for cut-backs in all but the absolutely necessary public services that
the non-rich get, including clean water, so that they can get Dubya-type tax cuts for
themselves and subsidies for their businesses (the ability to exploit public lands,
etc.)
They have more political power than working people do at this point, so they've largely
succeeded, even under the nominally "Democratic" administration that just left office
in
the US. This may be short-sighted on their part (since people might get a little angry
with this treatment), but it wouldn't be the first time that a powerful group had sunk
its
own boat.
> In other words, I doubt that there are more than 2-3 people in the world who wound
>deny
that having zero arsenic in water is a good thing....<
this issue (and those elided) were addressed in the article that was posted from
Rachel's
on-line environmental magazine. I don't see why we need to dwell on them, unless you
can
point to an error in that article. It seemed more empirically grounded than the piece
by
Sowell, which wallowed in standard laissez-faire boilerplate.
-- Jim Devine
---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Panda Mail. Check your regular email account away from
home
free! http://www.pandamail.net
