NOW on PBS: Fighting Over Forests
It is conventional wisdom that Bush is ignoring the rubble and devastation surrounding him and focuses on the notion that somehow the ends (presumably long into the future) will vindicate his legacy. Well, this typically short-sighted, corporate-friendly, ecologically hostile move on the part of the Bush administration will have a very negative legacy for us all.
NOW:
Signed by President Bill Clinton in 2001, the Roadless Area Conservation Rule protects nearly 60 million acres of the country's national forest lands from most road building, mining and logging. Over the last seven years, the Bush administration has tried to amend or repeal the landmark regulation to give states more flexibility. NOW travels to southeast Idaho to investigate how a proposed change in the rule threatens to open thousands of acres of pristine public lands to private development. In the report, NOW speaks to representatives from the ranching, environmental, and mining communities, as well an administration official. Who gets to control the fate of Idaho's vast roadless forests? Find out how you can help shape the answer.
You can download or podcast the entire program at the NOW on PBS site. And if you feel the need to let the government know how you'd like to see a little more green thinking, NOW has provided a contact point as well.
E-MAIL: IDcomments@fsroadless.org
POSTAL MAIL: Roadless Area Conservation-Idaho, P.O. Box 162909, Sacramento, CA 95816–2909
FAX: 916-456-6724
We are now moving into phase 2 of the Bush/Norquist doctrine.............break the Federal Government then sell off our assets.
OUR assets people!
I hope to hell they can stop this from happening. Jesus, can't the bush administration leave any living thing intact? Do they have to destroy every damned thing before they leave office? This is so the wrong time to be doing this due to the fact that many Americans are backing up and saying, what the hell have we done to our world with all our greed. Pollute the waters, poison the air and now destroy and develop what little wild lands we have left.
Is hoping that someone rots in hell a sin?
This is also a big Ted Stevens thing. Alaska has WAAAAAY more USFS land than any other state. It has the two largest national forests in the US.
So, if the Repubs get their way,
ANWR will get opened.
Chukchi sea will have more oil development
Southeast Alaska will get logged
The largest mines in the US will be developed.
All in Alaska!
Oh, and the republican administration in AK has said that Polar Bears are not threatened by retreating ice and shooting wolves from planes is good wildlife management.
Idiot conservatives are quick to reveal themselves. Every time the news shows a snowstorm, they say "So much for global warming."
And I'm referring to people with advanced degrees. Astounding.
Radically Moderate @ 1:
otherwise known as neoliberalism
Is there anything that worthless skidmark has touched that hasn't turned to shit?
God, is it 1/20/09 yet???
The Truth Hurts @ 7:
the top .1%
they are doing great, thank you
Samson- @ 6:
you mean Libertarianism.
Samson- @ 6:
I stand corrected, the 21st century version of Libertarianism has its origins in post war neoliberalism.
thanks for the history lesson.
This is getting ridiculous. I struggle to think of on thing Bush has done that isn't horribly evil. And, of course, it has all been signed off on by our lovely congress. These people were elected to stop this madness but they only open thier mouths when it is their turn to give Bush a nice Larry Craig.
I don't see any necessity to change the law in order to access those forests. Wouldn't a signing statement and the appointment of a loyal Bush beaver as forrester be sufficient to end this woody menace.
We should all go to crawford texas
and piss over the fence and at the
entrance of bush's ranch. since
bush is crapping on all of us, let's
return the favor...and no charmins please.
Mass Extinction might be the best thing for poor mother Earth.
Che's Lounge @ 5:
this was not a degree they received but perforated paper for their other end
where their brains are draining.
Maybe all the Bosom buffed Celeb's can pull themselves away from their awards shows and do a Save The Forest thing.
L.A. Confidential @ 14:
I sometimes wonder if it would not have been better to have a nuclear meltdown in the 60s. Might have saved a helluvalot of the planet from man's obsession to use up every resource as fast as possible, without thinking about what happens to everything. All over greed for manmade dollar bills. Pathetic. So much for evolution.
L.A. Confidential @ 16:
There's a thought. Like the concert to stop pollution that did nothing but pollute. Nice touch. Maybe they'll find some forest they can cut down, to put up a stage for the concert. The stupidity sometimes is mind boggling, isn't it?
March in D.C. Five Years Too Many
Spread the word
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/
bkj @ 4:
I read over at Kos today that a democrat is going to run against Stevens. I hope it's a good dem and I hope to hell he beats the socks and Hulk necktie off Stevens.
You damn liberals! There is no scientific evidence to suggest that human's need trees to survive. In fact, it specifically says in the bible in Luke 12.38.93:
"Father of our Lord, shall in abundance, provide air to breathe freely with no tax to further burden man's economic situation, and shant worry about human impact on said tree life."
Jay Severin Has a Small Pen1s @ 21:
If you read a little bit more of that you will see the part that says, thou shalt not screw with mother earth, lest ye want yourselves be screwed.
The false god Reagan tried to sell off massive segments of our National Forests to help pay off the National Debt, and failed. Funny how under Bush II there is no mention of the National Debt, therefore, the monies we’re talking about would go directly to the Logging Industry evidently.
Nicole:
I am curious, where and how did you come to the conclusion that trees, (and thus nature in general) are "pristine" and needs to be "protected" from man's use? I don't understand how anybody who claims to value human life can place nature ABOVE human life and well being. You call forests "pristine", but you never mentioned anywhere that calling forests "pristine" is a HUMAN judgment of value. Forests IN AND OF THEMSELVES are nothing but chemicals and compounds organized in a way that is pleasing to the eye. But if it is pleasing to the eye, it does not mean what we are looking at has virtue, it means we value our eyesight's ability to see colours and shapes.
So if you conclude that the "pristine" forests are of value that mankind should not touch (philosophy of which is actually derived from biblical teachings of not touching the nature "God" has created, i.e. the apple of truth), then you are implying that humans are BELOW nature.
It is very a primitive and cultish form of nature worshipping if a person or group of people declare that "this piece of land you may not touch, because it is pretty".
Believing that nature has intrinsic value may on the surface appear to be nothing more than being "ecologically aware". But at its roots, it's a very DANGEROUS road to be on for our health and well-being and our view of our place in the universe. For if you believe that nature has intrinsic value, then you are forced by logic into making the following conclusion. That people are systematic destroyers of value, instead of what we really are, which is that we are the only thing in the universe (at least as far as astronomers can tell) that CREATES and DEFINES VALUE. Without people on the Earth, everything will have ZERO value, because "valuation" is a human action, not an intrinsic or animal action.
If you believe that people are the systematic destroyers of value, then you must think people are inherently evil, because destroying value is an evil action is it not? If you think people are inherently evil then, then you must then believe that we should all be punished somehow, or organized into an authoritarian system that forbids any usage of resources outside the perview of a "wise" group of individuals.
People have a nature to them because of our make-up. We cannot escape it, because it is a universal truth. It would like refusing to accept that the Sun is powered by fusion. Enacting such a "managed" system would be catastrophic to our well being. People need to be free to harness nature. If they aren't, then people will harness themselves into submission.
"Protecting the forests" is actually a misnomer. It cannot be called for what it is because then NOBODY would accept it. It is actually a THREAT OF VIOLENCE towards anyone who chooses to use those trees by voluntary contract. Think about it. It means that people are willing to HARM other people for the sole reason that they changed the combinations and locations of various chemicals and compounds (trees, dirt, etc).
The only basis for this violent action to be valid is if the compunds and chemicals that are the trees are OWNED by another PERSON, in which case if someone cut the trees down without the consent of this owner, THEN the owner has a right to recompense from the violator. But if the trees are not owned by anyone by contract, then NOBODY has the right to stop anyone from using those trees to produce goods man uses to better their life.
[Drew, Wag, Private Freedom-Really tired of your lengthy posts. I'm all for banning you again if you can't control it-Sitemonitor]
On a similar topic, Exxon/Mobil is before the Supreme Court today, trying to weasel out of paying any damages whatsoever to the local communities of Price Edward Sound in the now nineteen year old Exxon Valdez oil spill case. Reading the transcript of the arguments, it's appalling how Justice Scalia practically COACHES the counsel for Exxon/Mobil, throwing them lifeline after lifeline. The man is clearly not an impartial judge. To his credit, Justice Roberts actually seemed pretty impartial. That was a big surprise.
Drew @ 24:
Dude, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Drew @ 24:
Whoa. Lay off the hard stuff.
Clinton's no roads plan signed before leaving office in 2001 saved billions of dollars to tax payers. The National Forest Service spent 3.5 Billion or more annually maintaining roads that existed at that time. Spending more billions to build and maintain forest roads only for use of timber companies to harvest trees and sell them for millions of dollars was pound foolish.
On top off that, Timber executives petitioned the Republican controlled Congress to pay them to remove dead tree tops and branches they left lying on the ground after removing the logs; these dead leftovers were Fuel for forest fires.
In 2002 alone, the Forest Service spent $36 million on the Tongass logging program -- and received $1 million in revenue. Logging in the Tongass also undercuts America's moral authority to urge other countries to reduce logging in tropical rainforests, while we are logging our own.
Drew, THINK about what you are saying. It isn’t just “oh, the forest is pretty”. The forest absorbs CO2 and creates oxygen. It prevents soil erosion and protects habitat not destroyed by the human economic system. If you plan, in the future, on being a cannibal, you only will need two things: plants and people to eat the plants. If you plan on using the non human eco-system for survival you need non-human eco-systems to survive and to flourish.
As far as destroying nature, that is a given. You should think about what you’re saying logically and just be honest with yourself. When you take down a tree there is a COST associated with that. The tree no longer is there to give us many of the properties we rely on. Our economic system does not account for costs in prices and national indices like GDP what so ever. There is a finite amount of resources in the world and if we, human beings, continue to grow in population and consumption, we continuously reduce per capita resource availability and aggregately (over time) the costs of this consumption outweigh the benefits.
