Jan Steinman wrote:
>
> What? Unwilling to comment on something you don't understand?
Yes, although I know you would disagree. I have a degree in economics
from Berkeley and continued some study on my own after that. Then I
spent over 30 years at the headquarters of a Fortune 500 company doing
stuff that let me in on a lot of inner workings. I find the statements
and underlying assumptions of many who would save he world to reveal a
serious naiveté about some aspects of business, economics and political
economy.
When I disagree with their goals and they have no power, I don't care.
When I think their larger goals and mine are similar and that the means
they propose have a fatal flaw, I find it hard not to speak up. In most
of the cases where I have commented on these quotes, it has been a
simple matter of logical extension of the statement to show the
underlying implications.
I personally believe that logic has a very limited area of validity. But
in these cases, it is a tool I find often illuminating.
> You're slipping, Moose! :-)
>
Now who's trying to set a conflagration? :-)
> It's from a seminal work in environmental ecology, "The Tragedy of
> the Commons."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
>
Thanks for the reference. Haven't read and absorbed it all yet. A
relatively recent and local event that may be an instance is the
collapse and demise of a couple of No. Cal. Indian tribes as a result of
overfishing of a river.
> :::: You must be the change you wish to see in the world -- Ghandi ::::
>
I like this one.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|