Re: Europe's worst ever floods linked to poor land management
Good points. Thanks. -jsh --- Fred Foldvary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- john hull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ... you seem to be suggesting that > > policy makers are benefiting the present at the > > expense of the future, yet couldn't one could > accuse > > you of wanting to benefit the future at the > expense of > > the present? > > One could accuse me thusly, but the accusation would > not be warranted. > My belief is that a pure free market would bias > neither the present nor the > future. > > > It seems like the balanced position > > would be to accept the consequences of the 100 > year > > flood for the benefit of 99 years of prosperity > and > > growth. > > There can be too much investment in disaster > prevention, but I have not seen > any cost/benefit analysis indicating that the > governmental river policies in > Europe have been optimal. The same applies to US > and Chinese policy. > > At any rate, if prosperity and growth are the goals, > none of the European > countries have tax and regulatory policies that > maximize it, so the evidence > is that there are other goals and preferences that > have higher priority for > the policy makers. > > Fred Foldvary > > = > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com
Re: Europe's worst ever floods linked to poor land management
In a message dated 8/26/02 11:34:01 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << 2: I seem to recall that heavy flooding in the Mississippi / Missouri area led to a reversal of the "let's build a protective dike and thus move the problem down stream"-policy. Large areas (including whole villages) were essentially given up and left open for future flooding, thus taking the pressure off the river further down. Can anybody confirm this? - jacob braestrup >> I lived in Iowa during the last great flood there and while there was some talk of abandoning the dikes, there was also talk about building more of them. People tended to see all the water and want more dikes rather than less. David Levenstam
Re: Europe's worst ever floods linked to poor land management
oops. Make that more dikes rather than fewer.
Re: Europe's worst ever floods linked to poor land management
Two points 1: It is my belief that in a free market for river management (no government meddling) common law practises would evolve, stipulating how to resolve cases where activities upstream causes havoc downstream (whether this take the form of pollution, flooding or whatever) 2: I seem to recall that heavy flooding in the Mississippi / Missouri area led to a reversal of the "let's build a protective dike and thus move the problem down stream"-policy. Large areas (including whole villages) were essentially given up and left open for future flooding, thus taking the pressure off the river further down. Can anybody confirm this? - jacob braestrup > --- john hull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ... you seem to be suggesting that > > policy makers are benefiting the present at the > > expense of the future, yet couldn't one could accuse > > you of wanting to benefit the future at the expense of > > the present? > > One could accuse me thusly, but the accusation would not be warranted. > My belief is that a pure free market would bias neither the present nor the > future. > > > It seems like the balanced position > > would be to accept the consequences of the 100 year > > flood for the benefit of 99 years of prosperity and > > growth. > > There can be too much investment in disaster prevention, but I have not seen > any cost/benefit analysis indicating that the governmental river policies in > Europe have been optimal. The same applies to US and Chinese policy. > > At any rate, if prosperity and growth are the goals, none of the European > countries have tax and regulatory policies that maximize it, so the evidence > is that there are other goals and preferences that have higher priority for > the policy makers. > > Fred Foldvary > > = > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- NeoMail - Webmail
Re: Europe's worst ever floods linked to poor land management
--- john hull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... you seem to be suggesting that > policy makers are benefiting the present at the > expense of the future, yet couldn't one could accuse > you of wanting to benefit the future at the expense of > the present? One could accuse me thusly, but the accusation would not be warranted. My belief is that a pure free market would bias neither the present nor the future. > It seems like the balanced position > would be to accept the consequences of the 100 year > flood for the benefit of 99 years of prosperity and > growth. There can be too much investment in disaster prevention, but I have not seen any cost/benefit analysis indicating that the governmental river policies in Europe have been optimal. The same applies to US and Chinese policy. At any rate, if prosperity and growth are the goals, none of the European countries have tax and regulatory policies that maximize it, so the evidence is that there are other goals and preferences that have higher priority for the policy makers. Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Europe's worst ever floods linked to poor land management
--- Fred Foldvary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "It takes a government to ruin a river. ...As for the future, they have not learned the right lesson, as huge dams and other current works will continue to alter the natural flow of Europe's rivers." With all due respect, you seem to be suggesting that policy makers are benefiting the present at the expense of the future, yet couldn't one could accuse you of wanting to benefit the future at the expense of the present? It seems like the balanced position would be to accept the consequences of the 100 year flood for the benefit of 99 years of prosperity and growth. Or to put it more generally, accept the consequences of the X year flood for the benefits of the X-1 years of growth and prosperity. I infer that you are putting X as near zero as possible, why do you view that as the optimal solution? Respectfully yours, jsh __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com
Re: Europe's worst ever floods linked to poor land management
--- Anton Sherwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > it has tended to create massive and comparatively sudden surges > of water down the rivers, where in the past the water would > have been delayed for days or even weeks as it meandered across > the river's natural flood plain. > a genuine public goods problem. It's really an externality problem, and only secondarily a public good case. > I suppose cities downstream > could contract with owners of land in the floodplains upstream, but that > just transfers the free rider problem. Any ideas? The problem was caused by government, typically providing current benefits at the expense of future troubles that later governments and populations will have to deal with. It is a future-generations externality. In a pure free market, it would not have been profitable for a firm to straigten a river. It takes a government to ruin a river. Now that the engineering has been done, it is most likely irreversible, so the Europeans just have to lump it. As for the future, they have not learned the right lesson, as huge dams and other current works will continue to alter the natural flow of Europe's rivers. China has also not learned the lesson, as it is building a horrendously huge dam that may well later dwarf the European troubles, especially as there may be construction flaws. Some of these project are not even affordable by governments, and the World Bank has supplied the funds. Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