Think of it this way. There is a forest in your neighborhood that you need for energy and food and it is the only source of resources you have (just like the Earth is all the worldwide population has). Your neighborhood continues to grow in population and consumption, so you consume more and more trees and the animals within. You soon realize that as your neighborhood grows the forest gets smaller and smaller as do the animal populations, i.e. your consumption always increases and that increase is increasingly growing faster than the forest can grow back (the situation is more dire with resources that don’t grow back like oil). You look at the numbers at see that there once was 1,000 trees, there are now 400. There were once 1,000 people, now there are 2,000. So, you have fewer trees, less animals and more people, creating more hardship per person. Your prices will not capture this information and neither will indices, they treat consumption as a positive always, but there is a cost involved and that cost will one day mean starvation for your neighborhood and the world as a whole. This is the case now across the Earth.
In the past we were smaller population wise and had more room to grow. If one region outgrew it’s ability to consume it just found another habitat and consumed there. What happens when there are no more habitats to consume? Then what? We then either continue to consume (because that is glorious in your mind) and cause world wide ecological collapse (which we are currently doing) or we radically reform our ideas about our place in the world and our consumption habits, beginning with the economic system. Our economic system and the ideology that underlies it was created in a completely different world where these concerns weren’t of immediate importance. That time is long past and it’s time to change the economic system to match the ecological reality we live in.
There is, logically, no way of ignoring this without causing massive problems in the future. That is why so many here are up in arms. We’re blindly sowing the seeds of our demise and are doing it without thinking critically about our actions.
USDA Forest Service P.O. Box 221090 Salt Lake City , UT 84122 October 22, 2004 Content Analysis Team: Please accept this letter as official public comment for the roadless area management state petition proposal [Docket Number: 04-16191]. Designating roadless areas in our national forests is an economically sound policy that saves taxpayers millions of dollars in road building and timber sale subsidies. As professional economists, we urge the administration to reverse its decision to replace the Roadless Area Conservation Rule for the following reasons: 1. The administration’s proposal will increase public subsidies to private timber companies. Opening 58.5 million roadless acres to subsidized road building will increase the amount of wasteful federal giveaways. Private timber companies already receive tens of millions of dollars each year to build more forest roads at taxpayer expense, and use those roads to access timber purchased below market prices. The Government Accountability Office (GAO), the investigative arm of Congress, estimates that the Forest Service timber program cost American taxpayers over $2 billion from 1992 to 1997. The timber program continues to lose as much as $400 million each year, but the precise amount is unknown because the Forest Service lacks adequate record keeping. 2. We already have too many forest roads. The U.S. Forest Service cannot adequately maintain all 430,000 miles of roads that already exist in our national forests. A 2004 administration review found that the Forest Service “has been unable to demonstrate that it can maintain its current infrastructure needs.” Adding new roads, combined with chronically inadequate funding of the roads maintenance program, have together created a massive road maintenance backlog in our forests, which now exceeds $10 billion and continues to grow. 3. This plan does not solve the Forest Service’s accountability problems. The Forest Service currently faces numerous fiscal and management problems. The GAO has released several reports detailing the Forest Service’s failure to properly act as steward of the nation’s 192 million acres of forests. In 2003, the GAO concluded that the Forest Service has, “not been able to provide Congress and the public with a clear understanding of what its 30,000 employees accomplish with the approximately $5 billion it receives each year.” As citizens who understand the economic value of our national forests, we urge you not to implement this new rule. The original roadless rule is of far greater benefit to federal taxpayers. Given the economic cost to taxpayers of additional road building, the losses incurred from the timber program, and the accountability problems of the Forest Service, changing the rule is ill-advised.
Bush's gutting of environmental regulations, and the enforcement capability of environmental agencies, is one of the biggest little-reported atrocities of his administration. Just like with that fucking shithead Reagan, who did the same thing.
Drew is certainly off his rocker, but I see no need to keep reposting his entire diatribe to refute him.
Obviously he does not realize the intricate relationship that exist between all living things, including humans, which are also merely made up of chemicals and compounds. He's the type of person that can't see the forest for the trees.
I also disagree with his belief that only humans can value things. In his shortsightedness he has equated value with money. My cat values me and my companionship despite his ability to survive on his own. I also have plants that value my presence.
With his Biblical references one might assume he is religious but does he not believe that all humans are sinners and therefor evil?
I also posit that man will never harness nature, but man can affect nature, to man's detriment if he treats nature like this idiot espouses.
George Really does listen to the experts; Then he does exactly the opposite.
I particiapated, with hundreds of other citizens, in the Roadless area process back in the 90's. Though a few folks in the logging and real estate business wanted more tree cutting and sale of forest land, the majority of people (and this is here in Georgia, for the Chattahoochee National Forest) wanted greater protections for the watershed and environment. We went through this process in good faith. Most of the businesspeople understood that the economy of North Georgia relies on tourism and having an intact forest (as opposed to a massive monoculture tree farm) was central to that economy.
Now Georgia faces a water shortage. The state, permitted to bend forest protections, is reaping a harvest of shrinking water resources. If only for the protection of the watershed and drinking water, it is important to have real, natural forests. Now the Bush administration is gutting these agreements to enrich a small number of people, in logging and extraction industries, and real estate, to the detriment of the whole.
Drew, your ideas about economic utility are shortsighted. We are, in fact, part of nature, and we destroy ourselves if we destroy it.
We are not separate from our environment
Pepper @ 30:
"Drew, THINK about what you are saying."
Sorry if you think I don't. But I do.
"It isn’t just “oh, the forest is pretty”."
That is the basis for it, THEN further excuses are piled on top of it.
"The forest absorbs CO2 and creates oxygen."
So do tree farms. And the oceans absorb more CO2 and release more oxygen than all the trees in the world combined. This little known fact is always overlooked by people who clal themselves "environmentalists". Did you know that the algae in the oceans produces around 70 - 80% of the world's oxygen. Look it up.
"It prevents soil erosion and protects habitat not destroyed by the human economic system."
See, you also say the word "protect", as if it is a human life form needing a defense against other, "evil" humans. Logic is not some game. It must be followed. So let's further your logic. Why stop at local habitats? Why not protect EVERY form of nature? Why not kill anyone who eats a fish or uses a banana leaf to make a house? You cannot tell me that there is an objective "balance", because this requires a central decision-making body, which is impossible for human well being. The only "balance" is the limit of current human understanding of, and power over, nature.
"If you plan, in the future, on being a cannibal, you only will need two things: plants and people to eat the plants."
Dumb analogy
"If you plan on using the non human eco-system for survival"
This makes no sense.
"you need non-human eco-systems to survive and to flourish."
That's what humans do.
"As far as destroying nature, that is a given."
It is a given ONLY if you believe in the destructive philosophy of intrinsic value. It is NOT a given that is a universal truth.
"You should think about what you’re saying logically and just be honest with yourself."
WHat do you think I am doing? Playing footsy? This is a serious issue that I have given serious thought to.
"When you take down a tree there is a COST associated with that."
Do you even know what "cost" means? Cost is a business outlay. Costs are fully capable of being REPLENISHED. In your example of cutting down a tree, the cost is wages and capital. But these costs are able to be recuperated, whereby the original cutter can plant new trees. This is how tree farms work and is responsible for roughly 75% of the pulp that goes into paper-making. Trees can be replanted just like potatoes and carrots. Nobody fears a carrot shortage. There is no tree shortage wherever there is private ownership of forests. In Europe, many forests are privately owned, and they are SUSTAINED, meaning what is cut down is replanted.
"The tree no longer is there to give us many of the properties we rely on."
Wrong.
"Our economic system does not account for costs in prices and national indices like GDP what so ever."
Of course it does. If it didn't, you would not even have a conceptual understanding of what these things even are.
"There is a finite amount of resources in the world"
No, there is an infinite supply. The only limit to resources is our knowledge of, and physical power over, nature. The weight of the Earth is the same now as it has been for many millions of years. Humans do not make resources "disappear", we CREATE resources. 150 years ago oil was just a black liquid nuisance. It was not a resource then. But now it is. Same thing can happen for other naturally occurring compunds. You are fearing the end of resources because of the crap on TV and in the MSM news, and in the universities. That is sad.
"and if we, human beings, continue to grow in population and consumption, we continuously reduce per capita resource availability and aggregately (over time) the costs of this consumption outweigh the benefits."
This entirely bogus belief is derived from Malthus, who was INCORRECT, because food becomes MORE abundant with human productivity, not less. Malthus, if you are wondering how his destructive ideas spread, affected Karl Marx profoundly. And you and I know what he was responsible for.
"Think of it this way."
No. Because then I would be incorrect.
"There is a forest in your neighborhood that you need for energy and food and it is the only source of resources you have"
Why does your hypothetical begin this way? Why is it the only resource I have? The world does not operate this way.
"(just like the Earth is all the worldwide population has)"
No. You are comparing a non-division of labor society (neighbourhood) with a division of labor society (the world). The world is NOT like a neighbourhood, because when people specialize in their labor, what happens is a GROWTH in resources, not a decline which would exist in a neighbourhood that uses trees.
"There is, logically, no way of ignoring this without causing massive problems in the future. That is why so many here are up in arms. We’re blindly sowing the seeds of our demise and are doing it without thinking critically about our actions."
The only problems that exist are people hurting each other over their beliefs, whatever they are. In this case, environmentalism is a belief system that CAUSES HUMAN SUFFERING.
Do you doubt me?
Here's David M. Graber, in his prominently featured Los Angeles Times book review of Bill McKibben’s The End of Nature: “McKibben is a biocentrist, and so am I. We are not interested in the utility of a particular species or free-flowing river, or ecosystem, to mankind. They have intrinsic value, more value—to me—than another human body, or a billion of them.… It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil-energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”
These kinds of statements are made by PROMINANT ENVIRONMENTALISTS. The unmistakeable conclusion in this statement is a call for the deaths of over 6 billion people!
Please think more about this rather than relying so much on TV or what you learnt from bad professors.
I prefer the people who are trying to preserve a functioning ecosystem to those who would destroy it.
Drew may call himself a biocentrist but that does not mean that he's not just plain fucked up in the head. Something akin to a pedophile priest i think.
Saint Augustine @ 33:
"Drew is certainly off his rocker,"
Gee thanks.
"but I see no need to keep reposting his entire diatribe to refute him."
Agreed.
"Obviously he does not realize the intricate relationship that exist between all living things, including humans"
Care to elaborate on this relationship? You say there is an "intricate" one, so what exactly is it?
"which are also merely made up of chemicals and compounds."
Glad you see it.
"He's the type of person that can't see the forest for the trees."
I hate cliches like this. It is so insipid, and is almost always misused by the speaker.
"I also disagree with his belief that only humans can value things."
That is your choice. But don't expect to end your deep down hatred for people who consume resources any time soon, even though it is required for human survival.
"In his shortsightedness he has equated value with money."
Oh, not really. Value is often MEASURED by the dollar amount in inter-personal exchanges of goods (which is the only way goods and resources change hands, with the exception of charity).
"My cat values me and my companionship despite his ability to survive on his own.
Hmmm...I don't think animals value anything. This is definitely an interesting topic for discussion though. I think animals act the way they do because they are compelled to. Animals do not have the ability to reflect on choices. Humans tend to personify animals. Like dogs show actions that people can safely understand as "love", but it is not love. They just appear to love, that's why people take them in as pets. We as humans, over time, have come to like those animals that appear to exhibit human characteristics. This is why dolphins, chimps, seals, dogs, cats, and other such animals are so popular with humans, and why cockroaches, slugs, worms, snakes are not so popular.
"I also have plants that value my presence."
Uh, here I'll have to politely disagree and think crazy thoughts about this statement.
"With his Biblical references one might assume he is religious"
Not at all. Very not religious.
"but does he not believe that all humans are sinners and therefor evil?"
Absolutely not. That's the worst thing about the doctrine of "original sin". I don't think a moral or rational person could ever look at a newborn child and think to themselves this baby is full of evil. It's an utterly monstrous ideology and I resent it tremendously.
I also posit that man will never harness nature, but man can affect nature, to man's detriment if he treats nature like this idiot espouses.
And Drew, the fallacy you indulge is that costs are only business expenditures. In the National forest, we have a common, shared resource. To subject it to your ideas about supply and demand is criminal.
Drew, we are talking about the preservation of appx 1% of the total land mass in North America that we,our parents, and grandparents have paid OUR taxes to hold in reserve for future generations.
Your non sequitor on wilderness responsible for the death of humans is hooey!
“Do you even know what “cost” means? Cost is a business outlay. Costs are fully capable of being REPLENISHED. In your example of cutting down a tree, the cost is wages and capital. But these costs are able to be recuperated, whereby the original cutter can plant new trees. This is how tree farms work and is responsible for roughly 75% of the pulp that goes into paper-making. Trees can be replanted just like potatoes and carrots. Nobody fears a carrot shortage. There is no tree shortage wherever there is private ownership of forests. In Europe, many forests are privately owned, and they are SUSTAINED, meaning what is cut down is replanted.”
I have a degree in economics and have studied the subject quite a bit, so yes I’m aware of what a cost is. You don't know what the hell you're talking about at all, a single bit. The economic system is a human creation genius. When we expand purchasing power we don't look at environmental carrying capacity. When we create prices we don't include costs like pollution, over-consumption, etc. These costs exist but are not captured by orthodox economics.
I used trees because, as you can see from the freaking picture, this was about forests. The same applies to all natural habitats, including the ocean, which are finite in number and are under the same constraints as far as consumption. You seem to be missing the basic points. The first of which is continued growth, in consumption and population. The monetary system and financial markets are created to continuously expand, when they don’t there is hell to pay, and the economic system can only grow so much relative to the environment (which it feeds on for resources and uses as a sink for waste) before the costs drown out the benefits. When the trees are replaced, as consumption increases more trees NEED to be replaced, energy resources are needed. When you consume a resource that can no longer be used by someone else it is a cost. Ever hear of decreasing supply? Overall forest cover is decreasing worldwide, especially in the tropics. Since there is less trees available, per capita and aggregately, this is a COST. I pointed out that these costs are absent from the pricing mechanism and national indices because of the type of ignorance you’re displaying here. There are now major stresses on fishing in the oceans because of over-consumption. Why? There are less fish and more people to consume them. How hard is the concept to understand.
“The tree no longer is there to give us many of the properties we rely on.”
“Wrong.” (this is not an argument idiot, it’s a single word)
“No, there is an infinite supply. The only limit to resources is our knowledge of, and physical power over, nature. The weight of the Earth is the same now as it has been for many millions of years. Humans do not make resources “disappear”, we CREATE resources. 150 years ago oil was just a black liquid nuisance. It was not a resource then. But now it is. Same thing can happen for other naturally occurring compunds. You are fearing the end of resources because of the crap on TV and in the MSM news, and in the universities. That is sad.”
So many criminally stupid comments I don’t know where to begin. If forest cover is decreasing, how are we “creating” more trees? Explain this irrational logic. If oil is finite in amount, and we are continuously increasing our consumption, are you claiming that we’ll “create” more oil somehow? If so, why are you wasting your genius brain here when you could be uncovering the biggest find of this young century.
“This entirely bogus belief is derived from Malthus, who was INCORRECT, because food becomes MORE abundant with human productivity, not less. Malthus, if you are wondering how his destructive ideas spread, affected Karl Marx profoundly. And you and I know what he was responsible for.”
…for one, David Ricardo most influenced Marx, with his “labor theory of value”. Marx actually attacked Malthus and the communist governments in the past (principally Mao’s China) attacked anyone who had the idea that population growth could possibly happen in a socialist country by attaching them to Malthus’ name. What was his basic idea? That as agriculture continued to grow the ability of human beings to procreate would increase, which would increase their need for more resources. This continued expansion would hit an ecological wall until war, starvation and famine “corrected” the problem. Have any idea how much this had to do with Rwanda? Darfur? Easter Island? Haiti currently? Also, give me a SINGLE report in the mainstream press that attacks the idea of economic growth. A single one.
Or how about this?
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/03/07/the_coming_resource_wars.php
It's official: the era of resource wars is upon us. In a major London address, British Defense Secretary John Reid warned that global climate change and dwindling natural resources are combining to increase the likelihood of violent conflict over land, water and energy. Climate change, he indicated, “will make scarce resources, clean water, viable agricultural land even scarcer”—and this will “make the emergence of violent conflict more rather than less likely.”
Although not unprecedented, Reid’s prediction of an upsurge in resource conflict is significant both because of his senior rank and the vehemence of his remarks. “The blunt truth is that the lack of water and agricultural land is a significant contributory factor to the tragic conflict we see unfolding in Darfur,” he declared. “We should see this as a warning sign.”
… Prior to Reid’s address, the most significant expression of this outlook was a report prepared for the U.S. Department of Defense by a California-based consulting firm in October 2003. Entitled “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security,”
“Such events could include a substantial increase in global sea levels, intense storms and hurricanes and continent-wide “dust bowl” effects. This would trigger pitched battles between the survivors of these effects for access to food, water, habitable land and energy supplies… Military confrontation may be triggered by a desperate need for natural resources such as energy, food and water rather than by conflicts over ideology, religion or national honor.”
Or economist Herman Daly, who has won every economics prize there is, outside of the Nobel.
http://dieoff.org/page88.htm
One of the most popular arguments against limiting growth is that we need more growth in order to be rich enough to afford the costs of cleaning up pollution and discovering new resources. Economist Neil Jacoby says, "A rising GNP will enable the nation more easily to bear the costs of eliminating pollution" (1970, p. 42). Yale economist Henry Wallich makes a similar point:
The environment will also be better taken care of if the economy grows. Nothing could cut more dangerously into the resources that must be devoted to the Great Cleanup than an attempt to limit resources available for consumption. By ignoring the prohibitionist impulse and allowing everybody to have more, we shall also have more resources to do the environmental Job [Wallich, 1972 p. 62].
No one can deny that if we had more resources and were truly richer, all our economic problems would be more easily solved. The question is whether further growth in GNP will in fact make us richer. It may well make us poorer. How do we know that it will not, since we do not bother to measure the costs and even count many real costs as benefits? These critics simply assume that a rising per-capita GNP is making us better off, when that is the very question at issue!
If marginal benefits of physical growth decline while marginal costs rise (as elementary economic theory would indicate), there will be an intersection beyond which further growth is uneconomic. The richer the society (the more it has grown in the past), the more likely it is that marginal benefits are below marginal costs and that further growth is uneconomic. That marginal benefits fall follows from the simple fact that sensible people satisfy their most pressing wants first, whether in alternative uses of a single commodity or in alternative uses of income. That marginal costs rise follows from the fact that sensible people first exploit the most accessible land and minerals known to them, and that when sacrifices are imposed by the increase of any one activity, sensible people will sacrifice the least important alternative activities first. Thus marginal benefits of economic activity fall while marginal costs rise. Were this not the case, our previous "economic activity" would not have been economic--less pressing wants would have to have taken priority over more pressing wants, and the level of welfare could have been increased by reallocation with no increase in resources used.
...Once we have gone beyond the optimum, and marginal costs exceed marginal benefits, growth will make us worse off. Will we then cease growing? On the contrary, our experience of diminished well-being will be blamed on the traditional heavy hand of product scarcity, and the only way the orthodox paradigm knows to deal with increased scarcity is to advocate increased growth--this will make us even less well off and will lead to the advocacy of still more growth! Sometimes I suspect that we are already on this "other side of the looking glass," where images are inverted and the faster we run the "behinder" we get.
Environmental degradation is an iatrogenic disease induced by the economic physicians who attempt to treat the basic sickness of unlimited wants by prescribing unlimited production. We do not cure a treatment-induced disease by increasing the treatment dosage! Yet members of the hair-of-the-dog-that-bit-you school, who reason that it is impossible to have too much of a good thing, can hardly cope with such subtleties. If an overdose of medicine is making us sick, we need an emetic, not more of the medicine. Physician, heal thyself.
So much "work" to undo
And Drew, at least try to address the issue of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, and not indulge in flights of NeoConservative Economic dogma.
MR. Bill @ 40:
I am indulging in no such fallacy. Unless you can prove to me otherwise.
And your notion that subjecting the "National Forest" to supply and demand is "criminal", well, I think you are simply grandstanding. I am not someone who leaps to conclusions such that you think you have to be equally intimidating in order to "stop me" or something to this effect. Speak your thoughts, don't worry, I'm not going to all of a sudden rip every tree from its roots to prove a point.
In the general sense of EXCHANGES between people, without supply and demand analysis, forests will be destroyed, because there would be no way of knowing how much to cut down to use and how much replant and save. You shouldn't feel such hatred for the the words "supply and demand".
If a forest is owned by someone, then it's operations will be subject to supply and demand. If people need the trees, then they'll pay for them. If not, then they won't and the forest will remain for your viewing pleasure.
And calling demand and supply "criminal"....you think this makes tree cutters look bad, but in actuality you make real criminals look moral and good. That's what happens when you soften the meaning of words. Words must be used properly, or else people cannot communicate with each other, which can cause human suffering.
Radically Moderate @ 41:
Your parents did not volunteer to pay for that forest. If they valued a forest for "future generations", they would have bought land. If they did, good for you, if they didn't, then you have no basis in correctness. So you cannot claim that they put it aside for you.
Drew @ 46:
And yet we DO have Wilderness set aside for future generations........your arguments ring hallow.
Does anyone else here think Drew has yet to make a single, logical point? Drew, you too little about economics to articulate yourself with this bravado. If you were smarter you'd see how dumb it looks to be cocky while making completely illogical points. Supply and demand, one last time, in traditional economics ignores ecological information. It ignores costs like pollution, it ignores carrying capacity, over-consumption, etc. It takes all of that for granted. The same goes with GNP, actually the few ecological costs present are ADDED to GDP! The reason is that the branch of economics that you apparently have a, at best, passing knowledge of, was created in a world inhabited by far fewer people than today. These types of issues weren't as pressing then as now, although they weren't absent (Google the "Epic of Gilgamesh", written about ecological destruction and over-consumption about 2100 BC).
You cannot talk about these issues until you understand them. If you want to actually learn about what you’re blabbering about here Herman Daly’s “Beyond Growth” and Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen’s “Entropy and the Economic Process” are a great place to start.
Pepper @ 42:
"I have a degree in economics"
I know people do not like hearing this, but degrees do not PROVE that a person is smart. Want proof? Make a list of 4 or 5 prominant people that you particularly hate with a passion. Then look at their degrees. You will be ASTOUNDED.
"and have studied the subject quite a bit, so yes I’m aware of what a cost is."
Good. So what is it in your infinite wisdom?
"You don't know what the hell you're talking about at all, a single bit."
When people say this, they usually mean that they have no rebuttal. "You have no idea!" "You don't know anything!"...these statements do not consider individual statements made, because the speaker is usually incapable. Call me out on where EXACTLY I am wrong, and I'll be glad to listen and consider.
"The economic system is a human creation genius."
You mean: "a human creation [comma] genius". And yes I know this very well.
"When we expand purchasing power..."
Do you know how we do this exactly? Do you know WHAT is increasing in purchasing power?
"...we don't look at environmental carrying capacity."
Of course we do. We look at how much oil, trees, shale, silicon, water, and all other resources, and people make judgments as to how much there is. Then they ask other people (the market, or whatever you want to call it) how much they think it's worth. According to what they are willing to pay, this will guide the miners and owners how much to mine.
"When we create prices we don't include costs like pollution, over-consumption, etc."
First of all there is no such thing as "over-consumption" other than the kind accelerated by government and central bank intervention in the economy through malicious financing operations that distort our ability to make accurate calculations.
"These costs exist but are not captured by orthodox economics."
What is "orthodox economics"? If you ask a capitalist economist, they will say it is Marxism. If you ask a Marxist, they will say it is capitalism. You have to define things like this. Only definitional words can be left as a priori fact.
"I used trees because, as you can see from the freaking picture, this was about forests. The same applies to all natural habitats, including the ocean, which are finite in number and are under the same constraints as far as consumption."
There you go again, calling resources "finite". They are not. People have been saying since they year 900 AD that the world's resources are going to disappear. But thankfully there are always enterprising people who discover new resources. You sound like chicken little saying the sky is falling.
"You seem to be missing the basic points."
Please indulge me then.
There is no such thing as over consumption?
Try explaining that to anyone who has been to Haiti.
Dang this sucks.
Drinking water going to become scarce.
Global warming going to effect food supplies.
Overpopulation/expansion going to become a problem.
Reliance on oil going to bring strife.
Land already being torn down to make room for more strip malls.
And now public lands might be reduced?
I'm glad (in a way) that I wasn't born 50 years from now.
You probably don't know the history of much of the National Forest, at least, in the East.
Huge blocks of back country were bought (ofter from a Federal owner, because no one then conceived of wanting a worthless mountain of wilderness) by large timber companies in the 1880's and 1890's. They logged these areas in the Southern Appalachians pretty heavily by the technological standards of the day, although large pristine (and by that I mean, they were even left alone by the Native Americans, who never seem to have built up large populations in a sometimes difficult environment) areas were left. In the panics and depressions of the early 20th century (and much of the backcountry had been in a Depression for decades) and with the Chestnut Blight, these companies failed. Much land was sold to local, but much of it (and had since T. Roosevelt) was being bought as a sort of subsidy to these companies by the Federal Government. Yeah, some was condemned, but most was given up willingly.
So my Grandparents did purchase it, for the preservation and conservation of resources.
We have decided that some of it is worth keeping as it is. The Forests in the Southeast h have largely recovered, mostly by being left alone.
And it's value as wilderness will be in 1)Conservation of Water Resources, something the folks in Atlanta can tell you about 2) Conservation of unique biological resources (the very DNA of fungi and bacteria will be valuable in the future, not to mention the botanic biodiversity of the forest 3) for recreation. (There are plenty of others. Your arguments seem to suggest you are opposed to Public, or Government ownership of property.)
You are not going to carve up and sell my children's patrimony for short term profit without a fight.
And I support tree cutting, done sensibly and in a sustainable responsible manner. The problem has been that the Timber industries have gotten have distorted the market, and made it very profitable to waste forest and water resources.
Crimes against Nature: yet another reason the Repugs must be ejected from the White House.
Stumps dont lie.
Extinction is forever.
p.s. dont feed the trolls.
Pepper @ 42:
"The monetary system and financial markets are created to continuously expand, when they don’t there is hell to pay..."
You are getting warmer. But money is distinct from goods. More money does not mean more goods. In actuality, more money, that is, inflation, REDUCES the production of goods because it diverts resources into unproductive ventures like the military industrial complex and the welfare state.
"...and the economic system can only grow so much relative to the environment..."
Then what? Fire and brimstone? Hell on Earth? Biblical floods?
"...(which it feeds on for resources and uses as a sink for waste) before the costs drown out the benefits. When the trees are replaced, as consumption increases more trees NEED to be replaced, energy resources are needed. When you consume a resource that can no longer be used by someone else it is a cost. Ever hear of decreasing supply? Overall forest cover is decreasing worldwide, especially in the tropics. Since there is less trees available, per capita and aggregately, this is a COST. I pointed out that these costs are absent from the pricing mechanism and national indices because of the type of ignorance you’re displaying here. There are now major stresses on fishing in the oceans because of over-consumption. Why? There are less fish and more people to consume them. How hard is the concept to understand."
Actually I have no idea what you are trying to say here. There are like 40 different ideas in here. Slow down dude. You ask how hard is it to understand? Well, if you say ONE thing, and prove it by logic, then I'll say you have done well. But this whole post is too hard to grasp. I already said tree farms exist, you didn't acknowledge it. Less of one particular resource does not mean there are fewer aggregate resources!
"If forest cover is decreasing, how are we “creating” more trees?"
Forest cover is decreasing only in areas that are cut off from private ownership. You have to get out of your head the silly idea that wasting resources must mean capitalism is failing. Those forests that are cut off from being privately owned are LEASED OUT to logging companies, which have ZERO incentive to maintain them. It's every man for himself in these situations. That's why they are disappearing at record rates.
"Explain this irrational logic."
Well, IF forest cover in total is decreasing, then yes we are by definition NOT increasing them. But this does not answer what to do about it. I say they must be owned, you don't say anything other than "humans are evil!" and other nonsense.
I can respond to your comments, but when you write THAT much at the same time as saying so little, it's frustrating to be honest.
DAng. I'm getting pissed and not spelling well. And the last sentence should have read "The Problem has been that the Timber industries have gotten SUBSIDIES that have distorted the market..."
I'm going to bed as it's a work night. Y'all play with Drew somemore.
Oh, I almost forgot. Did you guys hear about the storage of the worlds seeds under a mountain... errr... just found the link.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6335899.stm
Wait, why are we arguing about forests and the economy?
Drew @ 39 says he does not understand intricate relationships like how destroying a natural forrest will destroy habitate for species of living things that are required for the survival of other species. The dangerous thing in his attitude is that despite how much we think we know, usually the more we learn the more we discover how much we don't know.
He may hate the use of cliches, but I say if the shoe fits, wear it.
I made no statement about hating people who consume resourses but I do feel that too many people misuse and/or waste resourses.
He does not realize that trading goods and services existed in man's history long before any monetary system was developed.
I suspect he does not like animals, especially pets. I know dogs do relate to humans and understand human needs and work to serve man. Think seeing-eye dog or the mutt that wakes his owner when the house is on fire. Of course there are stupid animals, just as there are Drews.
Finally, I'll bet there others who post here who will attest to a plants thriving because of the attention they recieve from humans. I had plants that were sickly that revived when I began talkiing to them, in addition to the other care I had been giving them. They like Mozart too.
Drew appears to be a case of where a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Drew, you sound like an idiot, you didn't articulate a single point well, you fail to listen to what other people say (and stop to think about their logic) and it's obvious you have no clue what you're talking about. It's also obvious that you don't, and won't see this. You also aren't going to convince anyone here with this nonsense. I saw all this without any malicious intent. You sound like an idiot and you don't know anything about what you're talking about.
By the way, when the Fed expands purchasing power (by buying up bonds and exchanging them for dollars, which are multiplied by fractional reserve banking) they don't look at things like over consumption and ecological costs. There have been arguments in economics about how to properly capture these costs (kinda odd that they'd try since, according to you it isn't a problem) but economists can't agree how to.
Degrees allow people to understand their fields of study in depth and your posts are an example of a person talking out of their ass about a subject they have no understanding of. Seriously, read up on these issues before you blabber on. Even if you were right, which you are not what so ever, you'd fail to convince anyone with a brain who has a passing knowledge of these issues.
MR. Bill @ 52:
"You are not going to carve up and sell my children's patrimony for short term profit without a fight."
I don't plan on stealing anything from anyone. Stuff "owned" by government really isn't owned by anyone you see. You think it is "owned" by all of us equally? Don't be so naive. Can't you see how fights start? Where ownership is questioned?
You should know that anything in governments hands is wasted. Just look at how wonderful government is operating now with all that money. It's amazing, they spend upwards of 3 TRILLION dollars every year, and LOOK AT WHAT THEY HAVE TO SHOW FOR IT. Nothing. ZERO. In fact, they have LOTS to show, all of it NEGATIVE. It is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the citizenry. Can you or I even IMAGINE that much money? The sooner you realize that governments do not produce anything, they only take from some and give others, the sooner you'll realize that ALL waste of resources is due to the government, NOT PRIVATE BUSINESS. They CANNOT PRODUCE anything, so you cannot assume they "upkeep" valuable resources like land.
If private business in the aggregate spent 3 trillion dollars in today's purchasing power, can you imagine how well off all of us would be? But we are being sucked dry by the government. Down to the bones. But nobody talks about government draining the economy, they only talk about a few mortgage dealers, the middle east, and taking away liberties, which FURTHER undermines production and creates MORE waste.
$3 TRILLION. WOW.
You want to know where all your purchasing power goes? It goes to the government's coffers.
Finally, Drew's reply @ 61 to Mr. Bill reveals his rightwing colors: Government is useless and private businesses are the savior of mankind.
Go away you dumb fuck and peddle you shit at some rightwing site. You have definately used up too much bandwith here.
One last try here. I'm on the ground in a National Forest area. We had, in the past, a decent system of determining the use of the public land, one that worked. It is being subverted and ignored by this Administration. I support sustainable timber cutting (hell, I heated with firewood for 27 years), but the way it is being carried out is damaging other industries (tourism, the fishing and game, outdoor recreation, and related, such as lodging and food) in my area. And as we are in a water crisis, the intersection between the wild lands and good water (can't have one without the other, it seems) is clear. I want this administration to play by the rules that were developed in a public process, and protect the environment that feeds me.
I'm sorry you don't think we should have a public sector, Drew. But we do, and I intend for it to work for the public good.
Thank you, and good night.
Saint Augustine @ 59:
"Drew @ 39 says he does not understand intricate relationships"
No, I said I want it defined by the person who spoke it. It is a vague and indeterminate concept.
"...like how destroying a natural forrest will destroy habitate for species of living things that are required for the survival of other species."
You are ALSO a victim of believing the environment has intrinsic value.
"The dangerous thing in his attitude"
Woah, let's not get ahead of ourselves. My attitude is not dangerous, because my attitude is not one of complacency when a prominant member of the environmental movement advocates the death of a billion people. My attitude is one that appears to be dangerous, but is in actuality the safest and most prosperous. I want people to be healthy and free.
"...is that despite how much we think we know, usually the more we learn the more we discover how much we don't know."
Agreed.
"He may hate the use of cliches, but I say if the shoe fits, wear it."
Ughhhh...
"I made no statement about hating people who consume resourses but I do feel that too many people misuse and/or waste resourses."
OK, keep going with this thought. WHO is misusing resources? If the first thing that pops into your head is NOT government, then you have LOTS of learning to do.
"He does not realize that trading goods and services existed in man's history long before any monetary system was developed."
Yes, it was called barter. But barter has limits, so money NATURALLY developed. Money ALWAYS naturally develops in all societies, going back in history money was nails in Scotland, salt in Abysinia(sp?), cigarettes in prison, and on and on.
"I suspect he does not like animals, especially pets."
I love pets. I just don't LIKE people who think they are more important than people.
"I know dogs do relate to humans and understand human needs and work to serve man. Think seeing-eye dog or the mutt that wakes his owner when the house is on fire. Of course there are stupid animals, just as there are Drews."
Funny. Insulting is a last resort to those who cannot argue.
"Finally, I'll bet there others who post here who will attest to a plants thriving because of the attention they recieve from humans."
Plants predate humans.
"I had plants that were sickly that revived when I began talkiing to them, in addition to the other care I had been giving them. They like Mozart too."
You're a nutcase.
"Drew appears to be a case of where a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
Insult all you want, but I am right. And you know it.
Drew @ 61:
Okay drew, I get it. Tomorrow morning I will drive over to my public library and demand that they liquidate all of their assets(books) and sell the building to Borders because they obviously under your nihilist/libertarian model, have nothing to contribute to Capitalism.
Gee, I feel no guilt now for expelling that socialist economic money pit from the lives of citizen/slaves. Halleluia!
I think Drew wore out his keyboard.
Saint Augustine @ 62:
I am not "peddling" anything. And dumb fuck? What's your problem? I thought we were having was an intelligent discussion, but it appears you are incapable of that. I feel sorry for you.
Radically Moderate @ 65:
Wow.....
Drew @ 67:
Correction, WE were having an intelligent discussion, and YOU keep interfering.
Radically Moderate @ 65:
That's what came to my mind too.
Dear Drew, please stop reposting the ENTIRE post of things you'd wish to "analyze". It's reaaaaally getting annoying
Make your point. Keep it short.
Drew said "Insult all you want, but I am right. And you know it."
Yes, we all know you are Right, I call a spade a spade when I see it (LOL) and you are the rightwing nut case.
Radically Moderate @ 69:
This statement you make is a microcosm of your view of people in general. You need to feel like you "belong" before you feel correct.
I thought we were talking about trees, like how to preserve them for human consumption. The only way to sustain trees, if they are valued, is for the citizenry to take control of them and their upkeep. That means THe PEOPLE. It is a gross error in judgment to think and be convinced that government "protected" lands are "owned" by everyone. How can this be? I am not allowed to go into a government protected forest and cut a tree down without their permission. If it were for everyone to use, then I should be able to use it! Oh, you are saying not me? Then who? You? You can't either without their permission. So if you can't, and I can't, without permission, then WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO OWN IT! Ownership by definition requires the freedom to do what you want with it. The government can tell me that they are keeping it for our use all they want, but it is all just talk. It is not their for us, it is there in order for government to benefit off it. But government can never know how much should be used because they do not operate by profit and loss. So they have to simply refuse the usage of it, they cannot "DO" anything else with it.
If they are paid money, then the forests can be used, but they do not care if it gets clear cut because they did not pay for it in the first place. They don't care about the forests. Caring can only take place if you put something into it yourself.
Forests, and also oceans, that are prevented from being privately owned will sooner or later get DESTROYED, because they are not being CAPITALIZED and thus cared for. Investors care about their investment, and so they have an incentive not to destroy their investment. In Europe, private forests are used and maintained, just like regular farmland for crops. In South America, much of the forests are cut off from being owned, so they are clear cut by logging companies before other companies can get in their and take the trees before they are gone.
Make no mistake. I do not care any less for the trees than you do. You think you are in the right because you have "good intentions", and you rely on good intentions as a guide in life. But I KNOW that good intentions sometimes do not have good results, and this is a "clear-cut" case of this. Sometimes what appear to be bad intentions actually end up having good results. Privately owned forests is a perfect case of this.
[Drew. Brevity. Look it up and adopt it. I'm going to start cutting great swaths out of your lengthy speeches, so if you don't want ME to decide which stuff stays and which stuff goes, do it yourself. If you can't, I'll ban you again-Sitemonitor]
Drew, why do you see no value in forests and wildlife that is not money related?
Considering that we have clearcut almost the entire United States that was practically all forest from sea to shining sea to make room for our fat asses, how much forest would you be willing to concede as untouchable...for the benefit of humans and NON-humans alike?
Fucking conservatives - nothing is sacred and priceless...and anything that can have a price tag ought to be sold.
[Deleted. Abusive. Disagree with Drew all you want, but don't call him names-Sitemonitor]
I really hate the way Republicans only see the value of things in terms of how many dollars they can squeeze out of it. And I also hate their disdain for future generations. NATIONAL forests belong to all Americans, not just greedy mine owners.
Dear Sitemonitor:
May I suggest you cut out of Drew's posts everything between "Drew Says" and "Quote this comment" and post a picture instead? Since we all know a picture is worth a thousand words.
OK, I just slapped myself for that one!
Drew, I don't see anyway to get to the Capitalist Utopia you seem to preach. Mr. Bill is talking about the real political and economic conditions he is living under, What Is. You are talking about What Should Be (in your opinion).
You are not addressing the issue of the Forest Policy, or land use or the Water Crisis other than to say only Private Ownership works. What do we do in the meantime?
And can you understand that some of us think Government can work, if it's not being sandbagged and corrupted all the time?
Timmy D11 @ 73:
I never said that. There IS value in forests and wildlife, precisely to the extent they help people live better lives. I don't want to get banned from the site, so I'm going to STFU now and hope there is enough there to discover the truth yourself.
Ann Isotrophic @ 76:
"Drew, I don't see anyway to get to the Capitalist Utopia you seem to preach."
Simply learn about it, then it's easy.
"Mr. Bill is talking about the real political and economic conditions he is living under, What Is. You are talking about What Should Be (in your opinion)."
No. I start with what is. RESOURCES ARE SCARCE. Then I follow with what should be. CALCULATED USAGE.
"You are not addressing the issue of the Forest Policy, or land use or the Water Crisis other than to say only Private Ownership works. What do we do in the meantime?"
"In the meantime" we can simply keep learning about economics and not allowing emotions to cloud our judgment of its concepts. It's hard to do, but it is necessary.
"And can you understand that some of us think Government can work, if it's not being sandbagged and corrupted all the time?"
I think it can work too, if it is doing what it is supposed to do, which includes not contributing to the destruction of resources by interefering into the only system so far discovered by mankind that is capable of using them properly.
Drew @72
I do not need to cut down a tree in a national forest because I have my own land for that.
I have never been chased off of public land for violating prohibitions on said public lands.
Public Lands are managed for recreation and forestry and generally speaking the stewardship seems to work well with public input.
Make no mistake, I value the land that the tree stands on more than I value the tree, and I value Wilderness areas as an irreplacable commodity.
I spend more of my personal income on equipment per year FOR use in Wilderness areas than I spend on wood products for construction projects around the house.
Private Forest and farmland are frequently sold for other commercial interest whereas Federal Lands for the most part are held for their public usage.
As long as the general public can have access to OUR public lands,your arguments are futile here.
You suffer what Keats referred to as "negative capability".
Ah. I do not think your conception of economics or the environment is factual, and amounts to an almost religious belief in a God (NeoConservative Economics) that sucks.
And how dare the Public try to Preserve a Common good...
I don't think the voting public is gonna stand for sale of the national forest and Parks.
Radically Moderate @ 79:
BTW check your local papers' "land for sale" category and you will find statements such as: land adjacent to National Forest, Backs up to National Forest, near National Forest,unobstructed view of National Forest.......etc, etc.........Government lands contributing obvious monetary value to the land owner.
Drew @ 77:
Please STFU now and spare us your condescending and psychotic platitudes.To you, our natural resources are little more than an agricultural crop to be exploited and harvested at will. It's all about the primacy of the human race and the pseudo monarchy you have created to lord over all other creatures who should bow to our arrogant will. Your anthrocentric attitude is despicible. Why don't you learn to live in harmony with other creatures instead of appointing yourself the CEO of creation?
bmw 528 @ 82:
I still don't understand how my views harm PEOPLE. My purpose here is to show how putting anything "above" or "at par" with PEOPLE immediately creates an intellectual environment for either not anticipating, allowing, or even promoting human suffering and death. You may think being "ecologically sensitive" makes you a "fuller" and "more balanced" person, because you think being sensitive to such things makes a person more evolved and intelligent. I disagree with this view, because I take that thought to its logical conclusion. Being "sensitive" to this view simply means you do not have the capability of seeing the movement for what it is: The open and outright rejection of human well-being, and its open and outright hatred of being human.
And what is "harmony" to you exactly? To me it means a sustainable BALANCE of human life and well being. That is exactly where my arguments stand correct. You think harmony is maintaining a minimum number of certain plants and animals, even at the cost of human lives. You must do this if you think humans must stand equal to plants and animals.
You have absolutely NO leg to stand on if your beliefs do not START with mankind's well-being. If you call using natural resources to make human life better an "exploitation", then you may not like hearning this but in a prior time in history you probably would have been involved in some form of causing human suffering. It's a good thing you are not in a position of power where your views could do lots of harm.
If you've ever been to China you know the whole country is a super-fund zone.
Don't think for one second that China isn't eying what's north of it for natural resources.
And the little bitty problem of Russia owning those resources aren't going to stop them.
Resource wars are nearing.
Drew @ 83:
Reread my comments, you opinionated, judgmental jackass. It's a good thing YOU are not in a position of power where your anthrocentric and insensitive views WILL do a lot of harm. Mankind is not the center of my universe and your perspective that all other creatures serve our self centered wishes is despicible.
Obiously, your cost benefit analysis mentality blinds you to the broader and more compassionate view that people like John Muir, Aldo Leopold and Rachel Carson had. They, unlike you, had a balanced perspective that accomplished something that future generations can be proud of.
Nice try to repackage the turd of your argument in "logic" and overblown verbage, but it's still a turd. And the only thing I "must" do is die and pay taxes. Take your arrogant garbage somewhere else.
Drew @83
Are you just visiting this planet?
Your sweeping generalities of we who disagree with you are breathtaking in their grandiose ignorance.
You are terribly misguided in your interpretation of an innate human need/desire for the preservation of Wild Lands.
Look no further than Aristocratic 18th Century Europe that brought about the American Colonies desire for freedom from tyranny and desire of not only owning your own land but of preserving huge common areas(parks,game parks) for the common good.
Your continuing point that somehow WE desire to bring harm to humans by the act of preserving Wilderness or Forest Lands in general has no basis in fact.
Why can't you see the fallacy in your logic?
bmw 528
I've been very successful at getting duck hunting friends to read "A Sand County Almanac", they used to think that Wildlife preserves along the Mississippi flyway have always been there. If it were not for Aldo Leopold and some forward thinking and tight regulations of those public lands, duck hunting would have been condemned to history. having a few Ducks around does not seem to have harmed any humans that I am aware of.
Perhaps I am being a little too open minded, eh Drew?
Drew @ 83:
1) You're arrogant to think that nature exists for the benefit of humans and humans alone.
2) Nature and wildlife DOES have just as much a right to exist as we humans do - it DOES NOT merely exist for our own benefit.
3) You suggest that humans will suffer and die if we cannot clearcut a forest for profit - that is false and it will be a scary day when our only means of employment and supporting our family is to rape whats left of our once magnificent and seemingly infinite forests.
As far as loggers stuck in rural areas without jobs because all that is left of forests are areas most people want to protect: FUCK 'EM. Let them move and find another occupation.
Timmy D11 @ 88:
I believe you just proved his point.
Save a tree!!!
Wipe your ass on a pine cone.
Radically Moderate @ 87:
Agreed. Aside from Drew's problem with being a condescending and righteous boor, he represents the dangerous proposition that humans selfishly rule the world and our resources are infinite commodities to be exploited for our selfish benefit. Today, we possess the technology to exploit our natural resources as never before--for the benefit of future generations, we must change our consumerist paradigm to one of harmonization with the earth and conserving to live within our means.
Your comment about Aldo Leopold is right--hunting and conservation interests have many commonalities and partnering together can be mutually beneficial. The only predator of deer, for example, is now man because we have wiped out all their former predators. I have no issue with hunters or hunting in general so long as they follow the law. And unlike what the Buscovite junta thinks, our public lands are a priceless treasure to be preserved for the future, not a profit opportunity for the present.
Timmy D11 @ 88:
"1) You're arrogant to think that nature exists for the benefit of humans and humans alone.
2) Nature and wildlife DOES have just as much a right to exist as we humans do - it DOES NOT merely exist for our own benefit.
3) You suggest that humans will suffer and die if we cannot clearcut a forest for profit - that is false and it will be a scary day when our only means of employment and supporting our family is to rape whats left of our once magnificent and seemingly infinite forests.
As far as loggers stuck in rural areas without jobs because all that is left of forests are areas most people want to protect: FUCK 'EM. Let them move and find another occupation.
No I did not suggest that humans will suffer and die if forests are not clear-cut. I said the PHILOSOPHY of the movement calls for the death of humanity by putting nature above mankind.
What you have to understand is how philosophy works. It is not some two-position flip switch program that can be turned on and off in people, where if you believe or do not believe in something that this automatically makes you act in a certain way. You are probably assuming that I think that if you want to save a tree, then you are a human murderer. I don't.
I do not look at what people like yourself are doing day to day, or what little Suzy is doing at school being taught how to save a tree. I look at what the LEADERS of a movement are doing and what they SAY.
You have to understand how intellectual movements work. They are formed at first in small circles. The underlying philosophy of the movement exists whether anyone is consciously aware of them or not, because philosophy is what starts all human action. Intellectual movements then naturally develop leaders, and the leaders are the types of people who embody the philosophy of the movement the fullest. This where the saying leaders are made not born comes from. They are able to gain leadership by the intellectual environment that exists.
So, if you believe this as true, which you should because it is true, not just because I say so, then you should look to the leaders of the environmental movement and what they say and do, not what you say and what you do. You just have inklings of environmental philosophy, you do live it and breathe it like the leaders do. If you did, you would become a horror.
I already posted above what the leaders of the environmental movement call for. Another example is Prince Philip (who for sixteen years was president of the World Wildlife Fund):
“In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.”
A lengthy compilation of such statements, and worse, by prominent environmentalists can be found at Frightening Quotes from Environmentalists.
There is NO negative reaction from the environmental movement because what such statements express is nothing other than the actual philosophy of the movement! This is what the movement believes in. It’s what it agrees with. It’s what it desires.
You may not believe me, but philosophy is guiding your every action, some of them are good, some of them are bad. You can be good in terms of your actions and still believe in evil philosophies, but eventually when pressed, you will be forced to admit that you advocate the death of humanity.
We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels.
—Carl Amery
Drew @ 92:
Your problem is that you can't distinguish between opinion and fact---to you, your opinion IS fact. And we do understand how intellectual movements work. Obviously, you don't belong to any credible one.
And take your own advice and actually read what the leaders of the conservation movement are actually saying before you start your paranoid, opinionated bloviating---here's a start for you:
www.sierraclub.org
If you don't have time to offer a credible argument, at least have the sense to be silent or move on elsewhere. We really don't have time to have discussions with clueless frauds like you.
We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight.
—David Foreman, Earth First!
We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion—guilt-free at last!
—Stewart Brand (writing in the Whole Earth Catalogue).
Everything we have developed over the last 100 years should be destroyed.
—Pentti Linkola
I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.
—John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
I have MANY more of these types of horrific statements. I don't know about you but the philosophy of the environmental movement, even though many of its adherents are regular, nice people who believe in peace unto fellow man, are almost completely unaware of the primary, basic, and fundamental aspects of what the movement is all about.
The reason you hate what I say and call me names, is because you are coming to grips with the fact that the movement you have invested so heavily in, that you thought is so good, is nothing more than a psychopathic set of murderous ideals where if the movement did not exist in the populace, would be grounds for committal to an insane asylum with the key thrown away.
To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem.
—Lamont Cole
This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.
—Lowell Ponte in “The Cooling”, 1976
Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.
—Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!
Cannibalism is a “radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation.”
—Lyall Watson, The Financial Times, 15 July 1995
The right to have children should be a marketable commodity, bought and traded by individuals but absolutely limited by the state.
-Kenneth Boulding, originator of the "Spaceship Earth" concept (as quoted by William Tucker in Progress and Privilege, 1982)
If you ask me, it'd be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it. We ought to be looking for energy sources that are adequate for our needs, but that won't give us the excesses of concentrated energy with which we could do mischief to the earth or to each other.
- Amory Lovins in The Mother Earth - Plowboy Interview
Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.
- John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
Drew @ 97:
Knock it off. Your commentary only represents your severely biased viewpoint, not mainstream thought. Just because someone has an opinion doesn't make it factual and it doesn't prove anything except that you are a clueless fool who takes things out of context to support your strange and paranoid view. Get over yourself.
bmw 528 @ 98:
How can my view be biased? These types of statements have been made over and over again, but I am sure you did not know about them. You did not know about them because they are not objected to! They are not objected to because they merely put into WORDS what the underlying philosophy of the movement is.
Don't worry though, you still have a chance to stop believing in all that nonsense. The choice is always yours. Even if you are wrong, doesn't make you a bad person. What makes a person bad is knowledge of the good but refusing to accept it.
This kind of thing is happening everywhere. When I was a kid, my whole family would go to Gunnison National Forest in Colorado. We have 3 generations of photos of us camping there. It was a wild, beautiful place. I went back a few years ago and the place had been developed beyond recognition. I don't go there anymore, it's just too sad.
When will the greed stop. I understand people need to make a living, but there are other ways to make the land work for us.
Sad.
Drew, do you know how ridiculous it is to see someone like yourself make logically absurd comments, throw off a bunch of nonsense libertarian garbage (which has been a disaster in practice), then gloat about how right your points are? I say this honestly, the points you make and the (not earned) bravado you post with hurts your cause, as if the libertarian policies in practice haven’t been bad enough. Quick question: in which country have “libertarian” principles worked for the entire country and in which country have the libertarian principles been enacted with the backing of the general public? In other words, which country has been successful over the long term adopting “libertarian” policies?
In practice, you know what would happen if libertarian environmental principals were adopted? All land would be privatized. The rich would buy up the best land first. As a result of the land being privatized demand would shoot up (even for the crappy land), as would prices. The poorer citizens wouldn’t be able to afford the rising price of land and ownership would wind up being highly concentrated, like usual. Even the ones who could the land would be in worse shape than the better land bought by the rich and would need more resources to restore. At that point, whoever doesn’t own land would have their entire livelihood in the hands of the owners of that land and it would be a dictatorship of the worst kind. This has happened, without exception, whenever anything like Drew the brain dead “libertarian’s” policies were put in place. Again, if you disagree little one, provide a single example of a country adopting your policies and being successful over the long run. There isn’t one, you are just as ideologically rigid and blind as Marxists and you happen to be an arrogant “libertarian” who comes off looking like a know nothing know it all.
Anyone have any idea what the “libertarian” environmental policy looks like? Everyone, check that, a small rich minority owns most of the land. If the owners of that land, for instance, pollute a river that people drink from whoever is affected will not have the government there to guarantee them basic rights. Your rights are entirely in the market, and if need be whatever you can re-coup in the legal system. So what do those people do? They get together and sue the person who polluted the river. If that person who polluted the river is many times richer than those suing him or her tough titty. The richer person will hire the best, probably a team of, lawyer(s), the poorer people would pay for whatever lawyer they could and they’d have to attempt to get the costs back in court. What utter nonsense. In practice, in theory, that MIGHT (not really), sound fine and dandy but everyone knows what would happen. The rich land owner was only doing what was in his best interest (right?). He/she creates a cost and the cost is essentially socialized by the community. THAT is the libertarian environmental policy. If Drew disagrees I can show some links. I read about this last year when I was arguing with another (more intelligent and less arrogant) libertarian. Anyone want in?
By the way, Brazil is the country with the highest de-forestation rate in the world and private property is the overwhelmingly dominant form of property there. The Brazilian government was brutal in adopting libertarian policies beginning in the 1960’s and what did they have to show for it? Worse wealth distribution in the world outside of Africa, social indicators horrifically bad across the board and they’re in the process of destroying the most diverse and amazing eco-system in the world. Indonesia is second and they, since the US supported Suharto’s murderous regime (based on forcing “free market”, libertarian influenced policies on a country that didn’t want it) are going through the same thing.
I can’t even tackle the rest of the absurd comments by Drew here, I don’t have an entire day to waste. These one’s just stuck out. I’m sure others have different absurdities that stick out to them. To each his own.
Drew @ 99:
Pepper @ 101:
"In practice, you know what would happen if libertarian environmental principals were adopted? All land would be privatized. The rich would buy up the best land first."
You do understand that if you own private land, for profit, and you do not use it well, meaning you do not provide others anything of value, then you will lose that land to those who can. The natural tendency is for the land to be owned by those who are PRODUCTIVE, meaning they BENEFIT OTHERS BY THEIR OWNING THAT LAND. This happens all the time in the lands already privately owned, you know. It happens whenever a factory goes out of business and new people come in. It happens whenever anyone sells their house or condominium to new owners. It happens whenever a piece of farmland is sold by the farmer to another farmer. Privitization simply means people get to decide what to do with their own property.
I think your problem is that you see the word "privitization", and you immediately are flushed with images of propaganda from Naomi Klein or some other misrepresenter of the idea of property rights. You get sucked into the sewer of economic ignorance. When you see the word "privitization", for some reason you remove YOURSELF from the equation, when right now as you write YOU YOURSELF actively engage in life being protected by private property rights, without which you would be at risk of someone violating your rights of ownership. You have a house or land or whatever, precisely because you are productive in life in some way to other people. That is why you have that land. It's also the only way you can KEEP it. Privitization of anything does not mean it is cut off forever from you or other people. It's EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. Competition ensures that if there any owners of land at all, they must use it to benefit other people, or else they LOSE MONEY AND HENCE THE LAND.
This principle does not exist when land is taken away from the market and held by the government. If government owns the land, there is ZERO economic competition from others who would better serve consumers. The only competition in government lands is WAR from other governments.
You have to understand that "privitization" of land makes the owner completely AT THE MERCY of those you they are serving (the consumers).
It is only in FEUDAL SOCIETIES, where land is owned not for business, but to MAINTAIN ownership of the aristocracy is there cause for concern in land going to certain people. In these cases, land is not held because the owners are productive, they are held because they PREVENT OTHERS FROM OWNING THE LAND BY PHYSICAL FORCE.
You call ME paranoid? YOU are paranoid.
Blah, blah blah. You, again, are exactly the same as Marxists. Brazil is a country I mentioned for good reason. They privatized land (i.e. sold state property, “which no one owns” because according to YOU there is only one type of property, forget the opinions of others who might disagree and might form the vast majority), they dismantled regulatory measures, they lowered taxes, crushed unions, got rid of things like price controls and what was the end result? DISASTER. Worse wealth distribution in the world outside of Africa, horrible social indices, they destroyed their environment (and only began to reverse SOME of it once the Workers Party candidate, who is relatively moderate, took power), which you claim is impossible in a country in which private ownership and enterprise is dominant and all of this was done in a country with almost endless resources.
Chile is another one people like you bring up all the time. Same thing there. Enacted as close as you can to libertarian policies and what was the end result? Well, they were and are reliant on their STATE copper company, which saved them from economic collapse numerous times. The STATE copper company actually gave Chile about 90% of its export revenues about a decade AFTER Pinochet took power. To this day it accounts for between 40-55% of export revenues for the country. Their policies caused the economy to go through the largest recession in Latin American history, only to be pulled out of it by what amounts to radical socialist policies. Re-nationalizations, price controls, capital controls, etc. Real workers wages, when the murderer Pinochet left office, was far bellow what it was when he took power, poverty was through the roof as was access to things like healthcare and education & wealth distribution. Oh, and the privatized (again, handing what was run by the state over to private entities, who are more “efficient” right?) social security system was an unmitigated disaster. So much so that during the last election BOTH the right and the left candidates talked about changing the system back to the old system, similar to ours now. Why? The government said, during the privatization, that if the market didn’t make enough for the citizens that the government would step in. Well, the market didn’t and the government as a result would up paying MORE than before the privatization. “Fees” (basically profits to the elite investors and owners of the companies, marketing costs that were socialized by the higher fees, executive pay, huge administration costs about 10 times higher than the old system) sucked up a good portion of the costs that people paid, elderly poverty shot through the roof, amongst other things. The privatized (under private control, for profit which is more “efficient”) train system, for instance, lost $30 in April last year alone. What saved it? The more efficient STATE (collectively run) train system. This caused an uproar in Chile but really isn’t off the charts. This is, by the way, the closest to a “libertarian” economic system in Latin America over the last few decades.
There will never be a 100% libertarian economic system. The policies benefit a small sector and hurt most everyone else, including putting them in debt to the elite class. Whenever countries have attempted anything close to “libertarian” policies they’ve been a disaster and always will be. You’re kidding yourself if you think anyone who doesn’t believe in your religion won’t see reality for what it is.
The privatized train system lost $30 MILLION in April of last year.
http://www.sacbee.com/846/story/729092.html
A prime example of what happens when urban mass transit is turned over to private corporations is Santiago, the sprawling capital of Chile with a metro-area population of more than 6 million.
A few years ago, the Chilean government unwisely decided to turn over the revamping of Transantiago, the capital's once efficient bus system, to a private corporation.
The private company quickly cut back bus service to poorer neighborhoods in Santiago because profits were not as lucrative. The corporate planners also reduced the number of buses in service and decreased the number of bus stops. Rides that took 40 minutes soon took two hours. Many commuters were forced to walk and some others, constantly late for work, lost their jobs. The result was chaos.
Santiago's smoothly functioning state-run Metro subway system found itself deluged by former bus riders, stretching its capacity.
In a further display of capitalist hubris, some investors began negatively speculating on the financial prospects of Transantiago, creating huge losses for the firm. As a result, the cash-flush state-run Metro was forced to make $300 million in loans to the privatized bus service - beggaring Peter to pay Paul.
Pepper @ 104:
Brazil is one of the hottest destinations for investors right now if you had any idea about the market. Many institutional investors have Brazil as part of their foreign portfolio. The growth in Brazil is POSITIVE.
And Chile? The only problems Chile ever had was their unscrupulous government. One major problem was when the government printed so much money the currency collapsed. Do your homework instead copying and pasting shit from the internet.
Pepper @ 105:
You do not understand that the train system was causing the country to lose MORE money when it was "public". You do not even know how much it costed under government ownership. The fact that it lost $30 million PROVES MY POINT from before, in that the resources the train was using were MORE NEEDED elsewhere. That's what business do, they gain and they lose, depending on well they use resources. When businesses are owned by the government, their operations are often so inefficient that it makes sense that they would lose tons of money when they become private. But this is a GOOD thing, because the train losing money in a private setting finally revealed just how wasteful the whole endeavour was in the first place.
You are simply a socialist who has not been properly educated. I can make some suggestions to you if you want, until then, your constant attacks against me are really falling on deaf ears.
“You are simply a socialist who has not been properly educated. I can make some suggestions to you if you want, until then, your constant attacks against me are really falling on deaf ears.” What arrogant comments from a know nothing. Just a correction, I’m a socialist stomping the life out of your pitiful arguments. By the way, I've read Rothbard (actually liked his book on the Fed), Mises and Hayek's overrated book. Karl Polanyi destroyed the hell out of that one in the Great Transformation.
I know it’s falling on deaf ears though, because you put forth such stupid arguments and think you’re a genius. I guess that’s where your entirely subjective view of the world comes in. If you look at my and your posts above you’ll see that I know about economics and you know a bunch of platitudes, half of which aren’t even accurate. Stop telling other people to learn something that you haven’t bothered to yourself.
“Brazil is one of the hottest destinations for investors right now if you had any idea about the market. Many institutional investors have Brazil as part of their foreign portfolio. The growth in Brazil is POSITIVE.” Do you think you’re so educated because you can just make things up and hope they stick? How general a comment can you make? My god.
“The only problems Chile ever had was their unscrupulous government.” Articulate this and show some facts to back up your argument (like I have repeatedly instead of making things up and pretending I know what I’m talking about like you). What policies and what effects are you talking about? As I said, the privatized social security system has been a disaster. If you disagree show some facts to back up your claims. The privatized train system has been a disaster. Pinochet’s policies, the policies YOU favor, caused the largest recession in Latin American history, that is before your policies caused the same in Argentina in 2001. If you think otherwise, or claim that the policies enacted weren’t “libertarian”, articulate why and use facts to back up your argument. You won’t because you don’t know what policies were put in place, although you pretend you do and you’ll pat yourself on the back for doing so. I provided FACTS (know what they are?) to back up my claim. You, not knowing a damn thing about the subject, made up some rationale out of the blue that doesn’t even take into account what I’ve said, forget countering it.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=11615
In 1973, the year General Pinochet brutally seized the government, Chile’s unemployment rate was 4.3%. In 1983, after ten years of free-market modernization, unemployment reached 22%. Real wages declined by 40% under military rule.
In 1970, 20% of Chile’s population lived in poverty. By 1990, the year “President” Pinochet left office, the number of destitute had doubled to 40%.
Pinochet did not destroy Chile’s economy all alone. It took nine years of hard work by the most brilliant minds in world academia, a gaggle of Milton Friedman’s trainees, the Chicago Boys. Under the spell of their theories, the General abolished the minimum wage, outlawed trade union bargaining rights, privatized the pension system, abolished all taxes on wealth and on business profits, slashed public employment, privatized 212 state industries and 66 banks and ran a fiscal surplus.
Freed of the dead hand of bureaucracy, taxes and union rules, the country took a giant leap forward … into bankruptcy and depression. After nine years of economics Chicago style, Chile’s industry keeled over and died. In 1982 and 1983, GDP dropped 19%. The free-market experiment was kaput, the test tubes shattered. Blood and glass littered the laboratory floor. Yet, with remarkable chutzpah, the mad scientists of Chicago declared success. In the US, President Ronald Reagan’s State Department issued a report concluding, “Chile is a casebook study in sound economic management.” Milton Friedman himself coined the phrase, “The Miracle of Chile.” Friedman’s sidekick, economist Art Laffer, preened that Pinochet’s Chile was, “a showcase of what supply-side economics can do.”
By 1982, the pyramid finance game was up. The Vial and Cruzat “Grupos” defaulted. Industry shut down, private pensions were worthless, the currency swooned. Riots and strikes by a population too hungry and desperate to fear bullets forced Pinochet to reverse course. He booted his beloved Chicago experimentalists. Reluctantly, the General restored the minimum wage and unions’ collective bargaining rights. Pinochet, who had previously decimated government ranks, authorized a program to create 500,000 jobs.
In other words, Chile was pulled from depression by dull old Keynesian remedies, all Franklin Roosevelt, zero Reagan/Thatcher. New Deal tactics rescued Chile from the Panic of 1983, but the nation’s long-term recovery and growth since then is the result of - cover the children’s ears - a large dose of socialism.
To save the nation’s pension system, Pinochet nationalized banks and industry on a scale unimagined by Socialist Allende. The General expropriated at will, offering little or no compensation. While most of these businesses were eventually re-privatized, the state retained ownership of one industry: copper.
For nearly a century, copper has meant Chile and Chile copper. University of Montana metals expert Dr. Janet Finn notes, “It’s absurd to describe a nation as a miracle of free enterprise when the engine of the economy remains in government hands.”
Copper has provided 30% to 70% of the nation’s export earnings. This is the hard currency which has built today’s Chile, the proceeds from the mines seized from Anaconda and Kennecott in 1973 - Allende’s posthumous gift to his nation.
Agribusiness is the second locomotive of Chile’s economic growth. This also is a legacy of the Allende years. According to Professor Arturo Valenzuela of Georgetown University, Washington DC, Allende’s land reform, the break-up of feudal estates (which Pinochet could not fully reverse), created a new class of productive tiller-owners, along with corporate and cooperative operators, who now bring in a stream of export earnings to rival copper. “In order to have an economic miracle,” says Dr. Valenzuela, “maybe you need a socialist government first to commit agrarian reform.”
http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/latin_america_and_caribbean...
Chile suffers from widespread deforestation. Each year, 120,000 hectares of its native forests are cleared, and about 80% of Chile's natural forests have been destroyed or degraded. In dealing with the issues of deforestation and the high demand for wood products, companies have begun planting non-native tree species such as the Radiata Pine, which now dominates throughout Chile.
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://www.wrm.org.u...
In Chile, the loss and degradation of natural forests is a source of conflict between forestry companies, indigenous communities, environmental organizations and government. The causes are complex and mostly have historical origins.
Much of the native forests are on private land, except for those that are part of the National System of Protected Areas Wildlife State (SNASPE). Consequently, the main direct actors of deforestation in southern Chile belonged to the private sector, including forestry companies and highlights the smallholders. The former are motivated solely by income generation while the latter have a mixed strategy of production of subsistence with income generation. N Neither the market nor the government offset by protecting their natural forests that provide services to the rest of society such as regulation of the hydrological cycle, carbon sequestration, biodiversity conservation, the maintenance of passage, control erosion and climate regulation. The challenge is to balance private property rights on natural forest as an asset and social functions or public interest that they give.
Drew
I find it difficult to believe that you take those quotes that you offered as serious discourse.
Put a microphone in front of someone dressed as a deer on opening day of deer season and chances are good that you will not get to the root reasons of why most Americans support our Parks and Wild Lands.
Your continuing mantra is that some nut says something crazy and the next thing you know environmentalist want to feed your 6 year old to coyotes.........sheeesh!
Were you beaten up by a feral band of crazed tree huggers sometime in your past?
The 2001 Roadless Rule was one of the most significant conservation related actions taken by the federal government in decades - probably the most important since the Wilderness Act of 1964. The Forest Service has massively over-built roads across the country and wasted millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars on roads that are only built for special interests and never kept up. The lack of maintenance of all these roads has led to a great amount of environmental damage.
The tragedy about the debate over the Roadless Rule is that very few people actually know where these lands are. You can explore USFS roadless lands on Roadlessland.org, a non-commercial site that has dynamic maps, thousands of photos, comments and more. Look around the maps and get an idea for the scope of the rule.
Comments are closed on this entry